Contra Costa Urban Limit Line
Measure L, the renewal of the county-wide Urban Limit Line, passed in the November 2006 election.
The new line will be in effect until 2026, and will govern any development approved by the County. The line will act as the county-wide
mutually agreed-upon Urban Limit Line demanded by Measure J,
the transportation sales tax measure passed in 2004 (for more information on
Measure J, click
here).
The line also gives each of
the 16 cities in the county which do not have urban limit lines an opportunity
to adopt the county-wide line, if they put it to a vote of their residents. Measure J, mentioned above, requires cities to have urban limit lines (either by drawing their own or adopting the county's) in order to receive transportation funding.
What's at Stake
Passing Measure L ensured that changes or expansions of the Urban Limit Line must be approved by a vote of the people, rather than a vote of four out of five Supervisors, as was true of the previous line.
Renewing the county-wide Urban Limit Line will help to direct growth into already-urbanized areas and discourage the development of Contra Costa County's natural areas and farmland.
Campaign Updates
November 2006
Measure L, the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line, passed by 63% after a very
quiet campaign. Cities in the county, except for Antioch, Pittsburg,
and San Ramon, must now ratify the line in order to receive funding from
the Measure J transportation sales tax. The new line will face little
opposition in most cities, but will likely spark a debate in Brentwood,
where the Nunn family of developers has pushed to expand the line by
more than 1000 acres.
October 2006
Measure L, if passed, will extend the life of the County’s Urban
Limit Line to 2026 and require voter approval for any changes greater
than 30 acres. The line aligns the county’s line with the city-specific
Urban Limit Lines passed in Antioch and Pittsburg, which Greenbelt Alliance
vigorously opposed. The changes to the county line will not add any development
potential that is not already there. Instead, the line gives each of
the 16 cities in the county which do not have urban limit lines an opportunity
to adopt the county wide line. If they do not, or if they violate that
in the future, they could lose millions of dollars for transportation
funding. In other words, the measure provides for both a carrot and a
stick for controlling sprawl in Contra Costa County.
August 2006
After more than two years of negotiations and discussion, Contra Costa
County will have an opportunity to vote on the extension of the county's
Urban Limit Line. The line was a major source of debate between growth
control advocates and sprawl-oriented East Contra Costa cities. The Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors placed the measure on the November 2006
ballot, to delay the expiration of the line from 2010 to 2026. Despite
objections from Greenbelt Alliance and others, the measure will move the
county's line to match the lines adopted by voters in Antioch and Pittsburg.
The county's line can't prevent development from occurring in these areas,
but if the cities don't annex and develop these areas, the county could
approve development there under the new Urban Limit Line. The new line
would allow changes only if approved by a supermajority of the supervisors
and the majority of the county's voters.
June 2006
The city of Brentwood and the unincorporated community of Discovery Bay
made concerted efforts to convince the County to expand the Urban Limit
Line to accommodate new sprawl subdivisions, but the Board and county
staff would not support the expansion, especially without an Environmental
Impact Report. The county has issued a negative declaration for an urban
limit line measure that would acknowledge the expanded lines in Pittsburg
and Antioch. Once the cities annex the land, the county's line will be
legally irrelevant, but in the meanwhile, the change theoretically allows
the county to approve development there. The initiative also strengthens
the current line in that a supermajority of supervisors can now move the
line without voter consent. The new initiative would require voter approval
for any change greater than 30 acres, and would allow such proposals once
every five years.
East Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
The Antioch Planning commission found that the development proposal for
314 houses in FUA-1 is not consistent with the city's general plan, largely
due to open space/urban incompatibilities. However, the planning commission
clearly indicated that a scaled-back project with a smaller footprint
and lower density would be considered. Meanwhile, in Pittsburg, no specific
proposal has come forward since talks about development of Faria Ranch
on the Kirker Hills between Concord and Pittsburg. Greenbelt Alliance
has begun an outreach effort in Pittsburg and Brentwood to raise public
awareness of the impending risk to natural areas and working farms. The
initial response has been good, and Greenbelt Alliance is looking for
volunteers to help spread the word.
May 2006
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors received a staff report
on proposed changes to the county-wide line heading to the November ballot.
The proposals for expansion of the line at Discovery Bay, Brentwood, Pittsburg,
and Antioch were opposed vigorously by environmental organizations, who
pointed out that no environmental review has been performed on the change.
The organizations threatened to oppose the initiative if it includes the
expansions. They pressed for improvements in the county's growth management
strategy, and called the proposed changes a step in the wrong direction.
In particular, the environmental community wants larger lots outside the
Urban Limit Line, and an end to development on Delta Floodplains. The
Board of Supervisors directed county planning staff to return with a report
addressing these issues.
East Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
The Antioch Planning Commission will hold a consistency hearing for a
new development proposal in FUA-1. The owners of Higgins Ranch, which
is the most rugged, beautiful, and habitat-rich portion of the planning
area, have developed a rough plan for 314 houses. The development footprint
extends well beyond the limits set by the General Plan, and very little
has been done to acknowledge the environmental sensitivity of the site.
Environmental allies like CNPS,
Save Mount Diablo,
and the Sierra
Club are mobilizing their members to ensure that the Planning Commission
understands the true extent of the negative environmental impact of this
proposal.
April 2006
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors opted to scuttle the Urban
Limit Line initiative that was headed for the June 2006 election. Bowing
to pressure from environmental groups as well as some cities, the Board
opted to put the initiative off until at least November to allow for revisions.
The environmental community is pressing the county to increase minimum
lot sizes to protect agricultural land; keep the line in place around
Antioch and Pittsburg; and prevent development in hazardous areas such
as the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta. The city of Clayton is still
pushing for an expansion of approximately 100 acres, and the unincorporated
community of Discovery Bay is now claiming it needs 4000 additional acres.
Any substantial increase in the urbanizable area would require a new Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and delay the initiative past the deadline for the
November 2006 election.
March 2006
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors opted to scuttle the Urban
Limit Line initiative that was headed for the June 2006 election. Bowing
to pressure from environmental groups as well as some cities, the Board
put the initiative off until at least November to allow for revisions.
The environmental community is pressing the county to increase minimum
lot sizes to protect agricultural land, keep the line in place around
Antioch and Pittsburg, and prevent development in hazardous areas such
as the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta. The city of Clayton is still
pushing for an expansion of approximately 100 acres, and the unincorporated
community of Discovery Bay is now claiming it needs 4000 additional acres.
Any substantial increase in the urbanizable area would require a new Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and delay the initiative past the deadline for the
November 2006 election.
East Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line:
The November election ushered in expansive developer-backed urban limit
lines in Antioch and Pittsburg, while Brentwood's line was narrowly defeated.
Greenbelt Alliance is working with local and regional allies to prepare
for next steps ranging from new initiatives to CEQA challenges. The election
campaign galvanized activists in each city; Greenbelt Alliance is working
to build upon this new capacity to create and enhance local coalitions
committed to protecting open space in East Contra Costa County.
3/08/2006 Letter
to the Editor: Urban limit line not yet on June ballot, Contra Costa
Times
February 2006
Contra Costa County has been exploring the possibility of putting a new
county-wide urban limit line initiative on the June Ballot. The proposed
language would allow the County Board of Supervisors to expand the line
every five years with voter approval. The new initiative would also include
larger lines around Antioch and Pittsburg. Greenbelt Alliance and its
allies want the countywide initiative to truly protect open space, without
forcing the issue to the ballot every five years. This would mean extending
the review period from five to ten years, increasing the minimum lot sizes,
restricting development on hillsides and flood-prone areas, and keeping
the line tight.
January 2006
Contra Costa County is planning to put an initiative on the June 2006
ballot that would update and renew the county's urban limit line. If passed
in individual cities as well as by the county as a whole, this line would
serve as the mutually-agreed upon Urban Limit Line required by the 2004
transportation sales tax. The line would thereby affect the 16 cities
that do not have city-specific Urban Limit Lines as well as the county
itself. The initiative may also include new provisions to protect against
rural sprawl and hillside development.
November 2005
While developer-backed initiatives raise the stakes in East Contra Costa
County, the county itself is preparing its own initiative to maintain
the current line through an initiative on the June ballot. This is a key
opportunity for the Board to increase minimum parcel size outside the
line to prevent a growing trend of rural sprawl (ranchettes). Greenbelt
Alliance will encourage the Board of Supervisors to walk their tough talk
and create an even more effective growth management tool.
October 2005
The County-Wide Urban Limit Line looks bound for the June 2006 election.
This line will govern where the County Board of Supervisors can, and cannot,
approve development. The Line will have many of the same elements supported
by the environmental-business coalition that included the Alliance for
Jobs, the Homebuilders Association, and the Contra Costa Council. These
elements mean that the line would stay where it is for at least 10 years,
and voter approval would be required before it could change. Other elements
needed for strong growth management could still be added, and Greenbelt
Alliance plans to advocate for larger minimum lot sizes, a hillside protection
overlay, and a clear definition of prohibited uses.
September 2005
While developer-backed initiatives raise the stakes in East Contra Costa
County, the county itself is preparing its own initiative to maintain
the current line through an initiative on the June 2006 ballot. This is
a key opportunity for the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to increase
minimum parcel size outside the line to prevent a growing trend of ranchette
sprawl. Greenbelt Alliance will encourage the Board of Supervisors to
walk their talk and create an even more effective growth management tool.
07/31/2005 Anti-expansion
group emerges, Contra Costa Times
July 2005
As in Antioch, developers in Brentwood and Pittsburg have collected the
bulk of the needed signatures for initiatives that would create expansive
Urban Growth Boundaries for those cities. In Brentwood, approximately
1,700 acres are at risk, while approximately 2,400 acres are at risk in
Pittsburg. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is likely to put
an initiative on the ballot in 2006 to maintain the current Urban Limit
Line for the purposes of county planning. Greenbelt Alliance is working
with regional partners to respond to these measures.
June 2005
After nine months of meeting and posturing, most if not all participants
in the Urban Limit Line process agree that there is no hope for a mutually
agreed upon line to define where growth will, and will not, occur in the
County. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority put the final nail in
the ULL's coffin by deciding not to pay for an Environmental Impact Report.
The transportation sales tax passed in November 2004 requires jurisdictions
to have voter-approved lines in place by 2009. In Brentwood and Pittsburg,
developers (Nunn and Seeno, respectively) have filed notice that they
intend to collect signatures for expansive Urban Growth Boundaries for
those cities. In Brentwood, approximately 1,700 acres are at risk, while
approximately 2,400 acres are at risk in Pittsburg. The Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors is likely to put an initiative on the November 2005
ballot to maintain the current Urban Limit Line for the purposes of county
planning.
06/10/2005 Urban
limit line accord reaches end, Contra Costa Times
06/05/2005 Nunns,
Seenos float own limit line, Contra Costa Times
05/21/2005
Letter to the Editor: Urban limit line a topic of hot debate among writers,
Contra Costa Times
May 2005
The process for creating a mutually-agreed upon Urban Limit Line continues
to limp along with no resolution. At the last County-wide meeting, 18
of the 19 cities voting to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that
the county conduct an EIR with the East County proposal for 7,000 additional
acres as the Project. The cities made it clear that their vote was not
to be considered an endorsement of the project, but rather of studying
the project. The Board of Supervisors took their own counsel and voted
to go ahead with an EIR on a much tighter line, excluding the 5500 acres
proposed by East County. Under the Board's EIR, the East County proposal
would be studied as an alternative. The County wants the cities to indemnify
the county for any further lawsuits regarding the somewhat dubious legality
of going forward with the EIR despite the lack of agreement.
April 2005
East and Central County cities continue their push to expand the Urban
Limit Line (ULL) and open up 6,300 acres to development. Fortunately,
the Board of Supervisors is maintaining its desire to hold the line in
its current position. Half of the County's cities are supporting the East
County proposal to move the line, while the other half remains interested
in holding the line pending further negotiation.
April 6, 2005
Moving
urban-limit lines gains support in Contra Costa, Oakland Tribune
March 2005
A meeting of representatives of each city and the Board of Supervisors
at the end of February did not result in an agreement. Greenbelt Alliance
and Sierra Club turned out about 80 people to support the line, and brandished
over 500 postcards from people urging a tight line. A compromise was proposed
that would allow Concord to annex up to 1600 acres of the tidal area of
the Naval Weapons station in exchange for removing 2000 acres of the inland
part of the base. Despite widespread support of this plan, East County
cities and developers prevented the plan from moving forward. A new round
of subregional meetings is intended to iron out a compromise. Concord
and the East County cities know that they will face stiff local opposition
to expansion of the Urban Limit Line, so they are intent on getting what
they can at the negotiating table.
March 21, 2005
Showdown
looms on urban-limit line, Tri-Valley Herald
March 16, 2005
Controversial
issue of urban limits may end up on ballot, San Francisco Chronicle
March 13, 2005
County
growth war building, Contra Costa Times
February 26, 2005
Expansion
of urban limits debated, San Francisco Chronicle
February 21, 2005
Read the Contra Costa Times article. Drawing
the line: As deadline nears, prospects dim for cities, coalitions and
board of supervisors to forge growth agreement.
February 16, 2005
Read the Contra Costa Times article. Supervisors
back Plan C for limit line.
February 2005
The Urban Limit Line negotiations have not drawn any closer to agreement,
despite nearly five months of effort. This month, Greenbelt Alliance worked
with strange bedfellows in the business community as well as with traditional
ally Save Mount Diablo, to propose a new plan which would hold the line
until at least 2016, when changes could be made only after review of land
availability and voter approval. The next window for change would be in
2026. The South and West regional negotiating groups of elected officials
support the Plan, as does the Board of Supervisors. Response has been
mixed within the Central County and East County negotiating groups, where
more substantial changes are proposed. The East County group has not been
able to agree on any proposal, while in the Central County group there
is interest in pushing for growth in Concord. There will be a county-wide
meeting on February 26 to attempt to reach agreement on a County-wide
ULL.
February 15, 2005
Read the Contra Costa Times article. Contra
Costa cities' leaders review urban limit line plans.
January 2005
The process for developing a 30-year Urban Limit Line policy in Contra
Costa County, as called for by the recently passed Measure J transportation
measure, was not completed by the mandated December 31, 2004 deadline.
County leaders are continuing to negotiate regarding this policy and likely
will be doing so for at least several more weeks.
October 2004
As promised, the County Board of Supervisors have amended the County's
General Plan to move the Urban Limit Line. The line now matches city boundaries
where it used to cross through areas under the cities' jurisdiction. Among
many less significant changes, the decision put 400 acres at St. Mary's
College inside the Urban Limit Line, and 8,000 acres at the Concord Naval
Weapons Station. See the Tri-Valley
Herald article.
September 2004
So far, the following cities have indicated their desire to move the line
(all amounts are approximate): Antioch: 995; Brentwood: 850 acres; Clayton:
104 acres; Concord: 1850 acres; Orinda 27; Pittsburg: 2000 acres; San
Ramon: 400. In October, the cities will consider the line and criteria
for moving the line in the future.
July 2004
The Transportation Sales Tax (Measure J, formerly Measure C) has been
approved by the needed majority of cities, and the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors has clearly indicated that they will put the measure
on the ballot. Greenbelt Alliance decided to take a neutral position on
Measure J. Almost half of the funding is dedicated to alternatives to
single-occupant driving, but the urban limit line and affordable housing
are too vague. Voters will be asked to vote on the measure without knowing
how carefully growth will be managed. In a process to begin in September,
Greenbelt Alliance is asking the County's elected officials and open space
proponents to develop a strong plan that will improve conditions in the
county and protect open space, quality of life, and the voters' investment
in transportation.
May 2004
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority unanimously approved a transportation
spending plan and growth management plan in a late-night session after
many hours of debate. The growth management program dictates that a mutually
agreed upon Urban Limit Line and policies be determined by Dec 31, 2004
and voted on in a county-wide ballot in 2006. For the line to be placed
on the ballot, 15 of the county's 19 cities must agree, and four of the
five members of the County Board of Supervisors must agree. Without that
agreement, only jurisdictions with voter-approved urban limit lines will
be eligible for their share of $250 million over 25 years.
April 2004
The Transportation Authority staff has rejected the draft compromise proposed
by environmental, labor, and business groups. The staff recommendation
has 25% of the measure going to local jurisdictions for new roads or road
maintenance, and only 5% for bus service. The growth management program
has been completely gutted, but the Vasco Road widening is in. Greenbelt
Alliance is working now to keep this measure off the ballot this fall.
November 2003
Greenbelt Alliance is continuing the dialogue begun more than a year ago
with the business community to come up with a spending package that can
be supported by all the major stakeholders, without compromising Greenbelt
Alliance's and our coalition partners' key concerns.
|
