Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

February 15, 2005

Contra Costa cities' leaders review urban limit line plans

City leaders from Walnut Creek, Concord, Pleasant Hill and Clayton favored a plan that would keep the line where it is now but would allow it to move in the future if traffic improvements are completed.

The plan would allow Concord to include 1,600 acres inside the urban limit line for commercial development that are now part of the Concord Naval Weapons Station -- if the federal government ever releases the land.

"It's all about the infrastructure. Let the infrastructure catch up as much as it can without allowing automatic growth," said Pleasant Hill City Councilman David Durant.

County Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier reiterated his support for a plan that holds the line where it is now.

The line, originally ratified by a countywide vote in 1999 and constricted by the Board of Supervisors in 2000, is intended to keep development in existing urban areas, stop sprawl and improve traffic flow.

The line is tied to last year's Measure J, which re-authorized a half-cent sales tax that will raise $2 billion for transportation projects. If the cities and the county do not set a new line, either together or separately, the cities will lose millions in street-repair money.

For a new line to reach a countywide ballot, it needs the support of four of the five supervisors and 75 percent of the cities representing 75 percent of the county's population. If a countywide agreement is not found, each city will have to draw its own line and take it to a citywide vote.

For the past six months, leaders from east, west, southwest and central county have been meeting separately to formulate a consensus plan that can reach the ballot. During that time, three main plans have emerged, dubbed A, B and C.

The first two were drafted by a consultant hired to guide the countywide talks about where to draw the line.

Plan A is no longer being seriously debated because officials consider its criteria to be too restrictive.

As part of Plan B, cities have argued for a review of urban limit line changes to be sure that any one city's request to move the line meets certain criteria -- which are still being hammered out.

Plan C was put together by a coalition of business, building and environmental leaders. It would keep the line at its current location and spells out conditions for adjusting it every decade -- if at those times there is not enough land within the line to accommodate housing and job growth for the following 20 years.

Tying automatic movement of the line to planned road improvements is risky, according to David Reid of the Greenbelt Alliance, because traffic flow may not get better.

So far, southwest and West County leaders have endorsed Plan C. Although no vote was taken Monday, Central County is leaning toward Plan B.

Last week, East County leaders were unable to reach a consensus about which plan they favor.

The confusing mix of plans and regional endorsements will collide during the countywide negotiations scheduled for Feb. 26.

Representatives from all four regions, the board of supervisors and business and environmental groups will assemble then in an attempt to hammer out a plan that can make it to a countywide ballot.

###