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

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

March 21, 2005

Showdown looms on urban-limit line

Contra Costa County, cities under pressure to settle issue at March 31 summit

If a consensus cannot be reached at the March 31 summit, the county and cities may splinter off and place concurrent or competing lines on future ballots.

Passing a voter-approved urban-limit line by 2009 is a prerequisite for each entity to receive funding from Measure J, a half-cent sales tax earmarked for transportation improvements.

A mutually agreeable line requires the consent of 75 percent of the cities representing 75 percent of the population and four of the five county supervisors.

But negotiations among the various factions stalled at a countywide summit in February, prompting another round of sub-regional meetings.

However, time is running out to begin an environmental review that must be conducted before the November 2006 election.

"This is not something we can spend three or four months negotiating," said Don Blubaugh, who is facilitating the process. "We're not going to get there. So something has got to happen on the 31st."

The contention mainly stems from some East and Central county leaders requests to move the line, which was drawn in 1990 and tightened in 2000 by the board of supervisors.

Some cities in the West and Southwest areas and the county board of supervisors have so far pledged support for Plan C.

The plan - which was put forward by environmental and business groups - essentially entails holding the line and moving it if job and housing demands are not met at periodic reviews in the future.

Amendments to the plan proposed by Orinda Mayor Amy Worth also have garnered some support. The list includes allowing San Ramon to move the line in two areas to coincide with its voter-approved general plan.

The amendments also address some of Clayton's and Concord's concerns. Clayton wants to annex properties currently split by the line, and Concord seeks to annex a portion of the moth-balled Naval Weapons Station if and when it is released by the Department of Defense.

"It's a starting point," Charlie Abrams, a Walnut Creek City Councilman and Central sub-region chairman, said of the amendments. "The only problem is that it does not address the issues of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood as a part of that."

At their joint meeting last week, East and Central county officials committed to lobby hard for their proposals at the summit and said they have been unfavorably portrayed as greedy.

Antioch Mayor Don Freitas said his city is looking to annex a total of 995 acres, including 495 that would remain open space. They include a portion of Roddy Ranch and the Ginochio Property west of Deer Valley Road.

"I know it's been characterized as if were doing a horrible, horrible land grab and that is simply not the situation," he said. "When the urban-limit line was approved in 1990 and then changed in 2000, thousands of acres were taken out of potential development."

Freitas said the city is aiming to build executive-style housing so people can live, work and play in the community. Brentwood Councilwoman Annette Beckstrand said her city is looking to do the same.

"We won't get more cars off the road simply by providing retail and small office (projects)," she said. "We need a broader scale of business and economic development within our community in order to truly bring the executives to a place where they can work and live."

Brentwood proposes adding 2,034 acres, 634 of which would remain open space. The city estimates building 2,900 units and creating 14,000 jobs on that land.

Pittsburg seeks to include 2,400 acres, 1,665 of which would be open space, to build a potential 1,705 housing units.

East County leaders propose holding the line for 30 years rather than reviewing it at the five- and 10-year intervals called for by Plan C.

"We believe we should have an urban-limit line, and it should exist for 30 years - period," Freitas said. "We feel that with some of the modifications, our communities certainly can plan over a 30-year horizon for the infrastructure needs that we're talking about."

Danville Town Councilman Newell Arnerich said he looked at it this way: 140 homes per year for 30 years.

"I'm willing to sell a lot to keep this for 30 years," he said.

But that stipulation - along with the proposed acreage changes - met with disapproval from the groups that created Plan C.

"We don't know what its going to be like five or 10 years from now," said David Reid, the East Bay field representative for the Greenbelt Alliance.

"We don't know if the housing market is going to fall apart, like some studies are suggesting. We don't know if traffic is going to be far worse because of projects already in the pipeline. So it just does not make sense to go ahead with this plan."

Supervisors remain committed

The board of supervisors, which so far has committed to holding the line with some minor modifications, has not yet been swayed by the arguments put forth by cities seeking to alter the line.

At its meeting last week, the board - minus absent Mary N. Piepho - asked county staff to research the ability to place the 2000 urban-limit line on the November 2005 ballot if the state holds a special election. That way, an environmental impact report would not be needed.

This action would force cities to take a go-it-alone approach, as Supervisors John Gioia and Mark DeSaulnier suggested. The cities can either join with the county or place their own measures on the ballot.

"I'm willing to continue to talk, and maybe there's a possibility that we can come to some satisfactory conclusion for all of us," DeSaulnier told Central and East County leaders. "But if we can't, we'll move onto the next step."

Staff writer Rebecca Johnson covers Contra Costa County. She can be reached at (925) 416-4882 or rjohnson@angnewspapers.com.

###