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

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

September 16, 2003

Urban-limit line proposal debated

Contra Costa County supervisors give mixed reaction to possible ballot measure

If the measure is placed on the March 2 ballot, Contra Costa voters will decide whether to require an election for certain proposals to move the line outward. It would apply to applications for 10 acres or more.

"I think this is fair and consistent with what we have told our constituents -- that we would maintain our line," said Supervisor Federal Glover, Pittsburg, who first proposed the ballot measure in June.

Billed as a stopgap to burgeoning growth and associated gridlock in Contra Costa County, the plan responded to talk about further development in eastern parts of the county, particularly by Antioch and Brentwood.

It wouldn't change current rules already requiring a fourth-fifths vote by supervisors to develop outside the county's urban limit. But if the panel were to make such a change, it would further mandate ratification by county voters.

But a county legal analysis presented Monday stated the line still can't be forced on the cities without a change in California law. Cities can apply to the state to extend their own urban boundaries, regardless of where the county's line is, said county planner Patrick Roache.

"The other legal issue we asked the county counsel to look at was whether the cost of the election could be passed onto the land owner or the applicant, and again the determination was that it can't," Roach said.

That raises a question about how much the measure could end up costing the county. Estimates presented by Roache ranged from $70,000 to $150,000 to put the measure on the March ballot, and up to $2 million for a special election. The same would apply, he said, any time someone proposed an election to change the line.

"I think the concern we all have is that if this initiative passes, it would require anything over 10 acres to go to an election, and the cost of that would be borne out of our general fund," said Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, who like most other supervisors, did not state a clear position on the proposal Monday.

"The concern, of course, is that if people really want to cause mischief, they could run us through millions of dollars with proposals," he said.

Unconvinced, Glover asked county counsel to review the issue further.

Usual supporters of open space also indicated reservations. Representatives from the Sierra Club, the Greenbelt Alliance and Save Mount Diablo all urged further study.

"Save Mount Diablo has been on record supporting a strong urban-limit line and voter approval for a strong urban-limit line," said the group's executive director, Ron Brown. "But I think the chasm between cities and counties is growing wider, and I think it may be becoming difficult for us to accomplish our mutual goals."

Likewise, Supervisor Millie Greenberg of Danville, a staunch supporter of the line, said she also supports "building a strong bridge between the county and cities."

She suggested looking at options that would bring the county's boundary in line with those of the cities, an effort also supported by Supervisor Gayle Uilkema of Lafayette.

The county's line, either way, will expire in 2010.

Glover, though, said the board needs to act soon. It has only until November to put the measure on the ballot in time for the March election.

"At some point, we still need to get a handhold on how we move forward. Is this the end-all answer for everyone involved? Absolutely not," Glover said.

"This (line) will be up for review in 2010, and I think that would be the proper time to review some of the minor mistakes that may be made as a result of this urgency item."

###