 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Home Resource Center In the News Home Greenbelt Alliance in the News |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
Greenbelt Alliance In the News
July 19, 2006 Officials to alter measure CONTRA COSTA: Supervisors to clarify language of urban limit line proposal in hopes of heading off future conflict By Kiley RussellAfter almost two years of strife and false starts, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday again delayed putting an urban limit line proposal on the Nov. 7 ballot, this time to rewrite the measure's introduction. Supervisors agreed to the delay after Ron Brown of Save Mount Diablo and David Reid of Greenbelt Alliance warned that language in the existing proposal could be used by developers to fight a possible counterinitiative in Pittsburg. No such initiative has been launched, but environmentalists are considering it as a way to further restrict growth in that area. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier said taking an extra week to craft better introductory language will help ensure the county's ballot measure "isn't misused in a political arena." While the vote to allow for the change was unanimous, Supervisor Mary Piepho expressed some skepticism. "I'm a bit confused about what we're trying to clarify," Piepho said. "The voters (in Pittsburg and Antioch) have spoken. I don't know if it's worth delaying a week. I don't see the benefit to that process." Pittsburg voters last year expanded the city growth boundary by 1,559 acres, 551 of which could hold up to 1,400 new houses. The county plans to respect that boundary with the upcoming ballot measure. The urban limit line debate was sparked by Measure J, the half-cent sales tax county voters approved in 2004. It will go into effect in 2009 and raise $2 billion for transportation projects in the county. A provision in Measure J requires every city and the county to comply with either a new "countywide, mutually agreed-upon, voter-approved" urban limit line or to adopt one of its own. In exchange, cities will receive a share from both a $360 million street maintenance fund and a $100 million pot of money for alternative transportation projects. Voters in Pittsburg and Antioch approved urban limit line measures that comply with Measure J, but because Antioch's also included a development agreement, it is immune from ballot box challenges, said Patrick Roache, a manager with the county's Community Development Department. Pittsburg's measure contained no development agreement and so could be vulnerable to an environmentalist-sponsored countermeasure to negate its provisions. If such a measure were successful and the Pittsburg line was redrawn to restrict development through the city, developers could change tacks and claim they have the right to build there based on the wording of the Nov. 7 county ballot measure, said Mike Daley of the Sierra Club. That's why the Board of Supervisors is taking time now to clarify its intentions. Because the change is minor, the measure should sail through at the board's meeting next Tuesday. A major shift, such as altering the proposed urban limit line, would have jeopardized the county's ability to meet deadlines for the Nov. 7 ballot because of the necessary -- and time-consuming -- changes to the related environmental documents, said Dennis Barry, the county's community development director. In the end, the board agreed to simply change the introductory language of the measure. The new wording will be worked out this week by county staff to make clear that even though the county is agreeing to match its urban limit line with those of Pittsburg and Antioch, it has no intention of actually building in those areas.
### |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
