County sued over controversial open-space housing proposal

Contra Costa County was hit by two lawsuits Thursday, a month after the Board of Supervisors approved a boundary change to allow construction of 125 homes in protected open space near Danville.

One of the suits was filed by a collective of two environmental groups and a former county supervisor and the other by the Easy Bay Municipal Utility District, which says it doesn’t have enough water to supply the homes.

In a controversial decision on July 13, the supervisors voted 4-1 to stretch the urban limit line east of Blackhawk so developers could build the homes on 30 acres in the Tassajara Valley and surround them with 20 acres of open space.

County voters had set the boundary in 1990 to protect the open space beyond it and discourage urban sprawl.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District alleged in its lawsuit that it was illegal for the supervisors to approve the move knowing the district has no water to give.

EBMUD spokeswoman Andrea Polk said in an interview the district has opposed the project since it was first proposed more than a decade ago. Although a commission that oversees local agencies could one day force the district to incorporate the Tassajara Valley within its water service area, Polk said that would be a largely unprecedented move and not a smart one considering much of California is in a severe drought.

“The drought we’re facing is a really good reminder to all of us that water is precious and we need to be mindful and thoughtful about how a water agency can serve its population and residents both now and into the future,” Polk said.

In addition to the water district, the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance and former county Supervisor Donna Gerber collectively sued the county for ignoring the environmental impacts of building 125 new homes in the middle of natural open space.

They contend the supervisors improperly used a technicality to justify the urban limit line’s outward expansion.

Developers FT Land, Meach, BI Land and TH Land entered into a preservation agreement with the county, San Ramon and East Bay Regional Park District in which they promised to dedicate 727 acres of land they own elsewhere as protected open space.

The supervisors considered the deal a good tradeoff.

“One of the things we wanted to do with the urban limit line is end sprawl development,” Supervisor Federal Glover said at last month’s hearing. “Certainly the gifting of 700-and-some-odd acres would actually serve that purpose.”

But the preservation agreement did not include Danville, which is directly west of Tassajara Valley and has staunchly opposed the development from the outset. According to the environmental groups’ lawsuit, Danville was bypassed because the urban limit line can only be moved if a “majority of cities” involved in a preservation agreement support it.

Danville City Manager Joe Calabrigo said in an interview last month the city will be determining whether to legally challenge the county’s action.

Jessica Blome, an attorney representing the Sierra Club and Greenbelt Alliance, said the preservation agreement not only is invalid but also counterproductive to conservation efforts. Compromising on 30 acres to preserve 700 acres elsewhere only serves to “gradually chip away at what we’re trying to protect,” she said.

“There’s this idea of a future boogeyman development,” Blome added, “but the boogeyman is here now with (this project). We should just enforce the rules now.”

An attorney in the Contra Costa County Counsel’s Office declined to comment on the two lawsuits, saying the office has not yet been served with either.

The 125-unit development proposal drew a large number of critics at last month’s supervisors meeting. Before then, more than 5,400 people signed an online petition against it.

But the proposal also received support, including from conservationist group Save Mount Diablo and the East Bay Regional Park District, which praised the developers’ offer to forever dedicate 700 acres of open space.

Candace Andersen, the only dissenting supervisor, said then the board did not have enough evidence to support moving the urban limit line.

“If we’re going to move the urban limit line, I really think it should be up to the voters,” Andersen said. “I feel this method that we’re using is very contrived.”