Contra Costa County and its 19 cities are considering a "growth management compact" for the next 20 to 30 years that emphasizes efficient development patterns, redevelopment and improved job distribution. The proposed compact — important components of which remain unsettled — is a key part of "Shaping Our Future," a multi-agency effort to address growth, conservation and transportation on a regional basis. The compact and the draft plan released in late March contain a number of "smart growth" principles. The compact and plan assume the county will continue to have an urban limit line, but determining exactly where the line will be and how often it can be adjusted are potential sticking points in the entire process. A "summit" of government leaders is scheduled for May 17, and that meeting could set the tone for the next phase of the project. Thus far, the atmosphere has been one of cooperation. All 19 cities, the county and the transportation authority have participated in the regional "visioning" process, which started in early 2002. But the groundwork for the process was prepared during the late 1990s, when a group of elected officials and city managers began talking about evidence that transportation authority plans for spending $1.5 billion would have little impact on congestion, said Don Blubaugh, Shaping Our Future project manager and a retired Walnut Creek city manager. The idea behind Shaping Our Future is to get all of the land use jurisdictions to consider the county as a whole when making development decisions. The project uses Envision Utah — a vaunted visioning effort in the Salt Lake City region — as a model. It took about a year to get every city to buy into the project, and even today just about everyone expects some cities to go their own ways in the end. "We know going in that there is nothing in California law that can make anyone do this," Blubaugh said. "It has to be a volunteer effort." "No one wants to give up their ability to make land use decisions," said Mike Oliver, Oakley City Manager and a member of the Shaping Our Future management committee. But those local land use decisions need to reflect shared regional interests, he said. The draft compact calls for cities and the county to amend their general plans to include the Shaping Our Future principles and implementation tools. That means the project is more advanced that many visioning processes that result in simply a collection of feel-good policies that no one is committed to using. "The project is oriented toward implementation more than other visioning projects have been" said John Fregonese, of Portland's Fregonese Calthorpe Associates, the project consultant who has also worked on the Envision Utah and other visioning efforts. Contra Costa County has the chance to go farther with its regional planning than other places, said Fregonese, because the county has a base on which to build: The urban limit line "is effective and it seems ingrained in the public's mind;" the transportation authority has used a growth policy in making funding decisions since the early 1990s; there is a history of cooperation at the subregional level; and several of the cities have undertaken downtown mixed-use redevelopment and transit-oriented development. With a population right at 1 million, Contra Costa County is very much a suburban county. In recent years, the county has provided about one-quarter of the Bay Area's new housing. But the county is not homogeneous. The Lamorinda area (Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda) in the hills west of Oakland, is an upscale, mostly residential subregion. Cities along Interstate 80 in the western end of the county, such as El Cerrito, Richmond and San Pablo, are largely working class towns with at least some industrial job base. In the middle of he county, Walnut Creek is home to many offices. The eastern county cities of Pittsburgh, Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley have seen rapid development of single-family housing for people who work elsewhere in the Bay Area. The cities of Danville and San Ramon are part of the silicon-tinged Tri-Valley region, the rest of which lies in Alameda County. Still, Shaping Our Future participants say that Contra Costa's cities have plenty in common — especially congested freeways and thoroughfares. The draft compact and plan have addressed the congestion by calling for increased housing densities, more multi-family housing near existing and proposed BART stations, and greatly increasing jobs in the east county. The preamble to the compact states, in part: "The process generates a future vision for Contra Costa County and its cities that focuses on more efficient use of land; encouraging good urban development in ‘centers' throughout the region; preserving the integrity of many existing neighborhoods; reducing traffic congestion in key areas; developing transit strategies and funding sources; improving dilapidated or underutilized business districts; and how and where to conserve valuable open spaces and hillsides." Government and community leaders have reached a general consensus on these concepts. Most Contra Costa County jurisdictions are already using, or at least moving toward, these concepts, Fregonese noted. Shaping Our Future leaders have tried to involve the public as much as possible. Workshops have drawn several hundred people each, and Blubaugh has made about 75 public presentations. Development interests have participated in the process, but they wonder how feasible the final plan will be. "I think there is general consensus about what needs to happen in the county," said Guy Bjerke, president and CEO of the San Ramon-based Home Building Association of Northern California. "Where things seem to break down is in the implementation details. Putting a bunch of jobs in the east county makes sense, but is the transportation system over the next 20 years going to be able to keep pace?" Developers also have serious concerns about the urban limit line. In fact, if any issue dooms the project, it could be the growth boundary. Over the strong objection of some cities, county supervisors contracted the line by 14,000 acres in 2000 (see CP&DR Insight, September 2000). The draft compact presents a number of potential approaches to determining the boundary, including reviewing the boundary as often as every five years. The draft plan says vacant and underutilized land within the existing urban limit line can provide 20 years worth of development — 30 years if the boundary takes in a closed Naval weapons station next to Concord. Fregonese Calthorpe has emphasized the need to remain flexible with the urban limit line, while environmentalists have vowed to fight any effort to expand the growth boundary. Bjerke contended the draft plan's projections are faulty. Much of the land identified as undeveloped or underutilized is in that state for good reason, Bjerke said. The project could also get derailed based on how city officials perceive the plan. Thus far, most grumbling has remained in the background. But some people would like to see more growth in Lamorinda, others question east county cities' commitment, and some elected officials question whether their constituents will accept the plan's high-density areas. A roll-out of the plan to the public in early April generated a mixed response. "We're not an island," said Orinda Mayor Pro Tem Joyce Hawkins. "We need to be part of the process and part of the solution. But at the same time, we need to defend our general plan." Orinda has some small areas that could be redeveloped with multi-family or senior housing, and downtown is ripe for some mixed-use redevelopment, said Hawkins, a member of the Shaping Our Future policy committee. But, she added, "We really are built out." Fregonese said no city is going to like every aspect of the plan. But he contends that just about everyone will accept — and help carry out — the plan's fundamentals: More redevelopment in working class cities on the west end, more jobs in the east county, and increased social equity throughout the county. At this point, project leaders hope to get jurisdictions with 80% of the population to sign the compact. That would be enough of a critical mass for the project to make a difference, and the other jurisdictions might come on board eventually, Blubaugh said. Contacts: Don Blubaugh, Shaping Our Future project manager, (925) 256-3585. John Fregonese, Fregonese Calthorpe Associates, (503) 228-3054. Mike Oliver, Oakley city manager, (925) 625-7025. Joyce Hawkins, Orinda mayor pro tem, (925) 253-4220. Guy Bjerke, Home Builders Association of Northern California, (925) 820-7626. Shaping Our Future website: www.shapingourfuture.org