Town Square

Post a New Topic

Piepho defends study beyond urban limit line

Original post made on Aug 9, 2007

Contra Costa County's approval to study a development of 193 homes outside the urban limit line in the Tassajara Valley, east of Danville, has sparked a wave of controversy. But District 3 Supervisor Mary N. Piepho maintains the study is for clarifying county policy.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, August 8, 2007, 3:56 PM

Comments (3)

Posted by Vince Kreigher, a resident of Alamo
on Aug 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Dear Contra Costa neighbors,

It should be quite frightening what lame-duck supervisors might do during their remaining days in office. Without a campaign to win, current supervisors could use their absolute power to support special interests, including developers, and define their next positions in the private sector. One does not have to struggle to imagine the role of ex-supervisors in 2009 as they join the developers they supported while in office.

Think about it,

Vince Kreigher


Posted by Call me Mike, a resident of Danville
on Sep 28, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Assuming infrastructure such as water, sewer, electricity, roads, schools, shopping, etc. are available, the valley should be opened up to development.
People want to move here and there is no reason, except selfishness, that they shouldn't.
Property owners want to sell their land to developers and developers want to build houses. They will make profits, as they should.
Houses will become more affordable for teachers, policemen, firefighters, merchants, etc. as more homes are built (supply & demand).
The current government model of mandated "affordable housing" and urban limits is a joke.


Posted by Samantha Robinson, a resident of Walnut Creek
on Oct 1, 2007 at 6:25 pm

The fact of the matter is, 64% of Contra Costa voters approved an urban growth boundary under the impression that NO URBAN OR SUBURBAN GROWTH would occur outside the ULL until at least 2030, at which time the General Plan will be reevaluated.

The purpose of the rural housing clause in the CCC General Plan is to allow for families to live in more removed areas, to keep small working farms, etc. . . HOWEVER, this policy requires that "ranchettes" be built on a MINIMUM five-acre parcel with the understanding that no public utilities need be provided by the County or City.

New Farms not only circumvents the policy by doing away with minimum parcel size and "clustering" development on 40 of the 770-acres, it includes the construction of water and sewage lines, thereby categorizing the project as "urban" and necessitating an expansion of the ULL.

Simply put, it's against the law to define this project "rural". In order to legally move forward, they must find another path.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,281 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 31 comments | 1,487 views

Weekly, TV30 to host Pleasanton mayoral, city council candidates' forum
By Gina Channell-Allen | 2 comments | 1,014 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 4 comments | 811 views

Merger of Music and Painting
By John A. Barry | 0 comments | 141 views