Will Contra Costa County voters extend a 35-year-old plan to limit urban sprawl?
Officials in the East Bay county are moving to extend its “urban limit line,” a key policy that has protected its farm fields, marshes and ridgelines since 1990, the San Jose Mercury News reported.
The Board of Supervisors is preparing a ballot measure for the June primary election, giving voters the final say on extending the boundary through at least 2050.
First established by voters in 1990, the urban limit line restricts urban development to just 35 percent of the county, preserving the remaining two-thirds for agriculture and open space.
The policy was renewed in 2006 for another 20 years and is now set to expire in December 2030. As state-mandated housing goals loom, county planners are evaluating modifications to ensure development occurs in appropriate areas while maintaining environmental protections.
Principal planner Will Nelson emphasized that the urban limit line has helped protect Contra Costa’s natural landscape and encouraged infill development.
“So much of our natural environment and the things that make Contra Costa County special have remained undeveloped,” Nelson told supervisors.
There is now enough capacity within the urban limit boundary to accommodate 23,000 new homes, 1.2 million square feet of commercial space and 5 million square feet of industrial development, aligning with the county’s 2045 General Plan.
But officials are working to refine the boundary to reflect realistic land use, while avoiding inflating development expectations.
Proposed adjustments would shift about 10,700 acres outside the urban limit line, while adding 1,600 acres. Changes include removing deed-restricted properties, updating parcel lines and aligning boundaries with city limits to prevent conflicts between municipalities and developers.
The policy has faced legal challenges in recent years. In 2021, a 125-unit development in Tassajara Valley spurred lawsuits after supervisors adjusted the limit line. Last summer, a 606-acre agricultural preserve was turned over to the city of Pittsburg after years of disputes.
Nelson argued that, while some advocate for free-market development, government guidance ensures housing is built near jobs and infrastructure.
“The purpose is not to protect land from development, but to reflect reality and direct growth appropriately,” he said.
The Board of Supervisors can currently expand the boundary by up to 30 acres with a four-fifths vote, or propose a broader expansion requiring voter approval. Public feedback will be gathered through May, with a finalized ballot measure expected next year. If voters reject renewal, the county risks losing $2 million a year in transportation funding.
While details remain in flux, the supervisors agreed that any extension should have a fixed sunset date. “We need to ensure future generations have the flexibility to reassess,” supervisor Ken Carlson said.
Read more
