|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The rules and boundaries governing urban growth in Contra Costa County for more than 35 years are up for renewal for the second time in their history on the June 2 primary ballot, with campaigns for and against Measure A well underway ahead of the upcoming election.
The measure proposes an extension and modification of the county’s urban limit line (ULL) that was first approved by voters in 1990, which serves as the dividing line between where development is and isn’t allowed within Contra Costa communities and open spaces.
As debates over urban sprawl and conservation have endured over the decades, the contention over Measure A this time around has also been marked by a statewide push to increase housing inventory in recent years amid the rising costs and dwindling availability of residential properties.
That’s a key factor in the landscape shaping arguments both for and against the boundaries that were last on the ballot in 2016, with conservationists and other groups endorsing Measure A as a crucial means of protecting open spaces from increased development activity and loosened regulations. Meanwhile, the Contra Costa Taxpayer Association’s No on Measure A campaign calls the proposed measure a “straitjacket” that would stifle new housing development.
But conversations about renewing the ULL for a second time have been underway since before this year’s election season and the emergence of those campaigns.
The proposal has been a topic at board of supervisors meetings since late last year, and development of the county’s current general plan was guided by the existing boundaries and regulations — and with the knowledge that the previous renewal measure would expire this year.
Under Measure A, the general plan would be amended to account for the renewal of existing boundaries and a “65/35” policy that requires urban development to be capped at 35% of the county’s overall land, and for 65% to be maintained as open space for an additional 25 years, pending increased review by the board of supervisors to align state housing element cycles.
Although the measure would mostly renew existing regulations, it also includes a proposed new ULL map with some modifications that place some properties outside of the development limit — including 3,487 acres with “significant development restrictions” due to government ownership or environmental regulations, 1,488 acres of “buffer lands” around subdivisions, industrial facilities, and cemeteries, 4,368 acres with fire, flood, and terrain hazards, according to California Environmental Quality Act documents on the proposal, as well as some adjustments to align with city limits.
In its endorsement of the measure, Save Mount Diablo called the ULL a “crucial land use tool” that encourages “housing where it makes sense,” outside of sensitive environmental landscapes and wildfire danger zones, and closer to existing infrastructure, services, and amenities.
Existing urban landscapes are the areas, according to Save Mount Diablo’s endorsements, that are more likely to attract affordable housing developments that are the purported primary target of state housing law changes in recent years, rather than the undeveloped lands that the conservation group aims to protect.
“No developer would propose affordable housing in places like this because the roads, water, electric lines, and other infrastructure cost so much more to put in given it’s so far away,” Save Mount Diablo organizers wrote in their endorsement. “Only large houses on big lots, built to attract the wealthy who could buy these huge country estates, would be built, doing nothing to alleviate our housing crisis.”
On the other hand, the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association’s campaign against the measure calls the renewal of existing regulations and the changes proposed in the new map an “expansion of restrictions” that goes against state housing law, “strips property rights from East County residents” and “worsens an existing housing crisis.”
“Proponents call this an ‘extension’ of the Urban Limit Line,” CCTA organizers wrote on the Say No to Measure A campaign site. “It is not. Measure A removes an additional 9,460 acres from any possible urban housing use through 2051 — while locking elected officials out of any meaningful ability to respond.”
In the formal argument against the measure in this year’s election materials, CCTA President Pro-Tem Denise Kalm and Byron Sanitary District Director Patricia Bristow contend that proposed changes to the map impacts not just the property rights but the property values of East County property owners whose land currently sits within the ULL, but would be moved out of the limit under the new map.
“The state is already overriding local zoning because counties and municipalities have failed to meet housing needs,” Kalm and Bristow wrote in the “No” argument. “Measure A invites more state preemption, jeopardizing local control. Open space deserves real protection — through conservation easements and willing-seller purchases, not a blunt boundary that prices out the next generation.”
However, a majority of the land that would be impacted by changes in the new map is already unfavorable for development, according to the rebuttal to that argument from Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, two county supervisors, and directors of Save Mount Diablo and East Bay Leadership Council.
“Nearly 9,400 acres that the County proposes moving outside the Urban Limit Line are either protected lands, threatened by flooding, wildfire, or other hazards, or are isolated from existing development,” supporters of the measure wrote.
While campaigns for and against the measure continue in the weeks ahead of election day, they appear to be doing so with zero or limited funding, in contrast with a number of other county races in this year’s primary election.
There are no campaign contributions or expenditures for or against Measure A reported to date, according to campaign finance data on Contra Costa County as of Friday afternoon.Â
