Contra Costa County voters are staring down a big land-use decision on June 2, when Measure A lands on the countywide ballot. The proposal would renew the voter-approved urban limit line and keep the county’s 65/35 land-preservation standard in place for another 25 years. Backers say the move protects farmland, cuts wildfire exposure and keeps growth focused inside existing cities. Critics counter that it will squeeze an already tight housing market and tie the hands of local officials. The fight has pulled in environmental advocates, business voices and housing groups, turning growth, public safety and taxes into one sprawling countywide argument.
Both sides are not exactly whispering. Real-estate attorney Vince Moita told NBC Bay Area that the county is dealing with an affordability crisis and warned that a voter-imposed limit on where homes can be built "will only make it worse." On the other side, Juan Pablo Galván Martínez of Save Mount Diablo told the same outlet that the urban limit line has kept development out of high-fire zones and protected habitat for decades.
What Measure A Would Do
The Board of Supervisors’ referral and staff materials spell out the basics. Measure A would extend the county’s 65/35 Land Preservation Plan and the existing urban limit line through December 31, 2051, adopt an updated ULL map, and require a four-fifths vote of the Board plus voter approval to expand the line by more than 30 acres, according to the county’s official documents. The Board report also notes that the county certified environmental review for the renewal and estimates it will cost about $2.5 million to $3 million to place the question on the June ballot, based on the Board packet and resolution.
What supporters say
Supporters, including Save Mount Diablo and regional conservation groups, cast Measure A as a way to keep new development where roads, pipes and fire services already exist, while protecting farms and reducing wildfire risk on steep, remote slopes. Greenbelt Alliance has urged a yes vote, citing the county’s own analysis showing that vacant and underused land within the current line could accommodate roughly 23,200 new homes, and noting that a voter-approved ULL helps preserve eligibility for local transportation funds. Greenbelt Alliance and local land trusts argue that those protections support climate resilience and agriculture.
What opponents say
The No on Measure A campaign, funded by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, argues that the measure goes well beyond a simple renewal and would pull a large amount of land out of potential urban use. The campaign’s materials say the ballot language would remove as much as 9,460 acres from possible urban housing through 2051 and would require countywide votes for most adjustments, a shift the group says will worsen affordability and restrict property owners’ options. No on Measure A instead calls for tools like conservation easements and targeted land purchases rather than locking in limits through a decades-long ballot measure.
Housing and state law
The debate is unfolding against the backdrop of California’s tougher housing rules. Some housing advocates warn that locking in countywide land controls for decades could collide with state enforcement tools that limit how far local governments can go in blocking housing projects. The California Department of Housing and Community Development outlines the Housing Accountability Act and the state’s enforcement role in curbing local barriers to new homes, a key piece of the policy backdrop in this fight. California HCD explains how state oversight can constrain local land-use decisions when housing obligations are not met.
Where to find the ballot text
Voters can read the official ballot language and view maps in the county voter pamphlet and on voter information sites ahead of the June 2 Primary. For a neutral rundown of contests and the full text of county measures, residents can look at resources such as BallotReady and the County Elections pages.
Legal and funding implications
The Board’s resolution also certified environmental review under CEQA and identified a set of impacts that the county determined could not be fully mitigated, a factor supervisors weighed when deciding to place the measure on the ballot. Staff materials note that keeping a voter-approved ULL in place is tied to terms in the county’s transportation sales-tax agreements, and the Board packet outlines both the fiscal cost of putting Measure A before voters and the risk of losing a key chance this year to secure renewal before current protections expire.
