Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Mapping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee asks staff to analyze LPA ↔ RM map designations under Measure D and return with clearer parcel-level info
Summary
The committee discussed potential technical adjustments from Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA) to Resource Management (RM) under ECAP/Measure D. County counsel and planning staff said today’s item was informational; supervisors requested a map review, neighborhood outreach via MAXs, and a return with parcel-specific analysis.
Alameda County officials on Jan. 6 revisited how land-use labels from the East County Area Plan (ECAP) and Measure D are applied to parcels in unincorporated areas. The Transportation & Planning Committee heard that a proposed technical adjustment could change some parcels from Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA) to Resource Management (RM), a more restrictive designation meant for biologically sensitive lands, watersheds and sites with significant hazards.
County counsel Laurel clarified that Measure D and the ECAP contain two distinct provisions: one allows the board to "impose further restrictions on development and use of land," while section 23 of the ECAP permits technical or non‑substantive amendments. Laurel emphasized that the agenda item was informational and did not present a specific parcel proposal.
Planning staff member Liz McGilligot summarized the difference between LPA and RM: LPA allows more intensive agricultural uses, agricultural processing and limited visitor-serving commercial facilities, while RM focuses on habitat protection, watershed management, and land unsuitable for human occupation due to hazards. Staff said the county’s 1994 staff-developed maps and the 2000 Measure D citizen-produced maps together form the current designations.
Supervisors pressed staff for parcel-level clarity, noting community reports of adjacent parcels with different designations despite appearing similar in condition. Supervisors asked staff to study not only LPA→RM requests but also whether RM→LPA reversals should be considered, and to return with a substantive analysis of map provenance and recommended process. They instructed staff to route any future proposal through the affected Municipal Advisory Committees (MAXs), the Planning Commission and back to the committee.
Public comment reflected these concerns. Kelly (caller) said it was premature to solicit public input without parcel specifics. Mission Peak Conservancy’s William E. Raghi urged transparency on any request involving Morrison Canyon Road and other local access issues.
What happens next: staff will prepare a parcel-level analysis of any proposed technical adjustments, provide clearer public notice and coordinate review with MAXs and the Planning Commission before returning to the committee. No vote or ordinance change was taken today.
"It depends on where this parcel or where the change may take place," McGilligot said. "If we change this, it would depend upon where this parcel is located and the MAXs that would be affected."
