Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs allowing limited event uses on Resource Management land; Measure D and maps complicate any change
Summary
Planning staff recommended caution about using conditional use permits to allow new event centers in Resource Management (RM) areas, saying Measure D's language and mapping create legal limits; public commenters from East County urged measured allowances for farm-supporting events, while others urged referring substantive change to voters.
The Transportation/Planning Committee discussed proposed amendments to the East County Area Plan (ECAP) to allow limited event-center uses on Resource Management (RM) parcels, a proposal that raised legal and political questions tied to Measure D.
Albert Lopez, planning staff, explained the historical difference between Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA) and RM: LPA includes explicit language for visitor-serving commercial uses (visitor-serving wineries, tasting rooms and related events) while RM is intended to conserve habitat and resources and generally lacks that language. Staff said grandfathering existing conditional use permits (CUPs) in RM appears reasonable, but using CUPs to create new event centers in RM likely conflicts with Measure D and could trigger legal challenges.
Public comment was mixed. Several East County residents and agricultural operators (Jerry Bemiller; Griffin B. Miller) urged limited, carefully permitted event uses tied to active agriculture near highway access to help farms stay viable; they emphasized CEQA, conditional review, attendee caps and limited event counts. Other commenters opposed administrative changes that would, they said, circumvent Measure D protections and argued substantive changes should go to the voters. County counsel and staff advised that substantive map or use changes that increase use intensity likely require a Measure D amendment and that the courts are the ultimate arbiter if a change is challenged.
Board direction and next steps: Supervisors discussed mapping anomalies and the possibility of targeted, technical corrections where the general plan and zoning maps are demonstrably inconsistent; they directed staff to schedule work-study/town-hall sessions, pursue biological mapping to identify true resource-managed lands, and analyze options for a surgical Measure D amendment if stakeholder consensus emerges. Staff flagged that any general plan amendment would require planning-commission review, CEQA, and possibly voter approval for substantive changes to Measure D.
Why it matters: The debate affects the long-term viability of small agricultural operations, the scope of visitor-serving uses in East County, and the legal boundaries created by a voter-approved initiative (Measure D).
