{"id":6298,"date":"2026-08-04T11:07:18","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T11:07:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nextcitydigest.com\/?p=6298"},"modified":"2026-08-04T11:07:18","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T11:07:18","slug":"measure-d-proposal-could-shift-some-control-of-livermores-protected-hills-from-voters-to-supervisors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nextcitydigest.com\/?p=6298","title":{"rendered":"Measure D proposal could shift some control of Livermore\u2019s protected hills from voters to supervisors"},"content":{"rendered":"

LIVERMORE \u2014 For more than 25 years, Alameda County voters have held the final say over changes to Measure D, the landmark growth-control measure protecting ranchland and open space around Livermore. County supervisors are now considering whether to ask voters to surrender some of that authority.<\/p>

Read more Opinion: Lurie is no Mamdani. San Francisco is fine with that.<\/a><\/p>\n

District 1 staff have begun reviewing ways to ask voters to allow the Board of Supervisors to amend Measure D without seeking countywide approval for each change. Under one proposal, amendments would require a four-fifths vote of the board. That authority could eventually allow mid-sized wineries and event spaces to operate on parcels smaller than the 100-acre minimum established by the voters approved in 2000.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Map<\/figure>\nOpponents warn that giving supervisors such authority could weaken the urban growth boundary and encourage estate housing or commercial development on land voters intended to protect.<\/p>\n

Measure D limits development on the vast majority of unincorporated rural land \u2014 primarily in East County surrounding Livermore and in the Castro Valley Canyonlands \u2014 to single-family home and agricultural uses. The ordinance explicitly states it can only be amended through a countywide vote.<\/p>\n

The county\u2019s effort could open the bucolic, cattle-speckled hills north of Livermore for midsize wineries, vineyards, tasting rooms and event spaces, which supporters say would help grow the region\u2019s wine and tourism industries.<\/p>\n

A 2022 UC Davis study commissioned by the Tri-Valley Conservancy found that roughly were at least 20 years old and would likely be removed or replaced by 2030. The study also found that many independent vineyards had not been profitable in 2019 and 2020.<\/p>\n

Darcie Kent Estate Winery cited the study, noting that \u201cthe Livermore Valley wine country did not attract the level of investment that other emerging wine regions, such as Paso Robles, attracted. One of the issues has been that there are a finite number of landowners inside the (South Livermore Valley Area Plan) and by limiting investment in the Area Plan to a relatively small group, we perhaps restricted the investment pool too severely.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alameda County Supervisor David Haubert argues that easing size requirements would help support what he considers the backbone of the Tri-Valley economy.<\/p>

\n<\/div>\n

\u201cHundreds of acres of vines have been torn out and not replaced. The region has only one modest bed-and-breakfast and only one restaurant,\u201d Haubert said. \u201cThis is a direct result of the restrictions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Voters in 2000 rejected a competing developer-backed Measure C and approved Measure D, which passed with about 57% support. Measure C offered less restrictive language and would have allowed a proposed 12,500-home development in North Livermore.<\/p>\n

Measure C failed after receiving about 47% of the vote, disappointing Livermore officials who were left without county support for thousands of planned homes, according to Contra Costa Times reporting at the time.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe idea then and now is if there is going to be continued population growth, it should occur in the cities that already allow urban infill,\u201d Dick Schneider, a Sierra Club leader who helped raise support for Measure D in 2000, told this news organization in a recent interview. \u201cLet development occur within the already developed area.\u201d<\/p>

\n<\/div>\n

Proponents of the original measure, including environmental and conservation nonprofits such as the Sierra Club, said allowing supervisors to rewrite its restrictions without returning to voters each time could undermine Measure D\u2019s original intent.<\/p>\n

Schneider said that if the county opens Measure D to allow development on smaller parcels, \u201cwhat you get is large wealthy estates, estate housing for the wealthy, and not real agriculture happening.\u201d<\/p>\n

He pointed to the South Livermore Valley Area Plan approved in the 1990s, which allowed property owners to plant vines on 20-acre parcels. While the plan was intended to preserve open space and encourage small vineyards, Schneider said that 30 years later, many of the original vines are being uprooted as they age while market conditions discourage property owners from planting replacements.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat you end up having is instead of viable agriculture, what you have is estate housing. And that\u2019s not agriculture, and that\u2019s not open space,\u201d Schneider said. \u201cNo grazing, no crops.\u201d<\/p>

Read more Horoscopes August 4, 2026: Barack Obama, awaken and revive those around you who have lost their way<\/a><\/p>\n

Legal challenges to Measure D in 2001 and 2003 were rejected by California\u2019s First District Court of Appeal. According to a 2003 California Planning and Development Department Report, developers alleged Measure D violated state housing law by limiting residential development and the state\u2019s single-subject rule for ballot measures because it affected both the urban growth boundary and land-use designation. Judges rejected both claims.<\/p>\n

Ballot initiatives that sought to open nearby land for development have also been overwhelmingly rejected. In 2014, Dublin\u2019s Measure T, which would have allowed development in Doolan Canyon, lost with 84% of voters opposed.<\/p>\n

While landowners and business operators have frequently petitioned the county to permit nonagricultural commercial uses, the only successful amendments have been limited changes approved through ballot measures. In 2022, Alameda County voters amended Measure D to increase the allowable size of agricultural buildings and covered equestrian arenas relative to the surrounding parcel.<\/p>\n

The restrictions have fueled a long-running debate over whether Measure D continues to protect working farms or has made agricultural land too difficult to use economically.<\/p>\n

\u201cFarming has changed a lot in the past 30 years. I believe hundreds of people would invest in a 10-acre farm, even a 5-acre farm,\u201d Haubert said. \u201cHowever, a 100-acre minimum is just not consistent with reality today.\u201d<\/p>\n

At Darcie Kent Estate Winery, a nationally recognized business known for its Sauvignon Blancs and Pinot Noirs, CEO David Kent said updating Measure D to permit more uses in the county\u2019s unincorporated areas could have a multiplier effect on the Livermore Valley economy.<\/p>\n