Alameda County Board of Supervisors Transportation Planning Committee Meeting - December 1, 2025
Alameda County Board of Supervisors Transportation Planning Committee Meeting - December 1, 2025
The Transportation Planning Committee met on December 1, 2025, at 9:15 AM, to discuss several items including the adoption of the 2025 California Building Standards Code, an update on mandatory solid waste and organics collection services to comply with SB 1383, a proposed amendment to allow event centers on Resource Management (RM) land, battery energy storage regulations, and a land mapping correction for the Valasetus (nuclear plant) site. Public comments were heard on each item.
Discussion Items
Item 1: Adoption of 2025 California Building Standards Code
- Director of Public Works Daniel Wildesenbet presented the item as a routine administrative procedure. The state requires adoption by January 1, 2026. The new code includes the California Wildland Urban Interface Code (WUI) as a new component of Title 24. Alameda County will also retain its existing stricter requirement for automatic gas shutoff valves (anomatic shutoff valve) in new construction due to seismic risks. The rest of the code remains consistent with current state standards. Supervisor Miley clarified that the gas shutoff requirement is above state code. The committee voted unanimously to forward the item to the full Board of Supervisors for adoption at the December 9 meeting.
- Motion: To adopt the building standards and forward to full board. Approved (Supervisor Miley moved, Supervisor Hauber seconded; unanimous).
Item 2: Update on Mandatory Solid Waste Recycling and Organics Collection (SB 1383)
- Waste Program Manager Andy Schneider presented an informational update. SB 1383 requires three-container collection services to reduce methane emissions. In County Collection Service Zone One (Livermore area), approximately 300 unincorporated accounts exist, with 50 remaining non-compliant. A self-haul certification program was developed for rural residents. In the new Zone Two (Pleasanton/Sunol/Castlewood area), a MOU with Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS) will bring mandatory service to about 400-600 accounts, with a 10% rate increase (e.g., from ~$40 to ~$50/month for a 32-gallon cart). Enforcement penalties range from $100 (first citation) to $500 (third). Supervisor Miley expressed concern about fines being too low to ensure compliance. Supervisor Hauber requested a rural roads meeting in early 2026 to inform constituents. The item was informational; no vote taken.
Item 3: Proposed Amendment to Allow Event Centers in Resource Management (RM) Land
- Albert Lopez (Planning) presented. Allowing new event centers in RM via conditional use permit (CUP) would likely violate Measure D because visitor-serving commercial uses are explicitly permitted in Large Parcel Ag (LPA) but not in RM. Two existing event centers in RM (Sunol and Cole Canyon) were permitted before or in error. Public speakers included: Jerry Miller (support, 45-year resident, argued amendment helps farmers); Griffin Miller (support, family ag business); Kelly April (opposed, claimed the proposal undermines Measure D); William Urage (opposed, said it violates Measure D and should go to voters). Staff and county counsel noted that a ballot measure would be needed for substantive change. Supervisor Howard suggested holding work sessions to explore Measure D amendments. Supervisor Miley agreed, citing past surgical amendments (equestrian facilities). The committee took no formal action but agreed to schedule further discussion.
Item 4: Battery Energy Storage Regulations
- Albert Lopez continued. The county lacks a zoning path for battery storage projects. Some applicants are opting for state CEC approval, which can preempt local land use authority. Staff recommended a general plan amendment and zoning code update, with CEQA review, to create a permissive path. Supervisor Miley requested a time-bound project plan for developers to choose between local and state processes. The item was informational; no vote taken.
Item 5: Valasetus Land Mapping (Nuclear Plant Site)
- Albert Lopez presented. The site (owned by GE Vernova) has six parcels. The zoning is heavy industrial (M2) for the facility, but the general plan (ECAP) designates most as RM and LPA, with only a small industrial designation. This discrepancy appears to be a mapping error. Staff suggested a general plan amendment as a correction, which would go through the Planning Commission and public review. Supervisor Howard and Supervisor Miley supported moving forward with the correction. County counsel reserved opinion pending further review. No vote taken, but direction given to proceed.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 3: Jerry Miller expressed support; Griffin Miller expressed support; Kelly April opposed; William Urage opposed.
- Item 4: Kelly April commented that battery storage is compatible with ECAP.
- Item 5: Kelly April commented that the rumor about a nuclear plant on RM land is false and raised concerns about Hunters Point contamination.
- Public Comment on Items Not on Agenda: Kelly April criticized the board and planning commission for a prior road giveaway to a developer, alleging a campaign contribution connection.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1: Approved unanimously (forward to full board on December 9).
- Item 2: Informational; agreed to schedule a rural roads meeting in early 2026.
- Item 3: No action; direction to hold work sessions on Measure D amendments.
- Item 4: No action; staff to provide a time-bound project plan for creating a local approval path.
- Item 5: Direction to initiate a general plan amendment to correct the Valasetus site mapping (zoning vs. general plan discrepancy).
Meeting Transcript
Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call to order the December 1st meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Transportation Planning Committee meeting. Will the clerk please call the role to establish quorum? Supervisor Miley. Supervisor Hauber. Here. Okay, everyone, we have an action packed full agenda today. Our first item is our director of public works, Daniel Wildesenbet, recommending that we adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Code. Mr. Wildesenbett, the floor is yours. All right, good morning. This is uh a pretty standard, straightforward administrative procedure. Uh the state uh adopts uh a building code every three years, which uh requires uh counties and uh other jurisdictions to uh follow through by uh January 1st of uh the adoption year that they are promoting. In this case, uh we have to adopt uh the new triennual update by January 1st. So we like to bring this item to you just in case you have any kind of questions, uh, and then go to the board uh for full adaption uh at the next meeting. Basically, the current triannual update has one change that was proposed by the state, uh, that is uh the California wildland urban interface code. This is a new component of Title 24. Uh, as you know that uh we the state experienced a lot of wildfires, and in order to kind of mitigate the impact of wildfires, this new wild wildlife uh wildland and urban interface code is adopted by the state, and we will be incorporating that in the new uh adapted ordinance that when we go uh ahead and do that for the county. Uh otherwise everything else remained the same as the current code. Uh we basically follow the same state standard, uh, state languages and adapt various uh, you know, appendices that are uh specific to Alameda County based on geographic and geologic condition and climatic conditions, but those are all state languages that we directly adapt into uh into the code. Uh there's one code language that we have adapted historically that is not maybe you might say a little stringent than the state. That is because of the seismic nature of uh our environment. Uh, we have what we call uh anomatic shutoff valve for gas gas valves. Uh so right now you want to build a new home uh and have a gas facility, you'll have to install an automatic shut-off valve in case of seismic events, which is as you know, gas is the primary cause of fire during uh earthquake type of incident. So that's the only basic fundamental difference between uh what we are proposing uh and the state standards. Uh otherwise it's going to be exactly the same as what we have now, uh, plus the wildland urban uh interface uh new code that's been adapted as part of title 24. I'd be happy to answer any question and Alan Tam, our building official is also available online. I'll go first go to public comment. Do we have any speakers on this item? Anyone wishing to speak on this item? We have no speakers on item one. Yeah, I'll close public comment on item one, bring it back for questions. Supervisor Miley, any questions? Any questions from staff? Uh, okay. Um, it seems to me that having a requirement for gas shutoff, automatic gas shutoff, given that we are prone in California to have earthquakes, including our area, that that's a prudent and wise decision. So just so I am clear, it's not part of the state code, but we are implementing that above and beyond the state code because we think it's the right thing to do for Alameda County. That's what I think I heard. Is that right, Daniel? Yes, that is correct. Dr. Julia, your predecessor is the one who insisted in having that code in in the county ordinance. Uh the language is available in the state code, but it is optional at the state level. But at the county level, uh, highly at the time uh wanted to make sure that uh we need to have that auto shut off because of fire hazard associated with it. Could you speak a little bit more about the wildlife urban interface changes that the state is asking us to do? I grant I think what I heard you say, the state is requiring it, so we don't have much to say about it. We're adopting it because we need to, but could you describe more of what it's going to do? I think it will just specify the type of material, you know, roofing material, uh, fire protection uh type of uh building materials that we have to adapt in case we are building in an environment that is subject to uh wildlife fire. And and uh as you can see in recent fire history, a lot of homes uh pretty much uh you know, uh blow up uh when when fire comes up, and it's it really is uh also requiring a defensive space that the fire department usually supports. They're like the the court asks for a defensive space between the homes and and uh vegetation uh provide fire access.
openpublica.com