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.

These are the things that is standardizes in the current code.

Uh it has been a standard practice, uh generally speaking, to have uh that kind of protection, provide fire access, provide various uh measures, uh, and uh provide this amber resistive construction materials, uh, since the ambers are the one that kind of create this chain reaction of fire.

So uh it really is uh uh a timely uh code adjustment, I think.

Do you think that um the changes are uh drastic enough or enough of a change?

Do you think we should be going out to the community and sharing with them what these new codes are so that they're aware, or do you think it's been our practice long enough to where people already know, and this is just making it clear what what we already do?

I think the latter, I think it's it's uh, you know, usually these kind of things, as you know, the building stuff is targeted to professionals like the architects, uh the landscape architects, the building architects, engineers.

So uh they are familiar with these requirements, but other community, I think fire departments and others have been uh both Califire and our own fire department has been promoting uh these fire safety measures.

That that are very much commonsensical, but uh, you know, that's something that if necessary at uh uh any other community meeting that can be mentioned as a fire prevention or protection measures rather than uh precaution rather than just a building a building code update.

I think the building code update is more targeted to the professionals that are designing some of these things.

Very good.

Uh, with that, uh, I'll make a motion that we adopt uh these building standards code in the state of California, and actually the action request will be to forward this to the full board.

Supervisor Miley seconds to we take a vote.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Hamlet?

I approve.

And that so what meeting will this go on for uh the next meeting?

I believe I believe either the next or uh the 12th, let me see.

Uh oh, we have a meeting on the 11th for the planning for planning.

Does it have to go to planning or can it go straight to I guess it could go?

It will go to the no, it will go straight to the board on the ninth.

I think we're planning on going to the n on the ninth meeting.

Okay.

It'll go on the ninth as just a regular an item, okay?

A regular item, yes.

Thank you very much.

That concludes item number one.

Item number two is an informational item, an update on the initiation of mandatory solid waste recycling and organics collection services consistent with SB 1383 in the unincorporated Alameda County.

Andy Schneider will be presenting.

Thank you.

Welcome, Andy.

Good morning, committee members.

My name is Andy Schneider.

I'm the waste program manager in the county planning department.

Today I will present an update on the initiation of mandatory waste collection services in unincorporated areas of Alameda County to comply with SB 1383.

SB 1383 is the short-lived climate pollutants reduction act.

It was adopted in order to reduce methane emissions from landfills by reducing the disposal of organic waste, which includes plant debris and food scraps.

All California cities and counties are required to provide mandatory three container collection services to all residents and businesses and to formalize these collection standards in written agreements.

SB 1383 requires jurisdictions to require hauler reporting to monitor generator compliance, provide outreach materials, and to develop an enforcement program.

Cal Recycle is the state agency responsible for overseeing each jurisdiction's implementation efforts, and the state can penalize the jurisdiction that fails to implement or enforce the regulations.

Cal Recycle began enforcement in 2022, and they have been assisting jurisdictions in compliance since that time.

The county waste program has been able to demonstrate good progress with our work in the unincorporated areas around Livermore and more recently in the areas around Pleasanton.

This is a map of the waste program jurisdiction.

It includes the eastern part of the county and what is known as County Collections Service Zone One, which was established in the area around Livermore back in 2012.

We are now in the process of establishing a second county collection service zone in the unincorporated region around the city of Pleasanton, which includes the communities of Synol and Castlewood.

Those areas will continue to be served by Pleasanton Garbage Company, garbage service, excuse me.

Portions of the East County have been granted a low population waiver.

And in those areas, the requirements are waived for a certain period of time.

We'll have to revisit that after those waivers expire.

There are other low density areas that you can see on the map, which have been designated as optional service areas, or in areas where no hauler is able or willing to provide weekly collection service, they remain self-haul areas where residents and or businesses sell fall their own waste to one of the various transfer stations or landfills in the East County.

The waste program's initial compliance effort was in the unincorporated areas around Livermore.

Livermore Sanitation has been providing voluntary waste collection in county collection service zone one under an MOU with the county since 2012.

In 2024, in response to SB 1383, the county amended that agreement with LSI in order to move to mandatory three container service in a designated part of County Collection Service Zone One.

Residents that were already subscribed to limited LSI services had their service expanded to include recycling and organic carts.

And the low population areas remain self-haul areas.

Part of our implementation in the Livermore Unincorporated area was to identify all those that were not subscribed to waste collection services and try to identify any parcels that appeared to be occupied and potentially generating waste.

So last year, the county mailed letters to all those presumed generators and stated their requirements to subscribe to service.

Many new waste count new waste accounts were established with LSI, but the county waste program also heard from East County residents that could not easily use the curbside collection carts due to their rural unique geographies.

They desired to continue self-hauling and stated that a mandate to have a service that they could not use was unreasonable.

So the county looked at that, we did some research, contacting other similar counties that had rural populations.

We did not find a good model for a carve out for those residents that wanted to continue managing their own waste.

Many of the residents explained their ongoing organic waste methodology, whether that is on-site composting, self-hauling to a transfer station, or feeding their farm animals on site.

So the waste program began to consider how we might be able to get those accounts compliant without requiring the curbside waste collection, which would not be very useful to them.

So in working with county council, we proposed to Cal Recycle that we would initiate a self-haul certification program where generators that did not want to have curbside collection could certify with the county waste program and describe their waste management process.

And we went ahead in 2024 and amended our county regulations to allow self-hauling in lieu of curbside service if the generator agreed to certify with the county waste program.

So we created an online form that residents could use to describe their waste program on site and with self-haul, and we have successfully certified a number of different generators as self-haul certified generators in the county, so at this point we are planning now with more options for compliance to mail a new letter to the remaining unsubscribed, uncertified generators, and explain their compliance options, and continue to build compliance service in the area around Livermore.

With everything that we learned in our implementation in the Livermore area, we're now planning to replicate that in the Pleasanton area, which would include those communities of Synole and Castlewood and other outline unincorporated areas.

So for the last couple years now, we've been negotiating with Pleasanton Garbage Service to develop a new agreement with them.

There has been no agreement with PGS for County Collections up until this point, yet they've been providing service in that area for over 30 years.

So we wanted to honor that relationship and service and have drafted a new agreement with PGS, which outlines the service standards, brings that service up to SB 1383 compliance, and we'll provide mandatory three-container service to all of the customers in what will become county collection service zone two.

The waste program has presented numerous times to the Synol Citizens Advisory Council during the process, and we've accepted comments and heard from many residents that also wanted those same on-site and self-hall compliance options.

PGS has been easy to work with, and we're at the final stages now of a final draft of that MOU, and they've agreed to provide similar service to what they provide within the city of Pleasanton.

In January of next year, proposing January 6th for the full board meeting, the Board of Supervisors will hear an item which creates the new County Collection Service Zone Number Two.

It will grant Pleasanton Garbage Service exclusive collection rights in the new zone.

It approves the MOU for service, reporting, outreach, and rates because SB 1383 compliant waste collection with more vehicles, more drivers, more management of the waste after collection.

SB 1383 compliance service is more expensive to provide than that within a city center where there's much more density and more accounts per mile.

So there is included in the MOU a 10% increase over the rates currently charged in that area, which will become County Collection Service Zone 2.

Residents will be getting additional services, they'll be getting weekly recycling service, weekly organic service for their plant debris and food scraps that they don't manage on site.

They'll be getting bulky item collections and holiday tree collection, and we just formalize the service and bring it up to state standards.

Similar to our agreement with LSI in County Collection Service Zone One, a county fee is included in the new agreement that will provide ongoing program support for the waste program.

This is the map of the proposed county collection service zone two.

The dark areas are where mandatory service will be will be provided.

PGS is currently providing limited service in those areas, so we'll be expanding that service and that will be the mandatory service area that we will begin mailing notices to for those that have not yet subscribed to weekly collection service.

For our next steps, it's approving that agreement with PGS in early January, providing updated outreach materials to the residents and businesses in the collection zone, rolling out the new service similar to what we did in the LSI area, and then following up with those generators that fail to respond to our letter and subscribe or certify, and eventually there will be enforcement for residents and businesses that do not subscribe or certify.

And of course, we will keep the committee updated on our progress and any issues we encounter along the way.

Thank you for the report.

Any public comment on this item?

Any speakers in person or online?

I have no speakers for item two.

Very good.

We'll close public comment on item two.

Supervisor Miley, questions, comments?

Yes, uh a few questions, comments.

No, all this is in Supervisorial District One.

Um so congratulations.

Or um the Raymond uh Riemann track.

That's in the city that's in the middle of Pleasanton.

You are you familiar with the Riemann track is in Pleasanton?

Could you repeat the question?

Are you familiar where the Riemann track is in Pleasanton?

Remann track.

It's an island in this middle of Pleasanton that is unincorporated.

Yes.

Is that included in this too?

Well, Sonole and Castlewood and other outline areas will become county collection service zone two, and they're not part of the city of Pleasanton, they're just using the same waste hauler.

Okay.

Well, the Riemann Track is surrounded by the City of Pleasanton, it's in the middle of Pleasanton.

So maybe um, yeah, City All.

But yeah, probably better.

Okay.

Um the few questions.

Uh the enforcement, what, because it says there'll be penalties, and there could be fines.

What are we talking about?

The county regulations which were established at the onset of SP 1383, allow for administrative penalties for generators that do not comply with the county regulations.

So of course we are aiming for compliance and assistance rather than being punitive, but we will need to um follow the same process that we do with code enforcement on violations of the regulations.

We would give plenty of notice, plenty of opportunities to comply, explain the situation.

Um I think that we've been able to show very flexible enforcement position on this issue in the LSI area already.

No one has had a uh a citation yet, but we knew do need to have those teeth in there to um gain compliance and give generators as many options and as much time as needed.

So there is a penalty amount and a penalty timeline.

We have not kicked that into to action yet, but we're working with county council to make sure that our regulations support that enforcement action when the time does come.

So do we have an idea of what the amount would be and what the timeline would be?

Because everything you said, I'm I understand I'm trying to get it.

Yes, violation, what will I be fined, and at what point and give me a sense of that?

We have some flexibility with our within our own regulations, and I've been advised to um move with the lower threshold, and that would be a hundred dollars for the first citation, which would um compound over time if that account is not brought into compliance.

So it goes 100, 200, and 500 for a third violation.

And is and is the ceiling 500?

Yes.

So after 500, I could still be in non-compliance, and that's it.

We need to look at that.

Um compliance with state law and county regulations is our goal.

Um, we're hoping it doesn't get to that point.

Okay.

Because I'm not saying people won't comply, but uh I mean it might be more if folks are are um are used to one way of doing things and now we're imposing additional ways, um either certification of self-hauling or we're requiring um three can service.

Um I'm just trying to get a sense.

Would it somebody in the rural area just say, well, it's more cost effective for me just to get fined than to comply.

That's what I was trying to get a sense of.

So, and I don't know if five hundred dollars would get someone's attention, but maybe it would ultimately.

We we feel that the self-house certification program is not requiring any new actions from the generator.

They just need to certify with the county.

So it shouldn't be too much of an obstacle.

We're not expecting them to necessarily change their process, just certify with us.

Okay.

And then in the zones, zone one, two, zones in Livermore, and then the Pleasanton Synole.

Do we know how many customers we're talking about?

The universe of customers?

Yes.

Surrounding Livermore, there are approximately 300 unincorporated accounts, with about 50 remaining non-compliant now.

And in the proposed county collection service zone two, there are more customers.

There are currently over 400 current subscribers to limited service, and we expect that number to go up to 600.

And what about in the Synol, Castlewood?

So we're going to create a new county collection service zone two.

And is that for both Castlewood and Sinnol?

Yes.

So what's what's the customer?

What's the universe of customers we're talking about?

Could you repeat?

What's the how many customers are we talking about?

How many accounts?

Well, currently about 400, and we expect an additional 200 subscribers, but that is for Sinnol Castlewood and the additional blue shaded areas to the north.

So 400 to 600.

Oh, I see.

Okay.

Let's look at your at the first map.

Okay.

So total the total universe potentially is less than a thousand.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Um.

And then with the three cans.

Do people you know people get a discount for a smaller can?

Yes, the rate is based on the size of the garbage can that they select.

Um both haulers offer a few different sizes for garbage collection.

Usually the recycling and organic carts are standardized and larger and not rate-based.

They're included in the bundled service, but you could get a discount by using the smaller garbage can.

If you want to pay for that service, okay.

And then my final question with the 10% increase, what are we uh anticipating the amount would be the range because the 10% maybe might vary depending on the service?

Most residential accounts are using standard size 32-gallon garbage cart, and that's about $40 per month currently, and that goes up to just over $50 per month for that service level.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thanks.

I appreciate this.

Um I'm glad that in the urban unincorporated area.

Between Orloma and Cash Valley Sanitary District, they've got to deal with it there.

We don't have that obligation, so that's why it's all out in David's area.

So congratulations, David.

Hope you and your constituents have at peace with all this.

Yes.

I'm glad we go out in January, so it's not a merry Christmas gift to anybody.

I would like to say that I think we're headed in the right direction with this.

One, it's state law, and two, uh, any time you can provide service, it seems like for a rate that uh self-hauler would be challenged to even compete with.

We're lucky that we have this service, I think.

That said, if they want to self-uh certify, they can in certain areas.

Um but it is change, it's a change for somebody.

A few hundred people maybe.

But we do have what we call the rural roads meetings that we do periodically.

I would like to bring, I would like to work with staff, my office to schedule that rural roads meeting to send a notice to everybody and to invite them to that meeting.

They'll probably be at the Martinelli Center out in East County, and um bring this to the rural roads.

It's not a committee, it's anybody can come.

About 30, 40, 50 people show up with a notice like this, maybe more people will show up.

But let's walk them through what this is going to do.

That notice and meeting prior to approving the MOU, which we're planning for January 6th, or can we push that back a couple weeks?

Is that a big deal?

Or is that a time bound need?

We are not in compliance jeopardy with the state by pushing that back, but I'm not familiar with when the rural roads meeting convenes.

Yeah.

Well, it doesn't, it's periodic.

We can do it any time with the holidays and everything.

I would rather proceed as planned with um Livermore Sanitation.

Is it Livermore Sanit or Pleasanton BGS?

The new one is PGS.

So ahead, and then let's schedule a meeting.

Well, let's see here.

PGS is going to be more Castlewood and Synol.

So Sennol's already been covered with the Sunol advisory committee.

Castlewood hasn't because they're not part of Sennol really.

Let's find a way to let the Castlewood community know.

I don't know if we have a meeting coming up with them.

I don't anticipate that being a major issue.

I think most of them, I'm guessing most of them already subscribe, but I could be wrong.

Most of Castlewood does have garbage service.

It is surprising to see how few have recycling service.

So that will be a big improvement there, because of the generation from those households, they will probably enjoy the um verified diversion opportunity coming up.

They will have a rate increase.

Could we um when you send out letters?

I'm guessing that if anybody has a question or concern, they can call you.

Yes.

I include my my direct phone number on any notices that are mailed.

Would you just let me know if you get any from the constituents?

Yes.

My constituents.

Okay.

Then with regard to Livermore, the folks out in East County, rural East County.

What's going to change with?

Is that going to be a change to the Livermore sand?

No new change.

We've been working through the new agreement, the new three cart mandated area.

We did hear from the residents that oppose the mandated three-container service.

And we kept all of those contacts throughout the process so that when we amended our regulation and developed the surf self-hull certification, we proactively contacted them back and said we've got another option for compliance for you.

And they've been very responsive to send back the form electronically that shows where they take all their materials.

I may have had some follow-up questions for them, but the numbers of self-haul certifications are small enough to where we can manage that on a case by case basis, and I send them their certification.

They know that they're now in compliance with the law, there's no other additional pressure to subscribe to the service that they couldn't use.

What does it cost to recertify?

Zero dollars.

Can we do it every two years, three years, four years?

We have the we have the ability to change that as long as it does not go over five years.

If we want to change that, do we have to change it here and now or can that change over time?

We can adjust that on the fly.

I'd love that.

Alright, let's adjust that on the fly.

I think what we'll do is we will schedule a rural roads meeting sometime in Jan Feb.

And we'll just put this on the agenda to reinforce it.

Let anybody ask any questions that they have, see how it's going, but otherwise it's done.

Another question though.

Um we have something in the incorporated areas I know called the bulky waste pickup.

You mentioned tree, Christmas tree value.

Do we have, I think we have two times that a resident two times a year can call for a bulky waste pickup.

Do you have that incorporated into any of this?

Yes.

In the LSI area, everyone in the mandatory service area gets the same three bulky items included in their service rate as the city of Livermore.

In the PGS area, that bulky item collection has not been available during the voluntary program that's been going on for decades, but is now included in our new agreement, so that Synol and Castlewood residents can also get the bulky item collections included in the agreement.

Wonderful.

I think that's great.

Yes.

Like a de facto bulky waste pickup at the school.

Maybe we can you're gonna keep doing those then?

We've been discussing that with your staff.

Those annual events have been essential because the bulky item collection has not been available to those Synoleans.

Um we may be able to scale back that annual program or possibly not need to continue it.

We'd want to make sure if we're reducing services to the community that we do so thoughtfully.

Um PGS does have their transfer station that they operate within the Pleasanton area, and as long as residents can show that they are either a Pleasanton resident or a county collection zone to resident, they will get free drop off for plant debris at the transfer station, electronic devices, many of the items that have been collected at the annual event.

So there's less necessity to keep that going.

Yeah.

But I think what you just mentioned though also highlights the importance of the transfer station in Pleasant.

I know that that's coming under scrutiny with the upcoming housing, that will be next door.

So another topic for another day, but I see Sandy taking out that very good.

With that, um more questions, Supervisor Miley.

Yeah, just one thing.

Um, you know, I just work here, so uh just asking a question.

The um the board president, and county administrator.

I don't know if they've set the board schedule for 2026, but typically the Monday following the holiday, we don't meet the holidays January 1st, which is a Thursday, and then um the first Tuesday would be January 6.

We typically wouldn't meet that first, I mean that Thursday Monday, excuse me, that Tuesday after the uh Thursday holiday on the first.

So I just I think we need to need to get clarity.

If we're meeting January sixth, I know I'm assuming we weren't meeting, but staff might want to confirm that with the president and the county administrator.

He's a real taskmaster, I hear might be pushing for a January 6th meeting.

Thank you for bringing that up though.

I have to check with the administrator.

It's um staff's belief that we do meet on the sixth, I think.

So that's our understanding.

That's it.

What's with your board schedule at the moment, but there is also a board planning meeting the same week, and and it could be placed on that agenda as well.

We'll take a call of the board through the administrator's office.

Be prepared.

Thank you.

With that said, this is an informational item, so we don't need to take action.

Thank you for the information.

The next one is an informational item discussion of a proposed amendment to allow event centers in resource management land asignation in the East County area plan.

This will be presented by Albert Lopez.

Good morning.

Just give me a minute here to uh fire up their PowerPoint.

Um, Tisa, or I'm in the I'm in the lobby or the yes, that sounds like me.

Showing me as a panelist on my side.

There we are.

Okay, thank you for your patience.

Uh there's a number of the items on the agenda this morning are going to be discussing our East County area plan, and I just want to put up a quick little glossary of all the terms that are going to be talking a lot about today in terms of the East County Area Plan and large parcel agriculture, which we refer to as LPA, and then resource management, which is RM.

Uh the first item, item number three, in terms of allowing event centers in resource management.

I think that you know we have a relatively long history uh discussing this issue, um, goes back to Scott Haggerty days.

I think it probably goes back a couple of decades since uh Measure D was first uh voted in by the voters of Alameda County in terms of the difference between large parcel ag and resource management, specifically in how it pertains to uh event centers, and so I have a couple of slides on on this particular issue.

And the um one of the things is that there's definitely a difference between large parcel ag and resource management, um, and uh specifically uh there is language in the LPA supporting visitors serving commercial facilities, and is probably our what we call our most flexible district in ECAP.

Um the uses allowed there are going to be more intense than you would have in the RM, which is mostly as the name suggests, it is for conserving resources and protecting resources, whether they be um habitat or natural resources for the most part, and uh while the resource management designation does allow agricultural uses such as a winery, it does not have the language supporting um visitors serving commercial facilities.

So we have historically, and I think this goes back, like I said, a couple of decades, we've had a pretty bright line between LPA and RM as it relates to event centers.

Um, and so allowing a visitor serving commercial uses in the RM would appear to violate measure D.

Having said that, we do allow again wineries in the resource management designation, and uh many of those wineries do have events.

Um they might be they're not necessarily a full-blown event center, but they do have uh small scale music events or uh wine tastings or our um releases and other sort of social events that um are not necessarily an event center, but they are um they do exist, and we do hear about them from time to time.

Some of them do, you know, there's sort of uh event creep where they get too big, um, and if they don't have a conditional use permit, we have used code enforcement to to deal with that.

And there's also like a couple of event centers that are in the RM that either predate measure D or were um permitted in error.

A couple of uh there's one in Sonol, as you probably know about about that is in the RM.

There's also one in Cole Canyon in the Cash Valley area that's also in RM.

And those are both event centers with with um uh viable active conditional use permits.

And I also wanted to just put them here the um the uh how we currently define wineries and event centers.

So the top definition here is how we currently define a winery.

We also we lump these all together in terms of winery, microbrewery, and olive oil mill, which are the two uh or the three types of event centers or uses that typically would have events related to them.

And we did change this um, I want to say five, six years ago to include microbrewery, which is a new use that is uh we have a couple of microbreweries in the LPA area as well.

Uh, when it comes to event centers, we don't actually call them event centers, we call them winery related uses, and that are uh those are meant to be accessory to the winery, and they're they're meant to be incidental and subordinate, and those uh that use can include temporary cultural and social events like cater banquets, receptions, concerts, wouldn't find wood food and wine festivals, weddings, etc.

And so we have a number of these um in the East County.

I would say that you know 95% of them, like I said, are are in the LPA, although a couple of them have been uh permitted in the resource management area.

Um, and again, that was uh through um error on the our either the part of the planning department or it could have been uh predating measure D.

The there is uh some uh proposed revised language that was provided to staff.

Uh staff did not write this, um, but we did get this through your office, Supervisor Halbert.

And um I think that there's a couple of issues here.

One of them is that I think that um uh this is language that wants to use the conditional use permit process to allow an event center in the RM area, which as I mentioned, likely does violate measure D.

I think that some of the issue issues here that have been identified, for example, like making sure that a parcel has uh good access or that that they're one mile from a freeway.

Um those are all good ideas.

Um that the event center is accessory and and supportive of ongoing ag production.

Um, of course, that's a good idea as well.

I think that uh this letter C and sort of one and two, um, I wanted to focus on as well as number two at the very bottom.

So um uh letter CI appears to be wanting to grandfather an existing use permits that may be in the RM, which I think is something that uh sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

If they're already existing and have a conditional use permit in the RM, it does seem like uh there could be a good argument for allowing them to take full advantage of all the um all the conditional use permit um uh um regulations as well as the authority that are enjoyed by other event centers.

Um the number or letter two I I think is a little bit problematic in the sense that it does try to use a use permit to get a new event center in the RM, which again I as I mentioned, we've we've had that bright line between LPA and RM, and that seems to violate that.

Um, and then the the last bullet there, number two, it it does seem to be um trying to suggest a general plan amendment using the zoning amendment.

And so I think that would be problematic in in some ways as well.

So I think there's some there's some good information here.

Um I um I know from my perspective, we have used conditional use permits to uh sort of sanctioned non-conforming uses, and I think that we could do that in an ordinance.

Um, and this is again this is the uh planning department's opinion.

I think that you know, after working for a couple of decades with this particular issue, it does seem like again that would not be an unreasonable request.

I'm sure our county council probably has maybe their own opinions on it, but um I don't want to speak for them.

The uh, so that I think you know is is in summary, you know, where we're at with this particular issue.

Again, we have been dealing historically with this pretty bright line between LPA and RM, and the event centers are clearly something that's allowed in the LPA through visitor serving commercial language, and that doesn't exist in the RM.

And so that's the challenge, really, is to change that pursuant to measure D.

That would be increasing uses intensity and density, and that does trigger a ballot measure.

Um, and that's one of the reasons why um we haven't necessarily gone in that direction historically, but what we have done, and we've talked about to some degree is um because a lot of wineries already wineries without the CUP without an event center designation, we they do already some small scale events, and it seems like there might be a middle ground to carve out to the further sanction or allow some sort of small scale events in the RM that don't necessarily creep into the full blown event center uh designation.

That might be something that you can um you can control by the number of attendees or the number of events per year, um that kind of thing.

Um so that that might be something that we can explore.

Again, grandfathering in existing CUPs, that does seem to be a reasonable thing to do, but but allowing new CUPs in the RM, I think would be um uh violative of measure D.

So we've uh we've discussed many of these issues before going back a number of years, but that's uh the current um the current analysis is as I see it, and be happy to take any questions that you have on this.

Uh I think we'll first go to public comment.

Anybody either in the room or online that wishes to comment on this item will now give uh time.

Sherry, emailer.

In person, thank you.

Good morning, Supervisor.

Uh my name's Jerry B.

Miller, and I'd like to voice my support.

Allowing agritourism uses on RM parcels.

I'm a 45-year resident of Sinnol.

I've served on the school board for 12 years, 13 years on the Synol Advisory Board.

I'm currently on the Ag Board and I'm a member of the Three Valleys Community Foundation.

We always graze cattle on our property, mostly for fire control, because the number of cattle that we can graze doesn't even pay the property taxes.

It's not easy to keep a working farm on a vineyard viable today, especially in a place like Alameda County, where the land, labor, materials are expensive and operations are small by comparison to the Central Valley.

This amendment gives farmers like us a practical way to support agricultural income through carefully permitted limited scale event use, but only in places where it makes sense, near major highway access and with active farming and under full county review.

It doesn't cut the protections of resource management designation.

It doesn't invite sprawl, it simply gives existing agricultural properties near infrastructure the opportunity to host events that support the farm and help it survive.

This kind of flexibility done right is essential to keeping agriculture alive in Alameda County.

I urge you to support this amendment and allow the process to move forward.

Thank you.

Griffin B.

Miller.

Good morning.

My name is Griffin B.

Miller, and I'm here to express my support of the proposed amendment allowing limited event center uses on resource management zoned parcels near highway access.

I was born and raised on agricultural land in Sinnol on the same property where my family and I live today, and where I work full-time at our ag family ag business.

I grew up helping my family care for cattle and horses, and today I manage our vineyards and other ag operations.

I've seen firsthand how difficult it can be to keep these lands productive and economically viable here in Alameda County.

This amendment is a thoughtful step in the right direction.

It allows farms near infrastructure to responsibly host events that can support their agricultural work without weakening the protections of resource management designation.

It's not a blank check.

It's a carefully drawn path that ensures that projects still go through the full CEQA and public review and only apply to sites that make sense.

Event centers, when tied to working farms, help agriculture survive.

They create jobs, support local tourism, and let the public experience what's being grown and raised here.

This proposal doesn't fight the spirit of Measure D.

In fact, there is nothing in Measure D that explicitly prohibits event centers on RM.

It simply permits it on LPA.

And it honors Measure D by helping agricultural operations stay afloat and active.

I respectfully urge the committee to move this forward.

Thank you.

Kelly April.

Well, it's a shame that all the staff of uh your office isn't here to reap the fruits of their labor over these many years.

These many years where they've been squeezing in full-sized, full-blown, as we say, event centers, into the areas surrounding Fremont and on other rural areas on resource management land, trying to legalize, trying to uh use sophistry to um pretend like you know how to differentiate, squeeze in stuff that measure D doesn't allow, but you say your zoning allows it.

You're creating um discrepancies, conflicts between your zoning and your measure D.

And that's what you want you what you want to do.

And these, you know, you bring up the poster child for event centers.

These these people are not responsible for what you've been doing, where you create full-blown event centers with hundreds and hundreds, seeding for hundreds, chandeliers.

It's amazing what you do, and the the level of um hypocrisy here is incredible, where all of a sudden you're you're all all in favor of the small farmers.

These people are not produced able to make money producing grapes, they're not able to make money uh grazing cattle.

That's why they have to run event centers, because the service is not producing wine.

The service is producing entertainment, which is which is great, and you should be doing it in South Livermore and on large partial agriculture.

Um you've been mislabeling barns as at large as uh event centers as barns.

Let's not forget that.

Why don't you just call them barns like you always do?

Call them a barn and then see what happens.

Caller, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Larry Gosselin.

Thank you for considering this important matter.

I appreciate the time that's been put into this over the decades.

And uh what it would like to um what I welcome the opportunity to return back to this subject.

The reason I say return back to it is because I was one of the decision makers uh of the three member East County border zoning adjustments who first addressed this issue of recreation on these properties.

Uh, these county border zoning adjustments way back then made a determination that a winery with events was appropriate for the property.

Uh, we made the decision to have the matter come back to us within a year or no more than two years, I can't recall exactly, so that we could consider additional uh uh conditions on the application.

That being said, our motivation was the fact that regardless of whether the property was large personal agriculture or resource management, recreation was allowed.

And that's a remarkably important consideration.

Also, whether the property was large personal agriculture or recreational, or I'm sorry, a resource management property, quasi public uses were allowed.

Event centers do exist on our park lands in Alameda County.

There are important component of parklands in Alameda County.

Those are public uses of event centers, quasi-public uses of event centers or what are being described today.

It needs to be recognized that the purpose of Measure D is to enhance agriculture and agricultural lands, and there seems to be a uniform recognition that that has not happened in Alameda County.

That being said, we need to return to the purpose of Measure D, uh, as it was passed in 2000 and focus on enhancing agriculture.

We also have to look at Measure D 2022 that calls for the ordinance to be broadly construed to enact its purpose.

Thank you.

There are no more speakers for item three.

Very good.

We'll close the public comment on this item three and bring it back for questions.

I'm sorry, we have one more online.

Okay, let's allow that.

Caller, you're on the line.

You have two minutes, William.

Yes, thank you.

My name is William Urage, and um I'm opposed to this modification.

Uh you know, Measure D was very specific in terms of protecting um agricultural lands, also open space.

The change of a designation to allow event centered use on resource managed lands is to get measure D.

Um, the property on Sheridan that's an event center, was low zoned as large scale agriculture.

This was a mistake.

That is that should have been resource managed lands.

There should never have been an event center built on the property.

There is.

Now they're trying to get it to get it changed so that other zoning on that property can be moved over and allow additional additional tourist facilities.

Um, you know, measure D was very specific.

It protected agricultural lands, including both large scale and resource managed lands.

Let's keep the uh let's keep it as it is.

And if you want to take it to the voters, let's let's take it to the voters and make that that change um in law as opposed to an administrative action.

Thank you.

No additional speakers for item three.

Okay, now we will close public comment and bring it back for discussion deliberation.

I have a few questions, which is um uh it was noted by one of the speakers that nothing prohibits event centers in RM.

It simply allows it in LPA.

What's our legal and staff response to that?

Well, I think it goes back to the analysis that I was in in the presentation about the LPA designation and the RM are different, right?

They're not the same.

Um LPA is much more flexible, whereas RM is more restrictive.

LPA has language that specifically allows visitors serving commercial uses, which we have interpreted to include things like event centers.

There's a there's a list that um that I can show you.

But again, if it's not excluded in RM, why is it not allowable?

I'm not saying that we have to allow all of them, but it it could be it could be allowed if it's not excluded, or why couldn't it?

Well, the so the way that we interpret that is if it's specifically listed in one district but not in the other, there's there's usually a reason for that.

Um in this case, it's it's clear that the LPA designation intended to have um the visitor serving commercial uses permitted in that district versus the RM does not have that language, so you just have to make that that that uh that analysis, just in terms of understanding that if it's permitted in one district and not in the other, there's likely a reason for that, and it was a deliberate um uh you know the the the regulations were written in.

Can the board make the finding that that's not the interpretation of the county of Alameda?

Um well, I think that uh as I said, the the idea to allow new use permits for event centers in the RM does seem to violate measure D.

And I and I think that if we were to to change that, I mean I I think at that point I'd have to look to our council to help uh guide us a little bit on the.

So is there a is it in Measure D, is there a definition of well, I mean, RM has a definition of I guess apparently it doesn't exclude event centers.

We're making the interpretation as you just described.

I grant that if it's included in one and silent on the other, that we're interpreting that as allowable and included in one and excluded and not allowable and can't do in the other, that's an interpretation, but is that that wasn't defined that clearly in Measure D.

So that's open to interpretation.

So I guess legal county counsel, who has the ultimate say on the interpretation of a voter-approved initiative, the staff or the board?

So ultimately the courts, if challenged.

But the analysis that staff was discussing is that historically and and by general rule, um, our zoning and most of the zoning in California is done by what is called permissive zoning.

If there is no specific language that says this zone permits or allows, then the the decision is that if it's not listed and it's not uh an identical or similar use, then it is not allowed.

And if you read the language in measure D, it says subject to the provisions of the initiative, which is Measure D, this designation, resource management permits, and then there's a list of things that are allowed.

The same is true in LPA and other divisions, um, other land use designations within measure D.

Um, that's true in all of our zoning um general plans.

It's a it's true of our zoning ordinances.

Um, so to say, oh, it's not listed, so it must be okay, is the opposite of the rule.

So the rule is that you called it permissive, what?

Yeah, it has to be listed where it's not permitted.

The the doctrine though that you described is called permissive use or something like that.

Permissive zoning.

Permissive zoning, which that doctrine states it's to be listed.

If you do not permit it, it is not allowed.

Okay.

I think just uh just to jump on that a little bit.

I think that the fact that it's listed clearly in another designation is something like if we were to go back to our zoning last uh at the last um uh board planning meeting, we looked at something for adult daycare.

That was a good example of that.

Adult day care was not listed anywhere in our zoning code.

The permissive doctrine as you called it, we would say, well, then it's not allowed.

We have to change our zoning code um to allow something like that.

And so if um so we do run across that from time to time.

If somebody wants to do something that's for example, just you know it's allowed in the C1, but not in the C2, and so you you know, if we don't necessarily say, well, if it's allowed in C1, we'll let it we'll let it we can also allow it in C2, and there's there's explicitly you know separation there between what's permitted and in the districts, and this I think that analogy can be applied in this case as well.

Yeah, that's an interesting um analogy, I agree.

Again, not listed, but yet we were able to change the zoning to allow it because it was consistent with other uses, yeah.

But we we don't have that for measure D, of course.

That is uh that's well, zoning that is uh changeable, i.e., not measure D, uh solidified.

Yeah, okay.

Um it was mentioned that recreation is allowed in RM.

Recreational uses are permitted, yes.

So can you call it event to be recreational?

What what defines recreation?

Sure.

Uh we don't have a definition for recreational uses specifically.

Um, actually, no, let me correct that.

I I think we actually do have a definition, includes things like camps and ball fields.

Um, something that you would really consider to be outdoor recreation.

Sorry, I misspoke there.

Um we are dealing with that with uh another permit currently going through the department where it's a camp for kids, that would be recreational use.

Okay, horse, uh horse events the question you they have their own category.

I think races was listed.

Uh I thought I saw cultural events, social events, yes, concerts.

That's all events that are related, it's event center related, yeah.

But then race uh do we have any outdoor races that um I think there might be a race out in the Little More Valley, I think, but I'm I'm not positive.

All right, so with regard to um adopting as requested the ordinance, is there a legal opinion?

I mean, having a how we might do that, and I say that with what I often say, let's not talk about what we can't do.

What can we do?

Certainly.

So I've only looked at this uh for a short while, hasn't been on our desk for very long.

Um but in doing so, the the number one impediment, of course, is measure D.

And the general rule that uh the hierarchical zoning is that you start with your general plan, and then that is the controlling document as you work your way down from the general plan to the specific to your zoning ordinances.

What you are what is being suggested here is an amendment to a zoning ordinance that arguably is inconsistent with your general plan.

So it falls on its own merits in that regard.

Um the the can do approach is one that was suggested by one of the speakers, and that is if this is something that is um of interest, then an amendment to measure D is an approach that can be taken.

Um by but that would be an amendment by the voters because this is a substantive material change.

And so there could be an um an amendment that would say you know whatever this same proposal of zoning is, you would then tweak the resource management language of Measure D and say we're looking for small scale visitor serving, those types of things.

Um that would be our preliminary opinion of course we have not reviewed this in any depth I would say that we'll probably talk about this in the next couple of items but another theme that I think has been pretty uh consistent at least since I've been here is lack of clarity around how maps were created and as suggested by the recommended zoning changes land near a freeway with clear access and no real impediments to provide events probably should be considered large partial ag and not RM.

We've talked about it before there's lots of land that probably is designated RM that has no resource to manage.

And there are probably places designated large parcel ag that do the maps were simply created nobody knows really how and so why can't we just change the map and when I say change the map I don't mean willy nilly change the map I mean identify land that arguably should be should have been always acting like large parcel ag and swap it with the same number of acreage in a large parcel ag designation such that the total acreage would remain the same have we investigated that opportunity so we've had several I mean several one or two prior um instances where our office has been asked to look at the issue of mapping in relationship to uh the land use map designations and that are included in the general plan ECAP and others um the difficulty is that measure D included a land use map and that is the basis upon which we function and so uh similarly with changing the narrative language the problem is that there would likely need to be a Measure D amendment to the mesh the maps that we're also blessed to the extent that there's not um other justifications for for the change and and we have struggled with this I mean there have been a couple of other proposals and it it is um the facts are less than clear but from a conclusionary standpoint the map was included with Measure D.

Yeah yeah very good it's a it's a very um this was very this is helpful um I see we have two other uh items that'll probably get at this but I'm headed towards and I love supervisor miley's thoughts on this I'm headed toward recommending that we have work study session venues not a come up for two minutes and talk but we're gonna have literally work study open roll up the sleeves talk about this from all angles discussions about measure D about how it's working or not about what a ballot initiative might look like or not about what technical adjustments we might do and face potential as county council mentioned it's the courts that ultimately decide we have to go there I suggest that maybe uh ballot measure would be faster than courts so I'm open to that but I think we're gonna need two or three open discussions town hall type meetings where we get to the bottom of this.

So that's my thoughts.

Supervisor Miley, you have much much more experience.

And as our wise elder, would you please shed some light on this?

Thank you uh President Howard this is this is sort of like uh deja vu, Groundhog's day.

You know, we we struggled with with uh equestrian facilities.

And after decades of struggling on that, we finally did a ballot measure.

You know, and you were here, we did a surgical amendment to Measure D for equestrian facilities, and the voters approved it, and we had, you know, we had support from all the stakeholders around that.

And as I've spoken in the past, you know, Measure D, I think it's too um restrictive.

But at the time when Measure D was put on the ballot, many of us didn't recognize the level of constraint that Measure D was applying.

Because I was on the Oakland City Council at the time, and I think what prompted Measure D was uh development that potentially was going to take place out near Livermore called Los Pacitas, if I recall correctly.

And folks just were opposed to uh suburban sprawl out in the Tri-Valley area, and felt that if there needed to be development, it should take place more in the urban um communities of the county, for instance, like Oakland, because Oakland had a lot of um uh space uh for infill development.

And so I think a lot of us supported Measure D with the distinct um impression that it was gonna protect ag, preserve ag, enhance ag, and not necessarily uh promote urban sprawl and development.

Uh and then as I've said in the past, I also felt, and when I talked with the authors of Measure D at the time, I also felt that Measure D needed to require some type of compensation for property owners.

If we were going to put the that type of restriction on property owners out in the tri-valley in terms of how they could utilize their property, uh but the authors of Measure D didn't want to put in there a compensatory um uh requirement.

So, you know, we all went around all went along with Measure D and it passed.

Now, fast forward getting getting promoted to the Board of Supervisors, I became much more enlightened around how Measure D has impacted um the farming and ranching community in the Tri-Valley area.

And obviously, if we had put in there the compensation, then that would have solved it, but compensation wasn't put in there.

So um, you know, I think the issue before us today, I think is appropriate to want to do this, and I really have a lot of um sympathy and empathy for the beam elders and others who are similarly situated.

But I think as you said, I think we're and as council pointed out, and I think that's what you're saying.

We're probably gonna have to go through a Measure D uh amendment.

And and I think I think maybe what you're saying is let's look at everything in Measure D and determine what needs to be amended and put all of that on the ballot and take care of this once and for all.

Um now I know we can do a surgical amendment to Measure D a technical amendment to Measure D.

Uh, we've never done that, and maybe we if we put that on the ballot, we could get further clarification around that uh specific provision, uh deal with the maps, deal with um resource management so that maybe certain uses can be applied in resource management because I think some of the things you're saying and others I've heard in the past to me make a lot of sense.

Now, I think the voters of this county would not want to throw Measure D out totally.

So it's sort of like we don't want to go to one, you know, to the other extreme.

Um, you know, I'm more of a practical sort of person.

I know you are too.

You know, let's see what's practical as opposed to being on either extreme.

So I don't think the voters want to throw out measure D totally, because I do think we want to preserve open space, uh, enhance agriculture and prevent um uh urban sprawl uh as best as is possible.

But I do know under these same constraints, we we're facing a housing crisis and and I don't think the voters are going to want to throw out measure D and say let's go willy-nilly and have development out in the tribe valley everywhere and anywhere.

I don't think they're gonna want to do that.

So I think if we want to have some work sessions on measure D and figure out what might be appropriate areas to do amendments, I think that's you know, I'm I'm up for that.

I think I think we should do that and hopefully put this to rest once and for all, get a ballot measure out there that looks at those amendments and hopefully have consensus among all the stakeholders about those amendments because I do think if we move ahead with this, um, we'll be challenged in court.

I think we'll lose, quite frankly.

Um, and I think the more prudent approach would be to do what you've suggested.

You mentioned the technical amendment to just to clarify, is is a technical amendment something that would still need to be approved by the voters, or what is a technical amendment?

And what would be an example of a technical amendment that would allow for this?

I I asked that and I also want to follow up because we had a solar project and the cemetery.

Were those both LPA, or was any of those RM?

I thought some of it was some of the solar projects I thought was RM.

No, the Aramis Solar Project uh did have RM, but they did avoid that as part of their application.

They did what?

Avoid that.

They avoided that part of the parcel that was RM.

Oh, they didn't remove they removed it from the project.

So it's a pretty much all LPA the cemetery.

You know, I I can't remember right now, I have to look it up.

That was LPA, yeah.

Yeah.

So what's a technical amendment?

How can we do that?

So Supervisor, section 23 of the original Measure D ordinance.

I'm not sure of the section that's uh in ECAP, allows your board to make technical or non-substantive modifications to the term of measure D.

It states that the that can be done for purposes of reorganization, clarification, or formal consistency within a plan.

Any modifications must be consistent with the purposes and substantive contents of this ordinance that is measure D.

Um we have looked historically at a number of proposals that were asked.

Is this or is this not a technical amendment?

Um previous boards were asked to vote on the issue as to whether or not those changes were or were not.

Um I think the the ultimate uh vote was a tie, and the decision was not to move forward with it because there were concerns about is that a technical non-substantive change.

They there were insufficient votes to move forward with that.

It was before my time, but that's what I have been told of the historic nature of it.

Uh someone declined to vote, and so it was two to two, and that's where it's at.

Um, so that is the language of measure D.

Um, I would hesitate to give a uh hypothetical statement about what is or is not technical or non-substantive.

Okay.

I mean, I might argue that a land swap or acreage, acre per acre of a map might be a technical member, but it sounds like we'll be fighting that out in court.

Um, but we're gonna talk about this again in the fifth item that is for us today, because uh we'll talk about it then.

I will say, Supervisor, that um the staff has been analyzing the map.

We've had other conversations about how measure D might be uh modified, of course, through ballot measure, at least updated, and so uh staff has been uh doing some land uh analysis because there's quality of land, so it's not just a straight swap.

So I think we'll have to have that conversation.

I think there's also been discussion on um at least one of the committees that I sit on around um being able to just do a biological survey of the land, find out where true resource management exists, and that may inform uh our map because that wasn't done by the measurements, first of all.

I think the speakers were coming.

This is the battery energy storage system regulations.

The ordinance that was provided to the staff to take a look at is something that we have been considering or something similar for quite a number of years.

As you know, back in 2021, the county, the board, the full board, they did adopt policies that were supportive of both battery storage as well as solar projects.

Um as you know, we did get a legal challenge on that, and the county prevailed in terms of allowing those two land use types.

Can we take a five minute break?

Yes.

Recording in progress.

We'll reconvene to open session.

I'll ask the clerk to call the role to establish quorum.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Howard.

Item four is an informational item, discussion of the battery storage.

Apologies for interrupting you earlier, Mr.

Lopez, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

As I was saying, we do have strong interest from the renewable energy sector for battery storage.

There's been no general plan or zoning changes made to provide to provide an approval path for projects.

And to create that permissive pathway for projects.

And it shouldn't just be battery storage, it should be solar as well, just to include all three types that we currently have the most interest in, which is again wind, battery, and solar.

Because we don't have a zoning pathway for battery projects.

Some applicants have opted to go to the state energy commission.

There is a state law which allows them to opt into that process, and that allows the state to approve the project.

Not necessarily for us, but I think in lieu of going to the local jurisdiction, you can go to the state for approval, and there's one project that's currently underway at the state going through that process.

Does that preempt our zoning?

It does, yes.

It doesn't preempt all of our rules and regulations, but it does take away the local land use authority from the county and the state uses their authority to the state CEC cite a solar project in RM land as defined by Measure D.

Well, so they like I said it doesn't negate all of our rules and regulations.

So they will ask us what are your local, it's called laws, I believe, like local ordinances and regulations and standards.

And at that point, we would say, well, we this is the these are the issues that we have with the project, and where they where they meet or don't meet our current regulations.

And so they take that and get it's it's uh you know they they bring out all you know 15 agencies of the of the state, and it's a very rigorous process.

It's not I would say easier or anything like that, but it is an option for developers, and and a couple of them have um or one in particular is already is near the end of that process, and others are considering it as well.

Um but in LPA land, um yes, predominantly yes, currently.

Okay, but um county council, they could if an applicant, and I don't want to distract from the presentation, but if an applicant were to go through the state CEC process for a site that was located in land that was within our mapping designation RM as defined by the voters of Alameda County, could they override that and allow it?

So, I'm sorry, I apologize.

I I don't recall what that bill allowed.

I would have to go back and look at the regulations.

Um Director Lopez is correct they are required to take into consideration all the local land use zoning other requirements.

Um, there's something in the back of my mind, it said that they have the ability to make uh findings of overriding, almost like CEQA consideration, but I would have to confirm that to be certain.

If you could let us know off the side, that would be great.

We'll do so.

Please proceed.

Um, so I I didn't really have much more to say about that, other than we do have interest, and it would be um if the county, if we wanted to support the policies that the board has already adopted, then we should create a local approval path for these projects, and that would include amending our general plan and the zoning code to allow battery storage as well as solar, and that would be the recommendation from staff is that we proceed in that path.

So we have a draft recommended regulation, I guess um acceptable to other counties, similar to one that we're already reviewing, I believe.

Separately, we have an ordinances that we're already reviewing, and so the question that I have is with what was presented to us as a possible draft, again, acceptable to other counties, implemented, complies with state law and all that, when can we have something like this approved?

And we're and juxtapose that with what we're already looking at.

I know that when we cited um Aramis, and that was years ago, um, that we talked about about creating these things.

So when can we just adopt this?

If we don't adopt this directly, can we adopt one that we're already looking at?

And when will that come to us for final approval?

Mm-hmm.

Well, I did take a look at the draft that was provided.

There's definitely some um some regulations and language in there that we can use, uh, but there's some tweaks that we'd have to do to that.

I think it would be also advantageous to to include language in our general plan to allow uh renewable energy projects like this, and so we we probably should do that in tandem, and we need to do a CEQA review as part of that.

So that's also uh another factor to consider is that we would need some um funding, which we do have some funding in our current budget for SQL analysis for this purpose, but we haven't gone out to an RFP or anything like that yet.

Um but we do have we have made stats um in order to be able to adopt something like the what's been provided by uh by the party in terms of this uh draft ordinance.

When you say CEQA, we were required to do CEQA?

In this case, uh this level of a zoning ordinance or general plan amendment would trigger CEQA, yes, because it would end up impacting uh actual physical development.

Do we have to do a general plan amendment?

Or so what if we just took the project that's before us and we want to get that done?

Do we have to do a general plan amendment and a full countywide CEQA to do each and every project that we have?

Well, if we did a zoning ordinance and general plan, I mean that that would provide a lot of coverage in terms of a it would create an approval path.

So someone can come in and get a conditional use permit, go to the East PZA and get their project approved.

Um if we did on a case-by-case basis, I think that would that would complicate things to some degree.

It would be easier for applicants to go through a process that we've already laid out in terms of the approval path.

Um, so my recommendation would be that we do a general plan and zoning ordinance amendment and CEQA that would again create that path for folks to follow.

Um, it just will take, feels like it's gonna take a long time to do something like that.

What I'm getting at is could we allow this one to proceed and do the CEQA and general plan amendment for subsequent projects?

And I don't know how many more subsequent projects we're going to want to have, but they're already been in the queue for a couple years, haven't they?

Uh which project are you referring to?

The one that brought us this.

Oh, well, they've been, they certainly have been asking about it for a couple of years, yes.

Um, I don't know.

Uh and I mean that's that's been the challenge is that we don't have a battery energy storage is not a permitted use or conditioning permitted use in any zoning district, and so uh we we would want to create that to allow them to take advantage of it.

Otherwise, I think we are sort of in sort of no man's land of we don't really have any any ordinance coverage to permit a use like this.

I mean, it's either that or we're gonna steer them towards the CEC process and have nothing to do about it.

So I I guess I would proceed with there anything else?

No, I'd have to mile it.

Let's go to public comment.

I'll have to think about what public comment.

Kelly, yeah.

To you know, they've never been to school for any of this stuff.

They don't know all these things about battery energy storage.

And if you're willing to um to call, you know, event centers and tasting rooms as an accessory use to your uh fields of grapes, then uh obviously uh battery energy storage system is an accessory use to your wind farm or your solar farm.

It even has the word farm in it.

Don't you like that?

I think it's very, very compatible.

And I think that the ECAP includes policies already that allow for solar and wind energy developments, provided the projects do not induce excessive growth or negatively impact agriculture and open space conservation.

And battery energy storage systems are highly compatible with that because they're very dense, very compact.

They don't take up much space, they're very expensive, and then you put a lot of money into a very small area.

Um the um the eCAP supports newer expanded energy infrastructure infrastructure if it is appropriately located to balance renewable energy needs with environmental protection and environmental preservation.

The CEC has been uh right very active right here in in Alameda County, right here in Hayward.

I was the only one.

Our group, Mission Peak Conservancy was the only group to comment on that data center in Hayward that's going to be about what 80 megawatts of uh and it went through the CEC process, didn't go through a California Environmental Quality Act review.

Didn't this the city didn't the city gave it to the CEC?

CEC approved the environmental that's how it works, and you uh it it it and ECAP is not a problem for battery energy storage systems.

This this uh, you know, all uh um ease, this not justified.

We have no more speakers for this item.

I might have to think I tend to agree with Mr.

Abreu.

Maybe there's nothing to worry about.

The date is December 1st.

We should know that.

Supervisor Miley questions, comments.

All right, um, for whatever direction we can provide, it will be that we expeditiously work on projects that are before us, give them a heads up, either go to the CEC, because that's what you need to do because it's quick, or we're gonna find a way to get you through the our process quicker, it's a competition, it's either gonna go to them or us, and we should be telling, telling them.

With regard to the idea of performing CEQA, general plan amendment.

I would like a very time-bound project plan.

So tell me how long that's going to take.

Tell the applicant how long that's going to take, let them decide if the CEC process is better for them or not.

I hope it's not.

I'm willing, it's your discretion.

I'm willing to say process this and separately go through a longer process based on time for future, but um, otherwise adopt the strategy Mr.

Brew mentioned, which is it's not incompatible with ECAP, so let's do it.

But um, because that project is also in LCAP, uh LPA, not RM, right?

Project before, so we sort of know that it's allowable.

We went through Aramis, right?

That's pretty similar, right?

So Aramis is um factually different in that it was a um not an independent battery energy storage facility.

It had an element of an accessory use of battery storage that was in small scale and is a true accessory use, would be uh to the larger solar farm.

Well, I think this battery storage is accessory to an existing, oh, that's just to the grid.

So they're not they're not putting any solar in on that, it's just a storage.

They are next to an existing substation, and so they they do take advantage of that, but it is a standalone battery storage.

No solar, as far as I know.

Okay, so is that so much of a difference that we can't say that storage separate on its own?

It is one of the reasons why our office and staff are recommending that we go through the process of uh both a general plan, CEQA, zoning ordinance uh approach to make sure that everything is is addressed appropriately.

We'll have a very frank discussion with the applicant then, go to the state.

If if it's gonna be better for them than what we can provide, but we should be providing them eyes wide open, what it's gonna take for us and by when.

And I hope that we can compete and get it done through us.

But I'll let you guys figure that out.

We'll move to the last item, an informational item, a discussion of the Valasetus land mapping of a nuclear power plant site within RM.

Land designation.

What we can do about it.

So I so I was not going to cover anything that has to do with nuclear energy in this in this part of it.

I mean this is um it is on the it is on the um on the agenda is that but it's uh we're not gonna be talking about that.

Um my understanding is that there is the GE, some sort of partnership, I believe has sold the site to another entity.

Um the owner of record, as far as we know, uh based on county records is GE Vernova, they're a limited liability corp.

And they own six parcels out there.

Um there uh they're shown on the map on the display, and the um I could just uh, oops.

Wait, let's take a look at that.

So that's the map, but that's not a satellite view, that's a map.

But you can go to Google satellite.

I'm not sure what just happened with the screen.

Did I break something, Tisa?

Yeah, I'm not sure why it's doing that.

But um, yeah, there's six parcels as you can see right dead center in the in the graphic, that triangular shape parcel is the one that is currently uh where the the GE site um the development, the project, I would just call a project is located.

Uh as you can see, it takes up um sort of the middle of the site, and uh we did visit that area just a couple of months ago.

Um, and so the areas that you can you can kind of see the roads and buildings, and I think there's a pond that they use for for some of their processes or used to use for some of their processes.

Um it's it's quite spread out.

Um most of the site I would say is or most of the development is is closer to um the southern portion of the site.

Uh the next slide is gonna demonstrate show you the um the zoning.

Um this is what I believe is the historic zoning on the parcel on the parcels.

Uh the triangular shape parcel is M2.

That's heavy industrial, and that covers the entire entire project parcel.

All the other parcels are zoned agriculture, which is the A zoning, that sort of light green um color.

And um the next slide shows the general plan designation, which is this is again out of ECAP, and um as you can see here, the industrial is a uh a much smaller part of the parcel.

Um, and I think that they looks like when these maps were made, kind of going back to the discussion we were having about how these maps are made, that they missed a good chunk of the part of the project.

Um clearly it there's parts that are industrial that are outside this area that um that's that little gray kind of circular shape part within the triangle, um, and then the remainder of the project area is mostly resource management and uh there's a little bit of large parcel ag which is at the sort of the northern portions of the of the project site.

I think I had one more slide on this.

Um, actually, don't um so the the I think the issue here really is that there's discussion about um, you know, can you change the general plan to to be more consistent with the zoning?

I do believe that there's an argument could be made that you know that this could be a a correction uh to the existing map.

Um going back to the zoning again.

I I think it's clear that the uh you know the zoning was intended to incorp incorporate the entire site, um and so there's a discrepancy between the two, and and it you know, we try to create consistency when we can um in this kinds of instances I'm not sure why this is not working correctly oh there it is so yeah so um that does seem to be me to be a um uh a reasonable request um on the other parcels however I think that those are solidly not industrial or they have they're both either in zoning or their LPA or RM in the general plan so I don't I don't think that you can necessarily use that same argument to create those uh to change the designation on those so this would be um again the the planning perspective I think that you know this could be considered to be a correction um to to ecap and um just based on the lay of the land what's out there and the historic use of the site and what the zoning shows and so that's the end of the presentation so maybe I don't know how to read maps but um so we saw a map of what the zoning is and maybe we need a map maybe there was a map there should have been a map there that showed this area this triangle this square this rectangle is what needs to be changed from resource management to heavy industrial or whatever and it's not that big triangle because we just heard that most of that big triangle is heavy industrial so the rumor that we just heard about how it's all resource management and we put a nuclear plant on a new resource management that's mostly untrue then mostly untrue this is a false rumor that's being spread by the Measure D opponents who like to laugh at it and talk about oh look they put a nuclear plant on the on on the resource management resource management has no meaning resource management is a joke that's not not a not a correct statement um then did anybody hear about hunters point anybody here where what kind of people live next door to that or who was living there who's working there they had what plutonium particles in the atmosphere hunters point in San Francisco and there were not those people were not the the uh you know the the privileged people of San Francisco that was not in Pacific Heights that was in Hunters Point and where'd they off haul all that material um you know uh it went to uh where um Morgan Hill Pittsburgh Brisbane and Vacaville and I wonder if any came to Alameda County I just wonder you know if we're gonna be going back and digging up the the the ghosts of the past the the the the bones of the past let's look for the nuclear particles in the in the landfills that came out of um Hunters Point was any of it like undocumented like shipped and like dumped in there's a lot of landfilling going on in Alameda County any little nuclear plutonium particles in there just a question just asking.

We have no additional speakers for this item Albert could you put the maps back up I just want to clarify one thing the measure D map of what was approved by the voters that slide because I think what you put up was an ECAP slide.

Measure D is the ECAP preceded measure D and then went through measure D and measure D overlaid.

Okay so if you yeah let's make that slide yes should be there it goes?

So when voters of measure D voted on maps, this is what they voted on and included an industrial's uh designation in the gray, and it included green, the rest of it green is RM.

Uh that's correct.

And that gray industrial, because we went out there and looked at it, that gray industrial doesn't include all of the site facility.

That's my understanding, yes.

Yeah, so part of it was captured, part of it was not.

Correct.

And it's somebody recognized that it was there.

They just somehow put it on portion of the nuclear site, not all of them.

Okay, just to clarify, thank you.

Miley surprises Miley, any questions or comments?

Well, my only comment is that um this is all very fascinating.

Okay, so the the staff is recommending or proposing that perhaps we could.

The next slide talks about the whole thing, the whole parcel, the next that one.

Now you're saying that that can be considered a map change.

We have we have corrected other mistakes or things that we inadvertently remapped or inappropriately mapped before as a technical amendment, like downtown Sanoa, for example.

We we uh I think at one point that was all RM or ag or something, and we changed that so um it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Um, but you know that that would I don't think it's an unreasonable request.

Is that a motion?

If I so can we bring that before us to make a an action item around that so that that's a um a general plan amendment um would have to go to the planning commission for recommendation to the board.

Um Rocho in this case would probably, well, there's no Mac out there.

I don't know if Ag Advisory wants to look at this.

Sonol advisory may want to look at it.

Um it is, I think it does fall within their jurisdiction, so there would be some Rocho umol and then planning and then back to us.

Oh, okay.

Supervisor Miley, are you okay with that?

Yeah, yes, I'm I'm fine with that.

County council, you agree with that?

I think I'll reserve our uh opinion for private setting.

What's that?

I think we will reserve our opinion until we have further uh ability to confer with staff about it.

We're in our town hall type discussions and or our discussions, we'll talk about this.

Okay, thank you.

Clear clarity, we're good.

Yeah, well, my comment is uh I just want to say district one has a lot of fascinating stuff going on.

A lot of territory out there, a lot of territory, a lot of fascinating stuff.

With that said, I believe we have exhausted, except for the last item, public comment on items not on the agenda.

Could we please have public comment on items not on the Kelly?

Well, so many commissions here.

We have the planning commission, we have the board of supervisors, and both made an incredible error.

One was you looked at a road and out there in uh next to Fremont, and you said, Oh, this county road, let's just give it away.

This is public right, let's give it away, give it away because it's got sharp drop-offs, you know, and eroded shoulders.

And you then it turned out that your public works director lied to you.

There were no eroded shoulders.

The road had been regraded, all the shoulders had been filled in, everything was perfect the day before it came to your board, and then your planning commission and your board looked at a map and said, Let's give away this public right of way because it's we have the jurisdiction to do that.

Well, you did, but then you drew the lines such that you actually gave away more than your jurisdiction.

What happened then?

What would happen would be you'd have a notice of order to a bait or something from where?

From the city of Fremont.

And how did that happen?

On KPIX on live TV.

They saw a uh close-up of the city code enforcement officer putting posting the notice of order to abate on the barrier, the obstacle, the fence that you had authorized to obstruct the city's public right-of-way that had been there since the day the city was founded in 1956.

You thought that you could just block off the city public right-of-way because in exchange for what?

Uh a a large uh $10,000 campaign contribution?

Or maybe it was actually two of them because one of them went to Supervisor Haggerty back a long time ago, back before this uh some people were elected here.

Yeah, but anyway, just a little reminder: be careful of those maps.

Don't screw them up again.

We have no more speakers for public comment.

With that said, we are adjourned.