Good afternoon, everyone.

It's a little after four.

I'm gonna call the February 9th meeting, February 10th meeting of the special meeting of the planning committee to order and ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Supervisor Tam present Supervisor Marquez present supervisor for Nadu Bas excused supervisor milley excused present Halbert.

We have a quorum present.

I know note that we have a quorum and I note that my colleagues will be here shortly.

With that said, I would like everyone to rise if they can and join me in the pledge of allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag.

To the Republic, which stands on each under the individual team, just for thank you very much.

The first item that I see here is to approve the minutes of our planning meeting that we had on January the 8th.

Mr.

Chair, I will move approval of the January 8th, 2026 minutes.

Second motion's been made by Supervisor TAM to approve the minutes of January 8th, second by Supervisor Marquez.

I'll ask if there's any public comment on the item.

There are no public comments.

See none, I'll ask for roll call vote.

Aye.

Supervisor Marquez, aye.

Supervisor.

Mildly excused.

Supervisor for another bias.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

That motion passes.

Our next item is to adjourn recess rather into closed session.

We're going to conference with our legal counsel on an item of potential litigation.

When that is finished, we will come back and uh call our meeting back to order and take up the consent calendar and the regular calendar.

I'm going to ask that we adjust slightly and hear item five first on the regular calendar.

Switch that with item four.

Seeing no objection, that's what we'll plan to do.

For now, we're going to recess into closed session.

We're in recess.

Supervisor Marquez.

Excused.

Supervisor Tam, present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fornado Bass.

Present.

Present Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Our next item.

Well, first of all, County Council, do we have any reportable action out of closed session?

Uh no, President Halbert.

There was no reportable action taken in closed session.

Thank you very much.

Our next item is item three, the consent calendar.

Is there a motion to approve?

Mr.

Chair, I'll move the consent calendar.

Consent calendar item three has been moved by Supervisor TAM, seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Can you just repeat with that?

Consent calendar.

Moved and seconded for the consent calendar item three.

Okay.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tan.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor for Nadu Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

That item passes.

Thank you very much.

Our next item we're moving to item five.

Public hearing and appeal by appellate zone seven water agency of Alameda County.

Is there a brief staff report?

Paul Bero's Alameda County Planning Department.

I believe we have a PowerPoint slide show to share.

To clarify for everyone, this is a de novo hearing.

Our board is acting in that capacity.

Correct?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, this is case number PLN 2022-00193.

Appeal of the Arroyal Lago project approval.

The property owner and applicant are present.

The locations at 3030 Moore Avenue adjacent to the City of Pleasanton boundary.

There are three parcels in the East County Area Plan or ECAP designated the primary parcel as a medium density residential and the other two large parcel agriculture and the third water management.

All three zoned A agricultural.

In terms of CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, an EIR environmental impact report was prepared for this project.

In terms of the sixth cycle housing element, the project's 190 residential units have been included in the sixth cycle housing element above moderate inventory.

Next slide, please.

Results of the January 5th, 2026 Planning Commission public hearing.

The commission approved the project 6 to 1, and this included a tentative track map subdivision, TR8423, SQL findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, the final environmental impact report, final EIR, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program MMRP, incorporated into conditions of approval.

Here is an overview.

In addition to the preceding brief introduction, we'll discuss the housing accountability act, HAA, and reiterate staff's recommendation or present staff's recommendation.

And then we will be joined by the by staff's environmental consultant to present a project overview, environmental analysis and findings, response to the appeal, City of Pleasanton milestones, reiterate recommendations, and then we'll have time to hear from the appellant, Zone 7 Water Agency.

Next slide, please.

Okay, Housing Accountability Act, HAA.

The project is protected by the HAA.

Under the HAA, local agencies cannot disapprove housing projects unless they make the following finding that based on a preponderance of the evidence, the project will have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety.

There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.

Specific adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete, which in this case was in early 2023.

I've got a typo there.

Apologies for that.

Note this is a very high burden of proof, and the California legislature declared this finding should arise infrequently.

Generalized speculative or speculative environmental or safety concerns are not sufficient.

Next slide, please.

As explained in this slide, under the HAA, there is an incredibly high evidentiary standard that must be met to deny the project.

Next slide, please.

So in conclusion, planning staff recommendations.

Planning staff recommends that the board of supervisors deny the appeal, certify the EIR, and approve the vesting tentative track map, thereby upholding the PC's decision.

Planning staff has demonstrated that based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, the planning commission conducted a thorough review and decision-making process in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations, and that their decisions should be upheld.

The project is consistent with the ECAP East County area plan and the county's sixth cycle housing element, adding 190 units.

Planning staff anticipates the project to be annexed to and developed within the city of Pleasanton utilizing city services.

The city has commenced the formal process to proceed with project approval, including annexation, and has reached multiple significant milestones.

Today is the fifth hearing of the five hearing limit for the project imposed by the housing accountability act, HAA.

Decision must be made at this public hearing regarding the project.

And now we'd like to hear from our staff environmental consultant Rachel Krusinowski.

Please.

Thank you.

Okay.

Wonderful.

Yes, I'm Rachel Krusinowski.

I'm representing the county here as the environmental consultant team on this project.

So you can go to the next slide.

So I'm just going to briefly review the project and then follow through with the environmental findings and the response to the appeal.

So as you can see here, we have some kind of illustrative renderings of the project itself.

You can see both two-story and single-story homes.

Next slide.

To the left, you'll have a map of kind of the trail connections that will be made in and around the area.

And as you can see, the yellow highlight is surrounding the eastern boundary of the residential component of the project.

And to the right, you'll see kind of an inset of the primary park that is proposed as part of the development.

Can I go to the next slide?

So as we've uh already discussed, this is a 26.6 acre site located in an incorporated Alameda County.

It would include the development of 190 residential lots in ranging from 3500 square feet to 8,292 square feet.

These are single family homes, 48 of which will be deed-restricted accessory dwelling units.

We also have 21 common area and open space and park parcels and seven internal streets to provide internal circulation.

The next slide.

So we have some project specific conditions of approval that have come out of the environmental review process and planning commission.

Conditions 46 through 50, those are from ACDEH, which are related to soil on the site.

It basically requires reporting to the county.

Basically, it requires to notify residents that the Pleasanton Garbage is operating.

It's a non-SQL issue, but the applicant made that voluntary condition.

66 requires the coordination should the roadway improvements included in a nearby project, the villages of the quarry project in Pleasanton do not happen to ensure those roadway improvements still occur.

67, that's a response to neighbors' concerns of privacy on the western boundary of the project.

So the applicant voluntarily reduced the um stories on that wall from two stories to a single story to address that concern.

We have several conditions that were provided in the final EIR, which kind of go above and beyond the existing regulatory requirements to report results of the wastewater treatment plant to these agencies here.

And then finally, we have 71, which is the relocation of the agricultural spray fields in response to Zone 7's concerns of flooding, and they're west of El Charo.

So you can see on the right hand, those are the single story elevations and the new location of the agricultural spray field as a result of 71.

So this just illustrates kind of a history of trying to meet the needs of the different stakeholders of the project and the conditions that have come of that.

An important topic today, the project will require off-site utility improvements in order to meet the needs of the project because it is an unincorporated Alameda County.

It can't connect to the nearby surfaces of the city of Pleasanton.

And so proposed as part of the project is a wastewater treatment plan, a water booster pump facility, a recycled water facility, and then once the water is treated, it will be sprayed on an agricultural spray field, which is illustrated there.

This is just a helpful rendering of that wastewater treatment plant.

It's a completely enclosed building.

And you can see what that would look like from the outside.

So to quickly review what the EIR found, all topical areas analyzed in the EIR were less than significant with mitigation incorporated, with the exception of transportation and greenhouse gas emissions.

For transportation, there was a VMT significant impact that could not be reduced through any BMT reducing measures.

The other is a queuing conflict, so queuing of the cars, which could be addressed with retiming of city signals, but because the county does not have the authority to re-time the city signals, that's remains significant and unavoidable.

However, notably, should the project be annexed, that impact could be addressed.

And then greenhouse gas emissions was found significant because the VMT was significant.

So here's just a quick review of the basis of appeal.

So it was appealed by Zone 7.

They appealed the certification of the EIR in approval of the vesting tentative track map, although this was a solely CEQA claim on the basis of appeal.

And here are the main points of their letter.

They assert that the EIR did not sufficiently address Zone 7's concerns regarding water quality analysis, specifically risk of upset, contaminants, ongoing maintenance needs, and compliance with the groundwater sustainability plan, and also that it did not adequately evaluate the public health and safety from the wastewater treatment plan.

So, in response to this appeal, the first point is that the appellants' comments are repetitive and don't substantially engage with the county's technical responses.

As we'll see in the following slides, the county has made numerous attempts to coordinate, collaborate, develop mitigation, implement conditions of approval in order to address their concerns to no avail.

Their appeal letter is largely duplicative of another letter they've already submitted before the second planning commission and doesn't raise any new issues that hasn't already been addressed.

And notably, Zone 7 has never provided or requested design revisions, proposed mitigations, and any of their correspondence on the project.

The point of contention here is the water quality and the public health and safety concerns.

So I think it's important to highlight that the MBR wastewater treatment facility, which is the type of wastewater treatment facility, is reliable and tested.

In addition to the numerous safeguards that are included in the design of this wastewater treatment plant, there's also stringent standards from the state and the regional water quality board.

Along with that, the agricultural spray fields operations include a number of safeguards to protect surface water of the nearby chain of lakes.

Our administrative record includes an extensive discussion that the project is consistent with the groundwater sustainability plan.

It doesn't prevent Zone 7 from implementing any of their GSP policies or the saltwater management plan.

And then finally, there has been no substantial evidence that public health and safety concerns are imminent or would occur based on the construction or operation of the wastewater treatment plant.

So I thought it would be helpful to kind of just look at an illustrative walkthrough of all of the coordination that's been done with Zone 7 to date, starting with their NOP comments that were fully addressed in the draft EIR in various sections.

Once that draft EIR was published, they summarized uh we summarized the Zone 7 concerns and was supported the draft EIR with a hydrology analysis, a water supply evaluation, an off site utility flood study, as well as analyzing the annexation to the city alternative as requested.

The county also voluntarily extended the comment period per Zone 7's request and held a voluntary public meeting to address concerns from the public and agencies.

They also did a team meeting with the Zone 7 general manager and senior staff prior to releasing the draft EIR in an effort to further address those concerns before the project was public.

After the draft EIR was released, they submitted a new comment letter with new concerns on the wastewater treatment plants, all waste handling, hydrological connection concerns to the chain of lakes and the risk of upset.

Next slide.

And so the final EIR had public had published detailed written responses to each one of those concerns.

In fact, two master responses fully responded to each of their concerns and were drafted in part to specifically address the wastewater treatment plant, agricultural spray field concerns.

And as a result, the final EIR didn't identify any new or significant impacts, but provided, you know, additional information on the concerns that were raised.

No action was taken at that planning commission and in response, the county's environmental consultant provided detailed technical responses to each of their concerns.

That was quickly followed by another opposition letter right before the next public commission or planning commission hearing in which they addressed again previous concerns that they had.

So again, the county and the applicant and its environmental team directly responded again to these issues from their November 14th letter.

This is when the idea of moving the agricultural spray field west of El Charo came about in order to avoid a potential flood of that area, although I will note that those flood maps are in the process of being updated.

And then as a result of that, from the direction of the planning commission, the condition of approval or number 71 where the spray field was moved, took place.

Then again, the project team met with Zone 7 again to kind of review that relocation.

They verbally confirmed their general agreement with the approach of moving it.

But then shortly before the next planning commission hearing, they submitted another letter that basically acknowledged the relocation, but again, they would not support the project.

So in that final planning commission, Zone 7 did not comment but submitted the appeal letter, which covers the same issues of the November 14th letter and raises no new issues, provides no new further evidence, or proposes new mitigation for consideration.

So I won't go through all of these, but these are the three big areas that were brought up: accident and upset conditions, flooding, and potential contaminants.

And here is a bullet list of all of the design features and regulatory requirements that the certified operator of the wastewater treatment plant must meet in order to operate.

So as you can see here, there is a lot of different requirements that must take place in order to operate, including monitoring, inspections, testing, reporting, there's sprinkler heads will angle in, the spray field will be depressed, there's fail safes for every single feature of this wastewater treatment plant.

And that's not just out of the goodness of their hearts, that's a state and regional requirements.

And then again, the uh spray field has been relocated west of El Charo.

And then this is just one more note I want to make on that public health and safety concern.

The yellow box outlines the affluent that will be generated by the wastewater treatment plant.

And so, as you can see there, the level of treatment that the water will receive from this wastewater treatment plant is one of the is the highest in California.

So it could be used for parks and playgrounds, residential landscaping, golf courses, food crops, and here it will be agronomically, which means just at the rate that the plants and weather requires sprayed across an agricultural field just west of the facilities.

And then another important point is just the fact that the staff anticipates that this project will ultimately be annexed to the city of Pleasanton.

Here you can see the important milestones of that process so far.

The last one here is a January 29th letter is submitted to the county confirming the project's advanced progress in the city and its preferred annexation of the project.

The application for the project within the city is expected to be deemed complete this month.

And the project is anticipated to be approved by the early uh summer here in the city of Pleasanton.

So I want to note these as well.

And so I will turn it back over to staff to highlight the recommendations again.

But should there be any questions, I'm happy to address.

Thank you.

Yeah, do we have a handout?

No, it's a good question.

Which is ridiculous.

Next step is appellant.

And then response to the appellant.

Yes, that is correct.

Is zone seven here?

The appellate is here.

Just to just to finalize basically, we just want to make sure that that we in terms for the record that the staff recommendation is that the board deny the appeal and uh go ahead and uh approve the subdivision, certify the EIR, um, and uh determine that the project is consistent with uh ECAP and the county's six cycle uh housing element uh and make the uh the findings uh that would allow for the EIR to be to be uh uh certified and adopted.

Um so with that staff would turn it over to the appellant.

Okay, appellant has uh 10 minutes and then the applicant five, then we'll go to public comment questions and answers and deliberation.

Zone seven queuing up a presentation, is that right?

Okay, there we go.

Good afternoon, President Hopper Supervisors.

Um, my name is Colleen Winey.

I'm with Zone Seven Water Agency, a senior geologist in the groundwater section.

Um, I appreciate your time hearing.

Okay, so the topics I'd like to cover include zone seven's roles and responsibilities along with some background to give you some context for why we are so concerned, and then the proposed project impacts.

So, starting with zone seven's roles and responsibilities.

The dependent special district of Alameda County.

So we work with water supply, water treatment, we have water facilities engineering and maintenance.

We are the sustainable groundwater uh agency, so we work with groundwater management and flood protection.

We're the water wholesaler for the Tri-Balley with more than a quarter million residents.

So that means that we provide to the retailers who provide to the customers.

We are an owner and operator of two major water treatment plants for surface water.

We have four municipal well fields with treatment facilities, and at two of those, we have PFOS treatment on top of our disinfection.

In 2014, um, we were designated the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for the Livermore Groundwater Basin under California Water Code Sigma.

We have over 20 years of experience with the day-to-day management of Lake Eye and Cope Lake, which are adjacent to the project.

And we are not a land use agency, so we depend on the other agencies in the toerm in the land use.

We're not anti-development, we are not opposed to development.

We get the information from the the retailers on what development's coming so that we can do our water supply planning and provide the water to not just our current residents but the future development and future residents.

So this is an image that should be familiar.

So the outline of Alameda County.

Within that, this is Zone 7's service area.

So we're essentially East County.

Diving a little deeper.

This is the Livermore groundwater basin.

So this is what zone seven is the uh GSA for.

Coming in a little closer, this is the main groundwater basin.

So this is where the municipal supply is.

All of the municipal supply wells are within the main basin.

So in addition to zone seven's wells, the blue ones, California Water Service, City of Pleasanton, and uh SFPUC have wells, and you can see that there's the blue lakes in there.

Those are quarries, so really important part of the county is the gravel quarrying.

In the 80s, the Board of Supervisors determined the for mitigation for removing the aquifer.

The chain of lakes would be um deeded to zone seven to mitigate for the removal of the aquifer, allowing us to recharge the groundwater basin and move water across uh the valley the way that it would have moved when the aquifers were still in place.

So just noting that that's in the center of the groundwater basin.

As our the basin manager, we have a series of wells that we monitor for water levels and water quality across the entire basin.

So this is our most recent published uh groundwater gradient map.

So from this, it's hard to see all the details, but it's showing that the water is moving from east to west, towards the project area, which is here.

So zooming in closer.

These are some of the quarry lakes, Lake Eye, Lake H and Cope Lake.

So currently zone seven owns and operates Lake Eye and Cope Lake.

Lake H is still uh being reclaimed by the former quarry operator and should be deeded over to zone seven.

The interesting thing about the lakes, Lake Eye and Lake H are both groundwater lakes.

So the water that is in the lakes is directly groundwater.

Cope Lake was a former silt pond, so that is uh more of a surface water body, it's not directly connected to the groundwater basin.

However, it is connected after 2015 as a drought project.

We've put in a pipeline.

So now Cope Lake water from Cope Lake can be transferred to Lake Eye so that we can recharge the basin and not lose that water.

And then as part of the chain of lakes, Lake H and Lake I are connected.

So all of those lakes are directly connected to the groundwater basin, and in the future may also be used directly as surface water and piped back to our surface water treatment plant.

We also have the Arroyo Mocho over here on the east side, which zone seven uses for groundwater recharge.

We release state water project water into that and allow it to recharge the groundwater basin.

So looking at a cross section of this, this is not to scale and um generalized, but you can see there's over on the left-hand side, there's a representation of the Royo Mocho surface water stream recharge, Lake Eye, which is on top of an aquatard, but you can see that there's thin spots of the aquitard, um, the water in Lake Eye.

I, if we add water to it, there'd be create a head and it could push out into the aquifer to recharge it.

However, the water, if it's just static, is the aquifer.

So that is the groundwater, and it's the same groundwater that we're using for providing water through the wells.

So there's a well here, there's three wells right adjacent to the project, and that goes straight into the transmission system to our retailers.

So looking at the project, this is the previous from the previous version of the EIR, I do have uh the more recent one with the only thing that had changed was moving the spray field, which you saw in the previous presentation.

So it's right adjacent to Lake I.

And while it does look like there is a setback from the water, that is actually a slope.

So it's a very steep slope from the maintenance roadway down to the water.

So these facilities are right adjacent to the recharge lake.

So just for a little perspective to bring this back in.

This is where the houses are proposed to go.

This is recycled water storage, the wastewater treatment plant, I think that was the original option for the bioretention, but now the brioretention's here.

There was the original spray fields, and now the relocation of the spray fields.

So the spray fields were relocated because this isn't a FEMA flood map, this isn't anything like that.

It's based on the LADAR data that Alameda County collects, it's showing where the water level could come up in Cope Lake.

And while right now Zone 7 is not managing the lake to put water into it, um, portions of the Arroyo Mocho that are not owned and operated and maintained by Zone 7 have reached both in 2017 and 2023, allowing water to flood into Cope Lake.

So because the facility the spray fields were within water that could be inundated, it was moved to right adjacent to Lake Eye.

So this shows the top of slope again based on the LIDAR data.

So anything within that outline would drain into the lakes, and anything outside it is outside the lakes.

So you can see that the facilities are right adjacent to the lake.

So again, we're coming back to this cross section, they're right there next to a vulnerable spot in our basin.

In a normal year, we might we do import from state water project.

We get about 80% surface water, 20% groundwater.

But in a drought year, especially a multi-year drought, we can use up to 50% of the water comes from groundwater.

So this is a really important resource that we need to protect.

And I know that there's been a lot of information at previous meetings about the um the reliability of the water treatment plant, but our research does show that there's reports coming out, recent ones saying that there are failure rates for these sorts of things and uh it needs to be properly maintained, and while we've gotten a lot of assurances from the um environmental consultant that it's fine, it'll be fine.

We we still have those concerns of putting something so close to such a valuable resource that if something happened, it would be devastating, and it would impact Zone 7's ability to provide not just to our current residents, but to these residents.

That would be coming in and this development.

So for the takeaways.

Again, we're not a land use agency.

We're depending on the land use agencies to make the right choices.

We're not anti-development.

We're not opposed to this development.

Our concern is for protecting the groundwater basin, protecting the water resources from contamination.

And especially since there is a more suitable suitable alternative approach, which would be annexing to the city and using the municipal infrastructure with the sewer, which would alleviate our concerns on this project.

Thank you very much.

I think the next step is to hear from the applicant.

Five minutes for the applicant.

Then we're going to go to public comment and then bring it back for questions and deliberation.

President Albert, um, and all the supervisors, thank you for allowing us to be here tonight.

Um I can do this fairly quickly.

I do want to let you know that we do have some uh technical resources available to uh Burt Mahalchecks on the line.

If there's any technical questions that come up.

But I can assure you we this facility is not going to contaminate the water.

And by the way, all of this water gets treated before it gets into the drinking water system anyway.

Um so we just we've given all the technical data, it's in the EIR, it's all documented professionally.

We've responded to all their questions.

We don't think that there's any substantive uh questions or concerns that they have that we haven't addressed.

Um I do want to say that you know this is again consistent with the ECAP.

Um so we have a project here that is exactly what the intent is of the site.

It's also uh compliant with the housing element.

Um it will be whether it goes in the city or not, the county will get 190 units, housing element units against uh your requirements uh because the city's already agreed to do that.

Um this is a really high quality project designed by KTGY.

They're an Oakland architect, but nationally acclaimed, so that that's why the residents are pleased with the alterations that we've made the good one single story on the on the uh and produce the units that we have to be run on the property line.

Um we've made significant um project design concessions as we've mentioned with zone seven, neighborhood and PGS.

Um we I do want to note that we are very union friendly company.

We are not the builders of this project, so we will not be building it.

We're just entitling it, we own it.

Um, but we have um other projects in the Bay Area that we do commercially and we use unions all the time for predominantly uh use them, um, and very pleased uh to to work with them.

Um we this is also approved by the uh the county planning commission uh who went through all this excruciating detail and approved it six to one.

Um, we have um project support, you know, to be approved in the city.

Um we're we've gone through three separate actions by the city council so far.

And I'm I say this not because you're approving it tonight to go into the county, but it potentially probably will go into the city, which is then would appease everything.

Then zone seven, it won't be it'll be hooked up to public facilities, um and the city wants it to go into the city.

We support it going into the city, but it does take one more action.

The only way they can get to that one action is if you approve this tonight and that the EIR is adopted with the findings so that then the city could amend that and do an addendum to that EIR and approve it.

And again this is protected uh by the HAA and the state um so if you approve it I do want to make note that um if there were a lawsuit to the county we would be required to defend it.

We indemnify the county um and so we would stand up to that and we would be supported by the state as well with the HAA.

So again we we are here to answer any questions and again we have our technical team here um if you have any questions now I'm here to answer I would say because we had a little bit of a technical discussion with the zone seven presenter if your technical um support is online and would like to address any of the technical comments made previously we can ask him if he has anything to say.

President Albert I also would like the staff EIR consultant to have that same chance to counter or defend any of those comments.

That's kind of what this is time is for so um maybe with that uh we could bring the county consultant up and I'd defer to Rachel also to address if if she has items for Bert and I'll check to address thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you for your time.

So um I think zone seven as they said you know their their goal here is to protect the these water resources.

And so I think you know as much as they have provided their expertise I think the link that we're missing is what the actual concern is we all are aware that it is in close proximity to the chain of lakes and Lake Eye but I think what we are missing is what is the fear right if the fear is that the agricultural spray fields will flood and it will go into Lake Eye or you know Coblake in its previous design well what we shared with you on our previous slides is um that this project will have to be permitted by the state and the region which includes a Title 22 engineering report to that effect that it will be graded to compress into the center that there is autonomous monitoring that will shut off the spray fields with any deviation from normal operation that our recycled water storage, which is lined and right there adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant has capacity for over a hundred and seventy days should there be a larger repair um that there's weather restrictions that you can't spray during rain or wind um and that these facilities are ran by certified state operators they have to be certified by the state to operate and so this is their job to prevent anything from happening and even then while there's no and you know we've never anticipated that there will be a flood in a catastrophic act of God we've shown that the water affluent that is being sprayed into these fields is clean enough to be sprayed by schools and it's clean enough to be sprayed uh into crops fields is just what you'd eat whereas these surface waters there is nothing blocking the surface water from running off right into them so the affluent that's being provided is even safe um if the you know the concern is that the wastewater treatment plant will fail like I said it is monitored 247 there's automatic shutoff it has to be reported on its operations every single month to the state and so I think what we have here in the record is that we understand that there's concern right there's a facility going in it's uncomfortably close for them, but that there isn't really a risk to public health or to safety as a result of these conditions because inherent in the regulations and inherent in the design of these facilities, it protects against anything from going wrong.

So um and I think what was already outlined in this presentation too is just, you know, the the numerous concessions and design changes that have been made in order to appease the surrounding community, the neighbors, the stakeholders.

And so there is a there is a really quality project here that responds to everyone.

And so while, you know, I respect, you know, Zone 7's opinion, their expertise, the information we have is provided by experts and is substantiated with technical analysis.

And to date, we still have not received any issues with our analysis, problems with the data.

Um the studies that they referenced in their presentation are in another state, Tennessee, and it's not the same type of wastewater treatment plant that we're opposing here, and the issues inherent in those operations are not like comparable to what we are proposing.

And then Tennessee does not have those same stringent laws that California has.

And so, you know, again, we see no proposed mitigation, design changes, issue with our data or analysis that has been brought forth to date, only comment being that they would like it to be annexed.

And so, as county, we can't um do that.

So thank you.

And if Bert feels there's another thing he'd like to hit on or you'd like to ask him, please feel free to.

Yeah, if I may, I'd just like to add one thing.

There's a testimony to the uh the success of these MBR facilities.

These are better sewer facilities than we have at DSRSD.

The at Mountain House, which is just right over the hill to the east of us here.

They're using this high technology modern facility.

It's just better affluent, it's higher quality affluent, they run very well and effectively, they're actually less expensive uh to operate.

So we they're true and tried.

This is not new.

Um, and with that, maybe Bert, um, can you hear what we're saying?

Are you able to speak?

Do you have to call it?

We could um have Bert raise his hand.

What I'd like to do, and maybe there aren't any questions, but Bert Mahaltuch's uh an expert on this.

He ran DSRSD uh for over 20 years as the general manager, and he's been our consultant representing us as the applicant and owner.

I open it to you can ask questions that you want, but again, the key is that our affluent here is better than what the current facilities um exist with, and so we think it's true and tried.

We could unmute Mr.

Mahalchik.

And allow him to make any comments he would like to in response to the Zone 7 presentation.

Uh good evening, President Hobart and members of the board.

Can you hear me?

I'm I'm remote from we can hear you.

Very good.

Thank you.

And I apologize for some uh family noise in the background if it comes through.

Um I think Rachel uh did a great job presenting uh the technical elements of the project and Steve backed those up.

I'd like to add just a couple of things, just emphasizing the uh membrane bioreactor technology, the MBR technology.

This is truly state of the art in the wastewater industry today.

And uh as mentioned, City of Mountain House just built a new wastewater facility that uses this.

And uh many new, almost all new wastewater facilities from the ground up in California are going in this direction.

It's a very uh reliable, almost fail-safe technology on its own.

Um I could describe the technology a little bit more, but um suffice it to say uh it is very safe, and I wish I had it when I was at Dublin San Remote Services District.

The other thing I'd like to emphasize is Zone 7's bringing up the um study from the state of Tennessee that studied a lot of failures for rural wastewater facilities uh in my review of that study, the actual source document, those uh facilities were burdened by extremely excessive infiltration and inflow.

In other words, the plant was that that was in question was designed for, you know, let's just call it X or 10 gallons or million gallons, whatever.

And the flow would triple or quadruple to that amount, causing the failure.

It was just overstressed.

We just don't have that information, that situation in an urban situation with very tight new sewers.

And um, you know, it's just it's just an invalid comparison, in my humble opinion.

Um with that, I think this is a very solid project.

Uh, the 178 days of storage that we provide, uh, aligned storage basin, applying water at agronomic rates, all these things are in accordance with state water resources control board regulations, regional board regulations.

Uh, and I would note that neither the state board nor the regional board uh uh provided any negative comments at all on a review of our documents.

Can I be that's all I'd want to say?

I could go on for a while, but I just like to summarize there and ask you if you have any questions of me.

Uh very good.

I note that we have a lot of people online.

I don't know if uh we could ask public speakers in the room to fill out a speaker slip online to raise your hand.

Um, I know that um our next step is to take public comment unless there are any burning questions.

So, public comment in the room first, three and then online next three rotate.

Let's see how many speakers we have.

Two minutes.

Thank you.

Mark Miley and John Dalrymple.

Those are in the room, and then we'll go any online.

Okay, very good.

We'll take those two speakers then, and then we'll bring it back for deliberation.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Mark Wiley with Truebec Construction.

Um, we're a general contractor based here in the Bay Area.

We're a uh union signatory contractor that have had the opportunity to work with Steve and the team for many years.

Um, I'm gonna reiterate just the points that Steve made.

Their organization's a union friendly company.

Um, we've been contracted to perform services for them, uh building in the future buildings of you know, six, seven hundred million dollars.

So they're definitely um friendly to uh unions.

They're a great client of ours.

Um, we've done a tremendous amount of work with them in the past and and look to continue to do uh so in the future, and they have our full support in all of their endeavors.

So thank you.

Good afternoon, uh President Hubbard and the super uh supervisors.

I'm here on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, a coalition of over 2,000 county residents who are members of the construction trade unions with dozens living close to the proposed project for decades.

Uh we have a decades-old history of supporting entitlement of tens of thousands of residential residential uh units in the East Bay projects that we believe encouraged sustainability and equity.

I'm not going to speak to the labor piece.

I'm going to forward to you some media accounts of an action in December in front of a steelway project where the chair of the board, state legislators, mayors, and city council members joined workers uh to speak to uh the low road construction model that was being employed there.

Um, and it got tremendous support.

Um, East Bay residents have participated this project's environmental review uh since the beginning.

Our experts raised concerns about unmetigated public health, air quality, water quality impacts, some of which remain unaddressed.

We're here today to speak in support of uh zone seven's appeal.

Zone seven's appeal raised valid concerns about the county's inadequate environmental review of the project proposed to its treatment plant, storage ponds, stormwater discharge, and placement of recycled water fields near open bodies.

As a local water district, zone seven is an expert on water quality and public health issues.

Just like the county, so zone seven as an obligation to ensure the local public water supply is safe.

The project's potential for water contamination is alarming.

The SEQA process is supposed to ensure that these impacts are fully analyzed and mitigated.

The county has not done that.

We urge you to support the appeal and thank you for listening.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any clarifying questions or comments from uh really questions from my colleagues?

Supervisor Tam.

Points of clarification, questions of staff.

Yeah, yes, please.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Um, I appreciate the presentation.

And I just want to like step back for a second and understand uh the findings that the planning commission made in terms of their statement of overriding consideration that was part of the environmental impact report.

Is it because when I reviewed the parts of the EIR pertaining to the impacts, it seemed like some of the three or four major impacts that were articulated uh earlier, whether it's traffic counting, greenhouse gas emissions, um, and I think there was an issue around uh the potential contaminants, that was um that can all be addressed if there was an annexation, right?

Yes, it could be addressed if there was an annexation.

Um, so that's that's one alternative for the project, however, uh given the fact that um the um the issue with the sewer system um technically has been shown to uh be adequate with uh mitigation measures uh that are imposed in the conditions of approval as well as the voluntary measures of moving in the spring fields, etc.

Um, the county has uh no recourse but to approve the project because there are no um uh overriding uh data sets that that would uh force us to deny the project uh right now what we consider the some of the testimony is is uh speculative and not uh data driven.

So we are not in a position to deny the project and the planning commission's findings were a testament to the to the fact that uh there's a higher standard uh for projects that are HAA projects uh to consider um uh uh potential impacts.

So without those impacts, we we are not in a position to recommend denial the project.

Okay, appreciate that.

Um I didn't review the planning commission submittals, but uh and I saw from the timeline that there's been uh registered uh concerns uh over water quality that was expressed by Zone 7 during um the Planning Commission deliberations.

So just uh as a question for zone seven, since I see one of my former colleagues in the audience, Mr.

Ken Min, uh, when I was working at East Bay Municipal Utility District.

Um you look at groundwater sustainability plans, you uh address the safe yield, you address the degradation and groundwater quality, you look at subsidence and you look at any depletions from surface water, and then clearly when you um when you look at groundwater management plans, you look at the modeling during extreme droughts, during recharge periods, when there's high inflow, uh, did all of that occur with this specific project with these 190 units and their proposals?

So we developed the GSP updates in 2020, 2021.

So that's when we set the sustainable criteria, including the water quality, storage, and the water level.

This project uh came online a few years ago for us to review, and since beginning, we pointed to our GSP and our responsibility to manage the groundwater quality.

But issue here is the project proponents allege that we don't have any substantive data or information.

What we were concerned about is the chance of happening that all the failure.

But Zone 7 representing the aquatic million people has concern about what if scenario, what if this the facility going to be operated by homeowner association or their contractors and when the development is done and sold?

So that is when the probability of having mishap is still there.

And that's number one.

Number two, uh Supervisor TAM, we currently invested in the PFAS streaming over 60 million dollars just to clean up the PFAS concentration.

And wastewater affluence is known for having high concentration of EPAS, PFAS and this affluence.

That cannot be removed by clamination or membrane technology.

We have to go through iron exchange vessel to clean that out.

So we don't want any more additional discharge of PFOS concentrated or chances of PFOS concentrated affluence flowing into our uh, you know, uh groundwater system.

Then lastly, zone seven is currently developing a project to use those lakes as a surface water storage and connecting to South Bay Aqueduct.

That is a hundreds of millions of dollar investment that we're gonna put in in coming years or coming decades.

Should this failure occur in one in 100 chimps, one in 500 chins, those service storage that we're gonna be carrying for our drug supply and much of the supply is going to be tainted or contaminated.

So I think we do have very valid concerns and like Project Pramotas that we just uh have concern about the probability of failure, but we cannot uh quantify it how much or how soon or how often it will be.

I appreciate that explanation.

However, uh when you talk about a one in 500 chance of occurrence when we look at recurrence intervals for even floods and droughts, those uh are also considered in the modeling and those have a higher probability.

But in terms of the PFAS, because we we've talked about um trying to assist in ways to help zone seven uh deal with the PFOS issues because you know, Pleasanton and Livermore, that area the zone seven service area are affected.

But PFOS is already in your water supply.

Do you expect the concentration to be different?

And have you determined that it's gonna be different?

Yeah, we already have PFAS uh issues and we are treating it with investing millions and millions of dollars.

We just don't want another additional source contributing to that existing to aggravate the uh PFOS concentration.

Oh, okay.

I I understand that, but there's no project that will have zero risk.

Correct.

Uh we just come here to uh get your attention on that potential issues.

And again, uh, like uh Colleen when he presented, we are not against the um development itself.

We just don't think that this current MBE uh technology is as good as it is, is feel-safe.

That that is that's a major issue for us is that what if?

What if the probability of failure exists and unlike uh proponent is uh presenting, there's a chance of failure.

And would that happen?

And they're gonna impact our groundwater groundwater resources.

That that is what the point that we are making.

Did you do an SB 221 and 610 uh assessment on adequacy of water supply as a as a water purveyor for this project?

Not for this project.

We do up in planning and we always protect the uh growth like you have done in the spirit.

So this is there's adequacy from zone seven.

Yes, I think we have uh when, for example, this project as is it right now will be supplies by Calwater Service.

So Calwater is our retail customers.

So they came and talked to us.

We can carry that.

We're gonna carry the demand of this additional uh housing units are gonna put in place.

Water supply is not an issue.

The issue here is threat to the water supply.

I understand that.

So that's why I was asking the question earlier on the statement of overriding considerations and in annexations.

If you were annexed into the city of Pleasanton, you'd be tied into their infrastructure, whether it's sewer, whether it's water and other utilities, and that would mitigate and address all these concerns.

Is that correct?

I cannot answer that.

Um if the project hook up to the uh city services, particularly stormwater and the sewers system, both of them, not just the sewer, we also have concern about the stormwater runoff, which has uh contaminants in it.

So if it is hooked up to the city system, actually, we will be supporting that, and we'll be walking with the cities and a developer to make sure if we construct the pipelines and stretch track, we will be supportive of that, and that would remove our concern, although that you know all the pipelines leaks, as you know, but we can live with that.

But only concern about is a failure of that.

Okay, I understand.

So then closing it.

Just to summarize, I think we have a little bit of a chicken and egg thing because this is going into the city, it's just not there yet.

We can't guarantee it's going to the city, in which case everything is done.

But as you mentioned, there's very no project has no risk.

We have a great risk of litigation.

We're gonna get our butts sued over this, and I grant zone seven has the ability to appeal, good on you.

You're looking at your thing very narrowly focused on your responsibility.

We're gonna get sued and we're gonna lose over this, possibly.

And so, if zone seven were in the same shoes as we are, I'm not so sure you would be appealing this on the minuscule chance that this may possibly sometime one in 500 chance have a problem.

I respect zone seven, you are our partners, and I don't mean to be too critical, but it feels like this is an appeal that is much ado about nothing, because this is gonna go into the city, and even if it doesn't, it's such a small chance of having a problem, and we're gonna get sued if we don't deny this appeal.

I thank you for being here, but that's my take on what I've heard so far.

And I have a planning commission that is approved this.

I have a staff that is recommending it.

I understand that in order to overturn this approval and grant the appeal, we have to make very specific and certain findings that we can't do, and if we do, we're gonna get sued and have litigation risk, and that risk carries the weight of not only the applicant and their rights, but the state that has granted them this uh HAA thing.

So while the city of Pleasanton isn't here, and I guess they have their own concerns for when they want to annex this, and that'll be coming down the road, and it absolutely is a risk, but it's a risk that it seems we ought to take.

I thank you.

Any other questions, Supervisor Miley?

Then I'll go to Supervisor Marquez and then for Tonata Bass.

Okay.

I guess a few questions.

So um, what what's the superior alternative?

The environmentally superior alternative is for annexation into the city of Pleasanton.

So why are we supporting?

I mean, zone seven, is it they feel annexation into the city of Pleasanton would be appropriate.

City of Pleasanton is working around supporting annexation.

So why are we supporting the superior alternative?

So we have an application in front of us that was that was submitted to us to review.

And so while there is an environmentally superior alternative, the fact that that the um potential impacts most can be mitigated.

And the rest, there are overriding considerations, including um uh again, potential for arena numbers to still count in the county.

Um there is there is no um uh identifiable um impact that would lead us to make a recommendation for for denial of this project.

We've got um, we've got to respond to the application that was submitted to us for a subdivision, and having gone through the environmental impact um uh analysis, uh the conclusion is that the the potential impacts um do not rise to to the level where the HAA sets such a high bar that we would have to make a recommendation for denial.

So um I'm also interested in understanding uh Pleasanton Garbage.

How close are they to the project?

Uh there across the street and to the east.

So how close?

Is that 100 yards, 200 yards?

Uh is there I mean, are there issues of noise and odor and other I know the you know the consultant spoke about the condition, you know.

I've been around long enough to know the conditions sometimes aren't adhered to.

Um I've seen that on various projects, and just because the conditions there doesn't mean it's going to be adhered to, and I've also seen where you put projects, a residential project near a um uh a um say a manufacturing or a uh an area that is incompatible with residential, it doesn't matter what the conditions are, people complain, and there's um controversy associated with that uh down the road.

So even though it might be in the C C and Rs and this and the other, I need to understand how close is Pleasant and Garbage to this residential project, and then what's the issues around odor and noise and other things that would come from pleasant and garbage and the residents who are going to be occupying um this development.

And that to me, in addition, and I want to go back to zone seven in a minute, but to me, that's an issue.

Yes, so I'll defer the details to to our environmental consultant.

The distance is about 300 feet um uh from the nearest point of the the uh proposed development.

City of Pleasanton itself is actually proposing some residential development adjacent to on the same side of the street uh of El Charo Road uh as the Pleasanton Garbage Service, but for details on the odors, etc.

I'll defer to uh to Rachel.

Yeah, so to provide some background, we had received um the comment letter from PGS with concern that because the residential unit or development will be so close to Pleasanton Garbage Service that there will be complaints or concerns about PGS operating for sequa, we are trying to look at the project's impact to the environment.

So the environmental document found that the noise and odor and air quality from the project wouldn't affect Pleasanton garbage, but what Pleasanton Garbage was asking for is something that we call sequa in reverse, where you analyze like the surrounding area on the project.

So that's outside the scope of the EIR.

So what they wanted is for a notice to be provided to residents that, you know, they have the right to operate when you're buying this house.

Know that this is right here, it will be operating during these hours.

And the uh applicant for this project included that condition that that will be shared with future buyers.

I will add that there are in the record some analysis uh narrative responses to Pleasanton Garbage Service.

And one of the big things is the operation of the garbage service, only really overlaps like one hour with its traffic with the peak traffic from the project.

So the condition is similar as Rodrigo said to other projects in the area requiring that future buyers be just be notified that they have the right to operate.

That zone, what is the zoning for garbage?

It's in the city of Pleasanton, but it is uh industrial.

Industrial, and this is zoned, this project's own.

It's it's uh general plan designation is residential.

To me, it just doesn't compute.

Uh, because I don't know if I would want to, I mean, in good conscience, um supported development that close to an industrial use.

It just to me, it seems it it just common sense just doesn't make, you know, it just didn't resonate with me in terms of common sense between the noise, the odors, um, even if the operation is contained and even if the you know the the buyers are made aware, I've seen it where buyers once they get in and houses turn over and this that and the other, there becomes a lot of controversy, like moving next to an airport, isn't it?

Yeah, right.

Or building a stadium, you know, in a port area and putting residential residential there.

So I'm just trying to understand how do we reconcile that.

Well, I mean, the lead and the approach that the city and the county has taken is that what you can do within the scope of the EIR is include those conditions to notify and confirm that the project wouldn't impact the operation.

If it helps at all, PGS hasn't, you know, provided other concerns after that condition has been implemented.

So it would appear that they are on board with that condition and feel it's adequate to meet their concerns.

Um, but like I said, I can only really speak to the scope of sequa and we're squared there.

Yeah.

Right.

So um, I know this is now a zone seven.

This is a question for zone seven.

So in the zone seven presentation, there was a slide where you mentioned your statutory responsibility.

Uh she was she made the presentation on.

Yeah, you were talking about in the slide presentation, zone seven statutory responsibility.

You remember that that slide and that one bullet for the um under Sigma that were the groundwater sustainability agency.

I and that might be it.

If we have to put it up again, we we can't.

I'm trying to understand what is the authority of zone seven.

You are a special district, you are a governmental body, so statutorily.

I know you're not land use, but I don't understand what um why zone seven doesn't have more of a say in this matter, right?

Yeah, we are the the groundwater sustainability agency.

We were designated by the state to do that.

So under that, we're required to protect the water quality within the groundwater basin.

So um the groundwater quality, but also in this case, the you know, the surface water that's connected to the groundwater quality and anything that could potentially impact it.

Okay.

So based on what we've received from zone seven, um, it's your concern that this project would affect, could affect.

It's not going to say it will, but it could.

So why don't you have authority to, you know, to impose your will.

I'm trying to understand this.

Yeah, and and I think that at this point, we this is a new thing that's never, we haven't had something like this come up before.

We have um, you know, we are a permitting agency for like well permits.

So we would, so we would require and and use the state um code to be able to let somebody put a well in next to something like this, or if there was a well, there's a setback for like a septic tank, but we haven't had an application for um a water treatment plant come before and spray fields and that sort of thing.

Right.

So this is this is new.

Um are there any now this water treatment plan?

It will be privately operated.

It's and I think all the other plants out in the area are operated by governmental entities, to my stars to use the city of Livermore.

So excuse me, go ahead.

Uh Dublin San services district and the city of Livermore.

Operate all the others.

Um so I don't understand how a private entity can supersede a government authority providing wastewater, um, sewage treatment and all the other things that go along with it because a private entity, I mean, could I mean could go bankrupt?

Let's put it that way.

And then what?

Yeah, no, that's some of our concern.

Okay, because to me, the there's some incompatibility here that just doesn't compute in my mind.

Okay.

Um I think that's it for the moment.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Supervisor Marquez and Supervisor Force and Audibass, if you have any questions.

Uh thank you so much, everyone, for your patience and for being here.

Um, just wanted to get clarity from staff with respect to the waste treatment facility.

Who determines the size, the scope, if you could just elaborate on how we landed on what's being proposed.

So again, for the details, I deferred to Rachel.

Um, environmental consultant to address a uh generally the question, the the facility has to be licensed and overseen by the state.

So the private uh homeless association pretty much only writes the check, but the regulatory body continues to be the state the same as it is for other publicly run facilities, and for the details I'll defer to to Rachel.

Yeah, so to kind of piggy off what uh Rodrigo is saying, so and this might answer the permitting question.

This facility is modular.

And so when it is designed, it is based on the need of the residential development, and obviously you have to go within a module that is fits within the the requirement.

And so the draft EIR does contain those calculations.

Um so it would be a package plant that you would that is designed customly for the project and would have adequate um water and this design and the engineering around it, that all is approved by the state, uh the state water board.

So that's the permitting agency along with oversight from the regional water quality control board.

Those are the two agencies that are in charge of permitting ensuring the operation is happening with the requirements of the state, other and so that's why I think there's some confusion.

There the the body's permitting, not zone seven.

Um, but they all of the designs and plans have to be approved by the state before it is implemented.

And what is before is specifically to just this development project, should there be future development, what happens in that instance?

It would have to be the if there was future development that tried to use this, there would have to be a new environmental study on some sort of expansion.

But the way it is designed, it is customly designed for this project.

And um, can you remind me again, who would be managing this facility?

So the management would be happening by a certified contract operator.

The state has an approved list of those operators, and so um the HOA of this um this uh residential development would be in charge of obviously collecting the funding to pay that certified operator, but day-to-day maintenance, long-term management, all of that is happening by a state-approved operator.

So help me understand the sequencing of events.

Let's say this is a phased approach in the development, only so many units are built at a time.

Who's it is there any provisions in this application that states HOA leadership or management has to be hired after the first houses?

But I'm just trying to understand like who's actually going to operationalize this.

Yeah, so I can I can defer to um the applicant on the actual process of like the when things will get built, but there is a condition of approval in the in the conditions for this project.

Is that evidence um of that certification?

And the operator has to go to the county, state water board, regional water quality board before any operation of the project.

So anyone living there or using the facilities that certified operator has to be in place.

So there's no provision that the developer has to hire a professional management team serving as a HOA because everyone could decline to take this on.

Like how is it actually going to come into fruition?

How can you compel someone to take on this responsibility?

It's huge.

It is huge, but the project wouldn't operate without it in place.

Does that make sense?

Like if it's not some people would start moving in and it wouldn't be in place.

No one can move in until this is in place.

So should something like that happen in the breakdown of building it?

My understanding is no one's living there and using it until it's certified operators in place.

Okay.

And where is that memorialized again?

It's in our conditions of approval.

I don't have the number right off the top, but I can get it if you need it.

Okay.

And then um, a clarifying question.

Uh with respect to the ADUs, is there any conditional requirement that states um they have to be rented out?

I mean, that's privately owned, right?

There's no provisions, whether or not that can be made available to individuals other than the homeowner of the property.

Is that correct?

We don't have any.

I don't know if this is a question for you or for our staff.

It's probably correct.

There is no requirement currently that the ADUs have to be rented out.

They're owned by the property owners and the property owner can do with the ADU what they wish.

And how many units are scheduled to have an ADU?

48.

48.

Okay, those are all my questions for now.

Thank you.

Supervisor Fort's not at best.

Thank you.

So with the main issue here being water quality and water safety.

Um I just have a couple questions.

Um I certainly appreciate hearing that if the project is annexed by the city of Piedmont, a city of um Pleasanton, that a lot of those issues will be resolved.

I am curious to hear if for some reason the annexation doesn't move forward, are there particular design revisions or mitigations that would ensure water quality?

Um and this is to uh zone seven, as well as anything the developer would want to say.

So, right now the conditions of approval are for the um, like Rachel was talking about for the uh state to oversee the private um uh operation of this sewer system and it but again the state oversees it and uh monitors the the operation, make sure that it it is uh complied with so zone seven.

If you have any other yeah, so um if the if the project's going through the city, they're gonna be using the city sewer.

Right.

Which would go to the, and they're also beginning to be using the city storm drain system, so they wouldn't have the bioretention field that's out in Cope Lake.

Um so that would satisfy us.

And then the water issue.

If it's in the county, it's going through Cow Water.

If it's going through the city, it's going through the city of Pleasanton, and both of them are retailers, so it's gonna be zone seven water.

Okay, I'm just trying to understand if there is an alternative if for some reason the annexation doesn't move forward.

But maybe I'll uh shift gears.

I know that we've got a letter from the city of Pleasanton, and they are supportive of moving the project forward towards annexation.

Um, has there been any um have there been any developments since we got uh the letter data January 29th?

So as of yesterday, they have not yet applied to LAFCO.

So we are waiting for them to apply for annexation uh to LAFCO.

And is the timeline still um the expected approval happening in May or June?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions or comments?

Um, I mean, I think I appreciate my colleagues' comments.

They're the same ones that I uh questions, same ones that I have.

Uh I just go back to the summary that I made before, which is um we have a project, it's been approved by our planning commission.

It feels like any of the concerns that have been raised will be completely absolved if and when annexation happens.

If it doesn't happen, we have the state uh monitored uh treatment facility to uh uh operate and service this project.

I also want to remind us the state has a mandate to provide housing.

We're in a housing shortage, we need housing.

Alameda County has a housing element that requires us to build housing.

I know Supervisor Miley should hear this.

Housing units that exist here don't have to be built in Castro Valley or other parts of unincorporated Alameda County, so um that's a benefit to us.

It's been articulated by our county staff very eloquently.

We don't have stable ground to accept and approve this appeal.

We have significant litigation risk if we do, and so to me, uh I I think that um I'm ready to make a motion that we would approve um denying this appeal, that we would the more correct way.

I make a motion that we would deny this appeal.

Now I still I I also recognize there may still be questions and comments.

I supervisor, I know you were caucusing with our attorney over there.

Do you have this is also your district, and so I want to respect that, but um we've all asked and answered questions.

Did you have any other questions?

So are we ready for a motion then?

I just want to make sure because I will move that we approve brother that we take staff's recommendation, take in the testimony that we've heard, deny this appeal.

That's the motion that's their second.

I'll second the motion to move staff recommendation then.

Just for purposes of clarification, um, the staff recommendation includes the adoption of a resolution denying the appeal, appalling decisions, the planning commission uh to adopt the findings of fact and statement of over and consideration, certifying the EIR, approving the subdivision tentative uh the same tentative track map uh for the subdivision as well.

All of those actions are included in your motion.

And that is why our county council so eloquently states that is indeed the motion and the second.

Is there any more discussion on the item?

We'll ask for roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez, aye.

Supervisor Tanz, aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Stay.

Supervisor Fordin out of Bass.

I'll abstain.

President Halbert.

Aye.

The item passes.

Motion is denied.

Thank you very much.

With that, we'll move to our next item, which is item four, a reasonable accommodation request.

This is new.

Can I get promoted as a panelist?

Is that possible?

What do you need?

I was just setting up the PowerPoint.

Okay.

Okay, thanks.

Okay.

Oh, this is really loud microphone.

Sorry.

Uh, this is a new Zoom uh deal here.

Oh, there we are.

Okay.

Uh so this is a uh reasonable accommodation request that was denied by the plan director.

Uh this is uh located at one six eight one five Los Reyes Avenue in the Ashland.

The owner and appellant is Pei Shao and Pei Xiao.

There's the aerial view of the of the street.

This is a uh, I would say a relatively typical suburban street and located in Ashland and a single family neighborhood.

The uh the background is that we do allow reasonable accommodations, um, and we do get a couple of them per year to allow some sort of variance from the uh zoning code in if there's, for example, a disabled person needs to gain access to their home, or an elderly person needs to uh gain access to the property.

You might uh see these from time to time where somebody puts like a ramp or something in their front yard, which would which would violate zoning, but the reasonable accommodation process is there for those kind of situations.

In this particular case, the the owner applicant requested to provide a paved area for physical therapy and exercises for uh a person who resides at the house.

Um, that reasonable accommodation was denied under the grounds that there's alternative locations on the property, including the rear yard, front yard, and or the interior of the home.

There are some findings that have to go as part of this, which I'll uh there's a slide that covers that in a second.

Um, essentially that the the maximum amount of pavement allowed in the front yard for the zoning code is five hundred and thirty square feet, uh which is fifty percent of the other yard.

Um and the applicant has just gone over that by about 200 square feet, which is more or less the size of a parking space.

Um, and this is a uh drawing that shows that that paved area, that grade area in the front there is the area that they want to pave.

Um there is space in the driveway for parking, um, which is pretty typical in this area, and there is some remaining landscaped area as well.

Um, our neighborhood preservation ordinance uh requires that 50% maximum, and that's been on the books for quite some time.

As I mentioned, there's some findings that um or are grounds to approve or deny a request for a reasonable accommodation.

In this particular case, there was three of those grounds that were not met.

One of them is that there's alternative accommodations.

Uh, one is that there is a potential impact in this case, the um violation or the inconsistency with the neighborhood preservation ordinance by installing additional concrete instead of landscaping, and the fact that this would have an undue hardship on surrounding neighborhoods and that it would impact on street parking and potentially have a blighting effect.

Um, this is a subject property.

Um, before the pavement was installed, as you can see, there is a standard, there is a rolled curb, which means that um accessing parking on any uh any part of the property is possible, which it is an opportunity, but it's also a constraint.

Uh I think there's pros and cons of the rolled curb.

As you can see, there's also um what that power pole is in the front, is more or less the property line, and that there is space in the front there for parking.

Um, this is how it looks today.

Um, that is the area that they wanted to pay for the reasonable accommodation.

It does look like they're for the most part using that as parking.

And um again, this is the property.

Uh, a shot of that, and this is a sample of adjacent properties in the area.

Uh, most of the, I would say predominantly, or the majority of the folks in the neighborhood have the traditional front yard and and they park in the driveway.

Um, and so the uh the concern here is that um we've seen these before in other situations where it's a variance.

I mean, this one is a reasonable accommodation, so it's a little bit different.

There does seem to be some alternatives on the property.

There's a large backyard, there's the existing driveway, there's the interior of the home potentially for any kind of physical therapy or exercises, and then I think in the end it does.

I think some of the the pictures that we've seen um that it does seem to be mostly a desire to have more parking, and um, which is the uh a solid grounds to deny the reasonable request.

So uh with that I'll conclude and answer any questions you may have.

I believe that the applicant is here, um, and your packet also does contain um additional documentation, including some uh doctor notes and such.

So be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Uh thank you for the presentation.

I'll recognize Supervisor Miley first, then Tam and Marquez.

But I I actually have one.

Could you please reiterate the accommodation that is requested?

It was for what again?

Sure.

It's to exceed the amount of payment in the front yard for accommodation of what?

The accommodation uh so to accommodate them to allow them to be able to do physical therapy and exercises, which is needed by one of the occupants of the on that pad.

Yes, on the concrete pad.

And they've actually already done the concreting, yes.

They have okay.

Well, supervisor Miley is this your district?

Yeah, I just had to ask.

It's the Miley District issues, but for planning time, most roads lead to the unincorporated area.

When it comes to the planning, so the um to meet the standard, it would be 50 percent.

Correct, and right now it's at 67 percent.

Uh I believe the number was 78, wasn't it?

Oh 78.

Um, yeah, I mean let me get that number for you.

I don't want to get the wrong one.

Okay.

I don't know.

Yeah, right.

That's what it's like.

Yeah, I thought I saw something different in the um, uh I thought I saw something different in the yeah, well, it's 530 square feet, and they're allowed 700, and they want to do 710.

So, yeah, the percentage is right.

I was focused on the actual.

So could you put the picture back up of what they've done?

Yes, I can.

I like this, I get to see myself.

Okay.

So to get them into compliance, they would have to reduce it by like 17%.

More or less, yes.

So how many feet or uh they'd have to they'd have to reduce it by about 190 square feet, which is more or less about the size of a parking space.

Size of a parking space.

So basically where the car is parked, they'd have to remove all of that.

Is that I'm just trying to get a sense.

Yeah, just eyeballing it more or less, yes.

More or less.

I think to clarify the amount that was added, the new concrete there, without that.

What would the percentage of paved versus unpaved be?

Uh without that?

Yeah.

Well, they would be they definitely would be below the 50%.

So if they say they were at 50%, then all of that paved would be uh against the code.

If they were at you know 40%, then maybe part of that would be allowable, but the rest wouldn't.

I'm trying to get to Supervisor Miley's point.

What would it look like if they went from where they were all the way up to just 50%?

Yeah, there's another.

Do we even know?

Yeah, there's another uh area that another drawing here that probably shows that better.

So the required front yard is all that combined, and I think that you know the the 25 uh foot area that's paved, which is roughly looks like it's you know roughly you know 25 by 20 or something like that.

Um, you know, I don't have that exact number, but they'd have to be reduced to half of the required front yard, which is pretty much where my where my um uh where the cursor is.

So it's 176 versus 25, they'd have to go half half, so split the difference.

Yes, okay, and that would shave down.

If they did that, they would have to take out some of the concrete that they added to get to 50-50.

Yes, that's correct.

There is still some landscaping there, as you can see in the great green area, but uh okay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Show that picture again.

The one that they've uh the before picture or the after the after with the car or yeah, because there's grass in front of the car.

Yeah.

So I'm thinking if they're if they need to get to 50% to be in compliance, they would just need to remove some of the paved area.

Correct, yeah.

They wouldn't have to remove all of it.

They have to remove it.

Not all of it, but some of it in staff would work with them to come into compliance.

Because I mean, this isn't the first time we've had these type of concerns.

And the reason, you know, it bothers me, is we we have these rules for a reason, because if you don't have rules, then everybody has what they want, and you know, it just looks shoddy in a community, you know, fences are different heights, um, you know, people pave over, they got cars parked in the front yard in the packyard.

I mean it just it's just willy-nilly.

So I I just think this uh property owner, if he or she needs to have some reasonable accommodation, they could still have that, but be in compliance uh in my mind.

So that's what I was trying to get at.

So is there another way to say obviously if it's if it's for an accommodation for exercise, can we say if we do allow this that there can be no parking?

That's what it was meant.

Well, no, I don't I'm not sure that'd be it would we'd be able to enforce that.

Uh I think it'd be an enforcement issue.

Um, this did come through as a it did come through as a complaint, the code enforcement.

Yeah, that's how enforcement often happens is complaint driven, right?

I mean, so one alternative is to say we'll grant the variance, but only if you don't park on it, because that's how you got this accommodation.

That's just thought.

But I otherwise agree, Supervisor Miley.

We have rules for reason.

Supervisor Marquez, then Tam and then Marquez.

Questions, comments?

Uh, just a quick question.

So uh the request is for a reasonable accommodation for what's there right now.

So it's um somebody used the word variant.

So this is not a variance request, it's a reasonable accommodation, which is similar, which you they you want to do something that's contrary to the zoning code because you have a disability or uh a handicap, some sort, or that you need special uh consideration for to reasonably accommodate you to be able to use your property.

So it's a little bit different from a variance, um, although the result might be the same.

But I'm sorry, the reason I'm I'm trying to get that clarity is because the paving already exists.

It's it's not like they're going to build something to um reasonable accommodations.

So you're because of the complaint, we're asking them to tear it out now.

Yeah, so the complaint came in and then the reasonable accommodation request was made.

Okay, thank you.

Supervisor Marquez.

Uh, that was my question, so thank you, Supervisor Cham for asking it.

Um, I just want to have a better understanding.

Um, how do we like monitor this picture?

There's a car park there, like how frequently do we go out?

Do we have any records of um basically the evidence that this is used being used for parking rather than what they're saying the intended uses?

Um and so the if the if the reasonable accommodation was to be denied, uh, or if you would uphold the staff decision, they would have removed a portion of the concrete.

My sense is that they may or may not use that's what's remaining for parking.

Um there is a photograph on Google that shows that before this was paved, they were parking two cars in the front yard on the grass.

So it's an enforcement issue.

I mean, we can continue to monitor it.

Um but a condition of approval says you can't park on it.

I think is probably a little bit of wishful thinking.

So they literally can park on it, and they were parking on it before it was paved.

We have a choice of accepting paved parking or unpaved parking, it seems like it's just a function of of our of our ordinances.

It requires 50% to be landscaped, but it doesn't prevent people parking on their lands.

That is one of the downsides of a rolled curve.

Got it.

Uh Supervisor Marquez uh asked and answered the supervisor Fortnite.

Thank you.

Um, so I note that the appellant has a written statement that the board members got.

I don't know if um this needs to be read into the record or anything like that, but I do have a question about what's in this letter regarding the Fair Housing Act and their request for a reasonable accommodation.

I was wondering if staff could kind of talk through.

Sure.

Well, the reasonable accommodation is is required.

We have to have a process where you could say I need something special, and that's what they're asking.

But the pavement went in, and then the request came in coupled with the documentation about parking.

That was one of the things that led to our decision.

Plus, there's there's probably alternatives.

I mean, that you know, there's a backyard, there's still the driveway, there's in the interior of the home.

Um, we we try to make our decisions based on what we can see and know and what we can enforce.

Thank you.

Supervisor Miley, any other questions before hearing from the app.

Albert is the in front there, is that the sidewalk?

What is yes?

Okay, so that's public property there, okay.

So that couldn't be part of the landscape.

Um that could not okay, that's what I want to make sure of.

Okay, right.

Not unless you wanted to add a bike lane there somewhere, Supervisor Miley.

Do we let's have um the public comment on this item?

Any public comment, including the appellant.

We should probably allow the appellant to the property owners here.

10 minutes to appeal.

If anybody would like to speak and we have your letter, thank you very much.

It's a very well-written letter.

We we have uh uh letter in the packet already, and the letter you just gave us today, but now it's your chance to talk.

Okay, uh good evening.

Uh my name is Pei Yi Shaw, and I'm here regarding the appeal for my property at one six eight one five Los Vegas Avenue.

I respectfully ask the board to reverse the prior decision and approve my reasonable accommodation request under the Fair Housing Act my concern is not just the outcome but the process the county relies on a fixed square footage standard instead of conducting an individualized assessment of my household's actual accessibility needs which is required under the federal fair housing law the request is not about convenience or preference the paved area serves a critical functional purpose is used daily for medically necessary physical therapy and mobility exercise there's no other location on the property that can safely accommodate these activities the accommodation does not impact neighbors public safety or neighborhood character I see um I spoke with my neighbors and they confirmed they have no objection about after understanding the reason it doesn't affect parking it simply allows equal and safe use of my property denying this accommodation creates a barrier that others do not face I respectfully ask the board to reverse the prior decision and ensure the county's action comply with its obligation under the Fair Housing Act.

Thank you.

Any questions of the applicant I guess my questions are there was parking before we have pictures of parking happening now everyone believes this is parking you're telling us now that it is not parking is that true or is it partially parking and then partially for exercising well the paved area has occasionally been used for parking however its primary purpose is to provide a flat accessible and safe survey for physical therapy and wheelchair transfer.

Okay that helps roughly how many hours of the day is it meant for that therapy and how many hours a day is it meant for parking well my household does uh therapies twice a day half an hour per once okay any other questions or comments of the applicant just a quick question um so uh wheelchair access and walker access is the concern um for um for this area is uh yes it's used for wheelchair transfer also but there's stairs going up to the house how is there a ramp that goes up we don't um apply the ramp yes but usually we just like we have a people to assist my hospital to climb the um stair or my husband will carry my my father okay thank you are we ready for a motion or more deliberation I'm just curious if supervisor Jam has a question I was thinking if she if they were to put in a ramp what would that do?

Well we if there was a reasonable accommodation request we likely would approve that um we do those all the time a ramp to get into the housing yes I think that's generally why where we see those kind of uh reasonable accommodation requests so I need to understand why aren't you trying to do a ramp?

I'm sorry why why aren't you trying to put in a RAM?

Well we do not have a budget yet pardon me we do not have enough money for that yet oh we don't have a don't do we provide resources for ramps um well not to the planning department, no.

There might be other sources, but we don't administer that program.

There might be boomerowing measure a one funds available for healthy homes.

Yeah, there's nothing.

That was my question.

If I didn't know what the accommodation was for, but you're saying um is it your mother, your father?

My father.

Your father's in a wheelchair, yes.

And so right now you lift him up the stairs, and you have a question or comment, Supervisor Marquez?

Yes, sorry for about that.

Um, can you clarify the documentation um emphasize that space is needed for exercising for therapy, physical therapy?

But now you're sharing it with us the concerns about accessibility for your father and having to use a wheelchair.

So can you just help us understand why you didn't initially initially just indicate that it was to access the home, is why the payment was needed.

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

So I'm just confused as to why the documentation indicates the space was needed for physical activity for therapy, but then right now you're bringing up the ramp, so it's two different because um you just asked about the ramp.

We I sorry, my English is not good enough.

It's okay, take your time.

You're doing great, it's okay.

I even don't know the ramp thing.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

But do you understand what we're talking about?

We say a ramp, wheelchair.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Like, let's let's go.

Well, we think about to remove the the stair, but I don't know the ramp thing before.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

So I think I'm willing to um continue this matter to see.

I want to make sure.

Um, even if um if you prefer to speak in another language, I want to make sure we provide that opportunity to you, and there's potentially county resource.

So I think right now we need a little bit more information to make sure we're truly getting to what your intended purpose is.

Um, right now we have some of the information, but not all of it.

And please know it, none it's none of our intention to make you feel uncomfortable.

We want to make sure you can say whatever you want.

And right now, um, we're not able to do that.

So if it's okay, we'd like to continue the matter to see if we can discuss um other options.

I think it's premature right now for us to make a decision.

And I I would like to point out that there is a letter from Asian Health Services, and it describes the lower extremity exercises that uh Mr.

Shao performs.

Uh this doctor Chang Feng Yu says that he performs this physical therapy daily to maintain this current physical abilities, it's often performed in the front yard space because of reported active toddler inside and inadequate space inside the home, and so therefore they feel that the best thing for their safety and medical needs is to do this in the front yard.

I grant that when he's not doing those exercises, they use it as a parking space, but I also feel we have to believe that he needs this to do his physical activities.

I don't want to open up Pandora's box all throughout the neighborhood where everything happens, but we have a doctor's note affirming this.

I think we have to believe that I guess that the only alternative what staff is saying is that there's plenty of other places to do these exercises, the backyard and whatever, but this is their chosen method of treatment or uh uh maintaining health.

So um, I'm okay with continuing it, but I'm also okay with granting this reasonable accommodation, but that's just me.

Yeah, I hadn't seen the letter before from Asian Health.

Um, because I mean from my understanding and having talked to staff, we thought this was more or less a ruse to provide more parking, but it doesn't seem like it seems like it's legit if um if we have this communication from Asian Health about the need.

I think it's kind of both.

He uses it when he needs it.

Yeah, and when he doesn't, they park in it.

Why why not?

It's there.

And they park on it.

If it wasn't, they'd park anyway.

Right.

We already determined that they park in the front yard, but but then it's all wavy and the grounds uneven and not a good space to exercise.

But yeah, because it says he has a history of lower uh extremity weakness causing mobility limitations and high risk of falls requiring the use of walker and wheelchair.

So that I mean that's enough to me to see that this is different than our typical.

Is that a motion, Supervisor Miley?

Um, yeah.

If you want a motion, sure.

I would just asking if it's a motion.

You can keep going if you want, but we did have the applicant.

Do we have any public comment?

We have none.

Now would be a perfect time for uh motion.

Yeah, I would uh move that we sustain the appeal and allow for the reasonable accommodation to allow the paving in the front yard to measuring 67%.

Supervisor Tam wants to second it.

Oh, second the motion.

I want to say staff did a good job.

This is good work.

We we need to follow up on complaints like this.

We supervisor my we need to protect our neighborhood.

I think we all sort of felt maybe this indeed was a ruse for parking.

I think it's kind of both.

But anyway, so I'm I'm supportive of the motion made.

I I don't want staff to feel like they didn't do a good job on this one.

Yeah, I I appreciate that as well.

Um, you know, my as someone who has a parent in a wheelchair, I can understand moving um as close to the house as possible, right with a paid uh surface is easier than rolling through curbs on the street.

So that may be um the accommodation that was not articulated as clearly as it could be.

After we vote on this, I would recommend that perhaps Supervisor Miley might work with this applicant to figure out what a ramp solution might look like that may be helpful.

We have A1 funds to do that, but that's separate.

If I may, uh we can contact the applicant with regard to the healthy homes programs that we have with that regarding um aging in place.

This might be a win-win.

Supervisor Marquez, go ahead.

And just want to fully acknowledge um this work is complicated, bureaucracy, governments.

I wish it was black and white, but it's not.

So I want to just respectfully ask to when we're um doing any type of code violations.

I don't know if we have like standard questions like do you prefer to speak in another language or written, but I think we need to kind of start with that premise because I do think there could be uh a little bit of a misunderstanding.

I I hear your intent, um, and it makes sense in the letter, but there's a little bit of a disconnect, and that could be for multiple reasons.

I don't want to presume, but I think um it's important that we at least offer that, and someone can respectfully decline.

But I think it would be important for us to just see if there's a preference in communicating in a different language.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley.

Yeah, and I just want to um thank you for providing the letter from Asian health services, because to me, I was talking to Supervisor Bass.

To me, that provides proof that this is truly a reasonable accommodation that you need.

So I want to thank you for that.

That helps me.

Thank you.

I want to commend you for being a good daughter, looking out for your father and speaking up for your family.

That's a great job.

Thank you.

And your patience.

Your patience.

With us.

That's true.

Roll call, uh, rather a motion has been made by Supervisor Miley to sustain the appeal, allowing the pavement to remain.

Supervisor Tam seconded that motion.

Let's take a roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tan?

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Ford Nato Bass.

Aye.

President Halger.

I vote yes.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Can we give her a round of applause?

I think you deserve it.

Let's see.

Do we have uh public comment on items not on today's agenda?

Is that one of these things?

Public comment on items not on today's agenda.

There are no public comments.

None.

We are adjo