Recording in progress.

Good morning and welcome to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Planning Committee meeting.

Excuse me, planning meeting of April 16th, 2026.

May I have roll call, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Present.

President Howbert.

Excuse.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Will you please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

The Board of Supervisors welcomes you to this meeting, and we will allow in-person and remote observation and participation by members of the public.

Will the clerk please go through detailed instructions on participation with the teleconferencing guidelines?

Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines.

A link to the document is included in today's agenda to view an automated translated transcript or listen to an automated translated audio of the meeting from English into multiple other languages.

Please utilize the worldly link in today's agenda or the QR codes posted throughout the room and select your preferred language from the drop-down menu.

If you are joining the meeting using a computer, use the button on the bottom of your screen to raise your hand to request to speak.

When called to speak, please unmute your microphone and state your name.

If you are calling in, dial star nine to raise your hand to speak.

When you are called to speak, the host will enable you to speak.

If you decide not to speak, notify the clerk when your call is unmuted, or you may simply hang up and dial back into the meeting.

As a reminder, you may always just observe the meeting without participating by clicking on the view now link on the county's webpage at ACGov.org.

When called, you'll have two minutes to speak.

Please limit your remarks to the time allocated.

Public comment will generally alternate between in-person and online speakers as determined by the president of the board or the chair and subject to overall time limits.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I would like to move to the approval of the minutes for March the 5th, 2026.

May I have a motion, please?

I'll move the adoption of the minutes.

I have a motion from Supervisor Marquez and second by Supervisor Miley.

May I have roll called vote, please?

I'm sorry, are there any public comments?

On the minutes.

We have speakers.

On the minutes for March 5th, 2026.

We have an online speaker.

Okay.

Go ahead.

This is for the minutes.

Michelle, this is for the minutes.

Go ahead, please.

No more speakers.

Thank you.

May I have rockall vote on the motion, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor for Tornado Bass.

Can you unmute, please, Supervisor Fortunato Bass to take your vote.

President Howbert.

Excused.

Madam Chairman, I believe we have a technology issue, and so that may require us to recess while we are fixing the problem.

If that is your desire.

Should we have to pause the meeting until we have remote technique uh connectivity because we have two remote members?

Hybrid is not a thing anymore.

Okay, at this time we will recess into closed session recording in progress.

Reconvening from closed session.

May have a roll call to reestablish quorum.

Supervisor Marquez present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Supervisor for Tornado Bass.

Presence.

Super President Haubert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Before we recess, we were in the middle of trying to get public comment on the minutes from March the 5th, 2026.

Do we have any public comment on that item?

No speakers.

Okay, let me complete the roll call vote on the minutes from March the 5th, 2026.

There was a motion by Marquez and a second by Miley.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Let me go back to any report outs from closed session.

We'll need to take public comment, but the report out of closed sessions that no reportable action was taken in closed session.

You should call for if there's any public comment as well.

At this time, are there any public comments on our closed session items?

No speakers.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Let's move to the consent calendar.

Do I have a motion for the consent calendar approval?

Um I'll move after we take public comment.

Second.

I have a motion from Supervisor Marquez and a second from Supervisor Miley on the consent calendar.

Do I have any public comment on the consent calendar?

No speakers.

Thank you.

May I have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor for Tornado Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Um at this point, let me move to item number four: the approval of the arena allocation for transfer agreement of the senior Pleasanton and the County of Alameda.

May I have staff report, please?

Sure, good morning.

Albert Lopez, Plan Director.

Um on the screen is a uh copy of the letter that's in your packet.

This is an agreement between the City of Pleasanton and the County of Alameda to uh do a uh regional housing needs assessment arena uh unit exchange.

There's a small parcel uh that borders the city of Pleasanton and the County that the city will annex and uh the uh A-bag MTC process allows us to enter into agreement to transfer uh read uh arena numbers.

Uh in this case the unit count is 18 and uh through this agreement that's already signed by the city of Pleasanton.

Uh we our our arena numbers will go down by roughly 18 units, and then their reading account goes up by 18 units, and this is uh also a uh preview of other annexations that are occurring uh near the uh Pleasanton County border.

So the the staff request is for you to approve this agreement and we will then transfer it over to A Bag MTC and the arena uh uh adjustment will occur.

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments from my colleagues?

Hearing none, are there any public comments on this item?

No speakers.

Thank you.

May I have a motion for approval of the transfer agreement?

So moved.

So moved.

Have a motion from Supervisor Marquez and a second from Supervisor Miley.

May I have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortnado Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

So we come to item number five.

The reason all of you are here on the conditional use permit for the mosaic project.

So what I will do is start with staff report.

Then I will provide 10 minutes for the appellant and the applicant to speak on the project.

And I will also provide 10 minutes for the opposition based on my review of the record.

I have organized opposition from Friends of Cole Canyon and the Greenfire Law Firm.

If either of you here if you want to combine and provide 10 minutes for part of your arguments, I will allow that.

And then I will go to public comment.

There's been a request to have the students speak first in public comment.

They will have two minutes each to speak.

And I will then determine from the clerk how many total speakers we have.

We have 63 in person.

We don't know online yet until they raise their hand.

Two online.

Two online.

Okay.

Thank you.

So let's start with the staff report, please.

Sure.

This is the Mosaic Project.

Before you today is a de Nova hearing on an appeal of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments decision to deny the conditional use permit.

This is Project PLN 2020 93.

This conditional use permit was submitted in 2020, so we have been working on this for some time.

The address is 17015 Coal Canyon Road.

That's near the unincorporated community of Cash Valley.

The zoning there is agriculture, general plan is resource management.

The existing site characteristics, it's a site of roughly 37 acres.

It contains airs that are both developed, which is fairly small, about half an acre, and it's heavily vegetated and pretty much in a natural state.

This is a slide that's kind of giving you a little bit of context.

This is a blow-up of the uh the proposed project, the mosaic project site plan.

They get access through Cole Canyon Road.

Um when you enter the site, you'll uh you first see the caretaker unit, you go over a bridge.

It's a it's a very uh very beautiful site, and that takes you to the um student cabins as well as the staff area and the dining hall.

And I do have some photographs.

They I'll show you the actual architecture.

Uh in turn uh in terms of the project components, they're proposing to develop approximately two acres of land, uh, mostly within an existing developed area.

There's an old barn on the site that will be demolished.

Um, and the the cabins and a portion of the of the dining hall will be built in that area.

Uh, there is a net increase of roughly 1.4 acres from the point six that's currently existing.

The remaining 35 acres of the project site would remain undeveloped, aside for existing trails that would be maintained.

The the project consists of camping cabins, a central meeting and dining hall, uh council ring, which is a gathering space for the kids, restrooms, a shower building, the staff house, caretaker unit, and agricultural and and farming activities.

Uh the core mission of the camp is uh it's a social emotional camp experience for fourth and fifth graders.

Uh they are proposing uh three classrooms attend throughout the year, which is roughly 95 kids.

This camp schedule is they want to uh have 18 five-day four-night sessions, 10 in the winter and eight in the fall, and then five summer sessions with some weekend weekend programs as well.

The programs will be spaced out so that there would never be more than two consecutive five-day four-night programs, and the reason for that is so that uh any concerns about groundwater recharge or the ability for the septic system um also to handle the capacity uh would be addressed through that spacing.

Uh these are some slides of the uh renderings of the project.

These are uh what the cabins would look like.

There's roughly 12 of these at about 400 square feet.

Uh this is the multi-use building of uh what I call the dining hall.

It's roughly 8500 square feet and is shown on the screen.

Um there's meeting rooms and dining bathrooms in this in this building for the camp.

That's the biggest building on the site.

Staff housing is a uh a two-story staff home of roughly 2600 square feet.

It's a residential use for the most part.

Um switching now into the public review process.

Uh an EIR was prepared for the project.

It actually was circulated twice, uh, and we did receive a fair number of comments.

Many of those are summarized in the following slides.

And also the um the staff provided the board a copy of the final EIR where all the comments are addressed, including uh master responses to specific comments that were repeated often.

Um, and so that did create the opportunity to create master responses.

Many of the issues I found mass responses to be very helpful looking at the items that were brought up more than once.

We did receive about 30 comments from uh the Cash Valley School District, Department of Fish and Game, East Bay Mud, Friends of San Lorenzo Creek, Greenfire Law on behalf of Friends of Cash Valley Canyonlands, North Star representing the applicant, as well as uh many members of the public.

In terms of uh summary of the concerns, there they fall into the categories of the project classification, the the there was concerns about the proximity to nearby businesses, student safety, the recent storms, the creek setback calculations, zoning and measure D, Williamson Mac, the production of agriculture on the site, the availability of water produced through the wells on-site wastewater treatment system or septic system, fire safety, and evacuation.

This is a summary.

There was probably other uh concerns that were raised, but certainly these were the most uh often mentioned by the commenters on the EIR.

Again, the the master responses went into detail, and I wanted to cover a few of the areas that are in bold here in terms of uh creek setbacks, the agricultural uses, hydrology and utilities, and then fire safety and evacuation.

Uh, these are the the staff uh responses, uh perspective of this analysis.

I believe that the applicant may want to buttress that as well.

In terms of creek setbacks, there was a concern that the setbacks weren't calculated correctly.

Um they did redraw the the setback at some point and gave it to staff, which was forwarded to public works.

Uh they public works actually through their water course ordinance and and some of their other uh standards and ordinances.

Um they do have a formula for calculating the setback, and they did concur that the setback was calculated correctly.

The project completely avoids any building or or development in the creek area.

At one point there was a fire circle in the creek setback, which was now moved outside of the setback, and there's no new landscaping in the setback of riparian area.

It's pretty for the most part, I would say it's protected and left as is.

There was some question that at one point whether or not this project was ever in the Williamson Mac contract.

They have received benefit over the years, so uh we are taking the stance that they are in the Williamson Act, and they do have an active contract.

Um the project will use approximately two acres of the 36 acres, leaving the remainder as open space.

They are proposing sustainable and regenerative wild harvest of acorns, bay nuts, mushrooms, and miners lettuce.

Plus, they were going to have a um a garden and chickens.

They are proposing to be a California California certified community supported ag producer and offer uh boxes with forest products, chicken eggs, and produce.

There is a uh a fairly low bar uh to meet the Williamson Act in this particular case.

This is a non-prime ag roughly um uh they have to make essentially $10,000 a year in income from the site to be able to meet the the Williamson Act uh requirements as well as the leave the most of the site as open space or ag and and because they only have a relatively small two-acre building envelope, most of the project will be in open space or ag and so the project doesn't meet Willington Act principles of compatibility.

There was also concern about hydrology and utilities.

Um there was a lot of analysis and in your packet, you'll find some recent letters from the applicant uh through their attorney, specific to hydrology and the septic system.

Uh the summary here is that there's there's two proposed water wells to serve the site.

They will they'll need a uh permit from the uh state uh drinking water division of drinking water.

Uh the state has provided an initial review and approval for them to submit a full application for the private drinking water system.

They they will need a permit from the state for that.

The state has reviewed their pump tests and indicated that there was adequate supply.

Staff has provided that information in previous meetings at the MAC and the BZA.

I'm not a geologist, but from what I understand, because there is a fractured geology on the site and in the area, there's no impact to the creek or adjacent property owners, and this has been demonstrated through pumping tests, which the applicant can provide more detail on.

Also, the septic system is an advanced system.

It will require a permit from the environmental health department.

They also have given preliminary feasibility approval for the project to move forward, and that documentation is also in your packet.

The uh applicant is proposing a number of other water saving features, such as captured rainwater and gray water systems to be able to impact the gallons per day calculation, and they are gonna they'll be able to provide more detail on that if needed.

The collection of and pumping of groundwater is uh it is a reverse osmosis system, which does generate process water, which will need to be hauled off.

There was some concern about the impact on the roadway and the fact that heavy trucks will have to be used to haul this water off.

Uh, that was presented to public works agency, and there was a condition uh specific to roadway damage that was provided by public works, which is in their conditions of approval.

Fire safety and evacuation was also a major concern uh throughout this process.

Appendix F of the draft EIR does contain the camp's fire safety and emergency response plan.

In your packet in preparation for today, you'll also see uh a couple of letters from uh consultants in the areas of uh fire risk as well as evacuation, and um I'll just talk about that uh briefly at the end of the at the presentation.

But that is new information that we did uh receive.

Staff did consult with the fire department.

The applicant is required to have a fire safety and emergency response plan, um, but the plan does not require approval by the county.

Uh, because they are in the state responsibility area, the project will need to comply with the CAL fire code.

Um I do I do believe we have representative from the fire department from the from the county's fire department say if you have questions on that.

The applicant also proposed additionally, and this was uh presented by the applicant as an as a an open offer, I guess you could say, to the to the county, uh, parts of this.

Uh, in terms of things that they're proposing to do is to shut down camp on any red flag days.

They also will cancel and uh evacuate should any evacuation warning be issued, that they're not going to wait for a mandatory evacuation order before evacuating the site.

And in terms of the the open offer the the applicant has offered to the county or other firefighting agencies that any water stored on the site, uh which is not necessary for meeting their own fire code requirements, can be used for fire fighting if needed.

So those were the sort of the big items that were have been discussed uh through this process.

Uh talking a little bit more about the alternatives to the to the proposed project.

Uh, there was a few pro alternatives that have been that were studied in the EIR.

We had the usual no no no project alternative, which uh was set aside.

Um there was a reduced capacity alternative, which was essentially about a 50% reduction in the project, and there was also a reduced building footprint alternative, uh, which is the the recommended alternative from staff as well as the environmentally superior alternative.

This alternative roughly is a about a 15 to 20 percent reduction in the building sizes.

They would relocate the council ring outside of the creek slope.

Uh the the sheds that are adjacent to the caretakers unit would be removed.

The um, as I mentioned, there are some uh nominal reductions to the staff house building as well as a multi-use building, roughly 22 and 50 percent.

And there are less and in uh less impacts to bio and cultural resources, geology, greenhouse gas, hydrology, uh, noise and vibration and tribal cultural resources.

Essentially, the shrinking of the project does shrink the impacts by about 15 to 20 percent.

Uh, but this project this alternative would meet all the project objectives, and so um it is the environmentally superior alternative and the alternative that staff is recommending for approval.

Um before your board can make any decision on the application, um, the CUP findings would have to be made.

Yeah, there's four findings, and this is the the staff presentation of those findings.

Number one is that the use is required by the public need.

So we believe that this finding can be made that the use is required by the public need.

The second finding is will the use be properly related to other land use transportation and service facilities in the area.

There's no change to land usage, transportation, and service facilities are proposed other than the project area, other than the project.

And the draft EIR found that the project would not result in significant impacts.

There was a concern about the adjacent winery, given that they they do have a ABC, the alcohol beverage control permit from the state.

There was a concern about them potentially the impact on their license.

And we did uh we did discover that any language that the ABC had in their regulations that was specific to that issue would only apply to new licenses or transfers and not renewals.

So in that sense, we don't think uh there is any impact uh to the adjacent winery.

There that winery is located about 400 feet north of the project site.

I think the distance between the core winery use and the and the actual camp is is a bit further than that.

Uh we don't anticipate any interaction between the campers and the winery.

Um the young campers are they're fourth and fifth graders, they're gonna be supervised at all times, and um we don't see the operation of the winery and the camp there being a conflict there, nor would the operation of the winery be contrary to public welfare and morals, which is one of the uh one of the the standards that they use when they're looking at permit renewals.

Finding number three is that the use if permitted under all the circumstances, would it materially affect or adversely affect health and safety of persons or businesses in the area?

The project as conditioned in the resolution will conform to all the county codes and the general plan regulations, and based on the evidence provided by the applicant and through the review of the project by outside agencies, the site can accommodate the necessary infrastructure to serve the project.

Um, mostly again, speaking about septic and water.

Uh the IR found that the project would not cost substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

And then lastly, um the the last finding finding number four is that the use would not be contrary to the character or their or the standards for the district.

This is again an agricultural aid district.

Most of the site is going to be left in a natural state.

The project will be consistent with the intent of the district, and that recreational facilities are allowed in the zone with a conditional use permit, and that is outlined in our zoning code.

So those are the findings that uh are also in your resolution and in your packet.

The um the staff summary is that the project has or will meet county standards related to needed services and proposed improvements.

State and/or other county permits are needed and will be required to meet state law or other local codes.

For example, for example, the septic system and the drinking water permit and cow fire.

All those are essentially after the conditional use permit is approved as they move towards uh building and construction.

The IR alternatives demonstrate that the reduced footprint alternative would meet project objectives and all the operational concerns are addressed through the conditions of approval.

The staff recommendation is that you adopt the attached resolution essentially doing four things that does make the findings a fact that are required pursuant to CEQA.

You also will approve the mitigation and monitoring monitoring report, uh, which does outline all the mitigation measures and responsible parties and the actions required.

The other action we're asking you to take today is to certify the project environmental impact report using the environmentally superior alternative, and then finally to approve the appeal and approve the condition use permit for the mosaic project.

I would just gonna mention quickly the information that we received either right before the last hearing, which as you as you know was continued, um, or right after that.

We did get a letter from project opponents, Greenfire Law, which is in your packet.

Um Zay uh Kaylee Zimberg environmental engineer also uh provided expert testimony, which is in your packet.

Um, most of the issues that were brought up by the project opponents um in and we also received other correspondence from neighbors and other interested parties.

Uh for the most part, I would say that a lot of it did repeat other uh comments that we had heard before around fire safety and evacuation, the and the uh the ability for the site to handle the water needs and septic.

We received a letter from the applicant's attorney as well just before the last hearing, and that's also in your packet today.

I did mention that there was a couple of new letters that I think are significant uh and worth mentioning quickly, which is that there was a fire risk assessment done as well as an evacuation assessment done by uh consultants, and and that's in your packet.

Uh, that letter also contained uh new and not new information, but new letters from their water and septic consultants also supporting the the previous findings that the water system and a septic system are adequate for the site.

And I think that's the end of the presentation.

I'd be happy to take any questions that the board has and of course through the testimony today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that presentation.

Um, just as a reminder, if there are public speakers on this item, please submit your speaker slip or uh raise your hand by 1130.

Um that is when we will cease accepting speaker slips.

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments from my colleagues from staff report?

Um I have a number of questions.

I don't know if you want the questions to be asked now or after the presentations from the applicant and uh opposition, but I have a number of questions.

Okay, Supervisor Fortune, not a bash.

Your hand is raised.

Yes, just a quick question.

If it's possible to email me the slides, I'd appreciate that.

Um I can do that, yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

So uh my colleagues will wait until afterwards.

I I do have one comment.

So um the board's role today is to determine whether the four findings that uh staff has identified on the conditional use permit can be met.

Um I've reviewed the record, very extensive record, including um the parts of the ER that is very pertinent.

The one item that I would hope both the opponents and the proponents can speak to because there seems to be conflicting opinions or assessments on the hydrogeological plan.

So uh that pertains to the finding under item number three.

So I'm hoping they could speak to the elements with substantial evidence regarding um the estimates on water demand, the wastewater quality, the estimates on the aquifers reliability, and whether or not um the use of a RO or the complex um wastewater system in a flood prone and a free susceptible canyon area is a problem, and then we obviously need more details um on the evacuation plan in the event of an emergency.

So um appreciate if the uh opponents and the proponents can address those issues with substantial evidence.

So at this time, let me open it up to the applicants and the appellants presentation, and you have 10 minutes.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Sabrina Moyle, and I am the board president of the Mosaic Project, a children's author and a mother.

Today you'll be hearing from me, retired fire chief Dave Winnaker and land use counsels David Smith and Joey Maldrum.

Twelve years ago, my preschool son heard a song on the radio by the musician behind Mosaic's curriculum, and he insisted on hearing it again.

Having been raised in a biracial family overseas, I instantly knew that this program was something special.

Today, my teenage sons are mosaic youth leaders.

One now spends his summers working in community health in rural Alabama because of the values that he learned at Mosaic.

Since 2000, the Mosaic Project has served 76,000 of Alameda County children.

Our research-based programs address the risk root causes of bias, isolation, and violence.

18 Alameda County schools depend on us to provide their fourth and fifth graders with access to nature and essential social emotional learning skills.

At a time when our society feels more divided than ever, Mosaic is the right program for our times.

Since we purchased this land a decade ago, we knew this decision would ultimately come down to you.

A body of experienced policymakers who believe in facts and evidence.

Let me be clear.

We respect our neighbors.

We engage them early, only to be met with hostility that we could never fully understand.

They claim our fewer than 100 kids on 37 acres is too quote unquote urban for the canyon.

They say they love kids, but they want our kids to go somewhere else.

Reasonable people can agree to disagree, but we are facing more than a difference of opinion.

We are facing alternative facts.

But let's look at what is true.

Legally and definitionally, we are a camp.

They say we'll drain the water.

We are literally using a different aquifer.

They claim 100 kids is too urban.

The reality is that we are building on only 5% of the land, leaving 95% in its natural state.

This morning, you may hear comparisons between us and tragedies elsewhere.

These comparisons are so filled with fallacy that we might as well cancel outdoor education programs in America.

The difference is monumental.

They didn't have a plan, and they ignored warnings.

By contrast, we have spared no expense to hire the foremost disaster preparedness and evacuation planning consultants to dot every I and cross every T.

Chief Winnaker's credentials are unmatched, and our evacuation planner has served institutions like UC Berkeley's Office of Emergency Management.

Don't let our opponents hide behind these Trojan horse arguments.

Mosaic's 25-year safety record speaks for itself.

And there is no measure we will not take to proactively keep our kids safe.

This conditional use permit is built on a comprehensive set of rules designed precisely to ensure that we can coexist.

Do not let the opponents make you believe that there needs to be a winner and a loser.

Do not let fear dictate how we govern.

A yes vote allows generations of Alameda County kids to access nature and learn peaceful conflict resolution.

A no vote rejects eight years of rigorous study and due diligence by your own experts.

I'll close the words with the words of a mosaic youth leader.

Leadership isn't about having the loudest voice.

It's about making sure everyone else has a seat at the table.

I'll now turn it over to retired fire chief Dave Winnaker to walk you through our fire safety plans.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Vice President, supervisors.

We could share the slides, please.

These events occurred during the fall and are associated with large-scale urban loss in our area in 1923 in the Berkeley Hills, 1971 and 1991 in the Oakland Hills.

This is certainly a fire-dependent landscape with a significant wildfire history.

It's noteworthy that that wildfire history is dependent on strong northeast winds during a period of significant drying when fuels are desiccated or capable of carrying fire, meaning that a fire during that time is likely to escape initial containment.

And it is the specific characteristics of the wind speed duration.

This is the wrong set of slides, please.

The fire spread.

And one more, please.

So here we see the frequency.

One back, please.

Here we see the frequency, the characteristics, and the defining nature of wind events that are capable of carrying fast moving fire.

You'll note with that the exception of three outliers falling between 200 and 300 degrees magnetic.

The preponderance of the wind events come from the north, the north, northeast, and they occur with on a frequent regular basis.

The size indicates the speeds.

In the Castro Valley region, a fire is going to have to be moving very fast to escape the combined response of Alameda County Fire, San Roman Valley Fire, Moraga, Arinda, Calfire, and other regional agencies.

Earlier in my career, I worked for Alameda County Fire, specifically at Station 6, 7, 25, and 26.

I'm familiar with the landscape, and I'm confident that these are the wind events that could create a fast moving fire.

Next slide, please.

We took a look at the regional exposure to fire pathways.

So this being minimum time travel pathways using Finney's model from a series of regional ignitions under a northeast wind event.

So we see there is potential for fast moving fires spreading through the grass and brush covered lands to the project's north and east.

However, it's noteworthy that these fuel types are predominantly a ground fire fuel type.

Any spotting or three-dimensional embercast or fire brand lofting that will occur into these events will be short range.

And the presence of the road is a non-burnable feature, decouples parcels and areas to the west of the road from ground component fire to the east.

Next slide, please.

We further modeled a series of discrete ignitions immediately to the northeast of the project site under the 97th percentile wind conditions for how fire would spread across the landscape, noting its pre its preference for spreading through contiguous grassy fuels.

Next slide, please.

We further took a look at what it would take to protect the community, this particular area from wildfire spread where the fire is going to be encountering a non-burnable feature along the road, meaning that the site will be subjected to three-dimensional ember caps.

In this area, we can refer to state law and to the county fire code for formerly Chapter 7A, now chapter 5 of the WUE Code for the structural components that will make a structure resistant to ignition.

And we can further look to government code 51182 for defensible space requirements.

However, we will note that both Chapter 5 and Government Code 51182 have a significant flaw in the form of zone zero or the home ignition zone, which is the subject of contentious statewide debate, and that the project will voluntarily incorporate zone zero mitigations, meaning that between the chapter five components for the structure, the make member resistant, the defensible space moving out to 100 feet, the vegetation management plan that will address the other areas of the other developed areas of the parcel, and inclusion, a voluntary inclusion of zone zero.

The structures here will be highly resistant to Ember attack.

Next slide, please.

The proposed mitigation plan is shown here to incorporate the ongoing grazing of the grass areas and specific references to defensible space and home hardening treatments, as well as extended defensible space, decoupling these homes from any fire that is able to cross the road through Embercast and become established in the vegetation on the west side of the road.

And there may be good reasons the project should not be approved.

But in my professional opinion, wildfire is not one of those, with the inclusion of the proposed mitigations.

I thank you for your time.

Be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, sir.

Um we will go to the next presentation and we will make the accommodations on your time given what has happened with the glitching on the slides.

Thank you, Vice President Tam and Supervisors.

I'm actually in the interest of your very specific and welcome questions foregoing my prepared remarks and would like to just speak specifically to your question in terms of the presence or absence of substantial evidence.

Respectfully, I would submit to you that as to each and every item that you questioned and raised, the only substantial evidence, and there is abundant substantial evidence as to each in the record supports the project and the staff recommendation.

I would point you specifically as to water supply and the sufficiency of the two wells.

Both geologist and hydrogeologists tested the wells and all the information on the wells, but importantly, those test results were submitted to the state, and you have email correspondence both to the county as well as to the experts, the sufficiency of the turnout as well as the methodology for the adequacy of those wells to serve this project.

Second, as to the septic system, it is an advanced system surpassing just about anything in the region, the details of which are provided from both before and since the response to comments from watershed progressive, and they are available to answer any questions.

But again, the point I want to stress is that what they will be speaking to all speaks to information that is already before this body for its consideration and was part of the EIR and done and it's in there.

In terms of fire, you heard from Chief Winnaker.

His assessment is relative to the plan that's developed and in the record before you now.

And additionally, beyond the assessment of wildfire risk, the evacuation planning has been meticulous through outrighter insights, and we have based on some questions that we've had since.

We supplemented that information in more recent correspondence to you.

All of these are provided to you in what we refer to as land use memorandum from my office on March 3rd, which again is not me arguing.

It's providing the salient quotes from the certified experts, the engineers, the hydrologists, the geologists, the fire experts, the on-site waste water treatment system experts as to the sufficiency and propriety of these uses for this site.

The creek we are staying away from, there will be no leaching into that.

The aquifers are discrete and separate.

They don't draw on each other and they don't impact the overall groundwater for the region.

So we're happy to speak to any questions.

And again, Supervisor Tam, I appreciated your specificity as to those issues, but respectfully, substantial evidence is before you.

We have the experts to answer questions, but they're speaking to what's already there in the record.

So and I appreciate your allowance on the time.

I know we're probably over our 10 minutes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So unless there are questions for my colleagues at this time, we can go to the uh opposition's presentation, and they also have 10 minutes.

Submitted technical memorandum on the water supply that we submitted by email.

And there's six of those.

I'm not sure how many you need you.

Um before you start, and this is not counted against you.

Um, in our packet, there is a November 17, 2022 memorandum.

Uh and it seems very similar to what you just handed out, which is dated April 15th.

Are they the same?

No, they are drastically different.

There is also a 2024 memorandum.

We provided uh water supply analysis after both the DEIR in 2022, and again in 2024, asking for the technical reports to be released, but they were not provided until the final EIR was released.

So now the new report looks at those technical reports that were previously not released to the public.

Okay, thank you.

Please start.

Good morning.

Thank you.

My name is Suzanne Bradford.

I am representing Friends of Castro Valley Canyon lands, uh, made up of many citizens and residents of the Cole Canyon area and other concerned citizens.

Um, with regard to Supervisor Tim's three issues, I will highlight those directly.

First, water supply, the report I just provided and that we turned in uh by email yesterday, addresses a hydrologist, a certified hydrologist with the state and and other credentials has examined um the evidence, the substantial evidence in the record that is provided in appendix G of the final EIR.

Um, again, I made comments that are in the record in December outlining some deficiencies of that.

This report documents that and went through it in detail.

In particular, our technical uh memorandum shows that the documentation provided is insufficient to show that a reliable and sustainable water supply has been established, and it is also insufficient to show that there is no connectivity between the water supply for the project, the proposed water supply, and coal canyon larger aquifer and water supply.

The data that was collected is insufficient to show that.

In fact, it shows that one of the two wells did not meet the state's recovery standards in the pumping test.

It shows that potential connectivity between the two wells during the pumping test was not monitored or unreported.

If it was done, it was not reported, that means.

Potential impacts between the well tests and Coal Creek was not monitored and not reported anywhere in the record.

The test results actually indicate that the water levels did not reach equilibrium during the testing, showing a risk of long-term problems with sustainability at a regular use rate.

There is no evidence that any baseline study was done to establish existing trends in the groundwater levels to compare that to.

So there's a lot of unknowns that remain.

In addition, the groundwater elevations reported for wells 17 and 20-1 are similar in elevation to the water table of Coal Creek.

And this is all documented in appendix G.

This is an analysis of the actual tests that were done and released to the public in 2025.

In addition, similar water chemistry between Well 20-1 and Cole Creek indicates potential connectivity.

That's in the November or excuse me, the April 2021 report from Balance Hydrologics states that outright.

It also states that well 17-1 did not pass the pumping tests or meet the standards, which was misreported in the technical report that was submitted to the Department of Water Resources.

So we're very concerned.

Maybe a simple error, but but the documentation does not support the claim that the two wells are sufficient.

Finally, there was no analysis of potential climate change effects.

That's also true of the fire analysis.

And there is no evidence that some common practices that are used in a drought-sensitive location.

It would have been common to do a water canvassing study and to reach out to other water users to assess what is the water budget of Coal Creek and is it already being stressed?

And then there could was a potential to do testing to find out to what extent these pumping tests would affect that water supply.

None of that was done.

There was no canvassing study, there was no water budget assessment.

None of that is in the report.

So without that further information, and without more specific testing, there's really no evidence to support the assumption that just because you're in a fractured rock aquifer, there would be no connectivity.

In fact, fractured rock, that's the same idea as we have in fracking.

You fracture it so that things flow between the layers of the rock, including water.

And certain chemical differences like salts, the report explains, are soluble and not concrete evidence of no connectivity.

There are other tests that would have been available to look at the level of water in the different wells and to do a broader canvassing.

We asked for those tests in 2022 and 2024, and apparently they were never done.

So, based on our analysis, there is a potential risk of significant adverse impacts to the Coal Creek water supply that other residents of this canyon rely upon.

And simply asserting that they don't think, based on a cursory analysis that that is true is not evidence.

There is no substantial evidence that those impacts were adequately analyzed.

And in fact, the similarity between water chemistry and the depth to water both indicate a likelihood of connectivity and potential impacts to an already drought-affected area.

So moving on to fire risk.

In the record, there is a report, an expert statement by Kayle Zimberg that specifically addresses the sufficiency or issues issues relating to the on-site waste treatment system or the septic system.

In particular, there's evidence in the record of hydric soils.

There's inconsistent reporting about whether the flood-prone nature of the site could be a problem for this septic system.

Those questions were not really addressed anywhere in the FEIR, in our opinion and in uh environmental engineer Kayleigh Zimberg's opinion as well.

She also questions the water demand calculations, which we also pointed out previously are based on uh the idea of a pioneer camp.

The record in the FEIR discusses the water demand for a very basic campsite with no real facilities.

Whereas here we have a major kitchen building, we have showers, we have uh on site irrigation and a reverse osmosis water system.

There's a very high water demand to to work a reverse osmosis system, it requires twice as much water as it produces, and then that water will have to be um carried off site.

But that water demand is questioned in the expert statement by Kaylee Zimberg specifically.

Um finally the the evacuation plan.

Um our position, having looked at the new uh the new submission from Xylo Plan and Outrider Insights that are included in the record, there's no analysis of the evacuation route safety.

Um the slides that um Mr.

Winnaker showed indicate that a fire moving from the northeast would follow the evacuation route.

And and from a sequest standpoint, the impacts of the environment on the project are distinct from the impacts of the project on the environment.

What we don't see in any of that analysis is what if a fire started as a result of increased human activity in the canyon, whether it's from the electrical wires or charging stations or lithium batteries or uh power lines, um, whatever the cause, heating heating structures, a fire that started at or near that site appears that it would sweep up that hillside potentially towards the Columbia neighborhood, and that is not analyzed anywhere in the record.

Um, his evidence actually appears to support that risk.

And it also shows the red lines following the evacuation route.

Nowhere in the record was there a study of evacuation time.

What would happen if there was a fire emergency that hadn't been predicted through days of red flag warnings?

Um, how long would it take to call up a bus driver in the middle of the night, get someone there against an outflow of traffic?

I mean, I think the planning is a good idea, but the outrider insight potential contract is a hypothetical and speculative.

There's not an actual plan there.

It's a letter saying we could put together a really good plan.

Um, but again, uh the evidence that we currently have shows that the risk to the larger community and the evacuation route that everyone depends on has not been adequately analyzed.

Finally, I would like to address uh the findings and a few of the other issues that we have raised previously.

In particular, um got too many notes.

In particular, uh the flood risk to the area remains a concern.

Um, both the well that they're going to rely on or propose to rely on and the waste treatment system are on cut banks that were affected greatly during the last flood event and could be at risk for further cutaways, uh, exposing some of those structures.

Um with regard to the Williamson Act, uh, it's important to note that this project is clearly an educational facility and not agricultural or recreational in nature, in terms of substantial evidence.

We point to the tax forms of the Mosaic Project, which nowhere mention recreation or agriculture.

Moreover, in the state code under the Williamson Act, the definition of recreational use means public recreation, a site that is left in its natural state that the public can come and use for recreation, even if there's a fee.

That is not what we have here by any analysis.

In addition, uh the Williamson Act emphasizes that a site should be 50% compatible use, should be 50% commercial production land, which I'm not sure that collecting miners lettuce and and acorns and baynuts really is a commercial agricultural enterprise.

And there's also no analysis of what that would do to the wildlife in the related area.

I see that my time.

Can I wrap up a few things or please be brief?

Thank you.

Um, in addition, with regard to the mandatory findings, the use is not uh required by public need.

I think this is a wonderful project, has demonstrated the ability to go on without having a private land base.

The use is not properly related to the other uses, the road that this is on.

It has visibility issues and note pull-outs, the need to run water trucks to get rid of the waste from the osmosis system and large buses, poses a traffic and safety hazard that has not been adequately examined.

Um the use does materially threaten the health and welfare of residents and others in the material in in the vicinity because of the water supply issues and the evacuation route issues, and the use is contrary to the agricultural character.

It exceeds the population density standards of Measure D in the Williamson Act.

It would add 15,000 square feet of residential and residential accessory buildings.

We believe the shower and a dining hall are part of a residential use.

And finally, the CEQA EIR, we documented in our previous letters, and there are lots of deficiencies with the CEQA document, in addition to those, but an inadequate baseline, and uh there's no mitigation for the water situation.

There's no mitigation for biological resources during the life of the project.

We don't know what impact this would have on resident wildlife and birds.

Um, and tree removal is an issue there as well, but that's maybe covered.

There's also uh issues, conflicts with the Castro Valley General Plan that we've pointed out in our other letters, and just finally, two of our letters were omitted from the staff report that we submitted on March 2nd, outlining these previous concerns, and then on March 5th, I addressed the findings and the inadequacy of the proposed conditions, really to address our core concerns.

So I thank you for your time and consideration.

And I would just say in closing that um the county has a duty to protect the community and ensure an adequate water supply.

And and that is not that is not hostility against the Mosaic Project.

That is a fact of life in rural areas, and and uh we can only emphasize that we hope they find a better site than the one currently at issue.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

Um I need to take a two-minute break before we start.

I'm sorry.

Supervisor Marquez says we need five minutes.

Um my apologies.

Uh the reason we have to do this is because under the Brown Act, we have to have three uh supervisors in the chambers to comply since two of them are participating remotely.

So um let's have a five-minute um break and then we'll come back.

Progress please take your seats.

We will be resuming.

Resuming from our break, may have roll call please to re-establish quorum.

Supervisor Marquez present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Present.

President Haubert.

Rosit.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Um at this time, I would like to have uh the appellant uh come up and for five minutes uh address some of the concerns that were raised by the opposition.

We appreciate the um I'm sorry, please state your name for the recording.

Thank you, David Smith, the law offices of David C.

Smith, and I would also note that I'm joined by founding principal of Montchamp and Meldrum, who are seasoned professionals in defending local agency actions against CEQA challenges.

Um I'd like to start frankly with a quote public resources code section 21082.2C, a bedrock of CEQA, is that quote, substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.

Substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment.

Respectfully, what you heard was a litany of mites concerned about common practice should be the evidence before you is by certified experts, experts in their field with licensed credentials to be opining and providing evidence for the record on which they speak, not the least of which you heard from firsthand retired Chief Winnaker, specifically as to the water supply.

Not only do you have the comprehensive report from Balance Hydrologics that went in, you have based on the full permitting file that was submitted completely and in its totality to the state for a much more elaborative and meticulous evaluation process.

You have two emails from the division of drinking water, a division of the Statewater Resources Control Board confirming specifically the adequacy to them of the methodology as well as the outcome of the two test wells that you saw.

This is not speculation and it is not fracking.

It is defined conclusions that these are discrete aquifers drawing specific, even as to our two wells, they are discrete.

As to the litany of other things from Ms.

Zimberg, we gave you a specific response, and I'm happy to go back through it, but respectfully, while an environmental engineer of some sort, she has no licensure or certification from the state to be opining, and again, as to the reference provision of CEQA, speculation and opinions have no place when it comes to substantial evidence, lots of opinions, and notably not only lack of credentials, but we put in our letter no reference whatsoever to the administrative record before you.

Similar to the presentation from the opponents, forgive me, I Ms.

Bradford, I believe, I don't mean to be disrespectful.

Not a record to the site, not a citation to the administrative record.

What about the EIR do they believe is wrong, incorrect, or are they challenging?

There is not a citation throughout to you challenging what is before you.

They just have different opinions.

And this should have been looked at, but wasn't that does not negate the presence of substantial evidence before you?

Additionally, the row document that was just handed to you.

We just we hadn't received it previously either.

It doesn't look like it raises anything new from what you have before you, but more importantly, it doesn't provide substantial evidence.

It's more whatabouts.

It's we would have liked to have seen this should have been done.

You have credentialed experts, including certification by the state that the appropriate analyses were done.

We're happy to answer questions.

We have some experts on hand on the phone, and they'll be raising their hand if you request their input.

But thank you again for the opportunity to come back up.

Thank you.

At this time, I will go to comments and questions from my colleagues.

I will start with Supervisor Miley.

I'm sorry.

Could I make a brief response to you can in your public comments through others?

Okay.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Tim.

Well, first of all, I want to thank uh all the speakers and their comments, and having represented Castro Valley for the last 25 years, and having served on the Oakland City Council for 10 years, I'm no stranger to land use uh controversies and projects, and I'll be looking at this distinctly on the merits of the use, um, not on the merits of the project, because the the project, the program, I mean, it's you know, it's unquestionably a good project and a good program.

But the question is whether or not it's the appropriate location for that uh project and program.

The um first of all that's the staff uh some questions.

So from my review of this, there are 57 conditions of approval.

Well, I haven't counted them, but if um I could do that real quick, that sounds about right.

Uh yeah, that's right.

57 conditions of approval.

And then what will be the authority to ensure compliance with those um conditions of approval at the five-year mark?

We do have a mandatory review for the project where we get to look at the operations, we assess any complaints that we have.

We also will ask some of our county partners whether or not all their conditions and requirements and permits and all that have been uh have been obtained by the applicant.

So that mandatory review is our ability to check in on the conditions of approval and uh look at look at the the whole the whole project and if needed set up for a public hearing if we believe that something is going sideways.

So what's the role of the mitigation and monitoring reporting program?

Those are all based on the the EIR.

The EIR has a uh series of mitigations that will reduce all impacts to a less insignificant level.

They are broken down by topic area, for example, um there's um there's um mitigation measures related to air quality to biology.

Uh okay, but so who who goes out and ensures that those mitigations have taken place and are being um adhered to?

I mean we got 57 conditions of approval.

Yeah, we've got the mitigation monitoring report.

I mean I know I've known I'm not gonna say this is the case with with with these with this applicant, but I know of other applicants who haven't complied with conditions of approval.

So how do we and I'm talking about you know, we have had um instances where we've asked um projects to come back for review in a year, in three years, and and this one you're saying five.

So you know we have the discretion to require a m you know update sooner than five years.

So I need to understand how visa are a lot of conditions, a lot of mitigation measures.

In fact, how many permits are being um required for this project?

I think there's a substantial number of permits, or there's gonna be five or six permits that are gonna be required by the applicant.

Um the drinking water permit is the one that's outside the county, that's a state permit.

Um they are required to get building permits uh reviewed by Cal FIRE.

That process is um not totally well understood by me because I haven't gone through that, but hopefully our fire marshal can answer specific questions about the Calfire process.

They're also gonna need, of course, building permits, any kind of grading permits from the public works agency, a permit from environmental health or the septic system.

Uh those are all the big ones.

Uh and um there's probably some smaller permits that may be required if they um, for example, the the certified agricultural permit that they may need from the state to produce eggs, for example, um things like that.

Yeah, so with all the permits and with all the conditions, the mitigation and monitoring report program.

Can you elaborate a little bit more on that?

So that gives you a more of a sense of comfort.

Yes, yes.

Well, in terms of accountability, the the mitigation monitoring board does have different responsible parties.

A lot of it is staff, a lot of it's planning staff, but also the applicant is going to be required to be able to report on this report, tell the county what they're doing to implement it and to abide by it.

Um and and that's done uh at the at the mandatory review.

That number, that five-year number could be less.

Um, that is our standard sort of starting place, however.

Um, but there's gonna be some um elements of the conditions of approval that that will fall squarely on on planning staff to look at, for example, the operations.

Are you having only um you know 18 sessions per year?

Uh are you only doing 12 weekend programs?

Are your is your um body count not over 105 per session?

Uh those kinds of things.

And uh we'll be checking in on, for example, the there is a concern about roadway damage.

We probably would be looking at that and asking public works to opine on that.

And but some of them also do um when it comes go goes back to the mitigation measures.

Some of those are done in the field, for example, if they encounter um cultural artifacts or human remains, they have to stop the site and bring in um experts uh to address that, maybe even the county coroner.

There is again, you know, there's different different responsible parties.

I would say the bulk of it is the planning department, and that's something that we use that mandatory review as an opportunity to make sure that they're complying with all the consistents of approval.

If you want to have a tighter leash on that, that is certainly something that we could do.

Um but at this point, the five-year mandatory reviews are standard.

Right.

Right.

Because I don't necessarily think the five years is something I could be comfortable with.

Uh and I'll I'm gonna get you know, I'm gonna drill down a little bit more in a minute.

Uh but before I go there, so in your presentation, you also talked about the alternatives to uh the the project and the staff recommended the reduced building footprint alternative.

Talk to me more about the capacity alternative.

The the capacity alternative, the reduced capacity alternative uh was about a 50% reduction in the program.

So to have as many students, have as many cabins, uh many of the buildings would be a little bit smaller than proposed.

Um I don't have the exact numbers, I have to go back and look at the EIR, but from my understanding is that their uh their program was to serve uh for them the magic number was three classrooms with staff that was about 105 people or so.

And so uh we took that as their the main goal and the main objective of the project was to serve that many kids in a given schedule throughout the year.

And that's why the reduced capacity alternative was not considered as a as a viable uh alternative for the for the applicant.

Um after visiting the site, we did settle on the reduced footprint.

The buildings seemed just a little bit too big for the site, and so we asked for about a 20% reduction, and they did reduce them about by about 15 to 20 percent.

Okay, so possibly with the the reduced capacity, you're saying it wasn't viable or wasn't wasn't feasible.

So the the CEQA asked the question of whether or not these uh whether the alternatives meet the project objectives.

And and so I think that there is um there wasn't anything, there's nothing to see that specific talks specifically talks about you know a reduced capacity.

Um but knowing that their project objectives was to serve three classrooms per session, um it didn't really meet their objectives, so that's why that was not considered.

Yeah, but with the um reduced capacity, we might be able to do some uh um modifications to make it more um palpable uh to meet the objectives of the applicant.

Okay.

Uh now let's let me get down to Litty Gritty here.

Um Supervisor, before you move on, if I might just add on regarding the EIR and its discussion of the alternatives to the projects, it's I believe it's in chapter five and section 5.6.2.

In speaking to the reduced capacity alternative, the EIR states that the reduced capacity alternative would be able to meet all of the project objectives.

However, it would not be able to accommodate as many students at one time, potentially limiting the reach of the proposed project if the amount of sessions per year were also not increased.

At no point does the EIR speak to the word of infeasible.

Um my understanding is that the reduced capacity um suggests that was studied reduces the number of students from 95 to 50, and it reduces the number of cabins from uh from 12 to 6, and that was what was evaluated in the EIR.

So the reduced capacity um the the board still can entertain that as a possible path.

I believe the EIR did not um disclose it as a potential alternative.

The staff is recommending, and the EIR does identify the reduced building footprint as the environmentally superior alternative.

I see.

Okay.

All right.

So let's so you know, here's the final um EIR.

And let me just um ask some questions here.

And I really appreciate Supervisor Tim asking some initial questions around the hydrology and fire and evacuations, etc.

Because I too share those concerns.

Um I I've made notes on various pages in the uh EIR.

Um, but I'm gonna go with I'm gonna start with fire because that's one of my biggest concerns.

So why don't we have county fire, and if you want to introduce yourself.

Good day.

Good day, everyone.

My name is Bonnie Terra, I'm a division chief with the Alameda County Fire Department, and I serve as the head of the fire code administration division within the agency, and I am here on behalf of our fire code official who is our fire chief, Chief McDonald, as well as our contract partner agency, Cal Fire, who we enforce their regulations on their behalf.

Okay, so you answer one question, Bonnie.

That initially initial question is why didn't Cal Fair Cal Fire weigh in on this, and it's because Alameda County Fires is handling that responsibility.

That is correct.

So we do that so that the our public does not have to submit building permits to Cal FIRE down in um Santa Clara County, which is the local unit, and then also submit to the county building department.

Okay, so it is for ease of um the customers that we serve.

Okay, very good.

So Alami County Fire has um approved uh this um uh design.

Uh I again I do believe from reading the IR, uh they're not gonna be using propane, which is great.

It's all going to be electric, uh, the buildings, green buildings, that sort of thing.

And so the design and the building material and all that kind of stuff.

Alameda County Fire has signed off on all that, or you still need to sign off on it.

Let me clarify that.

Okay.

The Alameda County Fire Department is part day planning review, reviews the documents that are submitted to ensure that they would comply with the regulations at the time.

As you are aware, this project has been in the pipeline for some time.

The codes have changed, as was indicated by retired chief Winnaker.

We no longer have Chapter 7A of the building code.

We now have a California wooy code, so the wooy code standards would apply.

That is why when we issue our conditions of approval, we are very specific in how we issue them.

We issue them to indicate that the project will comply with the building of fire codes in effect at the time of building permit submitted.

And since we are not an agency that has discretionary authority in most cases, we simply apply and administer the codes and standards in effect at the time of the building permit submittal.

We will do that.

The applicant's conditions of approval say must comply with current building and fire codes at the time of submittal.

Rural water will be a disferred submittal requirement.

Fire department access will need to be installed and meet the requirements of Title 14.

That is because this is an SRA state responsibility area, aka Calfire's jurisdiction.

All construction, and this was written in 2019, and that's why it references chapter 78 of the building code and construction and wildfire areas.

Under today's current code, that will be the new California wooy code, which went into effect January 1st of 2026.

And there is a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed for new buildings where required by the California Building and Fire Code standards at that time.

There is one clarification I would also like to make, and that is there was a reference to this being an educational occupancy, and I want to make sure that everyone understands that it was res reviewed as a camp, and that those are the standards to which the fire department and the building department conducted their reviews, and that is the defined occupancy classification based on the regulations that we enforce.

In addition to that, um we will make sure that any associated requirements will be adhered to at the time the building permit is issued.

There was questions about what permits will be issued.

It'll be a building permit, they'll also have to come in for fire sprinkler and/or applicable fire alarm requirements for their building, and they will have to come in and obtain an NFPA 1142 rural water supply permit for their firefighting water supply for that.

So the and there's probably one other, and that will be the Hood and Duck suppression system for the kitchen system in the main dining hall building that is the suppression system over the kitchen line.

Those will the per be the permits they need to gather for them.

When staff did their presentation, staff indicated in the presentation that we would not approve um an evacuation plan or or anything else.

There is not a separate permit.

I want to be clear for an evacuation plan.

There is not a separate permit for the vegetation management plan.

Those are submitted as part of the building department plan check and review process.

We review those plans.

We've reviewed them to determine that they're in conformance with the very specific set out standards for the case of um evacuation plans and items for camps.

It's under section 403.12 of the California Fire Code currently.

We will make sure that it has all those entities.

That's where we're at at this point.

Okay.

So you said a lot there.

Let me just unpack a few things.

So the water supply.

So I think in the EIR it said that they would have to have a tank, a larger tank for water, and and fire is approving that.

Let me correct you on that one, supervisor.

They will not mix their domestic water and their rural fire fighting NFPA 1142 tanks.

They're two separate things.

They will have an NFP 1142 rural water supply tank installed with a host connection, which is the same as everyone else who builds an SHRA that is not served by a municipal water district.

The size of said suppression tank is based on the cubic volume of the structures, and we go with the most restrictive structure on a site and it's sized accordingly.

And it's based on very specific standard NFA 1142.

And that's what we will make sure the water supply is to.

That water supply can be trucked in water.

It does not have to be hooked to a well, it does not have to be hooked into anything.

They just have to have a means that if we were to use it to refill it in a timely fashion, and that's generally again an agreement with a water supplier to truck in water if they're trucking it in.

And again, this is no different than any development that is currently going on from a single family house to an ADU to a caretaker unit to a full-on winery to anything else that's in unincorporated Alameda County SRA that doesn't have domestic water coming from a municipal water agency like East Bay Mud, um Pleasanton Water, SFPUC, or any other water purveyor I work with.

Okay.

I might get to public works about the road in a minute, but the bridge can uh Alameda County fire cross the bridge to access the property.

We will ensure that the bridge conforms with the standards outlined in Title 14 for access to the property.

Um and there's very specific requirements in Title 14 as to bridges, and the applicant is aware of those, and the applicant has it's my understanding agreed to make those.

Um it's currently under 1273 roads and driveway structures, highway transportation officials standard specifics for highway bridges edition 17 published 2022, known as AASH T O HB 17.

Okay.

So when will we know if they can't provide the necessary access, then that's going to be an issue?

They will.

They have agreed to it.

Okay.

They are moving forward if you allow them to with that understanding.

They will not be able to bring anything on site or do any construction until one they their their building permits been issued, but two, we also hold something um called um conditions on a building permit.

And the primary condition we hold is that access and water supply must be in and finaled prior to any vertical combustible construction on the site.

Okay.

So they will not be able to move till not only they have those approvals permits, but also all the inspections and everything's working a okay before they start construction.

And then I think the EIR talked about a secondary access.

There is no requirement for secondary access to this parcel by the state code.

And as I indicated, we only enforce the minimum standards as adopted by the state and the county.

Okay.

Now let's talk about the evacuation.

Um Alameda County Fire will not sign off on the evacuation plan.

Is that what you're saying?

So evacuation planning, as you may know, is under Lincoln Kashmir in in the Alameda County Fire Department.

He handles our emergency preparedness and evacuation planning.

Um, but there is no code requirement that says we sign off on plans.

What the code indicates is they have to have certain plans and there are certain elements in the plans.

And um staff will ensure that the elements are in the plans, but there's no approval.

Yeah, yeah, that's that's kind of a little disconcerting for me, even though you're following the law.

Um, it's a little disconcerting.

For instance, I appreciate the fact that Gaston Valley Unified School District's gonna make buses available.

Um, but once again, uh the buses have got to get there, gotta have drivers.

Uh I need to understand, I'll talk to public works about that.

The size of the buses that are being used, are those buses um suitable for the roadway uh as well as the the trucks that are gonna be coming in.

I'll talk to public works about that, but it just seems to me the evacuation plan is a is really really important.

And the reason I stress that is, and I think you know, you you you know me, we've worked together for a long time, but you know, you've heard me say before, uh I was on the Oakland City Council when there was the Oakland Hills Fire Storm.

I saw what happened.

Um my ex-wife and her husband had to evacuate from the paradise fire, just barely evacuated from that.

We know Altadina.

We know people are highly, highly, highly sensitive to fire.

They're more sensitive to fires uh these days than they are earthquakes.

So I need the evacuation plan is something that I'm very very concerned about.

And even though there's certain elements, I wish um fire had the obligation to sign off on the plan, um, because that really causes me some consternation.

And as uh one speaker uh brought out, and I wasn't gonna um I'm not concurring with the speaker, but the issue is also we've got Columbia up the hill, we've got residents in the you know, Cole Canyon, one way in, one way out, and uh we the evacuation plan might be suitable for that site potentially, but then we've got the rest of the community as well, and we can't predict, we try to predict if there's gonna be a fire, but we just I mean if somebody could you know discard a match or this, that and the other and sort of fire.

So I'm really concerned not just about the evacuation at the site, but the total community ability to evacuate if needed.

And and fire does not I I hear you, and and what you're speaking of is overall community evacuation planning and evacuation elements in Alameda County, and again, those are under Lincoln Cashmere and his staff, and he has those documents and and things as far as what we do for divided or emergency planning as far as the county as a whole.

Um, but there is nothing specific for any more specific for this project than would be a neighboring use.

Gotcha, okay, other than what I indicated.

All right.

So I'm gonna let you off the hot seat, Bonnie.

That's okay.

I'm ready to go to somebody else.

Go for it.

Do you do you want me to go to somebody else or does any supervisor want to ask Bonnie any questions?

Um I will ask if the other supervisors, you're taking up quite a bit of time, supervisor.

I'm going through a lot of stuff methodically.

Supervisor Marquez.

Uh thank you, Chair Tam.

Um, thank you for your thorough responses, comprehensive responses.

I just want to be crystal clear.

Should this be approved the order of operations when it comes to permitting, it sounds like building is number one.

So I'll help you out with that.

Yeah.

We have somewhat of a one-stop shop process here in Alameda County.

So once they submit to the building department, the building department staff routes to all other agencies within the county that have reviewing authority over that project.

Um, and so we're all reviewing the same documents simultaneously.

So when they get an approval for a building permit, it will be my approval for everything that's in that building permit package, which would be vegetation, egress, building components, construction, all of that.

There will be a note on the front page of that plan that says deferred submittals for fire, and under that will be NFPA 1142 rural water.

It will be a hood and duck suppression system for the kitchen, and it will be fire sprinkler systems.

And the reason those have to be deferred submittals is the General B contractor cannot legally obtain those permits.

In the case of the sprinkler and hood and duck permits, those need to be pulled by licensed C16 contractors.

In the case of fire alarms, it's a licensed C10 contractor, and NFPA 1142 systems are completely separate systems.

So those will come later because those come directly to us as the only reviewing agency rather than as part of the one stop where they get everything else associated with the building permit with one submittal.

And what about the state requirements?

We enforce on behalf of the state.

So we're doing it at the same time.

Again, the public doesn't, it is seamless to the public.

They don't even know that other than when we send comments back, we'll refer to Title 14 and we'll refer to SRA rather than perhaps certain specific chapters in the fire code that may not be adopted by the state.

And checks and balance if there's a delay with one entity, the rest can't proceed, or who's who's coordinating that aspect.

So the building department coordinates everything associated with the building permits.

I've come before this um board several times to report our turnaround times, and we're generally about three days to do our reviews.

But that doesn't mean the applicant's going to get their review done because another agency may be 14 days, 10 days, one maybe one day, whatever else.

It's my understanding that the building department waits till everybody's comments are in, then issues the comments to the applicant, then the applicant has a chance to resubmit.

At what point they get approvals from all the applicable agencies, then building issues the building permit.

And when you reference um state fire code, uh the requirements are subject to when the permit is pulled.

Is that when they submit for building permit application?

So whatever the code is at that time.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so if it's increase in costs, a whole different layer regulation, just whatever the code is at that time.

Correct.

When they submit for building permit.

Okay, and I don't know if um Mr.

Lopez can answer this question, and I'll go back to Supervisor Miley because you've hit many of my questions.

I appreciate your uh thoroughness.

Um if this is approved, what are the timeline in submitting um the request for building permits?

Is there like it has to be done with a certain amount of days?

Can an extension be provided?

Help me understand like the timeline.

It's three years to implement the permit, and that usually for us is pulling a permit of some sort, billing permit, it could be a grading permit.

Um and that's usually what we consider to be implementation.

And if it goes beyond three years, what what are the um options?

If they did nothing, then their permit would be null and void and they'd have to go through the process again.

Although they could ask for an extension by going back to the BCA um the original body that, well, I guess in this case, yeah, it was start at the BZA.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Fortunately.

Thank you.

Oops.

Let me just uh make sure my video having trouble with my video, sorry.

There we go.

Um, I will just ask a few questions related to wildfire since we are on this topic.

Um, thank you to retired chief uh Winnaker as well as to Bonnie for your um the information that you have shared so far.

Um I will start by saying that I similarly am very, very concerned about wildfire in our county and in our region.

Um I was on the Oakland City Council when we had Oakland's um more recent large fire, which was the Keller fire, and we were um very uh happy that the response uh because of everything that we have been learning about fighting wildfires and preventing wildfires uh was a very strong ref response, and that there was um uh relatively um minimal damage to both property and um and to life as well.

So I do think that um our both Calfire and our county and uh municipal fire uh departments are doing a great job just really coordinating learning and working together.

Um, and uh also appreciate that whether it's our children or any residents that we will do everything we can to maintain their safety and uh deal with wildfire.

So um I did want to uh maybe just help uh put into the public record what the requirements are for wildfire prevention versus what um the applicant is doing on a voluntary basis, and I am learning a lot about this uh serving as our county rep on the East Bay Wildfire Coalition of Governments.

You know, here in our county, the city of Berkeley has the most stringent wildfire prevention measures through their Ember program.

Uh the state is in the process of um putting those uh requirements, those standards out.

Uh so we'll hear more about what those will be.

Um, but it's my understanding that the applicant is volunteering to do a number of things, including uh suspending programs during uh National Weather Service red flag days.

Um and I do want to underscore this because we are uh the coalition of governments is in a conversation with some of our school districts about what we call stay-at-home days and really trying to um kind of think about this as snow days on the east coast here on the west coast where we have wildfire activity, we also have to have that same same mentality of keeping our children home.

Um so I understand that is a voluntary measure in addition to some of the other measures in terms of zone zero, maintaining um defensible space, et cetera.

So um it might be good to put on the record um what is mandated in terms of wildfire prevention and what is uh proposed in terms of uh voluntary measures to enhance uh wildfire prevention.

I'm assuming that's for me.

Um, just so you know that the WUI code, the 2025 Wii code will be what is required in addition to the um regulation title 14, which there are some requirements in there.

As far as this reference to zone zero, um, yes, the applicant has chosen to add additional features that are not currently required.

Since zone zero has not been adopted by the state of California, and since it has been under major discussion as to what is going to be included in zone zero and where things will be measured from certain walls and everything else, I hesitate to even reference it because what I would prefer to say is if the applicant is saying they will work with any regulation that comes out relative to wildland fire safety prior to their building permit.

Obviously, we're going to enforce that when it comes out.

But until we know what zone zero is adopted as, I hesitate to say that somebody's going what they're offering is complying with the zone zero because we don't know what zone zero is going to look at when the regulations come out.

And it's been in discussion for over a year.

Um prior to that, there were three or four years ago when it was initially brought up, then the governor brought it up after the Palisades fire, and there was supposed to be a decision by December of last year, and there wasn't.

So that's why I hesitate.

I can tell everybody here in the public that the next board of forestry meeting regarding this is going to be held on April 23rd.

So we are looking at it, we are watching for it, and we all will maintain any requirements and ensure that they are enforced here in this county.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I just have a few questions and then I'll go back to Supervisor Miley.

So we have 57 conditions, and a lot of the conditions that I looked at pertain uh in some way of making sure we have a way to monitor and uh be um cognizant of the permit terms that are going to be issued.

Uh and I I count like eight agencies that will be either approving this or offering permits, and I appreciate the fact that there is going to be that one-stop shop with the Alameda County agencies, but if they don't get a uh drinking water permit from the state water resources control board, the project doesn't proceed.

If they don't get a septic uh um approval from environmental health, which I know can be very rigorous in the county, the project doesn't proceed.

If there's issues around um the core of engineers with navigable waters, the project isn't proceed.

Is that correct?

I agree with that, yes.

Okay.

So the other question I had pertain to what I think you are extremely eloquent, so I appreciate your expertise very much so today.

Uh do you can you state for the public record or have somebody do that later?

Uh, what the elements of an evacuation plan is, not just for this uh site, but for you know, the the area.

Kind of.

And the reason I will say that is the plans that are required depend on the occupancy classification.

Correct.

So what's required for a camp is different than what's required for an assembly occupancy, which is different than what's required for a California public school or an educational facility.

So I can and I will specifically read to you out of the code because I had a hint this might come up, what some of the requirements are specifically for camps.

So a camp.

Group C occupancy shall comply with the requirements of section 403.1 point 2.1 through 403 point 12.3.

Yes.

If you ever want to fall asleep, read the fire code.

All right.

403 point one two point one staff training and evacuation plan.

Every organized camp shall institute fire training programs for all employees in the use of all fire extinguishing equipment and methods of evacuation and shall establish procedures which shall, as far as possible, be followed in the event of fire or any other emergency.

If located in a forest area, a plan shall be prepared for evacuation of the camp in case of approaching forest fire or other emergency.

403.12.2 resident training within 24 hours.

So has anybody ever been on a cruise ship and you have to do that drill?

And okay, this is similar.

So within 24 hours after arrival, every group or person attending an organized camp shall be made familiar with the method by which the fire alarm may be activated and with the procedure to be followed upon notification of fire.

Fire drills.

At least one fire drill shall be held within 25 hours of the commencement of each camping session.

Additional drills shall be conducted at least once each week thereafter.

When sessions exceed a seven-day period, at least one drill shall be held during nighttime sleeping hours.

Okay.

California Code of Regulations Title 19, Division One.

Every organized camp shall institute fire training programs for all employees using it references and located in forest areas.

So I I bring that up because the fire code also incorporates the same regulations that are in title title 19, so that people don't have to go find them where all the various regulations are.

Now you asked about evacuation plans.

So evacuation plans.

Evacuation plans shall include the following emergency egress and escape routes, and whether evacuation of a building is to be completed by selected floors or areas or within a defend in place response.

Procedures for employees who must remain to operate critical equipment before evacuating.

Three procedures of use of elevators to evacuate a building.

Um where occupied evacuation elevators comply with section 308 of the building code of provided.

There is a litany in this section.

And so those are the items that when they submit, we will simply go, yep, yep, yep, yep.

And that plan is included as part of their building permit.

They get their building permit approved, but we're not specifically going, okay, the preferred or any alternative routes or whatever else.

We're not physically approving that plan.

Okay.

That was the clarification I didn't mean.

Thank you very much.

Very responsive.

The last question I had is for staff.

Uh with respect to the Williamson Act, uh, I mean, my experience that's dates back to the planning commission days, so that may be outdated.

I I thought it's basically uh an air uh the act allows for tax exemption for agricultural uses, but based on our um I I guess implementation of the Williamson Act at the county.

I thought there are express provisions that allow for recreation use such as this camp, uh, more than just requiring them to uh have an economy that sells $10,000 or 20,000 worth of uh agricultural products.

Yes, so that the last bit is true.

That is the the threshold requirement for the principles of compatibility.

Uh they would be considered a compatible use.

The couple compatible uses need to be on a two-acre building envelope, which the project is.

And so those two are the sort of the main things that we were concerned about when it comes to bullets and back is make making sure that they meet that minimum threshold income requirement and that they stay on a two-acre building envelope with the remainder of the site in open space.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

I'll turn it back to Supervisor Miley.

Well, thank you, Bonnie.

Let's let's get environmental health.

Is um Dylan on?

Is she somewhere around?

Environmental health.

We're going to hydrology and water quality.

So Daniel is on right here.

Daniel for okay, so we'll we'll do public works with the roads, and then we'll go back to Dylan.

Dylan does have her hand up in the in the audience.

Dylan R, if you can allow her to speak, please.

I know, I know.

So you want me to not ask the questions?

Because this is um, you know, we're trying to build a record here, and yeah, I you know I didn't schedule a two o'clock meeting.

I appreciate that.

Okay.

All I can do is ask the questions, but I I know you're not admonishing me, but I'm just letting you know.

Yeah, doing the best I can.

So Miley, can you hear me?

Yes.

So the uh project will be required to have an advanced system.

That is correct.

And environmental health, have you signed off on the um septic system just yet?

We have given a feasibility study level approval, so uh we have had work extensively with the on-site wastewater system designer.

Uh there is a uh over uh 60 page uh basis of design report.

Um, and they have satisfied all of our questions and uh complied with the code you're not are not requesting any variances.

I I just want to say one thing that um this design was designed by one of the most experienced experts in on-site wastewater systems in California, Nick Wigel.

He's um he has a registered civil engineer.

I am a registered civil engineer.

I reviewed his documents.

There was cumulative impact, groundwater mounding.

It's it's a really extensive document.

Um, and the comments that I have read uh are unsubstantiated, uh inaccurate, um show a lack of expertise.

Uh and some of them I will uh kind of confirm that uh some of them are written uh by somebody who claims to be an expert but is not a registered professional in the state of California uh and does not have expertise in on-site wastewater systems.

So Dylan, um the plan calls for gray water, and it states that that's gonna be a pilot.

So talk to me about how that's gonna work, because the the gray water seems, and I know that's a component of you know, trying to deal with the uh water quality and uh the necessary water for the project.

Yeah, so the um the on-site wastewater system is designed to be able to handle all wastewater, including graywater system, uh uh in including gray water.

Um, but there is uh uh Mosaic project is uh wanting to be able to divert gray water, which we should all be doing in places where we have on-site wastewater systems if we can.

Um there isn't a design for that yet, um, and that if they do do that, that would get uh the uh plans for that would be submitted, but at this point in time, the on-site wastewater system can handle all of the wastewater.

Yes, so the group the gray water isn't necessarily uh needed, uh, but it's a good um added pilot aspect of this.

Yep.

Okay.

Absolutely.

All right.

Then what about I read in the EIR the issue of the caretaker uh in the septic over near the caretaker's house?

Now uh when will we know if that's going to be suitable or if that'll have to be moved?

Are you still there?

Sorry, I got yeah, I got promoted to a panelist all of a sudden, so I am on uh it it did a pause.

I think you were talking about the caretaker.

Yes.

Yes.

Um there is a case caretaker unit, uh has a separate septic system.

Um it is a septic system that is very similar to all other septic systems in uh that area for wineries or residential properties.

It's uh and so I do not have a concern with that, it's a very small part of the wastewater loading and is in is included in the design.

Yeah, all righty.

Now you you we have our on-site uh wastewater treatment uh uh commission, right?

Uh-huh.

Uh with this or is the commission.

Um I don't want to say required, but do we need to have them review these plans?

Uh no.

Uh they don't have the expertise to review the plans.

These are very technical engineering documents.

Uh so I mean they could review them, Supervisor Miley from uh a general perspective, you know, an overall perspective, and um they have not requested to.

We are having an upcoming uh commission meeting next week, and nobody has brought this to uh none of the commissioners have brought this uh matter up.

I would certainly be glad to talk to them about uh and kind of walk them through uh the project if they want that on the agenda, but it is it is not something that commissioners uh could comment on unless they're on-site wastewater system designers or engineers.

Gotcha, okay, because you know we spend a lot of time with the LAMP um and uh and did a lot to um work on getting uh the state to approve our septic um ordinances and procedures and this and the other and guidelines, and I know in the unincorporated area uh in and and even in some other locations, and so I'm just uh I'm I'm delighted that it'll be an advanced system.

But I I just want to really make sure that uh based on your review uh what is being suggested, uh, we'll handle the level of activity on the site.

And I know Supervisor Tan has some questions earlier that are a little bit more technical, and I don't know if you can respond to those around the aquifer as well as um because she's an engineer, and I know she knows this stuff a little bit better than me around the aquifloor, um as well as anything else that you heard.

Um I I'm gonna separate it a little bit.

There's a lot of discussion about uh the water supply well, of which I have no jurisdiction over.

Uh that's a state water board.

Um, but I will say that um, you know, our lamp uh focuses on the protection of our uh watersheds uh and there's a lot of um misrepresentation in some of the comments.

This is not one of the zone seven areas of concern.

Uh this is an area where there are steep canyons, and so there needs to be and and creeks, and so where we have areas like that, they're called focus areas in our lamp.

You need to make sure that you're meeting all the the requirements.

Uh for instance that you have adequate setbacks to steep slopes, right?

So a non-site wastewater system would not be impacted from any kind of landslide that you're meeting uh 150 foot setbacks from public water supply wells, you're meeting a hundred foot uh setbacks to the creeks, they're outside of the flood uh zone, and uh this system meets all of our requirements.

There are no there are no variances at all um proposed, and um and there has been really extensive there there have been multiple uh design reports submitted to us with a really thorough design review, uh, and all of our comments have been addressed.

Okay, and the lamp stands for the local area management plan.

Yeah, local agency management plan, yeah.

Okay, because it's uh because I didn't want to use a uh an acronym and not everyone know what it was.

Sorry, okay.

So I think that's my questions for environmental health.

So I don't know if any of the board members have any questions on environmental health.

Um you asked the questions.

I was curious about the subject team, so thank you.

You covered my question as well.

Thank you very much.

Are there any uh questions or comments from Supervisor Halbert or Portion Autobas?

I have about 20 questions, but Nate asked all of them.

Thank you, President Halbert.

All right, so I'll go to public works.

Is public works queued up?

Yeah.

Okay.

So public works.

Uh Daniel, director of public work agency.

So the public works is signed off on the project relative to the roads and the building permits and things of that nature.

Because it's in the road, it's in Cole Canyon, isn't it limited in terms of the size of trucks that can come down that road?

Yes.

I do not believe building permits application have been submitted.

So there is nothing to sign off.

However, we did submit uh our conditions uh to planning so that they can incorporate in the conditions of approval.

Uh we have informed planning, as I believe as well as the applicants that call has a weight limitation right now that has been established long time ago, about 14 pound, 14,000 pounds.

So uh vehicles in excess of 14,000 pounds uh are not allowed.

Uh the roadway, as you know, is a two-lane rural roadway that is uh chip sealed by public works to maintain it in good in pretty good shape.

Right now, the roadway is in a very good shape since we have uh chip sealed it a couple of years ago.

Uh however, uh it's a narrow road uh with uh was limited weight capacity, so we have put that condition uh and forward it to planning to incorporate in the evacuation plan they talk about maybe using buses.

What size buses would be appropriate on the roadway so that the roadway it wouldn't get blocked?

Because I know there's been an incident where the roadway was blocked by a bus trying to turn around.

Yes, one of the conditions that we've stated is that there needs to be appropriate turnaround areas for buses as well as large uh truck type of vehicles.

Uh and I think that has been communicated to planning.

Hopefully it's incorporated in the conditions.

Uh however, when we get to review the set of plans, we ensure, because most of the conditions that we put in is saying to the applicant that you need to perform, you need to provide geotechnical reports, uh, uh flooding, you know, stormwater reports, uh, clean water reports and various reports that have be that has to be submitted to uh both uh our development engineering group as well as the building permit group in order to issue these permits.

So buses uh uh uh right now the limitation that is actually legally posted there is a weight limit of 14,000.

And then what about the bridge?

The access bridge.

Yeah, then existing bridge, uh uh we have advised the applicant that they need to get a license civil engineer to uh uh uh certify the adequacy of the existing bridge.

Uh once they do submit that, we will look at it and make sure that it is it does meet uh the required standard for uh uh a safe bridge.

Okay.

And what about are there any concerns on flood control relative to the creek?

Access to the creek, construction on the bridge, etc.

Yes, all of those things have to be designed.

Uh I do appreciate uh Bonnie's explanation.

We just like fire department, uh, we are not discretionary uh uh decisions.

These are things that have to be done uh license by a licensed engineer or geotechnical or civil, uh as well as provide us all the detailed design so for us to review.

Uh so these conditions basically establish the basis by which uh the applicant should submit his requirement, required documents to uh both public works and fire and other discretionary non-discretionary uh bodies.

So uh they will be required to have an enforcement permit with the county uh to in order to even connect their driveway to the roadway.

Uh the bridge needs to meet the the standard uh required standard for the bridge.

Uh they need to provide a mechanism by which if they exceed the 14,000 uh uh weight uh how they intend to address.

One of the conditions that we've suggested is that we need to have a pre-construction and then post-construction joint review of the site.

So if we can determine the the degree of deterioration because of this development, that we would put a condition that the developer pays for upgrading the roads and maintaining them to at least pre-development conditions.

However, I will note that the roadway, the public roadway are uh these these folks are entitled to the use of the road.

Okay.

And I think I saw in the EIR the traffic count on the roadways about 400 vehicles per day, 450 per day, something like that.

Yes, it's a very low volume roadway.

And and I know in the past when we've had meetings with folks out on Colcane, there's been conflicts between cyclists and vehicles.

Um do we anticipate any in you know impacts with this project relative to uh traffic?

We will require uh adequate signage during construction or any activity that uh there will be undertaking that could be uh inconveniencing, or we need to inform the traveling public.

So if there are construction activity, there will be requirement for adequate signage uh to inform bicyclists, the pedestrians or vehicles uh that to be careful.

Okay, I think I think you've responded to my questions from public works.

Any questions from my colleagues on from for public works?

Hearing none.

Continue.

I'm sorry, did Supervisor Farcher not about President Halbert have any questions?

Okay.

And is is Bonnie still there?

Because I just want to ask Bonnie one of the quick questions.

Not Bonnie, excuse me, Dylan.

Again, getting my people mixed up.

Dylan is still in still out there in the virtual world.

Yes, I am yeah, Dylan.

Um also with the advanced systems and with all the septic systems, there's a requirement that there be inspections.

Um, those inspections are they monthly, weekly, and what what are those inspections?

Um they depend.

So there's an operating permit, an annual operating permit that would be issue uh for an advanced treatment system, and it would be defined in those operating permit uh conditions.

I don't know for sure what they'd be, but I think at this probably uh it you know we could we could start it out as quarterly if we wanted to.

It typically is annually, um, but we can uh you know, due to the sensitivity, we can we can change that frequency when we get to that point.

Okay, all righty.

Okay, moving on then.

Um in the EIR, it didn't talk about noise from the you know the activity on the site.

Is there any concern about the noise level with you know children and adults on the site?

I don't believe that there was any specific impact that can be mitigated or that would that uh exceeded any thresholds to be concerned about.

Uh my understanding is that the ambient noise level is very low on the in the canyon, um, and that you wouldn't be able to hear, for example, uh at times you know, kids playing or singing what or whatever they do there, um, but that it was intermittent and wouldn't necessarily trigger any any specific mitigation measure.

Um the the sequel consultant um I believe they're in the room, they could probably provide additional uh background for that, but noise wasn't one of the concerns that uh came out of the public comment or that that staff has raised to date.

Okay, and then uh do we have the sheriff's department on bringing the sheriff's department up?

Commander, could you please raise your hand and we will promote you?

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh I'm not sure who's on from the sheriff's department, but uh do we have a sense of the call for services on Cole Canyon?

Good afternoon, uh Commander Day Blanche at the sheriff's office.

Yeah, the calls for service, uh especially in that stretch of Cole Canyon is minimal.

Um I don't have the statistical data to provide um numbers, but uh generally the calls for service in that area is is very low for us.

And and has the Sheriff Department taken a look at this project and if there would be any impact relative to calls for service.

So I I've been on the call listening to the presentations.

That's the first information that that the sheriff's office has received.

Um the impact calls for service wise would be um minimal based on what would be needed from the camp at the particular time.

So when camp is in session, our biggest concern or our biggest calls for service would be uh an emergency response.

A lot of the questions and concerns that we had have been outlined uh through some of the conversations with the fire department regarding access and egress into the facility for an emergency response.

Um if there were other calls for service that would come out of the camp during its operational hours, um we wouldn't know the impact of that yet because we don't have the experience with the with a camp in that particular area yet, but I I do believe it would be minimal.

Okay, and I think um there's a fire station not too far away.

So if there's the need for a first responder in terms of an accident or something like that, that would be that we need a county fire would be on the scene initially, and then if there's an a need for uh law enforcement, uh the sheriff's department would respond.

Correct.

And what what would be your is uh would we have any concerns about response time?

Um well just based on the geographics of it, obviously there would be a delayed response time just because of the the distances it's away from the I guess the the core heart of the upper castor valley sectors which we have.

Uh our staffing model has assigned deputy sheriffs that work all throughout the the unincorporated in Castro Valley, so they would be responding from uh whatever location they're at at the time.

So delayed in in a sense that it would take longer just because of the duration it would take to get there, the length of time, but not delayed with the fact that we wouldn't have the resources to respond.

And I'm not sure.

Um who I speak with, is it commander?

Correct.

Okay, Commander.

Um the Sheriff's Department is responsible for animal control, right?

Correct.

Okay.

And when I looked at the EIR, they talked about mountain, you know, mountain lines and the in the fact that mountain, you know, the the encounter with the mountain lion would be very minimal.

Um, but I do know there's wild pigs up there, rattlesnakes and other things.

If there's a call for service because of an encounter with a rattlesnake, um, you know, pigs, etc.

Um, how would you respond to that and how quickly could you respond?

So animal control services.

Well, if there was a if there was an emergency, meaning there were there was uh wildlife that was presenting an imminent danger to staff or children, our our response from the law enforcement side would be would be appropriate and quick.

A lot of times when it comes to wildlife and or animal control services, uh there's two ways to do it.

One one the call comes through the sheriff's office where we go and respond with our deputy sheriff's staff, they evaluate the need and then they would summon uh animal control services to respond.

Uh the second way would be that the phone call or the report goes directly into Alameda County Animal Control Services, and then they respond or mitigate the problem on their own.

So two different ways that situations get to animal control.

One is through the general public or the organization itself reaching out directly to animal control, having that conversation, and then getting a response that particular way, or coming through more of an uh immediate need where the deputy sheriffs would go evaluate it and then summon animal control if necessary.

And has and for the journal the the general welfare uh uh has the uh sheriff's department have you had to respond to any instances of uh animals in the canyons, coal canyon in the past.

Uh generally, I I don't have specifics, but yes, we have gone our our staff in our more rural areas uh oftentimes gets called for injured animals.

Uh obviously mountain lions have happened in the past, uh especially out like in the Livermore Valley.

That's a that's a different set of circumstances.

If somebody spots a mountain lion, that activates a whole nother level of response and responsibility.

Um snakes, rattlesnakes, other things that are dangerous and potentially harmful that we will respond and address and see what we can deal with, and if not summon animal control.

Okay.

So thank you, Commander.

I think that's everything.

I had for the insurer's department.

Did my colleagues have any questions for the sheriff's department?

Even online, same none, continue, Supervisor Martley.

So um going back to public works, uh the issue with we have known that there's been late landslides out there that have gone into the creek and blocked the roadway and this and the other.

This project will have no impact on the creeks or roadway relative to landslides.

But we have uh uh we've uh we've seen some of the cross-sections.

Uh they've laid out some of the setback requirements.

Uh however, like I said, they will have to submit official plans, set a plan by the appropriate expertise uh for us to fully review initial initial cursor review is that they understand uh the the setback requirement for Creeks uh based on the water course ordinance.

Uh so we will be uh looking forward to reviewing it uh on a on based on official plans.

I see.

Okay.

I believe that's everything I had for the moment Supervisor Tim.

Thank you very much, Supervisor Miley.

Are there any other comments or questions?

Supervisor Marquez.

Uh thank you, Chair Tam.

Just wanted to clarify with respect to the 57 57 uh conditions of approval, and uh the way it's written as it states right now that a review would be in five years, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

But we can adjust that if necessary.

Yes.

Okay, and what um if this does get approved, what are the um measures to ensure compliance is being done with respect to the evacuation plan and just the overall operation of this location.

Can anyone from the public request monitoring, like what safeguards do we have in place to ensure that there's no modification from the time that the project should it be approved to implementation being operationalized?

Well, a couple things there.

One is that um all of our documents are are available to the public at any time.

So somebody could ask for the evacuation plan.

It's online.

And um the the requirement to have that in place, um, as Bonnie uh had mentioned uh uh a little while ago is is the requirement, so we would make sure that that continues to be part of their operation.

Um and so that among all the other conditions of approval are reviewed at the mandatory review period of five years.

And we do um as part of that, we would check with our partner agencies, many of them that that just spoke on these issues and make sure that they're not aware of anything that is uh that needs to be addressed or any concerns that they may have.

I understand that, but the other entities would not be legally required to monitor things out of their scope, correct?

Planning would be the central hub for making sure all those agencies uh chime in on their particular areas of expertise.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um we will go to public comment at this time, but let me ask the clerk by the 11:30 deadline.

How many speakers should we have signed up?

We have 84 total, 66 in person, 18 online.

18 online.

Um this is a very important um project and hearing, so I want to give it the adequate time it needs.

Um County Council, how late can we start our two o'clock meeting?

So the um I have reached out to the CAO to determine if we can at two o'clock um recess this meeting and then open that meeting and continue it.

Um recess it to a set time.

Um I think that is is an option.

And so as we get closer to the two o'clock hour, we can evaluate how much time is remaining and how much time you uh think we will need before we get to the special meeting.

Okay, thank you very much.

So um with 84 speakers, um I would like to uh offer 90 seconds 1.5 minutes per speaker.

I'm sorry, up to uh Mark Supervisor Marquez reminded me and supervisor Halbert that it's up to 90 seconds, you don't have to use the full 90 seconds.

And if you say, if you're repeating what somebody else is saying, feel free to say diddle.

Thank you.

Because we won.

Or starting uh with the students because of some of their time constraints.

Your name will be called, and if you could please line up.

Thank you.

Alix Abley and Grace Russell.

Welcome.

Hi, uh, I'm Alex Abde.

I'm a current sophomore at the Nueva School and a youth leader at the Mosaic Project.

So my speech, I would like to quote.

If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth by which no one was ever truly harmed.

Quote Marcus Aurelius.

The key point of this whole argument is about evidence, where Mosaic Project are the only ones who provide concrete evidence reviewed by the state to support its claims.

The opponents start with a conclusion and cherry pick evidence to support that conclusion, where a mosaic draw a conclusion from the evidence garnered from experts in the state.

Mosaic is the only side in this uh argument that actually has any tangible benefit towards the future, as I think everyone knows that this project is extremely beneficial to everyone.

Evidence suggests people's social skills are declining with the pandemic intensifying this trend as 25% of workers in the Bay Area reported diminished social skills.

Mosaic solves for this, and also mosaic has nowhere else to go.

It's this or mosaic fades out into oblivion.

With that, I please urge a vote for yes.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Grace Russell, and I went to Mosaic in the fall of 22.

By the logic given, nobody should be setting foot in Cole Canyon at all.

Now, at a very young age, we are taught to do simple things.

Don't talk back, don't hit, be kind to others.

Once we get older, we're told to be role models.

All the time, especially me.

I hear adults say, you are the future.

But how can we be the future if we don't know how to make the future right?

How can we be the future if we were never taught what the future should look like?

This is what the Mosaic Project is teaching us.

How to take our corrupted country, our dying earth, and create it into something better.

A place where everyone has a chance for their voice to be heard.

Not only do they teach us how to empathize with people from different backgrounds and hardships, but they teach us to hear their stories.

Not everyone is taught that at home.

They say an enemy is one whose story has not yet been heard.

Now I'm not saying you have to be best friends with everyone you meet.

I know for a fact that's irrational.

It's impossible.

But if we just start listening, that's the first step.

Mosaic is the first step.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jackson Preston Werner, and when I was in fifth grade, I attended one mosaics camps along with the rest of my school.

There we mixed with other schools of students of all sorts of backgrounds other than our own.

We were able to get out of our own personal little bubble.

Mosaic taught me that equality does not look like everyone being the same.

It looks like everyone being unique and yet still treated the same.

At the end of camp, we each wrote a letter to our future selves.

I wrote that I wanted to return to Mosaic one day as a counselor to help other kids.

I'm not old enough yet.

I'm only 13.

But I am old enough to stand here today.

Today, Mosaic's Chance at Permanent Home is at risk.

I'm here to ask you to give the Mosaic Project permission to begin construction on why I'm sure we'll become the stomping grounds of future activists, leaders, and of course, 13-year-olds like myself.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jax Phillips.

I am a student and I live in Alameda County.

I had an opportunity to attend Mosaic with my fifth grade class at Cleveland Elementary School.

It was a life-changing experience.

It was not just fun.

I learned mosaic values.

I learned how to be more empathetic.

I learned how to de-escalate conflicts, and I can be assertive.

Please support Mosaic on this land.

And for a more peaceful community.

Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Avery Chang, and I'm speaking here to support a permanent home for the Mosaic Project.

Last spring I served as a cabin leader with Mosaic, and it was such an impactful experience.

Mosaic helped me understand what a truly diverse community means.

And I realized how much you can learn from people who have different backgrounds from you.

I love seeing the transformation in the kids I worked with, and I grew alongside them too.

I generally believe that if more people had the chance to experience mosaic, we can make our communities a more peaceful and empathetic place.

Without this site, it will be so much harder for Mosaic to continue operating sustainably, let alone grow and impact future generations.

I urge you to please vote yes.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Charlotte Trotter, and I participated in the Mosaic Project when I was in fourth grade.

And today I serve on the board of directors, and I also serve on Mosaic's Risk Management Committee.

Because of Mosaic, I've become a committed change maker in my communities, now serving as the program director at Westminster Woods, a 501c3 Christian and environmental education nonprofit in Occidental Sonoma County.

A major part of my job is managing 200 acres of Redwood Forest in a remote area with risks like fire, floods, and landslides.

I work daily on forest and fire management, evacuation planning, permitting septic systems, and land stewardship.

Even though Westminster Woods is more than 20 minutes from the nearest town, we operate safely there every year with campers and families from Castro Valley more than willing to come in attendance to these camps every single week.

I've spent years thinking about how to keep kids safe in outdoor spaces.

Mosaic itself has a 25-year track record of running camps in royal areas without any incident.

We have safely managed fire risk.

After a 10-year search, Mosaic's Real Estate Committee selected this site because it is one of the safest and most practical camp locations we've seen.

Thank you for your time.

Brody, go ahead.

You have a minute and a half.

Thank you for your for the opportunity to speak.

I am a career state of Christian wildlife and private senior environmental scientists, and have written many SQL documents and have reviewed countless others.

I'm very familiar with mitigation monitoring reporting plans and sequel compliance and believe in my professional capacity that the Mosaic Project has gone above and beyond on avoidance and minimum minimization measures, clustering development, a previously disturbed corner of the property, preserving over 90% of the land for habitat and environmental education.

The project proponents have gone well and beyond SQL requirements and analyzing and planning fire access, water availability, wastewater improvements, and as was discussed earlier.

These will only get further analyzed, refined, improved, or denied in close consultation with regulatory and other approval agencies during the permitting process.

Again, this is a model project with model leadership.

And I encourage the supervisors to accept staff recommendations, vote yes and adopt all four staff findings and recommendations that have been carefully considered.

Thank you.

Michelle, go ahead, you have a minute and a half.

I'm showing I live in San Lorenzo and I'm the camp manager of our outdoor project.

I'm glad I got a moment to hop online to speak with you all.

My relationship with the Mosaic Project began when I was 15 as part of the youth leadership program that Mosaic has provided for Bay Area teens for over 25 years.

Is it a part of the Mosaic Project for 11 years?

That I know that if they are to keep empowering our kids and youth, they need a permanent local home that fits the bill.

One that truly is sustainable for their programming and upholds their mission.

While it's amazing that this nonprofit has been operating for as long as it has, it's not possible to keep operating away from the Bay Area.

It takes a huge toll to ask for our team, our teen volunteers, and our campers who travel nearly two hours to get to a camp down here in Santa Cruz Mountains.

It's not sustainable to spend increasing prices every year on a rented camp that we can't call our own.

And instead, we should be subinvesting that money within ourselves.

There are so many reasons why Mosai won't be able to operate authentically and sustainably for another 25 years without its own local homes.

Voting against this project would not only prevent Mosaic from building a permanent home at the specific site, but let's be clear.

It is permanent for them to continue at the work during this time in our nation that we need it the most.

I respect the leave request their approval of the Allen Weater County Board of Supervisors.

Thank you.

Nina Fogle, go ahead, you have a minute and a half.

Hi, my name is Nina Fogle.

I have a PhD in urban uh ecology focusing on bees, and for my job, I do environmental review assessments.

I've looked at the materials for Mosaic's project, and overall, I think it will actually improve the habitat quality of the site.

The site currently appears somewhat degraded with invasive plants and a few floral resources.

The plan will actually improve the habitat quality of the site through management efforts and additional landscaping.

Many bee species actually do really well in managed areas if the floral resources they require are present.

The site plans include installation of plants known to be visited by bumblebees and other native bee species.

Bombard's crachiale, for example, hasn't been found in the region in decades, but the floral resources it used are included in the landscape plan.

Thank you.

Andrew Stein, go ahead.

You have a minute and a half.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Hello.

Okay, I'm gonna talk, assuming you can hear me.

My name is Andrew Stein.

I am a member of the board of directors for the Mosaic Project, but more importantly, I'm the father of three young boys.

Um, given there are so many speakers here.

Um, I just want to say that I support the approval of the EIR.

Um, we have done a lot of work.

You listened to a bunch of experts today.

Um, and I think it is clear that we've done our homework and will continue to do so.

I urge you to listen to the facts and the experts, please vote yes and approve mosaics conditional use permit.

Thank you.

The next five in-person speakers are Frank Mellon, Sandra Schneider, Ronan, Lynn Wander, and Jane.

You can all line up here.

Frank Mellon, I live in Castro Valley, been there 40 some odd years.

Let's get one thing very clear what this is really about.

It's about Measure D.

It's about Williamson.

In the Forum 990, which the Mosaic has previously submitted, it says, quote, the outdoor school.

While typical outdoor schools focus and so forth, this is nonetheless plain and simple, a school.

It is not a camp.

And as such, all this stuff about saying credentials and aquifers and all that, that's not what you're obliged to be looking at.

I know there's nothing worse than having somebody tell you what you're supposed to do.

But what you're supposed to do is focus within the scope of what you have.

Who is benefiting from this?

What's the money involved?

Very simple.

Mosaic is going to pay a dollar a year for the rent, while the owner of the property will get the tax break from that donation.

And also on the property tax.

And then here's the kicker.

If you approve this project at some point in time, the owner can withdraw that lease and then build their mansion on it.

This is about money.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Greetings all and thank you for your patience here.

I am a member of Alameda County.

I came here in 1967, well, 67 to Oakland.

Then I moved and spent 20 years in Alameda.

And then I went and spent 30 years in Castro Valley and recently just moved back to Alameda.

And I offer you this because what I found in Castro Valley was that we over that 30-year time frame, we had a lot of new people coming into the community of all different backgrounds.

And as part of the Castro Valley Women's Club, one of the projects I worked on was looking at those demographics and trying to figure out how we can bring people together.

And what I found is that all of these groups, not all of them, but most of these groups worked in silos.

They worked, they had communities, subcommunities around their own people, but they didn't interchange any action there.

And what I found is that the Mosaic Project has been terrific at breaking down or building bridges, breaking down barriers.

And when I just moved back to Alameda, I discovered the same situation of what's gone on there in the last 30 years since I left.

And it's the same thing.

Although Castro Valley ought to be proud to have them.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Roland Raz.

Thank you for hearing me.

I'm a business owner here in Oakland.

I have two children that attended the Mosaic Project.

They went back as cabin leaders.

Their lives have been changed by this project.

They're kinder and braver, better navigating conflict.

But like Supervisor Miley said, this is not about whether mosaics matters, it's about whether it gets permanent home or not.

I'm going to keep it short, though I have stuff here, but you know, you've heard all these things about price safety and water, traffic, environmental.

I just urge you to listen to the experts.

That that's it.

You know, there's uh it's already been said, so I'm not gonna waste your time, but not listening to the expert just doesn't give us a chance.

Um I would like you to give mosaic the stability that it needs to grow another generation and another generation of people that matter.

Thank you.

My name is Lynn Wander, and on behalf of the Mosaic Project, I'm we're offering to only have 10 of our 45 speakers speak.

Is that something you would like us to do?

I I appreciate that.

Um, that would be helpful.

However, um Supervisor Fortunato Bass has informed us that she does have an engagement and won't need to leave shortly.

Okay, so I would like to cede my time to print it.

We don't see times, but um please continue.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

The item for a vote in front of you is something very near and dear to me as an educator, a grandparent, and as someone who believes in the importance of the work of the Mosaic Project does to make this a better world.

You have already heard from students who so eloquently have spoken about its value and impact on them as they grow up.

What we hear from those opposing the project is this is a great program, but this is not the right place for it due to, and you've heard you already have all the documentation, research, and information confirming the mosaic project has what they have done.

It's absolute due diligence that they've done to ensure students and environmental safety.

And you've had lots of great questions tonight that were responded to.

What I'm here to say is that after 36 years in public education under 15 as a superintendent in California, the space in Castro Valley is the best space for the Mosaic Project.

The appro the proximity to Castro Valley, making it a short distance and being in the middle of the county allows for easy access and less transportation costs for 18 school districts.

Having gone to science camp much further, I can tell you that this place is the best place for the camp.

I will end by saying this.

As adults who have created an untenable future with decisions that negatively have impacted the environment, the Mosaic Project in its location is the least we can offer our children.

The decision is yours, as Dr.

King said.

So eloquently, hello, thank you for your time.

My name is Jane Eyer.

I live in District 5 of Alameda County, and I'm here to speak in support of the Mosaic Project, specifically to address the proven health benefits of spending time in nature and the value of mosaics outdoor activities.

I'm a pediatrician, 26 years in practice.

Recent medical studies have proven the health benefits of time in nature.

As a pediatrician, I can say with confidence that prevention is the number one key to long-lasting health, and that means starting in childhood.

Provide a foundation for healthy lifestyle practices that will benefit children for their entire lives, decreasing the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and mental health issues.

I asked that you approve Mosaic Project's plans.

I'd also like to add that I spent oh nearly half my life taking care of other people's children.

But I also recognize that children are watching and learning from all of us, not just from their parents.

Because they rely upon us collectively as adults to make good decisions about their health and well-being.

Just as we will rely upon them collectively when they become adults.

Thank you.

Dan, you have a minute and a half.

Go ahead, please.

I'm not in the past.

Dan, we're having trouble hearing you.

Okay, can you hear me now?

I'm unmuted.

Yes, we can hear you.

Is it all right?

Uh but today I'm speaking of personal capacity.

Uh I suspect all you want to enthusiastic and support the mosaic project.

But today's item is certainly a managers.

But this project fails in the start.

Project doesn't meet the Mesodia requirements.

There's lots of planning requirements and that doesn't make the commercial more than recreational workflows.

Frankly, I'd be thrilled if you want to talk about Mesor D.

Frankly, I'd be thrilled if you want to talk about Mesodia, but do it tell me why.

Don't do it for specific project.

I'd love to see the Williamsback tax benefits extended to everybody.

Specific benefits could be conferred to individual applicants.

How woody their causes?

I believe that the judicial review of the EIR, which no doubt will come.

It's going to support the map of the BZA's unanimous findings that the ERO is incomplete, inaccurate, and not certifiable.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Evan Kopke.

I am a certified emergency manager and the consultant retained by Mosaic for emergency and wildfire evacuation planning.

The emergency and evacuation plan and development for the project site will meet and exceed California fire code requirements while featuring a significant bias and margin for safety.

It also provides for integration of training and drills for occupants as part of regular operations.

In the event that a wildfire occurs while the facility is occupied, primary alternate contingency and emergency evacuation methods are being provided for for the movement of occupants to canyon middle school, well within the forecast time of fire approach.

These include using buses through existing memorandums of understanding, vehicles on site, contract transport, and even on foot as necessary and appropriate.

In the worst case scenario, as a fire resilient site that will be ready for sheltering in the case that that's needed.

This plan will meet and exceed existing requirements.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is Asia Bullet Amistel, and I am the design director for Watershed Progressive.

We have been working with Mosaic for years now.

They brought us in on this project at its very conception to consult and design for the landscape and on-site water reuse systems.

As you've heard again and again, Mosaic has consistently chosen leading experts in every area for the project.

And they have been one of the most responsible clients that I've ever worked with.

So I urge you to consider their approach and how much they have given to bringing in leading experts and designing the most comprehensive environmentally responsible project possible.

I will end there to leave time for others.

Thank you so much for your time and please approve this project.

Carolyn, you have a minute and a half.

Go ahead, please.

Hello, I'm Carolyn Wilkie.

I'm a retired elementary school teacher who has lived in Castro Valley District 4 for 28 years.

I have taught in four different states, and in every state, I have found that all children are eager to learn.

I have been a chaperone as a teacher at an overnight camp.

And it was such a pleasure to be with the kids and to see how much fun they had with the songs with the games and the behavior was always exemplary.

We never had any trouble.

And I've had um I know from experience, and this project will be great for the kids.

I first learned about the Mosaic Project when they gave a presentation at the Castor Valley Women's Club, of which I have been a president.

Most of the women in that group were very excited about this project, and we gave them financial donation.

I would hope that the commissioners would approve this worthy project.

Thank you.

Brooke, you have a minute and a half.

Go ahead, please.

My name is Brooke.

I have lived in Castor Valley my entire life.

I'm a future teacher and I support the Mosaic Project.

I would like my time to go to other speakers.

Thank you.

The next five in person, Brenda Bartley, Susie Brennan, Linda Fusanagi, Carolyn Millen, and Julia Ramirez.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rinda Bartley.

I am a longtime educator in Alameda County, and I support the Mosaic Project and would like to give my time to other speakers.

But we need it.

Okay.

Hello.

I'm Linda Fisnoty.

I've probably called Castor Valley my home for 30 years.

I want to start by saying, I think they already said it is that you know we support the Mosaic Project's mission.

We think it's very admirable.

I respect what they do.

And my concern is not about the work they do, but about the location, which is actually right across from where we live.

I'm here today, not only as a resident and a mother or neighbor, but I'm deeply invested in the safety of our community.

And really what keeps me up at night.

And Supervisor Miley mentioned this and others as well is the fire risk that this project would bring to Cole Canyon.

You know, we've spent years worrying about wildfire, and uh it's a real threat, obviously, where we live.

We hear about experts commenting and oh, we have a plan.

And I read the EIR and it it didn't make me feel very good as a as a person that lives with this risk without an additional hundred plus people moving in next door.

You know, you double the number of people in a box canyon with one way in and one way out.

It doesn't just feel risky, it feels quite reckless.

So I'm gonna run out of time before I get to say everything I want to say, but really the schools, I feel it's trying to skirt important safety regulations by calling it something other than you know, it's other than what it really is.

It's a recreational facility with temporary campsites.

That that doesn't really add up at all.

Anyway, for the sake of the children, for the teachers and every family who calls Cole Canyon home.

Please deny this appeal and don't certify the EIR.

Put safety first.

Thank you.

My name is Susie Brennan.

I'm a mosaic partner teacher since 2005.

I support the Mosaic Project EIR, and I'm gonna cede my time to other speakers.

My name is Carolyn Millen, a resident of Cole Canyon.

I actually had to evacuate 235 children from the McNally fire in the Sequoias.

I was working at an inner city camp.

We did not have buses on site.

It took two hours to get buses up to the southern Sierras, and we followed the buses down while flames chased us down the mountains.

I don't want to repeat that.

I live in fire season with that very real reality.

I can evacuate my own children because we have quadroads out.

We have horses in our canyon.

We can protect ourselves against the herds of 40 plus wild pigs that show up every night at our house.

My children who are late teens, when they go out with us at night, guess what?

They they have to rely on us to protect them with our firearms against those pigs that charge.

I am not comfortable that children will be leaving a cabin, going to a shower room or bathroom in the middle of the night unprotected.

This is unwise.

What I care about the most is the safety of the children.

I am an educator.

I am a special eds advocate, and I am a farmer.

We live a harsh life out in the canyon.

People do not understand what it's like when your well runs dry.

And by the way, one thing on the roads the roads condition for weight does not equal that of a water truck's worth of water.

So the water alone that's going to be trucked off site is over the weight limit for the road in each water truck.

And every water load of truck is exceeds the limit for the road.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Julia Ramirez, and I'm a mom and a soccer coach in District 4.

Living in Castro Valley for the past 30 years, I've enjoyed seeing our town grow and change in positive ways.

It is a beautiful place, and I think sharing the beauty of that land with the Bay Area through the Mosaic Project would benefit all of Alameda County by bringing rural agricultural experiences to kids who may not otherwise have had those opportunities.

The camp being here in the Bay Area makes that more accessible for everyone, including Cash Valley students like my eight-year-old son.

As a software engineer, I have supported a groundwater cleanup project at a national laboratory for the past 26 years.

And I understand how stratigraphic units affect groundwater movement, determining whether wells do or do not have effect on each other.

As I've written the software that the hydrogeologists use for analysis.

Nor do they have any impact on Crow Creek because there's no overlapping cones of depression.

Furthermore, on pages 514, it states the chemical analysis of multiple wells of the site show different groundwater chemistry, proving the wells in the canyon, a drawing from different aquifers.

Both of these findings help to support that this is not only an appropriate but perfect spot for the mosaic project.

And I support this.

Please vote yes for the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Hi, this is Nari Chan.

I'm a resident of Castro Valley, District 4.

I have two young children who go to Castro Valley Unified.

Professionally I am a public law attorney and currently serve in the Oakland City Attorney's Office.

Today I'm here in my personal capacity as a longtime supporter of mosaic for over 20 years.

There will be no noise violation and no amplified sound.

The children sing camp songs like fighting is not the solution.

Try conflict resolution.

But today the question before you is not whether I can carry a tune or it's a way of speculation or unsupported fears.

It's about your quasi-judicial role in applying the law to the evidence in the record.

The legal standard is whether there is substantial evidence to make the four required findings to grant a conditional use permit.

And that standard is met here today.

First, there is a clear public need.

Over the past 25 years, Mosaic has served 76,000 students.

There is no reason that fourth and fifth graders from 18 Alameda County schools should have to travel two to three hours away to Santa Cruz or Napa when the beautiful East Bay Hills are right here.

The program's impact depends on three classes of kids, and a reduced capacity alternative would ultimately amount to a denial of the project.

Second, the use is properly related to surrounding land uses.

As staff clarified, the nearby winery is grandfathered under California Business and Professions Code Section 23789.

And so the winery's license renewal will not be affected by this project.

Third, the retired fire chief and certified water experts with over 55 years of experience have all independently confirmed that there is no material adverse effect.

The fire Peter Rosen, you have a minute in half.

Go ahead, please.

Hi, thanks.

I'm gonna try and be as fast as possible.

I wrote a letter that had a lot of concerns, and um, hopefully all you supervisors have read this.

I want to emphasize that I think Supervisor Miley stated it best that we need to look at the merits of the use and not the merits of the program.

Um most of the problems and challenges of this are because of this site.

If Mosaic were to pivot to another site that didn't have the water and evacuation challenges like Crow Canyon Park, it would be much easier.

Um everything that is being discussed by the students and the language that is being used talks about classroom and education, not recreation and agriculture.

Selling uh a thousand dollars worth of acorns and things does not make it an agricultural use, so I don't believe the Williamson Act should apply here, but that's that's all you know up in the air.

My biggest concerns that I addressed in the letter are have not been uh addressed in public here, and I haven't heard about factual resolutions about the evacuation plan.

Um I don't know how you're gonna get Cash Valley Unified to uh have bus drivers on hold, or how are you gonna get a bus that's less than 38 feet long to go pick those people up?

What's gonna happen if there's a fire at nights on the weekends?

Do you have bus drivers on call from a practical solution?

I don't know how any of this is gonna happen, and I'd actually like to hear about that because I'm really really concerned about putting kids in an unsafe situation.

Thanks.

Colleen, you have a minute and a half.

Go ahead, please.

Hi, my name's Colleen Breitenstein.

I am a resident of Castro Valley, specifically in the canyon lands.

Um I am also a mom of two children who I am raising out here in this rural lifestyle, and I will tell you that I support this project.

I wish they wanted to be closer to me, but they want to be where it's best for them, and there is something special about that land, and I want my kids to go to that camp.

I want them to see our life through someone else's eyes.

Someone who doesn't get to live with this beauty in nature every day, someone who doesn't see all of the toil and the turmoil that it takes to make it happen.

And by doing this camp, we are not only putting Castro Valley on the map for the right reasons, we are also going to be building the coalition of people who will care about our rural lifestyle.

And that is something I am not hearing from my neighbors.

They are all hopping mad.

And there's a saying that I've heard that you go looking for problems, you're probably gonna find them.

So they found their problems, they've been very vocal about that, but this camp does way more good than just its stated mission, and I think that should be taken into consideration too.

So please vote yes on this camp.

In person, Terry Britt, Jim Millen, Rachel Davis.

Good afternoon.

My name is Terry Britt.

I'm a resident of Castro Valley for 32 years.

I'm on the board of directors for the Mosaic Project, and I support this conditional use permit and the application, and I'm hoping that you'll vote yes.

Hi.

This is not about statistics and hypotheticals.

This is about reality.

We've seen the winds whip through this canyon, bringing down trees on power lines and blocking roads.

And if a fire starts, it will create a fire storm, turning this box canyon into a traveling wall of flames.

As people who live in the canyon, my wife and I take responsibility for our children.

We've taught them what to do in the case of an emergency, what trails to take if we need to leave quickly.

We are responsible for our kids.

Ultimately, who will be responsible for these kids if an emergency comes?

Who will their parents go to demanding answers if their child is hurt or worse?

There simply is no way to evacuate a hundred children on a road that is blocked by a tree or fire.

And perhaps the plan is to evacuate using nearby trails if the road is blocked, unless they're planning on discriminating against children in wheelchairs who cannot hike the trails.

That plan doesn't seem feasible.

Again, who will be responsible for these children?

If one of these things should happen, I wouldn't want to be the one that voted to approve it.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rachel Davis, and I'm a Castro Valley resident, a social worker and a mother of two.

Both my kids go to Palomaris Elementary, and I do I urge you guys to kind of look at the geography of that in comparison because it's behind a creek up against a canyon, but that's a whole nother um story.

I was gonna talk a lot longer, but I'm gonna let my time go to others.

Thank you.

I urge you to vote yes.

Thank you.

Next in-person speakers, Dick Schreiner, Kent, James Panico, Alana Koski.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Dick Schneider.

I've been following this project for nearly a decade.

Please deny this appeal and uphold the well-founded unanimous decision of your West County Board of Zoning adjustments to deny the CUP for this project.

The proposed development violates the Williamson Act, both the county's uniform rules and the state's Williamson Act statute.

County Uniform Rule 2, Section 3A requires that an application for compatible use determination be submitted with the concurrent with the application for a CUP.

I've provided you with a blank copy of the required application.

No completed application for compatible use determination is in the record.

Nevertheless, the property owner has submitted the required application.

Had an application been submitted, it would have had to show that $10,000 of agricultural revenue was produced for three of the past five years as county required by county uniform rule one.

I provided you with a blank copy of the first page of the document that was required to be submitted.

Again, no completed document is in the record as required by county uniform rule two.

Without the required documentation, the county cannot make a compatible use determination for this project as required by Uniform Rule 2.

Thank you.

Afternoon, my name is Kent Widell, a 30-year-plus resident of Cull Canyon.

Our property is very similar to the mosaic property.

We have uh in topography size and uh environmental dangers.

Over the last year, we've had both of our our both of our wells go dry.

We see from six to a dozen rattlesnakes per year, uh, most of them immediately next to our residents.

Our dogs have been bitten by rattlesnakes a total of eight times over that period of time.

Uh just at dark, we saw a mountain lion laying on our lawn, and our neighbor had a mountain line go over a 10-foot fence and killed two of their goats, which was immediately next to their house.

Um we immediately behind our property and the mosaic property is the the water department in East Bay Mud.

They kill and remove three to four hundred pigs per year from that property.

Um I have killed several dozen pigs on our immediate property.

Uh one of our dogs, which you can see in that picture, was wounded by a uh well boar within about 50 feet of our 50 yards of our house, which I later killed that pig within about 25 feet of our house.

Um they we have a constant problem of trees falling and landslides, which are and again our property is so similar, you can expect the same thing from uh uh on the mosaic property.

Thank you.

Just one comment, one final quick comment.

Um the very foolish recommendation in the EIR.

It says the project site and the project building may be utilized as shelter in place, uh center for local residents and children to secure safety in the event of an emergency.

I guess they've forgotten about the paradise fire, the Powell State fire where there was not a building standing, and they're suggesting that both the kids stay there if they can't get out, and uh and invite nearby residents to I'm James Panico.

I live almost directly across the street from the mosaic proposed property on 118 acres.

I built that home 15 years ago, and I helped my five neighbors that live between two-mile marker and the three-mile marker with their homes, and they live on hundred-acre minimums.

There's a reason why it's a hundred-acre minimum to in I can't cover everything in the time you've given me to go over why I asked you to not approve this project on that site, but I have a lot of reasons to say it.

Um I just I I'm running out of time here.

Uh there's road problems with a windy narrow road three miles in.

There's water problems that they're not really addressing.

There's sewer problems.

I deal with these problems on that property.

I've built over 10 residents in Castor Valley myself.

I have lived in Castor Valley almost all my life.

I've gone to Castor Valley Schools.

I've lived in Alameda County.

I'm a retired general contractor.

I know what I'm talking about.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Alana Koske, and I'm resident of Culcany Road.

Today we are not here to debate the merit of the mosaic school, but rather determine whether the location is an appropriate site.

As you've heard, there are many reasons why this project does not fit the small narrow box canyon.

This is primarily and purely a land use issue.

The Castor Valley Map Board and the BCA have already unanimously denied this project.

This project does not fit the land use and zoning guidelines or the nature of the location.

The project does not meet the Williamson Act or Measure D criteria.

County officials and county residents have already decided by enacting the Williamson Act and Measure D, that this type of development is not what they want in the rural areas.

Most importantly, the winery next door would likely be run out of business.

There is no guarantees that they can stay.

If the tables were turned and a winery was trying to go in next door to a school for children, it would most certainly be denied.

Additionally as residents of the canyon, we can assure you no matter what their experts say, we can assure you water is an issue.

The previous residents of the Mosaic Project continually had water issues.

Neighbors are already trucking in water this year, and we're only in April.

25 speakers.

So at this time, let me call on Supervisor Fortunato Bass to check on her availability for a continuance of this meeting and also for the next meeting.

Thank you, Supervisor Tam.

Sorry, I'm having trouble with my video.

Just a second.

There we go.

Um I do have uh in a prior engagement at 3 o'clock Pacific.

I can push it off for a half hour, but would really like to have an opportunity for us to go back to the board's discussion and to uh deliberate on our potential vote today.

Thank you.

Um County Council, can you guide us through recessing this meeting and then starting the next meeting, reassessing that meeting, and then coming back to this meeting?

So I'd be glad to attempt to do so.

Um I suggest based on discussions with the clerk of the board that we recess this meeting for approximately 15 or 20 minutes.

We would then convene the special meeting that is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m.

Umce that meeting is called to order and a quorum is established that you would then recess that meeting to a time certain.

The question is how much additional time and then after that meeting is recessed, you'll come back here to continue with your public comment deliberation and decision making.

How much additional time do you think you will need for this meeting so that we can continue the special meeting to a time certain 3:30, 4 p.m.?

Um what is the sense?

Can I just note my understanding is in order for um Supervisor Persia Bass and President Howard to participate remotely.

We have to maintain quorum in the county, at least three of us seated here.

Within the jurisdiction.

So I have a commitment this evening.

Um so I'm not going to be able to, if we continue the special matter to let's say 4 35, I'm not going to be able to participate, so we will lose quorum.

So I'm wondering if we can just open the special meeting, continue it to a later date because they won't be able to proceed without three of us present.

So you can open it.

We could take those items on Tuesday, correct?

Reluctant to answer that fully in open session.

I just wonder how long it's going to take because I heard that uh Elisa and Lena have to leave at 4 30.

If this doesn't go past 4, then maybe we could still have the meeting.

I do note that one of the reasons to have the meeting is to discuss something that will be pertinent for next Monday, namely negotiations with OAC.

So if we want to cancel that meeting, we would have to reconvene it for say Monday morning, or try to get this done in the next couple of hours, which it seems like we have that time.

It's just a thought, but there are time sensitivities to the other meeting.

County council?

Well, so you may want to just continue.

We can open up the other meeting and continue it to a set time.

If we lose our quorum, then there is no meeting because there is no quorum.

And so we would then uh have someone just go into that meeting and announce that we've lost our quorum and the meeting is adjourned.

Can I clarify how many speakers do we still have?

And can we reduce the time to ensure that we can get to deliberation?

So I'd recommend that you not reduce the time for the individual speakers.

It wouldn't be inequitable given that others have received a minute and a half.

Um, but you certainly couldn't put a time limit on the overall.

You know, we're going to take speakers until three three o'clock or whatever to 245, whatever you determine to be uh a reasonable cutoff.

We have 43 speakers.

So supervisor, I would suggest at this time that we go ahead and recess this meeting for 15 or 20 minutes to allow us to address the special meeting, which is scheduled to begin six minutes ago, and then we can and handle that and uh then come back and move forward.

Thank you for that advice.

At this time, this meeting is recessed.

We wait to state an amount so 15 minutes, a recess of 15 minutes.

Recess for 15 minutes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Our apologies, we're trying to keep up with the technology.

So we will resume our meeting on the mosaic project in five minutes as we transition.

Recording in progress.

Reconvening from the recess may have roll call to re-established quorum.

Supervisor Marquez.

Present Supervisor Tam, present Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Presence, President Halbert.

We have a quorum.

Let's continue with the speakers for the Mosaic Project.

Laura Mendel.

I also want to address the reduced capacity footprint, the discussion about having 50 children, and I just want to let you know that would be the equivalent of a denial because our model is after 26 years very carefully arranged.

We know that to bring kids together from different backgrounds and really build those connections around differences.

We need three schools.

Two is divide, they don't mix.

We need three schools, fifty is two classes.

Our program won't work.

We need to be able to have uh three classrooms.

That's why we have that number.

So thank you very much for that.

Um, and I also just want to say I came straight from camp.

We're in session right now, and I just want to quote one of our kids who said, please love children and let us have mosaic.

Thank you.

Thank you for accommodating our schedule uh and organizing the speakers.

So you the clerk has said we had 43 speakers.

So uh how many speakers did we reduce in terms of um the the recent the the speaker that just spoke there were 22 that we reduced okay let's continue thank you Bill Mulker go ahead please Thank you Bill Mulgrew speaking as a resident uh thank you very much, Supervisors.

Um Cole Canyon is a box canyon, one road in, one road out.

Um that road is the lifeline to safety for hundreds of people in Cole Canyon, and in the event of a disaster, and a disaster can be fire, earthquake, flood, liquefaction, anything else in the event of a disaster, uh one flat tire, one abandoned vehicle creates a choke point in Cole Canyon.

Um I hope the evacuation plan includes helicopters because that's the alternative, and it would be less than common sense to include um to approve an application that has that has no evacuation plan.

We know water is scarce in Cole Canyon, yet we know that the reverse osmosis system will discard 10,000 gallons per week.

Very unecological use of of a scarce scarce resource.

Uh the Williamson Act is very much not in play.

Goats and chickens make great mountain lion bait.

In summary, um we don't have the luxury um of learning from our mistakes on this on this project.

There is no next time for the residents and ranchers in Coal Canyon.

Um strongly urge you to deny the appeal.

Thank you.

In person speakers, Dr.

Wayne Mendel, Rob Brom, Chuck Shipman, Dora Vasquez, Tom, Steven, and Lindsay Wurzumowski.

My name is Dr.

Wayne Mendel.

I'm an engineer.

A 30-year resident of Castro Valley, and I so I I support not passing this measure.

Okay.

I've been at the backboard meetings, only board meetings for this project.

In both cases, unitless decisions, don't move it past me.

Okay, it's it's it's a nice program, but it doesn't belong there.

And the Macboard is our way of protecting us.

Supervisor Miley has picked them.

So he knows these guys are basically underpaid, but providing time and expertise to protect us.

These people are very good, they they evaluate everything.

So I don't want to to restate too many things, but this is about uh land.

Williams and that measure D.

And I just want to bring up two things.

I saw the uh Supervisor Hubbard talk about the the uh the uh battery storage in Livermore, and he mentioned he was glad it was there because of fire issues.

Okay, same thing goes with Coke Canyon, okay.

You can say you're gonna protect everything, okay, but you can't predict everything.

And one fire is enough to destroy it all, and that's not right.

These people live under that that uh that idea all the time.

Why do we want to add one more thing we can protect by not adding that to them?

Okay.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Robert Brain.

I'm a professional botanist and a forensic arborist.

I've studied the plant kingdom for 51 years.

I know all about fires.

Out in Cole Canyon Road, the primary forest is an oak bay woodland.

Oaks aren't inflammable at all, unless the leaves are dead.

A bay tree and the bay leaves is the number one most flammable native tree leaf in California.

Native.

I'm not talking eucalyptus.

You can readily light them on fire with a cigarette lighter and they'll self-sustain their flame.

A green leaf.

If a firestorm were to come up that canyon in any direction and they were lit, it would burn the whole ridge down.

The fire department would not get it out.

They need planes to come over and put that thing out.

It would be the worst fire storm you've ever seen.

Like in the 90s in Oakland, the eucalyptus.

Very similar.

Um and lower down in the canyon, the narrow areas before you leave the canyon, there's an equal amount of bays on both sides of the road, where it's a V valley or V gulch.

If a firestorm were come through there, nobody gets in, nobody gets out.

No way.

Um the rates behind the camp that they're building is 50% bay trees and 50% oaks with a few madrone maple and some others.

50% bay trees, the most flammable native tree leaf in California.

Only eucalyptus would beat it.

That's all I gotta say.

Yeah, good afternoon.

Uh my name's Chuck Shipman.

Uh I recently sent to the uh Board of Supervisors an email regarding uh uh long lengthy uh statement in regards to uh measure V and uh trying to make sure you guys understand the liabilities that you would be bringing against the uh the county if it is in fact violating.

I mean, right now it's cleetering on the edge as far as the amount, and I heard you guys talk a little bit earlier.

Also at the last uh uh meeting, I uh also presented uh a small packet uh write-up on buses and you know the cause and uh concerns of having you know having on call bus drivers from the uh district because that's gonna be would need to be uh have in place, you know, uh running a um bus uh over our roads, which a lot of people already discussed.

Uh they're too long, uh you know, 40 feet is a minimum, uh, and they're prohibited there.

Uh we talk about the weights.

Uh we know you know everybody out there in the canyons, you know, we all have uh things to talk about, but one thing I want to uh point out is uh there's a person that's missing here today, and she has been kind of uh advocate for the uh canyons for uh her entire life, and her name is uh Diana Hanna.

Uh she passed away.

I'm not sure if you know who she is, but she's probably been here and spoke to you guys a lot.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dora Vasquez.

I don't live in the canyon.

I have nothing to gain or lose if you approve.

I am not associated with these fine people.

I have nothing to gain or lose.

Um, I am all for camps.

My children have gone through camp, my grandchildren have gone to camp.

And I had to change my speech a little bit because I know Praveenamati, and I am shocked and surprised that she would endorse this program because the district that we both worked at would never have approved our children going to such an unsafe camp.

Forget the ravines, forget the pigs.

My concern is the fire.

It is unpredictable.

You cannot say, well, close in, well, you don't know the winds, you don't know what is going to happen, which is why so many tragedies happen.

Um about the winery, I don't know those people if they get shot down, no skin off my nose, but don't tell me that the noise from the cat next door is not gonna just disrupt their business.

I don't go to a winery to hear children be children.

I go to a winery to relax and have a serene time, and I leave my children at home because it's an adult event.

Um the other thing that concerns me is this has been voted down twice already, and yet it keeps coming, it keeps kind of getting pushed forward and forward.

So who's behind this?

Which rich billionaire, which politician, who is to gain something here because it's just so odd that one road, I was not disrespectful when you guys were all speaking, so I would ask the same respect out of all of you on either side, please.

And if I may handle seconds back, I would appreciate it.

Um the one road is my main concern.

Where is the comprehensive evacuation plan?

I am not an expert.

I probably understood half of what all the experts said.

I'm here for the children.

In my um career at the school, I said hundreds of kids to camp.

Never would I name Tom Wizamerski, and uh we purchased property in the canyon about a year and a half ago.

One of the things that I haven't heard mentioned, and I think it's very important to understand is we all use cell phones and we're quite used to Wi-Fi.

Coverage I found in the canyon is spotty to almost non-existent for cell service.

The closer you get to the road, the worse it gets, if any.

The same thing is true with Wi-Fi.

So when we're talking about an evacuation plan and can't miss the context, I also uh have a summer place there close to that.

The big problem was notification.

Well, if the cell service isn't working or poor, and the Wi-Fi isn't working, the only thing left is a landline.

If that fails, when will anyone be notified?

Just thought, thank you.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors.

My name is Stefan Wizamerski, uh resident of the canyon.

And uh earlier, uh, Supervisor Tam, you had asked for specific points on the findings and to be able to make a good determination.

So I wanted to bring up uh three points against three of the four findings.

Finding number two and how it relates to other businesses in the canyon.

Everyone likes to quote that ABC won't uh look at anything other than transfers or new applications for an alcohol permit.

But I think if you stretch out into the future when the seabirds eventually want to sell their winery, want to retire, you're giving them a huge disadvantage on the value of their land because now all of a sudden they won't be able to have the tasting room there.

That's gonna force somebody to have to make a tasting room in the city somewhere else off the property, and that'll severely affect what they can do with the land.

Uh against finding number four and the Williamson Act, uh, page nine of the uh current staff report talks about how the uh property would be given a one-year exemption from Williamson Act to uh find a uh sortable program.

But they've been under Williamson Act for the last 10 years.

So if this is an ancillary use of the property, then why do they need any kind of one-year exemption from Williamson Act?

And then lastly, regarding the water, if you look at the numbers that are in the EIR, somebody worked backwards from a number at their maximum daily rate of two and a half 2.7 gallons a minute.

That's 3,975 gallons a day.

That's what they say they need, and that's not even taking into account half of that goes to reverse osmosis.

It's incomplete.

Thank you.

The next in-house speakers after this will be Teddy Seabert, Keith Siebert, Robert, Leslie Hardy, Martha, and Barr.

Hi, my name is Lindsay Wizamerski.

I live in the canyon.

I was here today to talk to you about ADA and evacuation, but I just want to switch points a little bit and talk about the canyon in general.

Um, our neighbor had a medical emergency heart attack, could not get an ambulance in until a neighbor actually went out, retrieved the ambulance, brought the ambulance in.

They don't know where we live, they don't know how to get to the houses.

Um, and it's very traumatic.

So that took 25 minutes to get any medical services for that particular person.

Another thing I want to talk about is the paradise fire.

The first call came in at 6.25 a.m.

And at 6.45, 20 minutes later, it was considered catastrophic.

That's 20 minutes, 20 minutes to turn around and evacuate an entire canyon.

Let's now step back and talk about ADA.

Those buses are not going to be kept on campus.

That requires somebody to go to Canyon Middle School, which by the way, I also work for Castor Valley School District.

Get on those buses and drive them down the canyon.

Let me back up a second.

A small school bus weighs 14,000 pounds.

How are you going to get a small school bus down a canyon that you can only go down 14,000 pounds?

A large school bus, 36,000 pounds.

I need you to think about that.

How are we going to get these kids out?

Thank you.

Hi, supervisors.

My name is Teddy Siebert, and I own the Vineyard and Winery next to the proposed project.

Agricultural parcels are governed by various state and county mandated laws, including the California state right to farm law.

The environmental impact report fails to account for health, safety, and emergency planning for children who would be exposed to potential pesticide contamination.

The proposed facility operates overnight stays within the state-manded 1,320-foot agricultural spray buffer zone.

This issue has direct income impact on my right to farm and will conflict with our farming practice and vineyard management.

The staff report concedes that the project will be located two feet, 200 feet closer to the winery than state regulations would permit, and asserts that there's no risk or loss of revocation of the winery state-issued alcohol license.

This assertion is inaccurate, as neither Alameda County nor Mosaic have legal authority to guarantee renewal, approval, or transfer of a state-issued alcohol license.

The winery is not grandfathered in.

Thank you.

I lived my entire life in Alameda County.

I want to thank Supervisor Tam and Supervisor Miley for your insightful questions challenging staff.

However, the staff is recommending that this board ignore significant facts of the proposal.

They want the board to ignore laws.

County laws by ignoring agricultural zoning, state and county resource management laws to only allow low impact developments.

Williamson had conservation laws, as this project is totally noncompliant.

And most importantly, they want you to ignore the voter approved measure D.

Save agricultural and open space laws from 20 and 22.

I voted for measure D.

This is not what we voted for.

Also, staff is asking the board supervisors to ignore potentially harmful legacy effects between the water, the septic, etc.

The staff is asking the Board of Supervisors to ignore many hours of consideration by the very people you folks appointed to review this.

Unanimous decisions by CVMAC and by the WBZA to not approve this.

And finally, staff is asking the Board of Supervisors to ignore that allowing development of previously protected lands will set a precedent, one that will inevitably result in court challenges to this and future decisions about preserving and protecting Canyon and Aglands in Alameda County.

Please deny the planning department what they want you to ignore, reject this appeal, and deny their proposal.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Bob Fusani.

I'm a 30-year resident of Castro Valley.

Today I urge you to recognize true nature of Mosaic Project, despite recent attempts to brand it as a camp.

All evidence points to it being a school.

The Mosaic Project's own mission statement, articles of incorporation, annual reports describe it as an educational institution.

Their counselors are trained instructors delivering formalized lessons and workshops.

Executive Director Laura Mendel has repeatedly affirmed this position, and their tax filings for the past eight years have been coded as a school with not a single reference to recreation or camp or revenues that would qualify them for the Williamson Act.

From the government perspective, partner schools sending students treat mosaic as part of their compulsory education.

Students attend Mosaic during school hours, and federal, state, and local funding is allocated based on their enrollment.

Mosaic operates with a structured curriculum, just like other outdoor schools, the Walker Creek Ranch and YMCA Outdoor Science School.

If Mosaic were camp, it would operate only during holidays or summers, focusing on recreation and leisure.

Yet recreation is never mentioned in our project description.

Instead, their proposed permanent facilities, 18 buildings with concrete foundations, rather than temporary structures like tents, which are called out in the Williamson Act.

By avoiding the school classification, mosaic sites have stricter safety regulations, including fire safety, emergency, evacuation standards, pesticides use, ADA requirements.

Good morning, super good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Leslie Hardy, and my family has been in Cole Canyon for over 60 years, and I've resided for almost 45.

I am a supporter of Measure D, and I also have a small business that I have had to comply with.

Basically, I'd have to let my horses go.

And I think this is a very unsafe situation.

Obviously, I have many other things to say, but I think it's a great program, but in another place, not Cole Canyon.

Thank you for your time.

Coal Canyon has been my home for the last 10 years.

My well production was four gallons a minute until Alameda County decided to remove the reservoir at the beginning of the canyon.

Didn't give us any heads up about that.

Limiting time, ground saturation.

Where once our creek ran until August, it now quickly dries up a month after the storms.

I've seen a steady drop in water production since, and we'll have to drill a new well again.

I've emailed two letters to the clerk, one in danger of the road, along with a video of a near collision, which happens almost daily in the tight terms.

The second report was the National Fire Prevention Association.

First letter contains the inherent dangers of the added traffic on Call Canyon, which was built in 1920 standards and has a creek on one side and steep upward slope on the other side for the first two miles and no cool outs.

It's a busy road with bicyclists, runners, and horseback riders.

The lines of sites are not adequate on the fire trucks, have had to resort to backing out after entering, as there are no turnarounds unless they enter into someone's property that has one.

There will always be there will not only be two buses a week, food delivery, cleaning trucks, bringing trucks, etc.

The second letter was to point out the similarities between the Berkeley Hills Fire and Call Canyon when it ever takes place.

We have increased more devastating fires all over California.

Berkeley's fire started in a canyon with little to no wind.

It laid quiet until the next day.

The winds picked up, moved quickly in the grasses to the trees and the hillside and out of control in minutes.

I quote further complications were the narrow roads and the fire's turbulent fury and the blinding smoke.

Furthermore.

Thank you.

Bye.

Hello, my name is Bart Gerard.

Appreciate you guys hearing everybody this afternoon.

I'm in opposition to the proposed development plan submitted by the Mosaic Project for the location of Coal Canyon Road.

There's numerous valid concerns we've heard here today, you know, with the access, availability of well, water sewage, creek fire, etc.

But the issue I have is related to the zoning.

The areas in A zone district put considerable restrictions on the type of usage allowed the density.

The plans submitted by the Mosaic Project, it doesn't even come close to complying with the zoning restrictions.

I know there's conditional uses, and looks like they're going in using the outdoor recreation conditional use as a path of approval.

In my opinion, the project far exceeds what the intent of outdoor recreation area was meant to be.

This is 16 building development in a two-acre envelope, which is extremely high density for Coal Canyon, greatly exceeds anything else in the area.

A district zoning allows two homes per hundred acres parcel.

If we have zoning laws in place to control land use and help shape the community to live in, why don't we follow them?

Both Castle Valley Municipal Planning Commission and the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments have given non-approval to the project.

Further indicating it's not in compliance with the intent of a zoning district.

I think the intent of mosaic is really good.

Um and it's a good organization.

I just think they need to find a different, more suitable location.

Thank you.

The last in-person speakers are Hugh Dunatello, Sharon Christensen, Ruth Bui, Justin Filon, Chuck Moore, Rex Warren, Gustavo.

Hello, my name is Hugh Donatello.

Uh, thank you, supervisors, for hearing this.

Um I'm against the project.

Um you could kind of feel the distrust.

Um when people that have lived on the property for generations and going back as pioneers to the beginning of the 50s, have lived different experience than the experts.

When the experts say the opposite of what we know be true, there's distrust.

Uh everybody's experienced wells go dry with a few people living on the property.

Everybody.

There's the here's the truth.

There's no evacuation plan possible.

One tree falls down, nobody gets in or out.

One tree, and I joked about it.

There was uh it was uh sun a summer day, um tree falls down, it took four hours to cut it.

We were told not to.

There's no vacuum, there's no real one.

We're on our home.

And to double the um population, so under one percent of the property doubles the population, and we're on our own.

We all know that.

So one of the questions was what is uh what is the effect there needs to be effective evacuation plan?

It's not possible, it doesn't exist.

So there's distrust when somebody say that there can be one.

We have to figure out how to vacate by foot, um, and that's what we're working on.

So thank you.

Um before my time starts, I just wanted to give this to you all.

It's a local firefighter who's speaking to his concerns about this fire.

I mean, about this uh project, excuse me.

Um you also received an email with it, but just in case I know you guys are flooded with emails right now.

Um, so as uh talked about, I'm gonna focus on thank you, uh, for talking about the merits of the current project and facts.

The fact is Measure D limits us to a certain amount of square footage.

We've all voted on this.

This is now law.

They have specifically, if you look at their plan, left out down dining halls and showers.

Last time I checked, all of us, our shower, our bathroom, where we eat is part of our lived space and square footage.

So that's a non-starter that it does not meet Measure D.

And so once you go against Measure D, now we've opened it up to everybody to be able to do what take their kind of interpretation of it.

Um, as others have talked about CV MAC, WBCA has unanimously denied it because of all these issues, along with Columbia Housing, HOA totally opposes it.

Safety issues, thank you, Nate, for also bringing up the main thing, fire.

I actually, something different than all of these people.

I reside at the very end.

So my life and my colle my neighbors' lives and our animals are directly impacted by it.

Something else they haven't said is their fire circle.

They plan on doing 200 or so times a year.

That's having a fire.

We're not talking about natural disasters, we're talking about man-made.

So we're adding a fire into a very wooded area where evacuation can be difficult.

Communication was talked about.

We have no cell, no internet.

ATT, I know they talked about their evacuation plan being landline.

Landlines do not work.

So please note if you vote yes on this, you're going against laws.

Hi, my name is Ruth Bly, and I've been a canyon resident for over 50 years.

I have a master's degree in geology from Cal State East Bay and studied the local geology extensively.

I raise horses and cattle on a 250-acre ranch.

And our wells have run dry.

We've had a 40-foot well, an 80-foot well, they're both on working, and the new 200-foot well is the water supplier.

I disagree with the fractured geology theory.

And as we run, as it's depleted, you have to go deeper with your well.

Chuck Moore said in his article that they're going to take 16,000 gallons per day.

That's what they need, which is different from what's said in your documents.

And also what they can their wells can provide is different.

So there's a disparity.

And that's my concern and fear.

Thank you.

Hi.

But the expert opinions that were given were based on the classification of this as a camp.

If they had classified themselves in as an educational facility, which we all know they are, they would have been required to prove that they can have twice as much water.

And we also heard from the cow fire expert that if they were an educational facility, they would have had to have different uh evacuation requirements.

So they don't have an evacuation plan that would be suitable for an education facility.

Um the expert opinions are based on that false assumption that this is a camp.

Um another false assumption is that this is an agriculture product or project.

It doesn't fall into you know measure D.

It's not a zone, it's not Williamson Act.

And they try to be Williamson Act, they want to sell ten memberships for a thousand dollars each, and you can just get some of whatever they produce.

If if I sell you a dozen eggs for a thousand dollars and I do that ten times, that's not agriculture.

That's a loophole.

Um then the the final thing um was yeah, just the the evacuation for the fire is the biggest concern because I mean they should have to evacuate like a school.

They have a hundred kids there, they're calling them classes.

They're coming from schools that got school buses, right?

So you should have to evacuate it as if it's a school.

And then also they say that this is the only thing that they could do.

They've been operating for five years while this is under review.

If they don't get this approved, their project is not going to disappear.

They have $13 million to build this facility.

So they're not gonna go away.

Yeah, my name is Rex Warren.

Um we're a multi-generational family that's been out of Cole Canyon raising cattle.

Um my problem with it is you know, I'm every time I'm here speaking to you guys, it's a different thing.

Williamson Act.

I don't agree with that.

Um, but now I'm gonna come back to water.

So the applicants water experts.

Um I don't agree that they're experts because it took them five wells, drill holes to get two minimum producing what working wells.

Uh the aquifer being separate, I disagree with that.

How come they've offered up mitigation measure to reduce the number of camps during the summer to recharge the groundwater?

Um, when in the summer the Colt Creek is always dry and we don't have any rain.

How is that single aquifer going to be recharged?

Um we all know an earthquake can change the strata in the ground, so we've lost wells, springs, and everything after a earthquake.

Um the big question is what is the county gonna do if they do run out of water?

Are they gonna let them haul water in every day on a $15 million project?

Or do you what is the secondary plan?

Because the chances are that is gonna happen.

So thank you.

Can you give us hi?

My name is Chuck Moore.

Um I'm the chair of the Castor Valley Mac.

I'm also a rancher in the area.

Um race horses.

Um the Cash Valley Mac, we take pretty serious agriculture, largely because we have so much agricultural land and we look we really protect the reserve uh and the right to uh farm.

So we looked at this as uh our goal was to ensure agricultural practices are not restricted in the urban area.

We want to encourage the preservation of agriculture and open space.

Um we want to make sure we support the right of farmers to use and accept agricultural practices without undue uh restrictions, and when you look at that, that winery right next door happens to be our only winery.

When they come up for a conditional use permit, they are in jeopardized or losing it, or if they were to hand that over to their family, they would not be able to renew that with the ABC.

They have to be 600 feet in our area in some areas a thousand feet from a school.

The next thing is I will tell you that nothing grows without water.

I drill water wells, I drilled the water wells all around that property.

I service those water wells, and I will tell you that a good water well in that area produces three and a half to four gallons a minute.

Most of those folks live on two gallons a minute.

If you looked at the maximum demand of what they're saying, they use 2.6 2.7 gallons.

That's a crying shame.

Uh the Mac doesn't get the opportunity to represent who were this started.

You know, uh really disenfranchised with the amount of time allotted a Mac that were this actual started and actually has information that's not being shared in this in their EIR.

Good afternoon.

Um my name is Mark Weissner.

I I put in a uh a card that wasn't called, but for my colleague uh Gustavo Poras was called, so um okay.

Um my name's Mark Weissner.

I'm principal hydrogeologist at Balance Hydrologics.

Balance Hydrologics was incorporated in 1988.

And we've been doing these type of um uh uh well projects for uh over four years.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions uh and uh be grilled on on any uh issue through about water.

I do want to say that there is an old well that was previously there, a dysfunctional shallow old well that is irrelevant to this project, and it it's it's come up from now uh from time to time.

Um the other thing is we cited two new wells.

One was drilled on on a fault, which is on the uh the uh the downside of the property.

Uh so that's what we're talking about, two different aquifers, one draws from the fault, which which uh and and the other draws from sandstone.

Um and any questions you have, I'd be glad to to elaborate.

No more speakers.

Thank you very much to all the speakers.

I will return it back to the board for questions, uh further comments.

Madam Chairman, can we confirm whether we still have two supervisors on online remotely or not?

Yes, I'm here.

I'm not sure about supervisor fast.

I'm here too.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

I know you were part of the presentation, and you were you had 10 minutes, right?

Earlier.

Since I did not get a rebuttal, I wanted to briefly just address a couple things.

The attack on the credentials or the facts in the record is concerning to me.

I wanted to point out that the hydrologist who analyzed the data in the balance hydrologic report for the community members is a California professional geologist, uh certified.

He's also a certified hydrogeologist and a certified engineering hydrologist.

And the facts are the same facts that are in the record.

And uh his analysis, the substantial evidence standard was brought up and facts, opinions of an expert based on those facts uh may vary, but um we found that the water chemistry was not sufficiently analyzed to indicate that the wells will not impact the creek and the water connectivity uh between the creek and the wells is an open question.

The purpose of CEQA is to make informed decisions, of course, and without that analysis, there is no evidence in the record to support the finding that this water use will have insignificant impact on the hydrology and the water use within Cold Canyon.

Um I also is gonna just say this is a bad precedent for rigorous water supply analysis and a bad precedent for the Williamson Act.

And we did submit comments about noise contrary to what was stated earlier, and there's facts in the record about that as well.

Thank you.

No more speakers.

Thank you.

Once again, thank you to all the speakers.

Uh I will return to my colleagues for questions and deliberations.

And this is Supervisor My Lee's district.

He knows Castle Valley very, very well.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Lena Tam.

Yeah, I want to thank all the speakers for their testimony this uh afternoon and maybe morning as well.

Uh thank my colleagues for their attentiveness, being attentive to this uh matter.

The um you know we I know people on both sides of this issue.

Um and as I say stated in the beginning, I've been very clear about this when I've met with both sides and others have communic contacted me.

I'm gonna look at this based on the land use because I you know the mosaic project, the program is you know, we can't argue with that.

What I'm concerned about is the suitability of this project at the location that's being uh proposed, and I uh expressed that in the past, and I wanted to wait till the hearing today to hear everything on the record.

And I I am not convinced that my concerns around a few of these matters have been adequately um alleviated.

I'm not gonna even look at the EIR and the adequacy of the EIR.

I'm not gonna touch that.

I'm just gonna deal with this uh the CUP.

I think with the CUP with the findings, we have to the use is required by the public need.

The use will be properly related to other land use transportation service facilities in the area.

Finding three, the use if permitted under all circumstances and conditions of the particular case will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or by or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

In the fourth finding, use will not be contrary to the character or performance standards established for the district in which it is to be located.

You know, before getting on the board of supervisors when I was on the Oakland City Council, I didn't really pay much attention to ag issues and ag matters.

Living in Oakland, being a city council person.

You know, I've I had people who advised me on ag issues, have someone on my staff who is very intimately involved with the ACT community, and I've had people on my staff involved with the AG community.

So I've been very in Measure D, you know, been very involved with Measure D since its inception, since its vote and working uh on possible reforms that we took to the ballot ultimately around Measure D.

So I'm very familiar with with these issues, these matters.

I think findings number three and number four can't be met.

And it's my understanding that if if one finding can't be met, then the CUP can't be issued.

That is accurate.

You must make all four findings before you can approve conditional use permit.

Okay.

And we heard that if we go to a lesser alternative, particularly the the reduced capacity, uh, that's not going to work uh for the applicant.

So even if we were to consider that, it's it's it's it's not going to be suitable.

But once again, I just think finding three and finding four can't be met.

I can't express it enough.

Being on the city council, seeing the Oakland Hills fire storm, seeing those the fire burn all that property, people's lives dying, people couldn't escape, this, that, and the other, that maybe is traumatized me.

Knowing my ex-wife and her husband barely escaped paradise, and that fire, that's traumatized me.

As one speaker pointed out, Camp Mystic, not knowing anyone, but the point is the issues that took place there and all the folks who died as a result of camp mystic.

And we've heard experts, kind of dueling experts say one thing or the other.

To me, it's important that I put authenticity on the people who have lived in the canyon, who have experienced these issues and concerns, not academically, not by study, but by every day existence.

I think fire is a big big concern, and I'm not convinced that we uh um uh we can handle fire, and it will not adversely uh impact the health and safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or materially be detriment and will it or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to uh property or improvements.

I think fire will definitely be there.

I I quiz Bonnie on this around the evacuation.

I don't think uh the evacuation analysis is strong enough because it's I mean, I think it's really kind of informative when a firefighter talks about but working as a firefighter for 22 years in the Bay Area and having been to wildfires in Los Angeles and Northern California and seeing the devastation those fires have caused with how fast they spread makes me concerned with the access and ability to fight a fire in the location this project is being proposed.

Location does not have multiple escape routes, one way in and one way out.

A lot of people talked about that.

The issue of water, water supply, um, you know, the fact that the road can be blocked by vehicles, by you know, trees, by other things, uh, and that could produce a choke point, a choke point.

And once again, this is the project will be there, but I'm looking at trying to make the finding, so it will not adversely affect the entire uh community.

Columbia is right up the hill.

And how many homes are in Columbia?

It gets a it's a major development, but it's right up the hill, right up the hill.

And I've had constituents in Castor Valley uh talking with me about fire safety since I've been elected.

Uh it's not something that uh people take lightly, uh as well as in other parts of the land corporate area like Fairview.

So I'm just concerned about fire storm evacuation, and then also when you couple that with not only will people have to get out, but they've got animals too.

That compounds it even further.

I just don't think the finding can be made.

And then, furthermore, when we I don't know how we overcome the issue of of uh wildlife and the fact that um there's wildlife up there, particularly the wild pigs, and some and to some degree rattlesnakes that can affect um health and safety.

The Williams Act, because I really think, and I think um one of my colleagues brought up the Williamson Act.

I didn't dwell on the Williamson Act, but I do think um the Williams Act, the spirit of the Williamson Act isn't being adhered to because it could have been adhered to quite a while ago.

Uh they've owned the property for 10 years.

I think um that's what we've been told.

Uh they could have started the Williams and Act compliance a long time ago, and then as was said, having a few chickens, growing some eggs, and um selling and making 10,000 dollars.

Um I don't know if that adheres to the spirit of the Williamson Act and also the spirit of of Measure D uh resource management.

So I I'm just having difficulty reaching findings three and four.

So that's where I'm at.

Once again, I don't know where the rest of the supervisors are, but I wanted to at least be clear and put on the record uh my concerns.

Uh once again, the biggest one is fire and water.

Fire and water.

Thank you.

I will uh call on Supervisor Fortunato Bass next since she has time constraints.

Thank you, Chair Tam.

Uh thank you to everyone who's been participating in this process.

I know it has been many, many years.

Um, and I certainly appreciate uh Supervisor Miley, your um representation of this area and um all of your experience.

Um I do want to acknowledge that I did have an opportunity to meet with the proponents of the project at Mosaic.

Um I also had an opportunity to visit and to listen to the Cole Canyon neighbors together with Supervisor Miley, and I appreciate uh the unique nature um of the area as well as its contribution to Alameda County's agricultural um not only culture but economy and lifestyle.

Um all of that said, um I have been looking at these um the materials, the EIR, the memos, um, all of the expert testimony that has been uh delivered to us, and um, you know, I do have to say that I very much respect the professional staff that we have who, as you heard from uh the questioning that we had, have the technical expertise, have the credentials.

Um, so I do believe that the recommendations by staff as it relates to the four areas in the C UP are sound are supported by experts, including in the areas of wildfire, water, septic, and also want to note that the recommendation um includes a reduction of the footprint as recommended in the EIR.

Um, I think one thing that we could do to ensure that if this project uh if the CUP is approved, if the permitting and the rest of the design and construction move forward, that we are incredibly diligent in monitoring the mitigation plan.

So instead of reviewing in five years, have that happen sooner in three years, and have particular attention paid to uh evacuation in the event of any type of emergency, whether it's fire, earthquake or what have you, given uh the changing natural environment.

So that is where I stand.

Um, and again, I know this has been really difficult, a really long process, and I appreciate everyone's participation.

Um, I don't know how often it is that we go against the recommendations of our staff, uh, but in this particular case, um, I do want to support the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Halbert, are you still in line?

I am I think I'd like to hear what others have to say.

Okay, Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you, Chair.

The volume is really loud.

I want to thank everyone for their participation.

We need to see if we can lower the volume.

It's really loud.

Okay.

Um thank you everyone for your participation.

Uh, had plenty of time to review the materials and meet with individuals that are on different sides of this project.

And my comments are very similar to Supervisor Partano Baths.

I concur with staff's expertise and recommendations, and uh we'll be supporting um staff's recommendations should it move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Hopper, did you want to comment or did you need me to comment first?

Go ahead.

Okay.

Um, so I also like my colleagues, uh, reviewed the record extensively and heard the comments.

I saw the minutes of the Castle Valley MAC meeting where this meeting went quite lengthy as well.

And I know a number of the speakers here spoke at the Castle Valley Mac.

Um I wanted to address a couple of things.

When I looked at the Measure D requirements and I think it's called uh resource management, the RM designation.

And I think one of the speakers talked about the potential of adding like the dining hall into the square footage.

And even if we added the dining hall and the residential buildings, it would still fall under the 12 20,000 minimum that's allowed under measure D under the RM designation.

So I'm comfortable with at least meeting that compliance.

The one thing I still need to better understand, there seems to be conflicting assertions about the impact on the neighboring winery that's 400 feet to the north, and the concerns over whether it's pesticide usage or their ability to continue with their operations and the transfer.

So could staff just kind of reinforce what the requirements are under their ABC license.

We did try to get a hold of ABC and get them to input on the on the permit.

We weren't successful in that.

Um, but we did we were able to look at the ABC regulations uh which are extensive, and there is a I think it was mentioned before is that the proximity to uh a school or nonprofit uh uh like this.

Um there they do speak to that in the uh in the ABC regs.

Um and that um I believe that the term that they use is that if the ABC were to find that the proximity was contrary to public welfare morals, that it could impact their permit.

It seemed to be a more of a statement that would apply in an urban area as opposed to a rural area like this.

Again, these are I think about 10, 11-year-olds, and they would be under constant supervision.

Um so staff didn't see necessary conflict between the two between the two uses.

Um the language that someone else quoted uh does it does appear in the ABC regulations.

Is that that concern about uh public welfare and morals would only apply in an instance of uh of a new permit, not a not a uh renewal or um I'm sorry to get into confuse here.

Um yeah, uh in terms of a uh transfer, not necessarily a renewal uh of the permit.

And so um we again weren't able to talk to ABC staff.

I don't think they would probably even tell us what they would do in this particular case, but it did not seem like there was a conflict between between the two uses in that this idea of the proximity alone did not did not necessarily mean that their permit would be in jeopardy.

Okay, thank you.

So um having said that, I I concur with staff's findings when it comes to uh the conditional use permit with respect to finding number one, and then now with the clarification on the Williamson Act and Measure D with uh finding number two.

We spent an exhaustive amount of time uh discussing the health and safety of persons nearby, uh whether it's the evacuation plan, whether it's looking at the fire risk and looking at uh you know the potential uh for other safety measures.

Um that's item number three, finding number four.

Um it's pertaining to the zoning, the agricultural zoning, and based on my reading of the exact language of the age zoning district and its stated intent.

I believe this camp is uh compliant with that finding with respect to the number of permits that will be required.

A lot of the issues surrounding the adequacy and the sustainability of the groundwater basin and the availability of water from the wells and the methodology that was used.

Similarly, um, with respect to fish and wildlife.

There are other jurisdictions like the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Board, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Corps of Engineers that will be looking at this more intensively at and at any one time.

If there is a concern or a denial, this project will not move forward.

So this is my comfort level at the moment.

Uh Supervisor Halbert, do you have any comments?

Yes.

Uh I also would like to thank everyone who spoke and the expert testimony.

Um for me, uh my biggest concern is that, and we heard it voiced.

People voted for Measure D, and they voted for it to preserve agriculture.

And one of the presentations we had mailed to us at you know, pictures of a barn, pictures of uh uh uh other agricultural uses, and this is what in their mind's eye they voted for with measure D.

Now that was many, many years ago.

That sentiment may have changed, I don't know, but it's not what the voters voted on.

And so my biggest hang up is Measure D is still in place, and people didn't vote for this.

So I love the project.

I think a lot of people said that they do.

I'm sympathetic to all the work that's gone into this, and especially the students that came and spoke.

I know that there's I feel there's a need, and um I just though as as we still have we have measure D in place, and it hasn't been amended to completely allow for this, in my opinion.

So that's my biggest hang up right now, notwithstanding the fire and water concerns that uh Supervisor Miley shares.

So that's where I screwed.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Marley has one more question.

Uh yeah, because yes, the uh planning director about um in their ability to get their um you know to their right to farm and continue.

It's just curious though that when it comes to sensitive receptors, we would not approve an alcohol outlet near a child care facility, a school, you know, daycare, etc.

But now with right to farm in the in that use being there already, where you know you you're saying that their ability to maintain their operation, even though they're gonna be little children at this facility is not gonna be jeopardized.

I just find that kind of difficult to comprehend.

But I just want to say that having looked at these matters when it comes to alcohol outlets over the years and sensitive receptors, be it a school, a child care facility, um daycare, uh, whatever it might be, karate for studio.

Typically, we don't try to have them within a thousand feet of one another.

Thank you.

Um Marquez.

Um, yeah, I'd like to make a motion on item number uh five to move uh staff's recommendation that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution including the following items A through C.

Do we have a second?

I'll second that.

So we have a motion from Supervisor Marquez and a second from Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Are there any other last-minute comments?

Hearing none, can we have Roku vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye, Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

No.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Howard.

Uh I'll abstain.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

At this time we will move to public comment on items that are not on today's agenda.

No speakers.

Thank you.

I appreciate everyone's time, and this meeting is adjourned with enough time for Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Thank you.