Alameda County Transportation/Planning Committee Meeting - June 3, 2026
Alameda County Transportation/Planning Committee Meeting - June 3, 2026
[The Alameda County Board of Supervisors Transportation/Planning Committee met on June 3, 2026, with Supervisor Miley and Supervisor Halbert present. The meeting covered six agenda items, including discussions on floor area ratio definitions, allowable uses in agricultural zones, a pilot for unincorporated communities coordination, a trail recommendation for the Alameda Tesla property, and a resolution supporting an innovative freight transportation system. Public comment was heard on multiple items, with significant debate on the Tesla trail issue.]
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 1 (Floor Area Ratio): Larry Goslin (rancher) noted that Measure D uses the term floor area ratio without definition but the zoning code has a restrictive definition. He suggested outreach to the Ag Advisory Committee. Nick Schneider pointed out an omission in the East County area plan regarding Measure D's definition of structure. Another commenter questioned why staff direction was being given on an informational item. Harish supported the clarification, citing consistency with solar panel interpretations. Andrew Turnbull urged guidance from the Ag Advisory Committee and support for agribusiness.
- Item 2 (Allowable Uses): Larry Goslin advocated for a legislative review of Measure D, noting the 2022 Measure D calls for broad construction to enhance agriculture. Kelly Abrase accused staff of misleading discussion and urged rewriting the zoning ordinance to comply with Measure D. Nick Schneider noted the zoning ordinance has never been updated to reflect Measure D's changes and called for board action. Andrew Turnbull supported consulting the Ag Advisory Committee and aligning with Measure D's original goals.
- Item 3 (Unincorporated Communities Pilot): Dana Vinny (Castro Valley MAC member, personal capacity) opposed creating an office and suggested pilot remain in District 4. Larry Goslin supported the study and mentioned potential for a working landscape trust. Andrew Turnbull praised consultant Brianna Galat and supported the revised proposal. Ann Maris opposed, citing concerns about resident participation and influence of organizations like My Eden Voice. Keith Barrows supported the pilot, noting it could improve coordination. Another speaker opposed, favoring more representation for rural areas. Charles Pisano supported the pilot as a coordination tool.
- Item 4 (Tesla Trail): David First (Livermore resident, LARPD director) disputed the Ag Advisory Committee letter's assertions about LARPD's master plan. Andrew Turnbull supported the letter, noting he helped write it and urging better communication. Laura Germany (Friends of Tesla Park) opposed, citing 25 years of studies, biological assessments, and indigenous cultural resources. Dick Schneider (RCD board) opposed, stating the Ag Advisory Committee did not review scientific material. Larry Goslin supported, noting high historical usage and state parks' recognition of fragmentation. Marilyn Harvey (RCD CEO) opposed, citing Tesla's need for reserve protection. Will Bolton (Livermore Heritage Guild) opposed due to historic resources. Haley Rose (Tri-Valley Conservancy) supported reserve classification. Beth Wurzberg (CNPS) called the letter premature and uninformed. Marilyn Russell (Tesla Road resident) opposed, citing trail damage. Multiple online speakers opposed, citing ecological and cultural impacts. Some speakers urged balance and connection to Tracy Hills. Carol Silva questioned the committee's purpose. Nancy Rodriguez opposed, noting e-bike issues.
- Item 6 (Cybertran Freight): Eugene Nishinaga (Transit Control Solutions) supported, citing lower costs and global trends.
- Public Comment (non-agenda): Andrew Turnbull requested better mute instructions. Larry Goslin reported stalled work on streamlining equine industry permitting, and Supervisor Halbert directed staff to bring it back in two months. A speaker supported a battery storage ordinance.
Discussion Items
-
Item 1: Floor Area Ratio Definition
- Albert Lopez (Planning Director) explained that floor area ratio (FAR) in the East County area plan is 0.01, and the building definition in zoning code determines what counts. He cited a prior case with mausoleums. Supervisor Halbert suggested open-air walkways with semi-permeable flooring might not be counted, similar to solar panels. The committee directed staff to work on clarifying the definition to exclude such structures, while ensuring consistency with Measure D. No formal motion was required.
-
Item 2: Allowable Uses Under Measure D
- Albert Lopez listed permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the A zone, noting that Measure D restricts adding new uses without a ballot measure. Supervisor Halbert questioned whether landscaping businesses could operate with necessary equipment (trucks, mulch). Staff explained that contractor storage yards are not permitted. The committee discussed the need to better define non-contractor vs. contractor landscaping businesses. Supervisor Miley proposed referring the issue to the Ag Advisory Committee and considering professional outsourcing to update zoning to match Measure D. Both supervisors agreed that the ag committee should explore path forward.
-
Item 3: Unincorporated Communities Coordination Pilot
- Brianna Galat presented findings from interviews and comparative analysis, identifying fragmented governance, complex issues, and communication gaps. She originally proposed a three-year Office of Unincorporated Communities with five staff, but after feedback (Fairview MAC supported with amendments, Eden MAC supported, Sunol CAC supported with amendment to focus on urban areas, Castro Valley MAC voted no), she revised to a two-year pilot with two staff in the County Administrator's Office, using $300,000 in Measure W funds. The pilot would focus on coordination, Baker Tilly recommendations, and EJ element implementation, without taking over MAC management. Supervisor Miley supported the revised plan, emphasizing budget constraints and the need for proof of concept. Supervisor Halbert agreed, suggesting a work study session before full board consideration. The committee directed to advance to a work study session.
-
Item 4: Tesla Park Trail Recommendation
- Jack Norton (Ag Advisory Committee chair) requested the board communicate to State Parks that a multi-use east-west trail through the Tesla property should be a high priority. He argued it supports agritourism and aligns with county plans. Many public commenters opposed, citing biological and cultural resources, e-bike conflicts, and the need for reserve classification. Supervisor Miley expressed opposition, noting a lack of need for more bike trails and preferring natural reserve designation. Supervisor Halbert was hesitant, citing concerns about bikes/horses conflict and wildlife, and proposed convening a town hall to further study the issue. The committee decided not to forward the letter to the full board, but to explore the topic further.
-
Item 6: Cybertran Freight Partnership Resolution
- Representatives from Cybertran, EarthGrid, PATH at UC Berkeley, and ManEx presented an ultra-light rail system for moving freight underground from the Port of Oakland to Tracy, using plasma boring technology. They requested a resolution to establish a public-private partnership. County Counsel noted the resolution had not been reviewed and would be subject to competitive procurement. Supervisor Miley moved to forward the resolution to the full board after county counsel review and with the typo corrected (inserting "in"). Supervisor Halbert seconded. The motion passed.
Key Outcomes
- Floor Area Ratio Clarification: Staff directed to develop a definition excluding open-air walkways with semi-permeable flooring, ensuring consistency with Measure D. No formal vote.
- Zoning and Measure D: The committee agreed to refer the issue of defining landscaping businesses and updating zoning to the Ag Advisory Committee, with possible outsourcing. Next step: Ag committee to report back.
- Unincorporated Communities Pilot: The revised two-year, two-staff pilot using Measure W funds in the County Administrator's Office will be presented at a work study session. Consultant contract extended through Supervisor Miley's office.
- Tesla Trail Letter: Not forwarded to full board. Committee will hold a town hall to gather more input before taking a position.
- Cybertran Resolution: Motion to forward to full board (with county counsel review and typo correction) passed unanimously (2-0).
- Public Comment Follow-up: Staff directed to report back in two months on progress with equine industry permitting streamlining.
Meeting Transcript
The County Board of Supervisors Transportation Slash Planning Committee meetings order. Will the clerk please call the roll to establish our forum? Supervisor can I like here? Supervisor Halbert present. Member quorum. Thank you all. I appreciate members of the public participating, either in person or online. Apologies for the room technical issues require that we be in this room today. It's a little bit tight inside, but everyone will have a chance to participate, including public comment. And if those people who are online wish to participate, there's a procedure for doing that, and I will ask the clerk to please describe that for anyone online. If you'd like to participate remotely, you can follow the teleconferencing guidelines posted at WWEW. And use the raise your hand function. We have many online. Yes, we have uh 26 people on the okay, very good. We have one, two, three, four, five, six items plus public comment today. The first item is an informational item discussion of discussion of floor area ratio as it pertains. Partially covered roof over a gravel walkway. Is there a presentation from planning department? Yeah, I'll take that one. Uh Albert Lopez Plan Director. Uh this item, it's it um there's a couple of terms that are used in the East County area plan, which I believe this is referencing um related to floor area and the definition of building. Um floor area ratio is uh it's a ratio between the size of buildings and the and the lot and the in the east county area plan, the floor area ratio generally it's 0.01, except for agriculture. Yeah, additional uh floor area bump. Um, but as it pertains to uh this particular item, I wanted to talk a little bit more about the definition of a building, which is in our code, and that's how we uh determine whether or not something should be counted as floor area. Um generally speaking, the if it requires a building permit and has been um engineered to uh as a supporting structure for the uh um I'll read the actual definition of the building, it's uh any structure erected for the support shelter or enclosures of persons, animals, property, um, and so if it requires a building permit and sort of meets those characteristics, we generally consider it to be a good uh if it is a building, then it does count towards the floor area ratio. Um and again with that point oh one generally speaking of the buildings in the um in the East County area plan, specifically, I think you have to talk to Ag Zone in this particular case, and so if there is um, we did have one case, I believe it was a couple of years ago. You might remember a cemetery that we approved. Um, and there were there were mausoleums um as part of that, and at one point we weren't going to count those as buildings, but we later on did count them, which we did. We had to reduce the size of the cemetery, or I think I think we actually ended up eliminating the mausoleums because of that because we did determine them to be buildings and they butted up against the floor air ratio maximums, and so um without a ton of context on this item. I would say that if it is a building, requires a building permit is uh engineered structurally to support um an enclosure of some of some kind for humans to use, then we would consider that to be a building and subject to the floor air ratio. So um do we need to um make a change to the definition of that or do we need to make a um voter initiated and voter-approved um uh amendment to measure D to and I think the um comments that I've heard is um that if it is open air that if it's a flooring that is semi-permeable, that it is unattached, that um similar to solar panels, which also cover the ground below them but are not considered part of FAR, i.e. the intersect power, that there is a way to have the meetings not counted as floor area ratio, and that a definition could perhaps alleviate that, like the definition of a pool, which used to be considered FAR and now is not considered. So I guess could staff work on the what we're trying to accomplish and figure out the how we can accomplish that. Yes. Well, so certainly we can come up with a definition of a building that meets the walkway. Yes, the criteria that you talked about on the arcade or something like that that is open air, permeable floor, unattached to another building, I guess, as opposed to attached to the ground. Um, you know, there is always the word structural to me. I I assume that that meant that if it's holding up the building, so helping the building to stand erect, then that counts. But if it's completely unattached, it has no structural bearing. Yeah, so and and could you remind us where exactly the page and the paragraph you're referencing when you did that? So the building uh definition is in the zoning code and zone mission section. Um that's uh 17.04 of the of the uh county code. Um, there is always a caveat about measure D, of course, because measure D does in the large parcel ag it doesn't talk about structures, it only talks about buildings, and then going back to that definition of buildings. You know, there could be a conflict there. Any zoning code, any ordinance, policy that the county adopts has to be consistent with measure D. Um, so to the extent that any definition change doesn't do that, then I think we'll be okay. But there's always some interpretation, as you know, when it comes to measure. Um, been on both sides of that that argument over the years, so that's the caveat. Yeah, supervisor Miley, do you have any questions about this? Yeah, and we um it's not requiring a motion, but um, can we provide direction to staff to work on as Albert mentioned, we can find a way to further define this?
openpublica.com