Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to I'm gonna go ahead and call this meeting to order. Welcome to the Alameda County Planning Commission hearing for Monday, 01/05/2026. Can we have the roll call, please?

Yes. Member Zeiss? Present. Member Silva? Present. Member Rocha? Member Nielsen? Member Hernandez?

Present.

Vice chair Kelly?

Present.

Drew Crawford? Here. Okay. We have quorum.

K. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Okay. Item four, announcements by the chair. I have none. Item five, open forum. This is an opportunity for anyone to speak on any item that is not on the agenda. Do we have any speakers under open forum?

There's nobody online that has raised their hand.

I have no speaker cards. So moving on. Item six, field trip report, we have none. Item seven, committee reports, we have none. Item eight, approval of the minutes, 12/15/2025. Commissioners, do we have any changes to the minutes? If not, is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

We

have a motion from commissioner Nielsen. A second from

I second that.

Commissioner Hernandez. Roll call vote, please.

Yes. Member Zeiss? Yes. Member Silva? Yes. Member Rocha? Yes. Member Nielsen? Yes. Member Hernandez?

Aye.

Vice chair Kelly?

Yes. Ian Crawford?

Aye. Ayes have it.

We got on to item nine, consent calendar. We have no items on the consent calendar. Moving on to item 10, regular calendar item a, PLN 02/1993. Can we have the staff report on this item, please?

It's coming right up. Staff planner Aubrey Rose is queuing that up, and we'll be making a presentation followed by First Carbon Solutions making more detailed presentation.

Evening, commissioners, members of the public. Aubrey Rose, Alameda County Planning Department. This is case number PLN2022Dash00193. This is the Arroyo Lago residential subdivision. The project site is located directly east of the city of Pleasanton, and the requested approvals are environmental review for an environmental impact report and investing tentative track map number TRDash8243.

Recap. The project is to subdivide a 26.6 acre parcel into a 190 residential lots, formerly a 194, plus three off-site lots containing infrastructure needed to serve the development, including roads, sewer, domestic water, and storm drain. The per includes 48 ADUs, formerly 49, plus 12 common lots, plus a seven tenth of an acre centrally located park and approximately a half mile of designated public walking trails. Parcels include a 26.56 acre parcel to contain the residential lots, streets, a park, and a trail, a 118 acre parcel to contain a sewer treatment plant to buy a retention area, agricultural irrigation recycled water spray fields and roads, a three acre parcel to contain water storage and a booster pump facility, and a fourth parcel located within the city of Pleasanton to contain a well. Property owner Steve Dunn of Steel Wave for USL Pleasanton Lakes who's present this evening, and the applicant Steve Riley of the three thirty Land Company.

General plan, for the parcels are ECAP MDR East County area plan, medium density residential for the residential lot to be subdivided as well as ECAP LPA, large parcel agriculture, and ECAP WM, water management. And zoning is a agricultural district. There's a local vicinity map. You can see, the site is in the green circle. The, 26 acre residential lot to be subdivided is, highlighted in blue.

Topics to be discussed. County staff will present on the results of the 11/17/2025 Planning Commission public hearing and a review of staff report documents consisting of the resolution, the vesting tentative map dated December 2025, environmental certification, the CECA, California Environmental Quality Act findings of fact, an environmental review update, the mitigation monitoring reporting program, minutes, and correspondence received after November 17, and a conclusion of the subsequent review and staff's recommendation. Okay. And environmental consultants will present on an elaboration of the review items needed for further consideration. The final review of conditions of approval.

Results of the 11/17/2025 Planning Commission public hearing. The item was continued at the time for additional information regarding, one, building heights along the western property line, two, the wastewater treatment plant, WWTP, and the associated agricultural spray field, and three, project specific conditions of approval or COAs. These topics will be discussed further in the applicant and environmental consultants presentations. In conclusion, there is no new information, only a compilation of clarified information or information already provided in the draft environmental impact report and final environmental impact report. Dated findings of fact from the environmental consultant are to reflect the project changes, which do not affect the CEQA California Environmental Quality Act, EIR, environmental impact report, conclusions.

Any department staff recommends that the Alameda County Planning Commission review the staff report, discuss the Arroyo Lago Subdivision and EIR, take public testimony, and vote to approve the tentative track map subdivision TR dash eight or two three for case number PLN 2022Dash00193, adopt the sequel findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations incorporated by reference, certify the final environmental impact report with state clearing house number 2023050339 dated 07/03/2025, and adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program dated 09/05/2025, and incorporated into the conditions of approval. I will turn to presentations by the consultant and applicant, beginning with consultant Rachel Krusinowski with Kimley Horn.

And I think, Steve, you wanted to start with a few words before we get started?

Be great. Thank you. Go ahead

and state your name, please.

I'm Steve Dunn, owner of the subject property. Happy to be here tonight, chair and commissioners as staff. Look. This is our third meeting, and we believe we've responded now to all your questions from the last meeting in this packet. We'll present that tonight.

I did wanna just go over just a couple of facts. The Royal Logic Royal Lago project that is 26 acres in the county is completely consistent with the ECAP general plan medium density housing. So it's completely compliant with that. We made our application in 2022, again, compliant at at a 194 units. We've now reduced that to a 190, and we'll that out later tonight in response to the questions you had last meeting.

In 2024, it's also consistent with the housing element update that was, approved by the county, in December '24, and this was also noted in that plan as a pipeline project. This project is also legally protected by the under the state s b three thirty. We have made our modifications based upon the three comments we had last last meeting, and we also had made some concessions prior to that. So we're hopefully here tonight to get final approval of the project, and we will present those. We have our team here that can talk about design, anything technical, but we will refer back now to, the county's consultant, FCS, to present the the facts and the presentation.

But, again, we're here to answer any questions. We also wanna just say that we're supporting, obviously, staff recommendations. And, again, we look forward to your support.

Right. And then I will take it away. My name is Rachel Krusanowski. I'm here as a sub consultant to First Carbon, and I worked largely on this, draft EIR and final EIR. So I've been with this project and working with staff for a few years now.

But like Steve and staff said, we have kind of consolidated the concerns from the previous meeting into three main points. And so we're just gonna run through those with a little bit more detail and clarifying information requested from the Planning Commission. So we can go to the next slide. So staff kind of reviewed the staff report documents, but I kind of just wanted to orient you all to what is in your staff report and point out kind of three main pieces that I think are pretty important. So we have the draft resolution for the project, and part of that draft resolution is an attachment with a updated development plan investing tentative map.

This reflects one story, homes on the western boundary of the project site, and we'll talk about that a little bit more. And so there are a few other design tweaks that had to occur, so that is a helpful resource kind of see the minor changes that were made, and we'll talk through those as well. We also have an attachment b, a conditions of approval summary of revisions. So this really walks you through the history of these projects, specific conditions of approval, how we got there, the different, as Steve mentioned, the concessions that were made, what was removed, what was added, and I'm gonna talk through that in detail as well. And then attachment c there, there's two memos that are provided, and they have kind of a broad and very detailed explanation of the changes to the building height and the agricultural, spray fields as well as the wastewater treatment plant.

I've kind of consolidated the information in those memos into this presentation. But should you need more information on what we discussed tonight, those are gonna be your main resources. So I just wanted to call attention to those first three items, and then I'll talk through them during this presentation. Okay. So as we mentioned, there's kind of three main points after the November 17 Planning Commission.

And so one of the big concerns was building heights, and the building heights along the western property boundary were requested to be reduced to one story. Now this is not a CEQUA impact, but it is a non CEQUA aesthetic concern and privacy concern. And so one of the things that was done was a condition of approval, that reduces those homes to one story, and we have some renderings to show you. We'll also be talking about the wastewater treatment plant and agricultural spray fields. I've summarized here the three main concerns from the previous meeting, and a condition of approval that we will be introducing is relocation of the agricultural spray fields to the West Side Of El Charro, further from Cope Lake to hopefully address some of the concerns that we've heard on accident upset conditions, mainly flooding and then potential contamination.

And then I'm going to walk you through those conditions of approval. Okay. So this is, this is the condition of approval I was talking about. So, in response to the Planning Commission's concerns related to the non sequit impacts along the project's western property line, the applicant has proposed COA 67 in which the applicant voluntarily accepts the planning commission's recommendation to reduce the building heights along the western boundary of the project site to one story. And then as you can see in those a, b, and c, in order to make that, design change happen, the five foot planner strips have been removed from street c and d.

The lots on the Western property line will be, increased. And then there's two new single story floor plans, which are called floor or plan seven and plan eight in those updated plans. So you can go to next one. Oh, these are in the plans. These are some renderings of what the the one story homes will look like.

This is just to give you an idea. It keeps with the design and, overall aesthetic, but it does reduce those homes to one story. And then this here is an updated kind of illustrative site plan. So now we have our new number of units reflected and as Aubrey mentioned that unit count has been reduced by four just to accommodate those bigger lots. So now we have ninety five two story court homes, 64 additional two story homes, and then 31 single story homes for a total of a 190 units.

So looks very similar to our site plan from before, but those minor design changes are in effect with the reduced the reduction of those planter strips. And so we we included this table in the last presentation, but just this just kind of shows our setbacks compared to other projects nearby. So we're going to have a 15 foot minimum rear setback. If we go to the next slide, you can see kind of the lot standards here. So this is a layout to orient you the front of the homes would be at the bottom of the screen.

And so that shows you the minimum front setback to the structure, which is a, the front setback to the garage. We have the setback to the, rear setback and the side setback. So those are all labeled there in feet. So that gives you an idea of what those new lots will look like. Then here we have some elevations.

As we discussed in the last meeting, in order to accommodate, well, the existing drainage issues on the site, there has to be an increase in the civil fill, and as it goes towards, Bush Road, that decreases. So as you can see here, this is the six foot civil fill. This is what it will look like with one story, and there will still be a retaining wall and a good neighbor fence next to the homes on the western boundary. Then this is the four foot elevation, so very similar, just slightly closer to grade there. And then the last gradient here is the two two and a half foot civil fill here and another elevation.

And so in conclusion of those building heights, like I said, attachment c of your staff report has a way longer detailed technical memo on that, but those are the main highlights. It also has a matrix that make sure that these changes are consistent with the environmental findings. And it was determined that everything that was studied in the EIR accommodates these minor design changes. And so, it really represents a good faith effort between the applicant and the staff, with the planning commission and the public to kind of meet those privacy concerns outside of CEQA. So that's that's the first big highlight.

And so now we're gonna move on to wastewater treatment plant and the agricultural spray field. So as I, had mentioned before, we have three main concerns that came up, Right? What happens if there's an accident or there's upset conditions, active god emergency? What about potential contamination from the agricultural spray fields? And then what about flooding for that agricultural spray field, given it's in a close proximity, to Cope Lake?

And so a lot of consultation has gone back and forth between various water water agencies, including Zone seven and the applicant. In fact, a consultation between the applicant team and Zone seven occurred between the November 17 meeting and this one in which the applicant proposed to relocate the agricultural spray field West Of El Charro into an area that was previously going to be considered for dirt harvest area. So it is studied in the EIR, and hopefully that that relocation addresses some of those flooding concerns. There's a lot of design features that I'll touch on briefly to also ensure that none of these issues happen, but that's the main splash headline is that it's going to be relocated. So if we can go to the next slide.

So, this is kind of an illustration here of where it will be moved. So, right where the map kind of cuts off on the right hand side is where the agricultural spray field was originally proposed. And so now it's been moved West of El Charro much closer to the residential component and near that recycled storage water facility and wastewater treatment plant. These plants were shown to Zone 7 as well, and we kind of walk them through those designs. But this would be the new proposed location, and it would be included as a condition of approval that it will be moved as part of the project's design.

And then same with the building heights, there is also a pretty extensive memo on the wastewater treatment plant and agricultural spray fields as well that kind of goes through the process of that. But again, the EIR has analyzed that entire site West of El Charro, and so any environmental concerns have already been addressed by the EIR. And so that relocation will not change any of the environmental conclusions that were made. That memo that I mentioned also just touches on a few other concerns, mainly the accident conditions and the potential contamination. And so some of the things that highlights is kind of the rigorous regulatory oversight that the California State Water Board, and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board have over, the operation and maintenance of these facilities.

There's also operation oversight by a state certified operator, and so that's routine inspections, maintenance and testing. There's also a very conservative design of the wastewater treatment plant. It's designed to have fail safe features. It's, automated responses and intervention. It's monitored 20 fourseven.

It also has a lot of state approved runoff control features, and the site will be prepared and graded, and have kind of agronomic rates, which just means that the water will only be distributed based on the need of those agricultural fields. There's weather restrictions and the recycled water storage capacity could hold up to one hundred and seventy days of water without springs. So say we're in some crazy water rain that we're in right now for an extended period of time. There is, you know, a conservative design there and then plenty of mandatory reporting requirements to the county, the state water board. And so I can go over any of these points more in detail if if needed, but I just want to kinda give an overview of that.

So now we're moving into the portion of the presentation where I'm just gonna run through all of the projects, project specific conditions of approval. We have quite a few, and I know there was some confusion at the last meeting, so I thought let's just do a comprehensive review. So these conditions right here have been incorporated into the resolution. They were inadvertently omitted from the previous draft, but they were studied in the EIR, and they come directly from the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health or the site. And so you can see there's a number of, requirements that a soil report be submitted, that the project schedule be submitted.

And a lot of this is already, you know, happening as a part of the project, but they're codified here in these conditions of approval. And so the EIR relied on these conditions, and the applicant is bound by them. Then here we have some conditions of approval that have been incorporated into the resolution because they were inadvertently omitted from the previous draft, and they were, introduced in the final EIR in response to comments from the State Water Board, Alameda County Water District, Dublin San Remote Services District during the public's, comment review period. There was a lot of public comment and concerns over these off-site improvements. And all these conditions here, are all regulatory requirements that are already imposed on the project.

But this just kind of further addresses those concerns and really outlines all of the documentation that has to be provided to the county that the project is complying with all of its very stringent regulatory requirements. So these were introduced in the final EIR and analyzed as part of that. Then the two that we talked about mainly today, which is, 67 is the reduction to the one story homes on the Western property line. And then number two down there is the relocation of the agricultural spray fields. So these are, you know, as a result of the consideration, the feedback that was received at the November 17 public hearing.

And then we have two that were previously incorporated, and we've seen these before. The first one is that is a request, that came out of the consultation with the Pleasanton garbage service. And basically, requires that homeowners be notified of its operations. And so we've discussed this, but this again born from consultation with PGS, but that is a condition that we've already reviewed and is already in the resolution. And then 66 down there is just con you know, ensuring that the, traffic improvements that are being constructed by an adjacent project, if those for whatever reason don't occur, they will, make sure that they do occur.

So that kind of addresses two that we've already that have already come out of consultation with PGF in the city. Then this one, COA 55 has been removed from the, resolution, and it's because it's already been met by the project applicant during the, draft DIR. So a preliminary geotech was prepared for the draft EIR and included in the appendix. And then additionally, the EIR also has a mitigation measure that requires a design level geotechnical study when, construction is actually happening. So this is pretty standard.

But since that condition's already been met, we just removed that. And then these following two, sixty three and sixty four, have been removed because they are replaced by 67 and no longer, apply. And so then the last point I just wanted to hit is that there was discussion about a Dublin San Ramon Services District request to create a condition, that the project never seek or require utility service from them if it proceeds under the county jurisdiction. That was discussed at the last meeting and the commission felt that it was, you know, not appropriate to ban services, potential services conversations as part of the conditions of approval. And so that was not added and it was never part of it.

Just want to close the loop on that that was not added. And so that kind of brings us back to the conclusion and staff recommendation. So one important piece that I do want to highlight is that this is a fourth of the five hearing limit for the project that's imposed by the So a decision on the project must be made today to allow for that one extra hearing for the County Board of Supervisors. I just wanna make sure everyone's aware of that requirement. And then as already stated by staff, there's no new information.

It's clarified. It's consolidated. It's organized to help better address those concerns. We also have an updated finding effect. And as I said, none of these changes affect those environmental conclusions that have already been made and presented to staff. And then below is staff recommendation. So, that concludes my formal presentation, and then I'm happy to touch on any question. Thank you.

Okay. I'm gonna jump in. Can you go back about five or six slides? I was gonna interrupt you, but so on these keep going. On these conditions of approval, yeah, go to the first slide that talks about okay. Go go forward one. Yeah. Alright. I'm a little fuzzy here. Obviously, we're trying to get to a point where we can make a decision on this project, and I think playing scramble the conditions doesn't help us get there.

The I'm listening to your description, and I'm looking at what's here, and I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. So you are you saying that you had conditions of approval h a z four a through four e previously, and you've renamed those conditions of approval 46? I mean, what exactly is going on with all these changes?

Okay. So there were some inadvertent errors in the previous resolution. So one of the things some of the, conditions of approval that were actually proposed during the draft ER and proposed during the final EIR never made it into the resolution. And so what we're doing here is correct correcting that. So it wasn't stated in the resolution, but it was also always studied as part of the EIR. Does that make sense? These aren't changes. These were always part of the project.

They weren't conditions of approval that were listed in

the

previous conditions of approval at previous hearings.

They were not listed, in error, but they were in the record of environmental documents and they were depended on by the draft EIR.

That part doesn't help me a lot because I'm not looking at all that and consuming all that. So how many of these do we have? You got this page, go forward one?

It's this. These ones in hazards and these ones related to utilities. So there are two sets, one in the draft EIR related to hazards and one in the final to utilities. And as I kind of stated here, these three were introduced in the final EIR, but they are regulatory requirements that are already required. So, you know, we've we've included them as conditions to just further kind of address the concerns that there isn't gonna be, you know, clear visibility into the operation of these off-site improvements, but these are required by law regardless.

So it's it's more of just an error of the resolution being put together that the ones that were in the draft EIR and in the final EIR weren't pulled into the full list. But it doesn't affect the overall project because it was always part of the project.

Yeah. So what I so what I I did not take this list of conditions. So we have two lists of conditions of approval in our in our packet, in our staff report. There's one that's in the resolution, and there's one that's towards the end of the staff report. So are those the same? I mean, I'm not posting all these on the wall in my house, checking

it. I understand that. And so I think the point of this was not to confuse you, is to walk you through what's in there. And so all everything that I've stated has been cross checked a 100 times between now and then. They are all in the resolution, and I just want to explain where some of these new ones are coming from, but they are all in your resolution attached to your staff report.

Okay. So what I'm curious about, though, is we had up to, I believe, 71 conditions before. So now you have new conditions, 45 through whatever, 68 through 70. What happened to the old conditions that were numbered that in the pre at the previous hearing?

I don't know the exact numbering difference, but any project specific conditions that have been removed are identified in this presentation. There were two that were if you go forward. Next. One before. So these have been removed either because they've already been addressed or a new condition, number 67, supersedes those. So numbering wise, I'm not sure, but I will tell you that the only ones that are project specific that have been removed are listed on this screen right here.

K. I don't know. Other commissioners, are you catching my my drift here? Or I don't know if anyone else pick is picking up on that or what. We had 70, at least 71 conditions before. We have 10 new conditions here, but I'm trying to figure out what happened to the other 10 conditions that used to be numbered with these same numbers. I'm not I'm not sure I'm getting an answer. Anyway, commissioner, questions for staff?

Happy to if you want to go through the resolution. The very end has a lot of them in a row if we wanna walk through them on the actual resolution document.

Yeah. That's that still doesn't answer what happened to the old ones. That's because I didn't I see. I I didn't know this until I got here tonight, you sprung this on me. So when I'm looking through the inch and a half of papers that you gave us, I didn't feel that I needed to proofread all the conditions again, so I didn't do that. And now I'm finding out you guys made a ton of changes, and I'm asking a legitimate question. If you have 10 new ones that you're enunciating here, what happened to the other 10?

Well, I'm I don't know the exact number of the last one.

I need that answer.

Okay. I can get that for

fourth time I've asked it. I think it's legit. And, you know, we couldn't we couldn't pass or fail this at the last hearing because staff screwed up on noticing the conditions or whatever. We're ready to make a vote, and we were told we couldn't make a vote because the conditions that we were looking at were not the ones that the public was able to look at. So we already burned one of our hearings due to staff mistakes.

And from what I'm hearing from you is there's a ton of other mistakes that you're trying to correct here. But for me, it causes a lot of confusion with these conditions because, honestly, we should have been told this before we got here so that we could have reviewed the conditions and, you know, if we felt we needed to in a more detailed, you know, manner. It's just the the red flag that I'm seeing. But, anyway, other other questions or concerns at this point? I've got I've only got a couple speaker cards, we can go through those if you want.

I have a question or two, if I may. Sure, Silva. Thank you, chair Crawford. In your presentation, Rachel, you you on the page dealing with the white wastewater treatment plant and agricultural spray field. You cited as a bullet point regulatory oversight by the California State Water Resources Control Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water quality control board. It would have this project would have oversight by those two groups. Have they have they have those two groups seen this plan yet? Excuse me.

The they're are agencies that have been contacted as part of the notice of preparation and public comment period. And it's a pretty standardized process for wastewater treatment plant permits. So there's a wastewater discharge permit. So in order to receive that, which allows for the operation, they are required to put together all, like, proof that the facility meets all of the applicable state laws. And it's only when the state feels that that has been met that it's passed to the regional water quality board that will do more of the day to day oversight.

So there's a number of permits that have to be met. It's an application process. And so, I do believe State Water Board commented on the project, but they're both going to be, responsible agencies on this project.

What did the State Water Board say?

They just had general clarifying questions regarding the the, how the wastewater treatment plant would be operated and restating those regulatory requirements that I mentioned. And so since we provided their response in the final EIR, we've received no further comment from them. But they will have the chance again to review the facility on a design level when that permit is applied for before operation.

Why do you think they'd now zone seven continues to share the concerns that this will contaminate the the area's water supply in the in the letter of December 29. They say the pros proposed project without connection to city sewer does not meet the standards necessary to ensure long term protection of the groundwater base. Zone seven answer to the water regional I'm trying to work around zone seven's objections here, which I think are pretty legitimate. I'm wondering Yeah. Why does the did the water quality control board give any indication if they share that concern?

No. We have not heard from the water quality control board that they share that same concern. I think that for Zone 7, it's just that their resources and their assets are very close to this project. And so that's where their lies. It's just the proximity.

And I think just the fear that, you know, something like this has never been done before. So I will say the consultation meeting, that I actually had the chance to be a part of between Zone 7 and the applicant team was very positive, where they showed them this new design. We answered a lot of questions that they had about, you know, the that there's gonna be, like, a barrier in the recycled storage water facility. We we answered a lot of, like, technical operation questions for them as well. And so, you know, they ended that meeting, you know, that they they appreciated the effort.

And I think what they state in their letter is that, you know, unless we can connect to, like, the city services, they're not going to be in support of the project. And so We have not been able to identify any specific standards, regulations, codes that that are specific that they have concerns about. I think it's a general general concern, but I think at this point, we've done, I think, a lot of things to try and meet those concerns, including relocating the entire agricultural spray field. And so, beyond that, other than connecting to city services, which as a county project, do not have, know, the power to do. I'm not sure that we're ever going to to meet an agreement on that where they're a 100% happy, but I do think this is a good faith effort that they appreciated.

Well, concern of mine, one one, under is it s b three thirty we're required to approve this project unless certain things can be established. And one of them can be established that the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

Mhmm. Mhmm.

So we have the agency responsible for the purity of the water drinking water in the system saying the design of this of this development is a is a threat to the groundwater basin. I

think the the missing link there is that is the why. Why do they feel that? What is the specific? Because without knowing that, we've we've addressed everything that they have identified as the why they feel that way. But without knowing other specifics, there's nothing more we can do to address that.

And the standard for that, public health and safety is very high where it has to be proven with substantial evidence. And I think you can see from the letter that we received and anything in the record so far doesn't rise to that. And so without more information from them, you know, there is no substantial evidence that it is a public health and safety issue. I mean, even their last letter really didn't provide any new information or points that they're concerned about. And so we're kind of left with, we've addressed everything we can.

We have an entire memo. There will be much more analysis as part of this permitting process that will still take place. This is a common practice in California, and so there's a lot lot more steps beyond this CEQA document to ensure that that facility is safe. And so I think at this juncture, the state and regional water quality control board will then do a thorough review of the design, and they will make further requests and conditions and other, you know, requirements that this facility will have to meet to ensure that it meets their their requirements.

So presumably so then if zone seven wants to pursue this, they can pursue this with the state water quality control board?

Yeah. I mean, yeah, there's a lot lot more steps to getting this approved. Yeah.

Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions or concerns or public comment? Okay. I'm gonna move to public comment then, and I have speaker Bob Watson in the room. Come on up.

Heard him.

Keep that microphone. Bring you guys close to you so people

will hear you. Thank you. So

I'm Bob Watson. I live on the wall, on the six foot end of the wall where the grading buildup would be six feet above right to the top of our wall, basically. I'd like to start by quoting commissioner Kelly, who's not here tonight, but this is an exact quote. It is ridiculous that projects across the street can't get plugged into existing services in the community that they are really part of. I mean, I totally agree with that.

That is the really the essence of the difficulty I think you guys are having with the Arroyo Lago certification. It boils down to two significant issues. Number one, the grading in the county EIR allows for that that six foot buildup with a six foot fence on top of it, meaning I now have I I personally now have a 12 foot fence blocking the sky, which is against California law. I couldn't find anything in California law that allowed a fence over eight or nine feet. And number two, the self contained water treatment plant, which we've already talked a lot about, and the potential for the ground contamination of groundwater.

So the difficult part of this for the neighbors is that the applicant has already worked out these issues with the city of Pleasanton and Zone 7. The plans committed to the city, which are different from the EIR submitted to the county, allow overland water released to the north and then connecting to Moore Avenue. This is done via a easement from Zone 7. The this reduces pad height differential to six inches rather than six feet. In addition, annexation by the by the city will allow sewer hookup to DSRSD, eliminating the wastewater treatment plant completely and all of Zone Seven's concerns.

In addition, city council has president city council has already told staff to proceed with the annexation. In the what's that they just went through? Number 68, prior to commencement of operation of the proposed project's water treatment plant, the applicant shall provide documentation to the lead agency that the homeowners association has retained a certified registered contractor to operate the wastewater treatment plant. I'm on the board of the HOA at Ironwood, and and and I can tell you that there's not gonna be a lot of qualified people running an HOA to get a qualified contractor to run a wastewater treatment plant. I think it's an accident looking for a place to happen.

I got ten seconds. The only other comment is we have a East Lakes project behind this, and piecemealing these two in and not having a single EIR that evaluates the whole thing, I think, is is a mistake. So thank you. Thanks for your attention.

Thank you. Next is Brandon Evans.

Evening, commissioners. I'm Brandon Evans with IBW Local five nine five, and I'm here today representing over 2,000 Alameda County households or associated with East Bay residents for responsible development. These households are members of my union along with the plumbers, sheet metal workers, and sprinkler fitter unions. We all, have been very active in promoting developments that embrace sustainability practices that will continue, to contribute to a more equitable Alameda County for working families. We have dozens of members who live close, in close proximity to the proposed, excuse me, Aurora Lago project.

We appreciate the recent changes made to the project to reduce impacts on water quality and aesthetics, but we are concerned that the county has not addressed the health risk and odor impacts of the project's wastewater treatment facility and the Pleasanton garbage facility. The project will place new residents within 500 feet of the wastewater plant and across the street from Pleasanton garbage. Our air quality expert found that facilities release, hazardous and odorous air pollutants like ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile organic compounds like benzene. These compounds include neurotoxins, respiratory irritants, and carcinogens, which endanger public health. Our expert explained that the bad odors can be warnings of bad health effects from exposure to these volatile organic compounds or VOCs.

Applicant wants to resolve this issue by giving written disclosures to homebuyers about the odor from the facilities. This does not reduce the health risk to future residents of Aurora Lago. The county should add conditions to the project, like air filtration in the houses, and our expert recommended MERV 13 or higher filters. We call them MERV. It's important to understand that installing these filters, does not simply is not simply a matter of swapping out a filter for another one.

The county should add another condition that the HVAC systems be designed and sized to accommodate higher efficient efficiency filtration so that airflow and system performance are not compromised. That is a standard and manageable design consideration and should be addressed at the project level not left for future homeowners. This would help reduce odor, chemical, and air pollutant exposure for residents. Thank you very much for your time.

K. I don't have any other speakers. I don't see any hands online. Do you concur?

Concur.

Public comment is closed. Commissioners, who wants to jump in? Commissioner Kelly, you got your hand up?

Yeah. I just wanted to circle back to the wastewater treatment plant. And I appreciate the staff comments and the meetings with, you know, the developer and zone seven, but I have a slightly different opinion on where we are at. I mean, the standard that we have, right, as a planning commission, our standard is substantial evidence. It's not a preponderance of the evidence.

Substantial evidence is that a reasonable person would make a decision based on that information. I think a reasonable person would hear the water district saying this is a threat to health and safety, potentially capable of contaminating the wastewater or the drinking water supply for the area as a very reasonable reason to think something's a threat to public health. So I don't think we're at a place where Zone Seven's concerns are not apropos. I think that's maybe something you might say if a neighbor sent a letter, like Zone 7 sent, but the letter's from the water district. I mean, the people whose government agency is to make sure the drinking water is safe in that neighborhood, including the development that would be going in there.

So I think that, you know, for us to not consider that strongly would be a mistake. I also think, you know, frankly, it's it's not an insurmountable concern. There there there are myriad of ways to address that concern either through additional modifications to the project or simply accessing existing sewer infrastructure, which this project could do. This project is located somewhere with sewer service, and it's about to be part of the city that has it. So it's just kind of frustrating to me.

I really don't like the I'm not gonna, like, go on a tangent about it, but I really don't like the process of project coming before us during an annexation process. I wish state law simply said finish one or the other. It's crazy to me to think that we can approve a project with conditions of approval that are completely meaningless because they have no bearing on the project if it's annexed. And a lot of the central issues here are potentially not issues. It was in the city of Pleasanton.

So it is a very challenging place to be. I was glad to see some of the changes that were made. I thought they addressed a number of community concerns. I think the gentleman who just spoke and I believe there was a letter that was received, to that effect on the concerns about air filtration. Frankly, I I think that might be an appropriate condition of approval for us to add something about the HVAC systems or the heat pumps or the air conditioning or whatever is going to be the the air filtration for the homes to have MERV 13 capacity.

Not all new air conditioners do. Many can. It's not hard. And, frankly, if you're building a housing developed next door to a trash, you know, refuge system, you're probably gonna have neighbors want that anyways, and it's a selling point for your home. So I think that would be appropriate for us to address that concern. I don't know that there's a whole lot left that we have in terms of options here, but I do think it's really you know? And and and then and the last member of the public who spoke is echoing concerns that I've had this whole time. It's developer seems great to me, honestly. This seems like a really good project. I really want it to be built.

But, you know, the developer is not the one who's going to be operating the project long term. This is not going to be a single you know, this isn't, like, some master tenant who's gonna have all the operations and upkeep. The upkeep's gonna fall on the HOA. And the HOA's ability to substantially maintain a complicated piece of infrastructure like a wastewater treatment plant, There's a reason why we have that as public infrastructure, and it is not private infrastructure. There's a reason why we have sewer and septic regulations, but there's also a reason why East Bay Mudd is who runs the wastewater treatment center and not the North Shore Neighborhood Association because you want qualified experts and, you know, people taking care of those things because when they're running a design operation, that's great.

When they aren't, there's a lot of problems that can happen. There's a lot of problems that can happen when they're maintained correctly too. So I I think that the conditions of improvement we have now before us are a an improvement. I don't know that they're they're all the way. And I do also just wanna echo the chair's concerns about the numbering changes in the conditions of approval.

I don't know that there's, like, some something quick or fast going on there that's weird, but it would be helpful to understand, like, were certain numbers combined or were changes made where they weren't necessary anymore? It is hard to say that there are the numbers just don't add up, and so it makes me wonder if something's missing. And I can't figure that out from the documents I have, which also makes it really hard for me to vote on something where I you know, if I sat here for an hour with a red pen and went through the two lists together, I could probably sort it out, but I can't tell you what's missing. But the conditions of approval that we had last time all seem necessary. Additional conditions of approval also seem necessary, and I think some may have been lost along the way.

So I would feel more comfortable moving forward when we had an answer to that question.

I'm sure, Kelly, I have an answer.

Oh, great.

Okay. So I took a look at our staff report from the November 17 meeting, and there's a total of 64 conditions of approval. Now I think where some of the condition the confusion is coming in is that there was some bad numbering in the presentation, but that full resolution was 64. So now we have 71, so that's a difference of five. And so in our presentation

Difference of seven.

Seven. Okay. Sorry. And so in our presentation, we have the, conditions of approval that were added. There's five added there, and then there's three added, that's eight. And then two were consolidated, so that brings us to seven.

And one was taken out?

Yes. So if we if we can go back to our slide. Oh, we go to the first sorry. If we go to the first slide of the summary Oh, more. So that right there is one two three four five.

And then the next slide has three. Then the next slide. Oh, this replaces two of them, 67. And then we have this applicant, relocation, which adds one. And I think the piece that is confusing and something that I was able to look in the tracks is that the hazardous conditions, one of them made it in, but the rest of them didn't.

So that's why there's a number difference is that we've taken out three. We've consolidated two. There was already one in there. So we did this crosswalk, like, three times before we came to you with this list just to really check. And, you know, we apologize if that presentation can was confusing, but the intent was really just to help show you what this new list of project specific conditions are. And so, hopefully, this clarifies it a little bit more that there's a difference of seven, but that includes the addition of the eight and the consolidation of one and the replacement, or one was already existing. So that brings us to seven. Does that help? Or did I make it

That that does help. I didn't know if the original number was 64 because I didn't bring the old ones with me to do a comparison on the fly right here. I think I think that helps. I think my point is that if staff's gonna, you know, make changes like this and I've I've mentioned this before when we've had hearings, you know, continuances, that if there's gonna be changes, especially substantial changes to conditions, we need to know before we get here. We can't we can't have this is this is not the right way to tell us.

I and I understand.

I like to read the conditions and go over them myself. Not everybody does. But if I know I need to do that again, I I need I wanna know ahead of time. That's my main gripe, I guess. So, yeah, that that is more information than we had before. Yes.

And then that that attachment being the staff report, if you wanna take a look, that that does kind of summarize. That was the intent of it, was to kind of help do that history there of how we got here because I know it was really confusing with the numbering. But I think that just the main thing that was really taken out was that we've already done that geotech report that was additionally that was listed in the previous conditions, and the rest of it is just consolidation of issues we already talked about. So it looks kinda scary, but, hopefully, it's kind of more clear that it's it was mushing them around to make it cleaner and more make more sense and then allow for for the changes that we mentioned, the two big ones, which is the one story and the moving the fields.

K.

So please let me know if there's anything else we can clarify there.

K. Commissioner Kelly, did you have anything else?

That was pretty much my thoughts for the moment, Cher. I would just echo on getting the conditions of approval in advance. It's very helpful. I also have seen you know, this isn't a criticism of this particular packet, but, you know, I was gonna give another staff member a compliment, but that's not great to do either. I just think that it would be nice if we had, like, a board policy or a a staff policy. It's one thing when, like, we're adding, like, two conditions of approval. But when we're making a bunch of changes, just getting, like, the red line makes it a lot easier to look through. You know, I am actually at home right now. And if if I ran into the other room, could get you my packets. But, I pile up my planning commission packets until I file things or or, you know, recycle them.

And I think the total depth of this project that we've received is almost two feet at this point. You know, we've we've received this document six times, which is not a criticism on anyone, but it is very hard to go back through. And we usually only review between the two drafts, but, you know, it does make things like 64 becoming 72 becoming 59 just a little bit harder. And that's good staff work in a lot of ways to make sure the conditions of approval go together and are coherent and should be revised, but it does make it really hard for commissioners to just see what the changes are. So I appreciate the explanation. I hope we can work towards just doing track changes and those sorts of things in the future. Thank you.

Who else?

Chair Crawford, do you want me to address, some of the points that were brought up, pre odors and the certified operator of the with the HOA?

If commissioners want that addressed, I would that would be my response. Okay. Is there

Anyone want that addressed?

Please.

Okay. Great. So the first thing that I heard, in the public comments right here was just the overall concern about the h or the HOA kind of running the show. And I think the main point of clarification is that that condition requires them to document document that essentially they've hired a certified operator. So the state, makes a list of who's certified to operate a private plant like this.

And so I think the the primary role of the HOA is not to address anything technical. It is to pay for that, I think is the best way to put put it forward because that certified operator has to be approved by the state and they are in charge of running that entire facility. And so I just want to make it clear that the HOA in no shape or form is going to be responsible for the operation, technical, anything of running this facility. It is very, very regulated by the state of who gets to run it, who's certified to do that, and their requirements to be certified. So I just want to make that clear because I would be nervous about that too if that was the case.

Then on the the point of odors, so this was something that is analyzed in CEQUA. And so the draft DIR took a look at odors in the air quality section, and it was analyzed what the potential odors from the project would be. Those are found to be less than significant. Now the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, they have regulation one rule three zero one, which is the odor emissions regulations. And so the project would be required to comply with that, and that is already factored into the that's a that's a mandatory requirement that all projects have to do.

And so I just want to point out that that was looked at. And then in addition, our final EIR, we do a lot on, odor in our master responses related to the wastewater treatment plant. And so one of the things we talk about is inherent in the design of this wastewater treatment plant, it's a closed membrane plant. So the design of it is intentionally to remove the release of odor from happening. So the technology has gotten to a point where, you know, you're not gonna have just a smelly wastewater treatment plant.

And it's it's a very similar technology to what other facilities use. I was trying to pull it up here, but, we have a lot of information in that. It's it's inherent in the design. It's closed.

What about the spray fields? Do they emit odors?

The spray fields, the water that's going to be the effluent is treated water. So there it's treated actually to the level of recycled water that could be sprayed at golf courses, at schools, at residential areas. And so it is the highest form. It's not required of this type of plant, but that is the design that is being approved is it there's not going to be an odor because it is treated, the highest level of treated recycled water.

Oh, I guess what we haven't had somebody tell us yet is what is the contamination potential of that water coming in contact with the lakes?

Yes. And that's a good point because I think that's a point that it's like if this happens, the water will be contaminated, and I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that there's a lot of evidence that we've worked on providing in the record that that's not going to happen. And so a few of the ways that we've identified in that memo that I, identified the attachment c is that there's, so first and foremost, there's a title 22 engineering report that has to be prepared for the facility and approved by the state. So that ensures that the design of it meets the state approved runoff control feature.

So number one, it's designed not to have any runoff. Number two, it's graded in a way that it slopes inward from the perimeter. And so that if there is pooling, which the goal is that there is never pooling. But in an event that there is pooling, it's contained right there. The other thing is those agronomic rates that I mentioned. So based on the crop that's planted there, that determines how much water is being put out on that field based on its needs. And so if it's saturated, it's not going to spray that day. And that's what those sensors do, and the contracted operator manages that. Then there's weather restrictions. If it's raining, if it's going to rain, if it just rained, you can't spray at all, and that's mandated by the state.

And then there's other technical pieces of how the sprinkler heads are directed and at the ground and that they're not gonna create this big, like, spray upwards. And then there is a lining in the recycled storage water facility, so that also, like, doesn't allow the water to seep in through for the recycled water storage. And the agricultural spray fields, the intention is that it it that treated water seeps into those plants and they use it. So, one thing that we kind of touched on was that there is, like, a lot of kind of monitoring and that there is conservative design. So say, for example, we have crazy rainstorms.

That recycled water storage can hold up to a hundred and seventy days of operation. So say I mean, I don't even know in California when that would happen when it rains for a hundred and seventy days straight, but say that it did, that water, storage facility is designed to hold that. So in an event that you can't spray it for several weeks or something like that, there's more than enough. So that's those are the pieces, the elements that are kind of like fail safe design features to prevent anything like that happening. And like I said, the water that is first of all, it is the state prohibits you from having any runoff, so that's why all this is there.

But, again, that water that is being spread into the affluent is the highest treated water quality that can be produced. So those are all kind of the design features that are in there to just to really protect against this, and this is stuff that the state has mandated from the top down to make sure that nothing contaminates water.

K. So I guess I I I got all that. K. I'm gonna ask, can somebody shut that door? Because the thermostat is right next to it. I don't know about you guys, but we are roasting up here. And I'm gonna, like, rip that thermostat off the wall when I leave tonight because you don't put one next to a door. I mean, that's just stupid. And that heater's been running solid since we got here. So the HVAC sagas continue.

So I I understood everything that you said. What the amount of money that's been spent here on you guys and all this other stuff to get through this. I guess, why can't we get somebody to tell us whether if this, you know, spray field water comes in contact with the lake, is it contaminating the water or not? Because I just asked you that, and I still didn't get that answer. I got a very long answer, but I didn't get an answer to my question.

And I don't know that you're the one to answer it, but I'm just saying that's, you know, commissioners are concerned about this, and just the basic logic of putting a sewage treatment plant next to a drinking water facility is kind of, you know, like basic logic. So why can't somebody step up and say that? You know? Is it because it's not true or what?

Oh, based on the expert, analysis that we have, and we actually have our expert in the crowd tonight. I don't know if we can open it back up for him

to speak. Oh, certainly. Yes.

Bert, would you wanna address anything?

I'm not trying to create liability for anybody here, but it's a central question.

Say from the environmental consultant's perspective, we do not expect contamination of drinking water based on the design and the regulatory requirements.

Yeah. That sounds like a lawyer said that. So I'm gonna reopen the public comment. Sir, can you answer the question if the water from the spray field came in contact with the lakes, would that lake water be contaminated?

Commissioner Crawford, I'm gonna try to speak closer to the microphone tonight than I did last time. I so if I'm not looking in directly at you, I apologize. Bert Mihaljic working with the applicant here. To answer that question definitively, would need to know the quality of the water in a lake compared to the quality of the water being produced by the recycled water treatment facility. The recycled water produced by a treatment facility is virtually the same quality as drinking water being produced.

It is that high of a quality of water. The lakes are not pristine, lakes. I don't know what the quality is, but they accept runoff from the whole valley, from the surrounding area. There is, you know, some contamination from wildlife, wild waterfowl in the lakes, etcetera. My opinion is that, this water quality is probably better than the water quality in situ in the lakes.

The the water in the lakes, and maybe you don't know this, but I obviously, before people drink it, it's going through some sort of filtering process or chlorination or, you know, whatever. It's like East Bay mud. They bring water from the Sierras. They don't just take it from the lake straight to the tap.

The water in a lakes, there's not a direct removal of water from the lakes. Rather, the water in the lakes is the same as level as the groundwater. So any water in the lake, in order to be removed, gets has to percolate into the groundwater basin. That water is pumped out by any one of a number of Zone 7 wells. That water is treated as chlorinated. In some cases, there are PFAS removal systems on the Zone 7 systems. So all those you know, it's not pristine water that's in there. It needs to be treated before it's delivered to the constituents.

Any other does that satisfy everyone?

I I have a related question, chair Crawford.

Everyone Hang hang on, Kelly. Commissioner Nielsen.

You, Bert. That was pretty eye opening, at least for me. And I think in one of the previous examples that you gave us in a prior meeting, and we saw a table of water quality and what was gonna be coming out. I think one of the discussions around that is looking at this spray field. And I had mentioned at at that time, if you look at the Dougherty Valley, it's primarily irrigated with not the same quality of water throughout that whole valley, and that water runs into the drains and goes down into the storms.

And they're the the pollution contaminant at that point is not the same. So if this water is at a higher standard, the chances of polluting, I would think, would be less. But unless you've been out there and you've seen how the some of this water infrastructure works, it's gonna be hard for the people on this dais to to understand. And I think that the applicant has done a a great job of listening to us, our concerns here, and making changes willingly to put forth a a good project.

Commissioner Kelly, you had a comment?

My question is just a lot of the explanations we've gotten have been about how the system is supposed to work. What happens if the wastewater treatment plant fails? What are the safeguards for failure?

As was mentioned in terms of, the storage of the spray storage of the ponds, we have a hundred and seventy days of storage. In other words, a hundred and seventy days of to to get the treatment plan back in operation up to where it should be. It's not the water is not gonna go out. There's a wide spot in the pipe called the storage basins where that water would be held until the treatment plant is repaired.

Thank you.

Precise. Also confirm, you have different sections of the sewer system. Does each section have a 100% containment? It serves as spill. It will be a 100% contained.

Correct.

I think

so, but I'm not sure I understand your question.

Could If I have a spill of a 100 gallons, it will hold a 100 gallons containment.

Yes.

If would it hold 200 gallons? Yes. Okay. So we have over a 100% per se. We can double the amount of material we lose in each section of the sewer system.

Yes. I I'm hesitating only because if you're looking at the collection system itself, you could don't ask me how things get down into the sewer pipes, but, you know, sewer pipes do plug occasionally. You do have sanitary sewer overflows. There's a whole regulatory program, dealing with how you respond to those. It's a county public health that gets involved in that. The state board gets involved with that. This operator gets involved. Basically, you have to clean everything up, and you try to prevent any of that water from getting into any surface waterways.

Because I'm bringing this up, I brought last one. Call them safety factors. There's different ways we brought this, and we discussed this last time. Now there is if you have a 100 gallons leak, you can hold 200 gallons of wash. And that's why I'm just pointing out for the rest of the commissioners that a lot of this I am concerned about contamination, but I don't see the fact showing that it's gonna happen.

I think there's enough safety factors to say it's covered. I've heard zone seven say things, and I kinda wish they would gave me more information. I didn't hear it. But I when I'm looking on this whole environment impact report, I think the boxes have been checked overall. Great point that the chair pointed out that we had these conditional approvals.

I appreciate that. But I think overall, I think we've got this thing. But I did do wish, and I'll say this hopefully again, I wish zone seven would have gave us more information and more facts. I hear them saying things, but I don't hear the actual causes. But I again, I think they checked all the boxes. Thank you, by the way, for answering my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. I have a couple more one

more question for you, Bert.

K.

Spent a lot of time at DSRSD. Correct?

That's twenty, years.

So SRSD has a wastewater treatment plant between Johnston and Stoneridge. Correct? Correct. That is adjacent to a pretty sizable creek on the east side of it?

Alameda Creek on the West side, actually.

Okay. The West side. Is the water produced from this facility cleaner than the water that goes into the DSRSD ponds?

Is the water produced from the Arroyo Lago facility cleaner than the water produced at DSRSD? Yes. Because of the treatment technology that will be employed. It's a next step in the treatment technology.

Assuming that DSRSD has a pretty strong safety record, this drainage is looks to me within 50 feet of it in places. Correct?

Yes. RSDs. Yes. That's probably closer in 50 feet. And in some cases, there are sewer pipes going directly over in the air above the above

the I the reason I I bring this up is that this water treatment plant is maybe within a couple miles of the proposed project. The safety concerns that are there, which this all drains back through, obviously, would probably get into, the water table too if there was tremendous amount of of pollution. But we're looking at a system that is definitively cleaner and safer than what we have that's existing. So I just kinda wanted to point that out. In in retrospect, again, not not everybody's setting up this diocese from East County or has the knowledge of of the area. So I'm just trying to bring that out in the open.

So I

appreciate your answers.

Understand. Thank you.

Appreciate it. I'm gonna close the public comment. Again, commissioners. Mister Silva, you have additional questions? I'd like to

follow-up if I may, Sharon Crawford, on the suggestion that is it called MERV three HVAC filters? MERV 13? MERV 13 HVAC systems would be an asset, would be an advantage to the people buying these houses and and and helping to reduce odor and pollution in each house. Rachel, do you have any thoughts on that?

I am trying to confirm what was analyzed in the draft DIR, what level. But the we're talking about of odors or air quality affecting the project. That's that's something we talked about last time, which is sequin reverse. And so the purpose of this document is not to look at how, you know, the outside affects the project. It's how the project affects the physical environment.

So what we have found is that the current design of the project does not create any odorous or air quality impact to the environment. Now the Pleasanton garbage service question was addressed. We are letting homeowners know that it is nearby. But as you know, in that area, we have the villages of the quarry that's right across the street that's been approved and is right there. And then we also have, you know, the villages at Ironwood that is right there as well.

So those those concerns about odor from Pleasanton garbage service or air quality, are not really a secret concern, but regardless, it is not really an impact on the project because the project will implement the state requirements for air filtration. And in terms of the wastewater treatment plant, those odors are contained because of the closed membrane system. So the technology that Bert mentioned, it contains that by there's a fancy way of doing it. I can read I can read the tech, but, that's also not expected to produce a significant odor to residents based on that technology. So I think I I hear the suggestion, and I think it's a good one, but I think what we have already proposed in terms of air quality treatment is sufficient, and there is no impact that we can point to that necessitates more than what is required by the state.

I guess in the end, if a homeowner wanted to install it themselves, they could.

It could, and they'll and as our condition that we have, they'll be notified that Pleasanton Garbage Service is operating right there, and they you know, that's gonna be in their their agreements when they buy the house.

The homeowner will be notified. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

That was that was one of the things we didn't get put in there.

That's the

new notification. Commissioner Hernandez.

Do you have a question, but it's for county staff. Is this appropriate? Yes, ma'am. I just wanted to circle back on the arena numbers, the regional housing needs allocation. What are the arena implications or impact for this project in terms of the county?

So we would get, the credits for the units built. And, so so that would lower our responsibilities, for the balance of the units remaining.

Would get the credit counting.

Okay.

So okay. So every time we ask this question, it does the answer does change because that was the answer originally. Then at the last meeting or maybe the meeting before, they're gelling together now, it was asked. And the response was, well, it's a negotiation between the county and the city of Pleasanton. County council's shaking her head yes because I don't I don't know if she actually said that or or what. But so so is it a negotiation between the city and the county? And we don't really know the answer at this time. Or does the county get a 100% credit, which if they're gonna be built in the city after it's annexed, how does that mechanism occur?

Defer to council.

So if the units are built in the county pursuant to the county project, we get the numbers. K. Obviously. If there is an annexation of the project, there's going to be a negotiation between the city and the county as to how those numbers are allocated. We will certainly try to retain as many of those Reno numbers as we absolutely can on the negotiations. That would be the point of that, but that would be uncertain depending on the timing of the annexation, who holds the building permits, etcetera. So it's sort of a, you know, choose your own adventure answer. But if we if we build it pursuant to this project, we keep those numbers.

If it's annex to Pleasant, then it's negotiation.

A clarification. Any

other concerns? Make a motion. Need to step in the deep end here. Okay. I'm gonna make a motion to approve the tentative track map subdivision T R 8723, which is PLN 2022Dash193, adopt the CEQA findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, certify the final impact report with state clearinghouse number 2023050339 dated 07/03/2025, and adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program dated 09/05/2025 and and incorporate into the conditions of approval.

Okay. That's my motion. I have a quick question and incorporate into the conditions of approval. So are you is staff saying that the MMR P is incorporated into conditions? Yes. Okay. So I'm just gonna add another bullet point to adopt the conditions of approval, as, stated by staff at this hearing. And is there a second for that? Second. We have a motion by the chair Crawford, second by commissioner Nielsen. Can we get a roll call vote? Yes.

Member Zeiss? Yes. Member Silva? No. Member Rocha? Yes. Member Nielsen? Yes. Member Hernandez?

Aye.

Vice chair Kelly?

Yes.

Crawford? Aye. K. Ayes have it.

K. Next item is staff comments and correspondence.

None at this time.

Chair's report. I think we'll have a discussion at a later date on how this project was handled and how to avoid some of these issues in the in the future. That would be the extent of my report. Commission announcements, comments, reports? Anyone?

Just to impart glue fees again.

Yeah. We're supposed to get in according to the county ordinance, the planning director is to make a report to the planning commission in January, I believe, as to the prior year's park dedication fees, what what funds are supposed to be expended. We never did find out if the refunds were ever given. I do know three properties that I built. I've been in touch with those owners.

They have not received checks from the county, so the funds have not been given back to the to the property owners for the for the properties that are five years and older, which was supposed to be done. So I kinda like that included not just the not just what the ordinance says the planning director's supposed to do that he hasn't done for his his entirety of employment. But in addition to that, I'd like to know what is what happened with the funds that were supposed to be given back because that was at the board of soups. They decided it and like to know what happened.

Oh,

okay. With that, we are adjourned. I have one moment. Sorry. Commissioner Silva?

In the in the minutes of the December 15 meeting under commission announcements, comments, and reports, chair Crawford asked that staff provide updates on the Mosaic project, on the planning director's decision, and any appeals related to the project. Is that still on the radar screen to get at some point?

Yeah, so the planning director has not made a decision and said they wanna review portion of the Mosaic project, and the CUP is being appealed to the board of soups, I think, in March.

K. So how does that work? So he's not making a decision on the SDR, it can't be appealed and brought

to plan to petition,

but the but the BZA appeal is moving forward?

He hasn't made a decision yet. K.

Is he going to?

My understanding, he he would have to for the SDR.

I'll see how yeah. That would kinda be a reason to turn down the CUP if the SDR was never approved or acted on.

So so the SDR is yet yet to be decided on, and then it's gonna go in March.

And then just wanna make sure. Can we make sure that the planning commission is notified via email when that occurs? And, counsel, are you okay with that? Okay. Okay. Anything else? With that, we are adjourned.