Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm gonna

go ahead and call this meeting to order. My my audio why am I echoing? Mute. Is the laptop and Zoom is all muted. Video is muted.

Not in the meeting. I don't know. We're trying to see why I'm echoing.

Wanna try mine? Testing.

Testing. Testing.

Oh, we good.

K. Gonna gonna take a recess until he gets here because the steamy weight's strike. In a hurry. Right? Good enough. It's doing better.

Right now?

Testing. Testing.

On 2.

Click hearing.

Testing one three.

Andy, can you mute your microphone? Testing. Testing. There we go. Two windows open. That'll do it every time.

Thank you.

Two windows. Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and try to call this meeting to order a second time. Welcome to the planning commission meeting of Monday, 03/02/2026. Can we have the roll call, please?

Commissioner Nielsen is excused. Commissioner Zeiss? Present. Commissioner Silva? Present. Commissioner Rocha? Here. Commissioner Hernandez? Here. Vice chair Kelly?

Andy, I didn't quite get that. Is your mic sounds not coming through for some reason, but you are here. And commission chairman Crawford. Here.

Can you hear me now? Yes. I'm here. Thanks.

K. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. K. Next item is announcements by the chair. I have none at this time.

We have no items under open forum, field trip report, or committee reports. So item eight is approval of the minutes for 02/02/2026. Do we have any changes to the minutes? If not, is there a motion to approve?

I have a question, if I may may, chair. Yes. The the I wonder if and if well, we look at the item 10 regular calendar a, and the comment was made at the end of that section. Comments will be forwarded to the board of supervisors with the final report, but the comments are not recorded. It doesn't say what the comments are. And we have the same thing in b. Staff will correct minor errors and incorporate planning commission feedback before transmitting the minutes to the board of supervisors before trans incorporate planning commission feedback before transmitting. So shouldn't whatever the feedback is be noted?

Yeah. So it looks like and I've seen this happen many, many times before. It looks like we have somebody new potentially doing the minutes or potentially a new process where they wanna do abbreviated minutes that we don't have to accept. So we can continue these minutes and request that a more complete version of them be created to be approved at a later date.

Okay. Great. May we do that, please?

May two commission or chair.

Go ahead.

So I have the same question or concern regarding item a, regarding the mentor environmental justice, excuse me, implementation status report. In terms of the feedback, I would like to see more details added as well. And we also asked clear benchmarks and a follow-up specifically around the youth leadership. So, again, just more detailed notes would be appreciated.

Do we need a motion to continue the minutes?

Absolutely do that. Make a motion to do that. But I would just like to add that your commission follows Robert's rules. And Robert's rules doesn't require, like, an exact, you know, dissertation of what was said at the meeting. It's just a summary.

You can certainly request that more specifics be in the minutes. But if you're looking for something beyond, you know, this the summary that Robert's rules contemplates, you know, what was said in the motion, what the general objective was, you might wanna consider amending your bylaws that the minutes shall contain x, y, and z, because right now, it's a little ambiguous. Just whether or not these follow Robert's rules or not is is unclear. But I'm just saying going forward, you could specify in your own bylaws which you have the power to revise on your own motion as long as it's agendized how you want your minutes to be.

K. Since this is a change that's just happened that wasn't a problem before, I'm under I'm trying I'm a little perplexed as to why we need to fix it. How about staff just fixes it on their own? And let's go back to what we've always had because I go ahead.

It's fine. I'm just saying if this is the style that that staff has taken, you know, I would have to look at it whether or not that's Robert Rules compatible, but it might be in this form. You might wanna have your own specificity in your bylaws about what you want to see in your minutes just so staff can clearly go, oh, this needs to be in the minutes. But this is in your discretion.

Okay. No. That's good information to have, and I think if we have to go to that extent, we certainly have the option to do that. I remember this happening when I was on the Mac. Staff just decided this was how it was gonna be, and we didn't approve minutes for, I don't know, six months or whatever until staff fixed it. And you know, so we can kinda play it by ear and see how it goes. So, is there a motion to continue these minutes? So moved.

Second that.

So we

have a motion and a second. All is in or a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Zeiss? Yes. Commissioner Silva? Yes. Commissioner Rocha? Yes. Commissioner Dundas?

Aye.

Vice chair Kelly? Yes. And chair Crawford? Aye. Alright. Motion passes.

K. No items on the consent calendar. Moving on to regular calendar 10 a update on park dedication in lieu fees. Can we have the staff report on this item?

Sure. Albert Lopez, plan director. This item is, I don't have a presentation necessarily. I I just wasn't gonna speak mostly to the, the staff report. Let me just Bye.

There we are. Yeah. So, as you know, the, this came before the the commission more than a year ago or so, as an update on the park dedication fees and a number of refunds that were sort of being processed at that time. And since that time, we have been going through all the sort of bureaucratic process of establishing those refunds, determining who gets them, having to coordinate with the our own finance department and the county auditor's office for their processes when it comes to refunds and county council. So it has taken us some time to be able to put all that together.

So for the for example, this did not, it didn't come to planning commission last year. So, know, we we you know, it's sort of like we're we're kind of in a in the process of getting that initial direction from the planning commission and the board to issue refunds done. And so it's it's a little bit of a of a I guess you say we're kinda waiting for the the refunds to kind of flush out to the system so the numbers make a little bit more sense. But having said that, there is a there is a report in your, in your packet, and as well as a table that kinda goes through all the different areas. It's on the second page of, that report, And it it shows you I'm gonna actually share this.

Sorry for not doing that. The the the public is also aware of what we're looking at here. So this is a this is a snapshot of pretty much where we're we're at today. So this this table is from the beginning, or the end of fiscal year 2025 to the beginning of this year. And so, as you can see, there is money in all the different areas.

There's seven of them. The, it does highlight what's come in and interest that's accrued as well as payments that have been made. Park payments are the payments that have been made to the different park districts just for, again, just for this time period between July and January this year. It also talks there's also a line there about refunds, pending refunds, and then the last column is the current balance. So, for example, in for the city of Livermore, there is a park district there, the Livermore Area Recreational Park District.

They have a balance currently of $241.85. We cleared that account out some time ago, and they they were able to receive the money that that was due to them. In this case, it was about $20,000 or so. Pleasanton, the city of Pleasanton, also has a small balance of 23, which they are in the process of asking for. And, Area 3, Dublin is empty.

We don't have any funds there. Area 4 for the Ashland, Cherryland, and San Lorenzo, there's a balance of a $126,000 and so on and so forth. You could see that Cacher Valley has 928, Fairview, one twenty. There's a small amount of money in Eden, which is kinda like the sort of leftover Eden area. That 928 from Cacher Valley, there's, we did receive a letter from Hard asking for those funds.

And so that money that request will go to the Castro Valley MAC. And assuming that they approve of that, that money will be dispersed to Hard. So that would really leave that there's the 126 in Area 4 and the 120 in Area 6. Those are also hard, areas, and so my I expect them to ask for that money as well soon. So once that's done and then all the refunds are are completed, then we'll be down to zero for the most part in terms of the, the account balances.

And so all the all the, all the park district money that's that's, available to them will ban will will will have been given out, and then all the refunds that were due have been completed as well. And and then I think by the probably by the summer of this year, I'll come back, and we'll have a a more a cleaner spreadsheet. It'll also be on the calendar. This is supposed to come to the planning commission within sixty days of the close of the fiscal year, which is the July I'm sorry, June. So summertime, like, August, it probably will come to the back to the planning commission. So that's the update, and be happy to take any questions.

Any questions? I got a speaker card here. Tyler Dragoni wants to speak on a and b, so you can turn that lectern around. I don't know why it's facing the street. Appreciate the help.

Keith is most important anyway, so, facing Keith. So, yeah, I just wanted to tell you my experience because this, this ordinance, that essentially, you know, is the dedication, for the fees, envisions the max as the decision body to disperse this money. And I just wanna just give you my experience. I think it's essentially the only thing that I can, you know, sort of think of that's, you know, decision making that goes to the max. And when we were hearing this item, you know, it's like, here's here's the amount of money that is in your account.

And this is not to, you know it's not to disparage anybody, but, you know, essentially, the general, manager, Ahard, you know, I was on the Mac, giving, you know, some suggestions, asking Albert his interpretation of the ordinance as well. He agreed with me. And I guess where I wanted to take the conversation was, you know, what residents see in the area that their parks need and have a discussion on how that money should be spent, whether it's wheelchair ramps at one, you know, heavily trafficked park, or is it, you know, a new slide or whatever it may be. You know, that's how I, interpreted, and we were interpreting that, ordinance. And so, got down that line of, you know, logic, and general manager basically threw a fit, saying that we were just decision making authority.

We shouldn't be, you know, essentially exercising our authority under the ordinance. I also had, you know, other, hard hard members members may may have contacted me saying, you know, we just need you know, the Mac is the rubber stamp, you know, in in this scenario. And so I'm I'm just, you know, envisioning that why that went the way it went. And I think, I think just more education about the ordinance. The ordinance is envisioned for the max to be decision making.

I know it would be, like, their first, sort of way that they would be making official decisions. So I just wanted to share that, because that money eventually is gonna go to the max. And if the ordinance hasn't changed, they are the decision making bodies on it. So I think that's it I wanted to say. Just kinda share my perspective on sort of the releasing of these funds. Thanks.

Yeah. I don't have any other speaker cards. I don't see any hands raised. So close public comment. I know when you took this on the roadshow in 2024, don't think anything ever happened with it. Right? Because the idea the the ordinance doesn't specify the max. It specifies that bodies are to be created in these different districts. At the time this was approved, there really wasn't MACs in Fairview. There wasn't a MAC in the Eden area. There was only the Castro Valley MAC. So did that did you ever follow through with the board of supervisors on that to create those bodies or designate the MACs as the bodies?

So we still the board hasn't acted on that yet, but we did go to all the MACs, they did agree to change the ordinance to make themselves the the designated bodies.

The ordinance hasn't been changed? Not yet. No. Okay. So this this is one of the bigger messes that I've witnessed.

So I'm trying to figure out how to how to get to something that works. I know when this was at the planning commission the last time, we had actually been several commissioners had stated opinion that we shouldn't even have these go to the MAC, that, you know, this money should just go to these park districts at the end of each year because it's their money, and you have elected districts to spend the money. I mean, obviously, there's a state law that money be collected when have, you know, new construction, that sort of thing. But the county's really just the, you know, collector of the money and and, you know, disseminates the money out to the various agencies. So if you're gonna bring this back to us in October, it'd be nice to streamline this so that it would be easier to follow because it's a it's a standing county ordinance, and none of it's being followed.

You know, I know you said last time or two two or three times before this has been to us a couple times that at one point, you were just dispersing all the money to the various, you know, agencies. I don't if this is prior to 2015 or what or if you remember this or not. For some reason, that stopped. The money started to accrue, and then we got in the situation where some of it had to be refunded. So I'm trying to I'm trying to figure out how do we get to a place where we can comply with this ordinance because we're it hasn't happened yet.

And as far as this coming to us, so if it's if it's sixty days of fiscal year, it's not supposed to come to us till, what, September, I guess? September? Yeah. Around there. Yeah. So July when's the fiscal year? July 31? '1. July 1. Okay.

So August, and then it comes to us first meeting in September at the at the latest. Yeah. I mean, I I don't see a problem with that, but I just just we just need to comply. I mean, it kinda doesn't make sense, especially if we're gonna sit up here and talk about the Brown Act and all these rules that we should follow, that the county isn't following the planning director is not following the county ordinance and hasn't yet. And you can correct me if I'm wrong, but from everything that you gave us on the four or five times that's come to us, there hasn't been a year where you've actually complied with this ordinance. Am I

Yeah. Well, that's what I meant. It's kind of it's kind of flushing out, and that's the only the the best analogy that I can think of because you, we identify the 1,500,000 refunds, back in, I guess, it was 2024 probably. And so the the most of 2025, we were going through the process of just administering that, and it was it wasn't like, you know, we just start giving out refunds. We had to identify the right person.

We had to go through, you know, a number of different departments to kinda give the thumbs up. This is was a definitely a one off kind of a thing that the county doesn't do refunds like this very often. And so, I'm bringing this item today to kinda give you a snapshot of where we're at. But then the idea is that with, for example, the money that's gonna go to the MAC I mean, luckily, the ordinance already had the MAC in there as the advisory committee, so we can go to them and get them to, to give their input on this expenditure with those funds. But we do need to change the ordinance to make sure that the Eden MAC and that the Fairview MAC are identified in a similar way, before going to them. So, I can bring that all back to

you in September. Where where in the ordinance does it designate the Castro Valley MAC? Because I I haven't seen that.

I think it says Castro Valley. I don't have that ordinance in front of me.

It doesn't it doesn't designate the MAC. It it designates the different areas like you have on your list. You know, San Lorenzo is one area. Eaton's another area. Castro Valley is another area. But I because I just I just read this over today, and I didn't see the Castro Valley MAC in here anywhere. Thought that it was. So other commissioners, I don't know how many of you were here last time this was here, how much you remember or what your thought process is on this. This this ordinance is overly complicated in a lot of the other jurisdictions. The money's just given like, you don't have a bunch of hoops you gotta jump through to give Livermore their money. Right? You just because this doesn't apply to Livermore, does it?

They just asked for it,

and and we cut a check. Right. And that's actually what you were doing for several years initially, which was probably the way it should be done, but it just doesn't it doesn't comply with the ordinance. So Go ahead, commissioner Zeiss. I just like to follow-up what you're

talking about right now, actually. Who in Livermore are you giving it to, and who in, Positon and Dublin? You have three agencies, one, two, and three there. Who are the people you're giving them to if it's not

the Dublin, there's there's no balance in Dublin. So Right.

But then if if there is in the future, who are we

who are we

seeing or giving the money to?

In Livermore, it'd be the, LARPD, the Livermore Area Recreation Park District. K. And then in Pleasanton, it'd be the city of Pleasanton, Park and Rec Department. K. And probably in Dublin, it if they have a Park and Rec Department, which I think they do, it probably would be those folks.

K.

I don't think that those areas are included in this ordinance as far as I thought it was just the I thought it was just the unincorporated area of the county that had these areas that had to be addressed with these bodies. If you're sending it to a city, county doesn't have any jurisdiction to have some sort of advisory body for that city or park district. I mean, in Hard's case, you know, it's the jurisdiction is the unincorporated area, so that's kinda makes sense there. But I I don't I'm not seeing anything in here where there's any obligation to go to anybody in Livermore, Pleasanton areas outside the unincorporated area.

There is plan to do an East County MAC at some point, and so, that could change. The the draft ordinance, I think, it does identify the the East County MAC that's spent on the table to create a East County MAC for some time. And so the idea was that something like that would potentially go to them just like it because these are not for homes built in the city of Livermore. These are homes that are built outside of the city of Livermore. We collect the park fees, but there's no there's no park district that the county has out there. So they're the the the the logical park district to get

the funds. The department of the city?

I believe they are. Yeah. Or at least some sort of quasi city department.

Sounds it's even messier. Andy, go ahead.

Yeah. I mean, I concur with the chair's recollection for sure and the generality of the comments. I I frankly could see an argument to, like, go a different direction, but I think on balance, like, the other part of this is that this is just part of the funding that gets spent there. And so I appreciate why folks wanna have a little bit more local input on how dollars get spent in their local community. I'm really empathetic to that, but I actually think it's a disservice to the public to have multiple places to go when, at the end of the day, these are trivial amounts of funding compared to what the parks districts and all the respective regions make their decisions based on and sending you know, having the public come to a committee meeting that's giving out, like, a sub fraction of a budget and is not the actual decision makers over the allocations as opposed to having the public go to the agency that makes the decisions on how the vast majority of funding is spent.

I just don't it's one of those instances where I don't think it creates a public, benefit. In the same way that sometimes, even though I I think it's important to have the max locally, you know, we noticed a pattern in the planning commission where a lot of folks go and get comment at the MAC on a planning commission decision. They don't come to the planning commission. Sometimes, perhaps, maybe their voice would be heard more by the decision making body if they came to the second hearing. I think creating another more complicated process for the public on something like this is a little ill advised.

So commissioners commissioner Silva.

I think I just disagree somewhat with commissioner Kelly. I I'm I'm a big fan of having the the max review this advisory or otherwise. Well and where the funding is stated, and they they're in a position to weigh in locally on on where they think it should go and and make those recommendations to the park district. Seems like a good idea to me. Also, Albert, when you when you come back the August now, will the will the will the ordinance have been passed that it that identifies the other two MACs at that point as being in the process?

That that's the idea. Yes.

That's the idea. And lastly, I wanna thank you for the chart. I think this is exactly what we've been looking for in terms of accounting. Thank you.

George, I see it's something else.

Yes. So I also wanted to bring up that since you're addressing this, we should be also thinking in a puzzle team, like, just passed a whole big area of construction in outside of the city of Pleasant, Wilson County area. We need to look in the long run to addressing this as where are we going to do proposal in Livermore, Dublin, even in Sunol partially. But make sure we address it while you're addressing the problem. We should also address it preemptively. Thank you.

So what I just put on the screen is is the the presentation that Albert gave to the MAC on 04/22/2024. And, this is the information here as far as the various areas where these funds are supposed to go to. You can see Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin are designated as their own, but this creation of advisory committee really just pertains to the unincorporated urban, you know, West County area. It doesn't show here that it pertains to Livermore, Pleasant and Dublin. So just a little bit of clarity there.

Also, I just wanted to show that to everybody because that was part part of what was discussed back then. I think the difference here I understand what commissioner Silva is saying, and I don't think we're trying to step on Mac's toes or anything like that. But, you know, this is a situation where you have an elected body that makes those decisions and, you know, the the county trying to meddle in that. And it hasn't happened yet. I mean, I was this is, what, 20 years old? This ordinance is, like, 20 years old since last time it was updated.

'92, actually.

And okay. It's even worse. And this process hasn't worked yet. So I think it makes a lot of sense to simplify it by just giving the money to these districts. I think we retain the report to the planning commission on an annual basis.

But as far as the dispersion of the money, give it to the people that have the authority to spend it. The county only has the authority to take it in and give it out. It doesn't really have the authority and and it's not a decision making body on the part of the max. That's not if you if you look what in the ordinance here, it doesn't say that. So I understand the urge to wanna be advisory on that, but it's you have an elected body that has their own public hearings, and you vote for members on that board so that there's a whole process there for that, and this just seems like a complicated mess that we've yet to comply with.

So I don't know if the other commissioners Andy, did you wanna look into making some amendments to this to clean it up? What are what is your thoughts on that?

I mean, I'd be happy to look at it, and I I I'd be happy to look at it and and make maybe a recommendation or or talk to you know, I could also talk to Dale. We're on different thought processes. That might be a good way to kinda try to sort it out. But I right now, it just isn't working, and it it it creates, yeah. So the answer

is yes.

I don't need to repeat myself.

Any other commissioner comments on this topic?

I just appreciate the clear accounting and the spreadsheet. Thank you.

So, Albert, maybe when you bring this back in around the sixty day mark or whatever, I don't know if you wanna have two options where maybe it goes to the max and make designate them the bodies, which I know you already tried to do. We couldn't get the porta soups to follow through on that, or just disperse the money to the various park districts at the end of each fiscal year.

When we bring it back, I think that would be the appropriate time to kinda talk about alternatives. Today was really meant to be an informational item as an update on the the dollars, not so much the ordinance, but, certainly next time, it seems like, we could have two options.

K. Anything else on this? Okay. Moving on to next item b, discussion of making the planning commission, the decision making body for CUPs. Can we have the staff report on this item?

Sure. I wasn't at the meeting where you talked about this. I went back and and watched the video, and it seemed like there was there was a couple of planning commissioners that wanted information just about the history of the creation of the BZA's. And and so I did take I I did try to do a little bit of both in terms of giving the planning commission in your packet a a brief history in the background. And then, also, there's some of the actual county code that talks about the roles of the PZAs, and the planning commission as well.

And so the I think that, you know, the one of the points that I was trying to make was that for the last, you know, I would say almost since I started the county, you know, eighteen years ago, there's been lots of discussion about governance, mostly coming from the district four office in terms of how the unincorporated area is governed by the various bodies, the MACs, the BCAs, the planning commission, how they relate to the board, and the the board committees that that operate in the unincorporated area as well. And so I think that, in some of the some of that details in the in the report, for example, there's been lots of talk about having multiple planning commissions to serve the different areas, about giving the MAX more BCA powers to be able to approve use permits and variances and things like that. And so I, you know, I think that, you know, from from my perspective, it isn't quite as simple as just changing the the the code that just says, like, all use permits go to the planning commission. And I don't know if that's really, you know, what the idea was, but I didn't have a whole lot of detail to go on, so I just sort of make some assumptions there.

And some of the things that I think that, you know, there could be unintended consequences in terms of of, you know, again, mostly related to that governance issue. I know that's really important to the unincorporated community. I know it's been important to District 4 primarily as having the most unincorporated area. And, and that whole, you know, that whole process of determining governance has been driven by the elected officials in the county. So I would I would I just had some, you know, caveats or just some concerns about making any kind of wholesale changes like that without going through, the political offices for direction.

I did I also wanted to say that the the conditional use permit process for the most part is a function of the BCAs. There's a number of conditional use permits that go to the planning commission. And, if you look at those lists, you know, you try to make some sense out of it, I would say that Andy could probably say that some of the more regional things come to the planning commission, like cemeteries, I think landfills, and there's a couple other uses there that that come to the planning commission because they're more regional in nature where the more local stuff, I guess, you could say, goes to the BCAs, things like liquor stores and massage establishments and cell towers, you know, things that are probably, you you know, more, I guess, localized impact and that they would have, you know, better understanding of sort of the community needs and such. So I I think that the the the the current decision making process and the governance system that, you know, it's been in place for a couple of decades, and there's a good balance right now between transparency, local control, speed, and due process. And so I I think that it'll be good to get direction from the board of supervisors or their committee, before that we expend any resources going through a community process just to make sure that, you know, there is, transparency there and that they're on board with that kind of a change.

There is a couple questions that I I put in the report that you might wanna consider when, talking about this matter. For for one of them is is are there current shortcomings of the existing process that you're trying to correct for? Have there been undesirable results in the past that you're trying to correct for? And, will all CUPs be decided upon by the PC or just some of them? Which ones and why?

And, what will be the role of the BCAs if one of their main functions is moved to the planning commission, and what are the unanticipated consequences? Those are some of the questions that I would imagine that, our board of supervisors would also be asking, just having worked with them on this particular on these issues over all these years. So, that's the report, in a nutshell, and I'd be happy to take any questions that you have about either the history, of the of the governance structure that we currently have or anything specific related to to the conditional use permit process. So with that, I'll wrap up and, take any questions. So

I guess the thing I'm you're talking about governance and all this. So if you if you made this change, say let's just say for the sake of, you know, argument that all CUPs came to the board to the planning commission. How does that change the governance process? Because the planning commissioners are all appointed by the same supervisors that the BZA members are are appointed by. Nobody's talking about these not going to max, so that would all still occur.

We're just talking about the decision making body being the planning commission as opposed to the BCA on items that are that are planning items. I mean, these aren't variances. These aren't code enforcement issues. So you're making it sound like somehow we're there's a major disruption to the governance process. You're just switching the bodies to make the decision. What so what is the major disruption?

Oh, I I think that's one of the reasons why I like to, for example, get this, this item in front of the transportation planning committee because it has both, supervisor Miley and, supervisor Halbert, District 1 and District 4, they have the bulk of, you know, 95% of the unincorporated area, and they appoint the BCAs. And I I think it would be important, to them to understand some of the implications. Some of the questions that I ask, for example, is, like, you know, what is you know, I think that there's the the BCA. They mostly see conditional use permits and variances, and they also serve as the hearing body for code enforcement. So if you were to take away one of those sort of main functions and and what is are are they are they still a board of zoning adjustments or or something else?

It's certainly not up to me to make all those decisions, but I think it would be up to the board to to kinda consider all the implications of doing that. And that was really the point that I was trying to make.

K. I do have a speaker card here, Tyler.

So thank you, Albert. I would like to know, you know, why this is agendized in the first place. From my perspective, an alcohol establishment, why would a regional board decide in a local community like Cherryland, whether that's a good or proper fit? That that doesn't make sense to me.

ECA is not regional?

Well, it's West County. I mean, no no shade to Livermore or, you know, Dublin. I love Dublin. I love Pleasanton. Right? They're great. They're great. But what that doesn't make sense to me, honestly. So yeah.

Oh, go ahead.

Yeah. So just, like, just overall, I just you know, back to local control, I think it's important, you know, you know, overall important value that the MAX, and the me and the BZA are trying to have this converse this community conversation, right, of what is, you know, proper and a good neighborhood fit. I wouldn't, you know, deign to think that I know what is, you know, right or proper for, Livermore. So, yeah. So I think, you know, it's important to, you know, keep in mind, you know, the the West BZA is you know, has, you know, people that live in West County, and the East BZA has people who live in East County.

So, you know, watering that down, it doesn't seem like a good idea. I just I think there's overall, there's there's an objective that maybe you're going after that, perhaps is, you know, eventually, you know, this is it doesn't make sense to me. So I'm just wondering maybe that you have a longer, you know, term sort of vision, because, you know, maybe, you know, we give the code enforcement stuff to the max eventually or the stuff that the BZA currently hears to the max and then, you know, the split, you know, and then maybe the planning commission takes, I don't know, variances or whatever it may be. And then and then so is is that what the ultimate objective is? Because this change doesn't seem seem to be, actually it's actually making the county more remote.

And no shade to Berkeley either, but, you know, I don't I don't think they know they know what our local community needs. I mean, so there's some neighborhoods that I've, you know, never been in Berkeley, and there's probably some neighborhoods that, you know, people who live in Berkeley don't know what Ashland or Cherryland is. Right? So that's my opinion. Thanks.

K. It looks like we have one hand from attendees. Oh.

Yes. So if you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hand in the Zoom app. First up is, Dan Davini, and you have three minutes. Are you there, Dan? I don't know why Dan isn't, responding.

Do you have are you able to look at that? Do you

Is he muted or something?

Maybe on his side. Yeah. It also looks like my the Zoom app doesn't there used to be a little button here that said allow to speak, but I don't see that. Do you have the change?

Who's who's got the button?

Am I unmuted?

Oh, here we go.

There he is.

Yeah. There's there's a little hitch in the giddy up here on this program because the unmute option just came up. At any rate, I'm Dan Davinny. I sit on the Castro Valley Mac, and and tonight I'm speaking to my personal capacity. And in general, I I think this might be a really good idea to shift some of the responsibility from the BZA to the planning commission.

And I make that statement based on the relative skills of the planning commission, having greater expertise in in zoning and planning and those types of considerations. I think there's still a very big role for the BZA, and it should be perhaps more compliance oriented. Continued oversight of tobacco and alcohol establishments, code compliance, which does take up a lot of their agenda, Variances, as variants tend to be issues perhaps between neighbors or that are affecting neighbors and don't necessarily have wide scope as far as the entire county is concerned. I I know in Castro Valley, we have a lot of applications that have both site development reviews and conditional use permits. And both of those have similar considerations.

And and I think that the planning commission's expertise in the zoning codes, understanding of measure d, Williamson Act, as well as other use restrictions might be beneficial in reviewing some of those applications. I I think that the staff report is a little bit incomplete and that perhaps you folks need a a complete list of all the examples of different types of CUPs. And you might find that perhaps some of them should stay with the BZA. For example, the ongoing renewal of a cell tower might be a little bit more compliance oriented. The cell tower is already built.

And when they come before the max for renewals, it typically has to do with maintenance, maybe minor design changes, and and things of that nature. So I think if this comes back to you that perhaps you ought to have a complete list of all the CUPs and the universe that exists out there and determine who should be the deciding body between the PC and the BZA. But I I think your folks land use expertise makes you the ideal body to make some of these land use decisions. Thank you.

Okay. I don't see any other hands up, I'll close public comment. Do have a list here. Early. And this is a list for conditional uses that go to the planning commission and go to the board's zoning adjustments.

This is for, in an in an a district, and I think this is part of the reason that this is coming up, at least one of them. I I've been approached by several members of the Castro Valley MAC on this on this item. Specifically, the the current structure is and let's just take in the case of an outdoor recreation facility. And there's there's actually an application that's gonna be on appeal, so I don't wanna speak specifically to that. But you can have an application where somebody wants to apply for an outdoor recreation facility, and they're putting tens of thousands of square feet of new buildings on the property in the application, and that is not being reviewed under the site development review aspect.

The site development review is limited to the caretaker's unit. And so you have these applications that are going through the county to build fifty, seventy thousand square feet of new, building space in, resource management areas in Crow Canyon, Coal Canyon, and they're it's all being done under a CUP. So there's really no legitimate review of the site. There's not a a a real site development review that's occurring. So it's I think it's more than one thing.

It's not just a matter and in order to fix this particular problem anyway, it's not just a matter of, you know, should the planning commission look at more conditional use permits and which category should we be looking at, but also the structure of these CUPs because it's the way it's the way it's structured right now, it seems to be a big hole in measure d. So if you call yourself a a school or a camp or a church, you can pretty much do whatever you want. But if you're a rancher, you have, you know, you have these enormous restrictions on what you can do with your property. So that's part of what's driving this. And there's also when you started talking about governance, you know, if you look at a lot of cities, you know, these go to the planning commission.

They don't have BZAs. And I don't think what we're suggesting here is we take all this workload away from the BZA. I don't know what the workload is. You know? Staff could answer that question. You know? What, I think BZA spends more time on code enforcement than they do on CUPs, so I don't think it would be, removing that much. I we we only had at least I think we only had 11 meetings last year in 2025 out of two per month would be 24. So we certainly have room in our agenda, to take this on. But I, you know, I agree.

There needs to be a lot of discussion about, you know, which conditional use permits do we wanna have come to us. There's already four on the list, and so adding some to that, would certainly not be bad. But then also in other districts, you know, what do you do? We've got the downtown specific plan for Castro Valley we're going through right now. You know, what what's gonna get designated in that.

So I'm trying to answer Tyler's question about why are we going in this direction. I don't think we're there's any long term goal here of getting rid of the BZA or, you know, splitting up their powers between the MAX and the planning commission. I don't think it's I don't think it's that nefarious. There's identified problems with the current structure, especially in ag Land, which, obviously, you don't have that issue in Eden area. So we're trying to the members of the Castro Valley MAC wanna try to see how we can address that.

And it might just be a situation where certain CUPs come to the planning commission. It might be that simple. But it would also need like I said, it would need to be a change in the structure so that if an applicant comes in and wants to build 70,000 square feet of buildings in a resource management district, that it that needs to be reviewed. It can't be hidden in a CUP application, and and not be properly reviewed by the, really, the planning body, which is us. So other commissioners? Comments?

Thanks. I I think, also, it's always a good time to just look at the governance structure. Is it serving the purpose that the community needs it to serve? And so I think in many jurisdictions, these land use policies, whether they're CUP or not, do fall to the planning commission. In many jurisdictions, some of the code issues that are heard at BCAs are heard by appeals hearing boards.

They're more like a quasi judicial board that that kind of make sure that when staff is enforcing the code, that they're doing so fairly. They're they're they're that body, that public body that that makes sure that there's a public hearing and people's rights are protected, so that they're not being, unfairly targeted by staff, which I think was one of the genesis of having a BZA was they felt like maybe one staff member in charge of that much power was was not helpful to the public interest, and that you needed a public board and a public body. So I I do think that there you know, if the board chooses to go down a path of exploring a governance, you know, restructuring or audit of how the commissions interact with public and with each other, I think that can make a lot of sense. I I I'd be comfortable recommending that they just to the board that they take a look at it. I I don't know that I have an outcome in mind other than maybe auditing what the best practices are that we see in the state with what jurisdictions are most efficient, and and also which jurisdictions being the bring the best transparency.

So I think, you know, I I agree maybe almost back to the previous item. Sometimes things bounce around too many bodies. It actually feels less transparent. Even though there's technically more public process, sometimes if you have to go to three different bodies through appeal through appeal, you you're you're almost feeling like you're running a gauntlet. So I I do I do think there's some fairness and simplicity that if we're like, okay. Well, I know for the land use decisions, they go to this body, and I know for the appeals decisions, they go to this body. And it really just makes a lot more sense, and you can park expertise in each body as well. So those are my 2¢.

Sure, Kelly?

Yeah. I think, commissioner wrote just comment about just reviewing the structures. I mean, BCA was created a long time ago. So, you know, there's a, there's also a lot of different desires, I think, in the land of the county in terms of expectation for services and and and changes in density. There's a lot of things that have gone on in the last many years that what may have served us well in the past may still serve us well or it may not.

I don't actually know what I think should happen, but I certainly think that is, you know, the longest serving member of the planning commission at this point. This isn't the first time this has come up. It's and the and there's a and there's a virtue. Right? Like, we see projects that come before us and struggle or have, you know, 23% requirement. They can't look at 22. We keep having to to issue variances. A couple years later, we look at the specific plan. Maybe we consider that experience as we change it. I think I think there's a synergy in in the body that can change the rules looking at things as they happen.

And perhaps it's appropriate for the body that's looking at code enforcement decisions to look at, like, what the conditions should be. Perhaps it's the body that sets what the rules are. Like, those are both fair ways to look at it. I don't know which one is more efficient. I certainly agree with the chair that, having some numbers just on how many of these things happen, I think, would be helpful because it's not quantified.

And I think that's also a mystery. We always hear about specific projects in a big way, but we don't necessarily know what that's indicative of. I don't think we are gonna figure out a decision tonight. I also really kinda thought it was an interesting idea to give all the BCAs work to the max, but I think the max are quite busy. And so and and the comment that was made by the public, I mean, I completely agree.

The purpose of having a local board, be it the max or be it the BCA or be it the you know, is for folks to understand the nuances because it is hard to write, it's hard to write zoning that's cookie cutter. And even in a specific plan, it's hard to write zoning that is applicable in every scenario without someone having a little bit of judgment. And there is a good virtue in that being a public body and not just an individual decision maker most of the time, and so we don't wanna lose that. But it is, not all appeals there, not all conditional use permits are are in the same category. So I look forward to our diving into it.

Any other comments, commissioners? Okay. No? Silver? I have a question.

Silvan? Is is would the next step be to pursue Albert's recommendation to take it to transportation and planning committee. Would that be the next step, Amir?

I think you had it on their agenda, did you not? I know their meeting just got bumped.

No. It probably they're they rescheduled to the March, April.

I thought I saw it on an agenda already for the board of suits. Didn't you have it on an agenda with TMP?

Don't think so. No. This is the first time we've

When I saw it, I saw it on there. I thought you were taking it there. And I think that was the intent, when, you know, we had the discussion that kind of the natural evolution of this would be to send it to TMP and see what the two supervisors' thoughts are and, you know, if they wanna give staff direction. I mean, that's kinda what staff is looking for at this point is, you know, give us direction on, you know, what it is you want us to do. So, yeah, that would be the next step would be to send it there.

And we do have this listed as an action item. So, I mean, I'll I'll keep it simple. I'll just make a motion that we forward this item to transportation and planning and that request that staff, prior to that meeting, just come up with, you know, the amount of CUP applications that are occurring at BZA so we know what sort of impact we're making on their schedule. K. We don't know that at this point. Is there a second for that? Second. Any discussion?

I have a a question or discussion. What are the common practices in our, neighboring counties, like, for example, Santa Clara or Contra Costa?

I think they're all a little bit different, and that's some of the the the data that that we can compile. Probably would compile that for TMP, but certainly can bring that back to you as well. Every jurisdiction, I I would say, is different. They all have a little flavor of their own. They call them different things. Some some are, like, zoning review boards, or we just happen to call ours board of zoning adjustments. But, you know, I think it's it's hard to really, to characterize it in in in really obvious buckets because every every jurisdiction is just a little different.

But appreciate that data.

K.

And if I can just one more thing. I was Sure. In terms of the staff report, there is a typo background at the February 16 meeting. It was February 2.

Okay. Just one other thing for discussion real quick before we vote on this is, first of all, Albert, you wrote the staff report?

Yes.

Yeah. You you did a good job. I read through it. I'm like, yeah. This is this is good. I like the questions too. So as far as what are the shortcomings of the existing decision making process, we kinda went over that a little bit earlier in earlier comments. Has BZA decision making process led to undesirable results in the past? I would say the most glaring one for me is CV Sands headquarters on Center Street in Castro Valley Boulevard. The MAC voted against that, and BZA approved it.

It's an industrial facility. Castro Valley doesn't have any industrial in Castro Valley, and that really should have been built in an industrial area in Hayward or San Leandro, not on Castro Valley Boulevard. So that would be the biggest mistake that I could point out that the BZA made. And maybe if they had more planning experience, you know, they it was pretty basic that, you know, put an industrial project in the middle of a downtown. Will all CUPs be decided upon by the PC or just some of them?

Well, that that would be decided by the process, obviously. Will the role of the BCA if one of the main functions is moved to the PC? Will the will the role diminish? We'll find out when we know what the workload is for them, and then what are the unanticipated consequences? Well, can't really answer that because they're unanticipated at this point.

So that's kind of the what we have on those questions. I think some most of them get answered as we go through the process. It's if TMP wants to explore this further, then that's what they'll ask staff to do. If they don't, you know, it dies there and, you know, that's it. But there's been enough, discussion and concern among, community leaders, and planning commissioners that that this be brought forward. So that's where we're at. Any other comments? Roll call vote, please. Mister Zeiss?

Yes. Silva? Yes. Commissioner Rocha? Aye. Commissioner Nundis?

Aye.

Vice chair Kelly?

Aye.

Chair Crawford? Aye. Alright. Motion passes.

K. Next item, staff comments and correspondence.

I have none.

Okay. Chair's report. The only thing I have is, this a b one two three four ethics training email that we got from the clerk's office that gives us two weeks to complete this. I don't know what's going on at the clerk's office. Everything I read on this gives you six months, so I don't have any intention whatsoever having this done by this Friday. And I don't appreciate the clerk dropping a bomb on us like that. They could've they could've handled that a lot better. So maybe maybe you've all all done that already. I don't know. But this artificial two week deadline is just that. It's artificial. Any commissioner announcement comments? Andy, your hands up.

Yeah. I'll just remind everyone, especially our new commissioners, that form seven hundreds are coming up and due the April 1, I believe. Don't quote me on that, but it's very soon. I don't believe the county has notified us. But all the other boards and commissions that I have served on are now on their second or third reminder for me to fill it out. If folks need help with that, they can talk to staff, or there's the help number, or feel free to reach out to me. I've done it about a 100 times.

I don't think county staff does that anymore. It comes from FPPC. I haven't gotten anything from county staff in years. It's always come from FPPC.

I'm I'm aware that county staff doesn't do that anymore, but I serve on many boards and commissions and get the notification from the FPPC. And every city, regional, state, municipal, federal, and civic board that I serve on except for the county planning commission does have staff remind the commissioners.

They do find you if you're late. So, okay. Any other commission announcements?

I just wanna reiterate what chair Crawford said. I I did appreciate the reflect questions at the end of the staff report, so those were helpful.

We are adjourned. I got a glass. Somebody? A week ago, I think it was.

Go ahead.