Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Three core. Okay. I'm gonna go ahead

and call this meeting to order. Welcome to the Alameda County Planning Commission meeting on Monday, 03/16/2026. Can we have the roll call, please?

Eric Crawford? Here. Vice chair Kelly?

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Present.

Commissioner Nielsen? Commissioner Rocha is excused? Commissioner Silva? Here. Commissioner Zeiss?

Present.

Can I have a quorum?

Okay. Commissioner Silva, will you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Okay. Moving on to item four, announcements by the chair. I'm just going to announce that we will not have the Ralph m Brown act training this evening.

We will bump that to the next meeting. Commissioner Rocha had a last minute inability to come this evening, and we wanna make sure we do that with all of us here. Moving on to item five, open forum. This is an opportunity for anyone to speak on any item that is not on the agenda. I don't have any speaker cards. Do we have attendees? I don't see any hands up. Oh, moving on to item six, field trip report. We have Item seven, committee reports. We have none.

Item eight, approval of the minutes for 02/02/2026. We had asked for these to be redone and elongated, which certainly looks like that was done. Excellent job. Is there any changes to the minutes? If not, is there a motion to approve?

Can I just make a comment, chair?

Sure.

I just wanna add that I appreciate the detailed minutes. As chair indicated, I I provide the level of transparency, which is not only helpful for us as as the board or commission rather, but also for the public. So thank you for the revisions.

Yes. Indeed. I'll second that. Thank you. The minutes are wonderful.

Okay. So do we have a motion for these wonderful minutes? I so move. Her second.

Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote, please.

Chair Crawford. Aye. Vice Chair Kelly?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Nielsen?

I'm abstaining because I wasn't here.

Commissioner Rocha was excuse. Commissioner Silva? Aye. Commissioner Zeiss?

Yes.

The motion passes. The minutes are approved.

Okay. Moving on to the minutes of 03/02/2026.

This appear to be equally as wonderful. There are no changes. Do we have a motion? Motion to approve. And we have a second?

Second.

Do we have a motion commissioner Zai, second from commissioner Hernandez? Roll call vote, please.

It's Sarah sorry. Chair Crawford.

Or or aye.

Mister Kelly. Aye. Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Nielsen? And commissioner Rocha is excused. Commissioner Silva? Aye. Commissioner Zeiss? Yes. Motion passes.

Okay. Moving on to item nine, consent calendar. We have no items. Item 10, regular calendar a, PLN 20 26 dash 17, Pleasanton Quarry. Can we have the staff report on this item, please?

Yes. The

Mister chair? Yes. I just wanted to ask staff if they could maybe add some context at the beginning of their presentation. I think that this is the first time quarries have come before almost everyone on the commission now, and I don't know that folks are necessarily familiar with why we get these updates.

We had one a year ago, did we not? Remember we had Vulcan. Is this an annual? I I know I know this item actually, I'm not sure if this item is the annual or item b is the annual worded.

My apologies if we have. I've heard so many of these over the years. It's hard to keep them straight.

Well, we will discuss that while we're going through the presentation as well.

K.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. So I the first item on the regular calendar is the is the reclamation plan amendment and and periodic review for Vulcan materials. So this the project is PLN202600017, And myself, Damian Curry, and Bruce Dubin with Benchmark Resources will will present the application.

So at this at this stage, it's so this this presentation will consist of the project location and site overview, the reclamation plan amendment itself and and the reasons for the reclamation plan amendment, as well as the the periodic review with conditions of approval. The and an additional addendum to the to the to the reclamation plan and with discussion as far as, like, why that is appropriate. And then the the CEQA exemptions for the project as as well as prior context with the the through the referral process as well as coordination with DMR at the state level, the division of mines, as well as the staff recommendation. This is this is an overview of the of the S And P 16 site operated by Vulcan Materials. On the on the lower lower right corner with the dotted lines is is Isabelle Avenue, and that's that's part one of the subjects for the for for the modification to the to the reclamation plan, the roadway along along Isabelle Avenue was was widened, and and that effectively shrank the the area for the operation currently mined by Vulcan Materials.

This this site, we have an we have an aerial of this of the same locations depicted in the map. And again, of note is Isabelle Avenue to the lower right as well as Stanley Boulevard, which bifurcates the operation into a northern and southern quadrant. So the so the purpose of the reclamation plan amendment is to revise the boundary to to reflect that road widening project and also to extend the termination the date of termination of the permit from 2030 to 2040, so essentially extending it by ten years. The updated conditions of approval will will reflect that approval of the amendment. In this, the the the permitee shall shall submit an application and and deposit for the revision of the reclamation plan boundaries and and any proposed revisions to the mining excavation setbacks.

And that is part of part of the amendment considered today. K. And this is this is another another overview. On this on this map, the exhibit b on the staff report attached excuse me. Attachment b on the staff report shows in in more detail and clearer representation the widening taking place off of Isabelle Avenue.

And, likewise, this this graphic also shows the the widening area, but it is it is shown better in attachment b of the staff report.

I'll take over from here. I'm Bruce Suvina with Benchmark Resources. We've been assisting Alameda County for about sixteen, seventeen years with their administration of their mining projects in the county. We have a statewide practice and primarily work a lot with lead agencies on helping administer the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. So I do recognize a couple of commissioners since the last time I was here, but I'm it's nice to see new faces.

So if you have any questions as I continue with my presentation, please feel free to interrupt me to ask those. So in terms of the periodic review component, so there's a there's a section in the surface mining ordinance and a condition number 18 of the surface mining permit for S M P 16 requires an annual or excuse me, a periodic review every five years. So I guess we should say approximately five years. The last one that we did for this site was in 2017, and then we had something called COVID that sort of interrupted things. So what we do and what the county does during this periodic review, they look at new and changed circumstances around the mining operations to see if there are any revisions that should be done to the conditions of approval.

The other thing that the county has done here is back in probably about the time we did the last periodic review for this site. Shortly after that, we actually started the county actually started incorporating and trying to make all the surface mining permits similar, and they had general conditions that were incorporated that superseded a lot of the site specific ones. There were a lot of modifications and changes, so they tried to tried to treat all of the operations equally by having general conditions. Although, each sites has its own circumstances, so there's also site specific conditions. So that's part of this periodic review has been to remove some of the site specific conditions that overlap with those general conditions.

And then also remove some conditions that have already been complied with that are no longer applicable. So the county worked with public works on some of those and and reviewed the condition compliance reports and removed some of the conditions that are no longer applicable. Next slide, please. So the the one of the things that Damian mentioned was the reclamation plan addendum. This is something was done administratively last year where under the Surface Mining Reclamation Act, if you have solar facilities on your site, you can actually do an addendum rather than an amendment.

So it's more of a procedural requirement. So Vulcan actually did avail themselves of this option. So they have a they actually are constructing or almost in the process of completing the construction and implementation of some floating solar arrays. So there's one on the Northeastern site and the Southwestern site North Of Stanley. If you wanna go to the next slide, there's a couple close ups.

So this is the one on the Southwestern area, and then next slide. This is the Northeastern area. So under the Surface Mining Reclamation Act, as long as you it's an interim use and it's gonna be removed before you close, you can actually permit and and prepare an addendum that sort of outlines how the site will be decommissioned to remove the facilities. And you also have to have a financial assurance cost estimate to make sure there's enough money in place to remove the facilities. And so that's what Vulcan did at this site to to construct these facilities.

In addition, under the government code, as long as you meet health and safety requirements and get appropriate permits from the lead agency, you're you're exempt from the CEQA requirements. Nick, can I can

I ask

a question on that? So what kind of permits were sought from the county for an installation of the solar arrays at this location?

You know, there were some building permits that were required. Any other ones, Damian? Do you remember?

No. Only only building building permits since these are the energy energy produced here is is just to to offset the the cost from the operation taking place.

Right. But is there some sort of because I know we had a permit come before us for a solar array north of 580 a couple of years ago, and it needed a pull from the planet where there's a reason why this doesn't need some sort of, you

know,

approval to do this. They can just do it and tell And

a difference. Yeah. So the so a big difference from from the previous proposal was that that was a commercial project to to actually sell energy to to on on the grid through a through a

connection with with utility. County ordinates county ordinates differentiates whether you're selling the power as to whether you need a permit or not?

It's the the definition. So it was it was linked to the to the definition that is a conditional use in the in the a zone, the agricultural zone for a wind electric power, and and the connection stems from that definition to what is used currently. It's a solar electric power generating facility only for the purposes of of generating the generating the power as opposed to this this app application, which is which is intended as a mining operation, but but you have this this ancillary use.

And then this is this is outlined in the Surface Mining Reclamation Act. This was adopted about June ago. Trying to facilitate this interim use for when you're continuing to mine to allow for solar facilities on mine sites as long as they are properly you have a decommissioning plan, and there's it requires oversight by the division of mine reclamation to make sure that it meets all the surface mining and reclamation requirements. So this is sort of a state policy to try to foster solar development on mine sites. So it's specifically just calling out for mine sites. So they couldn't do something like this outside of the Samara context, outside of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. K. So when

you were stating earlier that you needed the approval of some agency, that agency isn't the county.

Oh, just any other any any administrative permits that might be appropriate, like building permits or any other permits that the county would require above and beyond what you'd do for a the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act?

K. So I I'm I'm not getting any closer to an answer, honestly. I feel like I'm going in circles here. This looks like a sizable array. I mean, I there aren't any on this, but how big is this? It's like, I would think that most property owners in the county wanted to build an array this big. They would need some sort of discretionary approval. Are we all just free to do this?

There is a limitation on the size. I think it's and I can I'll look after we move on to the next matter. But I'll I'll report back to you. There is a size limitation that that applies here that it can't go above that amount and it has to be removed prior to concluding the mining. So I'll I'll That's under the mining permit? Yeah. It's under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. It's a statutory requirement.

Does that supersede county ordinance?

As long as it's within the long as it's within the reclamation plan boundary. It's a a state law requirement, but they still require you to get admin administrative permits from the county. It doesn't sound like Did. They did get the permits the administrative permits from the county. They got

building building permit, the administrative permit?

Yes. The building permit is issued administratively.

Oh, still looking for an answer to my question. I hate to be so obstinate, but it seems kinda obvious to me. This is a pretty seems to be a pretty good size array. And we're all free to do this without any county permit except the building permit?

If you're a mining if you're a mining site, it has to be on a mine a mining site within a reclamation plan.

So so that we're coming back. The circle's coming back around. Same thing over and over again. So I'm still trying to figure out what discretionary approval is needed to build an array this size in the county.

Not not in a in a mining operation or or There's

an exemption in the county code for mining operation for solar arrays. Is that what you're saying?

It's not in the county code. It's the surface mining and reclamation.

It's a statute. So Which once again requires that you get approval from the local jurisdiction. Correct?

Not just for the actual if if there's any administrative permits that are required from the local jurisdiction, you get those non nondiscretionary permits as part of your approval process. The discretionary component is eliminated because as long as you are within a reclamation plan and you're under a certain amount of megawatts, then you and you do your decommissioning plan. So there are statutory requirements of elements that you have to do to comply with the state statute. As long as you meet all those requirements, you get it reviewed by the state, then those facilities can be constructed on a mine site in the reclamation plan. It becomes an addendum to the reclamation plan, which is done administratively through the the county.

So this was done, like, last I think we completed the approval last fall, I believe.

County council, do you agree with this? Or do you have I hate to throw it put you on the spot, but

I'm not gonna say that I I agree with this, but it's my understanding is that they're saying the permitting goes through the state, which makes it so our county can't require discretionary permitting. But the state said this is nondiscretionary if they approve it, so it doesn't go through a discretionary county permitting under the Service Mining Act. So to to that extent, that makes that follows logic. If that's what you'd like me to say, agree. I'm not prepared to offer another opinion on that.

Sure. One of the things I caught that Damian said was that they're using the power themselves, and that's probably the the difference. So is this power not being sold or it's all being consumed on-site?

Correct. Yeah. It it's none of the power would be sold. It had it it's not operational yet, but but none of the power

will be becomes operational, will this power they're gonna use all this power. What what is a megawatts for this array?

Yes. I think it's 14. I and I believe the I believe the that the threshold, the maximum for under this this situation would be 20. But but two two elements. The first is that is that they are using it to offset the on-site energy usage, and it will be removed when the when the mining operations are are completed.

And then I get that I guess another question, did Zone 7 look at any of this? Because just recently, we had some stuff that came up and being that this is all in zone seven's probably recharge plan and the idea of protection of the water supply or any type of leaching of chemicals or hard metals or anything from the solar rays, which I I don't know if there are, but there are some people that say that that can happen. So did zone seven review all this before this was put in place?

Zone seven received the referral letter and and did not did not include the necessarily did not did not include any concerns about the floating array in the referral response.

I can just add some detail. I've done a little bit of research on the act and it does appear that this solar panel use is granted and used by the state. So we can't infringe on what the state has said is a valid interim use. There are several findings that have to be made, which I'm assuming was done here, to create that use given by the state. But then as a county, we're preempted by the state allowing that use, so we couldn't have a discretionary review.

Who makes the findings?

I I believe the state makes the findings, and you apply for a permit through the state. That's the extent that I have knowledge on at this moment.

Oh, that's that's helpful. Do we have any idea how many panels this is or what size this is? Or is it floating on water? Is it floating on dirt? What, you know, what is

floating floating on water? I I believe it's fourteen fourteen megawatts, but could be wrong. And okay.

But was it a mile by a mile? Is it a 100 feet by a 100 feet? I mean, we don't have any does anybody know? Somebody built this thing. Right? It's like

Terry, do can you answer those logistical questions? Can look. I'll I'll I'll try to look in my files real quick.

I don't know off the top of my head what 14 megawatts equals in panels, but k. Go ahead. Continue. Sorry. I just

It's okay with the commission. Come on up. State your name.

That microphone to you.

I'm Pat Mitchell. I'm outside legal counsel for Vulcan for the site. And on this particular point, I've done a lot of work at, like, six different, well, probably eight now mine sites in the state for different operators, Vulcan and three other ones. And so two things happened several years ago. First, the government code was amended to allow small smaller scale solar sites, which this falls within that their definition. Right? They call them energy producers. It wasn't just solar. But anyway, to be approved, like Bruce or Damian said, with only ministerial permits. So for all those sites we've done all over the state, seven different counties so far, they're all just building permits.

So that none of had to go to planning commission board or anything like that or the supervisors. So that's the one part and that doesn't just apply to mining. That's for any size solar that's below that threshold. The state policy, they're trying to force out more solar to get people more into solar. So it was essentially an exemption trying to expedite solar development in the state of California.

So that's the first part. The second part which is mining specific only said, if you're doing solar on an existing mine site like this one, then you don't have to amend your reclamation plan. You just have to do an addendum and you have to do a decommissioning plan and a financial assurance just to decommission the solar. So that was first part's not just mining any type of project under that size. Second part's mining specific, same thing.

And that was about three years later, they're trying to push out, hey, we have all these mine sites that are all sort of torn up. Why don't we put solar on them while they're in operation for ten or fifty years? So that was the idea. So when you put those two together and do solar at these mine sites, you really only need building permits and assuming they're under the certain size which is pretty large, of course, then you're allowed to do it and all you need is building permits. That's an intentional state policy to get more solar going in the state. K. And then so that this is all floating solar that Vulcan Vulcan is doing this at four or five different sites throughout the state. K. One's one of the ones floating, the other two three are ground mounts.

Can somebody like make a phone call and figure out how many panels there are in this thing so we can get an idea of the size? We don't have to continue the item over this. This isn't this is more of

an informational component. This has already been approved. This was we were added this to the presentation to provide some updates to the commission about what's happened at the site since the last periodic review. So this is already been approved. I think they're a couple weeks away from actually getting it online. So there's there's no discretionary this is not before the commission as a decision. This is something more informational for the commission.

Just to give you guys an update. This is

This particular item, the addendum is not. This is more of an informational. The action items are the reclamation plan amendment and the periodic review adoption of the resolution for the conditions of approval relative to the periodic review. So this is just more of an inform I'm sorry I didn't clarify that at the beginning. This is just an informational item for the commission. In addition, I did

What what is what exactly is informational?

They've actually constructed a solar array out of the site or they're about to.

K. Well, this this item is an action item. And if there's outstanding questions by the commission, the item could be continued. I don't believe it's up to you. I think it's up to us. So I'm asking to x I get you don't wanna do that, but I'm asking if somebody can just make a phone call and find out how many panels this thing is. I would like to know how big this is k. To clear up the concerns I have whether you think they're legitimate or not.

So Not saying it's literal legitimate. I'm just giving you the fact that this is just an information. And I'm telling you, yes. So Can I don't know about the exact panels? I know that it's a 10 megawatt and the statute allows for anything less than 50 megawatts. So it's one fifth of what could be allowed under the statute. And I don't know if Terry, if you could help us try to track down the answer to okay. Thank you.

Ed, continue.

So as part of the actual reclamation plan and periodic review update on the conditions of approval, staff did circulate a project referral for that project in early February. The staff heard back from the city of Livermore and the Livermore's the city of Livermore said they really had no objections to the modification in the boundary or the extension in the time frame provided that there's conditions of approval for air quality noise and truck truck traffic. So I actually worked with the commissioner and provided her the relevant conditions of approval that address those issues, and they did not they that seemed to satisfy them from the city of Livermore. Next, please, Damian. And then the city of Pleasanton had two main issues.

The first was they wanted to make sure they and they cited condition 46, which actually was superseded. So we explained that to them by a cooperative agreement. But they just wanted to make sure that Vulcan was working directly with the city in making sure that they work on the design of infrastructure improvements in the city of Pleasanton. And so the applicant confirmed that they that that was required by the cooperative agreement, and they were committed to doing that. Next slide, please.

The other item was back in 2022, 2023, there were a lot of flooding events in this area, and there the the city referenced the 2023 spill event and requested that they comply with the storm water pollution prevention plan. This is a zero discharge facility, so they don't discharge the waters of the state out of the site. So they have a waste discharge requirement, a general order waste discharge requirement, and they comply with that. But the SWIP was not specifically applicable to the site. In addition, we worked with the public works on some conditions of approval regarding some road improvements and easements.

And we we got confirmation from them that we could remove those conditions and they didn't have any additional comments. Next slide. And then we also worked with zone seven. They did not submit anything specifically on the reclamation plan or conditions of approval. They did have some language about providing locations of wells, discussing the groundwater management requirements and flood flood protection requirements, but they didn't specifically have any substantive comments on the on the proposal.

And then one other thing, we did do a public hearing notices to properties in the vicinity of the site. There were over 200 addresses that were sent a notice and they also did some on-site posting of the notices. We have recommended that this project is exempt from CEQUA for a number of reasons. Class one, which is the operation repair and maintenance of a private facility as long as there's no negligible or no expansion of existing use. This is actually a reduction in the boundary, so it's actually sort of class one plus.

It's less than than what's under the existing requirements. Next slide, please. Then there's classes four and five dealing with minor modifications and alterations to the conditions of land, which they're not doing anything under the the plan. They're just modifying the boundaries. And also the land use limitations are actually increasing the limitations by modifying the boundary and the setback.

And then last, the periodic review is something that you look at the existing conditions as part of your annual or the periodic review process, and we think that that's exempt under the inspections requirements as well. But in terms of coordination with the Division of Mine Reclamation, they get a sixty day review period to review reclamation plan amendments. So the county provided the Division of Mine Reclamation or DMR a copy of the reclamation plan amendment on June 27. They did not receive any comments back, during the public review period, and you're also required to give them a thirty day notice before the hearing. And so that was provided on February 2 for this March 16 hearing.

So that extent is in exceedance of those requirements. So if the commission does approve the project today, then they're also required to give a final determination of their their decision to the DMR within thirty days of the approval. And then also within sixty days of approval, they're required to give the final reclamation plan amendment to the DMR for their files. And last, I don't have it on the slide, but I'm sorry. Go back. I actually can leave it there. But there's one other requirement that once the reclamation plan amendment is approved, there's a notice that's required to be filed with the clerk outlining the approval of a reclamation plan amendment.

Thank you.

Back to

So the so to to finish staff staff recommendation after after the review of the staff report, you know, and any any new information presented at the hearing and during public testimony to to approve the conditions of approval in the attached resolution, which is exhibit a, the draft resolution and conditions of approval, and and to approve the notices of exemption under CEQA that are are also germane to the project. So that concludes staff presentation if there are additional questions.

Any questions for staff, commissioners? Let's see. Rosilva? Thank you.

The SMR gets reviewed SMP gets reviewed periodically as a matter of course, and it was last reviewed in 2017. So it should have been done in 2022.

Is that right? That's actually there's an annual review of conditions of approval as well. So there's an annual review that's done to ensure that they're in compliance. So it's every year. And then also every five years, you're supposed to do a periodic review.

So you'd look more so so it has done annual reviews of the conditions compliance, but the periodic review originally was 2017. So it should have been done under a strict schedule of 2022. But we the operator, Vulcan, was considering doing a reclamation plan amendment and working with some surrounding property owners to do an amendment. And so we kept the county kept on delaying that peer periodically thinking that the reclamation plan amendment would sort of be done in conjunction. But after several years of waiting and and a and COVID, it was determined that we just move forward.

And the applicant did propose the reclamation plan, which was required under condition 52 of the previous periodic review. So we sort of melded them together for this this process.

What was the last statement statement about melding together? And let me ask you this. Let me ask you this again. What what prompted the periodic review to come to the surface here was that 84 got widened and and there are requirements you needed to meet related to the widening. Is that

so we're doing that? Was the driving force for the reclamation plan amendment. Correct. Okay. And so what they did, just to let you know that the county was working with the operator, is they didn't wanna go through the reclamation plan amendment because they were negotiating with some neighbors. So what what they did do is they worked with us, and they did their setbacks like it would be modified. So they modified their setbacks so it's consistent with the setbacks from Isabel, the road widened. So they actually had the setbacks in place the year after, but then they didn't do the reclamation plan amendment till so after this this process on condition 52.

Thank you. You mentioned that you asked 200 neighbors for their thoughts on this. Did I hear that correctly?

There were there were notices sent to to 200 locations over 200. Yes. What responses did you get? I don't see any in the packet. In fact, I don't

see packets from the responses. Go ahead with that one. You did the any of the 200 respond?

Correct. Yes. No no responses were received.

You did receive responses from the city of Pleasanton City, Livermore and Public Works, did you?

Yes. And and Zone 7.

So is it safe to say there's no opposition that's that has been expressed in any comment letters?

Oh, the comment the comments were were direct you know, no. We're not we're not in opposition. They were they were just cite, you know, specific items that were part that were then part of the ensuing discussion as well.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Can I ask a follow-up question to that? If that's okay, Chair. Sure. In terms of the 200 notices that were sent to the to the neighbors, is there a timeline for them to respond?

Yes. Oh oh, yes. Actually, I'm sorry. This this is a meeting. This was a meeting notice that was that was sent. So it was it was it was different from the from the referral referral letter that was sent to to agencies, which that referral letter did give a deadline. It was three three weeks, I believe. But the but the notices that were sent out, the mail the mailing list, that was those were the hearing notices of of today's hearing.

K. Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you. So with the hearing, did many show up?

Did they

This is the hearing?

Yes. This is this is the hearing.

Okay. I don't see anybody. Very few.

Just come on up. And state your name again.

Good evening. Pat Mitchell, outside counsel for Vulcan Materials to answer chair's question on the solar panel size. And I do agree that was already decided earlier, but I just wanna answer your factual question. So the answer is they're on two different ponds. Pond 5 is a big pond. Pond 2 is a small pond. Pond 5, it's the system's 9,744 kilowatts and it's 16,770 solar panels. Pawn two, the smaller ones, 2,111 kilowatts, and the solar panels are 3,704. K.

Sure, Zeiss.

Oh, I am looked through our documentation that you gave us and and I see, you know, part of things you wanted is to extend ten more years from 1930 to 1940 or, excuse me, 2040. You wanna do the reclamation process. And then you had ex exhibit a and b, which is an SMP and an SMO on your documentations. I'm a little confused. You had exhibit a and b. SMO is is b. And then also, by the way, on the on the exhibit a, your numbers are off. Just wanna double check that on the documentation.

Exhibit a exhibit a was the resolution and the conditions of approval. Let me see what exhibit b was. One second. Exhibit b are the surface mining and ordinance findings that are required when you adopt a when you do a reclamation plan amendment. It so that's on it's a three page document, and that's so those just are just the findings that that the DMR requires that lead agencies do for findings, but they're not they're not required as part of the resolution.

Sorry about that. Your numbers are off on page there's two page ones and there's two page twos. When you look in here, it's going to go. It says 16 teen of just again.

Any other questions? I don't see any speakers on this item. After you, Gentlemen wanna any you gentlemen wanna come up and say anything? No? K.

Just checking. K. So this is an action item. I did I was I didn't bring my microfilm reader, but I did save this staff report as a PDF so I could zoom in on it. And on the site plans that show the solar panel quantities as well, 16,000 solar panels, that's a massive array. So but it is what it is. I mean, if the state takes jurisdiction on that, it takes jurisdiction on that. But it's I think it was it was a red flag for me. I thought it a legitimate question to get an answer to. And thank you thank you for finding that out.

Appreciate it. And I'm not opposed to Corey's or anything like that. I mean, I don't see any issues here. If there's no other questions or concerns, somebody wanna make a motion to approve. You've got a pretty extensive.

Well, do you not on this? I believe you had a number of items that needed to of the approval. That was in the staff report. Two different ones, so I might have been thinking something I read. Staff recommendation, bottom of page one of 16.

Staff recommends planning commission review the staff analysis, category exemptions for the proposed project. Consider the information presented. Barring any substantial new information presented require additional analysis staff recommends to the planning commission. Next page. Review the staff report. Documents submitted by the permitee take public testimony barring any substantial or additional analysis. Okay. Five year review. So this is five year review here. Somewhere else I thought I saw ten. Are we going for ten years? What are we doing here?

It's it's a ten year it's a five year periodic review. That's what it typically takes, but it's a ten year extension on the termination date.

So you're proposing a ten year extension.

So why don't maybe if the commission would be interested, just instead of saying five year review, say periodic review because that's sort of essentially what we're requesting is, adopting, exhibit a, which is the draft resolution and conditions of approval, then approving the notices of exemption or vice versa in terms of the order. Just consider you periodic review rather than five year review.

Would reduce the up to 10. I I actually don't have a problem with 10, so that's what I'm trying to clarify. I don't see the reason to go through a report this thick every five years, especially for Corey that's been there and, you know, hopefully, he's gonna be there some period of time. Is there let me see. Conditions of approval. Is this the one where the conditions of approval is, like, a 100 pages long or something?

I think it's 16 pages long. It's exhibit a.

Today. Okay. Is there is there You can Right. Yeah. Exhibit a. But is there a specified time in one of these conditions?

Yeah. The condition s 12. I believe it's s 12 that changes the mining permit and reclamation plan shall expire, and it previously at 12/31/2030, it's now been revised to 12/31/2040. 12 on page nine of the exhibit a.

So you're you're asking for, excuse me, a ten year extension but with periodic reviews?

Just a ten year extension of the termination of the permit. The periodic reviews are I I imagine the next one, unless there's some other, circumstances, would be five years from this approval. Is there

a reason they need to be five years? Or they should

It's in the surface mining ordinance and a and a condition of approval. You could actually modify actually, I I wouldn't recommend it because the ordinance actually requires periodic reviews every five years.

Every five years. Okay.

Sure. Yes. So if I may, correct me if I'm wrong. So right now, they can up to 2030 of December 31. And that's before years after that to continue. Then we also have a five or ten year part. We they'd have to come back and do

a review. That's every five years is supposed to be.

Yeah. You sure I got this one? Okay. Thank you.

K. So I'm gonna take a stab at this. To approve PLN 2026 dash 17 reclamation plan amendment as per the staff report and the proposed conditions of approval. No changes. Is there a second? Second. A motion from the chair, second from commissioner Nielsen.

Chair Crawford?

We'll call vote.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah.

Yeah. Sorry. Chair It's okay. Chair Crawford? Yes? Aye. Vice chair Kelly?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Nielsen? Aye. Commissioner Rocha's excused. Commissioner Solva? Aye. And commissioner Zeiss? Yes. Motion passes.

K. We gone to item b, status update of mining operations in Alameda County. Can we have the staff report on this item? Thank you. In five years.

Yes. Item number two is the, is the Mindsight compliance, status review for for additional hearings. This is this is in the same area in the vicinity of the of the site current currently mined by Vulcan Materials. This is consists of the closed site referred to as the Radem Quarry. It's still where there is still a a there.

The the mining operations have ceased, but it still, the reclamation plan has not been approved. And then there is also the CEMEX, the site that CEMEX operates, which is adjacent westerly as as well as northerly from the Vulcan material site. So the purposes of the purpose of this presentation is to do an annual compliance condition review by mine site. And this this, again, is required by the surface mine ordinance as well as conditions of approval for each for each site. And the these condition this condition of approval review was performed concurrently with with an annual site inspection that is required by this by SMARA.

And this is this is typically typically conducted in the month of June, And and then the permittees are are required by the SMP conditions of approval and also the surface mine ordinance to prepare and submit reports on an annual basis. So the in this this case or in these cases, the county and the benchmark resources prepared a review based based on those inspections and the review of the compliance notes that were submitted by the permittees. And then again, as as there are also sites that are in the Sinole area. Those are not included for this review because those sites first first go to to CINAHL, which is which is held as an advisory an advisory body hearing prior to going to the planning commission. This this graphic just shows the the two sites under review with this report, including CEMEX, S And P 23, as well as the Lehigh company, S and P thirty one and thirty six.

And this this map just show shows an overview of the of the sites in Alameda County. You can see the the sites clustered toward the bottom are not included in in this review as those are are are in the Sonoma area. And and those will be subject of periodic reviews conducted in the future.

So the reason why we we didn't present this so there's if you wanna go back to the table, Damian, I just wanna walk them through really quickly. So the s and p 17 was permitted, but it's not active, and it won't be active until '20 until the s and p 30 is concluded. Both of those are are up for periodic review, and we didn't wanna give you two staff reports within, like, three months on the same site. So we are postponing that presentation until we complete that periodic review and present the findings to the CINAHL CAC. S and P sixteen Pleasanton, we were doing the periodic view and rec plan, the the first item today, so we didn't include that in this update.

And then SMP 24, 32, and 33, they're all subject to a periodic review for this year. So, similarly, we're gonna wait until we get that done rather than wasting the commission's time on doing two hearings within three months on the same site. And then the Stevage Creek Quarry site is in similar. It's it's up for a periodic review. So we'll we'll be getting those to you probably late spring, early summer.

And I've learned my lesson about making sure it's clear what what's before the the commission so the staff reports will be a little shorter and a little clearer next time on those. Thank you. You wanna go to the in terms of the two sites, the first one is the Radem site. So this is a site that hasn't been mined actually since 2002. The permit expired in 2010.

So this is just west of the northern part of the Pleasanton site that we just reviewed on the previous item. So there's three large lakes still, that have not been reclaimed, Lake H, Lake I, and Cope Lake. But they and I'll I'll go through sort of the details of why those haven't been reclaimed yet. If you wanna go to the next it is a single permittee, the Lehigh Southwest Cement Company or Lehigh. They have two landowners, Lake H or most of Lake H is owned by Pleasanton Sand and Gravel.

And then the southern part of Lake H, Cope Lake, and Lake I zones by Zone 7. But because Lehigh was the operator or the predecessor op operator, they're on the hook for the financial responsibility for the reclamation. And then the permit did expire in 2010, but they hadn't mined since 2002. So the county has been sort of working with the operator in Zone 7 to try to get resolution and get the the site to closure. You may have remembered, at least commissioners Crawford and Kelly, you may have remembered probably, like, six years ago or so, there was also another owner that owned some property on the the West of Cope Lake, but they had reclaimed.

So they actually we actually worked with the commission to remove that part of the site from this because it was reclaimed and closed. Next slide, please. So the three major issues are the ArroyoMochu diversion structure. Both the LabCorp specific plan and the reclamation plan require that the operator construct a diversion structure from the Royal Mocho to filter into Lake H, so it'd be on the Northeastern part of Lake H. However, zone seven and Lehi do not think it's appropriate or necessary.

There isn't an in lieu payment provision in LabCorp, so they've been exploring and negotiating with zone seven and Lehi about what the fair price of that structure is so they can divert it to other flood control measures that are not outlined in the approved reclamation plan. So they're going through that that discussion. The staff report sort of gives you the gory details of that process. And then the Cope Lake is the area that's south of Lake H. That's been reclaimed.

Zone 7 even has recognized that it's suitable for their use. But because it's still within the reclamation plan, they can't operate on that. So I think Lehi is going to be proposing a reclamation plan amendment to remove that from the reclamation plan. The person that was their consultant that was spearheading that passed away, so they actually have reassigned that to a new planner, and they're working on trying to get application to the county within this you know, within the next year or so. And then there's for Lakes H and I. Lake I, there's just a small pipeline that wasn't constructed properly.

It should

have been a a steel pipe, but there was a corrugated pipe and so they there's some minor, erosion issues underneath it. So that needs to be repaired. And then on the Lake H, there's some slope stability issues between Cope Lake And Lake H. And so over the last five or six years, Lehigh has been working with Zone seven and some of the consultants they brought in to try to come up with some solutions that Zone seven, who's the ultimate end user, will be happy with on on that in that regard. So this is an informational item.

The condition of approval requires that the operators provide a status update, but there's no specific action required. It's just this is the status update required by the condition of approval. We but they're in they're substantially in compliance. They're even though it's, what, sixteen years past the permit date, they're at least working with Zone 7 to try to resolve any closure issues. So we didn't we didn't think that the county didn't think that any additional enforcement actions were appropriate.

Other side is Elliot Quarry S And P 23. So this is south and west of the southern part of Vulcan. So that area that where you had the Isabelle Avenue border, that's just east of that. You see Isabelle Avenue there on the north central part of the the figure. So Cemex's site is west and south of that. So there's Lake A, which is east of, Isabelle. There's Lake B, which is goes along the Arroyo Del Valle. And there's also an optional Lake J, which is north of Lake B. So those are the active site components. They haven't actually mined in Lake A for a while, but it hasn't been reclaimed.

So Cemex's consultant did provide their annual compliance report. They covered a couple of years from 2023 to 2025. Benchmark in the county reviewed those and we did an annual inspection last June. The compliance issues at this site have been, there were some after Isabelle had the road widening project had become completed, there were some area sort of between Lake A And B where the road sort of had been uneven. And so PG and E and Cal PG had PG and E had done some pipelines underneath there.

And so both p g and e and Caltrans were wondering whether or not there was an impact by CEMEX, either in Lake A or Lake B. So the when the CEMEX was approved for reclamation plaque back in 2021, we we actually added a condition that they do a, monitor the stability of the site, and they actually have done some additional buttressing, which is discussed in the next bullet. Caltrans did opine in a memo that they believe that it was mostly due to the lack of compaction from PG and E when they backfilled the pipeline. That was their theory. But their but the CEMEX is monitoring the the Lake B area, and they buttressed that area as well.

And then there's a one can you go back, please? Thank you. And then the they're back when I when I discussed in the item number one about the flooding in 2022 and 2023, That flooding also was experienced also at Cemex's site. So there were some, areas that eroded in in both Lake A and Lake B. And so they've been working with all the regulatory agencies, both state and federal, to get those repaired.

The Arroyo Del Valle is a water of the state and a water of The US, so they have to get specific permits. But they're going through that process. We anticipate at least the applicant has told us they anticipate that they'll have their permits this spring and then do the repairs over the summer. At the January, we actually got a comment from a neighbor saying, why is that leg ace still so ugly? What's happening?

I'm paraphrasing. And so we worked with the operator, found out sort of the schedule, and that and so we just dialogued with the neighbor about the schedule that I just outlined for you, and they seemed to be content with that schedule. But we told them that we'd keep them apprised as if that schedule if the construction goes beyond the summer, we'd circle back with the with the neighbor. Then he thinks that CEMEX has done a good job in their annual compliance reports. We've reviewed them.

It was submitted in a timely fashion, and that we that we don't recommend any enforcement actions that or any additional follow-up just to have the commission just accept the informational item.

On either this report? Questions for staff or mister Steuben?

Zeiss. So round Macquarie, that's like a group of quarries. That correct? That's the Lake I, Lake H, and Cope Lake?

Not groups of quarries. They're they're areas that had been mined in the past. It's all one it's under one ownership. But, yeah, they're all reclaimed or not reclaimed, but but formerly mined areas. K.

So when you're we're saying Random Quarry, you're talking about the area.

Oh, Radum.

Yeah. Radum, Quarry. Yeah. That that includes all three of those lakes. Yes.

Okay. And then you said on Lake H, Zone 7, and the previous owners had a structure there, and they want it removed? No. So they're under the reclamation plan and under LabCorp, they assumed that once the saint

the once the sites had been mined out, they were gonna have a diversion structure from the Arroyo Mocho into Lake H. Okay? What what has been determined since that time so LabCorp is, like, late seventies, early eighties. The reclamation plan was approved, I think, in early two thousands and then amended a couple times. But, essentially, what's happened since then is zone seven doesn't want the the and they're gonna be the ones managing the lakes. Right? They don't want the erosion they don't want the diversion structure. Lehi doesn't think it's necessary, so they're negotiating now an in lieu payment, which they'd use for the similar things like flood control or water management, sort of the

same intent, but they just no one wants it. Right? So now they're just haggling over what the appropriate price is. So the diversion control, is that bringing water from, like, one of the creeks nearby or rivers next next nearby and transferring it to Lake H? Was that what the purpose was for?

It gonna it was gonna take water and divert water from the Arroyo Mocho That's into Lake H. That's never been constructed, so they're trying to figure out a workaround. So we'd go from the Arroyo Mocho to Lake H. Correct. Which would reduce flooding. K.

Which could also reduce flooding. Yeah.

And I think that's what they're looking for. They don't think that would work very well. So they're looking for a way to reduce flooding, but not the the design that they thought back in 1981 would work. Thank you.

Other questions? Commissioner Hernandez?

Page on the slide deck in bullet. It says that periodic reviews will take place for snow area mine sites. Earlier, you said that periodic the definition of periodic can be five years. Can you further clarify or spell that out, please?

So it's supposed to be five years. I think what ends up happening is when the county is working with these operators, they're they say, hey. We've got amendment we're thinking. Can we just postpone the periodic review or delay it? I think with so it should be every five years, but it hasn't been the case historically. And the ones that but we are we sort of are past waiting, and we're moving and getting those done this year. So, hopefully, you know, five years from now, we can work with the operators to try to stay closer to that five year schedule.

Gustavo? Thank you. Do we have a map showing where Lake A And B are in the Elliott Quarry? Where's Lake A and Lake B?

So if you go back why don't you go to Elliott? I think there's also in your staff report packet. If you goes go at the very end of the well, like, the last couple of pages, there's Attachment B, which is the Lake A repairs. So the area to the East of Isabel Avenue, that's Lake A, and that's where they're gonna be doing the repairs that are documented on attachment B. And then the area West Of Isabelle adjacent just right across the street, that's Lake B.

So you can see there's some water there, but that whole area is demarcated as Lake B. Then the last figure attachment c shows you the areas that they're gonna be doing some additional erosion control and repair areas South Of Lake B.

Okay. Of course. Thank you so much. Any other questions?

This is more of a comment. When you guys make your packets, do me a favor. Try either three section on it was actually the last item we 10 a that was this on. There were three sections that wasn't there twice. So I actually take your whole packet apart, pull that out because I and because it's me, it's just stuff in my way. So but there's three sections that are actually in there that are in there twice. And I literally went into my packet, took it apart, separated each section, tried to organize it the way it backed originally, but I took out the section we're in there twice. Okay. If you can watch that because when I'm seeing it twice and I'm reading them, now I gotta confirm it's the same thing, and it was. But I gotta compare notes and some of them are only two pages and some are like 12 pages.

So if you can reduce my workload, I would appreciate it. Thank you. That's my goal.

Okay. So we're done with that item. It's or so it seems. I don't see Andy's hand up. Okay. Moving on. We are delaying the Ralph and Brown Act training to the next meeting, and we'll have county staff get ahold of us to make sure we can attend. Next item, staff comments and correspondence.

There are no staff items or correspondence.

Chair's report, I have nothing. Commission announcements, comments, and reports? Nothing. We are adjourned.

Yep.

Steve?