I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you Thank you. I would like to call to order our meeting of the planning meeting planning committee here for Thursday March 13th. I'd like to ask the clerk to please call the roll to establish quorum. Supervisor Mark has excused supervisor Tam present supervisor Miley supervisor for tonight to establish quorum. Supervisor Marquez, excused. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Miley. Supervisor Fortinato-Boss. Present. Present and Albert. Present. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. Will you please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Alleg the public to participate either in person or online. If you are in person and wish to speak on an item a Public comment. Please fill out a speaker slip and the clerk will now provide brief instructions on how to participate remotely Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines a link to the document is included in today's agenda If you are joining the meeting using a computer, use the button at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand and to request to speak. When called to speak, please unmute your microphone and say your name. If you are calling in, dial star nine to raise your hand to speak. When you are called to speak, the host will enable you to speak. If you decide not to speak, notify the clerk when your call is unmuted, or you may simply hang up and dial back into the meeting. As a reminder, you may always just observe the meeting without participating by clicking on the view now link on the county's web page at acgov.org. When called, you will have two minutes to speak. Please limit your remarks to the time allocated. Public comment will generally alternate between in-person and online speakers as is termined by the president of the board and subject to overall time limit. Thank you. Thank you. Our first item of business is to approve the minutes from the planning meeting on February 20th. So I recall we really had to cancel. Mr. Chair, I I'll move approval. Yeah. Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll ask for a roll call vote. Supervisor Mark has excused. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Supervisor Fortinato Bas. Aye. President Halbert. Aye. Approved. Thank you. Item two is we don't have any litigation to go to closed session on. Item three is our consent calendar. They're motion to approve our consent calendar. I will move the consent calendar. Is there any public comment on the consent calendar? Item three. Seeing none, I'll ask for a rule called vote, please. Supervisor Mark has excused. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Supervisor Fortinato Bloss. Aye. President Halbert. Aye. Approved. Thank you. Item four is a public hearing and appeal by applicant Chiyoma, Chukz, or G of Alameda County Planning Commission's decision to reverse the planning directors approval of site development review regarding construction of a new commercial building with no parking requirements. Is there a staff report on this? this. Aubrey Rose Alameda County Planning Department, I'll be presenting. Can we share the slide? I'll be presenting. Can we share the slide show please. Joe, please. Reminder if anybody wants to speak on this item, fill out a speaker slip card or be ready to raise your hand. Thank you. Okay, again, this is appeal number two of a planning commission approval of a first appeal on December 18th of last year. That was of a planning director's approval of in on August 21st for site development review to construct a one story 6,840 square foot commercial building, containing six commercial spaces, consisting of one restaurant and five retail, between 500 and a thousand square foot each and no parking on the site where none is required on a 7,600 square foot vacant lot. And the appellant Mr. Mark Heyslope is present as is the property owner Mr. Lee and the applicant Mr. Win. This is at 16035 East 14th Street in Ashland in the Eden area general plan and within the Ashland and Chiriland Business District specific plan projects exempt from Sequa as class three new construction of a small structure. Next slide. Here's the subject site. It's a nearly triangular shaped corner lot, fronting East 14th Street at Ashland Ave. You can see where a, you may be able to see where the former building at the site had been demolished and looks like the parking from the adjacent site has been paved over from that property owner on to this side. Next slide please. And here's some street views. So facing west 16035 East 14th Street in the lower right and at the upper right facing the corner and lower right facing the site from Ashland facing east towards the hills. So the bases of the second appeal and staff's responses, source of discussion, California government code 5863.2A prevents jurisdictions from requiring parking within a half mile radius of major transit site, which is met by this proposal because it is just over four tenths of a mile from the A fair art station. Also, the state code requires a 30-day waiver deadline, which was not submitted. And also requires a substantial negative impact, be demonstrated, which was not demonstrated. As in terms of the specific plan, the development code is not required parking. So 5,000 square feet or more of retail, which is not a part of this proposal would require parking and restaurants in the zoning district do not require parking. In terms of the first appellants argument, which focused on anticipated impacts to parking, again the specific plan policies allow for no parking. and in terms of the second appellants argument that the petitioner has no standing staff respectfully agrees and feels the first appellant does have standing. However, the project is in the community's best interest, the second appellant fines and staff agrees as well. Next slide please. So here is an architectural rendition of the front of the building, seen from East Fort Tink Street at the corner of Ashland Ave in Ashland. And here are some elevations from each front edge at the top left from East 14th Street, bottom right from Ashland Avenue. So this is six sweet five retail on one restaurant. floor plans on the left to show the partition of spaces in the center to show very limited landscaping on this small site and on the right slide, a right side of the slide. The image depicts the floor plans who proposed on the site to give a representation of the proposed layout that was approved in August. And this table is right out of the Ashland and Cherrylandri land business district specific plan to illustrate that retail proposals in the DMU zoning district under 5,000 square feet such as what was a proposed and approved require no parking in that restaurants of any size in this DMU district require no parking as well. This is the parking requirements from the specific plan, which require no parking for this project. So it was proposed as such and approved. This slide is to indicate where on-street parking is and is not allowed in the vicinity. There are some prohibited spaces along the frontage, including along Ashland Avenue. You can see on the left the neighbors on-site parking currently encroaches onto the vacant site. And the slide is to indicate planning discussions, planning department's discussions with the public works agency regarding any potential there may be to open up additional on street parking. There are some spaces that are not up potential parking spaces along the Ashland frontage, due to ingrown sensors, and then other potential spaces beyond that that could potentially be allowed for on street parking that currently, private parking. California Assembly Bill 2097, AB 97. So this was signed in 2022, and this is the state law that preamps the jurisdiction from requiring parking for a site with, located within locally within a half mile of major transit site, which is met by this site as it's just over four tenths of a mile in the Bayford Park station. It's been some discussion about how the distance is measured, is pretty clear in the statute that it's a straight line measurement and not a pedestrian path to travel for instance. And also from the state law, legislature, there's a state parking mandate under Section I, legislature, fines and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces and increase greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this section is still be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section. And this next to last slide is just to illustrate a prior approval for the site that involved merging this site and the adjacent site owned by the first depellant and replacing the existing site with a building that would have had a larger building than what's been proposed here that would have also had no parking. Project was never completed other than the demolition. There's been no parcel merger or construction on the corner site. So in conclusion, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the second appeal and uphold the planning director's decision of approval dated August 21st for site development review. PLM 2024-0011, for new commercial building with six commercial spaces on a vacant lot at 16035 East 14th Street. So the second appellant is here and the property owner and architect applicant and staffs available to answer any questions you may have as well. Thank you. Okay. I guess it's a customer that we would allow for each side to give a few minutes of their own testimony. So do we have the appellant and or I'm still confused. The applicant and the appellant five minutes for each. Welcome. Thank you very much. My name is Mark Hayes-Loup, I'm with CHS Development Group, and I'm representing the owner of the property, the appellant applicant, since this is an appeal, an appeal. The staff report clearly states the state of the law that the jurisdiction is not permitted to impose off street parking on this project. The planning commission, if you read, listen to the tape as I did, they basically, their criticism was of the state law, not of this project. And there's nothing we can do about that. Nor is there anything we can do about the street parking. There are remedies for that. The specific plan which this board approved doesn't require parking. And I cited in my letter the massive amount of evidence that consists in the legislative history of the government code section, as well as the site to the EIR, the public hearings, and your votes concerning the adoption of the specific plan, which is in question here. That is the legal aspect, and I'd like to take the lawyer hat off for a moment and put the developer and planner hat on. As a developer, all we ever ask is tell me what the rules are and we will follow the rules which we have here. We are not asking for any special privileges. We are not asking for any variances. We're not asking for statement of overriding concern or anything else. All we're asking is an approval of a project that fits your zoning, fits the law, and will help the neighborhood. The main concern comes from Mr. Tom's who owns the building next door. And he submitted some signatures from lots of people. I assume they're customers of his and the barber shop that rents space from him. And I appreciate the fact that a parking may be tight and he may see this as making parking a little tighter, which will impact him economically. So the impact on him and the barbershop owner are purely economic. And as a planner, I take a little wider view than just this little corner lot and I look at what's going on in that neighborhood. There's already several businesses just a half a block away, the other side of public storage that are storefronts that have no off-street parking whatsoever and they've been there for many, many years. I also note from the point of view of business is that directly across the street there's a new park going in that's going to have some public parking attached to it. Additionally, there is the It's Terrace residential project with 79 units, 144 bedrooms, which on my count usually comes up with about 200 new residents that are going to need haircuts and other services in the area. This is an area that like most of our sub-urban areas are transiting into more and more urban environment. And the density is established by many many people and studies as to be a good thing economically for everybody. So I believe that Mr. Tom's and his tenants will not be adversely injured by this project. And I reach out to them with that in mind. I also note that the project for the merger of the two properties back in 2009 may not go forward at this time, but I also note that Mr. Tom's recently in a televised interview on Fox News indicated that he was going to be putting his property on the market because it moved himself and his family to Muscle Charles Alabama for various reasons. I would submit that his property, which is built in 1947, is almost 80 years old, may be the next project that comes before you for development and they will be utilizing the same zoning and the same state laws that we are utilizing here. So we don't think there's a factual negative impact on the neighborhood or even the adjoining business. We believe that the project absolutely conforms with your rules and regulations, and we would urge you that you adopt the appeal and that you adopt the resolution that's in the packet submitted by planning and reinstate the approval by the planning director. If you have any questions, mostly architect, myself, and the owner here answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Very good, thank you. Is there anybody on the other side that is to speak, I guess the owner next door? I don't think so. I'm not sure, they may be online. I don't know if they're in the audience. Is there anybody online that is? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Wonderful presentation. I appreciate you. Seeing none, I'll ask if there's any. No, that's not one of the parties to this, I believe. He's public comment. So we have the staff here. We have the applicant appellant. This is an appeal of an appeal. Are there any questions of them before we go to public comment and deliberations? I recognize Supervisor Miley. Yeah, thank you. The specific plan refreshment of my memory. The action chairland specific plan? Oh that was in like 2015 2016. Did we We've amended it all. We've amended it one time shortly after we just amended it for the housing element. Before that, there was a related to ground floor retail amendment that was done, I think, in 2018 or something. So is this the first instance of, you utilize the specific plan for this type of purpose of no parking? I don't recall. Because then anything coming to the board over the last few years since the adoption of the specific plan that raised this issue. Well, we don't get a kind of new development along this 14th. I don't know that there's been zero projects up to the same provision, but this is the first one that I can recall that's been appealed. the um... and what? a de-record the What Do you recall why we decided to have any parking requirements at all? Well the the action chairland specific plan and we went through a a rigorous community process I think that at It is I think one of the one uh, the tenants of the planning discipline, you could say, to be able to minimize parking, especially in a urban area, also near transit. It's part of, uh, I think a, uh, one of the principles of smart growth to be able to limit parking and limit the dependence on automobiles and try to increase bicycle use transit on all those sort of good planning principles along major commercial corridors. And that certainly seemed like that was a case why this particular rule was included in this specific plan. At the time of the adoption, I don't recall there being much pushback on it. Yeah, no either. Were you the planning director then, Albert? It's not a recall. He could push back on that either. Just seemed to be something made a lot of common sense. But this is the first time this situation has risen. Under the state law, why is it measured as a straight line and not as a pedestrian walk? The walk because if I get off a part, I want go to the restaurant or I met the restaurant, I'm gonna go to the bar, I'm not gonna take a straight line. I'm gonna go to the bird zone. Yeah, well, I think that, I can't think of a case where distance is measured like that. I know that in our zoning code, we also measure from a line as a crow flies And I think the state also adopts that same that same method of measuring distance What just seems to me Then make a lot of common sense to particularly If it's based on people not driving and wanting to bike or walk, it just seems to me it should be measured based on those routes as opposed to as the bird flies. Do we know what it would be if it was measured based on a pedestrian or bicycle route? I don't know that we had that information. I imagine that not everybody would travel the same way if they were to walk through the, you know, and all that. So it probably varies. I'm going to assume that it's probably over half a mile because it's for 0.42 miles. So it's likely that extra 0.8 miles is probably in there somewhere. If you had a measure as the person walks. Yeah. And I know the legal standard is as the virtualized, right? That's the state law. Can we change that standard locally? Do we have, I know we couldn't do it retroactively for this part project, but do we have that ability to change that standard? I do not believe we do. And one of the reasons why legally a straight line is typically applied is because it avoids issues about which we're out. And there's no vagueness to it and it's a concrete standard. Okay, well that makes a lot of sense. So I just think, once again this is first impression under this specific plan with no parking. I mean, had all these variables and factors I think been before us at the time we might have required some parking. I mean, had all these variables and factors, I think, been before us at the time, we might have required, you know, some parking as opposed to just blanketly saying, no parking, because it is troubling. Let me see here. The Planning Commission, they maintain that, let's see, their findings, is not met by the proposal. The Commission determined that no provision of parking despite no requirement to provide parking. It's not suitable for the proposed use of the property. What's the position of staff on that? Well, we followed the standard in the specific plan. I think the planning commission, just a paraphrase, I think they just feel that that standard was wrong, that there should be some kind of required parking. And so I think that's how they ended up voting. I see. Once again, what's staff's opinion of that? The idea of limiting parking is certainly something that It seems to be a statewide as well as a regional trend. We're going to talk a little bit later about transit or into communities, which also limits parking. So I think it's definitely our landage planning has trended that way. I think in the county as well as some of our adjacent cities. I don't know what the right number is, maybe it's 3000 or something like that. It's certainly something that we could explore in the future. We can't change state law, of course. So if something was within a half mile, we're still will be stuck with that standard. But with another part of this specific plan, we could potentially look at that. OK. So I'm going to try to just get a better understanding in my own mind. So the planning commission says it's not suitable. Do we, staff put it out the number of parking spaces? So do we know how many parking, on street parking spaces there are the number of on street parking spaces. Do we know the number and do we know the availability of on-street parking spaces. Do we know the number? And do we know the availability of those spaces during the hours of operation of this particular establishment if it were to be approved? I don't have then the number of parking spaces on-street. This public works on. Are they with us virtually? Public works. I don't think that they're. Because what I'm trying to get at is, if there are 20 on street parking spaces and of that 20, let's say only five are available at any point in time during the day or in the evening, I'm going to try to get a sense of what would be the flow at the restaurant in terms of the customers. Do we have a sense of that? I don't have information on that. Okay. And not enough of the staff can answer this, but maybe the appellant can answer it. What, how many customers do you anticipate coming to the restaurant? And how do you anticipate the customers coming to the restaurant? So if staff can't answer that, we have the appellant come back. We can certainly invite the applicant appellant to come back up and comment on. And knowing is what's your capacity in the restaurant? How many customers do you anticipate coming to the restaurant? How do you anticipate those customers coming to the restaurant by foot, by bike, by car? Give me a sense of this. The answer is, as we don't know. I mean, if the restaurant's very successful, obviously they'll be more than if it's not super terribly successful. We expect that the patrons that come to the restaurant, and we expect that there will be employees as well, that will come either on public transit as the area urbanizes or live in the area There is a mobile home park just I think less than a hundred yards away There's the madron terrace project across the street. You don't have to describe it to me. I represent the district I understand it very well. I'm sorry. I'm a little hard to hear. You don't have to describe it to me. I represent the district. I understand it very well. I'm sorry, I'm a little hard to hearing. You don't have to describe it to me. I represent the district very well, and I know the district, and I know everything you're talking about. So at the moment, you don't know how many customers, but hopefully you're gonna be successful, and we want you to be successful. And you're saying your customers and your employees are not going to be a burden on the community. Correct. And anytime a new business, whether it's a restaurant or anything else comes in, there's obviously a cumulative impact on the parking situation. And the question is, is whatever goes into this spot? If you required them to have one parking spot, off street, three parking spots, off street, four parking spots, off street, is that gonna, is that going to significantly improve the street parking situation in the neighborhood? I think that's what has to be looked at more importantly. The other thing we did look at whether or not it would be, we would be able to put effective parking on this spot. And it's a triangular shaped piece of property. There's a bus stop on 14th Street, which pretty much prohibits you know, having parking access off of 14th. So it would have to come off of Ashland. And when you lay it out, maybe you could get one, maybe you could get two parking spaces. But with turnaround and with backing up areas and all that other kind of stuff, you're almost to the point where you make the project economically infeasible. And the real question is, is, with those two spots, make a significant enough impact on what else is going on in the neighborhood to basically cripple this owner's economic use of the project. Got. So how many employees will be? Pardon me? How many employees will work at the restaurant and what shifts? How many employees? Yeah, the restaurant is, I think, a relatively small part. I don't know. How many employees? Yeah, it's a small restaurant and the restaurant is going to be run by the owner's wife. Okay So that's the when we talk about the employees Are we also including the owner's wife being there too? But if the employees live out of the area and drive to work in a small restaurant, then obviously they're going to add to the parking impact in the community. We would expect that the hourly wage employees are probably come by public transit, bicycle, or walk. We've seen this over and over again in areas. We recently finished a survey on a assisted living facility where there was a question about the employees and most of the hourly employees either came by bus or were dropped off or something like that. Will this project have an impact on the parking in the neighborhood? Absolutely. Is it significant enough for you to deny a project that fits with all the other rules and regulations that you've imposed on property owners? that's what you have to decide. Right. And so I'm basically listening. So there could be as many as three folks working there, the owner's wife and two employees. Plus the customer base might be as many as three or more, but the point is that six folks. So if they don't come by bike or public transportation, they will all park on the street. And then what about deliveries? How's that going to be managed? Well, the way their deliveries are handled pretty much for other businesses in the area. I mean, there's five storefronts just to have a block away that have no street parking. I would assume that trucks come and go. Most restaurants receive their food deliveries etc. at off-hours usually in the very very early morning. The same thing with garbage. You know the garbage is picked up dump, the bins or whatever they are will be placed out at the curb and in the street and they'll be picked up in an off time. The other issue that was raised in the planning commission was about construction. I mean, because this is going to be a zero-lot line construction. That goes on in all our urban areas every single day. Our company has done four projects on a state highway on El Camino with zero lot line. And you have to coordinate with CalTrans and you have to coordinate with the city and they coordinate with the fire department so they know when we're going to have to close a lane because we're pouring concrete and although it works it's part of the deal and construction issues are also temporary once it'll be built. Right, and that's really at least my concern, the construction piece. I'm more concerned about because it also mentions that there'll be no substantial negative impact in the emphasis on substantial. That's the criteria in the standard we have to follow, right? So that is the standard that is established, but the evidence has to, again, the findings have to be made within 30 days of the application. And the Planning Commission's efforts to make findings for parking were well after the 30 day period authorized by the statute for an exception to the no mandate of minimum parking. And although they're now looking at the findings from a specific plan, local governments cannot override state law. Okay, and then one other quick question. And once again, I'm just doing my job because I have a responsibility to kind of understand because we want to see economic development, but we also want to see the context of being something beneficial to the greater good. So the owner's wife, she's gonna be at the restaurant. How is she gonna get to the restaurant and is she gonna park on the street? And why wouldn't you have one space for her to park on the property? The answer to your question is that anyone who works or uses the restaurant or any of the other spaces in the place that drive there will park on the street. And that will have an impact on the neighborhood. Will it have a significant impact beyond what it is is really the question. And we're not asking for any special privilege that other shops in the neighborhood don't have, or that even the neighboring property will have when it gets redeveloped. Right, I got you. So, I'm sure my colleagues might have questions, and there'll be other, maybe public comment. But in the meantime, could we call Daniel Public Works and give public works on virtually, so they can answer some of my questions. So so thank you. Sure. Thank you very much before we go to public comment Are there any other questions? Let's have public comment Any speakers in the rules. I live in the neighborhood, none of the planning commissioners that, none of the planning commissioners actually live in the neighborhood. This is going to be a good project. Mac unanimously approved it. So I think that speaks for itself. Imagine going into the Rock Ridge neighborhood, or Park Street in Alameda, Telegraph Avenue College, Avenue, and requiring them to tear down 75% of their buildings because you need to make way for parking. I mean, I what you have against this neighborhood thriving. It's odd. It's kind of strange to me. Something that's not in this specific plan is the erection of 100 foot electronic billboard pole. That's not in this specific plan. That's not allowed. So I'm just kind of interested why this is getting such scrutiny when the applicant followed all of the rules. The parking around thinking is ossified. Albert is correct in that new planning is looking at parking differently because we see economic places, economic development thrive when it's walkable, when it's human scale, not built for cars. So I'm just having trouble wondering why the thinking is just so, so ossified around maybe a 1950s version of how economics works. The county needs to create shared parking lots if anything. Housing Element says there are no jobs in Ashland. So what you wanna do is destroy this project. Yeah, that's a good idea. Kelly, you're on the line, you have two minutes. Yeah, I very much agree with that idea that I didn't hear too much about the difference out to the Eden Mac. You know, if this was the cast of Allie Mac that was had rendered a judgment, we'd be paying them different all do the difference.. But when the even Mac renders their judgment, we don't hear about all this, about that difference. Let's talk about the crow flies. You know, imagine there was some railroad tracks or there was a creek or something. And the county came in and we'll dec't it built a bridge or built a tunnel so that people could get across and walk from one part of the neighborhood to another? All of a sudden, you would have a different walking distance, wouldn't you? So that's why another reason, or let's say you built a little sidewalk or a walkway somewhere. All of a sudden the walking distance would change. That's why you can't use real walking distances. You have to go with, you know, as the crow flies, because you need a real standard and you can't just change your standards whenever something changes. You have to have a fixed standard. And then you notice that when the app, when the appellants are talking, when the county talks, they talk forever. There's no time limit on staff, but when the appellants are talking, you give them what, five minutes or whatever, you, there's a strict time limit. So that doesn't seem too fair, does it? And this county, when you talk about the parking, street parking, if this was Walmart, if this was Costco, you could walk 500 feet of the crow flies across a giant parking lot, and that would still count as parking. But in this case, I'm not sure you'd count parking 500 feet away. Thank you. Matt Turner, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Hey, just wanted to quickly answer the question about the distance of measured the walking distance there. It's just barely over a kilometer, 0.67 miles. So pretty reasonable walking distance there. And Tyler's point about a shared parking facility in this area, that would be an economic miracle. It's worked really well for Heyward's downtown business district. I think that's something that Ashland could sorely use. That's it. Mark Crawford, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Good morning. I just got, just got on. I don't know what was said before this. I'm going to go on what occurred at the planning commission when it was there. I thought that as far as the measurement goes, we just establish it as the crow flies, not whether you're walking or driving. At least that was the case at that point in time. I think the planning commission understood that state law requires that the appeal be turned down. The problem that we had was there's a caveat in the state law where within a certain period of time, staff can make a finding that not having parking on this project puts a substantial burden on parking on neighboring properties, which is exactly the problem that we have here. Staff didn't do that at that time, and we couldn't get staff to agree to look at that on future projects and do that in the future. There was just no, you know, cooperation in that area. And I think the planning commission was a little bit shocked by that. Also, I think, and, you know the planning commission meeting about this, you know, a dream to have, you know, no parking anywhere and everyone's in bicycles and that's all great, but that's not reality. The reality is people use their cars and that building there, I don't even know how you're going to be able to build it. It's going to end up being, because no businesses are going to want to be there, because there's no way for their customers to park. It's just very poor planning. It should not be passed. I understand that your hands are tied, but I think certainly, at least giving some direction to staff in the future to look at making that finding and whether that needs to be made at the beginning of the process. And also whether the downtown specific plan in that area needs to be changed because it's basically so you don't have to have parking for restaurants. You don't have to have parking for businesses under a certain size. And that just doesn't make any sense at all. There's no reason to build new buildings and put all of the parking burden on other businesses that have been there for decades. Thank you. No more speakers. Okay, I'll bring it back for deliberation and or to see if the question of public works has been answered or supervise my life. Thank you. So yeah, appreciate the speakers comments. Because I did, that's what I was concerned about. The fact that the specific plan doesn't have any requirement for parking. I think like you said, Albert, when we went down that road, there's no issues around that or concerns. But I do think we need to either have a finding or investigate either revisit the specific plan to determine if parking should be some underlining parking requirement. Or if we keep the specific way I'm going to come up with a finding on a particular project that parking is not going to be problematic if there's no parking for this particular project in the area of the specific plan that's designated for this particular type of use. And I'm not, everyone's going to not talk about this particular project at this point in time, but as this was, as I see it, a first impression on this specific plan, because we've never seen this before, I just think it warns further analysis on the part of the planning staff Prospectively, I know we can't do this retroactively, but prospectively The the other thing is I find it very interesting Kelly agreeing with county council When is Kelly ever agreed with county council? That's remarkable. I don't know if what's going on there, but the standard you agreed with County Council, my goodness. And then we did give the applicant the appellant more time to speak, spoke, and then I came back and spoke some more. So staff's going to speak longer because we're relying on the staff's expertise to answer questions and to provide some form of guidance. And then in terms of Tyler, I definitely value the fact that Tyler lives in the area. It is on the Mac. But when we have the advisory body, the Mac in the planning commission, the decision-making body, coming up with conflicting positions. I think it warns the board to try to grapple with whether there's any merit to either side, and that's what I'm grappling with. But I do think under the circumstances, we're going to have to the appeal and support this project. But I do would, I would like to hear from staff about either revisiting specific plan or coming up with a finding relative to parking. Sure, I can speak to that. There was a parking slash traffic study, more of a parking analysis done as one of the implementing measures of the specific plans. We do have as a baseline to work from. They went around and counted all the parking spaces, including around the bar station to determine parking demand. And also the likelihood of needing a municipal parking lot along those lines. I haven't read it in months or years, but that's in more or less that's what it that that that was the purpose of that study. So we had that as a baseline to move off of. And I think that we certainly can do that. We're not we're not we don't have any objections to studying parking and even creating a finding potentially that we would add to this specific plan specifically around parking. I think that'd be helpful because in this instance you know your staff could tell me and I don't know if public works is on yet. How many parking spaces are available in that area? What's the utilization of those parking spaces and what will be the impact of this restaurant, this business going in with no parking? Well, we can't tell you. We just did a quick study just based on the area and then there seems that the staff showed a graphic there of all the available parking spaces. There seems to be between 15 and 20 parking spaces in the immediate area adjacent to the site, whether in terms of how often they're used and available, we don't have that information. And then the number of employees, the number of customers, I think all that's going to analysis around the parking. Because I mean, I just think we have an obligation to do our due diligence. Obviously, we all want people to bike and take and walk. I'm a big proponent of deserian safety and walking and using transit. But we do know people will continue to use cars. We don't know to what level or degree if everybody at this restaurant walks and bikes. That's great. But if they don't, we should have a sense of what will be the burden. And right now, we think it will be, we're analysis or thinking it will not be substantial. But I'm not sure we've really drilled down as far as we could to make sure of that. And that's why I think the findings need to be much more specificity. Go prospectively as opposed to what we have here today before us. I think what we have today. We're going to support the project. Is that a motion to provide a mic? Well, there might be other supervisors who want to speak, but when you're ready for a motion.'ll make it let me speak and I'll make the motion. I've had the opportunity to patronize some of the businesses in this area and I agree it's an area that's going through some transitions right now from a business standpoint when When I was there, I counted maybe like seven parking spaces that were available. But I think this project is consistent with our specific plan, the Ashland, Cherryland Business District Plan. And if we want to change the plan, that's one thing, but we shouldn't penalize this particular project at this time for following the plan that is in place and the requirements of that plan. There is onsite parking that is available, and I think the hope and the plan envision having some sort of like symbiotic relationship between the businesses if you're there for a haircut maybe you can stop by the restaurant or you know go to the laundry mat or you know go go across the street so I think the plan that is before us is basically an appeal so So I will move that we approve the appeal to planning commissions action and also adopt the category exemption from CEQA. Very good, the motion's been moved by Supervisor Tam and second by Supervisor Miley. I'll just make the comment that indeed, I want to sympathize with the developer who said, I don't make the rules we just play by them. Rules are clear and we're doing that. However, as my colleague points out, prospectively, we have to look at what those rules are. And so I would ask that we do that at the MAC level, the local specific plan level, probably before the adjacent property owner goes to make their application, if they're selling the property. But indeed, I look forward to this business being wildly successful, and that the community benefits from it and that we also be mindful of future development and be smart about it. So I commend my colleagues for bringing that. It is a balancing act, isn't it, Supervisor Finley? So with that said, I'll call for the roll call. Mr. Chairman, if I might point of clarification, there's a resolution that is required to be adopted and I would assume your motion would be inclusive of adopting the appropriate resolution. Yes, the motion includes adopting the resolution, approving the appeal. Okay, with a seconder. Very good. Thank you very much for doing that roll call vote, please. Supervisor Mark has excused supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Yes. Supervisor Fortinato-Boss. Aye. President Halbert. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you very much. The next item. Supervisor Miley. Yeah, just one quick thing. So before we leave off this, so what's the staff's thinking about coming up with the process for the findings around parking? Well, the idea to work at the Mac level sounds good to me. I think that we can certainly do that and perhaps go to the Eden Mac and present this as an item and get their feedback and report back either to, I guess, TMP or maybe on the corporate services or both. Ultimately, we do have to go to the planning commission. Yes. Okay. All right. Yeah. Okay. Start with the Mac and bring it to one of the board committees before we take it to the planning commission. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Next item is item five, resolution of the board of supervisors' authorized and the refund of unexpected and uncommitted in lieu park fees. Staff report? Sure. The county has had an ordinance, the county has had an ordinance on the books for decades related to the collection of park fees to mitigate impacts for new development. For example, when a new single family home is built, the builder has to pay the county roughly about $10,000 or $1,000 for per unit to mitigate the impacts of potential park users. That money has accrued over many, many years. and it is broken down by subarea, for example, a home in Fairview. There's a special fund for those park fees, cash revalley, and then the Eden area, including San Lorenzo, Ashton, Sherryland, and Hayward acres, etc. So those, the process to collect fees and put them into trust fund accounts in CDA has been an existence for many years. There is a provision in the county code that requires any funds that are not committed or expended within five years after payment of that fee. have to be refunded to the property owner. That's part of the, it's in our county code. It also related to the State Mitigation Fee Act, which also contains that language. And so there is a significant number of a civic amount of money that meets that criteria in terms of being older than five years. That is in your board letter on page two. There's a table there that indicates there's 1.5 million roughly in fees that are over five years and it does break down by a sub area that you can take a look at. There's also a table in the board letter that talks about the refunds per sub area and the range of refunds that will have to be given. This provision again is part of our county code. It does require an action by the planning commission to recommend the board authorized these refunds that has happened. This went to the planning commission on September 16th, where the item was presented by staff and action was taken by the planning commission to recommend that the board Authorize these refunds and and so there is a resolution containing your packet and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have there's also a copy of the actual Park fee ordinance and Just by way of mentioning it there was It's not part of the action today, but we are mending the ordinance also to establish the maxes, advisory committees to be able to have some level of oversight on park fees. Hard has been part of that process. I only mentioned it just FYI, it's not on your docket for today, but we are mending that ordinance to create that level of oversight. Very good questions, comments, supervisor Miley. Yes, I know supervisor Tam and I have heard this item at the on the corporate services committee at least on one occasion maybe twice. I mean, it's unfortunate that the park fees were not utilized for park purposes, but the law requires that they be refunded. And it's rare that government is refunding money back to taxpayers. So in that sense, it's a good thing. In the sense that these aren't being available for park use, that's a bad thing. But prospectively, in Albert pointed it out, this issue of hard in the county and making sure the fees are utilized, we're going to correct that through the max, establishing them as the body that would provide advice on how the park fees should be utilized. And hopefully that ordinance will be coming to us in the very near future. And so there'll be more of a regulatory process for this to be undertaken. So I'm not putting blame on the planning staff or the community development agency for missing this, but I know hard was very eager to get these funds. And I think they'd been requesting them for a while, but I think the turnover with this planning director and the former planning director for some going away. This just wasn't captured but we're correct at going forward into the future. So if people can rest assured that any impact fees will be appropriately calculated and I'm appropriately taken to the EEDMAC, the cash valley MAC, for every MAC too. And even if we do an East County MAC, the East County MAC to determine how fees should be utilized for wet park purposes and things of that nature, When do you think the ordinance will get to us, Albert? So I've gone to all the max on this. They, luckily, they've all recommended approval for becoming an advisor committee as well as all the changes to the ordinance. So it's got to go to the Planning Commission, TMP, and then the full board. I'll try to just add one important note that by making this change, the max become no longer technically advisory bodies, they are making decisions. They would then become subject to the Fair Political Practices Act, but include them in disclosure codes, and they will have to file for them 700 reports. And so they should be aware of that and I'm not sure that they've been informed of that, but it is a material change to the way that they are organized. All right. So I guess the County Council has indicated that we should make sure the max are aware that before the ordinance gets to the board so that if we codify that, the max are aware of their obligations. So with that process, as you outlined, this could come to the board. This is March, maybe before summer recess. Yes, I think so. Very good. Supervisor Tam. Thank you, Chair Harbert. And, uh, surprise, or my Lee is correct. this has a come before the unincorporated services committee meeting with hard present and today the action is not basically reconstituting the authorities of the max. What I am hopeful about is like in order to prevent something like this from happening is to have some oversight in monitoring the amount that's in the fund, how long it's been there and any of the projects that are queued up. But my concern really is, I'll be frank, the playing process takes a long time at the county. And if you're holding onto funds for five years and you have to use it for five within that five year plan, and are you just allowed to show progress toward the plan or you have to actually be in construction with the funds? So the way that it works is that it's really based on the request, for example, we hold onto the funds and in the West County, it's hard as the primary park district, but the same exists, for exampleARPD in Livermore which is a little more area district and then the city of Pleasant and also has a recreation department. So they're all supposed to ask the county when they're when they want funds, ask for the balance and then submit a letter and it goes to the advisory committees in this case the max and then we release the funds to the park district So it's not related to any Planning project or plan. I'm sorry not the planning process for the county the planning process within the park district Yeah, so the the ordinance just says upon request so as soon as they request them for particular park project Then the clock stops and then those you know there anything Younger than five years is sort of safe, you could say. But the hard could probably better answer in terms of how they view the request in relation to their park planning. Okay, and there's a hard representative in the audience. Oh,. Why don't we invite the hard representative to come and speak. Good morning. My name is Thomas Amolo. I am the management analyst with the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District. I appreciate you guys hearing this event today. So yes, the way hard is going to move forward with ensuring that these funds do not go over the five years is every year there's an AB 1600 form that is produced which says how much is in the funds and how much have been collected in that year. Using that fund we look through our entire list of parks that we're looking at where our bonds are going and look at the projects that are kind of moving forward and identify based on that community needs. We've just completed community needs assessment. We understand who's using our parks and when using all that information. We then write a letter to the planning director requesting the funds for specific parks. So some of the work that's been done for the current money is parks that we know we are ready to move forward on and this money is supported us with ensuring that they go forward with completing them for example in Caster Valley. We've known that there has been a need to redo the parking lot of baitries. Once we saw that these funds are available we requested it for that project and now we're now that we've received it we're moving forward with the completing of the project. And so we're going to continuously be monitoring the AB 1600 understanding who's what how much additional housing is being built and knowing what those funds are what is in those funds and then being able to utilize those in addition to some of the other funds we have currently to supplement some of the current projects that are underway. So the funds that are currently in play have you, has hard made a request and earmarked all of them? Yes, we have. We will be going to the board of directors on Monday to basically put those funds in the specific projects that were outlined in the letters that we sent to the planning director. And so there's an outline of what the funds is being used for, which parks they're being used for, and then I also included the justification for those funds being used at those specific locations. What happens if for for some reason, the earmark funds don't get used because the projects got delayed? This would be within the capital's framework. They're the ones who are moving forward those, but when we identified these projects, we went through our own process of going to our own board of directors, our own study session, our own citizen advisory committees to talk about these projects and through that process we ensure that we had all the necessary steps to move forward with completing the process. And so if that comes up I believe we'd write a new letter to the county about the amendment, but that is not something that we have run into at the moment. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Very good. Any more questions before we go to public comment? Just a brief comment. This is obvious, a general comment. This is obviously an unfortunate situation, and I just want to recognize the work that is being done to make sure this doesn't happen again. So glad to hear about the process moving forward with hard as well as the work that the max will do in relation to more oversight on this. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to say one of the best ways to do that is to streamline processes. We have committees on top of committees and agencies on top of agencies and protocols on top of protocols. Here we went five years and all they do is ask for the money and we didn't ask for the money. And once you ask for it, then you got to be able to use it. And so we got to get stuff done. So thank you for being here for the Reps and of Hard. I'm going to guess we have some public comment. Please. Three online. Tyler, you have two minutes? All right, thank you. Hi, I mean, Tyler Dragagoni again. This is pretty poultry supervision from the supervisors. The ordinance was already passed. The form was supposed to be filed. The county dropped the ball. So going back and saying, well, we're actually gonna enforce what we've already passed and what was already worked on. That's a correction. It's not a correction. The correction is funding our park district for the funds that the county through its own inability lost. That's the correction. And in the previous item, there were some supervisors that said, I represent the district, and I care about the district, and I want to see the district do well, and I want to make sure that things are functioning well. Well, who's representing the people there now? This sounds like you're actually representing the county. Who's representing the people that have new neighbors, but the same amount of park service? Who's representing them? Because it doesn't seem like anyone really cares. I think we should put the money in the unincorporated area that was lost by the county and that should be done. So I think this item needs to be continued and the accompanying item, along with a refund, is funds that go to the park district that were lost by the county. We can't just do, we just can't say oopsie. This is like a million and a half dollars and we're just going oops, better luck next time. You need to be responsible and take accountability for what the county lost and what you were unable to supervise. You are our municipal government. Matt Turner, your online, you have two minutes? Hi, yeah, I want to echo some of those sentiments in that, you know, this is one of the more under parked areas in the county. And to just have these funds just lost to the wind is pretty unacceptable for those of us who live here. I mean, my kids live in a neighborhood with no parks, zero. And we have to drive to a sports field as four and a half mile round trip walk to the nearest public basketball hoop. I mean, we need this money. And the idea that the Mac is gonna be decision-making body about these funds, part is an elected body. It's a special district that is supposed to be making these decisions. They're elected to make those decisions. The idea that we're gonna hand, how these funds get spent to advisory bodies as an additional administrative step seems Additionally bureaucratic we we already have the elected representatives for how that money gets spent It's called the Hayward area recreation and parks district So I'd like to see that just be acknowledged and that as is done with the city of Hayward, there's much closer participation with the Hayward area recreation district and they don't go losing these funds. They want them spent in their community. So please restore our hard funds, allowing it to just disappear is unacceptable for us who live in an area that desperately needs these park dollars. Thank you. Kelly, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Thank you. Yeah, I think it's important that this board of supervisors understand that the where the ball that got dropped was not that we didn't get a recommendation from hard or and not that all we didn't get a recommendation from the municipal advisory councils and we need more recommendations. That's not where you dropped the ball. The ball was that you took the money, you put it in your pocket, that's called the County of Alameda's pocket. You kept it there quietly for five years and you never mentioned to the owner or to anybody that you had this money sitting there waiting to get spent on parks and recreation. Okay, you just sat on the money and it was not a problem about recommendations or earmarking. It's a problem about reporting and what is it? And fiduciary duty and fiduciary reporting, you know, to the all the parties involved. Okay, so, you know, and putting that blame on the community development agency, I don't know if the blame should go down there, I think it should go with the county administrator, don't you think? Aren't they the ones with all the accountants? Don't you think you need a lot of accountants for this kind of stuff? You don't need more advisory committees, you need accountants. You failed in your accounting. And then the repair, the remedy, the mitigation, of course, is take the money from the county and give it to the park district so that the parks needed parks can get built. Also, this is related to the Quimbi Act. All you need to do is earmark funds according to Quimbi Act. What other funds are out there subject to the Quimbi Act? Not just these, but others. Quinn be the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the the checkmethos are on the line you have two minutes. Yes, good morning supervisors. My name is Chuck Meadows and I am a fairview resident. Parks represent an investment in our the community. We have a few minutes. Good morning, supervisors. My name is Chuck Meadows and I am a Fairview resident. Parks represent an investment in our community. Properly maintain parks increase property values, improve the quality of life, and can serve as a local attraction bringing potential economic benefits to a given area. In this particular instance, the to an administrative oversight, the community lost an estimated 1.5 million in fees that must now be refunded. As a member of the community, I ask that the Board of Supervisors makes the community whole by replacing these funds. As parks add value to an area, hard is an effective investment. They proactively seek out grants to multiply any investment that you make in them. Hard despite the recent bond measure providing them with funding remains well under invested. So therefore I ask for two things. To echo the previous speakers, that the county replaced the funds lost to the community and hard by finding another source of funding for the 1.5 million that will be refunded. And two, I ask that you approve an attachment of a letter to the parties receiving those refunds, asking them whether they will be open to donating a portion of their windfall back to the community. Thank you. Mark Crawford, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Good morning, Supervisors. Once again, there's a lot of history that you're not being told here, and that's intentional. I ran into this by mistake. I saw it on the MAC agenda for the changes to the ordinance when Albert was running around doing that. And I sent him an email and asked if this would come to the planning commission and he said no, which I thought was very odd. So I went to the MAC meeting and talked to the MAC members and basically the MAC asked that this come to the planning commission. So it seemed on me, so under, you know, further a review of what was going on, I found the ordinance and saw that there was supposed to be an annual report to the planning commission on a yearly basis. That's the oversight that's supposed to be occurring here that has never occurred as long as Albert's been there. And as far as the blame goes, the blame is Albert's. He read the ordinance, which obviously he never read. And he's the one administering the funds and thought prior to 2017, he was emptying the account every year and giving all the money to Harvard. And I'm not saying that that's the wrong way to handle it. It just wasn't compliant with county ordinance. And I don't know what your thoughts on that. Bottom line is, county has higher a million and a half dollars because of this mistake of one of your employees and that should be fixed. In addition to that, it was like polling teeth to get this thing to the planning commission, I had to bring it up under chair comments and get the commission to show the planning director director that we needed to see this. Then we had to have several meetings to get to the bottom of it. We asked for an accounting, but the accounting only went back to 2017, 2018, and they said, oh, we don't have any records before that. Well, that's where the million and a half dollar wise, everything that's older than that. So they were still trying to hide that. We were refused to accept that we kept pushing. We got an accounting back to like 2007 and discovered that there was this million and a half dollars and that's the only reason this is in front of you today. How hard we worked on the planning commission to bring this to light. Thank you. No more speakers. Okay, I'll bring it back for discussion and deliberation and perhaps a motion. But he wishing to comment, I see supervisor. Yes, thank you. Press however, again, number of things. First of all, I have no, we have to refund this money. The law requires us to refund this money. And I'm not supportive of us holding this up because the law requires that. And I'm not supportive of us attaching a letter asking people to donate back to the county. I don't think that would be appropriate either so the money can go to hard or wherever. I think the money is going to be refunded to either the appropriate parties and then they can decide what to do with it. But I do think there's merit in what some people are asking that the county look at making, you know, replenishing these funds so they can be used by hard. You know, I've often said hard is the recreational arm for the county. They're a special district, they're their own elected body, etc. A number of us know the hard board members, some of our friends of ours, and we respect hard. And I've had a lot of engagement with hard, since I've been on the board of supervisors. Very satisfactory engagement with hard. They run a quality operation. And I do think there's merit. So I would like to have the board. I know the Budget Ham and I can explore this to the Unincorporated Services Committee, but also I know if the Budget Committee can think about this too. So when we do begin to put together the Budget for fiscal year 2526, we look at where we can find 1.5 million that we could appropriate into the unincorporated area too hard for this use. Since once again, it was the county's fault for this not happening. I'm not going to put the blame on Albert. Even though, and I don't think Albert should lose his job over this, even though the former planning director was on top of it. I mean, mistakes happen or oversight, misappes, misapps happen and the board is not responsible for micro-managing the community development agency. It's a big agency, a number of departments, the planning department, it's just one of those departments. The agency has its own internal accounting and finance people. They have to make sure this is done properly. I think the mere fact that the planning commission and others and hard-profess to our attention is a good thing. And that's one reason why we want to amend the ordinance. So there's more transparency behind this. You know, quite frankly, I was aware of the impact fees. But I didn't know the particulars of all of this. It's not my job to know the particulars, but I didn't know the impact fees are being collected. I thought they're being handled. Hard told me they weren't being handled. Talked to the planning director, thought they were being. So the point is, if we provide more transparency through amending the ordinance and giving this, bringing in the max, that allows for more public transparency on assuring that these funds are being utilized appropriately as well as a timely, as they should be. should be. I know one speaker said, hard should have the ability to determine how the phones are used. Basically hard will, because as I understand it, we're kind of, once again, that's not before today. The ordinance hard will make a recommendation. The max will take up that recommendation and then approve whether or not they feel what hard is recommending for the use of these funds is how they should be used. Then that'll come to the board for us to sign off. Is that kind of the process? Now once the Mac makes the recommendation, the money goes directly to the department. Okay, but hard makes a recommendation to the Macs. Hard makes a request for the funds to the department, then we go to the Macs and say, is there anything cool? And then they say yes, and then we cut the check. So I just want the one speaker and maybe the others to understand how that process would work. Hard, clearly will be in the driver's seat around this when they make the request to the planning staff and it goes to the max and that provides for that transparency on an ongoing basis and on a regular basis. So I just want to say, I appreciate the speakers, but I do think there's merit in the board looking at how we can make hard hole with these, with coming up with the $1.5 million. Any other comments or questions to Roger Tam? Yes, I concur with Surveys or Miley's comments. Later on in our agenda, we're also going to be looking at Transring funds that we've accumulated for open space to the City of Livermore to purchase Open Space and Parklands. And so I've had some conversations with staff to see what was remaining in that and both for East County and West County and what could potentially be used. So I think in terms of trying to make hardhold about this, we also need to look holistically and look at a composite budget to see what they were able to generate through their ballot measures and understand where that need is because the county has restrictions with their different funds. But having said that, I agree that state law basically says we have to refund these funds based on the constraint. So I will move the staff recommendation and adopt the resolution authorizing the refund along with the delegating authority to the agency director. I'll second that. So I'm going to have some comments. I'm not sure exactly what I heard, but taking funds from the East County ultimate land space to make this whole is just not going to be an option. I don't think it is not going to be option, I'll support. But indeed, making sure that we make hard hole, I am supportive of finding ways. For example, we have, I know it's not on the topic for today. And I shouldn't get into all the details because it's not on the agenda. But I am supportive of finding one time sourcing that each of our districts can utilize in our districts that would allow, for example, one district or two districts to share, making hard hole, but allowing for each district to have one time funding for the things that they need. But anyway, that's a separate discussion. Today is just before us approving the funding. And I have some ideas on how we can do that as budget time approaches. And I do think we should clear it up soon, sooner rather than later. Before us is simply the refunding. Again, with reiteration to how this doesn't happen again, I would like to steer us towards more streamlining of processes so that we don't go so long with projects that have money in the bank that need to be spent finding ways that when applicants make development proposals that they don't go over the one year, two year, three year, and they have to reapply and pay fees again. We've got to get more efficient on this. With that said, the most has been made and seconded. I'll call for a roll call vote. Supervisor Mark has excuse. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Yes. Supervisor Fortinato Bas. Aye. President Halbert. Aye. I motion passes. Thank you item six is adoptive resolution committing to take steps toward achieving compliance with the Metro-Politan Transportation Commission's transit-oriented communities policy as a condition for MTC to allocate regional discretionary funding. Brief staff report, please. Good morning, members of the Board. For the record, my name is Angelica Gonzalez from the Community Development Agency's planning department. The item before you is item six on the MTC T.O.C. policy, the Metropolitan Transit or into Communities policy, at Bay Fair and Cashew Valley Station areas. Today I'll be providing a brief overview of MTC's TLC policies, core elements, and requesting the board to consider an adopt a resolution of local support committing to take steps towards achieving compliance with MTC's TLC policy as a condition for MTC to allocate regional discretionary funding. Next slide. As a reminder, the Transit Oriented Communities Policy is a Metropolitan Transportation Commission policy to enact the Bay Area's Regional Plan known as Plan Bay Area 2050. We expect to have two areas subject to this policy, which is the area half mile from a high quality transit. And so that includes cash-revaly station area and the Bay Fair station area in unincorporated Alameda County. So here's a list of forming goals of the TOC policy. The first goal is to increase the overall housing supply in part by increasing density for new residential projects to address the region's housing needs and also to prioritize affordable housing in transit-rich areas. The second goal is to increase density for businesses and commercial development near transit. The third is to prioritize bus transit, active transportation and shared mobility within and around these transit hubs. And finally, the fourth is it aims to support and build partnerships to create equitable transit oriented communities within the entire Bay Area. The policy also has potential benefits that include enhancing the station areas by delivering tangible improvements to our communities. Next slide, please. So why is the transit-oriented communities so important? While it's not a mandatory program, seeking TSE compliance will provide future benefits to the county. Funding from the MTC will be tied to the adoption of TSE policies. The more the county pursues TSE policies and compliance, the better situated we are for future funding. A couple examples of funding sources at risk are listed on this slide which come from NTC who distribute state and federal funds to improve the Bay Area's transportation system. So one key funding source is the one Bay Area grant also known as O-Bag for transportation funding. So we receive about $10 million per cycle. We've received approximately $32 million from this funding source. O-Back Fund support critical infrastructure projects, including the Meeklin Avenue Mission Boulevard Phase 3-4 improvements, and also related to climate protection programs such as Safe Routes to School initiatives that address sidewalk gap closures, allows opportunities to accommodate ADA programs and streetscape improvements. Then there's the regional early action planning grants, also known as REAP funds that could be threatened. We typically receive about $400,000 to $600,000 during each cycle. REAP funds focuses on accelerating the implementation of our regional plan Bay Area 2050 plan. And so current funding from reap is supporting planning efforts right now with Bay for a station area, which includes technical assistance funds to conduct studies to advance housing development at the Bay for housing site in an incorporated area of Alameda County. County and recently we received $600,000 in REIT funds to update the San Lorenzo Village Center specific plan. Next slide, please. For context, here's a map of the existing TOC sites in the region where the TOC policy applies. So each TOC site is assigned a tier, and this is important because each tier has different T.O.C. policy requirements. Bay Fair station areas considered a tier two site since it's served by more than one Bart Line. This includes the City of San Leandro and unincorporated Alameda County. It's highlighted on this map in grain on the bottom right portion of the slide. So the county would be offer clarification responsible just for T. just for TOC compliance for the area within our jurisdiction. And then there's cash or valley station area, which is considered at tier three. This, this is because it's served by one part line as shown on this map. Next slide, please. According to MTC, establishing different levels of TOC compliance will be done by MTC and A-Bag in early 2026. Any level of compliance would undergo a rigorous community process and have to be approved by your board respectfully, likely via a plan amendment in the future. With grant funding staff will begin working on residential and commercial zoning densities, station access circulation, parking management policies and housing requirements of the TSE policy as they apply to the half mile area around the two stations. Next slide. In November of last year, the planning department in coordination with the public works agency and the county's housing and community development department are preemptively submitted in application to MTC and ABAG for grant funding for a total of $2.4 million to explore and pursue TOC compliance as shown on this slide related to the four TOC elements. So this is listed here for zoning density and insensitive requirements for residential commercial office, station access and mobility hubs, parking management, affordable housing, production preservation and protection. And so recently, on February 14th, MTC Planning Committee has recommended approval of the grant recipients, recommended by MTC staff. the grant awards still require full MTC commission approval. The county was approved by the planning committee to receive 2.1 million dollars in grant funding to pursue and achieve to see compliance. Also jurisdictions must adopt a resolution of local support to receive grant awards. Next slide. I'll now go into greater detail on what each element requires. So just bear with me. Might be a little bit too much information with the technical information here. So first I'll cover the full T.O.C. compliance around residential and commercial office density and what it would look like to meet density and density requirements. The goal of this requirement is really to increase residential density, office density, and additional bike parking that could be accommodated and limiting additional parking for private vehicles. The policy includes average target densities and parking goals for each TOTR without getting too technical, the average minimum and maximum densities are calculated as weighted averages. So the average density calculation is taking to account the size of a parcel within the station area and each calculation only considers relevant parcels. Residential calculations look at properties allowing residential and commercial office minimums and maximums only consider properties that allow offices. So we're allowed to exclude properties with existing residents before looking at properties within the station areas. Next slide. So, this is a table outlining the density requirements to meet MTC's TLC requirements. And so, Bayfair has identified as tier two station, and therefore, we'll need to meet requirements as highlighted in the second row of this table. So, this means that for the area half mile around the Bayfair Bart station, the average minimum residential density would be 75 dwelling units per acre or more and a maximum of 100 dwelling units per acre. And then the second row, which highlights Cashew Valley, is identified as a tier three station. And therefore, would need to meet requirements shown on the third row. So for the area half mile around the parts station, the average minimum residential density would need to be 50 dwelling units per acre more and a maximum of 75 dwelling units per acre or more in the cashier valley station area. Next slide please. As mentioned earlier, we've applied to MTC for grants to help meet compliance. The grants we applied for would fund detailed engagement process, a very review of potential studies associated with this element that would explore what compliance would look like and what kinds of other policies and programs would be needed to support such changes. Of course we'd be coming to you with regular updates and also for potential adoption of any plans in the future. These processes could culminate in drafting a new chapter, for example, in the general plan that would encompass updated land uses and supporting policies. And for consistency, there would be likely, it would be more than likely that the zoning code would need to be amendment to accommodate any modifications to the general plan. Next slide. Next is the station access and circulation policy. So the goal here is to improve multi-modal access to and within stations. Compliance for this policy would require adopting a complete streets policy. So this one we have actually already meets since the county did adopt this back in 2012. The second is prioritizing the implementation of active transportation projects in the county. So this could result in pedestrian and bike lane projects near the station area being prioritized. The third is completing an access gap analysis, so this would result in, for example, map saying where pedestrians need sidewalks that are missing to have continuous on-floats for pedestrians for the sidewalk. And here's where cyclists need space on the road, for example. So it would build off the county's previous bike and pedestrian plan to improve opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists, for example. The fourth is engaging in community members and working with our partners to decide how to make the station area mobility hub. So these are defined as key areas that bring together public transit, bike share, car share, and other ways for people to get to where they want to go without a private vehicle or minimize the use of it. So this could include electric car charging that are lighting and waiting areas are better signage. So essentially what we're doing is creating a enhanced space to allow multi-modal transportation. So for this component, the scope of the grant we applied for included the access gap analysis, engagement from ability hub ideas, to be explored through an integrative process with the community, and also this information could end up potentially living inside a T.O.C. chapter, for example, of the general plan that was discussed earlier. Next slide. The third element is parking management. The goal with this element of the T.O.C. policy is reducing car trips and prioritizing the area near transit for biking, walking, rolling, and taking public transit. So the idea behind it is that there's a station that offers transit and therefore improving opportunities to access the transit network would result in having the need to have parking. So in this case, this outlines MTC's policy requirements in this section. And so this would require adopting minimum and maximum parking standards which are highlighted on this slide. So we would need to allow new commercial and residential developments to share and have an bundle parking, which just means you're separating the cost of parking when, for example, renting out a space, for example. And then there would need to be a parking management policy in place within the station area. And these examples are included in MTC's administrative guidelines. This could be a demand responsive pricing or curve management program to be implemented. So again, the scope of this grant that we applied for would allow us to explore and pursue compliance with MTC, GSE policies. The fourth and final element to MTC's TSE policy is affordable housing, production, preservation, and protection. So this element is unique in that it's applicable to applicable countywide. And so to comply, a jurisdiction must adopt at least two policies for each of the three P's. Next slide, please. Thank you. So for this policy, the jurisdictions must adopt at least two policies. So here you see the first one production, the second preservation, which we do meet, which is highlighted here, and three protection. So today, the county would not be meeting the production requirements and therefore staff proposed to meet this requirement via inclusionary zoning ordinance. The recently adopted housing element, for example, includes an inclusionary zoning as a program for the county to achieve inclusionary zoning generally generally requires that new construction for housing projects of more, that includes 11 or more units, have at least 15% of those units be affordable. So the grant would help staff do some extensive research and also confirm feasibility in our communities and alternative compliance methods like offering in lieu fees if the 15% could not be accommodated. The second policy under production proposed includes ministerial approval ordinance under production. There's a few ways to do this, which is outlined in MTC's guidance document. And so this could apply to the same projects that go beyond inclusionary zoning ordinance ordinance requirements, or possibly apply to new residential projects consisting of 15% affordable units. So this is quite a hefty task. So as a part of the scope and drafting this ordinance, we would investigate the feasibility of this policy and engage, of course, with various property owners, developers in the overall community for that robust community engagement process as we work through this. Finally, staff would also like to use the grants to investigate the feasibility of tenant anti-harassment ordinance, which is another requirement under the protection section. So this would include reviewing tenant protection policies across the region. Current state law and tenant needs in the incorporated area of the county. Next slide, please. So with that, staff has made several informational presentations listed on this slide, either by the county's housing community development department or planning staff. We've heard quite a range of comments thus far in the level of support ranges for the T.O.C. of policy, which are listed on page 12 and 13 of the board letter. Staff has also included the minutes from Kestra Valley Municipal Advisory Council and Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council and draft minutes from Planning Commission to capture all of their comments related to this. On this slide we've also listed MTC's hearings on awarding the TOC grants. As mentioned earlier MTC's Planning Committee approved Toc recipients, including Alameda County for $2.1 million on February 14th. And then the full commission is anticipated to make their final decision on the TOC grant recipients awards on March 26th. So it's highlighted throughout the presentation. Using the grant funds provide staff with an opportunity to engage with an integrative process to explore and achieve compliance with MTC's TAC policies while also addressing hopefully addressing concerns raised to date. Next slide please. And with that, staff recommends adopting the resolution in attachment A of the board letter expressing the board's intent to achieve future compliance with MTC's TAC policy as a condition for allocation of regional discretionary funding to the Alameda County Transit-oriented communities initiative and accepting the award of 2.1 million dollar in grant funds if approved by the full commission later this month. That concludes staff's presentation. Planning staff along with county HCD staff is available to answer any questions or respond to any comments you may have. Thank you. Any questions of staff before we go to public comment on this item. Seeing none, we'll go to public comment. Oh, supervisor, fortunate not to pass, please. Got questions or comments? Questions. Thank you for this presentation. Being a new supervisor, I was just curious about some additional potential policies that could potentially be included in this grant. For number three, the transit-related item. Is there work being done around electric vehicle charging infrastructure? Could you repeat the question? I'm curious in terms of the transit goals, if there's already work being done around increasing our infrastructure for electric vehicle charging? Nothing I'm aware of, but there are some state laws regarding requirements for charging, the number of spaces for charging for electric vehicles, I believe. Okay. And that perhaps is addressed important thing to do. I think that's a very important thing to do. I think that's a very important thing to do. I think that's a very important thing to do. I think that's a very important thing to do. I think that's a very important thing to do. I think that's a very important thing to do. I think that's a very important thing to do. I think that's a very important thing to do. and protection policies. Again, being newer, I'm just curious whether there's any consideration to streamlining permitting. For example, some of the state laws allow for streamlining if there's proposed affordable housing units, potentially also for ADU. So I'm just curious if that's part of the conversation that's happening either potentially with this grant or in other spaces. Yes, that's a great question. So the recently adopted housing element has a program in there related to ministerial approvals, but that particular program relates to, I believe, the site's inventory list, so the properties that have been listed in the housing element. So the difference between what's associated with the ministerial approval for the TOC policy is applicable to potential projects within the station area that include potentially 15% of affordable housing to have ministerial approval. And so that's something that would be determined as part of like studies, community engagement to determine whether that's, you know, of appetite or just thinking about how that could, how that could impact other policies and programs or funding sources and that effect. So it's just really, we're at the beginning stages. And so we would be looking at exploring ministerial approval as an option. So it would be in addition to what exists in the programs and the housing element. Michelle Starrad, Housing Director, I would like to address a couple of things. When MTC came out, they gave us a very strict list of items that we could consider in order to continue to be eligible for the funding. Things like ADUs were not on that list. We have done quite a bit of work around ADUs. We've built the countywide ADU Resource Center, which is an online resource center for accessing rules, requirements, and each city's website for ADUs. We also have a planning guide, how to get it built, things like that. We've also just recently begun work on a set of plans that can be adopted and downloadable and you can take to your planning department and just immediately get your ADU approved. So there are other things happening that don't count towards these MTC goals and we're happy to discuss that in more detail. Thank you both. Yes, our MTC representative. Yeah, we just discussed that yesterday, MTC committee meeting. So, you know, I think pursuing this, this is a planning grant. And I think pursuing getting the funds to do this planning is important in good government and good public policy. And it's focused on the part station at San Leandro in the Park station in Castro Valley. And we only basically have two park stations. Oakland, for instance, has, I think, 71 park stations. Now, 37 park stations are in Oakland. So a lot of this I think is definitely in Oakland, you know, it's county seed, we're in Oakland. It's an urban city, et cetera, et cetera. That's redundant city in urban. So I do think we should look at this, but in looking at it, are we locked in, whatever comes out of this, are we locked into doing it? That's the question. And I looked at the resolution, it says pursue. So, so Professor, we had substantial conversations with NTC staff about whether or not you would be locked in. And our goal in drafting the resolution was to ensure that you had some flexibility. The difficulty is that the difficulty is that they will decide if we have satisfied the great terms. And so if we don't meet with their acceptance on what we ultimately do, then we may have to give the money back. So we need to be cautious in how we move forward. Okay. Okay. So MTC will kind of let us know whether or not what we've done meets what the they're thinking around. In fact, they have awarded us these funds in terms of pursue. Okay, because there's some things we might want to do at the San Leandro station and all of that's not in our unincorporated out of the county. Some's in City of San Leandro and it's so we might want to do some stuff there. We might want to do some stuff in Castro Valley. But I just want to make sure we get the flexibility to determine. Because I do believe, I don't remember if it was mentioned in the staff report, the EEDMAC wholeheartedly endorsed this. The cash rally MAC was resident. Is that accurate? That's correct. We did attend and provided an information presentation to CV Mac and Eden Mac. Eden Mac for the most part we did have the majority who were supportive and mentioned you know full steam ahead with this. There were some concerns that's outlined in the report about parking due to the requirements under the parking category in TOC and the elements is described in the presentation. And CVMAC overall had concerns about the TOC policy compliance. I believe the concerns were raised around increasing density and also meeting parking minimum requirements since the minimum would be zero. So it goes generally where the main concerns. Yeah, I've kind of in some of my conversations with some of the Mac members. I've indicated to them that this is a planning grant. We're going to pursue looking at these things and maybe as a result of looking at this, we might want to do certain things, certain stations and county councils kind of indicated whether or not what we pursue would meet the thinking of MTC. because I don't want to lock us in to anything just yet. Because once again, the max, the community, books might have some opinions about what we come up with at the end of the day. And then they might, for instance, in Castro Valley, they might think they don't support some of this. But at the end of the day, they might say, yeah, let's go for it. Because quite frankly, I mentioned an increasing density around Castro Valley. I'll be meeting with the part director and some part folks to talk about the housing element in the Castro-Ali Barthestation in the very near future, like next week or this week. So I don't want to predispose where we're going to end up nor do I want the max, whether it's Caserville or Eden to kind of say, hey, the county's locked in, but I want to make sure we understand of that. We're going to do the best we can. We're going to come up with what the best thinking, what we feel will be appropriate, but then I think they, the max and the community will be able to weigh in, whether or not we pursue implementing any of these particular recommendations in their prospective geographical jurisdictions. Okay. Any other comments from the Public Comment then? Tyler Turgoni, you're online, you have two minutes. Hi supervisors, I appreciate the discussion and I support staff's recommendation. I just want to give just a quick example why we need to make it easier to redevelop and to identify the Bayford Bart station right now along his Bayerian Boulevard, you cannot access Bart if you're in a wheelchair or handicapped. So you actually have to go all the way around, go through Bayer Mall or what's left of it, go behind Target, and that is the only way it's accessible for someone to get to the Bart station. So I think we need to make it easier to update infrastructure-wise, the station, and then also it's been said at every meeting and just, and no it's not at this stage is but enhancing the San Lorenzo Creek that runs right through the entire planning area, utilizing it as a community benefit, a resource. If that's day lighting, if that's bringing back native plants, I just think that needs to be continually brought up and not lost in all of this you know planning discussion that the creek itself needs to be an asset to this project area. Thank you Kelly you're on the line you have two minutes Yeah, I'd like to, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Yeah, I'd like to reassure the board of supervisors that you don't have to worry about getting locked into anything because this county's been wriggling out, wriggling out of all the requirements like a greased sea lion, you know, really, really slippery. And let's go down the list. Over at Bay Fair Bart station, it seems like the county is pretty serious. The plans are pretty serious about doing high density housing there. But, you know, the county owns a lot of the land all around the Oakland, the, the, the, the, the, the, the Coliseum Bart station. County owned a lot of that land and was giving it away or selling it at cheap prices, basically taking the money that's entrusted to you by the county residents and you kind of give it away to the developers or somebody, fire sale prices. So you're not getting full value. And then over in Castor Valley, what, you know, they're worried about density. Of course, they're worried about density. Take a look right next door to your library, the Castor Valley library right next door. You see all those houses under construction. The density there, which is within this planning area, is about 20 units a maker, which is less than half the density that's required. And they're they're giving over two units per two spaces, car parking spaces per unit. units of maker which is less than half the density that's required and they're giving over two units per two spaces, car parking spaces per unit, two over two and the limit is one. It's more than double the parking. That's how they operate in Castare Valley. Just go ahead and build low density and put in lots of parking right next to a bar station. And then over in Dublin, East Dublin Pleasanton, Barthestation, the county owned land and built a 500 space parking structure that's now being used for new car storage. So, what are you using it for? It's basically unutilized. Unutilized. So, instead of building housing, we're building car parking. It's really quite something. Thank you. Mark Crawford, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Well, I need to apologize for having an opinion on everything on the agenda today, but this item came to the planning commission and I think you latched on to the buzzwords there in the staff recommendation as far as pursue. I think you are locked in to the extent that you have to pay back the $2 million if you don't do everything that MTC wants. There's no way that they're going to say, okay, you can do this at CNN or bar, but, but you don't have to do this at Kastra Valley. These policies, the three P's and a lot of these other policies that have to be instituted, have to be instituted throughout the uncorporated area, or they're not going to comply with MTC. And that's what you're going to hear going forward. Every time something comes in front of you that's on this list on this spreadsheet today, you're going to be told, in order for us to stay compliant with MTC, TLC, we have to pass this. So you need to understand, you're advocating your local land use authority by taking this money. I mean, you've been around a long time. Whereas there ever been a situation where you had to agree to all this ahead of time before you even, in order to get the money. You get the money now, you do all these other things later or you pay the money back. And there's some pretty insidious things in here. You know, you know, I heard about a curb management program. Well, that's all about taking parking off of public streets. Will be has multi family all the way up and down it connects the boulevard to the bar station and if you take the parking away there where where are people going to park the quality of life is going to drop dramatically that's just one example. But as far as the three p's go inclusionary zoning the mobile home overlay ordinance you know once again that's being presented as preservation of existing housing. And that's a thousand units in Castro Valley, potential for development. So you need to understand you're giving all that away today in order to give this $2.90. The math was against it. The PC was not for it. The brought it to us as informational instead of allowing us to make motions on it. Thank you. Leo, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Hi, Katherine and supervisors. This is Leo with my invoice. I just want to say we fully support the planning and direction that the staff has displayed. I think for us in the corporate area, what we're finding is there's just a lack of capacity to understand these issues and to figure out how to solve these court issues. We're talking about court issues of anti-tenant harassment that we've raised for the past five years. We've raised the past two years about that really needs to be a plan for mobile home, better mobile home protection. So I think this is a step in a direction, but we realize, you know, staff can't address these issues without having the capacity to study these issues. And we think this is a really critical funding to move forward to make sure that we have capacity to understand what the problem is. So really appreciate fast leadership on this. Thank you. No more speakers. Okay. So, replying to some of the public comments or questions that have been raised. So, we're getting this money to study something, to see if it's good to do, but yet to study something we have to agree to do things that would be part of the study. I don't understand that. So we're apparently agreeing to do something. And if what if the study says there are better things to do instead, or the study says we ought not to do that? I'll just an example. For preservation of affordable housing, a study could come back and say that a mobile home park of lay is not good for providing affordable housing because we just said in a previous meeting we might be able to build 500 or a thousand units there and donate 100 of them to be affordable and we only have 30 or 40 that are currently affordable. So what if the study says you shouldn't have an overlay? What do we do? Are we locked into having the overlay? Or can we get out of it and instead go ahead and build affordable housing and things like that? I mean that's just one example based on prior meetings that what are we talking about here? Sure, I can answer some of those questions. Again, the item today is to pursue TOC compliance. It's not necessarily to adopt any particular policies or programs or general plan or specific plan amendments. And so there's a four buckets. There's a housing, there's parking, transit access, and getting the last one is. But the idea is to utilize this money roughly a million dollars per station to be able to look at these issues to engage the community fully on the pros and cons and the trade off of pursuing any particular policy and then ultimately you'll be up to your board to agree to approve them or not. And again this is a voluntary program and we could say no to all the money and not do any of it. I wouldn't recommend that, but I mean that is attentional. And specifically on the mobile home park thing, I think that we are looking at an ordinance now that's kind of working its way through the road show. And so it could be that there is a amendment or a new ordinance that really strikes a balance between preserving what we have, but then also allowing new development to occur. And just for example, there is the right to return provision in the ordinance where, okay, I'm gonna move away so you can build this new project, but I wanna come back under the same amount of affordability or something like that. So there's probably ways to get to the three P's that, again, will allow us to P to TLC compliant, but also allow new and better ideas to emerge through that process. But the only way that we're really gonna, not the only way, but this is an opportunity for us to really hit the ground and ask a lot of these questions. We have a stable of consultants to be able to help us do that, to have expertise in this area. So it's not just going to be staff. I mean, that $2 million basically is to pay for consultants for the most part. And so I think what that in mind, the recommendation today is to let us use that money, pursue all these ideas and let's see what sort of ends up sticking at the end of the day. Is there a way that we can eyes wide open, say, let's put a reserve out there for the amount of the grant? If we decide we have to give the money back, we can give it back, but take the money that is coming our way and doing what's required of it, but not, I guess being prepared if we have to to give it back to the back. I don't know the answer to that. I think FTC would have to weigh in on that, whether or not and how that could work. I think that if there was a particular policy a program that we decided that we didn't want to pursue, there might be some savings. We would just cut that off and say, well, we're not going to use the consultant for XYZ things and invite me some savings for that. There's definitely other jurisdictions. MTC is over subscribed on this program. Other jurisdictions that could use the money as well. So that's always an option. But I think we're one of the bigger grantees for this program in MTC. So certainly, we're prepared. We have the staff and with their consultants to go and study all these issues. If something doesn't necessarily pan out and we decide to reject it or not adopt it, we're not going to get penalized. We're not going to have to give the money back. The whole point is that we're going to pursue these policies and again see what sort of good idea for us at the end of the day. Okay, well, thank you for that. That's very helpful. It seems like it is money that we can well utilize and we're not entirely locked in there. Yep. I see Supervisor Tam and then Supervisor Miley. And I guess at some point we'll take a motion. Thank you, Chair Hubbard. So at the end of the day, this is a planning grant. It allows the county and our staff to implement many of the plans that we've already adopted from the housing element, our housing plan, our climate action plan, which is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And so I see this effort, which is enabling staff to have capacity to do the road shows and to get the input that they need to help us implement things that we've already adopted in place. And so frankly, if you're getting a grant, you should comply with the terms with the grant. So that's all I see this doing is basically complying with MTC's requirements for looking at transit oriented communities and that's all it is. So I'm happy to move adoption of the resolution to make sure we're in compliant with MTC and securing the grant of 2.1 million. I'll second that very good. Motion's been made and seconded any other comments. Yes. Yeah, because I as I said, I do think this is a good thing for us to do. I don't feel we're locked in and even if we are locked in, maybe applying this to the San Andro Bay Fair Station, might be what ends up in maybe not in Castra Valley. I kind of suspect what comes out of this is gonna be helpful in Castra Valley as well. And then I can let you know that all of the MTC commissioners are in alignment with the structure of the TLC policy. So we're going to be revisiting that as an MTC commission as well. And I can ask the staff when I talk to them, kind of get a sense of how rigid these requirements are at this point in terms of pursuing when we get the grant. But the point is we're revisiting the policies associated with TOC so that if, for instance, in the unacquaprated area, if we use the policies to look at all this, and then we just decide to do it in one location, as opposed to another, or do some, and not all. Then maybe we just end up having to give back, you know, 30% of the grant, I don't know, but I want to try to ask them about what currently is the thinking around that. And And then as I said, there are commissioners that are even concerned about altering some of the TOC. There are other commissioners who are very adamant on this TOC approaches, but I don't think it's, as I said, uniformed just yet. But I do think it's worth the exploration, because we don't know as a result of the study what's gonna come up from it. And I do think there's some good things here. Very good. Just to be clear, I don't expect to see us have this hold over our heads that well you have to do this future decision to remain compliant with this MTC grant because we have other ways of getting that and if we don't we give part of the money back because I heard that fear from a member of the public. We're not we're not committing to do in all these things. We're committed to have a plan in place and so that's one comment. Another comment is indeed, and I hear the consternation from some members of the MTC. This is an overreach of transportation policies getting into what might be considered private agreements between landlords and tenants. And there's a big disconnect there, but an overreach by MTC to get to there as it relates to the three P's. So at any rate, we're not locking ourselves in. We are going to get money. We are going to study things that do need to be studied. we'll have flexibility we'll preserve our flexibility for the future. Motion's been made and seconded. Roll call vote please. Supervisor Mark has excused. Supervisor Tam. Hi. Supervisor Miley. Yes. Supervisor for Tunato Bas. Hi. President Halbert. Hi. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Our next item is now just one of the quick question. Yes, yes. What if we get the grant? What's the time for him? We have roughly 18 months to go through the study processes. And when would that commence? Well, I know that they're going to make a final decision in March. So imagine the funding could happen. What's that? Soon thereafter? Yeah. So it's already started. They team months will start after probably April May-ish with Povey to kick that off. Okay, so it is going to be depending on the MTC board finalizing their allocations. 2026. So the roughly end of 2020, responded to 2020. So I'll be the end of 2026. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I can get back to you with an exact date if Okay, our next item is, do we have time to hear the next item? I think we need to. Conditional use permit and variance for the international Bible Baptist church. Is there a staff report? I'll note in advance, I don't know about others, but I have a hard stop at one o'clock. So if we have to continue the balance of the agenda or if we have to rearrange anything, please advise. Thank you, good afternoon. My name is Damien Curry. Presenting the application, PLN 2020-4100 for the International Bible Baptist Church. This is a request for a conditional use permit and a variance for the continuing operation of a community facility. In this case, a church and associated school for grades K through and so that would be with the construction of a new church building that would provide 35 onsite parking spaces where 61 is required by the seating capacity. There was a project parking study that identified a available on-site street spaces. And the applicant also has an informal arrangement with the school district when they need, when they have particularly large events when they need additional parking, they can apply to use the parking lot directly across Marcella Avenue that provides more than 30 additional parking spaces. As well, the neighboring property is owned by the pastor and that is available for eight parking spaces and the applicant also uses a, is open to using a carpool and shuttle plan and they also use other alternative means to arrive at the church. So there is a variance in addition to the onsite parking spaces. There is a building height that exceeds the allowable building height within 15 feet of the property line. It exceeds that by less than two feet that as we'll show later is intended to have a more complete symmetrical design for the church building. And in addition to that, there is a 10 foot rear yard setback that is the existing setback for the for the current building and this new building would continue that same 10-foot setback under this proposal. At this point the church which was established in 1957 does not require a, does not require review under conditional use permits because it's a legally non-conforming with respect to that use permit requirement under under this proposal. the there would be a conditional use permit with a periodic mandatory review to ensure continued compliance with issues such as parking. And also under the conditional use permit there is an an authorization for a six foot fence within the front setback. Other permits that would be required include a boundary adjustment lot merger as this project site is located is located on two distinct parcels. So those So those would need to be So those would need to be to be combined. And in addition, demolition requests for And in addition, for existing buildings that are on site, which we will discuss briefly later. And in addition to that, building permits and encroachment permits from Public Works Agency and site permits as needed. There is a discretionary approval also that would be issued by the planning director for the construction and design of the church building. And in addition to that, there was a recommendation from the Eden area municipal advisory council that the planning director approve the site development review. So this, the review of this project is categorically exempt, a pursuant to section 15303, which pertains to the construction and location of limited numbers of new structures, as well as 15302 class to which is replacement facilities. This is a map just showing the two parcels that are directly across the street from the Hillcrest Elementary School, part of the San Lorenzo School District, as well as the neighboring sites, which are all residential and nature. And this is a graphic showing the four buildings that would be removed from the project site, including at the lower left corner, the existing church building. And this is a floor plan for the new church building. On the left is the larger sanctuary room. The number of seats provided are how staff arrives at the number of required parking spaces, which is 61, which is one space for every four seats in the sanctuary. To the right, that wing of the building is intended for the classrooms, for the K through seven Bible school, as well as the administrative offices. And there is also a residential apartment attached to this building that would be used for visiting religious. This is a graphic showing the proposed parking lot that would in addition to providing parking would have upgraded and closures for trash and recycling as well as store motor management. And this is a rendering for the church showing the administrative and school functions on the right-hand side and the church directly on the left. You should just slide the rendering of the same project. This is as the project appears to the rear toward toward the rear from the rear property line. And there would be the proposal would also would also be required to provide landscaping at this at this section. We're that is, that is we're not impacted by bioreutention areas. There would be trees used to screen the building and soften the effect. the effect. So, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this is, this. And there was one individual who took issue with the noise, with the current facility. Occasionally they do have services, outdoors, as well as indoors. The building is aged. So it is not constructed to today's standards in terms of sound insulation. The new building would have improved sound insulation and the construction of this building would follow best management practices with respect to noise during the construction activities. the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the construction activities. The Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council considered this project in November of 2024 and recommended approval unanimously with the inclusion of bicycle parking as well as California native trees and shrubs to the final landscape plan. The West County Board is owning adjustments in January of this year. The West PGA was was unable to take action with the full quorum. And that is why the issue is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Those staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit for the continued operation of the church and the religious school with authorization for the six foot fence at the front property line and approval for of the parking lot with 35 vehicle spaces where 61 spaces is required. as well as the variance for the rear Word setback of 10 feet where 20 feet would be required and Side setbacks of 9 feet where 10 10 feet are required and the building height of 26 feet 10 inches where 25 would be required billing height. Thank you. Very good. I'll ask for questions or comments from our board before we go to public comment, recognizing supervisor Miley. Yes, first of all, thank you for the detail presentation and apologize for the board. Then my district has been pretty busy, particularly the Eden Mac. Actually this one's in Eden area, let's pull out the freeway, but I'm I'm prepared to move the resolution R2025 with the fence high. That's not in the resolution. The six foot high fence in the front. That's not in the resolution. I would need to check. Okay. If I move the resolution, it's all this in the resolution because if it's not, I'll move the resolution. I would need to check. Okay. If I move the resolution is all this in the resolution because if it's not, I'll move the resolution, including the fence height, 35 parking spaces, and the variance, ready to the reset back to side set back and the building height. Because I think the BZA, the BZA ended up voting two to one, two for the variance, one against it. But the MAC is supportive. So I do think there's consistency in support of this. Now I know we need hearing speakers, I know in the interest of time, I just wanted to make that motion. I'll second the motion, but I think the fence height is addressed in the recommendation, at least from what I read for the rot iron fence from six sheeting height at the front property line and seven feet in height in the rear. Yeah, it's on page page four of the resolution and I am one with the conditions of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of the case of sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. eight in person. I'm sorry, nine in person. Can I just offer a suggestion? Sure. We're going to approve it. So it might be good just to kind of give us more of it. I can get this done in one minute for all of us. Very good. Can I say amen to that? Yes. All these people want to go home. I'm going to say thank you now. And we want to be out here by one. Thank you. Yeah, I want to thank the congregants for being here. Sure. Thank you to the congregants for being here for persevering through the process. We sometimes say no pain, no gain. I think it was worth it. And so today is a happy day. God bless you all. Thank you. Let's have the vote. Let's have the vote. Don't leave yet until we finish the vote. Will the clerk please call the roll. Supervisor Marquez excused. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Yes. Supervisor Fortu-Nato-Boss. Aye. President Halbert. Aye. Motion passes. Very good. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to item number eight. Castro Valley General Plan Amendment. Yes, Chair. I'm interested to time, but I hope the wrap up the agenda. I know we were all in a rush to get out of here. This item is an amendment to the Castro Valley General Plan at 6-8-5-5-V55-VLD driving Caster Valley. This is a pretty straightforward ask, exhibit A and your packet shows the map where essentially changing the general plan and Caster Valley from open space parks to public facilities to allow for a new fire station relocation to be built at that location. I do, there is a representative from the fire department here. If you want to hear from them, there is a resolution in your packet asking for your approval. Very good. I'll ask if there are any questions before we go to public comment. Noting that this is yet another district for project and agenda item, I have to turn to my left and my distinguished colleague from District 4 project and agenda item, I have to turn to my left and my Distinguished colleague from District 4. Yes, they were running a city out there in the corporate area. So yeah, I Want to move that we adopt the resolution of proving the land use amendment to the cashier rally general plan map for for 60, A55, the area drive cashier valley. The reason I'm moving this is this will allow us to build a new fire station at the location where the Shiboh marketplace used to exist. Unfortunately, that was a major project back in the day that we supported. It was the community loved it. I worked out really well, but unfortunately, it caught fire last year. Yes. This is at the top of the hill on Palamaris. Oh, that one, oh not that, oh,, okay. I'm on the wrong one. So, there we go. Palomaris. Yes. Okay. Got somebody going on. So, in Palomaris, what the board did is we purchased this property so that we could set aside it for the building of the new fire station in Palomaris Hills. and this will allow for us to build that new fire station in Palamar's Hills. And in going back in time too, it's been very controversial in Palamar's what we would ultimately end up doing with that property. So that's why the county purchased it for fire station. So thanks for reminding me, I'm very ill, not that's about. So, this is something the community really, really, really, really, really, really, support. Palomaris is, um, it's, um, community. It's kind of like a suburban community in Castro Valley, and this fire station services that community. How many, how many homes are up there? I don't know. I'm hundreds. Yeah, I was thinking about, I was going to say about 1300 or so, yeah, but yes, I was going to say about, hundreds. Yeah, I was thinking about, I was going to say about 1300 or so, yeah. But yes, so I would move you in. I'll second the motion. This has been talked about for a number of years. Having that fire station there in a very critical area to protect those homes because it's kind of like in the hills and the valley. And I think the fire department has already secured the funding and they've got all the plans, right? Let's hear from our representative from fire because he's been here all day and came all the way down here and looks so good in the uniform. Please comment away. Sure, well, good afternoon supervisors. Thank you for your support and just maybe a quick update supervisor, Miley. If you recall maybe about five to six years ago, we purchased this property on Villa Riau in the hopes to get to a spot where we could actually build a fire station directly across from our existing fire station seven. And so now we are here before you going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going two in Caservale and one in San Lorenzo. So you will expect to see me here on two more parcels that we'll need to get rezoned in the near future, but the Planning Department has been great to work with. We have gone through the proper steps to get here to sit in front of you today to ask for that rezoning approval. So this is a single story, single engine response station for us. So it's directly located up there. We have been out in the homeowners associating marketing this. We have gone to the homeowners association four times to present our conceptual designs. We are now going to take those designs and turn them into a planning package to work through our planning department so we can come back here and present that station. So we're in a good spot, but just wanted to thank you for your continued support to make sure that we can move this forward. Very good. Mr. Chair, yeah, the board at the time we purchased the property with the distinct intent of building a new fire station there. Because as I said, prior to that, what was going to be done with that property? I mean it was like a 20 year controversy what would be done on that property. So eventually the county purchased it for this use so the community really, really supports this. I mean there's I don't think there's anyone who's in opposition to this. And quite frankly I've been waiting for them to break break ground for ever since X was approved. So I'm hoping they break ground and we get this thing built before my term is over. Okay, very good. Is there any public comment? Now speakers. been moved and seconded. It's been motion been made. I think Supervisor Tam. Local vote please. Supervisor Marquez excused. Supervisor Tam. I. Supervisor Miley. Yes. Supervisor Fortinato-Boss. I. President Halbert. I. Motion passes. Very good. Thank you. We have items 9 and 10. Question for staff. Can we just take these together? Or do we have to do that. So we have to do that. So we have to do that. 10. Question for staff. Can we just take these together? Or do we have to do them separately? I think you can take them together, but the facts are different. So you want to make sure that you take separate actions. Okay. Let's hear one staff report with two actions. Is that too complicated? Can we do? Well we'll give it a go. Thank you. I'm Liz McElligot from the County Planning Department. Today before you are two grants, applications from the City of Livermore. One is for, and these are grant applications to the Alta-Mount Landfill Open Space Committee of which the county is a part. The first grant is for $650,000 to acquire and fee title the 82-acre Guckin Road Property which is located east of the city of Livermore and west of Guckin Road in unincorporated Alameda County. The total cost of the property is $1,320,000. The city is using their open space funds to pay for the balance of the property that would not be covered by this grant application. The board letters that were provided for both of these items cover the details of how the properties comply with the criteria required in the settlement agreement that is the basis for the Altamont Open Space Committee. So I won't go into those details. The other property is, again, it's a grant application from the City of Livermore. This time for $500,000 to acquire in fee title the 41.3 acre quint property, which is actually located within the city of Livermore, approximately half a mile east of North Fasco Road and half a mile west of Laughlin Road. So today we ask that your board find the recommendation of the Alta Mont Landfill Open Space Committee to approve the grant application from the City of Livermore for both grants to find that they're in compliance with the criteria required in the settlement agreement. And also to delegate authority to the Agents, the Community Development Agency Director, where it does need to negotiate and execute the agreements with the City of Lovermore to fund the purchase in fee title of each of these properties. Again, in the amount of $650,000 and $500,000. Subtit to review and approval as to form by county council and return an executed copy to to the clerk of the board for filing. And I would be happy to answer any questions. Very good. Is there any public comment? No speakers. All right. Does that sufficiently we have one speaker on the right? Dictioniter, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Good afternoon, members of the board. As a former 20 year Sierra Club representative on the Altman Open Space Committee, I strongly support you're approving these grants, these properties both have very high value for protecting native biological diversity, which is the first priority of the open space funds use. The Goken property is about 40% per acre the price of the Quint property, but that's because it's outside, it's in the county, it's outside the county urban growth boundary, it's rural land. The quint property is inside the city limits, inside the city's urban growth boundary and a zone for residential development. So price per acre are very different, but both are very important properties to conserve, and I hope that you'll approve the grant. Thank you. No more speakers. So a question I have on that last piece is would it be the city of Livermore's actions that would be required to change the zoning if it's currently within city limits and zoned for residential and they purchased the land with this money? Does that change the zoning designation of that land or is that their call? So the property is located within the city's jurisdiction. and the zoning determinants are theirs and so if they want or intend to change the zoning they should do so we don't control that and so the but the purchases intended for open space so it is it is then likely a part of the contract that they do have to change the zoning to conform to the intended future use. And I think they're also required to put the restrictions on the property so that it can't be developed in other than open space. And so that's, I mean, is this currently in their housing element to comply with their arena numbers? No, it is not. At the Open Space Committee meeting, the city staff indicated that it is neither of these sites are indicated as sites in their housing element and they do intend to preserve these sites in perpetuity as open space by putting conservation easements on both of the properties. Very good. Thank you. I just have a quick question. I think I had asked this question during the staff briefing. But in terms of the amount of funds that are in these accounts and how much gets accumulated, the spreadsheet shows there's 20 million for Eastern and 3 million for the Western. So how's the delineation determined based on the accounts and then how do we determine which properties can be purchased for example in the Western part. The settlement agreement this was back in 1999 I believe. The settlement agreement was negotiated to resolve some litigation having to do with expansion of the ultimate landfill. So at that time, there were these two areas that were delineated on a map. One is the eastern side, which goes from the Eastern most county line to a line between, it's not a straight line, it's kind of a jagged line that runs between Pleasanton and Livermore. And then there's an eastern side, or sorry sorry a western side that runs from that line westward to basically Polymars Road. So the intent of the fund is to help to mitigate for the impacts from having the landffills, both the ultimate landfill and in the basketball road landfill in the area surrounding Livermore. So the eastern part that includes the city of Livermore receives 80% of the funds that are received from the landfills, and the Western part receives 20%. So that partially explains the difference in the funds, the level of money available, and the two funds. The other factor that causes discrepancy is that the funding for the Western side was depleted actually at one point to zero several years ago because there were a lot of grants. The committee received a lot of applications for grants for the Western area at that time. So it's taken a little while to build those funds back up. So these are open space and parks. So potentially could like hard secure some of this because I know Palameras goes Basically to Castile Valley, right? The the property would have to be within The this area defined in the in the settlement agreement. So for example hard could not apply for money from the fund to buy a park in, say, Ashland or Fairview or something like that because those communities are outside of the area delineated in the settlement agreement. So it would have to be, again, roughly west of, sorry, I'm having directional difficulty today, it would have to be east of Polymers Road. Okay, thank you. So the west geography that you're describing is roughly where? East of Polymers Road, but- between Palomar's road and there's a line between, that goes between the city of Pleasanton and Livermore. So there's the roughly Palomar's road on one side and then this other line that kind of... Is that all south of 580? It includes north of 580. So it includes the city of Dublin? The city of Dublin is not a member of the committee, but I believe the city of Dublin could apply for a grant. It's in the western area that you describe. Right. But then anything east of that line between Pleasanton and Livermore, namely the unincorporated east county, that's all the east zone. Right. Okay. And they have a lot of... So they would draw from different parts of money, basically. Yeah. so look Which is the one that has City of Livermore residential Zoning is that nine or ten? It is Goken or Quint Quint is within the city limits. I mean we have a housing housing crisis. We have arena numbers and expectations. We have the ability to, this could be included in a local plan. I know it's not our plan. But I'm, I'm, I'm loathed to, I'm loathed to take land that could be used to alleviate our housing crisis that is residentially zoned already and calling it open space. I mean, to me, that's, that's, it's counterintuitive to what we is all of the state, all of the country are experiencing in a housing shortage. Well, the city of Livermore was able to fulfill its rena in terms of having adequate sites and their sites inventory without including this particular site on their inventory. Also, I would point out that according to the terms of the settlement agreement, your board is only being asked to concur with the open space committees determination that the property is consistent with the criteria which are mainly have to do with quality of habitat and quality for use as for unmotorized recreation. for unmotorized recreation. Is there is there verified species or habitat or other items to be conserved on the property? Yes, I in the of time. I skipped over those, but I could talk a little bit about that. As long as the answer is yes, that's fine. So it is sensitive, biologically, and has resources to be conserved. And it's also zoned for residential. So it really could go either way, is what I'm hearing. Well, yeah, again if once the transaction is done to for presuming that the city purchases the land for open space then you know, presumably they would change the zoning and put an easement on it, so it no longer be available for housing. But at this moment in time, yes, I presume it could be either one. So then the other question was, it can also be used for recreation hard if it were, were did have funding in the balance but LARPD could also how would LARPD which is separate from the city of Livermore if they wanted to avail themselves of this property recreational uses could still do that or not allowing that. If I'm remembering correctly from the open space committee meeting, there was discussion or the city staff indicated that they are in discussion with LARPD about the district's potential use of this property. There might be somebody from city staff listening in that might be able to verify that. If there is anyone from city staff they could raise their hand and comment. I do see one. Are they're good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yes we can hear you. This is Camper, a wall associate planner with the city of Livermore. Yes, and Liz is correct. We are in early negotiations with LARPD to convert this property into a parkland and that LARPD would manage. That's good to hear. Thank you. You're welcome. Very good. With that said, we've received the staff reports. We had had public comment. We have to take two separate actions. And so if it's okay with everyone, I would like to move approval of item number nine, moving the staff recommendation which is finding the recommendation of the landfill and grant application to fund the purchase and delegating authority to the agency director to negotiate next-execute agreement Is there a second? Moved and seconded roll call vote, please Supervisor Marquez, excuse. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Miley. Aye. Supervisor Fortinato Bas. Aye. President Halbert. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you very much. With that said, I'll also make a motion to move item 10, which is to find the recommendation of the landfill advisory committee and approve the purchase of the quint property and delegating authority to the agency director and negotiate and execute We're considered with them. Second by by Lee, moving seconded roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez excuse supervisor Tam. I supervisor Miley. I supervise a Fortinato bus. I president Halbert. I motion passes. With that said we'll move to public input on items not on today's agenda. Have speakers? Kelly, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Thank you. I'd like to remind this planning commission that the county plans and land use restrictions operate land use restrictions operate on the land that it owns. It owns 80 acres in the middle of Fremont, near downtown Fremont. It's called Lake Elizabeth. And your county flood control district led up by an esteemed, esteemed manager director, operates that as a flood control facility. Now absent the need for flood control, they don't see any need to preserve or protect that lake. They only operate it as a flood control facility. They don't want to cooperate with the city in preserving and maintaining and protecting that lake from fish die offs. The lake started out six feet deep, but it's now about three feet deep. So you lost half the lakes volume and that's what's causing the fish to die. eye and so the county's stewardship of the lake appears to be dangerously short-sighted and narrow-minded. Absent any need for flood control, the district sees no need to cooperate with the city. The flood control district under your board of supervisors should work with the city to protect the lake as the centerpiece of Fremont's most important urban park. This park is easily the most important park in Fremont, at least the urban park, and the city and the flood control districts should not allow the lake to disappear, literally disappear through the process of sedimentation and siltation through neglect, and nor should they allow it to decay into a source of neighborhood fish stink blight. Thank you No more speakers Very good. Seeing this out there's no more business before us decided meeting as adjourned Recording stopped