Recording in progress.

Good morning and welcome to the Board of Supervisors Planning Meeting of October 9, 2025.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Present.

President Haubert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

And Supervisor Marquez, did you want to announce your just cause?

Yes, thank you so much.

And I apologize, but I was just having an issue with the video.

But I just want to disclose that I am using uh just cause justification to participate remotely today because I am caring for my grandmother.

Over the age of 18.

She's the only one present in the room with me.

She's over 18.

Thank you.

So will you please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

To the sec for which it stance.

So the Board of Supervisors welcomes you to its meetings, and we allow in-person and remote observation of participation by members of the public.

Will the clerk please outline the instructions for online participation?

Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines.

A link to the document is included in today's agenda to view an automated translated transcript or listen to an automated translated audio of the meeting from English into multiple other languages.

Please utilize the Worldly Link in today's teleconferencing guidelines or the QR codes posted throughout the room and select your preferred language from the drop-down menu.

If you are joining the meeting using a computer, use the button at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand to request to speak.

When called to speak, please unmute your microphone and state 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.

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 webpage 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 determined by the president of the board and subject to overall time limits.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'll start with some announcements.

Items number five and number six on today's agenda will be continued to the November 13th meeting.

So if you're here for those items, those will be heard on November 13th.

Thank you.

Um let's start with the approval of the minutes from September 11th.

May I have a motion for approval?

I'll move to adopt the minutes as presented in our packet.

Um I have a motion from Supervisor Miley.

I'll take the second from Supervisor Fortunato Bass because I heard her first.

And may I have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

Aye.

Thank you.

Uh, we will have no uh closed session today.

So let's move to the consent calendar.

May I have a motion for approval of item number three?

So move.

I have a motion for Miley, second from Ford and out of AS.

Any public comments on this item?

No speakers.

May I have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Haubert.

Aye.

Thank you.

Let's go to our regular item, which starts with item number four on the amendments to the ordinance repealing and re-enacting our county ordinance to regulate sidewalk vendors.

Have a staff report, please.

Yes, good morning, supervisors.

Uh Ed Lobayog, Alameda County Code Enforcement Manager.

I'm here today to uh recommend and ask the board to conduct a first reading of discrete amendments to an ordinance repealing and enacting uh chapter 3.36.

I think I have a PowerPoint uh prepared for this.

Okay.

Um repealing section 12.08 of the Alameda County General Ordinance Code to regulate sidewalk vendors to establish cyber vending permit fee and enhance requirements for posting and uh notification of potential revisions to sidewalk vending regulations.

Next slide, please.

So uh on uh September 11, your board adopted an ordinance uh regulating sidewalk vendors in unincorporated areas.

The ordinance repeals and reenacts chapter 3.36 and repeals section 12.08 of the ordinance code.

The community development agency, uh CDA will implement the ordinance.

Uh code enforcement is responsible for administering and enforcement, of course, with uh partnering with uh environmental health and the sheriff's office.

The CDA director has authority to create and update vending regulations, regulation updates must be posted online for 10 days, uh, 10 or more days and open uh to public comment.

So today, CDA recommends the ordinance uh uh discrete amendments.

Um, first um, first amendment is to add a new subdivision C to section 3.36030.

This will establish an annual sidewalk vending permit fee of 273 dollars.

Uh and the breakdown for that is uh one hour code enforcement staff time at 193, 0.5 hours for clerical support at $80, and uh total cost would be 273 dollars.

Uh our second um amendment would be to add a subdivision B to section 3.36030, enhance posting and notification requirements for potential regulations revisions.

Uh the proposed notification process would be to post proposed revisions on the county website for at least 30 calendar days.

Provide proposed revisions to chairs of the affected municipal advisory committees for review and comment during the same 30-day period.

This will allow sufficient time for the MACs and uh public to provide input before final consideration by the planning director.

So in conclusion, we ask that um the community development agency is asking and recommending that the board of supervisors conduct the first reading of the proposed amendments to the ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation.

Are there any board comments or questions?

Supervisor Miley.

Yes, thank you.

I'm not sure I'm I understand this hosting for 30 days.

What's that all about?

Oh, so um at our on September 11, it was brought up that um there wasn't uh an oppos enough opportunity for uh the public to uh be notified uh that changes to the regulations would be made and um they wanted um enough noticing so that they can prepare and and participate and made aware of any changes that we would require in terms of the ordinance regulations, not to the ordinance.

So the ordinance, uh when would the ordinance become effective?

Uh the second reading was September 11th.

So it's it's supposed to be effective.

October 11.

Okay.

However, we still need to um uh make sure that this amendments are part of that ordinance, and then we'll also need to adopt uh the planning director still needs to adopt the uh actual regulations.

How long is that gonna take?

Pardon me?

How long will that take?

For the adoption of the regulations?

Yes, and to get everything uh actualized and enforced.

The reason I'm asking, I was in a uh meeting just yesterday with constituents, and people are pretty annoyed that this ordinance hasn't been acted, isn't being enforced.

The people out uh setting up um, you know, sidewalk vending, there's no um accountability, uh vendors are just doing what they want to do uh in the unincorporated area, and folks are very eager and anxious for this ordinance to become effective and enforcement to take place uh so we can address these uh recastled rent uh vendors.

Uh so right now we're we're um doing uh enforcement activities in uh partnering with environmental health and the sheriff's office.

Uh we did an operation uh two days last week uh after ours.

So they they're still enforcing under the food code because um vendors that do not have any permit from environmental health is still a violation of the food code.

So um they are notifying vendors that are out there and also performing con confiscations of their uh the the food products.

Uh when this ordinance comes into place, there's there'll be a lot more time, place and manner things that we can uh enforce, like buffer zones and time and uh and where where they can operate.

Okay, so back to my question.

So when can we expect this ordinance to be in effect?

How long is it gonna take to go take this whatever we're doing back to the max, get the regulations and move ahead with this because I've got constituents breathing down my back about getting some action.

There you know, they haven't been waiting for this for you know, I don't know how long, uh year, two years, I don't know.

Uh so uh supervisor Miley, the um the regulations have to be in place before we can begin rolling out the program as designed.

So 30 days from the second reading, the ordinance will be in effect and we can adopt the regulations uh we don't have to do it seriously, we could do it during that time.

Um so I'm thinking it's about 60 days or so um maybe a little longer, but it shouldn't be too much longer than that before we have the regulations in place, the fee will be in place, and we'll begin uh administering the program.

So you're saying uh this is October, so maybe by the first of the year we'll we'll have all those findings.

Definitely, definitely for sure.

Right, okay.

So I just need to tolerate the abuse I'm taking for another uh 60 days or more.

Then after that staff will have everything you need to address these problems.

We hope so, yes.

Okay, and then I'm thinking I'm hoping that uh you know, through the Transportation Planning Committee, um the chair of the committee and both president of the board allows for us to take a look at environmental health rationale for that being a department under the um Lameda Health um uh agency uh because once again I'm still getting complaints about uh environmental health um hesitancy uh to confiscate and deal with effective enforcement.

So we need to take a look at that um President Albert.

Well do Supervisor Miley, thank you for your comments.

I echo your concern.

I have the same uh comments from my constituents.

I note that um in Far East County uh it's difficult for environmental health to get out there.

Um, we're going to have to address this uh with them.

Holistically.

I agree with you.

Thank you.

And we'll do Supervisor Marquez, thank you, Chair.

Um, couple questions, uh, with respect to uh the fee for violation.

I see the first warning, second and escalates the cost.

Um, but can you explain once someone goes and um applies for a permit?

What is the turnaround time for that approval?

Uh yeah, when they uh submit an application, we gotta make sure that they have a complete submittal.

There might be some back and forth, they might not have everything they need.

Uh so it's hard to tell.

But if they have everything they need when they apply, I mean it's the turnaround is like a day or one to three days.

Okay, and then this has to be done at the offices in out the city of Alameda, correct?

The only location.

Uh to obtain the per uh the county sidewalk vending permit, yes.

Um, okay, right.

And then um other question in terms of outreach when people are in violation, is that going to be provided in multiple languages?

And um just want to make sure that we're making this information accessible to the public.

Uh yes, we are working hard on that.

Um all the uh uh documents and handouts and flyers that were um drafting right now will all be translated in um Spanish uh initially, and we're exploring uh availability to also have that available in other languages uh including instructions, um, also in our uh website, so we are seriously um addressing that.

Okay, and then in the past, I've asked if you're aware of any type of regional coordination because um street vendors is not just impacting unincorporated part of Alameda County, but it's an issue in surrounding cities throughout the entire county, and I understand why we have to do this for health and safety, but I also want to see us do more work around finding a path forward for people to become entrepreneurs, help support and educate them to actually operate and establish their businesses.

So has there been any updates around those type of efforts?

Uh yes, we have been having a series of meetings with uh economic and civic development department where they're putting together also a flyer to accompany uh our information flyer that deals with the vendor side that uh that is uh interested in seeking um opportunities to move beyond sidewalk vending.

So umce that information uh flyers produce, we'll certainly make sure you supervisor's offices have copies of those so you can uh see what we're making available to the vendors as well.

Okay, and then have we done any type of surveying to know the actual like top three languages spoken by the vendors?

I because I'm sure it's beyond just Spanish, but do we have any data to know um what is their preferred native language?

Just so we're ensuring that we're effectively communicating with those individuals.

Uh we haven't done a survey, but um good majority of it is uh Spanish uh language.

Okay, those are all my questions for now.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Um I have a couple questions as well.

So when we um look at the application, uh one of the documentation that they require is insurance, right?

Yes, and so uh just to manage expectations in the surrounding cities that have these type of ordinance, um what how many people actually apply for permits?

I mean, what's the compliance and and how does our um our application fee compare to theirs?

For example, the adjacent ones, the unincorporated areas.

Uh we did um a survey of uh the cities surrounding us.

The the highest would be Oakland, it's over a thousand dollars for their permits, but they encompass a lot more of um outdoor activity types.

Um and then Hayward, I think they don't they're not charging a fee right now, and uh Fremont is charging, I think uh 225, some something in that area.

So we felt like um just to cover the actual costs of um taking in an application, reviewing it and having clerical supported that would be like the the minimum that we we felt would need we needed to cover the cost of issuing the permit in those cities.

Um you see a high level of compliance with people seeking permits, or is there a an equal number of unpermitted vendors?

Uh we're finding out right now that the uh the um issued permits are low.

Um I don't have the exact numbers at this point, but people seem to show interest and they um don't follow through.

So the outreach and the messaging will be very important for us to you know get them in to make sure that they understand the laws and the benefit of it when they actually choose to um do the sidewalk pending.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Are there any uh public comments on this item?

No speakers.

Okay, we have no speakers.

This is a first reading of the amendments to the ordinance that we I'm sorry if I somebody raise their hand.

Somebody raised their hand.

Yes, okay.

You have two minutes caller, you're on the line.

You have two minutes to speak.

No speakers.

Thank you.

So this is the first reading of the amendments to the ordinance that we had passed in um on September 11th.

So we will um proceed with the title.

An ordinance repealing and reenacting chapter 3.36 and repealing section one two point zero eight point six four zero of the Alameda General Ordinance Code to regulate sidewalk vendors, which way the balance of the full first reading of the amendment to the ordinances and move for its adoption?

I will second that motion.

Uh would so we have a motion from Supervisor Miley and a second by Tam.

May I have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Howbert?

Aye.

Thank you.

Um and Supervisor Tam, I would before you move to the next item.

May I please request that we would move item number nine up to the next item?

Would that be possible?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

So there's been a request to move item number nine to conduct the public hearing to consider the vacation of the 1000 feet of Morris Canyon Road in the unincorporated area.

Do you need a motion to open the public hearing and close the public hearing like we normally do?

Yes, you should make that motion.

Okay.

Move open the public hearing.

I'll second.

Yeah, roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Tam?

Aye.

Supervisor Miley?

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Aye.

President Howard?

I.

Passes unanimously.

Public Works Director.

Yes, good morning, Daniel Wildesumber Public World Director.

On September 11th, your board uh set this date as a public hearing to vacate the terminus, about a thousand feet of Morrison Canyon Road, and then incorporate Alameda County.

At which time while the item was to set the date, there were several folks that came and spoke to your board about either in opposition or in support of this vacation.

The facts are basically we the county received petitions from about 16 people requesting that that portion of the roadway need to be vacated or abandoned and returned back to the uh the property owner that surrounds that specific portion of uh the terminus.

Uh about a thousand feet of that portion of the roadway is entirely surrounded by the George Family Trust property uh and basically acts like a private driveway.

It's the it's uh from a location about a thousand feet where we have a turnaround area that was built all the way to the end of the terminus.

Uh there isn't it is entirely in somebody else's property.

And it's really uh a driveway, functions as the driveway, even though it was maintained and uh looked after by the county.

Uh the the roadway is in I would say in very poor repair, uh, has uh what we consider to be uh eroded shoulders, uh, sharp drops that potentially present a hazard.

And uh since it's really serving one property owner, we felt uh the request was warranted in terms of abandoning or vacating that property.

Uh on June 16, 2025, uh the Alameda County Planning Commission uh considered the proposed vacation uh for consistency with the general plan and found that it is.

And under CICO guidelines, uh the the vacation qualifies for categorical exemptions, so it meets the CICOA standards as part of the uh this is governed by the way the streets and highway uh 8321 uh that establishes how uh public properties could be vacated roadways like this.

Uh and uh it does require us to post, notify all those requirements have been met.

We've had the publications and a posting done uh per se on to the streets and highway.

Uh we contacted all local agencies uh and public utilities to make sure we consult with them to see if the vacation has any impact on them.

Uh once the city of Fremont is one such uh entity and they have not really made any determination.

Uh, the East Bay Regional Park, the adjacent property owner uh has submitted a letter of support to the vacation.

Uh the San Francisco uh public utility commission that owns a property on the other side of the uh George's ranch has expressed some concern about potential loss of uh access, but we've had a conversation with them that uh that access is after vacation is the same as it is now.

Uh so uh I don't think their concerns have been uh materialized.

Uh and then to address any other concerns, uh we are proposing that we reserve a perpetual public utility and access easement in this vacated property.

So uh access will be maintained as well as utilities will have a way to get to that uh to their assets in this in this area.

Uh so uh what we're asking is upon hearing and considering all the evidence is presented to you, that uh you make a determination whether the vacation is warranted or not.

Uh and uh I believe once you hear from the public on either side uh it's very much apparent, at least from the public works point of view, that this roadway right now as it stands uh really serves as uh a private property.

Uh so it's not, we don't feel it's warranted to continue to spend public funds maintaining that small piece of property or piece of road.

Uh and we also consider it to be potentially a hazard because there's a lot of unsafe conditions on the side of the road for public use.

So was that uh answer any questions that you may have?

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the board?

I just have uh two clarifying questions.

So what are the current uses now?

Because we receive some letters saying that it's being used for parking and being used for bicyclists to park their bikes, even though there's a parking lot that East Bay Regional Park District has like adjacent.

Yeah, so I mean uh honestly speaking imagine a piece of road that just enters into somebody's property, it goes nowhere.

So, and in the past we've come in, in fact, restricted parking for anybody that wanted to do this uh parking type of use because we felt it was really unsafe uh because of the erosions and the drops in the shoulder.

So uh I don't believe uh that area is being used for any real public purpose.

Okay, um the second question is procedurally, uh just remind us uh how a vacation works basically uh we reserve the the 1,000 feet for perpetual public utility and access easement.

Um, and we we basically abandon the road because it's a county road.

Uh what happens after that abandonment or vacation?

So the roadway is basically on an easement.

We don't own it like in fee simple.

So it literally reverts back to the property owner.

So some people say uh is the property owner paying for this person to the streets and highway.

If had we owned it in cash, paid for it, or we would have uh looked for uh market value and sought some funding uh some compensation, but in this case it's an easement that basically reverts back, and there's no monetary value associated with that in terms of uh once we vacate uh it gets recorded, and it basically the property goes back to the property owner uh uh as as part of their existing property uh that surrounds it.

So uh in terms of the process, like I said, uh we initiate this because we receive the petition for on the streets and highway, and we go through the process of making sure it meets the planning requirement in terms of concurrence with the general plan.

Uh, we do the CEQA determination.

We make sure that we do the publication and the posting.

In fact, we go out there and put actual posting on polls and uh signs out there on the street which we have, uh, and and then come to your board and go through the process of the public hearing and uh and uh let the board make the call after hearing uh the pros and cons from the public.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Supervisor Marquez questions, comments?

Yes, thank you.

Uh have we incurred any uh liability um on this site?

Has there been any lawsuits, any injuries, anything that we're aware of?

Not that we are aware of.

Uh we've spent I would say a couple hundred thousand dollars over the last five years in uh basic maintenance.

Okay, and this is with um obviously this is unincorporated, that's why it's before us, but have we had any issues from Fremont law enforcement first responders having to respond to this area or any type of activity that we're aware of?

Not that I'm aware of uh and the vacation does not necessarily uh negate any of these responses to that specific property because uh it becomes an entire private property, so in effect, you're moving the gate from where it is now to about a thousand feet where the roadway enters private property.

That's all it does, though.

I don't believe there would be any impact.

Yes, and if this is approved, um, changing the location of the gate would be the responsibility of the the property owner, not the county or the city of Freeman.

That is correct.

Okay.

And um it is it is a thousand feet or is it a little bit less or more?

Uh I would say uh it's uh 950 to about a thousand.

So we will have an actual exact survey done, and that would be recorded accordingly, and it will be precise.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um let's open it up for public comment.

We have speakers, okay.

Uh, let's go through our process with speakers online and in-house.

The first three in-house speakers are Chris George, Patricia Balls, and Aaron.

Good morning.

I'm Chris George.

As you know, I'm the uh applicant of this request of to things to be vacated.

I thought I would quickly go through to make sure that we have some accuracy on some of the, well, frankly, just lies that are being told about some of the things that are being published uh by I guess the opposition, which is William Y.

Regie, uh Larry Edelson, and Kelly Abreu.

Uh, they write that the East Bay Regional Parks has stated taken no position in the uh vacated of the road.

That's not true.

They've written a letter to the uh Alameda County Board of Supervisors as well as the City of Freema.

They write that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has reached out and voiced strong opposition to the road transfer.

That is also not true.

Uh they have, in fact, um uh issued an order signed by a judge uh that says they have absolutely no issue with the road being vacated.

Uh in a letter to the editor, uh the William Y.

Regie writes holding events in this structure that does not have fire extinct fire sprinklers installed poses a grave threat.

He actually has sent a separate email to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors saying that this structure does have sprinklers, and for the record, it does have sprinklers.

Um lastly, they're gonna talk a lot about a uh a survey or petition that they've put out.

It was not done by a petition company, it was not done by a reputable firm.

They just had one of those bar squares, bar codes you scan.

At the planning commission, we went ahead and called a bunch of the people that were on there.

Most of the numbers that we called were either um discontinued or um not uh available any longer.

The people we actually did talk to, I said that they thought that the entire Morrison Canyon Road was being privatized, and in fact it wasn't.

Um the credibility of these folks is at question.

William Ry-Regi, as I've stated before, was arrested uh for assault on a parked property and had to do 26 uh anger management classes.

I might suggest he gets his money back from that since they don't appear to be too effective.

Um thank you so much.

I would uh respectfully request that you vacate the road.

Thanks.

Supervisor Halbert, did you have a question or a comment with the applicant?

I think I I just recognize that um it it feels like the applicant had more to say.

And um two minutes uh for public comment may be appropriate for members of the public who wish to comment, but in this case, I think um I'd like to hear more uh from Mr.

George about why he would like to vacate this road, and if he has more to clarify for points that have been made um that are not uh true and accurate that I'd like to ask him to explain more more deeply if he has more to share.

Uh if if it is finished, that's fine as well, but it felt like he had more to share.

Um, Supervisor Halbert, I will uh follow the path that you normally take with giving the applicant a total of five minutes.

Nobody ever gives me more time, so thank you for that.

Appreciate it.

I um look, we have uh lived out at that property for more than uh 20 years.

Um, we've seen just about everything you can see on the road.

Uh the opposition, uh, these three individuals um have uh for some reason uh vendetta against me and my family.

Uh they continue to harass us and continue to invade our privacy, they're not even allowed to walk on this segment of the uh road by law.

Uh they settled a significant lawsuit that we had with them for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Um I think it's silly that we're here uh talking so extensively, about a thousand feet of roadway that only serves our properties.

We own up to the center line of the road.

I think it is um silly that so many people are being misled by this group uh through this petition that they're having folks sign.

Uh when folks are on the road and they uh have stopped some people on the road that refuse to sign the petition, uh they get very angry with them, they're very animated folks.

Uh we are um constantly maintaining the road.

They're gonna say that this saves no money uh for the road because for the either the county or the city.

Uh the reason it um doesn't save any money for the county or city is an accurate statement because no money has ever been spent by the city or the county on this stretch of the road.

It's the last part of the road.

It is a deteriorating part of the road, so we maintain the road.

It is not an asphalt road, is what's known as a chip seal road.

So that doesn't actually um do well with cars traveling on it.

Uh the East Bay Regional Parks, again, who is in support of the vacation of the road, built a wonderful modern, compliant turnaround that allows for fire trucks, emergency vehicles to turn around.

Uh we've had everything under the sun all the way at the end of the road in relationship to we've had homeless people, we've had car fires, we've had elderly people who are lost, missing people, um, every kind of drug use you can think of and extracurricular activity that happens at night that you don't really want to happen in front of your uh in front of your house.

Uh we have had some of our cattle and bison shot uh on the road.

Uh so we have to be careful when they're there.

Um, this provides a buffer for us of safety.

Um my wife is at home frequently uh by herself, either during the day, sometimes at night.

And as a result, this uh provides safety for her, but also provides safety for the community.

Uh you've got a very narrow country road with a dead end.

And so you have cars trying to turn around, you've got bicycle riders trying to turn around, you've got pedestrians trying to turn around, got people pushing baby strollers trying to turn around.

It's just unsafe.

It's just it's unsafe.

And from the standpoint of talking to Fremont PD, uh, Fremont Fire, Alameda Sheriff's Department, Alameda Fire, they say, listen, there was a turnaround built for the purpose of safely turning around.

And uh the fire department comes up and does uh tests.

We had a fire on our property earlier this year, and uh it it when you have that many fire vehicles running up, it's gonna be really difficult to get down.

And so if you have a great place to turn around, which exists not at the end of our road, it's much safer for everybody involved.

Uh people talk about the fact that this is taking away some kind of public access.

It's about a thousand feet, about three hundred and thirty steps.

I walked it.

Uh it seems silly that you're next to a park with miles and miles of of uh of trails, and yet this particular stretch of road seems to be so important to these three gentlemen.

I think um enough's enough.

This is a no-brainer.

It it it reduces liability for the county, it reduces whatever expense could be for the county, it makes it safer for the people up there, makes it safer for everyone, including law enforcement emergency personnel.

Do you have any questions for me?

Any questions, Supervisor Miley?

Sure.

Since I've never been up there, do we have a picture that shows?

Shows us.

You have Google Maps or anything that you could bring it up.

It seems uh to me like a no-brainer.

I just want to see if we have a Google Maps picture.

Did you say the turnaround is before your property?

Yeah, yes.

Right where we're gonna put the gate.

We had the turn, the turnaround was engineered uh by an organization called Kieran Wright, one of the best civil engineers in the Bay Area.

You guys use them, we use them.

Uh they they uh engineered it so that a full-size fire apparatus can go in and turn around and come back out.

Okay, thanks.

I may uh explain this drawing.

Uh we did this uh a while back when we were trying to restrict those uh parking restrictions uh uh a few years back.

As you can see right there, the green line basically tells you the property owned by the George's uh trust.

Everything from the green line to the right is owned by the Georgia's trust.

And that roadway, as you can see, circled in a kind of orange color is entirely in that.

So and the turnaround area right there, as you can see where it says turnaround, that's built so that people who come in can actually back into and come back out.

As you get closer to the end of the road, I think I can I can uh share the next uh the next slide that shows you what the positions I'm talking about here.

Okay, I can I just want to show you the at the end what it looks like, why we consider that to be uh somewhat of a liability for the county because it's uh while you have a turnaround area at the top, there's no turnaround at the entrance at the gate to the Georgia's property, and it is kind of washed out, and that's why we put in those parking right there.

As you can see, you know, very narrow.

That's the Norway.

The gate that you see further down is the entrance to uh the current Georgia's property.

And very narrow, anybody who comes around trying to attempt to turn around in this area could fall into the ditch and and uh uh very unsafe.

And this is uh basically the paved area is what we are trying to vacate.

And uh, through the chair, so uh the pave areas that we're trying to vacate, and if we vacate that and the gates moved back, that's where the um the turnaround is that's right.

That's correct.

All right, thanks.

And that is the end of our road, that's our gate.

Thank you for that clarification.

Any other questions of the applicant?

Okay.

Um hearing none, thank you, Mr.

Charge.

And I will also allow five minutes for the opposition to the application to speak as well.

Are there speakers on this matter that have filed the opposition?

Good morning.

Uh my name is Jason Bezes.

I'm the attorney for the uh citizens to protect the Morrison Canyon uh trail, and I assume since no one else is stepping forward, I will uh use the uh the five minutes here.

I assume that the uh clerk and the members of the board have received the copy of the letter I submitted earlier this morning.

I want to make sure it's in the administrative record.

Okay, well, yeah, I submitted this morning.

I also have a paper copy of the 12 pages, which I'll submit here.

Uh the concern here is that this has been a public roadway uh in Almeda County since 1876, so at least 150 years, it's been open to the public.

And this should not be decisions taken lightly in terms of abandoning this public right-of-way.

I believe we heard uh Mr.

George state about people with baby strollers, cyclists, many, many people use this road.

This is one of the few rural roads in uh Washington Township, especially in the hills.

And I believe that the petition, we can see that there's been a lot of people who've been there, uh, bicyclists use it, hikers, pedestrians, stargazers.

I've been up there myself personally back uh back in 2020, trying to see the uh comet in the summer of uh 2020 out there because it's one of the few uh dark places, especially for the people in Fremont to be able to see.

Now, what you need to be considering here is also you heard here there was falsehood by the gentleman over here who said the paved area is being vacated.

It's really the county's entire right-of-way to the fence.

And so also your board needs to uh be looking for things, too.

Is if Mr.

George is maintaining the road, that's public right-of-way.

Where's the encroachment permit?

Is that legal to anyone to be going in and you know, your attorneys will agree with you?

That creates a dangerous condition of public property if it's not permitted.

Uh, these admissions we heard here.

And um, so that that's the that's a concern there, and also when you see this letter, and I hope you'll carefully consider it, because it goes, it has 12 pages.

I mean, I personally visited the site yesterday.

That photo that was shown there, it looks different now.

There's been a lot of gravel just in put on the sides there, the shoulders have been built up, there have been water structures in placed.

Um, I could find no evidence that there was an uh a permit for those activities either from the county.

And the other important point too to keep in mind is it's not just the county that has controls of right of way, the city of Fremont controls much of that right of way.

So the concern is expressed here again in the letter, is there's an indication on exhibit B about a gate being put in, a proposed gate.

You cannot gate that off because the city of Fremont controls part of that right of way.

It would be illegal for this board of supervisors to close public right-of-way that's controlled by the city of Fremont.

So that is um again another concern.

And the letter goes through in great points.

It asks for this uh matter to be continued to a future meeting, in part because the legal notices when I went there yesterday, I could find no legal notice posted anywhere along the right-of-way.

I have photos here in this letter that show that that they're they're gone.

That's that's a due process issue for the public.

They did not have adequate notice of this um public hearing today.

And so this needs to be continued to a future meeting in part to deal with that issue about getting adequate notice.

Uh, and I could and others have witnesses too, that there are no um, that there are no um things on the telephone polls there, the notices, and also there needs to be an investigation of the um this gravel work and these um water scructures, water control structures that are also in this letter.

Are they permitted?

Are they not?

These are rocks that are in the county's public right of way that could constitute a dangerous condition of public property.

Uh, you know, so this is this seems like there's the wild west out there in the in the county's public right of way, and it could incur liability potentially in the long run for this uh because people are anyway.

There needs to in any way that photograph was not accurate, and also one of the things that needs to be done is to um the sequel common sense exemption does not exemption does not apply to this project.

It explains there because there could be a significant impact on the environment, especially if cars are parked there for the events on the property that has an aesthetic impact.

Um, this is necessary for present and prospective public use.

Uh, and also this could be used as a non-motorized transportation facility.

Hikers, uh bikers, walkers, others could use it, even as close to cars, and you have an obligation as your board to look into under streets and highways code sections 892 and 8314 to look into uh that issue, and also this letter concludes with a long history of undue political influence between the applicant and uh the Board of Supervisors District Office one.

Uh, see the grand jury report from 2015 and the 10,000 dollar contribution that the applicant made in the middle of this, and also the the uh chief of staff of district one has been um advocating for with the city of Fremont and with city county staff too, which she needs to be looked into.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, county council.

Uh, my understanding is that we hadn't noticed the hearing on September 11th.

Is that correct?

You see you uh said, the board you set the hearing for this date on September 11th.

Okay, thank you.

Let's continue with uh public comment.

Two minutes, please.

The next two uh in-house, Patricia and uh Aaron.

Hi, board of supervisors.

My name is Patricia Balch.

My husband and I live at 41296 Barcas Road in Fremont.

I'm here to support vacating the last 1,000 feet of Morrison Canyon Road.

Activities that might take place on the George's property are not on the agenda and should not be part of any discussion or decision.

During the 47 plus years we have lived here, there have been many illegal activities that have taken place on Morrison Canyon, including murder and arson to name a few.

It is a magnet for a host of illegal activities.

There is a turnaround where the road would end if the last thousand feet was abandoned, not at the end of the current road.

We have seen unfamiliar drivers drive past the existing turnaround and get stuck, especially in the winter, as you cannot complete the turnaround without leaving the paving.

Law enforcement, if they do come up, typically stop at the turnaround and do not go further to check things out.

It makes no sense to keep Morrison Canyon Road open past the current turnaround.

Cars have got stuck, and there is limited, if any, cell phone service in the area.

It has been a gather place for many illegal activities.

There are no street lights on this section of the road, and it is more difficult for law enforcement to patrol the last thousand feet of the road.

There are no vistas that might draw people to this area or be a reason to keep the road open.

Please allow the closure to help the residents, law enforcement, and uniformed drivers to say stay safe.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you for hearing me.

Um my name is Aaron Pottonjack.

I am here to uh support the abandonment of this road.

I'm a contractor.

You've heard my complaints before about the condition of this road as it stands currently.

Um, but I'd much rather talk about a couple other points.

The uh the good people who walk and uh drive up and down, ride up and down with their bikes.

Um they're nice people.

I wave to them whenever I see them.

Um just next to this property is a park with seven miles of trails where people can see the beautiful mission peak and the beautiful bison that are on the hills, which provided by Chris George.

The second point I'd like to make are the three individuals that were discussed earlier.

I think it's time to finally tell these people to say enough is enough and stop.

These the George family has been harassed to a degree that I have never seen, and I'm a contractor.

These people, Mrs.

George cannot go to get her mail without being harassed by some of these people that walk up and down this road.

And I think enough is enough.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Daphne Lynn, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Um good morning, everyone.

So in 2015, former supervisor Scott Hagerty's chief of staff, Sean Wilson, was found by the Alameda County grand jury for improperly lobbying and pressuring county staff to benefit Mr.

Haggedy's donors, including Chris George, and apparently Mr.

George's efforts to expand his empire on top of Morrison Canyon have continued, including this current request, which I understand was preceded by his 10,000 campaign contribution to one of the supervisors.

Um to me, it would have been already suspect if this piece of public land was up for a purchase, let alone a giveaway.

I mean, why would the county give away this land when it's part of public road that many of us use and enjoy daily?

Um, the area is pristine, it takes a long time to hike up, so there's rarely, if any, homeless people.

And all this um allegation about trash and homeless people.

I mean, unless they're staged, it doesn't really happen.

In terms of safety, you know, as the county staff just said, there has been no issue of liability by the county in the past.

There's there's no arrests or anything, any incident that would incur any um liability to to the county.

And interestingly, you know, Mr.

George claimed that he had to spend a lot of money maintaining this road.

When the county staff and and you know, no public agencies have done that.

But um, the county staff had just said, oh, you know, the county had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars maintaining it.

So who's telling the truth?

I'm not really sure.

It just seems to me that this is all a made-up stuff in order to give away you know public land just to benefit one particular property owner.

And I would urge that you know, this is not granted.

And you know, if you are considering it, I think more um investigation has to be done.

Charlie Rogers, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Thanks for allowing me to be on.

Um, I've been down this road a number of times.

I've been to the George family estate a few times.

You know, a couple things.

Uh, first of all, I certainly do support the vacation of the thousand feet of road that we're talking about.

Closing the road has absolutely no negative impact to the community.

Um by the way, the you know, the last speaker spoke about the, you know, the the robber baron Georges.

They already owned this road.

It's not that we're we're adding anything onto what they don't already own.

Um, so you know, people that keep bringing that up that you know, somehow this is ceding property to the George family um aren't familiar with the actual situation.

Um so there's nothing being taken away.

I've been there at night um when there have been people on bikes.

Um there was actually one time I was there where there was clearly a drug user just outside their gate.

Um it's just as Chris George said, this is just not something that should be allowed.

Um, and we're not, and they're what they're requesting is not taking anything away from the community.

Um, it's been supported by a number of folks before it got to this committee.

Um, so I just want to say for all the right reasons, um, we should allow this to move forward.

Thank you.

Rodney, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Rodney Nakamura, you have two minutes.

Hello.

Uh I just want to say that I firmly disagree uh that this section of road to be used as a basically a private driveway.

Uh I don't think it's just a few people who uh, you know, are not supporting this.

There's hundreds of people.

The truth is most of us work.

It's a 10 a.m.

Thursday, taking off work to be here to speak.

So I'm just saying that I know personally I use this road as well as many people to walk, to hike, to ride, um, for their enjoyment of viewing nature.

The Georges have been trying to, you know, cut off access to the park and the road for for decades.

And, you know, they talk about they've been there 20 years.

I was born in Fremont.

Uh, I've seen Morrison Canyon be used as a public street.

It's now it's used for hiking and and biking, and it's been great.

Um, I just feel like this is just another step of letting wealthy people try to privatize land for personal use.

And it's the job of, you know, the county here as servants to serve the majority public's interest, not just people who are wealthy.

Um, I think um this is an ongoing battle that we've kind of had to face, just being, you know, residents.

Uh, they get more time, they have lots of money, and they seem to get a lot more influence.

Um, I'm just trying to voice my opinion that I hope that the county denies this request for vacation.

Thank you.

Jill, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Good morning, and thank you, Board of Supervisors, for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Aller, and I frequent the George Ranch on a regular basis.

I'm calling in support of the vacation of the less than 1,000 feet of roadway on Morris Caden Road leading to the George Ranch.

In my personal experience, I've encountered a variety of unsafe encounters, particularly at the gate of the ranch where the road is narrow and very unsafe to turn around.

There is no access for hiking, biking, or horseback riding on this section of the road, as well as no parking, and I see no reason for the city and county not to vacate it.

Thank you.

The next three in-person speakers are Rick Schussel, Mark Flaherty, and Teresa George.

Thank you very much.

I'm Rick Shussel.

I just like to echo what others have said and add my support to the George family.

Let's not forget that there is a public park and a parking lot with trailheads way before where this new gate would be placed.

There is space for the public there.

This does not cut off any park trails or parking lot.

It's there way before this turnaround area.

And I would like to just restate the thousand feet of road functions as a driveway, as a driveway for the property.

That's what your staff has said, and it's true.

That's all it really is.

So it's it's to me a safety issue.

Um I've been there as well.

And when you get to the end of that road, if you're right up against their gate, there is no way to turn around.

You do cause problems.

There's no reason you're going to walk that far because the trailheads are way back this way.

So there's you're not taking anything away that's really not true.

So I appreciate if you would support the uh George family.

Thank you.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak at this public hearing.

I'm a resident of the city of Pleasanton.

I have known the George family for over 20 years.

I was at the Planning Commission meeting last June.

I listened carefully to all who shared their comments regarding the vacation of the last 800 feet of Morrison Canyon Road.

I agreed with all statements supporting the vacation, and some of the ones that do not support.

The question that should be answered is centered around whether or not this section of Morrison Canyon Road is safe for all.

Based on what I've witnessed over the last 20 years, without any hesitation or reservation, I believe it is not safe.

For that reason, I support the vacation of the last 800 feet of Morrison Canyon Road.

Thank you.

Hi, and thank you for taking the time to listen.

As many of you know, this piece of property isn't just land to our family, it's our home.

It's where I've raised my sons, spent countless weekends with family and friends, and where I am often enjoying the quiet beauty of the ranch by myself.

I am in favor of the road abandonment, but I want to speak not as a property owner, but as a woman who simply wants to feel safe in her own home.

Yes, it's a beautiful and secluded place, but that seclusion comes with challenges.

There have been many times when people have come up the road uninvited, not always just the occasional cyclists or curious walkers, but people who made me feel uneasy and unsafe.

My family cares deeply about this property, and we maintain the beauty of the surrounding areas.

My husband, my sons, and myself have cleared dead tree branches, down trees, picked up trash, and taken steps to reduce fire hazards over the years.

Often when no one else did.

We've been good stewards of the land and good neighbors to the community.

We're asking for all we're asking for is a little added safety, not to keep people out, but to protect those of us who live there and maintain the space and reduce the risk for everyone who uses it responsibly.

This isn't about restricting access, it's about protecting what's already cared for by me and my family who love it deeply.

Thank you for listening to me.

Corey, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Corey.

Yes, thank you so much, and good morning.

My name is Corey Kavanowski, and I've been on this road many, many times.

If you have been on this road, you know that that last thousand feet of road leading up to the location of the George's gate.

That will not be missed if in fact the vacation is approved.

When you're going up this road and you pass that turnaround section that has been discussed, I feel like you are either lost or you're just wandering, or you are going to visit the George family.

There's really no reason to go past that turnaround.

But if you do, you quickly arrive at the current gate and you are forced to turn around.

And the issue is really you can't do that properly.

You have to do a six-point turn, and you may very well go off the road or run into the gate or damage property.

There's really no reason for the public to be up there near that gate's current location anyway.

So there's no there's no trail, there's no public access points.

This particular stretch of road that we're talking about.

Um I've been on it, I've experienced it myself.

I don't think it's a particularly safe place for the public to be, especially at night.

It's very dark, it's very hard to see.

And although I've been on this road many, many times myself, I'm I don't feel comfortable going on that road.

It's so narrow that you know, you you basically have to almost pull off the road to let another car come down.

That's a whole nother issue is if there's happens to be a couple of cars up there at the same time, it is an absolute cluster.

There is not appropriate space to navigate that road there and turn around, especially if there are other people or there are bikers or there are walkers there at the same time.

It becomes especially unsafe in those circumstances.

I support the vacation.

Thank you.

Candy, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, and I appreciate your time.

I am also in vacation of this road.

It's I've been, um, I've known the George family for over 20 years and have been up to this property countless times and have been in situations where there are cars lined up, parked on both sides where you can barely get through.

And you can imagine if there was an emergency that were to happen, an emergency vehicle would not have the access to be able to gain, you know, access to be able to get to the help that they needed to get to.

So I, you know, the health and safety reasons for the vacation for my for my reasoning is is for the reason for my support.

I, you know, it's I'm unfortunately suffered an emergency situation where I had a stroke, and if somebody could send me, I probably wouldn't have survived.

And that's something that you have to take into consideration for the safety of the family and for the safety of people who are at their home.

You need to be able to give them the privacy and the space that they need and the safety that they feel that they're entitled to.

There is no reason to have a road that is beyond that turn point, as you could see by the illustration that they brought up, which I thought was telling, and I'm glad that they did actually show that to everybody because the road is narrow.

There's no reason to go up there to stargaze or to go hiking.

There's nowhere to go hiking, there's nowhere to stargase.

There's a park down the down the road prior to the turnout where you can see and stargaze and hike.

Again, there is no reason to be able to go beyond the point of that turnout.

There's a reason that the turnout is there.

Anything beyond that is the George property.

And as I heard in a previous comment, it serves as more driveway to their property.

And for that, I am in full support of the George family to vacate this road.

Thank you.

Jamie Friedis, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Hello, thank you, Board of Supervisors, for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Jamie Freitas, and I am calling in support of the vacation of the roadway.

I want to start by saying that as an Alameda County resident, I love this community and I really value having access to the outdoors.

I enjoy going on hikes and spending time in nature, but I also care deeply about safety, both for myself and others.

When emergencies happen, like wildfires, medical issues, or police incidents, every second truly matters.

Vacating this section of the road would give first responders faster, safer, and more reliable access when time makes all the difference.

Right now, police have a hard time patrolling the area because there's no safe turnaround.

That makes it harder for them to monitor what's happening and to respond quickly when needed.

This isn't about limiting access, it's more about making the area safer for the community as a whole.

I truly believe vacating this road is the responsible thing to do, and I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you.

Courtney, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Hi there.

The rest of the people who have spoken before right now, but as a real means of practicality, I have been all the way up this road.

Um, seen been to the access point with the park and seen all of that.

And then as a curious human, um, I have walked on the road by the gate that everyone is talking about.

And if you're walking up by the gate, it feels like you're at someone's house.

And so very, very practically, uh, given the fact that it's just such a small portion of this, and that I can still have access to Vargas Plateau Park and any of the hiking and any of the outdoor activities that are up here.

It seems like from a safety perspective and from a basic uh perspective, particularly given the short area on the road, that this isn't hurting anybody, and it sounds like it's helping um in a significant way from uh a safety and a community perspective.

And so I'm fully in support of this road um being vacated.

The next three in-person speakers are Diana McKenna, Nadine Flirty.

And Stephen Scala.

Good morning, good morning, supervisors.

Um, I'm here in support of vacating the road that's been uh spoken about this morning.

Um I have uh been a friend of the family for many years.

Uh, uh the George family.

I visited the ranch many times.

So I have seen um cars parked and kind of abandoned along the right up by the gate to their home.

And um I have seen people kind of lost people trying to turn around and having a great deal of trouble doing that.

So I agree that it is a not it is not safe uh for any kind of turning around there, um, and uh I hope I just I hope that you see the the way to um vacate the throat for them.

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you, Board of Supervisors, for the opportunity to speak this morning.

My name is Nadine Flaherty, and I am in full support of the occasion of the approximately a thousand feet of roadway on Morrison Canyon Road leading to the George Ranch.

In my personal experience, I have encountered a variety of unsafe encounters in that section of the road, such as illicit activity in parked cars along the roadway, speeding vehicles on the straightaway, vehicles trespassing onto the George property, and unsafe turnarounds at the ranch gate.

Further, there are no hiking or biking trails, nor is there access to Vargas Plateau Park in this section of Morrison Canyon Road.

It is a road that leads into the owner's private property.

I fully support the closure of the roadway between the already built turnaround and the George Ranch for the safety of the public, emergency vehicles, and last but not least, the safety and privacy of the George family.

Thank you.

If I go to Livermore, I can see miles of recreational trails on the outskirts of the city that are adjacent to agricultural lands.

It seems that we are able to have a coexistence of recreation and agriculture in the boundaries outside of Livermore.

Fremont, that appears not to be the case.

We seem to have much more conflict.

Here, which is a park used by thousands of people a year on a given nice weekend day, like probably in the next couple days.

The parking lot that holds 26 cars, which is also limited by certain legal arrangements, clearly overflows.

The reason people are parking in this area of Morrison Canyon Road uh up until this uh proposed gate is because there's not enough parking there.

People are using the road to park.

The entrance to the park is 1700 feet from where this proposed gate will be moved to people easily walk that distance to get into the park because there's no other way they can.

This discussion needs to come back to what do the public want and need for this area of Vargas Plateau.

The discussion should be how can we expand access to Vargas Plateau?

How can we expand the trails?

How can public works provide to allow people to access this park by allowing them to park to a park and then walk to it?

So please consider that as part of what the public needs in this whole area, and not just a little bit of tit for tat between a couple of people.

And as far as safety, it's actually safer than my area in Fremont.

Tyler Hughes, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Thank you very much for giving me the time.

My name is Tyler Hughes, and I'm here today to speak in support of Chris and Teresa George, and more importantly, in support of reason, responsibility, and public safety.

I think it's important to be clear about what's being asked.

The George family owns the land on both sides of this road.

They've maintained it privately for over two decades.

What they're requesting is not a favor.

It's a simple act of alignment between ownership and accountability to formally vacate the last 1,000 feet of roadway that no longer serves the public, but continues to put the public at risk.

To be clear, that road does not lead to a park, does not lead to a trail.

It dead ends at the George's gate with no turnaround for fire trucks, ambulances, or police units.

During a recent fire, three Calfire engines were forced to reverse hundreds of feet down a narrow corridor, costing valuable minutes that could have meant lives.

That is not conjecture, it's lived experience.

Meanwhile, because this road remains in bureaucratic limbo, the Georges are the ones who carry the cost, the maintenance, and the consequence.

They've endured repeated trespassing, illegal activity, and even fires, while still showing incredible restraint, stewardship, and respect for due process.

And yet, what should be a straightforward safety matter has become distorted.

Fueled by a small group whose opposition has become personal, obsessive, and most importantly, divorced from the facts.

The heart of this request is simple safety, stewardship, and sanity.

The public loses nothing, the community gains clarity, and the county corrects a decades-long oversight in the name of public good.

Approving this isn't just about the Georges, it's about the kind of governance that we believe in.

One that rewards responsibility, respects private property, and protects public safety.

Thank you.

Melissa Harbour, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Hi, good morning.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Like many others have said, I am in support of the vacation of this road.

Again, the park is much farther up the road as that as Candy had mentioned on that map.

It was such a great display of what the issue is.

That turnaround is the safest part for cars to turn around.

That last thousand feet of the road serves no purpose for anyone.

The gentleman who was talking about the lack of parking, people are not supposed to park along the road at all.

And people do.

When people park down there, it is very, very dangerous.

I've been there on the weekends.

People trying to turn around, as people mentioned with babies and strollers.

Again, putting the gate a thousand feet up does not hurt the park or people or their community in any way.

It truly is for the safety of everyone, including the Georges.

So I hope that you vote in support of this vacation.

Thank you very much.

Melissa Copel, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Melissa Copeland Please unmute.

Sorry about that.

I'm here.

Yeah, I was on mute.

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon.

My name is Melissa Koppel.

I want to start by saying I fully support this road being closed.

As we've heard, it's a narrow and set standard road that simply isn't safe for general use or further for emergency personnel and vehicles.

There's no proper turnaround at the end, for which we saw on that map.

The turnaround is much further up the road, which makes it difficult and risky for vehicles, cyclists, or pedestrians.

In fact, if we can all imagine an emergency vehicle, such as a large fire truck that doesn't realize where that road goes and ends up at the gate, a thousand feet past that turnaround.

In order to get out of that space, they're going to have to reverse, potentially severely impacting timelines to protect the public.

It's been noted that the land on both sides of the subject portion of the road, which is a small portion, is owned by the George family.

There's no trail, no park access, and no community use connected to this portion of the road.

So for these reasons, I strongly support closing this portion of the road.

Thank you for your time today.

The next three in person, Amy Sanzo, Jerry Hunt, and Mark, please.

Good morning, and thank you, Board of Supervisors, for the opportunity to speak this morning.

My name is Amy Sanzo, and I frequent the George Ranch on a regular basis.

I am calling in support of the vacation on the roadway on Morrison Canyon Road leading up to the George Ranch.

I haven't encountered a variety of vehicles turning around at the end of the gate at the narrow and very unsafe maneuver.

Additionally, I know the Georgia's own the property on both sides of the road, and they are simply requesting the road be abandoned so they don't have unwanted parking turning around or racing their vehicles on the straightaway outside their gate.

It is unsafe.

I know there is a trail for hiking access or biking on this section of the road.

There's no access for trail or biking or hiking on this part of the road, as well as no parking.

And I've actually encountered people that are walking in the middle of the road, will not move out of the way because they think that they belong there because there's no sidewalks, there's no place for them to walk.

Thank you for your time.

Morning.

I've uh have a long history in Alameda County in the uh real estate and building business.

I'm here to support uh adopting the resolution and returning the land to the property owners.

Um like I said, I've been at this for a while, and as I have looked and been through this process, there's always sometimes or sometimes there's a lot of emotion attached to these decisions.

And for me, it's an evaluation of separating the emotions from the merits.

And as I prepared to come here today, I did a thorough review again of the merits of what is in front of you today.

Um the George family has proven themselves to be responsible and respectful stewards of the land.

Um I've heard this is a life safety issue, particularly for first responders.

This patch of land is surrounded by private property owned by the George family.

It is the responsibility of the county to maintain this patch of land.

It conforms with the county's general plan.

Uh the agencies and utilities have been consulted, and the East Bay Regional Parks, which are no pushovers, support vacating this patch of land.

Um, the only question that's been raised has been mitigated, and there is no there is no cost of the county by adopting this resolution.

Um, and relieves the county of the responsibility to maintain this thousand square feet.

Uh, appreciate your time today and strongly support adopting this resolution.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you, supervisors.

I'm Mark Pleiss, and I am here to strongly support abandoning the easement, as we just to clarify, this is an easement on property that the George family already owns and has owned for two decades.

This is basically a dead-end hallway road.

Hallway is probably my envision of it, that has no connection and is not a part of the Vargas Plateau Regional Park.

This is wandering people going to the end of the hallway.

And it just doesn't.

Oh, I agree with what Mr.

George said.

This is this is silly that we're actually here, and um, really is a very clear um issue with all the things that all these fantastic comments have made about safety.

It just is a no-brainer that this should be abandoned.

Thank you.

Stephanie Percy, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I am also speaking in full support of vacating this portion of the road.

It seems like the opposing comments have been to confuse others that this is in regards to a larger portion of the road than it really is.

And it is really just the last thousand feet leading up to the gate of the George's property.

Again, just to reiterate, it serves no purpose for the public.

Um, there's no access to trails or parks off of this portion of the road.

And it is actually contrary to the public because it proposes or offers safety concerns.

Um, you know, with the narrowness of the road, the inability to turn around and all of the other um issues that we've heard today.

So again, I fully support the vacating of this portion of the road.

Thank you.

M.

Noak, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

M.

Nowak.

Good morning.

Uh thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I just wanted to reiterate what other folks have said, and due to the ongoing problem with trespassing, loitering, trash being dumped, uh for the safety of the public and the George family.

I fully support the vacation of this stretch of road.

And I think everybody said quite a bit, and that's all I have.

Thank you.

John McFarlane, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, board members.

I'm here today to express strong support for the proposed road abatement.

This decision is about public safety, responsible land use, and protecting our community.

First, road safety must be the top priority.

If the county has invest any money into Morrison Canyon Road, which they should, it shouldn't be the last 1,000 feet.

There are numerous areas along the road that need repair.

And as a taxpayer, if the owner is willing to improve the road for utility companies and first responders, we should take advantage of this opportunity.

Second is the road's current open status has led to ongoing trespass and safety issues.

Just two weeks ago on Sunday, September 21st, I personally witnessed a bicyclist right onto the property, which he said was out of curiosity.

Excuse me.

During the summer months, when I visit George Ranch, I've seen park visitors parking on both sides of the section of the road that's in dispute, making it unsafe for drivers and pedestrians that are walking to the park.

Without proper sun edge or lighting, it's easier, it's easy for drivers or cyclists to get lost and end up on private property.

These are ongoing public safety hazards that can and should be prevented.

Third, approving the abatement provides clarity of ownership and maintenance responsibility.

For more than 20 years, the property owners have improved the road entirely at their own expense.

Vacating the unnecessary public portion would reduce county liability, eliminate confusion about jurisdiction, ensure that the property, the properly engineered turnaround, which is already supported by East Bay Regional Parks and the City of Fremont functions as intended for emergency use.

Approving this abatement does not take anything away from the public.

It enhances safety, accountability, and efficiency for everyone.

I respectfully ask that the board of supervisors vote in favor of the road abatement in the interest of safety and good governance.

Thank you.

The next three uh in-person speakers are Mark Davis, Jim Garcia, and Kevin Herman.

And you can all come and line up and good morning.

My name is Mark Davis.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of this resolution.

Um I'm here in good conscience to encourage the board to do the right thing and to allow all tax-paying citizens of this county the right to delineate their private property with a gate or with a fence.

They're not asking for uh you or the citizens of this county to give up any publicly owned land.

It's their private property.

I love the passion of the constituents of this county.

It's tough to pile on any more logic or good sense that hasn't already been shared in support of this resolution.

I do want to emphasize that this resolution is supported by the SFPUC, East Bay Regional Park, Alameda County Planning Department, your staff, PGE Public Works, literally every entity department or county office imaginable.

They are all in support.

You've already signed the resolution supporting this item, uh so I hope we're here just to allow everyone to have their say, and you can pass resolution once and for all.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Good morning, my name is Jim Garcia.

Uh my family has a cattle ranch that borders Morrison Canyon, and we've been uh in this area for about 150 years.

Uh so I'm here as a neighbor of the Georges.

Uh I've heard a couple things said today that's not that that bothers me.

One is people, the opposition is making this sound like it is a uh like they're shutting down the entire road.

Just need to note that this is only the last thousand feet of a fairly long road.

Uh there was also a speaker here today that said that uh people are parking on the road and use parking for the for the park.

And it's my understanding, and I believe there's a sign at the beginning of the roads on Vargas Road saying no parking on Warson Canyon.

So again, I'm here uh in favor of the proposal for all the reasons it's been said by the by the people uh today.

And uh for me, this is just a very common sense proposal.

Thank you.

If I may um can the clerk tell me how many more speakers we have on this item, six in person, eleven online.

Okay, um, we will um close the public hearing fairly soon with this setup hearing uh speakers um and the remaining speakers.

I would like to um limit the time to one minute, please.

Hello, my name's Kevin Herman.

Um, and I think the key issue here, I am in support of vacating as well.

Uh this is not a trail.

This is a road.

And we don't encourage or allow pedestrians to walk down the middle of roads or bicyclists.

We don't allow people to park cars in roads that are too narrow to allow further access.

Uh but that's what's being what the opposition keeps saying is that they have should have the right to walk down the middle of a road.

We don't allow that.

We don't allow bicyclists to do it either for safety reasons.

I've seen personally many, many times where I've had to honk to horns of people that are walking down the middle of the road.

I can't get around them.

Somebody's gonna get hit, somebody's gonna get hurt.

Uh that's what's been said multiple times here.

It it's a fact.

So I encourage you guys to address the liability issue, vacate the road, and just avoid, you know, tragedy.

Thank you.

Blab Purley, you're on the line.

You have one minute.

Yeah, hi, thank you.

My name is Brian LaPurle.

Uh I wrote a bunch of stuff down, but I can't really say it better than anybody else already has.

I'm in full support of the closure of the road to the George family.

Um also uh it seems like this is only the only opposition to this closure is just a small group of people who seem to have some something against the George family and continuously do anything they can to make things harder on the family.

And as one of them mentioned, uh, it I take offense to what the opposition implied that they are just some rich family looking to grow their quote empire.

Anyone who knows the George family knows they're some of the most loving and generous people.

So to make those false accusations is just offensive and supports what has already been said about uh these few that just have some vendetta against the Jordans.

Um I'm in full support of vacating the road.

Thank you very much.

Bruce, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

I'm sorry, you have one minute.

Yes, uh Bruce Diggy here.

I'm generally uh against uh uh giving public land uh to private uh owners as a as a general rule.

I'd like to suggest maybe there's a lot of concern about people turning around in cars.

Uh but but there's a lot of uh the outside, you know, the the hikers and cyclists uh would like to go through.

So I'm I would like to suggest maybe having a gate that allows uh cyclists and hikers to get through.

Um so it's still accessible to to hikers and cyclists, and you get away from the safety issue of turning around of the car at the end, uh, you know, the George's uh uh, you know, roadway there.

So um, yeah, that would be a good compromise.

Uh that would uh because obviously there's uh two sides of this thing, and uh so allow some access, but just not with cars.

Um I hope you can consider that.

Thank you.

David, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Good morning.

My name is David Panacrossi, and I'm in support of abandoning the roadway.

As many speakers have made very, very good points.

I would prefer to refrain from reiterating that points.

However, I would like to bring up a situation that was very similar that I had to go through over a period of four years.

Um, I had a road that was between two portions of my property.

Uh, it was a four-year process, and unfortunately, on this particular case, we had an elderly couple that tried to turn around in an area which they could not do.

They were stuck in a culvert.

The older gentleman decided to get out and fell into the culvert and broke his hip.

Unfortunately, very similar to this piece of property, there was no way to receive a sell signal.

So the elderly woman had to literally walk a mile to a mile and a half to get that signal.

Now, where I'm going with this is pretty simple.

At some point in time, in a litigious society as we have, or that we are in, um, I would expect, God forbid, something happens, there will be an issue, and the taxpayers will be on the hook for it.

So I'm asking you to mitigate the future risk to the taxpayer by allowing this abatement to move forward.

Thank you.

Alan McFarlane, you have one minute.

Alan McFarlane.

Hello, members of the board of supervisors.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Alan McFarlane, I'm here to express my full support for the vacation of this section of Morrison Canyon Road.

Having driven on this road myself, I can attest to how difficult and dangerous it is to navigate, especially at night.

The road is extremely narrow with limited visibility, and it's very, very difficult to turn around.

These conditions pose a serious risk to both safety and especially for emergency vehicles.

Thank you so much.

Next four uh in-house speakers, and you can line up, please.

AJ George, Joe Marspini, Joe Cabral, and Sarish.

Hi everyone.

Thank you to the Board of Supervisors for hosting us all today and allowing us to provide comments on both sides of the uh opinions for today.

I am Chris and Teresa George's oldest son, and I wanted to state my support for the vacation of the thousand feet of road uh in front of the home I grew up in.

Uh again, not to reiterate or repeat everything that has already been said, but I wanted to be clear about what the issue is we're talking about today and why we are talking about it and who it is for.

It is not for our family, it is for the safety of the citizens in the county and the people who use the park.

This is something that would is truly in the best interest of ensuring that emergency personnel vehicles, state and local authorities have the ability uh to protect and serve uh the region that they are assigned to.

So thank you so much and appreciate you allowing me this time.

Good morning.

Uh my name is uh Joe Marispini.

I'm a field representative with the Norcal Carpenters Union.

Um thank you for allowing me to speak, uh Chief or President and uh members of the board.

Um I represent represent over 37,000 members across Northern California.

First, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak.

And after reviewing the item nine, we are on full support of the proposed vacation of the final 1,000 feet of Morrison Canyon Road in Alameda County.

We would agree with the staff recommendation to, and we appreciate the thoughtful approach taken to ensure safety and responsibility and planning in the area.

Our organization has worked closely with the property owner on this pro on uh other projects and has seen firsthand their commitment to quality and community partnership.

For these reasons, NorCal Carpenters Union is proud to support the item and looks forward to continue collaboration on future projects that create good jobs and a strong communities here in Alameda County.

And thank you for your consideration.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Joe Cabral, and I'm here to fully support the vacation of this land.

I've been going up to the property for over 20 years now, and I too will not reiterate everything that has been said today, uh, but I do agree uh with the support of this.

It has no benefit this small stretch of dangerous land for all of the reasons why you've heard before does not serve any but benefit to the public.

Um it only causes you know potential harm and public safety concerns.

So I'm in a hundred percent support um and hope this uh passes.

Thanks.

Good morning, I'm Suresh Bizaj, Fremont Regent for more than 30 years.

Um I'm in opposition of this proposal.

I find it odd that so many supporters were allowed to speak for two minutes, and now when the time has been cut down to one minute, be as it may.

Um much has been said about Vargas Park having parking spot.

August Park staging area has only 25 parking spots, originally the park district wanted to put 100, and somehow that was cut down to 25 due to some legal issues, and also the park gate is closed until 8 a.m.

and again at 8 p.m.

And in the night time, there's a curfew.

So even people who hike up the Morrison Canyon Road from below, which takes about hour and a half from the nearest parking spot, uh, they cannot go in.

Um, and this section road is the only flat area with a clear view of the sky that is accessible in the nighttime for the phenomenon.

Thank you.

Paul Perkins, you have one minute.

Hello, uh, my name is Paul Perkins.

I am a resident of Morrison Canyon Road.

I strongly oppose vacating this property.

My street address is literally Morrison Canyon Road.

Um, I am disappointed.

I only get one minute to speak, and the supporters got two.

Um so I purchased my home on Morrison Canyon 20 years ago, specifically because of this road, because of this climb, because of this hill, because of that plateau.

There used to be a radar facility up there that I love to go visit.

I'm a frequent user of the road.

My fitness app shows that in the last eight years I've ridden my bicycle up Morrison Canyon Road 1,000 times.

I'm a regular user.

So when it's characterized that it's a small group in opposition, that's completely false.

When I check with all my neighbors, all of the local residents, dozens of people, everyone is vehemently opposed to giving away this property.

So it's true.

It's a popular spot for stargazing because I like contamination.

You know, there's very little light contamination.

It's a great place.

Anika Wasserfall, you have one minute.

Thank you.

I'm here today to show my support in vacating this road.

This is only a thousand feet of road that we are asking to vacate for all the reasons you've heard today, which I won't even go into.

It is to protect the family and their land and the community.

While others believe that we are taking something away, we're not trying to do that.

This road is a liability for the county, the family, and the pedestrians.

This just makes sense for all parties involved.

And it's such a small portion of the road that we are asking to vacate.

There is a beautiful park down the way meant for pedestrians that should be used as intended.

Safety comes first and foremost, and we need to do what is right.

I fully support this vacation.

Thank you.

Justin Fisher, you have one minute.

Hi, my name is Justin Fisher, and I'm a resident of Pleasanton.

And I'm a huge user of East Bay Regional Parks.

But the area proposed, it's it's pointless.

There's no, you would think at the top of the road, that's the top.

It's lower.

There's no view.

They talk about stargazing.

Uh it's great because it's pitch black.

When we have a pitchback place on the road, perfect spot for crime.

I've been there multiple times where there's vans parked and CD individuals.

As everybody had stated, I can't agree more.

You know, it's it's pointless to have that open, and I believe that Georgia should uh take control of that as well as protect it.

Thank you.

Paula Kinmaid, you have one minute.

Hi, how's it going?

Uh thank you for everybody letting me speak.

Uh I've had the pleasure of uh visiting the Georgia's farm and ranch before with my children.

And what I would say, I don't want to belabor what everybody else has said.

I don't believe the street on that last thousand uh meters is safe.

It's not architected for high use, it's not architected for parking on the side, it's barely architected to drive alongside another car.

And I think the biggest challenge is the frustration people feel when they miss the parking spot that they're trying to get to and then they turn around.

One of the personal events that I've had happen with my children in the car, is very frustrated motorists flying back to get back to where they're supposed to go because they don't have the proper signage and there's not the ability to turn around.

So I fully support um abandoning and uh releasing the land back to the rules.

The last in-person speakers are William Sarju, Glenn Kirby, Kelly.

The other speakers can come and line up.

Thank you.

My name is William Urage.

Uh Mission Peak Conservancy.

We submitted over 900 petitions.

Um I don't know why.

Director Wadeson did not see them.

They were also submitted to the clerk of the board and to the individual supervisors.

So 900 petitions signed by people that are interested in keeping this access open.

We're not disputing issues of safety.

If it were an issue of safety, we would have shut down the event center where a large wedding was held, contrary to Mr.

Lopez's statement that there should be no assembly use.

It's not zoned for that.

If safety is an issue, then you shouldn't allow hundreds of cars to go onto the property and then allow people to come off the property after they've been drinking alcohol because that's what you do at most weddings.

So we thank you for considering this.

Thank you, board.

My name is uh Sarju Noran.

I'm a friend of the George family, and I've been to the ranch myself uh several times.

This is absolutely a safety issue.

The idea that uh you can have pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars sharing this road.

Uh we talked about six-point turns.

If you can imagine cars parked on the side of that road and trying to turn, six points still would not accomplish turning around on that on that portion of the road.

This is a safety issue.

The park is right next door.

There's no need for this additional space for folks to come stargazed.

I do want to address the comments as well of counsel who came and spoke in opposition.

Um as I understand it, notice of this hearing was provided on September 11th.

I was at that hearing.

Those in opposition were at that hearing as well.

There was adequate time and opportunity to provide any opposition paperwork.

Instead, what we hear is that there was a 12-page report provided just this morning that apparently no one has received and had the opportunity to review.

Thank you.

Hello, my name's Glenn Kirby.

Um, I was formerly one of your planning commissioners for 12 years, um, and I use this area quite a bit.

Um, it's growing up there.

Vargas Plateau is becoming more popular as time goes on, despite Mr.

George's uh attempts to halt that.

Uh, in the near future, the Bay Ray Ridge Trail we're going through there.

There's a plan for a trail to connect Vargas to the east down to Sunol Water Temple.

Um, so I disagree with the fourth whereas that this serves only one property owner.

There's a long history of public use here, and we're seeing that demonstrated in the number of people who signed the petitions and a number of people who are speaking here today.

In fact, Mr.

George and a lot of his supporters have acknowledged how many people that they see on this land here.

Hikers, bikers, the elderly, people on strollers.

So if you decide to go ahead with this vacation, I would like to see you uh require, in addition to a public utility easement, a prescriptive easement allowing for continued public use by hikers and bikers.

Thank you.

A lot of people here are working for the for the uh property owner just as he was.

Um, there was the statement that all the organizations and government agencies are have supported this.

One that has not, as Mr.

Waldesenbet told you.

The City of Fremont has taken no position.

Um Mr.

Waldesenbet also said very uh a very uh incorrect and false statement.

He made a claim that all of this uh area that's being uh um vacated is paved.

He's vacating twice as much land because of the shoulders, the shoulders are unpaved.

Okay, okay.

And finally, he said something very incorrect.

He said that uh the over and over again that the shoulders are uneven and that there's a sharp drop-off.

This is a this picture was taken yesterday and emailed to you this morning, and it this shows the road has been repaved.

It is now the shoulders are glass smooth.

Harrison George, you have one minute.

Good afternoon, and thank you guys so much for giving me a chance to speak.

Uh I'm gonna talk to you guys more from a human's perspective as uh opposed to the safety perspective.

As many of you know, this is my property, this is my family's property and family's home.

It's a place where we've built memories, celebrated milestones, and where we will continue to spend time together.

Last year I got married there.

It was truly a beautiful moment for my wife and I.

Well, until it wasn't.

You see, as a guests, as a few guests were leaving the property, we were being harassed, my friends and family harassed on what was supposed to be the most memorable day of my life.

Yeah, I guess you could say in many ways, it was.

These events didn't start that night.

No, they started well before that, several years before that.

In fact, and my family and I have been harassed ever since.

Not because we've done anything wrong, but because we have actually decided to live our lives within our rights, and yet we are still continually getting complaints and being attacked and viewed all of them on social media.

And so, yes, I am in full support of the road abandonment.

I hope you guys can see this from a human perspective.

JBE Ringer.

Thank you.

Yep, this is John Baringer.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak out in support of vacating the public easement.

This is first and foremost a safety issue, which was stated by public works in their comments, and in giving their support for vacating the property.

The easement, as noted, has no value but does create a potential material liability for the county, given the poor condition of the 1000 feet in question, again, as stated by public works.

Vacating the property improves safety of both the general public and the George family while benefiting the county by removing the risk associated with having the general public utilize a road essentially to nowhere that is in poor condition, and finally it saves taxpayer dollars by eliminating the need to maintain the easement.

The only loss in all of this to the general public by vacating the road is the potential for injury or harm due to the condition of the road.

And the only loss of the county is a risk associated with the road to nowhere that is in poor condition.

For these reasons, I would humbly request that the board follow the recommendation of public works and vacate the easement.

Tony, you have one minute.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I fully support the vacation of the last 100 feet of Morris Canyon Road.

Very good points have already been made, so I won't reiterate them.

What I'd like to emphasize emphasize is that this is not taking away anything from the public.

This section is simply the land beyond the park.

It's not a place where people are supposed to park, as there's clearly a no-parking sign posted.

And for those who are wishing to stargaze, the public area of the park provides a safe and accessible space to do that.

At the end of this road, there's nowhere for hikers or cyclists to go except for onto the family's private property.

This area does not connect to anything else.

Closing this portion simply makes sense.

Thank you for your consideration.

Adam George, you have one minute.

Adam George.

You have one minute.

Let's call Adam George.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm speaking as a member of the George family, owners of either side of the road on Morrison Canyon.

Uh it's clear we're not asking for public land to be given away.

We it's already there.

But we're requesting as a formal vacation of the last thousand feet of the road to align with the legal boundaries with actual ownership and ensure clear responsibility for safety.

The section of the road is not maintained by the county, yet still considered public.

That creates more confusion.

More emergency vehicles have been up there.

And as you've heard, they've reverse dangerously.

We've also dealt with repeated trespassings, illegal activity, and even us homeless on our property, all which put my family at risk, other people at risk, such as the first responders.

Vacating the road would help prevent these issued by clarifying access and reducing misuse.

The turnarounds built by East Bay Regional Park, as previously stated.

Um, they issued letters in support of the vacation.

We've maintained the road ourselves since 2004 by picking up trash and making sure that there's no issues there.

I've also endured targeting and harassment from individuals associated with mission peak conservatory.

Their objections are not rooted in public interest, they're personal and disruptive.

Yeah, one minute.

Hi, uh, my name is Semi Tannen Wasravatin.

I support this road abatement because it's really about safety and common sense, not about money or ownership.

Keeping the road open has created ongoing problems.

People trespassing, dumping trash, lighting fireworks, and even getting lost because they don't realize it's a dead end.

It's not safe for the family who lives there or for the people who wander in by mistakes.

This isn't about wealth or keeping people out, it's about preventing accidents and protecting the community.

The George family has maintained this road on their own for over 20 years simply because they care about keeping it safe.

As a woman and a neighbor, I really feel for what they've gone through, trying to keep their home and the area around it safe.

Approving this request would bring fairness, safety, and peace of mind for everyone.

Thank you for your time, Cameron.

Yeah, one minute.

Hi, thank you.

I'm uh here to speak in support of the road vacation.

Um, disappointed at kind of the effort behind this.

It appears that this is just another record of a long uh history of harassment that's been organized by you know a small group of individuals that are intentionally being misleading and distributing false information.

Uh I know the Georges have been victimized or been our victim of their property being probed and trespassed, and I think that this is just going to perpetuate uh that behavior if we give platform to this.

Thank you.

That was the last speaker.

Thank you to all the speakers.

Um, at this time, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?

I have a motion by Supervisor Miley.

Yeah, but by Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Roll call vault, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye.

President Howbert.

Hi.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Um, just for the record, uh, we did receive Mr.

Beasle's letter that was at sent at 3 50 a.m.

this morning, uh, and then again at 11 8 um 12 a.m.

this morning.

And our county clerk uh sent a reply acknowledging it at 1118 a.m.

this morning.

And we also did receive the petitions that uh were referenced by the speakers.

So at this time, let me turn to the board for consideration and deliberation on the resolution that is before us requested by the public works department to vacate the terminus last 1,000 feet of Moore's Canyon Road, subject to the reservation of a perpetual public utility and access easement over the vacated area.

And I see Supervisor Halbert, President Halbert.

Yes, thank you, Supervisor Tam.

I would like to thank uh you, my colleagues and members of the staff.

I'd like to thank the members of the public who have taken their time to weigh in on this item as I weigh the different perspectives represented today, and as I keep an open mind to listening to all sides, I do reflect on one of the comments made by one of the speakers.

Indeed, we often see both emotions and merits as we have to make decisions.

And it's our job to differentiate.

To me, it seems clear that approval of this item is warranted based on its merits.

It is clear that staff has done a fine job outlining the costs, the safety concerns, the illegal dumping illegal activity, littering, safety uh uh law enforcement concerns, etc.

They have properly found that there is justification in approving this item and I'm confident the record will show uh that uh we are uh justified in making this decision I trust in our staff doing their job and I encourage us all to do the same when the time is right I'd like to make a motion to approve thank you for allowing me to weigh in.

Any other comments questions?

Thank you.

Yeah I've got some questions um make sure we get this on the record so does public works or county council have any response to any of the testimony you've heard this morning now afternoon that's my first series of questions.

Could you repeat again what was the question does or county council have any response to anything you've heard today.

Well uh I think most of the statements that were made regarding the safety uh is accurate in fact we have explored the notion of eliminating parking along the roadway and Vargas I mean uh Morrison Canyon is a very long stretch roadway so we're talking about the last piece and when I say serves like the uh a private driveway that is accurate and some of the estimates that we provided uh are for the whole stretch so when we say we spend X amount of dollars it's not just for that one thousand but for most of it and I believe the George family has been uh done due diligent in maintaining their portion that portion to ensure that their driveway access is uh well maintained uh one other clarification I'd like to make is uh there's this notion that we have not followed the process but here I have the notification uh you know the posting in the newspaper that was done it was noticed on uh uh September 24 and October 1st uh we have followed all the standard guidelines as outlined in the streets and highway so uh we strongly feel that uh uh we are uh in line with the requirement of the law in terms of vacation the that portion of the roadway I want to clarify once you pass that turnaround area it is absolutely correct it is not safe to go down there and make a uh trying to come back out uh so uh it really is a roadway to nowhere other than to George's property so you've heard you've heard most of the activities uh I have not heard anything that questions uh the public works process that we have undertaken to put this in front of you uh we feel like uh it is uh in the public's interest at least from our point of view to vacate this roadway both from safety standard liability as well as uh any associated maintenance cost uh one other quick question Daniel uh one of the speakers mentioned that the picture we saw is not factually accurate is the uh the picture that we saw of the road the picture of the yeah that the roadway that I shared with you was presented to you when we actually did the parking restriction so it was about a 20 it's a Google by the way it's a Google maps picture so I would say that's about 2021, 22 timeline.

So during the interim, my understanding is that the George family have done some maintenance along that small stretch in front of their in front of their gates so but I just actually the thing I wanted to share with you is how that roadway literally is a driveway to a private property rather than uh the conditions of the the roadway but in any case that road is too narrow to to accommodate parking and turn around uh in a safe way.

Okay.

County council you have any responses to anything that's been brought up today.

Thank you Supervisor Miley staff defers to or uh council differs to staff in this matter okay so no sequel issues no due process issues and and then we've heard the merits council uh strongly believes that staff has complied with the streets and highways code with respect to noticing uh that the proper uh resolution of vacation has been presented to the board for adoption and has no concerns about proceeding in this matter in the communication that uh was sent to us today this morning that um supervisor tan uh mentioned any any concerns uh council has not had a full opportunity to review the letter as as you point out it was received this morning uh we we will go back and look at it uh however we have received other communication from mr bezes and we are in the process of responding to that uh he's requested various records and that that process is uh uh underway right now okay all right i think those are all my questions uh for now so i'll wait for the motion and then i'll make some comments thank you supervisor marquez your hands up yes thank you chair um i want to thank everyone for their engagement um specifically my district director who took many meetings with individuals on both sides of this issue so um we've conducted our due diligence we reviewed the emails the communications from mr bezos and my number one priority in this role is everyone's safety everyone and as well as access and connectivity and after hearing um the presentation and all the uh public commenters uh this thousand less thousand feet of the road leads to a private property it does not lead to a park it does not lead to retail it does not lead to uh religious institution retail uh school it it is to a private property so uh based on that I see no reason not to support this request um so I will be supporting the motion supervisor fortune out of us thank you chair tam um I just wanted to share that uh my staff and I have had an opportunity to review uh the comments in addition to participating in this hearing um we received the petition and uh my staff also had an opportunity to visit the site and given uh that vacating the property would relieve the county of the maintenance costs that was discussed earlier as well as not restrict uh park access and noting support from East Bay Parks um as well as hearing the safety concerns um I am also supportive of the vacation thank you um supervisor marquez did you have other comments or is that from a yeah I just want to um disclose pertaining to my just cause participation that another relative has arrived at my grandmother's home she's over 18 and is a relative that's all thank you did they want to participate no they do not thank you um so I appreciate all the comments and I um did get a chance to review some of the concerns that were expressed at the very last minute regarding the jurisdiction whether the the road was paved or not uh and my staff uh Ryan Hughes did go out and visit the site directly and I concur with uh my colleagues' assessment and based on his um visit that um vacating this section the thousand feet won't impair the enjoyment of the Vargas Plateau park by either bicyclists or pedestrians, and there was sufficient turnaround um that was provided by the East Bay Regional Park District for emergency vehicles and uh as my colleagues had said our our Paramount um directive is to make sure that everyone that uh has access to this property is safe, and that we are uh in a situation as the public works director mentioned that we will retain access for all public utility maintenance and support while also reducing the liability and exposure to the county in terms of cost and maintenance at this site.

So at this point, if we have no other questions, I will entertain a motion on adoption of the resolution to vacate the terminus of the thousand feet of Morris Canyon Road.

I'll make that motion as presented, Supervisor Tim.

I have a motion by Supervisor Halbert.

Do I have a second?

Excuse me, a point of order that the um agenda is for the resolution that you stated, but also to authorize recordation of the attached resolution after any conditions required by your board have been satisfied.

So if you could include that um in your motion, supervisor.

Exactly word for word into my motion, and I'll second the motion and I'd like to speak to it.

Okay.

So we have a motion before us to adopt the resolution with the conditions that are part of the resolution uh that will make this vacation subject to the reservation of the perpetual public utility and access easement over the vacated area and to authorize uh record recording of the attached resolution with any conditions.

Um may I have roll call bolt, please.

Oh, can I speak to the question?

Can I speak to the motion?

Absolutely.

Sure.

So after hearing all the testimony, you know, the um the whereas is in the resolution I feel are substantiated, and also I would um concur with the statements made by my colleagues in support of the merits of uh of the motion as well.

Um additionally, I would like to point out that um uh I don't believe uh accepting a campaign contribution is a conflict of interest that would warrant anything under the Vine Act relative to any recusals on this matter by the uh supervisor who represents the district.

Is that correct?

You should make a disclosure under the bean act if there is a relevant campaign contribution.

But does the Levine Act even comply to apply to this matter?

Yes, it does.

It does okay.

Uh does Supervisor Halbert need to make a uh does he need to recuse himself on this?

There's no conflict with the Levine Act, um, given timing, given I don't believe that there is any, I mean, I don't know that county council has a pine that there is a Levine Act.

I don't believe there is a Levine Act complication.

Um, and so I don't see the need to do anything other than uh disclose that indeed I received a contribution a long long time ago.

I believe well even before, so it's no longer needed.

But I have no problem disclosing that I did receive the supervisor.

Was the contribution done within the last year?

It was before the last year.

Okay, all right.

You know, I'm just trying to cover all the bases here.

If we get sued on you know CEQA or due process or your lack of recusal, we just want to make sure we've covered all of our bases as well.

Um, so no no recusal is um required here, um and uh I believe.

Yes, I believe those are the only other matters that I wanted to bring up in support of the motion.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley.

Um, may I have the roll call vote now?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye, Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye, President Halbert, aye.

The motion carries.

Thank you for your time.

This time I would like to move item 10, which is the potential development and disposition of 2000 or 20,055 Redwood Road, the old Castle Valley Library to the next item for consideration.

Because I understand we have speakers waiting as well.

Okay, I have the staff presentation on this item.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much.

I've got a PowerPoint presentation and I'm Eileen Dalton, the director of Economic and Civic Development Department, which is part of the community development agency.

We have an update on the and the disposition of the what we call the old Castor Valley Library at two zero zero five five Redwood Road.

You can go to the next slide.

The library is vacant.

It was built in 1962.

It's about 10,270 square feet, and it sits on just a little shy of an acre.

It's located on Redwood Road in Castro Valley, and it sits generally between the Castor Valley High School and the Castro Village Shopping Center at Castor Valley Boulevard and Redwood Road.

In 2019-2020, the veterans of Castor Valley advocated for the reuse of the building for a veteran space.

And in sorry, next slide, thank you.

In March of 2020, the General Services Agency brought forth a recommendation or an item to the board for consideration of the old Castor Valley Library.

And at that time the board uh directed the community development agency to take on the reuse of the site and to evaluate it for affordable housing and veterans use.

Um we came back on March 9th of 2023 with the re results of that study, which I'll go through briefly so you have the full uh background.

Um, and in March 2023, the board was after hearing the report was interested in getting additional information on the reuse of the building just as a veterans community use.

Next slide.

So in order to do this evaluation, uh we uh secured some experts to help us with the evaluation, and we engaged with the community throughout the entire process very heavily.

Um we first engaged an architecture firm to look at the site just to see if if it could if a housing development affordable housing development could fit on the site.

Uh we had our economics firm evaluate that that site planning to see if there was a feasible reuse for an affordable housing developer, and then we also engaged a historic architecture firm to do a historic research resource evaluation because the building was over 50 years old.

Next slide.

So as part of the architecture work, Kava Masi who we engaged did some studies of the site and just to note that there was no option where we could fit housing on the site along with keeping the building.

So that was eliminated pretty quickly as an option we have to tear the building down in order to build anything new on the site.

There were some variety of levels of density and height that were evaluated option three that you see this is just a massing study shows an option that has 52 units of housing and about 7500 square feet of veterans community space could fit on the site it would require five to six stories of development and surrounding the site are two story multifamily on two sides and single family on the third site and then the highest elevation on Redwood Road.

Next next slide the the options that that were that you just saw the massing study on showed the different densities and then our economic consultant kind of helped us evaluate with some affordable housing developers and unsurprising next slide is that the more dense site was the most feasible because it hits that sweet spot of at least having 50 units on the site which we had developers express interest in that type of development but did we do note that it's it's a quite a dense and tall structure for that particular neighborhood.

Next slide the historic research resource evaluation determined based on the significance of the building and being in fairly original condition that it would be eligible for the California register of historic places it would not be eligible for the national register and it's considered a historical resource under CEQA even though it's not placed on the register yet we have to treat it as though it is and to move forward with an affordable housing mixed use development the board would have to consider we would have to prepare an environmental impact report adopting mitigation monitoring and potentially a statement of overriding considerations before approving the demolition of this structure because of that historic evaluation.

Next slide we also have to take into consideration the surplus lands act if we were to go forward with affordable housing we would use the affordable housing exemption under the act and go forward with an RFP under that exemption.

If we don't do affordable housing and keep the building it wouldn't apply as it would continue to be a county use and property.

Next slide the um in addition to the environmental impact report if we go forward with housing the property is currently zoned for public facilities the reuse of the property for residential units would trigger both a rezoning and a general plan amendment and wanted to note that the property is not currently identified as a housing element site and if there's any questions about that the housing element Albert Lopez our planning director can review that document regarding what's in the Castor Valley area or the unincorporated county.

Next slide so after the after the March 2023 download of the information I just presented we did get direction to go back and work with the um the veterans group and evaluate a sort of a single use, not tearing down the building and coming up with a uh an evaluation of of a community and veterans use.

We did explore a variety of options.

We work with GSA and county council and the veterans, the county's veteran services office about using the space for veteran services.

We talked to the veterans organization about their desire to do volunteer labor.

Um we chased down all of those options and uh there were there were some possibilities, but they were all very infeasible based on this being a county building and having to build be built to a county minimum standard.

And so, in order to get an idea of a cost for the county to renovate the building, we retained the services of MAC 5.

They're a cost estimating and project management firm that the counties used uh quite a lot and they understand the county process, and they came up with an analysis of renovating the building to its former condition, but obviously up to code.

Um, it's not currently up to code, and that estimate is eight and a half million dollars.

Um, there's been substantial community input since this project started starting in 2020 when the veterans um were interested in this project.

We had a series of uh meetings directly with the veterans group as we worked through the affordable housing options.

We've been to the Castor Valley Mac four times.

The last meeting was uh July 21st, 2025, and there were about 55 people who attended and spoke in support of retaining the building for a community and veterans use.

Um the Parks and Recreation Historic Commission has weighed in several times, I think three times the latest was a letter that they sent to the board on September 4th, 2025, to urge the board to retain the building because of its historic uh nature.

Um, we've been to the transportation and planning committee on incorporated services and obviously to the board a few times.

And then lastly, I wanted to note that the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, since uh subsequent to me preparing the staff report, um, has also submitted a letter to the board uh indicating their support as a potential partner in operating and maintaining the building should it become a county building that we would renovate, which is probably the newest information since we've talked publicly about this.

Um we have um pursued the directions that we've been given and prepared the the um information presented it fairly widely, and so we're before you today to get sort of some final direction to pursue the original 2020 direction to secure uh affordable housing veterans space at this site with a caveat that will in order to make that project feasible, we'll probably we'll need to secure some local funding for the affordable housing project.

We don't have a you know number because we haven't secured any conversations with developers, but we think somewhere in the range of 10 to 15 million dollars would be needed to make uh make make for that local match for affordable housing.

Um option number two is to retain the the Castor Valley Library building for a community and veterans use consider an allocation of eight and a half million dollars.

The funding has not been identified, and direct staff to engage with HARD on this possible partnership of operating and maintaining the building.

That concludes my staff report.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Uh Supervisor Miley.

Thank you, uh Vice Chair and Chair Tim for this meeting.

Um, let me kind of frame this and speak to this.

You know, clearly I'm in support of retaining the old Castro Valley Library building for community and veteran service use.

Um, and then we we also, in my conversations with the community development agency, we also have a possibility of uh funding that we can use for getting us on the road to renovation, and then the and then partnering uh with the ultimate operations of the facility by heart.

So that's the you know the direction I want to go in.

Now uh Eileen Dalton from our civic and economic development department has kind of laid out a history, but I've lived this history uh with a number of board members, and we're here once again today, and I hope we can move in the direction of uh the alternative that I'm uh proposing.

The board directed staff, as Eileen pointed out, to look at uh the possibilities of housing.

You know, I was opposed to that.

I believe Supervisor Hagerty was opposed to it as well.

Um, it's not as though Castor Valley doesn't support affordable housing.

You know, there's uh the eating housing uh development down on uh Groveway that's uh come about.

Uh we're also potentially looking at affordable housing that could take place at the site of uh First Presbyterian Church.

I mean, there are other uh locations as the staff's pointed out for affordable housing in Castor Valley.

So it's not an issue of not supporting affordable housing, you know.

But uh three members of the board wanted that to be pursued, and we have spent, and I'm very frustrated about this.

We spent so many years going down that path, which has been a total waste of time, because right now the staff's pointing out for us to go that way, it's gonna cost more than 50 million dollars.

We're gonna have to do the rezoning.

Uh it's now uh historical uh preservation, and there's a lot of uh um hoops will have to jump through.

So this is not a site for affordable housing.

It's not appropriate for affordable housing.

Um I see a lot of my friends in the audience, and I'm sure some are on the um virtually to speak.

You know, it's not always that folks in Castro Valley are united behind one thing, you know.

And I can tell you, they are all united behind this building being retained for community and veteran uh services.

They are all united behind that, and anyone who speaks to the contrary, quite frankly, is either not a resident of Castor Valley or hasn't been in Castor Valley very long.

Otherwise, they are all united behind it, and they and they'll speak to that.

And they've been extremely frustrated by this board of supervisors not moving the direction.

They wanted to be moved in more than five years ago.

More than five years ago, thousands and thousands of people have signed petitions in support of the old Castor Valley Library becoming a veterans uh facility community center.

Um, so countless time and hours and resources has been wasted on us pursuing housing.

So I'm really hoping that this board uh in its infinite wisdom listens to the community of Castor Valley.

That's one reason why they get so upset with the board at times, because we don't listen to them.

If anyone knows Castor Valley well, trust me, it's me after 25 years of representing Castor Valley.

I know my constituents extremely well.

Now I don't always agree with them, but I know them extremely well, and as I said, they're all united on this, and if they aren't, it's either because they haven't lived there very very long or they don't live in Castro Valley.

And as far as I'm concerned, obviously it's taxpayers' money.

We've got to make a decision because it's a you know public uh responsibility and five we're fiduciaries, but the point is, you know, I don't give a lot of credibility to anyone who does live in Castro Valley.

It's sort of like somebody who lived in Castro Valley speaking on something in in Oakland when they don't have any, you know, any um, you know, dog in the hunt, any stake in the game.

Um and I just use Oakland as an example, it's not as though uh Castro Valley is concerned about speaking on issues in Oakland.

I just threw that out, so please don't get um offended by that.

Um they also feel that Castor Valley uh this is the old Castor Valley Library, is their library because they there was a history of of this library being um um developed as a result of uh the taxpayers in Castor Valley.

Uh when I came in office, um, we we moved in the direction of building a new library um that's been quite remarkable, and this building has stayed vacant for all that time, which has been many, many, many, many years.

And so finally folks decided what direction they want to go with uh on the Ocasia Valley Library.

Um the veterans have collected a lot of signatures.

My office has been engaged in this for quite a while.

Um so I think today, um, you know, the staff's pointed out the um the background, the history and the rationale behind, I think uh the decision the board needs to take.

Uh, and when it comes an opportune time to make the motion, I just wanted to uh kind of single where I'm going as well as indicate my frustration with the board.

Once again, not this board, but with the board historically not supporting the community of Castro Valley.

So those are some of my remarks at this point in time.

But you'll hear from others, trust me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley, for that historical context.

I will go with Supervisor Marquez, then Supervisor Halbert, and then Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Uh thank you, Chair Tim.

Um, so I have lots of questions, and I don't expect um staff to have all of the answers at this moment, but just want to put on your radar.

Um number one, my understanding was veteran services were being relocated to Hayward on Foothill Boulevard.

I don't know the status of that, whether that's opened or not.

Uh number two, I want to see what are the plans in our CIP, because my understanding is we don't have enough funding to even keep up with the deferred maintenance for our existing veterans' buildings.

Um so it's not that I'm opposed to this.

Um, and I also heard staff say we haven't even identified the money for the renovations.

Um, so I just want us to be realistic in the next steps.

Um, the one thing that I'm very excited about, because when this was first brought to my attention, and my district director also went on a site tour with others, um, it was less than a quorum for that visit.

But um what I wanted to say was um the relationship with hard.

So when this was first brought to my attention, uh, and I've been very vocal, the county already owns over 120 something buildings that we can't even maintain.

Our portfolio is expansive, and this might be a great idea, but it's about the long-term sustainability and maintenance of it.

So I am hopeful that HART is willing to take that on because if we pursue this, we will absolutely need a partnership to sustain it to make it open and accessible to veterans as well as other community members, but I basically just need more information.

Um, so I'm definitely in support of advancing exploring, but we have to be able to answer all of those questions, and I do think that it's not fair.

Um we have to prioritize all the asks, right?

So if our other veteran buildings are already dilapidated, deferred maintenance, I can't in good conscience agree to spend $8.5 million on something new when we can't even maintain what is currently in our portfolio.

I don't know if staff has a response to the supervisor Miley's anxiously trying to respond to you.

Yeah, I can respond, and staff can respond to uh the CDA director can respond on the uh on the use on our um possibilities of funding.

I know the community would also uh probably do some GoFundMe if necessary, but if we do have a potential source to get us all moving along on this, uh we've had an extremely good partnership with Hard.

Hard, the county owns the Cherry Land Community Center.

We built that with redevelopment money, hard operates it for us.

We have a very strong relationship with them.

And as hard knows, I kind of look at Hart as the recreational arm of the county.

So what would happen here is we would be county property, hardwood operated for us, and we and I think um when Hart speaks, we might get an indication of that as well.

So I think your you know all your questions can be responded to, if not by me, by the staff.

And as I said, I have lived this.

Thank you.

Sandy, you're very community development agency director.

With regard to the vet services on Footville Boulevard, I'll I'll leave that to Eileen to answer.

But in terms of plans uh in the CIP, uh Kimmer Gasway, director of GSA is online if uh we want to dive in further there.

Uh but uh as it relates to uh the funding and relationship with Hard, I think we have a really strong uh letter in terms of support.

Their board has not acted yet, but uh with that letter, uh we're feeling pretty confident because we do have a strong relationship with with Hard.

Uh and we look to them because they're uh great operators and and uh deal with maintenance in a real positive way.

And I think the community uh supports HARD strongly as well.

So um uh if uh Kimberly uh could come on as it relates to plans in the CIP, uh she can talk about that.

But with regard to the unincorporated area um budgeting, uh what we're looking at is uh for the Essential Services Fund uh for the unincorporated area because uh there's a number of projects that uh we're looking to fund through that uh additional funding that's uh allotted for that will be allotted or discussed with your board further for unincorporated area.

This would be one of those projects depending upon where you referring to measure W, Sandy.

Are you referring to Essential Services?

Got it, just want to be clear.

Okay, thank you.

I don't have any information on the status of the veteran services move to Hayward.

Maybe maybe Kimberly does.

But I think I do because it was presented to the Social Services Committee.

Um so um they are planning on moving just the veteran service center out of the East Montmall into the site that's in Hayward, um, the former assessment center site.

And um they mentioned to us that they're in the process of uh just dealing with some final touches, and it had more to do with the the IT system, the uh the and so they expect that to be opening before the end of the year.

And also, I don't think I mean when the community speaks, uh, I mean it'd be nice if the veterans center were located to the Cash Valley Library, but I don't think that's the issue around using the Castro Library for community and veteran services that we have to have the county's veteran center located there, right?

And social service also mentioned that uh they they are hoping to get uh some satellite sites to basically be more responsive to the veterans, especially um those that are disabled and and are unable to go to a specific site, including uh using technology.

Okay, and then just one follow-up question for county council, the MOU uh the operating agreement.

Sorry, I don't know if you guys are hearing my grandmother speak, but she's really loud.

I don't know if it's picking up on the audio.

Um, but uh county council.

Can you speak to the MOU?

Who would be responsible for liability?

I mean, why don't I still know if there were any incidents or injuries on the property?

I would need to look into that and come back to you with that information.

I don't have that in front of me right now.

And if I could just weigh in once again, this is not novel.

We hard manages the Cherry Land Community Center under an MOU with the county that took a lot of time to work out that MOU could mirror what we do at the Castro Valley Old Castle Library.

This is maybe County Council can't speak to it now because she's not prepared, but we have a working model in place as I speak, and it's worked extremely well.

And I think redevelopment, when we had redevelopment, was really engaged with bringing that about redevelopment, GSA, and Hard.

Yes, just to add on to that.

When we developed the Cherry Land Community Center, the county did all of the design work in partnership with Hard there at every meeting with our architects.

We designed it in partnership so they could program it, and then also executed a long-term lease operating and maintenance agreement so that the county is not funding any of the operations and maintenance.

It's all being handled by Hard.

Pardon?

Thank you.

We spent more than two years.

It was a it was a long process, but it's been seamless and an excellent partnership with Hard.

And the capital side is always daunting, but operating and maintaining long term is even harder to uh accomplish.

So that's why Hard's such a great partner.

Supervisor Marquez, did you have any follow-up on that?

No, I'm good.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Halbert.

Yes, thank you.

Uh, I'm eager to hear the comments from the public.

Um I wasn't on the board when this site was originally considered for affordable housing.

Um, of course we need housing.

Of course, we need affordable housing.

There are other parts of the county that is perfectly capable of how holding housing.

We have to be cognizant of all of our assets and how we can maximize housing across our county.

This site is not one of them.

It's so close to a neighborhood, it just is impractical.

Um, and therefore I support a community center, community use, community benefit, an essential service for this site.

I also echo concerns by my colleague around around cost.

Indeed, we have to be prioritizing our costs.

We have to also be prioritizing our sources of revenue.

My question for staff is, and I I compare this to when I was mayor in a city, and this is essentially we're the mayor of this city, it's unincorporated, it's our jurisdiction.

How do we typically what are the mechanisms available to us to raise funds for projects like this community benefits in an incorporated city?

We look to developers of projects.

Supervisor Miley outlined projects that are on the horizon that um could perhaps contribute to the community benefits.

Um how do we um uh we've collected fees in the past and we have the opportunity to work with Hard to pass those fees on to them.

I want to make sure one to just outline what activities we currently do to raise funds, what activities we currently do to channel those funds to our community needs, and are we doing everything we can to maximize the collection of fees for these kinds of capital-intensive projects?

And that's just maybe a quick comment or quick answer uh if you could provide.

Uh, but I'm if there are any more things we can do to generate funding, we can grow our way into providing these community benefits uh as opposed to cutting from other areas to cobble the funding together.

Uh so that's a CDA question, I guess, for Sandy or Eileen.

Sure.

Um, well, two two things.

The Cherryland Community Center model was one where we funded the capital side, and then the and Hard came on as the operator funding all of the operations and maintenance, we're requiring no funding from the county once we handed it over to Hard.

Um our old source of funds, the way we really accomplished all of these community benefits was through our former redevelopment agency, and it was a huge blow to our our infrastructure and our um opportunities, these kinds of projects would have been funded for these last 10, 12, 15 years since redevelopment has gone away.

And that's how we funded the Cherryland Community Center.

Um we've there has not really been any replacement for that lost funding source, and which is evidenced by these needs that go unmet.

I think Hard could probably speak to their passed a bond measure to fund community projects.

It's been wildly successful, they've committed all of their funds though.

They don't have any left.

They'd have to go back out to the voters.

And I suppose that's probably our only option for raising funds from the county's perspective.

I will add that.

And so as it relates to revenue and where we could get other sources for capital, uh, it is really limited, and that's why we'd be looking to the opportunity now with the Essential Services Fund for Unincorporated Area for particular projects such as these.

Now, in my conversations, not with the staff, with the healthcare staff through measure C, the pediatric portion.

If I don't have to provide funding to reach to the tune of half a million, excuse me, yeah, quarter of a million, excuse me, half a million to six hundred thousand.

Then I'll be able to use uh funding to put towards this as well, you know, to you know, to the that that extent, or at least even if I can't go up to half a million, a quarter of a million or something, but I'm willing to use resources out of my office as well, uh directed to um the um Ocaster library.

Okay, thank you.

Um Supervisor Halbert, did you have any follow up on the any of the responses?

No, I think um indeed redevelopment going away was uh a big cause of this.

Um thank you for the uh clarification.

Okay, supervisor Fortune Autobas.

Thank you.

I definitely appreciate uh the history from my colleague, as well as hearing uh his position and respect that.

Um I do have a couple questions just to get up to speed, uh, two of them related to housing and one of them related to um to capital.

So I I would just like to hear a little bit more about why the site wasn't included in the housing element and in general how we're doing meeting our arena goals.

Uh well before Albert speaks, you know, for our arena goals, we're gonna have to come up with about 4700 housing units in the unincorporated area.

They've identified sites.

Obviously, you know we can't force people to build, but this wasn't one of the sites that was identified, but go ahead, Albert.

That's correct.

Um we did have uh 4,700 unit arena obligation.

We did find sites throughout the unincorporated county to meet that number.

Um the library actually was was never considered.

We knew that there was other plants in on the table or sort of underdevelopment.

Um, and so that's why it wasn't included in the uh in the inventory initially.

Thank you.

Um, and in the report, it talks about some potential interest from affordable housing developers.

Could you speak more to that?

How real is that for example?

Yeah, you know, the the study that was done by Kavamasi was presented, those three options of density where it was presented to a handful through our our economics consultant to get feedback, and there was interest, and they their feedback was out of those options.

I think the least dense was 28 units, the highest density 52 that there was interest in the site, and the but the interest was that it was most feasible for the highest number of units for those reasons related to the cost of construction and managing units, which put it at a five to six story building, six stories in the front, five in the back, for that neighborhood, which was fairly dense.

But there was interest.

And this was several years ago, though.

Money is obviously the key as well.

Thank you.

Good to hear that.

It was several years ago.

Now it's much much harder to build, of course.

It was 2021, probably when we had those conversations.

Okay, yeah, the cost of construction is a lot higher now.

Thank you.

And then finally, noting that we allocated 6.1 million dollars for critical county infrastructure and the unincorporated through our Measure W Essential Services Fund.

I'm wondering if staff could speak more to covering uh the 8.5 million that it would take for the renovation.

That was not included in the six-point uh one.

I mean, as uh supervisor, as Director Gasway had mentioned that it um included uh social services and other health care services uh buildings.

So uh that was not in that six point two.

Thank you for that.

Um I look forward to public comment and just based on the discussion so far, I am inclined to support my colleague from District 4.

I get all excited about this stuff.

But I think with the housing piece, if we're to move forward with the house piece, it would need to be a rezoning, right?

And we'd also have to address the historical preservation issue.

And I think those are two big hurdles, really huge hurdles, in addition to the cost, you know.

Um that's why we just don't think this is a suitable suitable site.

And then the other thing, you know, Albert knows the staff knows.

I've been pushing in John McBartland, who's former board director, I've been pushing so we could develop the Cashavelli, you know, BART station, that property for housing.

Uh it's it I'm trying to get um uh more um movement on that uh with the current uh board uh director, Melissa Hernandez, who happens to work for Supervisor Howard, so um it's not presently in the housing element, but they know I'm very supportive of us moving that piece along because that could be a very good site, but as I said, it's not presently in our housing element for this arena cycle.

Um, I just have a couple questions.

I also support the uh concept and the vision of having to become a community center, whether it's for veterans use or other community uses because of the adjacent land uses that are in this area.

But I um uh I'm also concerned about the cost, and I'm also concerned about uh the funding access, because as we know, uh we do have uh some allocations that we're talking about prospectively for measure W.

And so we're still trying to juggle uh and prioritize what those uh needs are.

So one of the things that I've explored uh with um Director Gasway was the model that was used with the Cherry Land Community Center where Hard did uh take over operations maintenance because I I would like to see that be a good model for this site because it's it would be more sustainable, but in terms of the initial um cost, can you explain the difference between like a ground lease versus a license agreement and like what um legally like for example, hard can do in terms of renovation of the building and how the funding uh could flow because I'm hoping like perhaps hard can also use some of their funding, but they obviously wouldn't do that for a site that they don't own, right?

I think that's something that we could investigate.

Um I couldn't speak to that today.

I'd have to talk to council and see what options we would have.

I'm most familiar with the Cherry Land Community Center model, where we developed the the plans in partnership with Hard.

We executed the construction and delivered the building in a warm handoff to Hard for them to operate and maintain long term.

If there's other models that could be more efficient and work within the county system, we'll investigate those for sure.

Okay.

No other questions from excuse me, Supervisor Miley.

Yeah, sorry.

I just wanted to add on to what Eileen was saying.

One reason she can't answer it is because she's directed by the board to pursue housing.

If the board its own option two, we can begin to look at all these possibilities.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

Let me uh open it up for public comments.

And how many speakers do we have?

We have 13 speakers total.

Okay, uh two minutes each because we still have two other items to go through today.

Thank you.

The first uh in-chamber speakers, and you can line up, please.

Uh Tom Lorenzen, Richard Kaliesh, Frank Mellon, and Peter Rosen.

Uh thank you.

My name's Tom Laurenson.

I'm a member of the uh Cast Valley History Museum Board, former member of the Eden Health District Board.

And I want to thank uh all of you on the board of supervisors for your diligence on this, and Supervisor Miley for your passion and advocacy, and GSA, they've done a great job working with us.

Uh as you can see, there is very overwhelming support for this project to do uh to be a community center.

And uh we had at the uh last MAC meeting, I think 18 people that testified I was one of them everybody in support of this project.

Uh, there was overwhelming community support and a great opportunity.

The library has always been a heart of Castor Valley.

I grew up there myself.

The library has been the heart and soul, it's the social center of Castor Valley, and that building was uh paid for by the Castor Valley taxpayers voluntarily to make our community a better place, and now it can be repurposed back to continue for that community building purposes.

And I just think there's a very strong support, and the hard involvement is critical.

When they stepped up to the plate here, and they are very strong supporters of this, and that gives us the real chance to make this a sustainable operation for not only years but for decades to come.

Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rick Kalish.

I am a veteran from the Air Force, and I support using this building for the uh veteran center and also for the historical society.

Um yeah, before the freeway on ramps and off ramps were put in, the American Legion had a building in Castor Valley.

It was taken over by eminent domain, so it would be nice to have a building back.

Um of the things that I have just recently come to my opinion is that with the government deploying uh National Guard in many cities and everything, some of the public views might be getting against the military again.

And I think having this building and having veterans as members of the community and active military would give us a better view in the community.

Um I am also a member of First Press Church, and currently we house 75 people between um our Hayward Center and and our first press church every night for our unhoused neighbors.

Um, little side issue is that the old Castor Valley welcome sign that is currently hidden away in some storage locker, I think would sit great right in front of the new veterans community center.

So I'm all for that.

You know it.

Yes, sir.

I would love to have that there.

So thank you for my time.

Um, sorry about that curveball there.

That was still thrown to me.

I'm Peter Rosen, I'm on the hard board, and I want to say good morning, happy birthday.

And um, I'm here asking for your support to renovate the old Castor Valley Library.

Uh, I want to, I'm not gonna reiterate a lot of the points that Supervisor Miley is well aware of that he explained very well to everyone here.

I'm asking you to direct county staff to work with Hard on another successful partnership.

As Supervisor Miley pointed out, the Cherry Land Community Center is the perfect model for what we have here.

The Cherry Land Community Center houses a branch of the Alameda County Library.

It has a daycare.

We operate all kinds of programming, multi-generational.

We have community use, there's all kinds of organizations La Familia, the Cheryland Community Center, or Cherry Land Community Association.

Oh gosh, it's just totally blanked.

But we have a we have a lot of community organizations that we rent it out to for free.

And I don't see why we can't be doing something similar here because we have partners that actually work successfully.

I think that that's the kind of thing that the community demands.

We have, as Supervisor Miley has mentioned, it's very rare that we have everyone in the community aligned on one thing, and I've been to a lot of Mac meetings, and I've never been to a Mac meeting where all of the speakers online, in person, and the Mac, all said the same thing, that they all think this is a great idea.

We have community support, and hard would be asking to do a similar model.

We have, you know, we don't have to reinvent the wheel.

We can take the existing MOU for Cherry Land and uh adapt it.

Um I'm asking for your support so that we can actually take action because there's nothing for us to take action on.

That's why we have a letter of support expressing that.

That's why I'm here as well as our director of arts and community services and uh recreation, who's here and our community.

We have wide community support from people that are here that are all partners.

We want to make this happen.

It's a win-win for the entire community.

So thanks.

Frank Mellon, former East Bay board member, retired by choice.

You've already had a couple of really great speakers talking about things.

And one of the things that I heard very clearly as a level of concern was dollars.

This thing is sitting there, costing the county a bucket of money.

And you have an opportunity to have this property move to groups that will sustain it.

Now, the cost of eight and a half million dollars, I want you to consider for a moment.

If you're going to do redevelopment, you're going to spend 50 million dollars.

You're being asked to spend eight and a half million dollars.

But there's also some possibilities here because the recommendation from the staff talks about seeing how this can develop.

One of the things that I'm aware of is the HVAC system.

How long have you guys been keeping that thing locked up and paying rent on it?

It belongs where it can be seen in a good place for Castro Valley.

And it's right there on that property.

You know, when we talk about this stuff, one of the things we look at is where this is going to be.

Where the facility would be on uh Redwood Road has wonderful barked access close by.

I suggest to you that you accomplish many things.

First of all, you have a good usage that's put to the community.

Secondly, you'll save money because now you have a partnership.

And third, you'll have a community that will really use the facility.

I thank you for your time.

And I'm, if I might, for one second, I want to thank staff for the time they took to come out to the library and talk with us.

They're listening really meant a great deal.

Thanks so much.

Caller, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Caller, please unmute.

You have two minutes.

Carlos Alchuleta, you have two minutes.

Yes.

Um, I just want to say I'm really saddened to hear a board of Democrats won't even bring up low-income housing.

And if you uh were around when it came to our tenant rights, one of the first things we learned is how little of available space we have in the unincorporated area to actually create um low-income housing.

So to hear it not even being like brought up, and second, giving it to places like hard hard, the barriers that hard creates in order to use um any of their stuff for common folks is almost impossible.

So I think that is a horrible mistake right now.

And when you try to go and call that out, people like Peter Rosen, who just got blessed out for taking away people's constitutional rights, they don't try to resolve it.

They make it more complicated.

So that shouldn't be those shouldn't be people that were prioritizing and same with that side of town.

See, that side of town of Castle Valley is the it's it's a town that is still under old Jim Crow lines.

So every time people want to put low-income housing on that part of town, you have the descendants, the son and daughters of these people that have that literally drew up old Jim Crow line saying, No, you need to give us you know historical land, you need to give us um some type of extra part.

That side of town has tons of parks.

That that side of town has tons of resources.

What that side of town doesn't have is low income housing because the same 100 people that are involved in the the Mac, the Castro Valley Democratic Club, and all the little organizations over here, it's the same circle that always voted down.

Anytime we want low-income housing, no, we promised the next time we have uh open space, we're gonna put it there.

But it never happens, and it's because the same family members, the same descendants, the same people are in charge, and they just keep shutting it down.

We don't need another checkbox for hard.

We need low income housing in one of the most densely populated places in the country.

Thank you.

Sandra Archulera, you have two minutes.

Hello, Calendra.

Yes.

Okay.

Um I would like to see affordable housing there.

I've lived in Castro Valley about seven, eight years now.

Um, I'm really disappointed that that is not happening.

Um, we just lost another affordable housing site from the mobile home parks on Castro Valley Boulevard, and it's the same chorus every single time that we want affordable housing, it's the same folks saying we don't need it.

And you know, next time we're gonna find a better site, it's always a better site.

As to, you know, I'm not opposed to it being a community center, um, but I will say that as someone that um has worked with the organizations that were listed by the previous uh board member, the CCA, the ACA, um, SLAM, all these community groups, I'm the one that actually has to reserve those spaces, and it is impossible.

It's so difficult to reserve those spaces for community use.

The uh insurance issues alone are so overly complicated that even with our entire team, we have it's taken us months to just resolve it.

So any little community group that walks in and wants to use those spaces for so-called community use, they're not gonna be able to do it because it is so burdensome.

So if you are going to designate this for community use, I really recommend that you set up a process and do some sort of waiver on the insurance because it is inaccessible and it really requires a personal relationship and honestly, like letters to the board to even get access to it.

So regular community groups are not able to use these spaces.

Um it is really really uh difficult to access them.

And so I really would recommend that you take a look at how community spaces are activated and how community regular community members can use it um without the barriers of insurance.

The application is fairly simple, but there are other barriers that will be ready to be able to use it.

So I recommend that you look at that.

Mark Crawford, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I just want to thank Eileen for her and her staff's hard work on this issue over the years.

I know I've been involved in it for over 10 years.

Dealt with it many times when I was on the Mac.

This building is very important to Castor Valley.

A lot of us grew up in this building.

Our kids grew up in this building.

And for the county to consider um restoring this building for future generations would be uh just enormous, an enormous gesture uh of the county's responsibility towards Castor Valley.

Um I don't want to be repetitive.

There's been a lot of good uh points made, and I want to thank Supervisor Miley for him and uh his staff's hard work on this over the years as well, and I want to thank the supervisors for their support uh that they've shown so far for option two.

Thank you.

Carolyn Street, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

I'm here to uh be one of many community members urging the use of the old uh library as a community center.

One big reason is it's a lousy site for housing, and uh I'm exasperated that when good sites come up for nice low-income housing, mixed use, three-story, uh, the county is allowed fast food places to go in.

Um, currently there's a uh big spot, and the county is allowed splash car wash to go in.

Now I love splash car wash, but there's another one nearby that I use.

So why can't there be more affordable housing?

You know, the night Hayward's getting a lot of nice affordable housing.

Why do you want to just because the county owns it?

We have to put in something that doesn't pencil out that's lousy.

So I guess that's the end of my time, but also I want to point out that Castro Valley has very few buildings of historical interest.

It's a lot of fast food and kind of a crummy little strip mall for our downtown.

Anyway, thank you for letting me speak.

Our last in-person speakers are Linda Willis, John McPartland, Linda Tangren, Adrian Lee Bird, and Kelly Abrew.

Good morning.

Um, my name is Linda Willis.

I represent District 4 on the Alameda County Parks Recreation Historical Commission.

Um, I want to thank Supervisor Miley for his eloquent and very long time support of preservation of the library.

Also want to thank Eileen Dalton for her work on this for a long time as well, and for a very good unbiased presentation today.

Um, but I want to speak to one issue that hasn't been brought up yet here today.

Um, so the PRHC mandate is preservation of historic resources in unincorporated Alameda County.

Uh in 2024, your board place the Castor Valley Library on the Alameda County Register of Historic Resources, which protects this library, historic library from demolition under CECWA.

The county's historic ordinance created by the Board of Supervisors in 2012, outlines the maintenance requirements to repair and restore this building.

As the owner of this property, you have the responsibilities to maintain it by your own county historic ordinance.

For almost 50 years, so 50 years ago, Castor Valley citizens taxed themselves and helped build this library.

From 1962 to 2009, the library was the intellectual educational center of Castor Valley.

So this library is not just historic, but it's also important to people of Castor Valley.

In 2025, this board could repurpose this historic resources for more important uses as a veteran center, community meeting space and cultural center.

The central location and proximity to BART.

May I have just a minute, half a minute to finish, please?

I'd really appreciate it.

Yes, please complete.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

So the central location proximity to BART provides veterans, including disabled ones, improved transportation access to services, especially for those who commute from the Tri-Valley and Fremont.

Unincorporated Castor Valley with close to 70,000 residents, lacks sufficient meeting spaces.

The repurpose library would help meet that need.

Revenue sources, as a landmark, the library qualifies for state, the state register under qualified local government program.

The county could easily apply for technical assistance and grants for historic reservation preservation.

And also resources for the lease and rental of the library could help finance operating costs.

Please vote for option two, retain the library, allocate the 8.5 million for renovation, engage with HARD for possible partnership for operations and maintenance.

And thank you for the extended time.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And quote them, and the recommendations that they ended up making in relationship to using it as a community center.

And I quote them in part.

And this effort is supported by the veterans and other community advocates.

And I was what I had originally written, rambled quite a bit more than that.

That's it in a nutshell.

A synergistic ability to deal with the community groups and have a space where they can end up doing that.

And to that end, that ends my presentation.

And now on to the personal end, I would like to end up commending and thank uh Nate Miley for the years, if not a decade plus or minus, that we have collectively worked on trying to get this done.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your time.

Good afternoon, honorable board of supervisors.

My name is Adrian Lee Bird, and I'm the director of recreation arts and community services for Hard.

Our general manager, Jim Wheeler was unable to be here today.

He's out on business, but wanted me to be here.

Um Hard serves as the provider of recreation and park services for the majority of unincorporated, unincorporated Alameda County.

We deeply value our long-standing real partnership with Alameda County, which continues to demonstrate how collaborative efforts can leverage our combined resources to achieve meaningful outcomes for the communities that we serve.

A successful example of this, as Supervisor Miley mentioned, is the Cherryland Community Service Center, where we operate and maintain and assume the liability for uh programs that take place there.

It's actually one of our most active and well-utilized facilities in our district.

Um, and we were pleased to learn that the board is considering the potential development of the former Castro Valley Library site.

I'd like to take this opportunity to express Hart's interest in operating and maintaining the site as a community and veteran services center should the county decide to renovate the building.

This kind of partnership would further our agency's mission to enrich the quality of life for residents through inclusive recreational programs and facilities that meet the needs of a diverse community.

It would also advance the board's mission to deliver accessible, effective services to county residents.

By working together, we can achieve these shared goals in a more cost-effective and sustainable manner.

Thank you so much for your time and your consideration.

So I live in Fremont and Fremont, we uh have a different way of doing things.

We have some of our most historic buildings were only built about 30, 40 years ago.

Replic that uh mission church, uh it's a replica.

The first church was destroyed and kind of crumbled, and it's it's hard to survive in earthquake zones for hundreds of years.

Um, and in the in the East Asian tradition, I don't I know that uh we we don't we don't respect that very much, but um if you look at what they do, they tend they tear down things and they rebuild them, and they do that um uh repeatedly for various reasons, and uh they uh this process of rebuilding and renewal uh follows along with the cycle of of uh of life.

Um and it in Castor Valley, there's an opportunity for this kind of uh thing too.

We could uh there's a lot of uh good construction ideas.

Now, the good thing when you're doing new construction, and you're the county is you make your own rules and you do whatever you want.

Um, and in fact, if you look at that Cherry Land Community Center, the cost per square foot of that built of those buildings, fantastically low, a lot lower than any community center they're gonna build in Fremont.

It's shocking how cheap that thing was and looks pretty good to me.

Looks just fine.

So uh, you know, I want to know all why all the other government agencies can't build any any good facilities and why they cost way way too much.

This one, and I'll let's go down the the what are they what is the secret?

They have no setbacks.

They've built this thing really tall, right on top of somebody's backyard.

They have no parking, they have they have uh built building hardly any parking there.

It's the utilization, the efficiency.

This all these they have no um hearings, government hearings.

This thing did not go to the planning commission.

It bypasses the planning commission, and you don't put your own rules and regulations on your own construction.

The efficiency of this thing is amazing.

I am very impressed.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having us.

Thank you for the staff report.

Uh I prepared a four-act play here that we're not going to address because, and it's condensed version.

It was a condensed version, but I do want to emphasize just a couple of things and not repeat what has already been said.

In the 1950s, the taxpayers in Castor Valley asked the County Board of Supervisors to provide $32,500 to buy the property.

They did.

And then the taxpayers in Castor Valley taxed themselves 10 10 cents more on the tax rate to pay for the building that cost about $200,000.

Castor Valley gets a bad rep, and I'm gonna defend my community.

Because everybody thinks that we don't want affordable housing.

It's not that we don't want affordable housing.

We believe in strong planning.

We believe that a community should be planned that is livable.

And that's why some of the things that we oppose is because we don't have the infrastructure to support that, which then makes the whole community be deprived of a livable community.

So we get this bad rep.

But however, when I sat on redevelopment CAC, and redevelopment came to Castor Valley and asked to borrow some money to debut, do an affordable housing project in Ashland, we didn't blink an eye and we loaned the money.

We didn't have to do that.

We could have said no, but we didn't.

So that's why I think every once in a while I should defend my community.

Even though there are times that we could be wrong, the deferred maintenance that uh supervisor Marquez talked about, we understand that, but this building is structurally and architecturally sound.

It needs upgrades to meet codes.

8.5 million sounds like a lot of money, and it may be more than you need to spend.

So take that into consideration.

We'd like an epilogue to my four act play.

Please support opposition option two.

Thank you.

Hi there.

Good afternoon.

Am I too late to comment on item number eight today?

This is item number 10.

Okay, sorry about that.

Thank you.

Last speaker.

Thank you very much for all your comments.

And let me return back to the board for deliberations.

Supervisor Miley, you are not at loss for words, are you?

Oh no.

Respecting the chair.

So if you're ready for a motion, um chair Tim, I'd like to uh move that the board accept recommendation number two, retain the old Castor Valley Library.

Building for community and veteran use, consider allocation of $8.5 million for renovation and direct CDA staff to engage with Hard on a possible partnership for operations and maintenance.

I'm happy to second that motion, but if I may clarify, uh I would like the staff to strongly find ways in which we can get hard also to do the renovation more than just the operations and maintenance because despite one of the speakers' comments, it takes a long time for the county to get um renovations done, because I I speak from experience with the San Leandro Veterans Center.

Uh, that's been in need of an elevator for the last I don't know, 20 years or so.

Uh so if there's any way whether we can do a license agreement or and a ground lease where they can take some ownership of it and and help with the renovation, obviously we we will contribute to the funding, but if we can pursue that option to help expedite that, that would be an exploration I'd like to see considered.

Will the maker of the motion be fine with that?

We'll look at every option possible.

Okay, because you know we have good friends at hard.

I can't speak for what they what they're committed to, but we'll pursue every option possible.

Thank you.

Um, so we have a motion from Supervisor Miley, and I second it.

Um, may have the roll call vote.

Excuse me, a point of order.

I'm sorry, Supervisor Miley.

Go ahead.

Um I think you wanted me to do something else, right?

With the motion.

I was going to mention something in line with the motion that's on the floor, which is that it does implicitly uh revoke the board's prior uh March 10 uh 2020 resolution to pursue pursuit use of the property for um affordable housing.

So that would be implied in your in your motion.

Yes, definitely.

And I it also uh speaking to the motion, I just want to mention the Cherry Land Community Center does have a lot of parking, it's located at the Meek States.

Um, once again, someone who's not familiar with the community as I am and Peter and others, uh, wouldn't know that there's a lot of parking right around the corner, a little you know, less than five minutes uh walk into the center itself.

So um just want to want to mention that and we'll look at all options possible so um the board pass this motion in order to move this uh project uh forward because you know uh it means a lot to the community.

Um, and as I said, it's not often that everyone in Cash Valley unites behind something, uh people who don't typically unite behind things.

Um they're all united and they really feel passionate about the fact that they they paid for this and it's something that they want to see preserved, and we'll we'll pursue affordable housing at other locations, but I think this location is ideally suited for what the community wants, and with this um board's direction, then we can get moving on that um and and hopefully we'll be able to bring it across the finish line.

Um in the near future, because I know it takes a while.

Thank you.

Okay, I appreciate county council's clarification uh of the reversal of the uh board's decision from 2020, and I do appreciate staff's due diligence to look at whether it was feasible and they they came back, and uh there are a number of limitations to build affordable housing at this particular site, uh, and perhaps that's one of the reasons it may not have been in the housing element because there's a lot of concerns that we we will be hearing, and I I recognize that it would cost even more to put housing on this site, especially if you're talking about a skinny five-story building.

So um appreciate that clarification that motion includes the reversal and includes looking and pursuing option two with the direction to also look at options to um shift the renovation cost also collectively with our partners.

Um so may I have roll call vote in the motion, please.

Oh, I'm sorry, Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you.

Um I will be supporting the motion, but just want to reiterate I know this is just advancing um further exploration and due diligence, and I am in support of this in concept, but we clearly have many, many more um unanswered questions.

Specifically, I am concerned about adding more to our portfolio when we can't meet the needs of our existing veterans buildings.

I want us to be fair, equitable, and balanced.

I'm hoping that we have some of those questions answered at a later date, but I am optimistic, especially since we have a willing known and uh well-respected partner with hard.

So I'm optimistic we'll figure it out, and it's just to be clear to the public.

It's not that I'm against this, it's just it's our responsibility, as Supervisor Tam mentioned.

Um, an elevators needed in one of the veteran buildings in San Landro.

So we have a lot of deferred maintenance throughout the entire county, and we really need to address that before we add anything else to our portfolio.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

If not, may have roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye, Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

And a thus the exit, yes.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Aye, President Halbert.

President Halbert.

Thank you.

I fear freezing, but I think that's an aye.

So the motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Linda, you are out of order.

Vote has been taken place.

We want to wish you a happy birthday, Supervisor Tan.

Oh, thank you.

Happy birthday.

Apparently, chairing this meeting is my present.

Uh okay, we're taking like a five-minute break because Supervisor Miley needs to have a bunch of photo ops.

Reconvening from recess.

May I have a roll call please to re-establish quorum?

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Present.

President Halbert.

Thank you.

We will have a hard stop at 245 because we will likely lose quorum.

So we will make every effort to complete item seven and eight.

So let's start with item seven on the appeal from the West County BCA of a violation of a prohibited container on site.

May I have a um staff report, please?

Uh yes.

Uh this is Ed Lobaya, code enforcement manager.

Um this is regarding the appeal of Martha Ribagliati of the decision of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustment, declaring the property in violation of Alameda County Zoning Ordinance 17.52.290 based upon storing um unpermitted cargo container on the property located at 19228 Garrison Avenue in Castro Valley.

Um so the relevant um applicable zones uh 17.52290 uh states that accessory under accessory buildings types of structures prohibited in our districts mentions specifically cargo containers and other um things like trucks, trailers, vans, commercial vehicles, and similar moved on containers shall not be permitted as temporary or permanent structures of any type.

Um terms of pertinence, next slide, please.

Uh pertinence tax um on November 13, uh, 2023.

A complaint was received.

Uh co-enforcement officer visited the site and confirmed that the cargo container uh was in front of the property.

In terms of the timeline, on November 14, 2023, uh declaration of uh public nuisance notice was sent to the property owner.

Uh notice to be able to mailed to the property owner, uh, and from from December 4, 2023 to May 13, 2025.

There were actually eight uh failed reinspection uh resulting in fines and fees.

Notice of failure inspections were mailed via certified and regular mail to the property owner.

On May 19, a code enforcement staff received an appeal letter from the property owner on June 25, 2025.

Uh hearing was held by the West Board of Zoning Adjustments, and the case was continued to July 23.

On July 23, 2025, the hearing was held, and the West BCA decided to grant uh the appeal in part by waiving uh administrative fines totaling 6,500 from the notice of failure inspection dated May 13, which would be the latest one, the eighth failure inspection notice, and the inspection fee of 193 and administrative fee of 268 would remain.

The BCA also declared a property in violation of the Alameda County zoning ordinance, section 50 1752.290.

Therefore, public nuisance and required that the cargo containers should be removed within 60 days.

Uh 60 days time, no later.

That date from that hearing would have been no later than September 23.

However, that uh property owner appealed uh their decision to your board, which is why we're here today.

Uh exhibit under this uh picture.

You can see the cargo container on the first uh on that inspection on November 13.

Uh, it's right in front.

Next slide.

And this is showing the cargo container just a few days ago on October 7, showing that it's still there and hasn't moved.

So uh the appeal points.

Sorry, I'm I'm out of sequence here.

Let me check that.

Um, the appellant seeks the following relief uh in her appeal.

A rescission of the final notice to obey, uh, removal of any existing pending liens on the property related to code enforcement actions during this period, full refunds of all administrative fines and fees levied against the property, and an administrative moratorium on enforcement activity on a property until June of 2026 to allow for the repairs to be completed.

Uh as of today, there um just wanted to note that there is no uh active permit issued for any repairs.

So, under the key points of the appellants' appeal, we um kind of summarized it um alphabetically, so for A for unreasonable financial and logistical burden, unreasonable removal of deadlines and hardship uh disregard, excessive fines and financial hardship, alleged irregularities, procedural failure to disclose hardship waiver options, consistency with housing uh instability ordinance, permitted use under RV combined district.

Um this property is has an RV combining is an RV combined district.

However, uh a cargo container is not one of those exceptions defined under uh that um that's allowed in RV uh use.

Uh, excessive fines and uh broader broader concerns.

So we try to uh break down the appeal and our responses.

Next slide, please.

So uh A, B, C, H, and E.

For those reasons, uh, financial hardships are not uh a defense of to a zoning violation.

The zoning ordinance does not provide for hardship exemptions, and the West BZA is obligated to enforce the laws as written.

Moreover, the appellant was uh previously cited for a same violation uh in 2018 and uh 2020.

Uh uh property owner abated the the containers and was fully aware that reintroducing those containers would again violate uh section 17.52290.

Uh the current fines uh we feel are unavoidable and stems directly from the decision uh of the owner to bring the containers back on the property.

The county's enforcement's actions are consistent with the ordinance and within its authority.

Uh and then uh her appeal point uh D for irregularities and uh enforcement standards, trespassing and actual contractual interference.

The appellant uh raises several procedural complaints.

Uh staff notes that notice of hearings was provided consistent with county procedures, and the June 25th 25th, 2025 BCA hearing was continued because the appellant did not appear.

Allegations of uh disparate uh enforcements are not relevant to who to whether this properties in violation.

The fact that uh other violations may exist elsewhere throughout the county does that's not excuse uh noncompliance here, uh and we're also mostly uh complaint driven.

Alameda County enforces uh uh again, uh, and this statement is mostly complaint driven department in response to a complaint from a member of the public regarding this nuisance.

The photograph and inspections conducted were uh consistent with standards in Alameda County Code Enforcement Procedures.

Under the appeal point F and G.

Uh our response was that the cargo container cannot be used as dwelling for lived-in uh accessory use per zoning ordinance uh under section 17.52180, nor can that be used for innovative or any other housing use in any district.

So our conclusion is uh while the appellant raises concerns about financial hardship, logistical burdens, removal deadlines and fines, these are non- not defenses to a zoning violation, and the ordinance does not provide hardship exemption.

The property owner was previously cited, as I mentioned earlier, she uh property owner abated the container and knowingly reintroduced reintroduced reintroduces in violation of uh the zoning section, making the current fines of unes avoidable.

Uh procedural complaint regarding notice enforcement consistency, trespassing or interprets are neither unsubstantiated or irrelevant to the violation, and hardship waivers are not required under zoning code.

Finally, our arguments that uh the container is permitted under housing instability ordinance or RV combined district are inconsistent with plain language of the zoning code, which expressly prohibits cargo container on the residential property, uh as I um showed that in the beginning.

For these reasons, staff recommends that the board of supervisors uphold the decision of the West Coast County Board of Zoning Adjustments, deny the appeal, and impose uh inspection fee of one ninety-three and an administrative fee of two hundred and sixty-eight dollars.

Uh, it's the end of my presentation.

I'll take any questions you have.

Thank you.

Are there any clarifying questions?

If not, may we hear from the appellant.

Appellant online.

She doesn't seem to be online.

No, yes, yes, yes, I am here.

I'm sorry.

Uh as you are I pressed.

Go ahead.

As you are the appellant, I will give you more time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'll try to be brief.

The reason I bought a container is because code enforcement was contacted by the sheriff, a sheriff's technician, and code enforcement, because I was trying to, you know, do diligence.

Code enforcement referred me to public works.

Public works sent me an email.

And it's uh listed in my appeal supporting document number one.

So I was given the wrong guidance.

Uh I wanted to place it on the street.

Mr.

Rogers from Public Works said, you can, but better place it on your house, on your property.

So that's why it's on my property.

And then I've had a series of misfortunes outside my control.

Uh truck driver crashed against my house.

I have the documentation there, followed by an assessed abatement, uh, then another another insurance claim covered by the insurance that required uh more containers.

I had more containers because I I'm just very disaster prone.

After that, I had a major major uh incident of flooding not covered by the insurance.

So everything has been compiling and in uh in while these disasters were going on.

I was abating.

Uh I contacted Mr.

Labayak from the beginning.

Uh I contacted uh Mr.

Softner when he was I guess the chief of staff of supervisor Nate Miley.

It that's page seven of the list of documents.

I've contacted everybody.

Uh I haven't gotten any sympathy, but that that's fine.

Finally, we had this appeal, this uh BBA meeting, and uh partial relief was granted.

I just need I don't know, some sympathy.

I need to be able number one, retire.

I have a uh meeting with Social Security in six days.

I might be able to retire.

Doesn't mean that I will stop working.

I work from home.

I cannot start repairs.

I'm 67 years old.

Uh I cannot start repairs while I'm working because I work from home.

I do confidential work for the government and um and um over the phone.

And uh so I need time to be able to start the repairs.

I cannot move to a storage location because it's about uh twelve thousand dollars more or less.

I got in July I got a quote, you know, from store storage unit and movers, California movers.

So that's an out of pocket expense that I cannot afford.

I I just need a little bit of accommodation.

Uh in the recession of the the fine.

So um, you know, uh if the fines are approved, they'll go uh a lien on my property and and it'll be compounded because the lien will be on my escrow and then I'll have to pay it.

And I'll be on the street very soon.

The container i i is a storage container.

Pretty nice.

It's not ugly, it's not dirty, it's what you can see.

Uh uh I don't know, uh is there anything that can be done?

I mean, given that there's an email there from public works.

Re I was referred to public works by by code enforcement.

I even have a a very old uh message that technician Lamont from uh sheriff's office left me.

Uh directing me that code enforcement said yes.

The i the container is something that code enforcement would deal with, but you need to talk to public works.

And and then the only reason I obeyed it the first time is because someone from code enforcement contacted my container provider and and told them that my container was a danger to society.

And then every time not every time that's a lie.

One time uh not long ago this year, someone was on my property taking pictures behind the container.

Uh someone from what office, I don't know.

I really don't know who the person is.

I saw his truck up across the street.

So I I will get a rig.

I'm not granted, you know.

Thank you.

I I guess that's all I can say other than repeat myself over and over again.

I need accommodations because otherwise I'm thank you.

Um do we have any questions of the uh appellant from the board?

Okay.

Um if not, uh are there public comments on this item?

No speakers.

Okay.

Um the only question I had was when um uh when somebody moves and and you usually bring a um a container when uh a pod.

Um what are the rules around uh how long you can have the pod on site and when does it have to move?

Uh yeah, we encountered that from time to time when people uh rent temporary pods.

Um I think it's uh it's not written in any ordinance, but it's usually our policies like 30 days.

If it's there beyond 30 days, we notice the owner to have it removed.

But in this situation, that was not necessarily uh this uh the use of the container was not necessarily for uh temporary moving.

Is that correct?

Uh my understanding is that she uh the property owner put the container there uh because of some damage that was done on the outside of the building and she was temporarily using that until she was able to deal with the insurance and obtaining permits and everything.

But us, I mean it's been since 2018 and uh no permits were issued for any repairs, and that's a long time for a temporary use.

Which you know, uh zoning code does not um allow uh cargo containers for that length of time to be in front of a property.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Um any board supervisor Miley.

Uh yes, so um if we uphold the action of the West County Board of Zoning Adjusters, uh the sixty-five hundred dollar administrative fine that will be waived.

Uh correct.

They they decided to so she'll get a break there.

And then if we up withhold, I mean we uphold the West County Board of Zoning Adjusters.

Will she have 60 days from the time of our decision today to remove the container?

Uh that's correct, yes.

Okay, 60 days from today, okay.

Yes, right, because you know, this is a complaint.

You know, the staff didn't go looking for this.

This is uh a complaint generated, and as you've heard from staff, there's been a history of this.

Uh we are waiving the 60 uh 6,500 uh fine, administrative fine that could be charged her.

So we're waiving that.

She'll only be fined 268 dollars and 193 dollars.

Um, and she has 60 days from today to take action on it.

Uh I mean, uh, we we have rules, we have laws, and I just think we need to abide by because I don't want the unincorporated area to um become uh any any more I don't want blight to accumulate in the unincorporated area, so I just my motion is that we um uphold the action of the West County Board of Zoning Adjusters.

We have a motion from Supervisor Miley.

Uh do we have a second?

Second from Supervisor Albert uphold the can I can I suggest uh a modification of the motion, um, which should be to uphold the decision of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments, deny the appeal, and impose administrative fees in the amount of four hundred and sixty-one dollars, which are which are separate from those um fines that were waived by the West BCA.

Okay, it's a motion.

Okay, uh question from Supervisor Fortune up ask.

Uh, in terms of that motion, the 60 days from today.

If this uh motion is adopted, does that need to be clarified or is that somewhere else?

Because you're upholding the um West BCA's decision and their decision was abatement within 60 days.

That's why that starts from today.

Thank you.

Okay, so there's been a clarification to the motion that uh Supervisor Miley made.

Will the maker of the motion and the seconder concur?

Yes, agreed.

Okay.

So we have a motion by supervisor Miley and a second by Supervisor Halbert to uphold the findings and the decision of the West County BCA, and also to uh include the waiver of the fees and the movement of the or removal of the container within 60 days from today.

That's part of the West County BCAs.

Right.

That's implicit in your recommending that you uphold their decision.

Okay.

May I have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye, Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Let's move to item number eight, the appeal of the decision of the West County BCA.

Sure, I apologize.

I apologize that I do have to log off.

Thank you for your participation, Supervisor Marquez.

We understand.

Happy birthday.

Thank you.

We're still holding on to quorum.

So the item number eight is the appeal of the West County BZA's decision to declare the tobacco retailer in violation of the county's tobacco retailer ordinance.

Could I have the staff report, please?

Yes, Ed Lopaya, co-enforcement manager.

The appellant was actually here earlier, but they had to leave.

They're joining online on their phone.

So I they wanted to ask for continuance, but I think they're uh participating.

So I will proceed.

So uh this is the appeal of Sun Suleiman Hamood Ahmed from the decision of the West Board of Zoning Adjustments declaring the tobacco retailer business in violation of Alameda County uh ordinance chapter 3.58 and 3.59 based upon the sale of flavored tobacco products and an electronic smoking devices on 15640 East 14th Street, Ashland area of unincorporated Alameda County.

Uh so the applicable codes that uh we cited the retailer for is uh under 3.58 is a sale of tobacco products.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh which uh states says no retail or any tobacco retailer agent or employees may sell or possess within uh the intent to sell any flavor tobacco.

Uh 3.59030, the sale of electronic smoking devices is actually prohibited by the county.

3.58140.

Uh uh upon finding a third violation uh constitutes um within a five day five-year period constitute that the license shall be suspended for one year.

Uh in terms of background, this retailer was already previously cited for violations uh because this is already their third time within five years for um violations of the tobacco retail ordinance and and sales of uh prohibition of electronic smoking devices on November 12th uh 2020.

Um they were uh cited uh for um having electronic smoking uh vaping products and accessories and uh flavored tobacco and on June 17, 2021, that should say.

Sorry for the missed uh thing there, uh co-enforcement staff conducted another compliance inspection where they also discovered flavored tobacco products and and noticed the owner for that violation for the second violation.

Uh current facts for this case.

Next slide.

Uh June 11, 2025, County Sheriff's uh Department conducted a an operation there where they are actually able to uh ask to be uh to purchase a legal uh flavored tobacco and vaping devices.

Uh I think to be attached the copy of the report in your packet, and I'll also talk about that in a little bit.

On July 10, uh we uh code enforcement sent a notice to the retailer for the one-year license suspension and associated fines and fees.

July 18th uh business owners file an appeal to the West BZA, and on August uh 27, the BZA denied the retailer's appeal and upheld the planning department's recommendation, finding them uh finding violations of the ordinances and the suspension for one year with fines and fees.

Uh on September 12, the retailer filed an appeal uh of the BZA's decisions to your board, and that's why we're here today.

Um next slide.

Just this just shows uh an excerpt of the the report showing that the deputies were there and they actually asked for products to be sold.

They were sold the products, and um uh the clerk even got it from a plastic bag that was full of vape pens and provided it to the officer.

So we used the evidence from the the uh sheriff's department to move forward with our enforcement of the tobacco retail ordinance.

Next slide.

If you see here, this is actually the uh products purchased by the uh the deputy.

Uh flu miss uh electronic device and the uh banana cream is a flavored leaf roll, and also note that the receipt that they were provided doesn't even mention the name of that store and the address, and they used a receipt from uh POS system in San Francisco.

So under their first appeal was um they dispute the findings and the termination of the uh county ordinance.

Uh, should be noted that in support of his earlier appeal to the BCA, the appellant um uh provided the purported travel travel records claiming that he was out of the country.

So um the appellant uh our response was that the appellant has not provided any legal grounds as to why the BCA decision suspended the license for one year should be reversed uh under that code section 3.58040A retailers are liable for prohibited sales of their staff, regardless of the owner's presence.

Uh appeal point two, appellant contends that they imposed penalty of one year uh of their license and associated fines would cause severe hardship to the business employees and their customers, and our response is that while staff you know recognizes enforcement actions and uh hardships, um operating houses is not a valid defense for violations of the code.

The purpose of the penalty is to ensure compliance and protect public health, particularly the youth from unlawful tobacco sales.

And their third appeal uh point was that um there they're actually request consideration of the evidence presented and asked for opportunity to provide additional documentation clarification to support their uh compliance efforts.

So we feel that our response is that the prior evidence submitted by the appellant at the BCA hearing is all insufficient to grant the appeal as well.

So our recommendation that the board supervisors denies the appeal and sustain the decision of the West BCA to suspend their license uh held by the retailer for one year and impose a 1,000 violation fine and 268 administrative fee.

Uh that's the end of my presentation.

I'll take questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Uh not at this time.

Let's hear from the appellant, and we will give the appellant the five minutes.

I do not see.

Yes.

Um, perhaps.

Okay.

Is appellant online?

Um, are you the appellant?

Yeah.

Yes.

Are you the appellant?

Uh Nancy.

Are you a five-star smoke shop?

Yeah, I'm appealing.

No, I don't recognize that name, but they might be using somebody else's access.

The plant is not online.

Okay.

Uh, let's move to public comments then.

Marcia Lopez, you have two minutes.

Uh, yeah, yeah.

Hello, would you hear me?

Yes, you have two minutes.

Yes.

Hello, my name is Marcia Lopez.

I am member of SLAM, and uh I'm president of the unincorporated area.

I'm here to urge the board to deny the appeal by start smoke shop and uphold the one year suspension of their tobacco retained license.

This business has been called three times selling prohibiting flavor tobacco and vaping products.

The letter is just this in June in a sheriff undercover operation.

The owner's claim of not knowing what this employee were doing it is not credible.

After the three violation in five years is no longer ignorance.

It is negligence.

Since the TRL ordinance, took effect, we've seen progress.

Several tobacco retailers have closed and access to this harmful products, especially for youth has been reduced reduced.

Please uphold the suspension and continue protecting our community's health.

Thank you.

Yes, Senia Lopez, you have two minutes.

Uh within just five years.

These ongoing violations demonstrate uh disregard for county law and for the health and safety of our youth and community.

The flavor tobacco and vape products are designed to attract young people to use their products, which is the leading cause of nicotine addiction amongst our youth.

In addition, last month, Code Enforcement conducted a site visit and sees a large quantity of prohibited products, which included flavored tobacco, electronic smoking devices, and even cannabis leaf.

Alameda County's tobacco retail licensing ordinance is an important tool for reducing youth access to harmful tobacco products.

We need consistent enforcement to ensure that responsible businesses are supported and those that repeatedly break the law are held accountable.

For the reasons mentioned, I strongly urge the board to deny this appeal and uphold the one-year license suspension and fines.

By doing so, this decision sends a clear message that our county prioritizes community health, fairness, and more importantly, the well-being of our youth.

Uh, thank you for your time and continued leadership in protecting the health of Alameda County residents.

Brooklyn, you have two minutes.

Hello everybody, my name is Brooklyn Mercado and I'm a public health professional working in the unincorporated area.

I'm speaking today in strong support of the WBZA's decision to suspend the tobacco license of five star smoke shop and I urge you all to deny this appeal.

This business has been found in violation three times within a five year period, including which was mentioned earlier the recent undercover operation by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, which just confirmed that they were still selling flavor tobacco products.

These products are illegal under county law because of the harm that they caused particularly to the youth.

This was not just a misunderstanding it was not just a one time mistake.

This is a retailer who was warned fined and suspended in the past and still chose to break the law again and again the owner does claim that he has no knowledge of what the staff were selling but again when there's multiple violations inspections and seizure of a legal stock it's not just ignorance it's negligence and again it is putting our youth at risk.

The TRL ordinance was passed with a clear purpose to reduce the number of tobacco outlets in our community and prevent youth access and we have seen that it is working.

Thanks to community efforts and strong enforcement we've seen five problem retailers close in recent years and we are seeing a shift families feel safer and youth have fewer temptations and access to tobacco enforcing the suspension is not just punishment it is prevention.

It shows that Alameda County takes these issues seriously protect public health especially in historically underserved areas like our own in the unincorporated area please deny the appeal and stand with the families the youth and leaders who are working every day to build a healthier future thank you all for your time Nancy Respaldisa you hear me yes okay good afternoon my name is Nancy Respaldisa and I'm speaking today on behalf of Suslam an assigned conserved residents I'm asking you to stand by the decision made by the West County Board of Tuning at Jasmine and deny this appeal.

Five stars Mock Chop has shown repeated disregard for the law and the cherry seating operation in June confirmed that illegal safe continue at day of store even more during a September visit a state officials found a large stock of banned products of cannabis this is not one time mistake this is a pattern of violation the omners claim that he didn't know his staff were selling these items is not credible.

It's his responsibility to ensure compliance not just on paper but in practice the TRL program has worked with already closed five shops that were not following the rules and each one has made our neighborhood a little safer at holding these suspension can restore trust and send a message that enforcement is real to protect our youth support the ordinance and deny the appeal thank you.

Hello Isabel Archulera you have two minutes Isabel Archuleta Hi can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi my name is Isabel I live in Cash Valley I'm with I am youth leader with SLAM.

I'm here to ask you keep Chacabo Bo store closed.

They broke the law once, not once, not twice, three times.

Even the even the sheriffs wanted to cover.

And they still sold flavor chocolate.

Even the owner said he didn't know, but his stories is he's responsible.

The law is here, here to protect youth like me.

Thanks for the this law.

We closed five stores already.

That makes me feel make me feel safe.

Please keep the stores closed.

Thank you for listening.

Sandra, you have two minutes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Um, yes, I am a resident of District 4.

I am also a prevention.

Um I work in prevention.

And um I really am asking you to uphold the um decision of the West BZA.

Um, this retailer is clearly a problematic retailer.

They have been caught selling things.

This is not a matter of like not knowing what the what the law is or the ordinances, it's a willful um violation of it.

Um I think it is in the at the West Coast VCA.

I know the retailer's not here.

The uh owner said he didn't know what was going on, but I find that to be really unfeasible considering the number of violations.

You know, my family owned a restaurant for a long time.

We had a uh a beer and wine license.

It is a privilege to have those things because it is a subs a controlled substance, and you need to be able to be responsible for that.

It is not a right, it is a privilege.

Um, this ordinance, the TRL has been a really amazing tool for our community to make it safer.

Um, you know, I think you've heard me say this before, probably at other hearings when we go to national conferences and show the prevention ordinance that we were able to pass here in Alameda County.

People are really amazed by um the enforcement mechanisms, by how well it's working.

It is working.

As a previous speakers have said, we have closed up to like five retailers with this ordinance, reducing access, reducing the number of retailers in our community, and so I ask you to uh uh just follow the ordinance, you know.

They should lose their license for a year, they should um pay the fines, and we should show that enforcement works and uh show to other retailers that they need to follow the law.

Thank you.

Dalila Orozco, you have two minutes.

Hi, um good afternoon.

My name is Delilah, and I'm here today as a resident of Hayward Acres and a committed member of SLAM, the San Lorenzo Hayward Acres Mobilized.

I'm working with the board to uphold the one-year suspension of five-star smoke shops tobacco retail license and deny the current appeal.

This retailer has been found in violation of the tobacco retail ordinance three times in five years, most recently during a share sheriff lit uh undercover operation in June, where they were caught again selling flavored tobacco products that are banning Alameda County.

And just a few months ago, state enforcement team seized a large stockpile of those very same illegal products from their store.

Despite the multiple citations, fines, and prior suspensions, this business continue to violate the law.

They claim that the owner had a quotational knowledge of what his employees were doing is simply not credible, especially when the violations violations are this frequent and well documented.

This is a pattern, not a misunderstanding.

We know the TRL ordinance is working since it was passed.

We've said seen at least five non-compliant tobacco retailers shut down.

That's later real difference in reducing access to this harmful product, especially for youth in our communities.

This isn't just about the once about one store, it's about the bigger picture.

Are we going to stand behind our public health laws or allow repeat offenders to operate it without consequences?

Upholding this suspension helps maintain community trust and helps and keeps the momentum going toward a safer, healthier environment.

Please do the right thing for our families and youth.

Deny the appeal and enforce the law.

Thank you so much for your time.

Jason Cross, you have two minutes.

Jason Cross.

Last call, Jason Cross.

I'm here.

Can you hear me okay?

Sorry about that.

We hear you.

Oh, great.

Thank you.

My name's Jason Cross.

I'm a resident of Alameda County.

And notes here.

Um license suspension is an important part of the penalty structure to ensure that retailers are being held accountable for violating tobacco sales laws.

Tobacco retailers also have the responsibility to ensure that their agents and employees follow all tobacco sales laws and are prohibited from selling any flavored tobacco products or electronic smoking devices.

This retailer has shown repeated violations of having flavored tobacco and electronic smoking devices available for sale, as well as cannabis products which are prohibited for sale in a tobacco retail establishment, despite all the education and notifications they received.

The effectiveness of the county's TRL law relies on compliance among tobacco retailers and retailers need to be held accountable for violating local, state, and federal tobacco laws.

The intention of the TRL ordinance is to protect young people and unincorporated Alameda County from the harms of tobacco by limiting access to these products.

The tobacco industry targets young people with attractive flavored tobacco and products.

Thank you for your time.

Abdullah, you have two minutes.

Yes, hi.

I am speaking for the appealant.

We had a problem earlier for uh with the phone, and I have the manager of the store Marwan, and I will be translating for him.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

This is the appellant, so um the appellant will have five minutes maximum.

I'll walk up to the Andrade.

Okay, now I will be translating.

Uh good morning, Chair and members of the board.

My name is Marwan Ahmed, and I am the manager of Five Star Smoke Shop in San Leandro.

I'm speaking on behalf of the owner, Mr.

Sulaiman Hamud Ahmed, who is currently overseas and not and unable to attend this hearing.

We truly appreciate the opportunity to appear before the board and respectful respectfully request uh the reduction and suspension time for our business.

We understand the importance of following Alameda County tobacco and flavor product regulations as soon as we received the notice, we took immediate action to remove all flavor tobacco and electronic uh smoking devices from our shelves, and to ensure all employees were trained and comply fully with count with the county and state laws.

Our business is small and family run, and the suspension has caused significant hardship for the owner, employees and their families.

We take full full responsibility for the issue and have made every effort to correct it and prevent it from happening again.

We are not asking to avoid the accountability, only to have the suspension period reduced and recognition of our quick compliance and sincere efforts to follow all regulation going forward.

We respectfully ask for the board's understanding and consideration so we can continue operating our business responsibly and serving our community.

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

No more speakers.

Thank you.

I didn't hear any new evidence presented by the um appellant.

And so I just know the community's worked really hard for the uh the tobacco retail license ordinance.

Um spent a lot of time working on that.

Um I don't uh I didn't hear anything that uh justifies three violations over the last five years.

Uh did I was there anything that came up new that um in regards to them uh in their appeal, you mean?

Yeah.

Uh not we didn't hear anything new from them, there is basically asking for some leniency from the decision.

Yeah, that's all I heard too.

Yeah, I don't know how the board feels you know I'm I'm willing to waive the thousand dollar fine, but I'm not willing to uh support um the appeal uh so I mean I'm willing to make make a motion if the chair is ready for it that we uphold the West County Board of Zoning Adjusters um uh decision and deny the appeal of the business owner, um, uphold the one year tobacco license suspension, um, and um for one year in that we um waive the thousand dollar fine but uh impose the uh two hundred and sixty-eight dollar administrative fee.

And I think uh that would be my motion, and that's so if we waive the thousand dollar fine, that's the only leniency I can't, you know.

I'm I'm willing to support.

So that's the motion.

Okay, I'll second the motion.

So the motion uh before the board is to uphold the decision of the West County BZA and to deny the appeal and also to waive the 1,000 fine.

But uphold the $268 administrative-dollar administrative fee, administrative fee.

Yeah, supervisors.

May I clarify the motion or suggest a clarification that you deny the appeal in part as to the imposition of the one-year suspension?

You grant the appeal as to the $1,000 fine because that is part of the West BCA's order, and um you impose the $268 administrative fee.

Okay.

That's what County Council wants.

That's I think I may add something to motion.

That's my motion.

I just wanted to add that we're not shutting the store down.

They can still continue to sell uh products that are not um tobacco, tobacco or obviously uh electronic smoking devices.

Right.

I figured as much, I don't know what else they sell because I haven't gone to the store, but the point is I think uh a suspension of their license for one year.

That's gonna be I think um good.

And if and if that doesn't do the trick, if they come back before us again, then I won't be as merciful.

Okay.

Seconder of the motion agrees.

Uh so the motion is on the table.

May I have a couple?

Please, Supervisor Marquez.

Excuse Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunatabas.

Aye.

President Howbert.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes unanimously.

We have come to the public input portion of our meeting today.

So if there are speakers that wish to speak on items that are not on today's agenda, please come forward.

Kellya Brew and Jason Bezos.

So I'd like to address the board, this board directly.

Um I'm concerned that today's meeting appears to have violated quorum requirements under the Brown Act.

Um, five uh government codes uh 54950 at sec and AB 2302.

Write that down.

Okay.

When one of your board members stepped out, and only two remained physically present.

We only need to count the more the members physically present in the room.

Um both AB 2302 and the Brown Act, both of them require a physical majority.

So that's three members in the room for any meeting to lawfully proceed.

Uh remote attendance cannot substitute for the physical quorum.

So sorry, Zoom people.

Um you don't count.

Any public comments your board hears could not lead to official action in that lack of a quorum situation.

Now that happened also on Monday uh morning at the transportation planning meeting, by the way.

Um I call upon the clerk of the board to quickly pause business in the future whenever uh fewer than three members are physically present, and the county attorney can continue to sleep, I guess, because they evidently don't uh don't really follow laws very much.

Um they don't uh especially if the law they would enforce if I was to go off topic or you know, uh do anything, you know.

The the they they tend to support any action that your board takes, whether it violates laws or not.

Um this is part of the public's right to open and transparent government.

Um so just remember a physical quorum must be physically present in the room.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon.

Um I'm Jason Bezes again.

Uh I'd like to make a comment here about the unreasonable restrictions on access to public records at the Almeida County Public Works Agency.

And it's very important because this is a planning meeting and for a freezer planning meetings.

Access to timely accurate information about county uh issues, county public works, is very important to decision making, not only for your board, but access to the public because it's disproportionate.

We don't have access to your information.

Now you used to have a maps and files library on Hayward that was open to the public for many years, and I went there uh first in 2003, and I got to know uh Gloria Allen and Rena, they're on the staff.

Uh but now it's closed to the public.

So the there was no way to get information about road petitions or others, uh say about Morrison Canyon Road and other uh county uh projects because there's no access to it.

Now there is a database, it's kind of difficult to use online there, but the staff were not very helpful.

I kept asking repeatedly for access.

I sent emails to the maps files email address, got no response to it.

And uh so this is a very big problem.

And your board needs to ensure public access in a timely manner to the contents of your maps files library.

Because again, it's just wrong to do that to the public, and then you have your your public works director can make misstatements there about the public right of way, and none of you question about it.

And it some of these things would be verifiably false.

And there's a lot of short-sighted myopic decisions that are made about public rights away.

And you need to just look in the records there.

Back in the 1860s, the Burnell Avenue when it first got opened.

So their cattle wouldn't escape.

They allowed the Burnell Avenue to open, but put a gate there.

Your board wisely said we're not going to allow a gate in perpetuity that people are going to have to lift.

And also Hopyard Road, the owner there wanted the hop yard owners wanted to restrict access to close Hopyard Road because they didn't like people looking at their blossoms.

Your board wisely turned that around and look, Happy Road's important road today.

Thank you.

Sandra.

Well, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, I just wanted to come on here and speak on the importance of meeting interpretation.

For the last item, as you noticed, there was a couple of Spanish speakers.

Um we had requested that of like a couple weeks ago when we first uh found out that the hearing was going to be scheduled for today, and um I think that they told us there's some app or something like that, but like you know, our folks can't navigate that during a public meeting, it's hard enough to get folks on.

Um and accessibility is important, so I just I know that Supervisor Um's office has been working on language access for these meetings, and it is just so very important to have um a clear process to have interpretation that is accessible and easy to use and integrated into like a Zoom or whatever it is that we're using.

Because if you're asking folks to use some external um application, that's incredibly challenging and a huge barrier.

So I just um really encourage uh the board to look at funding interpretation services because I know that has been the barrier, I know the intention is there, but we just need to actually um fund those services appropriately so that um these meetings are accessible.

We are an incredibly diverse um county, and the unincorporated area in particular is very diverse, and we need to make sure that we are providing an easy accessible way for people to join these meetings and participate in civically.

Thank you.

No more speakers.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate all your comments today.

Meetings adjourned.

Um