Recording in progress.

Good morning and welcome to the Board of Supervisors Planning Meeting of November 13th, 2025.

May I have roll call, please?

Supervisor Marquez, present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Supervisor for Tenado Bas, excused.

President Howbert.

I'm present at the location agendas.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Board of Supervisors welcome to you to its meeting and the board allows in-person and remote observation and participation by members of the public at its meeting.

Will the clerk please provide brief instructions on how to verbally participate to public comment and online teleconferencing?

Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines.

A link to the document is included in today's agenda.

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

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

If you decide not to speak, notify the clerk when your call is unmuted, or you may just 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 very much.

At this time, we will go to the approval of the minutes for October 9th, 2025.

May I have a motion for approval?

So move.

Second.

Motion by Miley, second by Supervisor Marquez.

May I have a roco vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor for Tonato Bas excuse President Howbert.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passed.

At this time, we will not have uh closed session, so we will go to the consent calendar.

May have a motion for approval of the consent calendar.

So move.

I'll second.

Motion by Miley, second by Supervisor Marquez.

May I have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Make sure there isn't public comment on the consent.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Were there public comments on the October 9th minutes?

No.

No speakers.

Okay.

Are there any comments on the consent calendar?

No speakers.

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor for Tenado Bas.

Excuse.

President Howbert.

Aye.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you for that reminder.

Let's go to the regular calendar, starting with item four.

The modification to the drive-through policy.

Staff report, please.

Bureau is Alameda County Planning Department.

This is a request for a policy modification.

This relates to the policy for drive and restaurants in Ashland, Cherry Land, and San Lorenzo.

Adopted by the board in 1999.

Here on the slide is an excerpt of the document, which regulates driving restaurants in three uh area corridors with a prohibition, prohibition to new establishments, driving restaurants on the third corridor, which is Hisperion Boulevard in San Lorenzo.

The modification has been refined over numerous public hearings.

Next slide, please.

And here's the final project area, which is eight uh twenty-five parcels, uh eighteen would be affected because they're commercially zoned.

This is along Hisperian north of West A Street, west of uh north of West A Street, north of the city of Hayward.

Uh up to um Bachman.

And next slide, please.

Here are the policy modifications, which specifies uh the area uh where the prohibition is being lifted on on part of Hesperian and a cap of up to five conditional use permits, uh, with two establishments existing, one active and one inactive drive through uh drive-in restaurants along with uh required and updated conditions of approval at the bottom.

Uh so right now the policy uh suggests conditions of approval.

They've been uh updated and are suggested to um be required with conditional use permits for driving restaurants along this corridor.

Modification conforms to the general plan and to the zoning ordinance, planning commission recommended approval as did the Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council.

Uh this modification will enable development opportunities and more consumer choices in the area.

Staff recommends approval and is available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I appreciate all the public vetting that has occurred for this item, but um are is county staff aware of any um enterprise interested in these locations.

Have has there been any solicitation, any interest in wanting to reopen these establishments?

We've heard from um one property owner who was having trouble marketing the property.

We've also heard from representatives of the Bohanan group about uh different uh uh restrictions uh to the conditions of approval that that might make um future development more interesting, and then we've heard from from representatives of one potential restaurant on a third site.

Okay, and I'm familiar with the location and I just recall um I believe it was Sam's burgers, that's one of the locations, correct?

That that's one of the uh existing um drive-ins, and although it's closed, it could reopen any time.

So that would be one of the five under the one of the five, okay.

And then right next to that, I believe the Chase Bank closed, but also had a drive-thru option.

Uh it it closed and did have a drive-thru, it would need a conditional use permit to establish.

Okay.

Was not a restaurant.

It's not, yeah, it's a bank.

So um that could be repurposed for if if a restaurant wanted to utilize that location, would they have to come in for a conditional use permit, or we would have to rezone?

It would come in for a conditional use permit.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments?

If not, I supervisor Miley.

Oh, yeah, this is the support of um the MAC, EDMAC, I believe, as well as the village association.

The planning commission as well.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, are there public comments on this item?

No speakers.

Thank you.

Uh, this item did come before the unincorporated services committee meeting, and we had a number of speakers, including some of the uh property owners of parcels that were facing some of the challenges with uh marketing uh because of some of these policies from 25 years ago, and uh there was a desire on the part of the community to revitalize the Hesperian corridor and to make these opportunities more available, especially following um the pandemic.

So I'm also supportive of um the amendments to the policy, and I would entertain a motion at this time.

Move the item, I'll second.

So I have a motion from Supervisor Miley and a second by Supervisor Marquez to amend the policy for the drive-through restaurants in Ashland Cherry Land and the San Lorenzo area.

May I have roll call vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Town.

Aye, Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fotonado Bas.

Excuse President Howard.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Let's move to uh item number five, which is the second reading of the amendment to the sidewalk vending ordinance to establish the sidewalk vending permit fees.

May I have staff report, please?

Uh yes, good morning, board members.

Uh Ed Labayog, Alameda County uh code enforcement manager.

Um this is for the second reading of amendments to sidewalk vending ordinance to establish sidewalk vending permit fees and enhance requirements for posting and notification of potential revisions to sidewalk vending regulations.

Uh on the on October 9, 2025, your board um conducted the first reading of amendments to the sidewalk vending ordinance codified in chapter 3.36 of the Alameda County ordinance code.

Uh Alameda County Ordinance Code.

Uh CDA recommends two discrete amendments to this ordinance.

The first uh CDA amendment uh I mean recommends that board of supervisors add a subdivision C to section 3.36 of the ordinance to establish an annual permit fee for the issuance of sidewalk vending permits annually of uh 273 dollars.

Uh the second CDA recommendation was to adopt a new subdivision B to section 3.36030 of the ordinance that would enhance requirements regarding the posting notification of potential revisions to the sidewalk vending regulations by the planning director.

Um as authorized in section 3.36 uh CDA director has noticed uh public hearing is notified uh the supervisors.

We do have a scheduled hearing for this regulations uh set for November 18, 2025.

Uh this second reading of the amendments to the ordinance fulfills the statutory requirements prescribed by California Government Code Section 25131, that an ordinance may not ordinarily be passed by uh county's board of supervisors within five days of its introduction in accordance with California government code section 25123.

The amendments to the ordinance will take effect 30 days following adoption by the Board of Supervisors.

We recommend that uh conduct the second reading of the amendments to the sidewalk vending ordinance to establish annual permit fee of 273 dollars uh for the community development agency planning department uh to issue sidewalk vending permits in Alameda County and to enhance requirements regarding the regarding the posting and notification potential of potential revisions to the sidewalk vending regulations to solicit comments from the public and the affected municipal advisory councils.

That's the uh end of my presentation.

We'll take any questions you have.

Um thank you for that presentation.

Um board comments or questions.

Yeah, yes, thank you.

You know, obviously, I definitely support the ordinance.

Um, but I do have some comments.

Um the ordinance will be will become enforceable when uh so the next step.

If if this is approved today, we are scheduling um a public hearing on November 18th for the planning director to adopt the uh regulations and then um uh shortly after that, uh 30 days after that, then uh everything will be in place for us to start, but uh we're scheduling um starting our efforts in early January, starting with outreach education efforts, and then uh our permitting process will also be ready.

Supervisor, the order itself will be effective 30 days after adoption.

Okay.

All right, that's good.

Um, I want to just uh comment a bit.

I'm trying to be very uh diplomatic.

This past Saturday in Castro Valley, we had the annual light parade.

I think maybe the 11th, 12th, something like that.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of people uh participate in the event.

Um, but I've gotten my office, has gotten a lot of calls, and I've gotten uh direct communication from folks because there was a lot of sidewalk vending going on at the event, um, and and it seems like uh both code enforcement environmental health uh and maybe in collaboration with the Sheriff's Department uh are not uh addressing this issue to the degree that the community, at least the community that's communicating with my office and myself really wants to see done undertaken.

So what will change with the enactment of this ordinance?

Uh yes, when regards to that light parade, I was actually there with one of my uh officer.

Uh we told him that because this ordinance was not ineffective, we were limited to uh support.

Uh we asked the vendors that were on the street to move away from the street and not to block sidewalks.

Um, and then environmental health was there, and we were able to actually um ask one of the um big operations where they had the tables set up with condiments and selling uh the food over there in front of the city bank the they actually packed up and left.

It's it's gonna take a while to come up with a good plan.

We we have a meeting with uh CVMAC uh on Monday, and we plan to uh improve our coordination with environmental health and uh the sheriff's office.

Um we also alerted some of the vendors that we were able to speak to that next year is gonna be different because you have to be 200 feet away from the event.

Uh but enforcing that will take um better coordination with us, uh, environmental health and the sheriff's office because um with enforcing the sidewalk vending ordinance and the food code, I think will have better success next year uh when um uh any events happen when there's vendors setting up.

Okay.

Well, I've directed my uh chief of staff and um uh also one of my other staff to set up a meeting with myself, CDA, the sheriff's office, and environmental health at some point in the near future, uh, because I really want to understand how we're gonna proceed forward because I quite frankly I'm I'm annoyed at the constant um um response I'm getting from constituents around this.

It's making me look bad, and I don't like that.

Um, I'm just trying to be very matter of fact.

So I'm putting that out in the public domain.

My chief of staff and uh my other staff, Ashley from Castro Valley, will be setting up a meeting with environmental health, CDA, sheriff's office, so you can talk to me about um enforcement efforts relative to this ordinance uh sometime in the you know the near future, uh, possibly will be either uh I'll probably be after the holidays, but we'll see.

The other thing is I do know uh in talking with um with civic and economic development that department in CDA, I know Eileen Dalton and her and her folks have worked with vendors in the past to help them get trained so that they could, you know, uh advance and get brick and mortar facilities and things like that.

And I know they're still prepared to work in uh concert around around this effort because I know that's part of the um uh the outreach that'll take place when you're talking to these uh sidewalk vendors because um you know we want them to do things the right way, and we want to help them uh become you know operational in a manner that uh is conducive to public health and safety.

You know, I was informed that one vendor was even selling uh items and smoking a you know a cigarette or cigarettes while he was selling items, and that vendors were not um responsive to some of the you know communication from code enforcement environmental health.

And I and I know you you folks told me you'd be out there, I know I didn't see you but I was told you're out there so it's good you're out there but people were not we're not pleased um so we just need to do I mean we need to do the will of the community and that's what they're asking me and that's another reason why Castor Valley often gets upset with the county uh and they want to become their own city potentially just because they don't they lack the local control deal with the issues they feel are important to them because they feel the county is not uh respecting their desires and their wishes so I'm just their voice their messenger their representative um and that's the community that's really hammering me about this at the at the moment so I just wanted to state all that it's kind of like cathartic I don't it's kind of like get to vent a little bit but I did it so thank you.

Thank you Supervisor Marquez any questions comments so um I I do have a couple questions and and I appreciate we've had um a long discussion about this earlier with respect to moving with gradually with an education component and then um working through so that vendors understood some of the um elements of the ordinance and what is considered violations and the coordination with environmental health and trying to get it in a centralized location.

And I know in the past in Castle Valley they have had environmental health confiscate uh food right that with a vendor that was not um compliant despite numerous um attempts to to enforce the code so the questions that have come up at least uh from the constituents that uh are in my district they're concerned that the um the fees that are part of our second meeting won't be enough of a deterrent for vendors because the vendors apparently make a significant amount of funds that we may need to be more proactive instead of just confiscating their equipment I mean instead of just food just their equipment basically in some way um uh have more an impactful uh I I think uh action in terms of their business and I wanted to get your thoughts about that.

Uh so this ordinance uh we are limited uh to um administering administrative fines and fees so and they are escalating for um vendors that don't have a permit it's um they the penalties are higher than the ones that do have a permit and violate the code so and they and they increase um depending on the number of times we we um deal with them for example the uh wants to do have a permit but violate uh sections of the ordinance would be 100 for the uh a warning we have to issue a warning first and then it's a hundred for the second violation uh two two hundred for the third and five hundred for each and subsequent and for those who are not permitted it's um warning and then two fifty for the second five hundred for the third and a thousand for each and subsequent so um again our goal is to have vendors hopefully that we can encourage to be part of the the county and and and have everything permitted uh we're trying to establish uh partnerships with ECD they've um they they have a permit coordinator that will provide assistance if the uh they want somebody to guide them to this to go through the permitting process, because I know it can be uh daunting, or just even to explain uh everything that they're gonna need to to to have their permit issued.

And uh we're also trying to learn from our neighboring uh cities and jurisdictions on best practices on how they handle their permitting and uh enforcement um and also any programs that they might have to help vendors um and sort of that I mean um we'll we'll try our best to um satisfy uh helping the vendors as well as enforcing the codes to you know make it safe for the public, but it's gonna be uh a challenge, especially in the beginning.

I appreciate that.

And I know that um uh we are and and I am supportive of uh putting forth this ordinance which is new and and then gradually uh working toward making additional amendments in the future.

But do you think at the onset that um it would be more cost effective for some of the uh more bad actor type vendors to just basically flat out defy the ordinance and just pay the fee and then continue violating because it's they make more money uh with their operations than what it would cost to um pay the fines?

Yeah, I believe that's true.

From some of the vendors, you we can go out there, confiscate their food, and then they're back the next day or even the same night.

Um so I think that uh coordinating better coordination and and being more consistent, uh more proactive, uh, especially you know, in the beginning uh with our efforts would would help a lot because uh if if they know that we're just gonna keep coming, we won't stop, they they're gonna go somewhere else, is my feeling.

Okay, thank you.

Uh are there any public comments on this item?

I'm sorry.

Supervisor Halbert's hands raised.

Yes, I just wanted to thank staff for their efforts on this.

I also want to recognize and support the comments from Supervisor Miley and Supervisor Tam.

I'm disheartened to hear that Supervisor Miley is not looking good, and I want to do everything I can to support him looking good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Halpert.

Are there any public comments?

We have speakers.

Heath borrows.

I'd like to be in on that meeting you were talking about.

Um much of this is gonna end up just being words on paper.

Um, it was my understanding that the uh that the transparency was also include uh any changes that the uh director makes would be going to the head of the max, and if they want to agendize it, that those changes be hold held in abeyance until after it was agendized and heard at the municipal advisory councils.

Um the fees and the fines um uh are not enough.

Um the uh the folks out there, the vendors have made the business decision uh to continue to break the law.

That is their business plan is to continue to break the law.

And unless something is implemented, like I I was gonna say it, but Supervisor Miley said it first long ago.

If there are no teeth in this thing, it's all just words on paper, and we've created a lot of administration, a lot of training and a lot of outreach, et cetera.

And it's and and the end result will still be the same as it is today.

You said you were limited to just uh to just fines and fees.

Well, we're not we're we do have the confiscation of the food involved.

I I really think as Supervisor Miley had mentioned, and I mentioned a long time ago, that it needs to be expanded to confiscation of equipment.

That will make a difference.

Taking the food will not.

They came and took chicken from the chicken, we call it the chicken lady in the barbecue as the bar open flame barbecue, which is you know, I know you know who I'm talking about.

They confiscated her chicken.

They went away.

She took more chicken out of the uh out of her van and continued to cook and and never left.

Not even that day.

Um I've lost my place here.

Anyway, uh without the teeth, um, I'm I we we need the teeth, we need the confiscation of equipment.

Otherwise, all this is for naught.

Matt Turner, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Hi, thanks for taking this issue up.

Um, it is a real store point for many of us.

And I think it some of this is very misguided, thinking that these are just bootstrap people, you know, trying to make the best of it.

Many of the particularly the fruit stands out in the canyon lands.

Uh, there's one that's always out there on uh the corner of um Palo Verde and uh Eden Canyon Road.

Uh they have talked to the deputies about this.

These are often victims of human trafficking.

Uh there is a different person every day.

Uh this is around Castor Valley High School as well.

Um there are people who are just posted up, you know, to pay off coyotes or whatever their deal is, and um, and there's a different person.

So you can't find your way with these people.

Um, you know, they're they're in a bad situation trying to you know do whatever they can.

I'm not not particularly angry at those folks.

I mean, there are vendors who are just thumbing their nose at the law, but if you're not taking away the equipment, if you're not taking away the stands, the umbrellas, all that stuff, the uh the criminal organizations that are are you know are doing this stuff are totally unfazed.

They don't care about training for permits or anything like that, they have a business model, it's gonna carry on, and if we don't have something that addresses that, you can continue to have uh this problem where people are you know, I see it blocking safe routes to schools.

It's you know, I've seen carts fill up whole corners that block intersections for kids having to walk out into the street to get to school.

Um this is a public safety issue, and the county looks really bad.

Um, you know, we had the meeting the street light parade uh just this last weekend, and uh we counted my kids and I we counted uh over 20 illegal vendors um selling food with no hand washing stations or or anything, you know, cooking stuff with open flames underneath trees.

Um, you know, and and uh no one did anything, even though supposedly folks were out patrolling that night.

So I mean, county looks really interesting, we ought to do something.

No more speakers.

Thank you.

Uh let's return back to the board for action and movement.

I yeah, through the chair.

So since folks have raised the issue around the confiscation of equipment, what would it take for us to put that into the ordinance?

Is that I have uh Jonathan Napier with the county council that give us some comments.

Good morning, uh Supervisor Miley.

In response to your question, so as we've discussed before, under state law, SB 946 and SB 972, local jurisdictions are as Ed explained um limited in how they can enforce the sidewalk vending ordinance, and so they can only impose administrative penalties, they can't do anything else.

Uh that said, under the health and safety code, uh environmental health has the ability to confiscate food, and and as the speaker pointed out, and as we've discussed, and equipment as well and utensils.

And the basis for um for taking that action is if they suspect that there's unsanitary conditions or they observe unsanitary conditions, um, then they can they can do that.

They have the authority to do it.

Um, so I so that's and that's and they've been acting under that authority when they've confiscated food in the past.

Um so in in terms of the authority, just in response directly to your question about confiscating equipment, that is there, and if they observe, you know, once they observe that um uh their conditions are unsanitary, they suspect that they're unsanitary, they can do that.

Okay, all right, thank you.

So then it's just a matter of um the board following up with environmental health when I have that meeting with respective county uh staff, we'll we'll look at that.

Um and then if we need to bring it back to the committee or through the full board, we will.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate the discussion.

Um I'll just flag comments that I've made um in the past.

Um this is an issue throughout the entire county, unfortunately, not just unincorporated.

So I understand everyone's concerns, but I am I am puzzled and troubled with the fact that we're not proposing, and I know that's not the item before us today, but I do think it's important to be comprehensive, and we should be looking at a way to partner with surrounding cities and other communities to figure out a way, a pathway for these people to operate legal businesses.

Um I concern of the blanket statements that this is all criminal activity.

I don't think that's the case.

I do think many of these people are just trying to earn a living and feed their families.

Um, so I do think it's our responsibility to provide resources, support, training to get them to operate um businesses, whether we even identify places within the county.

I know we've done a lot of um kind of incumbator co-shared spaces or people can uh train to become caters.

I mean, there's so many business opportunities that we can help promote because absent that um at the end of the day, whether we agree or not, these individuals are really just trying to earn a living.

So I hope that we can figure out what those options are as well.

Thank you.

Um I think uh we've gone through several different uh advisory boards on this issue, and uh we I know staff is trying to balance state law and uh being responsive to the community's needs for public health and safety, particularly uh with the vendors.

So I'm I'm comfortable with the fact that uh we have the authority through environmental health uh to go further uh in terms of addressing the issues with the bad actors, but I think we need to start uh with this ordinance and get it in place and see how it works and make the appropriate modifications as we learn from the responses that we're getting from the vendors.

So I'm comfortable um moving this forward through the second reading.

So do I have a motion for the amendments?

Yeah, just before I make the motion.

Uh I don't know if if uh Sandy is available at the moment to speak to what uh economic and civic development does through their uh programs with um you know small vendors and uh we have examples of things that we've done, and I think they're a program in place.

Our economic and civic development part that's part of the education process that Ed's out there with the information to inform the vendors of these uh opportunities, and so our economic civic development department they work with uh uh educating as tra as well as training uh vendors and possible uh new entrepreneurs, especially with food, um, and they have their um cohorts that they have annually that we fund, and there's been a couple of uh folks that have opened up businesses in the unincorporated area.

I can't think of the actual two restaurants at the moment, but but they're out there, and so it's part of the program.

And if these vendors are interested, we do have a path for them and we can help them.

Yeah.

So we could bring up, you know, have a report brought back to the full board because I'm very familiar.

I mean, even before the sidewalk vending matter became an issue, our economic civic development department before and prior to that redevelopment.

They put in place programs, and I just went to a um another opening a couple of weeks ago with another um vendor on um East 14th Street, not too far from the um uh REACH uh youth center and heard of the success story of how that uh particular vendor under Mandela um uh Mandela Market has expanded um and actually grown.

It was a very um delightful success story.

So I can know we've got others.

So I'm just saying we we were doing this before this became an issue, and I know the staff continues to do that, and if the full board's not familiar with it, then we'll just have to bring up this staff bring a report at some point.

And and we do have uh Ed showing me the the resource guide that they have for ECD that they hand out as part of the education process with the sidewalk vendor so it's on their website as well.

So if you want a motion then oh does you need to read the ordinance.

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.

Moved away the full second reading of the ordinance and move for the adoption I'll second the motion um so there's been motion by supervisor Miley and second by Supervisor TAM may I have roll call vote please.

Supervisor Marquez hi supervisor Tam aye supervisor Miley aye supervisor Fortunato Bas excuse President Howard I vote yes.

The motion carries thank you everyone um we'll move to item number six the introduction of the first reading of an ordinance amending the San Lorenzo Village Center specific plan to allow for a fire station right.

Aubrey Rose Alameda County Planning Department this is a request for a specific plan amendment the amendment is to the San Lorenzo Village Center specific plan.

Here's the plan on the screen uh first three pages cover sheet uh area along um asperian and in and generalized uh within the region uh the proposed amendment enables the Alameda County fire department to relocate fire station number 22 by right with no further planning permits uh to a new site within the plan area currently the project as contemplated it is not permitted uh next slide please here are the proposed amendments this would be to um waive site development review um for fire stations under 1000 square feet uh to uh in no particular order to make fire stations a permitted use where they're currently prohibited and then uh as a cleanup to update the APN assessor parcel number uh list um due to a recent uh lot line adjustment uh at the um at the subject site uh next slide please and here's the concept for a new alameda county fire department station number 22 which the plan amendments would enable the proposed amendment conforms to the Eden Area General Plan and will result in benefits to the area the planning commission recommended approval as did the Eden area MAC staff also recommends approval and is available to answer any questions uh deputy chief eric more is present as well from the fire department thank you for comments questions no questions just clarification if we could hear from um the fire department um if you could just remind the public um how it is that we're able to um construct a new fire station just some background context sure well good morning supervisors thank you for having me for those that don't know me my name's Eric Moore and I get the the privilege of being a deputy chief and overseeing our capital program so just maybe a quick historical perspective um in 2020 uh the community supported a measure acts a general obligation bond for us to build new fire stations so after we um were uh after we were awarded the general obligation bonds we went on to purchase a piece of property on Paseo Grande uh directly across the sparing from our current fire station.

So we finished our negotiations with the Bohannan property management group to buy about a one-acre parcel um located off Paseo Grande and Paseo Larga Vista.

So that um zoning ordinance for that piece of property was commercial.

And so we reached out to the planning department to work with um them to figure out how we can get that piece of parcel uh zoned into a public facility zoning.

And this is sort of where we're at right now.

So we're super excited about building our new fire station right there in the community, right next to where we already respond to calls.

And so we just really appreciative that you're here to listen to our plan today.

Hopefully I answered your question.

If not, I can.

You did.

Thank you for that background.

And I'm just want to flag obviously the fire department has done their due diligence, and this is the best site in terms of response time and being able to provide services to the public.

That due diligence has already occurred.

Yeah, definitely.

So we use our GIS team, and we we looked at other available parcels within that sort of San Lorenzo area, and this one uh pinned out to be our best location for all the way down to West A Street and into our neighboring community of San Leandro.

So this is a really strategic spot to us, and it's about 400 yards away from our existing fire station.

That's great.

I'm glad it's available.

Thank you so much for being here.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Appreciate that background.

Um this is clearly something we've been looking forward to in the San Lorenzo community.

So are there any public comments on this item?

No speakers.

Okay.

Um I'll return it back to the board for action or more comments.

Well, I'd like to move the item.

Oh, wait, that's an ordinance.

It's an ordinance about 24 ordinance.

Okay, but also I'd like to just mention uh that um the the fire to Alameda County fire broke around on the Palomars station, just a couple about them within the last month or so.

Supervisor Tam and I were there for that groundbreaking.

Um we got a few more stations to come, so with measure uh X.

So, you know, we got the training facility in Dublin as well.

So the money, it's money being well spent.

Thank you.

Um, so we'll have the clerk read through the ordinance.

An ordinance amending the San Lorenzo Village Center specific plan.

One to permit one publicly owned and operated fire station with its sub-area 5A and two to wave site development review for fire stations measuring less than 10,000 square feet in building and accessory building floor area less than 50 feet building height and less than 0.25 floor area ratio.

Move the way the balance of the full first reading and move for um the adoption of the ordinance.

I'm happy to second.

So I have a motion from Supervisor Miley and a second from Supervisor Mark Has.

May I have roll call roll, please.

Supervisor Marquez, aye, supervisor Tam, aye, Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bass excused President Howbert.

I vote yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Let's move to item number seven, which is an appeal of the planning director's determination on the adult daycare use.

Good morning, supervisors Albert Lopez, plan director.

Uh, this item came to us as a uses not listed provision in our zoning code, which uh allows uh an applicant to uh petition the county to consider a use that's not listed and to determine whether or not that use is similar enough to another use so that we can uh uh we can provide a process for them to go through and and approve it.

Um in this particular case, the applicant uh Urban Ilao uh has a site in mind to begin an adult daycare center.

Um adult daycare center is not a use that we currently define.

And um, so the petition from the applicant is that the county should consider adult daycare in a similar way that we treat daycare centers, which is a use primarily uh a use uh for children.

Um, and the particular zoning district in this case is uh neighborhood commercial, our neighborhood business district C N zone, um located in Castro Valley in this particular case.

And in that zoning district, we do allow daycare centers as a permitted uh use.

Adult day care adult daycare center is not uh defined in our zoning code.

We did look at how other jurisdictions uh review this use, and uh for example, San Leandro and Hayward, they do have provisions where they consider them in a similar way.

Uh other cities, uh, such as like Pleasanton and Union City don't define it at all, so they're in a similar situation as we do.

City of Oakland has a much more robust way to looking at community care facilities like this, it's not really a great example.

I think uh in our particular case, uh we do have one other uh in uh adult daycare center that we approved many years ago.

At that point, we approved it as an indoor recreation facility uh in an industrial zone.

So it really is probably wasn't the best fit at that time, but that that's something that we um have already done in previous cycles.

So in this particular case, the the appeal to the board is that you uh look at adult daycare center uh adult daycare use in a similar way as daycare.

Um short of that, uh we would have to uh look at a zoning amendment that would require some roadshow work in terms of staff looking at uh this particular use and some of the requirements that come from state law related to this use, and we would do our usual roadshow in terms of going to the various MACs uh planning commission, etc.

before it came back to your board.

We think that would probably take about six months for us to do that particular work.

If you agree with the appellant and and do consider that adult daycare is similar to daycare center, then they would be allowed to move forward at this particular site that they're looking at at uh 1446 A Street in Castro Valley, just on the Hayward border.

Uh so with that I will uh wrap up and ask uh answer any questions that you might have on this particular case.

Thank you for that presentation.

Uh, any board comments questions, or miley?

Uh, before I ask my questions, is the appellant?

Sorry, is the appellant gonna speak at all?

I'm not sure if the appellants in the room or if they're online.

Yeah, because if not.

Is the appellant online?

No, ma'am.

Okay, okay.

All right, so you said so some surrounding jurisdictions, and I know you haven't done a very thorough.

It's just a cursory look at this.

Some jurisdictions uh consider adult daycare similar to daycare, and then others uh haven't categorized it at all.

So what's the downside of us considering it as a regular daycare?

Sure.

You know, do you do you have a sense of any downside?

Yeah, yeah, and I forgot to mention uh that this did go to the planning commission.

I I apologize for omitting that information.

So uh they were concerned primarily with the parking requirement.

Um the staff to client ratio for adult daycare is is uh a bit is quite a bit higher than it is for children.

I think it's three to one for adults versus ten to one for for children.

Um so it's so pretty dramatic change.

The parking requirement would be a little higher for adult daycare.

That was primarily the concern.

I think that in terms of downside, um, I don't necessarily think that there's a um uh a heavy downside.

I think that um it would be a de facto zoning amendment if you were to do that.

So then moving forward, the way that the zoning code um considers this use is not listed process.

Once the county decides, it's a it's a decision that's uh again a zoning change.

Um I think that you know we're not necessarily being inundated or we don't have a whole lot of requests for adult daycare.

It is something that we probably should plan for for the future.

Uh but in terms of um downside, I don't see a ton of that.

I think it's mostly just you know responding to this current applicant and an understanding that this is a use that there seems to be a lot of support for.

It's just that we don't have a place in our zoning code to to allow them.

So this would be um one way to do that.

Okay, so that response is another in the report, the staff report.

You mentioned that um so for adult daycare, uh the parking ratio is like three times what it might be for child care.

Um even if that's the case and we consider it the same as child care.

Can we um deal with the issue around parking similarly uh if we just consider it like child care or do we need to you know once again set up a different well we don't we don't necessarily regulate the the the parking for um for each use I mean there is a requirement uh for the um for daycare center and parking.

I don't I I think the three to one as you mentioned is is usually able to be accommodated on site.

So um if you're asking if if we have any discretion to like conditional use permits in this particular case, um the the daycare center for children is permitted by right, and so we wouldn't require a use permit for that.

Um it is noteworthy that the one that we did that I mentioned that we approved in the and in the industrial zone as indoor recreation, we did require use permit in that particular case.

So in some instances it might be by right, and we wouldn't be able to deal with the issue of parking if that were a concern.

Um and then otherwise if we don't um pursue it as similar to a uh regular child care uh facility, then we need to go through a whole process, and that's gonna take about six months.

That is correct.

Okay.

Uh and at this point, uh did you say this has gone to the planning commission?

No, this has gone to the planning commission, and so um there was uh they voted that it was not similar, um, and again, mostly it was around the parking issue.

Um and that particular site doesn't have a ton of parking, it does have some.

They have there's parking there and uh there's space for drop-off and pickups, um, but I think that they wanted to see uh more ample parking for a use like this.

I I believe that they're looking at 60 uh clients, which is about the same as the other one that we approved.

Um, and so there would be my understanding is that most of these folks are picked up in the van and dropped off.

Um, and so there is parking there for some vans.

Um I don't know that it will can accommodate all the ones that they will need.

Um the applicants surely think that they can make it work, and there is that uh the new Ruby Street project, the Eden Housing Project, so there is they think that there might be some synergy there as well.

Supervisor, I would add, however, that if if you make the determination that the uses are similar, and even though this particular applicant may be able to address the issues of parking, that does not mean that future applicants would, and they would certainly have no requirements or criteria or standards that would um be allowed to use it since this is a buy right use.

Okay, and I see the planning commission voted four to two.

There was two votes in uh the affirmative, believing that they were similar enough.

Okay.

Um yeah, it's unfortunate the applicant's not on because I mean I do want to support adult daycare because you know clearly you know that's a a good use, it's a wholesome use, you know, the aging tsunami.

Uh if you know it's we're in the middle of it right now, it's happening, and adult daycare is an important thing.

Um, but I can see the the concern with uh parking and in making it something that we wouldn't be able to uh control and I do know this location that they're talking about next to um um Eden Housing uh complex that's being uh that that's opened up would be very uh conducive, but that doesn't mean it would be the case for others in the future.

So um I don't know what the rest of the board will want to do with this, but I guess at the moment I'm gonna have to be on the side of saying we should probably go the longer route and take a look at setting up its own uh category, zoning category.

But that's just my thinking at the moment.

Survisorry, my cousin.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um, I'm conflicted.

I I obviously I wish the applicant was here, um, but um I'm wondering, do we know if um they purchased the building or they leasing?

Do we have any details about the site specifically in the business arrangement?

I don't have any detail on that.

Um I think so, just based on the fact that they're going through the appeal process.

Um, but I I don't know.

But we we don't know if it's lease or owned.

Correct.

We don't have that.

Okay.

Um so I I agree with my colleague.

Um we do know that um seniors are the fastest growing population.

Um sorry if like I have to sneeze, but it doesn't want to come out, so apologize.

Um and November is caregiver awareness month, and um uh having the ability to go to adult day health care really does prolong someone's life.

You know, it minimizes isolation, provide support to the family.

So I really think as a county, we need to um I am gonna request that we look at how we could um develop a defined um description so that we that way we could welcome these type of uses in the county and have real clear distinction of what is needed.

Um, so that that would be my preference.

So I will support um staff's denial on the pill, but would like to see staff bring recommendations back.

Um I did ask in our preliminary meeting if that could be done within six months.

I know staff has a lot on their plate, but if we could at least start that work, I think it's really important that we provide these opportunities for not just seniors but um adults with disabilities as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um my questions are similar.

Um were there conversations with the appellant on perhaps what other types of uses you mentioned, like the indoor recreation, uh, which is a designated use.

Obviously, there are a number of senior centers uh adjacent to housing.

There's um senior centers that are standalone uh where seniors come.

Are there different designations than what they call adult daycare?

Because obviously there's memory care centers, there's also centers that help uh provide activities for the disabled.

So uh what kind of um use falls within some of our already designated use that the appellant had in mind?

Yeah, I for the most part the conversation was centered around adult daycare.

I think they have other adult day care facilities, and so um that is uh what they presented to us.

And so I think we we have focused on that as the use.

Um looking at how other how other jurisdictions define this, they have I would say a more expansive view or just definition of all the different types of uh uh daycare, whether it's adult or child, whether the licensed or unlicensed, um, what kind of care they give.

And so um there is some of that nuance in our existing zoning code, but for this particular land use for adult daycare, it's pretty silent.

And so that's that's why we decided to go through this whole process of uh vetting whether or not there's close enough to be able to use um the child care center as as the same path for adult daycare.

Uh I I'm I guess I'm trying to understand specifically when you have an adult daycare, it doesn't have to be somebody that's over, is it 55 or 65 now that you're considered senior?

I think it's typically 65 social security, but senior housing consider seniors at 55.

So it just depends on, but adult day health care is typically have seniors as well as adults with disabilities.

They usually um support both populations.

And so you're saying in other jurisdictions they call it adult daycare specifically.

In some instances, yes.

Yes, and they have a definition for that.

Um again, we don't have any of that.

So we wouldn't necessarily be starting from zero because we can borrow some of that.

But um, you know, part of this exercise is also understanding the state law and community care licensing and how they look at it.

And so we just want to make sure I think we've got it nailed down pretty well for for child care.

Uh we follow state law, and there's a then some new legislation that allows that by right.

Um, same thing, for example, for like homeless shelters and and transitional housing.

So this is we have to go through that same exercise for this uses.

Uh find consistency with state law and look at where we what would want to allow it either by right or with a conditional use permit, and then go through that roadshow process uh to allow a full vetting by the community on that.

Okay, I I appreciate that uh that you went through that uh thought process with the appellant, and I know um and I agree that there are differences between a daycare center for children and one for adults, whether it's providing uh handicap access and parking and all the other requirements, and obviously you talked about the licensure, so I I can understand a distinction.

So I um agree with Supervisor Marquez that we we should probably think a little bit more creatively and help accommodate some of these needs and uses given our growing senior population, and then um, but it may not work in this particular instance at the moment.

So do we have any uh supervisor Marques?

Um as you conduct your research, um, could you please also provide analysis on universal design, you know, the idea of wider doors, lower counters, just making sure it's we already know we have to be ADA compliance, but also designing the place that it can accommodate Gurney's walkers, wheelchairs, you know, different abilities.

I think that's gonna be key as well if we could um provide as much guidance as possible.

And um, I don't know if there's any rules around um access for ambulance to you know senior population falling.

I just I just think this is our opportunity to be as thoughtful and comprehensive as we possibly can.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, and um once again the applicant, the appellant is not present here or online, and um I'm hoping that you know the uh the party doesn't feel we don't support this because we do, but we just you know want to establish the appropriate um designations in the zoning zoning code for this.

Um because I know my office told me that you know they've reached out to my my office, uh, but I'm surprised they're not here or online.

But um, I just want to indicate that I we we support this use, we just need to get it in its appropriate uh category, so yeah, thank you.

Uh are there any public comments on this item?

No speakers.

Okay, we turn it back to the board for action.

I'll make the motion.

Let's see that we um uh deny the appeal and uh support the staff's recommendation.

I'll second.

So I have a motion by Supervisor Miley to uphold the staff recommendation and a second by supervisor has may I broke call vote, please?

Supervisor Marquez, aye, supervisor Tam.

Aye, Supervisor Miley, I supervisor Fortunato Bas, excused President Howbert.

Aye.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

And on item eight, uh, there's been a request by Supervisor Miley to continue the item, but let me have him speak to it.

Yes, um, thank you, uh, Chair Tim.

I'd like to continue item eight uh for a couple of weeks and continue to our November 25th uh board uh work session.

So item uh eight has been continued to the Board of Supervisors November 25th work session.

Uh let's move to item number nine, and uh my understanding is we uh will be considering item 9A.

Is that correct?

Yes, we're just gonna be taking up item 9A today.

Um if if county council wants to explain.

While we're just taking up 9A.

Certainly, be glad to speak to it.

Um, action item 9a is appropriately listed, but 9B is in insufficiently described in its action because they're you know, to select a consultant execute a contract, typically there is a procurement process.

If you are not following a procurement process, then there needs to be a resolution for a waiver, and there are other items that need to be included, particularly regarding approval as to form of a contract, this being subject to those action items.

So the noticing was uh insufficient in this regard for item B, but 9A is certainly acceptable to move forward with.

Yes.

So, yes, taking up nine.

A and um Claudia Albano, sorry, deputy chief of staff, long time friend.

I spent a lot of time of working on this and working with uh Thomas Henner Junior Manager, my chief of staff.

So we uh have this item before the board today, and it did go to the Translation Planning Committee.

I'll let Claudia give the report and then speak further to it.

Good morning.

I'm Claudia Albano, Supervisor Miley's deputy chief of staff, and I've had the honor of working in the unincorporated communities for 12 years.

What I've brought to this work is more of than 40 years as a community organizer and 20 years teaching its theory and practice at Cal.

I'd like to provide background and context to Supervisor Miley's request for Board of Supervisor approval of a scoping study or a possible Office of Unincorporated Communities.

Next slide.

Specifically, our request is to approve the use of 48,000 of District 4 funds to retain a consultant to lead a six-month scoping period to design a possible office of unincorporated communities for both the urban and the rural communities, including structure, staffing, duties, and funding.

Next slide.

This item has been referred to the board for deliberation and action from the Transportation and Planning Committee, which heard the item on October 6th.

Today's board letter and appendices and this presentation provide a recap of that TNP presentation.

For 25 years, Supervisor Miley has championed efforts to strengthen civic infrastructure and representation in Alameda County's urban unincorporated communities.

Fueled by community advocacy and engagement, he has fostered new community leadership, establish new government bodies, and community organizations.

He believes this work provides a strong foundation for the next step in improving the county's administrative leadership with the unincorporated communities.

Why this request?

Although there has been too little research into the impact of living in unincorporated areas, a study from 2001 reported in the journal Social Science and Medicine, quoted here, is illustrative of our office's experience working in the urban unincorporated communities for more than 25 years.

They make two points.

One, counties are not obligated to prioritize unincorporated communities in decision making, leaving residents institutionally vulnerable to neglect because of diminished political representation.

And the second point, notably in unincorporated communities with high proportions of socially marginalized residents, i.e.

low-income black, indigenous and people of color and immigrant populations.

A portrait emerges of localities characterized by adverse social conditions that demonstrate accumulated risk for poor health outcomes.

Next slide.

While Alameda County may not be obligated to prioritize unincorporated communities, Supervisor Miley would argue that it has a responsibility to do so as both their municipal service provider and as the county's safety net provider, particularly giving the sobering facts that many of the unincorporated communities face the highest poverty rates in Alameda County.

Next slide.

Consider these facts.

Ashland, Cherry Land, Southwest Castor Valley, Hayward Acres, and Four Census Tracks in San Lorenzo have the highest rates of chronic disease, low life expectancy, and unemployment countywide.

In addition, the state of California in VIROSCreen data identifies these communities as disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.

And as stated in the public health department's health status report to the board for the EJ element, these conditions emanate from or are exacerbated by exposure to freeway population, a poor-built environment, lack of green spaces and sidewalks, older housing stock, language barriers, food insecurities, high rent burden, and inadequate overcrowded housing.

Addressing these social economic and governance needs require innovative solutions and coordination across different levels of government and community, as not envisioned before by the board, or as Supervisor Miley would say, for the county to more fully embrace its fiduciary responsibilities to the unincorporated communities.

There is, however, a foundation to build upon in scoping an office of a possible office of unincorporated communities that Supervisor Miley's work has accomplished over the last 25 years.

He's engaged community members, CBOs, and the offices of supervisors like Vicker, Chan, and TAM in coalition with hundreds of community members and groups on this journey to improve the civic infrastructure in the unincorporated communities.

Our collective accomplishments fall into four areas that we deliberately focused on because they are foundational to healthy, thriving, and engaged communities.

One, creating hyper-local accessible government institutions like MAX, building a robust network of community-based organizations, three, improving the number and capacity of grassroots base building organizations, and four, leadership in problem solving.

In the area of building hyperlocal government institutions, we were created the West County and East County Board of Zoning Adjustments in 2002, created the Fairview MAC in 2017, created the Eden Area Mac in 2019, and in addition to these, we have also done a lot of research into different models of service delivery and governance.

We've done polling and even a LAFCO incorporation study.

In the area of building a robust network, next slide.

In the area of building a robust network of community-based organizations, as early as 2005, we focused on networking existing CBOs working in the unincorporated area, which over time led to the creation of a collective impact initiative now called the Eden Area's Community Collaborative.

This organization now binds over 35 CBOs, community groups, and county and other public agencies together in a singular focus on the urban unincorporated areas needs, addressing food and basic needs, lead poisoning and healthy housing, and community engagement among other issues.

Next slide.

In the area of strengthening grassroots base building organizations, Supervisor Miley launched the Eden Area Livability Initiative, which over 15 years engaged over a thousand community members, organizations, business groups, and county and other public agencies to foster cross-community relationships, identify issues, see joint initiatives and resource projects, such as the Reach Ashland Youth Center, among many more.

And the Governance Working Group, which was also an Eli phase II group, out of from 2013 to 2019, many of the government's improvements in the incorporated communities that we talk about today really emanated from that group.

And in partnership, we also created the Ashland Community Association in 2017 and MyEden Voice in 2018.

Next slide.

In the area of leadership and problem solving, we took it upon ourselves to champion issues that were complicated and structural in nature or had no natural agency home, like obtaining approval from the United States Postal Service for the unincorporated communities to use their community name as their official place name in their address, or facilitating community involvement in the environmental justice element, or launching the current unincorporated communities budget input process.

Next slide.

I'd like to pause here for a moment and note that while Supervisor Miley's efforts have centered on the urban unincorporated communities, with the encouragement of Supervisor Halbert, the board approval of the East County MAC this year and the recent community budget input meetings held in the rural unincorporated communities, it is clear that the issues and concerns facing the rural and urban communities are sufficiently aligned to warrant including them both in the scoping study for an Office of Unincorporated Communities.

So our next step.

Despite all these accomplishments that I've enumerated, coordination and accountability for unincorporated areas remains fragmented across supervisors' offices, county agencies, and special districts.

There's been a growing awareness that without a central coordinating function, an administrative center, a place that holds the work within the county administration that over time our progress could be lost.

That is why we see scoping an Office of Unincorporated Communities as the key next step in building upon our collective efforts to improve government efficiency, responsiveness, and quality of life in the unincorporated communities.

Next slide.

If the unincorporated communities were incorporated into a city, they would form the fourth largest city in the county with its own mayor and council departments and budget.

So short of annexation or incorporation, what is the county's responsibility as both the municipal and safety net provider to coordinate across agencies, leverage resources, and be accountable for the services we provide.

How can we improve our administration of these communities so where we are providing the most effective, efficient, collaborative and communicative service delivery and problem solving possible?

In conclusion, next slide.

In conclusion, I would look no further than our own Alameda County Vision 2036 document for justification of our request, whose introduction reads: the idea behind the 10x goals isn't to improve something by 10%.

The goal is to improve something 10 times.

Ten time goals require more than thinking outside the box.

They require you to rethink the box.

Let's rethink this box together.

So last slide, circling back to our request, in letter A, authorize the use of 48,000 of District 4 funds to retain a consultant to lead a six-month scoping period to design a possible Office of Unincorporated Communities, including staffing, structure, duties, and funding.

Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation, Supervisor Miley.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, hello.

Let me just speak to this a little further.

I really appreciate Claudia's presentation and the report today.

It's very thorough.

I know she spent a lot of time preparing this with myself and chief of staff, Tona Aninger.

This isn't the Office of Unincorporated Services is something the community has been asking for.

And it isn't something that it's come about recently.

I think as Claudia indicated in the report, the presentation, you know, this goes back to Eli phase one when we started that back in like 2005, 2006.

And you know, we had a charrette with nearly 500 people showed up on a Saturday around creating a vision for the unincorporated area.

And a part of what people strive for and they've been constantly striving for is more uh say in you know um governance in the unincorporated area, uh, more control, uh, more uh more ability to you know move an agenda that is respectful of their needs and concerns because I've often said, and it's no slight on my predecessor, supervisor, former supervisor, rest in peace, Mary King.

Um, the people in our incorporated area felt they were second class citizens.

Um they felt that the county wasn't paying much attention to their needs and desires.

Um I often, and that's one reason why I always go back to the point of uh the county allowed Bayfair to be annexed by San Leandro.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

It happened, you know, I wasn't on the board at the time, but it took away, I mean, uh San Leandro cherry picked Bayfair, took it out of our tax base and put it into theirs and left us once again with all the problems and needs in the unincorporated area.

We could have, you know, we could clearly use uh the taxes that have been generated through Bayfair Bayfair over the course of time.

Um that wouldn't have happened had I been on the board of supervisors at the time.

Uh, but that's just one example.

So folks have been constantly clamoring for the ability to have more say and to be respected, and that's been a journey that you know my office has been on since we've been here.

And you know, uh uh Claudia's presentation talks a lot about Supervisor Miley.

Well, you know, I'm only as good as the people I work with.

So, you know, Claudia, the last 12 years has um driven this agenda along with Tona, chief of staff, but you know, over the course of time, you know, Joe DeVries worked on this as well as Seth Kaplan and then I Ling Yang, all three have um either been prominent in my office as well as uh chief of staffs.

So this isn't anything that we just dreamt up.

Um, but we are now at a point in this evolution where we think it's time.

That's why I'm willing to uh devote nearly $50,000 to the study to bring on a consultant to look at this.

And even after six months, we're not saying uh the board will approve the creation of this office.

You'll have a thorough study that analyzes where an office like this might be located.

Um the staffing has been pointing out, the budget, the responsibilities, this and the other, all of that will be laid out, and then there'll be another uh phase to kind of look at um moving forward with potential development and implementation.

Uh in my conversations with my staff and others, we don't anticipate if everything goes successful that this office would be uh operational until uh fiscal year 27-28.

So right now, if we go six months, we're looking basically at fiscal year 25-26.

Then we've got fiscal year 26-27, which takes us to July or June of 2020 7.

And so we're anticipating that by that time the um the analysis would have been done.

The board will have uh hopefully um asked questions and gotten a comfort level and of the funding to operationalize this would have been approved for fiscal year 27-28, which would start July 1st of 2027.

So that's kind of the projector, projectory that we envision, might go faster, but you know, knowing the county, knowing and you, you know, you you three know everything that comes at us, uh, everything we've got to deal with.

Um I'm just trying to be realistic in terms of looking at this.

For instance, you know, I've been trying to create a bike bed um committee, uh, commission, excuse me, uh, for the last five years or so.

We we were delayed around some of that because of the pandemic, but you know, that you know, just get to get that done.

Uh we'll be hearing about that very shortly in the near future because we've gotten that's going on the road show, we're ready to bring that to the board.

But it's taken nearly five years to even get the bike pet commission to a place where we can bring out to the board.

So we're just trying to be realistic, and this has been a journey in terms of its um its efforts to get us to this place.

We do anticipate once the consultant finishes with the analysis and gets us back to the board uh for the board and the public's review in about six months uh that there'll probably be the need for additional resources to continue moving forward with the process of developing uh at the implementation of this.

Um, you know, I'm committed to that, but I'm hoping that uh my colleagues who represent the unincorporated area, Supervisor uh Tan and Halbert will also be on uh mindful of the need to help with the um uh the development of the resources uh to push towards implementation of the board uh supports this, and then ultimately we'll need the county to authorize funding for uh this office uh when we actually um go live with it uh as I said, hopefully in fiscal year 27-28.

Um the other thing I would just say is, you know, I'm I'm mindful that this office isn't just for the unincorporated area, even though that's where a lot of stuff occurs.

Because I've had the pleasure of representing unincorporated Pleasanton uh for a while.

Now Supervisor Albert represents most of unincorporated Pleasanton.

I do know the needs in the unincorporated areas of Pleasanton, Sonole, and Livermore.

Um, and particularly since I've represented, you know, Castlewood, uh Happy Valley, Little Happy Valley, um, these are all unincorporated areas in Pleasanton, and I still represent unincorporated area, uh the Riemann Track and uh East Pleasant.

So I still have um a lot of uh connection with the unincorporated areas out in um the tri-valley.

So we're looking at the the totality of the unincorporated area, and as been pointed out, you know, we've often said if it were city, it'd be the fourth largest city.

And uh the the consultant will provide additional analysis that'll show some of the um the work that we've done to get to where we are presently and why we think this is uh extremely important.

Claudia's touched upon all of that.

So this is just another, this is an iterative process.

This is just another step uh uh to um move us in that direction.

Um we haven't been hasty, nor have we been um uh remiss.

Uh we've just constantly been working at this, and it has taken time, unfortunately, it's taken time.

And and folks might even ask, um, you know, we've created uh Ashton Therry Land, Healthy Communities Collaborative, which became the Eden area collaborative, the basic needs has come out of that as a result of the pandemic.

Um we have always felt when I was the supervisor, there wasn't a robust um CBO network in the unincorporated area.

You know, when I was on the city council in Oakland, there's you know a lot of CBOs working and doing stuff in Oakland.

We didn't have the benefit of that in the unincorporated area, but now as a result of all the work we've done, we have some robust community-based organizations that are serving the unincorporated area, and we've even created a community-based organization that, you know, and I'm supervisor Tam and I know they give us give us hell at times my Eden voice.

And we don't have to always agree with them, but they're there to represent the needs of the community, and we respect that.

In fact, just yesterday at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, I voted to approve a hundred thousand dollars going to my Eden Voice to help with some of the work that they're envisioning around tenant protections and other stuff.

So the fact that um they're there, I think it's a good thing, but I've always told them I'm not gonna always agree with them, but I do respect that they're there doing their their work and their advocacy.

So I just think all this is extremely important.

I know I've said a lot, but I hope the board um uh supports this, and I'll make the motion when the chair's ready.

Um, but uh I just want to kind of give you a broader uh context of why uh we feel this is extremely important, and I do know other community does as well.

And I and I'm and I see there will be speakers, so thanks for allowing me to speak to all this.

I get a little passionate about it.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley.

Uh, Supervisor Markesh, any questions?

Yes.

Uh, thank you for the presentation.

Um, can you elaborate on how you envision this consultant um engaging the community in terms of how will their input and ideas be taken into consideration?

Well, our office has already, along with Supervisor Tam's office and Supervisor Halbert, have been doing a series of budget um conversations around the urban and rural counties.

And it ostensibly it's it's to hear how people feel about the service delivery that they get.

We've had six meetings so far, and it is clear that they're not just talking about uh the budget and the services, they're talking about um their relationship with the county.

And so we have our I feel that those are the beginnings of the conversations.

We have gotten so much data, and matter of fact, we're going to do a report on those um meetings at the December 3rd uh unincorporated services meetings, but that is really founding the uh forming the foundation not only of the community engagement, but of the budding issues that people want to talk about.

Okay, thank you for that background.

Um, I'll just flag that um I believe strongly with any good form of governance policy decision, especially something that's new.

Um, it's ideal to have a phased approach.

So I I really appreciate the approach you're taking.

I feel too often we're up here and we say what we want to do, and there's not always a plan, and this feels like a solid plan.

So just thank you for um conducting that due diligence.

I really appreciate that.

And if I could just say glad Supervisor Marquez asked the question, you know, Claudia, when she started, you know, she's trained community organizers.

That's kind of the philosophy that we follow.

And um, we just really feel you know, obviously, democracy is not a spectator sport, and sometimes she's doing things that make me uncomfortable, but we think it's important to do to hear from the community, and you know, my staff, we don't always agree, but we try to do things uh in a manner that allows for people to be engaged, even if we don't always agree with where they're coming from.

So the consultant, uh, and we've gone through a whole effort, and we'll be bringing that forward in terms of the consultant we want to bring on board.

It'll be very thorough and very community oriented, and we'll hear from all voices in the community, both urban as well as rural.

I see that Supervisor Halbert's hands raised.

Yes, thank you.

I want to thank Supervisor Miley for continuing to push this effort and thank Claudia for being so thoughtful, including my staff, representing mostly rural, unincorporated, we have heard for years, um uh their concerns about how they are treated, for example, with regard to building permits and septic tank permits and how they interface with municipal service providing uh service needs, um, how they feel it's very different than what somebody might experience in an incorporated area.

And uh we've just struggled with that uh to nobody's fault, but this is a step in the right direction uh supporting the comments that a phased approach.

I think we've been phasing this approach for a long time.

Um, and indeed, sometimes we come uh without a plan.

This will get us that plan.

So I'm fully supportive.

And thank again, Supervisor Miley and Claudia for getting us to this point.

I'm very supportive.

Thank you.

Thank you for those comments.

Um, I uh really am impressed with the diversity of Supervisor Miley's district.

I mean, of all the supervisors here, yes, he has the urban areas of Oakland and the urban uh uh areas within uh the unincorporated all the way to uh the rural areas, and that diversity is often difficult to manage sometimes because different areas within his supervisorial district have really different needs.

So I appreciate this efforts to try to coordinate this.

This is a big undertaking because it's a when we looked at the budget, it's almost like a 376 million dollar budget for the unincorporated area.

It's very similar to the city of Hayward.

And so if you're talking about an office like this, I I appreciate that history where you were I think you even funded the last LAFCO study, right?

On incorporation.

I didn't fund the last one LAFCO.

I supported it as a member of LAFCO, but I did fund initially the incorporation study for Castro Valley back in the early uh 2000s.

Did they go through two votes in Castle Valley for incorporation?

Yeah, they've gone through, yeah.

They didn't went to the vote before I was on the board, then they went through another vote when I was on the board, and there's a whole effort around Cash Valley City Cityhood as we speak, but I don't think they're prepared to come forward just yet.

I think they're looking somewhere down the road 2028 uh or even 2030.

But uh we'll if I'm here and you're here, we're all here, we'll be seeing that again.

Yes.

I I did have a chance to review uh the last LAFCO report that was done um, I think it's only maybe two or three years ago, um, very thoroughly, and they uh the conclusion that I saw was uh somewhat troubling is that the um the tax revenue that's generated by the unincorporated areas that were looking at potential incorporation were not sufficient to um basically pay for uh a city manager type form of government office, and that was um I think something that Supervisor Miley has also observed, and I think this is something that we need to look through.

And one of the things I like about this um process and this report that will be generated is um the mutual education process because at the unincorporated services committee meeting, uh some of the um speakers were also asking for things that the county provides to even the incorporated cities, whether it's mental health care, whether it's child care, whether it's health uh health care, and and we you don't need to be incorporated to get those services, and that's something that we hope uh gets communicated in this roadshow process as well.

So, um I'm obviously supportive of moving forward with the expenditure from Supervisor Miley's office.

Um, so having said that, are there any public comment?

Oh, Supervisor Halbert or Jan still raised, or you have more comments.

I should lower my hand, but let me just say I will always support spending Supervisor Miley's money.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um any public comments on this item, which is only item eight, excuse me, nine A, to authorize the use of the 40,000 in district four funds to retain a consultant to lead a six-month scoping study for a possible Office of Unincorporated Communities.

We have speakers.

Kelly, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, it should be noted that this proposal continues a long tradition of county neglect and county uh uh giving underserving the unincorporated uh areas.

Um the unincorporated areas are about 10 percent of the county, and Los Angeles County has about 10% of its residents in the county uh in unincorporated.

Um Los Angeles on April 1st, 2025, uh officially established an office of unincorporated offices or services as a standalone division within its new county department on homelessness and they aim to coordinate services outreach and operations across unincorporated communities in partnership with each board office that means supervisors board uh district office um and this county doesn't even know where to put the our office of unincorporated services we haven't heard uh what that office would cost we haven't heard who they would be reporting to um and the kind of money that we're talking about $5000 for these consultants um do you know that there was just a bunch of consultants who came in and did permit streamlining and there we saw where the county really has its heart in permit streamlining the county brought in six consultants uh three uh three of them were real the major consultants partners and three were assistant consultants six of them to give the presentation and that consulting a project cost half a million dollars ten times more than this project so that tells you what the county really thinks when the county wants to spend money on consultants and really wants to get something done like the uh like the permit streamlining that's worth half a million but this unincorporated services it it's worth almost nothing in fact I could get it done cheaper for you by just going and getting a bunch of reports from Los Angeles and I could copy them we could all just do what they do in Los Angeles I think that's probably be uh we could say fifty thousand right nancy you're on the line you have two minutes buenos my name is Nancy Respaldiza President de Heyward I travel appointing a community delaria no incorporada se ven affectados la creation of resolver este problema asegurando una mejor administration and consultor is una inversion in responsibility and efficiency public para que este studio se realized avanzar asia una structura más justa para todos los residents del condado muchas gracias can we make sure um that the translation of last speaker's comments are incorporated into the record sure Marcia Lopez you're on the line you have two minutes good morning supervisors I am my name is Marcia Lopez and work with the unincorporated area and community leaders we support this proposal proposal because we know that decision about our communities must include us an office are not incorporated area communities will create an institutional space for the participation of residents and organizations the approval of these funds will allow a consultant to help define how the office will work what staff will need and how they will stay connected with the community please we ask you for your vote in favor of this investment in participation and equity thank you very much yesenia lopez you have two minutes yesenia lopez yasenia lopez go ahead.

He hablo sobre la organización de Islam.

For muchada como invisible dentro del sistema del condado.

No tenemos un go un gobierno local.

Yeah, eso más justo a los servicios.

Gracias.

Matt Turner, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Sort of support, uh, this is a you know uh fantastic opportunity to learn a lot um whether the office gets created or not.

Um this uh chance to spend some time really looking at what the needs and uh and relationships to uh the unincorporated area with the county are uh in especially around the budget.

Um it has been uh a project for many years to try and suss out exactly what's being spent.

Um, you know, the the last study that was done uh included a lot of uh of countywide services that um you know as as far as what's being spent on on uh the unincorporated area, but that's being spent in cities as well.

It doesn't doesn't get us to the picture of what is the actual um you know municipal service level of budget and being able to figure that out uh be would be uh is spectacularly useful for advocating for our needs um because that's some there's some significant estimates out there about the underspending going on uh in the urban unincorporated area.

Um, you know, we have a a lot of significant and baked-in problems from decades of neglect and uh and and poor urban planning.

Uh you know, when we rely on uh on staff who are often well-meaning and and capable people, but uh not uh holders of a vision for a place the way a city has.

Um the outcomes over the last 30 years uh comparing, you know, Dublin to Castor Valley, uh, for example, uh, you know, are our stark.

Um, you know, I live in a neighborhood where the life expectancy is uh uh is 76 uh compared to people who live up on hills, um, you know, where they're uh 84.

Uh and and that's uh direct result of the kind of planning and built environment we have.

So if we can you know do anything to peel back the layers and learn about this stuff, I think this is an incredibly useful project.

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

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Sandra Archiletta, I am a resident of district four, unincorporated Castro Valley, and I am in full support of this.

Um, you know, I was looking at that presentation and all those little um accomplishments like you know, establishing the ACA, getting, you know, um all these groups together, establishing, you know, various uh community centers, community groups, the work that is taken, you know, I don't know, I've been working around 11 years, right?

And I would say that the community I started working in with Claudia is now a different community thanks to the work that we've done, and none of that work can compare to the impact that this Office of Unincorporated Communities is going to have on our on our community.

And you know, there's a gentleman in the beginning that we could save ourselves five fifty thousand dollars if we just ran it this other way, and the reality is that unincorporated areas are underspent.

The money exists and it's not being spent and we're losing it because there's no one minding the shop, and I would argue that the amount of money that would come back into and be invested into the unincorporated area is so much, you know, like an immeasurable amount more than what we would spend on this.

So I think it is a smart investment.

I think it is a great accomplishment and a great way forward, and as someone that you know supports uh a lot of the groups, I can fully commit to our um uh to working on this, especially with the consultant and having a uh good public process and supporting with community engagement because that's how we built this network of community engagements of CBOs, of partnerships, and that is what made this a really huge accomplishment for all of us, Rena Rickles.

Good morning.

I would like to speak in favor of this, and I would like to suggest that one of the pieces of this include an ombudsman person, because what I have found in representing several people in unincorporated areas is they don't know where to start when they have a county problem, and they find themselves rooted all over the place, and because of a lot of silo effect, they're frustrated and angry before they actually get to the person they want, and to have this bureau be a central place that knows the county well, and that people in the unincorporated areas know this is where you start to find out where you want to go and how to get your help, would just be a big improvement to for the people who live in the unincorporated areas, and thank you for coming up with this, and thank you, Claudia.

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

Hi, good morning, board member aboard um supervisors.

My name is Teresita.

Um, I'm director of Padres Guerrero's family with disability in senior in action and member of the ACA and Islam.

We all strongly support the approval of funds to hide a consultant to help design it, the office on the incorporated area.

This office could be the case improving coordination amount, county departments, and ensuring to the outs communities have consistent representation for years, residents had asking for more transparency, more accountability, and a stronger voice is how the decision and how affect us are made.

This office could be the connection and coordination coordination point.

We thought this desperately needs and urging you to approve this fund.

So that's process that can be moved forward.

Thank you so much for um listen to me.

Anna Raskisa, you're on the line.

Hi, supervisors.

My name is Juliana Wise Leon, and I'm the director of the Newcomer Navigation Center at Eden United Church of Christ in Chairland.

Eden Church has been rooted in the unincorporated communities uh for decades.

Uh it's a hundred and sixty-year-old church, and so we've been around for a while and really focused and partnering with residents to advance immigrant justice, food security, and community well-being.

Um, so I'm fortunate that through this work I've been able to see how deeply our unincorporated residents care for their neighborhoods, how often also they have to navigate fragmented systems to access the resources that they deserve.

So, because of that, and on behalf of many residents that we're connected to, we're happy to strongly support the creation of this office and you know, this this beginning step to bring coordination and equity and accountability to many of the county efforts in our communities.

And I really want to thank Supervisor Miley um for taking this on, and of course, Claudia Albano, um, who has not let go of this idea and this vision of equity in our community and Supervisor Tam's office.

Um also just you know, for being um just always being a willing to have this conversation with many residents and many CBOs.

We are the squeaky wheels that keep talking about that incorporated everything, and uh also grateful to Supervisor Hobber and Supervisor Marcus and Supervisor Bass for you know just just being willing to take this on and to move it forward.

We appreciate it.

We're grateful for your work and look forward to what's next.

Thank you very much.

Anna Raskisa.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Um good afternoon.

My name is Anna Raskiza.

I'm the director of community development at Resources for Community Development.

Our organization has spent nearly 10 years supporting and advancing place-based work in the urban unincorporated communities.

Um, and we're calling this afternoon to express our strong support for this work to scope and develop an office of unincorporated services.

I'm proud to share that RCD is a member of a coalition that has submitted a letter this past April advocating for funding for an office of unincorporated communities.

Uh, we sent that to your board along with the county administrator's office.

Um, this letter was signed by 50 residents in 18 organizations who join you in championing this work.

We're thankful to hear alignment and positivity from your board this afternoon, and we enthusiastically urge your support for this next phase of the work.

Thank you.

April Chan.

Good morning, supervisors.

I just uh I'm here for another matter, but I really wanted to take a minute to thank Supervisor Miley for the amazing work that he's done in unincorporated area.

Um I he has put in so much work, you know, having to handle both unincorporated area and uh the cities that he represents.

But mostly what I remember when I think or what I think of him is that just how when I moved into the unincorporated area, it's a place I had no identity.

It's a place like people didn't even know where they live.

They live in Fairview, they you know, they think they live in Cherryland, they live, I mean they live in Hayward, they live in San Lorenzo, they think they live in San Lang Andrew.

Um, and so and I remember I actually went to his first charat in in 2007, and that was the very first um gathering where we really try to talk about who we are to talk about our community, so um, and the community that we want to see.

So Supervisor Miley has just never stopped working and he's never stopped trying to uh improve the community.

And many of my neighbors have said nobody really cared for Supervisor Miley, was elected.

So anyway, I just want to take this opportunity to think.

No more speakers.

Thank you.

Uh return it back to the board for action.

Thanks to your cham.

Um a few things.

Um, well, just following up on April Chan's comments.

You know, she's an East Bay Mod Director, but I've known April for a long time, even when she was working for Condrum and Barberly at the time.

Um, yeah, the um, you know, folks didn't know where they lived.

They thought they lived in the city of Hayward or San Leandro, or they thought Castor Valley was a city.

Um, you know, there was no sense of place.

I mean, I only knew of Cash Valley because of the sign on the freeway and um when and before getting elected and having to run uh for office in the corporate area.

You know, somebody even asked me, you know, where's you know, Fairview?

And I said, Yeah, what's what's Fairview?

Where's Fairview?

Uh I had no idea where Fairview was.

Um, obviously, you know, I know that quite well after 25 years, but initially, um so uh and I know folks moved to uh the unincorporated area, and they and they and it's rare that someone knows that they live in the unincorporated area.

So I do think it's important to have an office, and then, you know, we also think it's important that we consider an office because when you know I'm not gonna always be the supervisor, and we want to put something in place institutionally that carries forward the efforts that focus um on the unincorporated area to ensure effective delivery of service, uh the effective um ability to have resources, you know.

When Supervisor uh uh Wamachan was on the board, uh God Russia's all, you know, we worked hard to get more resources like um uh ARPA and COVID uh related funds, CARES Act funds into the unincorporated area, and we're always trying to strive for that, you know, just as as an example.

So the point is if we have an office, you know what, no matter who the supervisors are that represent the unincorporated area, we can hopefully rest assured that institutionally the county will be laser focused on its obligations to the unincorporated area, and there won't be any um steps.

And you know, we recognize that an office isn't a panacea.

I mean, we have cities that are cities that have uh city managers, councils, mayors, et cetera, et cetera, and there's still issues that they have to confront.

Whether those cities are um cities that are well funded or cities that have challenges, uh, we do know they're still challenges.

So we don't think an office is a panacea, but as everyone has pointed out, we do feel it's a it's a necessary step in the in our right direction.

Um, and the analysis will kind of indicate all of that.

Um, and you know, the last time I called somebody my good friend, they told me not to say that again.

Um, but um but my good friend Kelly, you know, he often calls in and uh he keeps us on our toes.

But you know, LA, we can't compare LA to Alameda County.

Uh our unincorporated area is about 150,000 people.

Uh, our population for the county is 1.6 or 1.7 million.

LA County their population is 10 million.

They're the largest county in the United States.

So I appreciate Kelly constantly drumming at us and coming up with stuff.

And uh, but you know, um I just have to push back a little bit and let Kelly know LA is is huge, and we're going about this very methodically, uh, and it might take a little while, but as others have pointed out, we do think these expenditures to try to uh develop this office are fundamentally important.

And you know, in meeting with county staff uh from all the county uh departments and or agencies and offices that have to deliver direct services to the unincorporated area.

We are extremely mindful that we don't want to create an office on incorporated services that is just another layer of bureaucracy.

That is not the intent.

We don't want another layer of bureaucracy, but we do want to make sure, like Rena Rickels pointed out, that folks know where to go in the county when they have an issue or concern, there's an office.

Obviously, they can go to the supervisor's office, but this will provide another structural institutional um place for folks to uh you know to uh communicate with.

So I just you want to speak to all that because I think those are some important uh factors.

So with that, I'd like to um uh move this item uh that uh the uh district funds be uh approved uh so that we can move forward with uh bringing on a consultant for six months study uh around the scoping of an office of unincorporated uh communities.

So we have a motion from Supervisor Miley, and I will second his motion.

Um any other comments?

Yeah, bro call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

I and thank you to Claudia for your hard work.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunatabas, excuse President Halbert.

I vote yes, the motion carries.

You are authorized to spend your money, Supervisor Miley.

Yes, we will.

Uh we will be taking items 10 and 11 together, but uh the board needs a five-minute break.

Uh so we will recess for five minutes.

Recordings recording in progress.

Reconvening from our recess.

May I have roll call, please to re-establish quorum.

Supervisor Marquez present.

Supervisor Tam present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass, excused.

President Halbert.

Excused.

President Halpert is excused.

He's not online.

Okay.

So our next two items are items 10 and 11.

There are appeals by the UVAS Court LLC on West County Board of Zoning Adjustment Decisions and declarations on violations of the zoning ordinance and the neighborhood preservation ordinance.

What I will do is start with the staff report, then the appellant will have five minutes to speak, and the opposition to the appeal will have also five minutes to speak, and public comment will be two minutes each.

We have staff report.

Good afternoon again, Ed LaBayo, Code Enforcement Manager.

This is regarding the appeal hearings of item 10 and 11.

Appeal from U.S.

Court LLC.

This is the appeal of U.S.

Court LLC of the decision of the West County Border Zoning Adjustments declaring the property in violation of the Alameda County zoning ordinance 17.66050 and neighborhood preservation ordinance 6.65.030 A1 and 2 and V6.

Based upon soil uh slash field importing that occurred in January and February of 2020 at 255 2550 UVS Court APN 425 0150 024, which is not allowed on residential zones that are less than one acre after the soil importing ordinance, which was effective uh on November of 2019, and the presence of the re and concrete pieces and unstable loose fill and soil.

Uh just for some background, initial complaints were uh received back in 2018, uh before the soil importance ordinance um was effective.

Court enforcement began receiving complaints uh about grading and soil importing of the property uh that was tied to a dispute between it and the two neighbors sharing the easement.

Uh early actions were taken, uh grading concerns were referred to public works, and the soil importing was unverified due to lack of evidence.

And in uh 2022, uh there was credible credible evidence uh that led to a new enforcement case being opened.

Investigations um there was multiple site visits, technical submissions from complaining parties, and an independent geotechnical review confirmed the violations.

Uh again, uh the violations for the zoning ordinance and the neighborhood preservation ordinance, some um pertinent facts.

Next slide, please.

Um, just real quickly, so to get give you an idea of the timeline uh on October 19, 2022.

Um, there was a site visit conducted and we documented the current site conditions.

November 30, 22, uh declaration of public nuisance and notice to abate was mailed to the property owner January 20, 23.

Uh we did a site visit.

Conditions were still unchanged, and uh the county began the process of selecting a geotechnical consultant to help us evaluate the site and come up with uh um recommendations.

Um on February 13, 2024, we did do the site visit with the GEI consultant to evaluate the existing site conditions, and from that, we're able to um send the owner a notice to comply on September 5th, 2024, and on uh December 6th, 2024, we did another site visit, and the conditions were unchanged.

So on December 10, 2024, we sent a failed reinspection letter to the property owner.

And on February 17, 2024, we received an appeal from the the owner appealing the failed reinspection fines and fees.

On January 29th, 2024, notice that the hearing was sent to the property owner.

February 26th, the hearing was canceled based on the owner's request for continuance.

On March uh 5th, we sent another notice for the hearing that will be heard on March 26th.

And on March 26, 2025, the BZA did hold the hearing, and the property was found to be in violation of the zoning ordinance for illegal soil importing.

June 12, 2025, the board of supervisors' appeal hearing was postponed to September 11.

And on September 11, uh the appeal of the property owner to the Board of Supervisors again was uh postponed to November 13, which is today.

Um, however, on uh September 12, 2025, we did notify the owner again to uh that we were going to hold the hearing through Westborne Zoning Adjustment Abatement hearing, and we sent that to the property owner on September 12.

Uh in September 24, we did hold the hearing through the West Board zoning adjustment.

And at that hearing, the property was found to be in violation of the neighborhood preservation ordinance.

And October 6th, uh we did receive the appeal from the property owner regarding that decision from September 24.

Uh staff recommends uphold the decision of the West Boarding Zoning Adjustments.

Uh, declare the property in violation of zoning and neighborhood preservation ordinance, and uh the owner um is to hire a licensed professional within 120 days for full evaluation of the site, uh testing of the site, including a written report with detailed analysis and recommendation for abatement procedures to be provided to the county, and that will be reviewed by staff in the Westboard zoning adjustment prior to finalization.

Also, the report shall include determination of a general general area and volume of the imported soil and fill, a geotechnical investigation for the soil stability and safety, the method of abatement, and environmental assessment uh testing for soil fill cleanliness, making sure that it is free from hazardo chemicals, materials, etc.

Um, owner is required to obtain all permits and approvals from the county and other agencies as needed and remove and obeyed all debris concrete pieces and unstable loose soil and fill on the property.

As to the uh West Board of Zoning Adjustments decision on the neighborhood preservation ordinance.

This is just a uh quick snapshot of aerial view of the of the uh property in questions that we uh noticed uh for violation is the if you see to the left it's the blue shaded area and on the right to make it a little bit more clear of the separate parcels, it's a short strip uh that you see in yellow on the right side, which is lot 24.

Uh this point we want to show a short video that we uh received from the complaining party that we also used uh as part of our collection of evidence.

Madam Chairman, can we ask that the clerk recognize that Supervisor Hobbard has joined the meeting?

I'm sorry, what was that?

Supervisor Hobbard has now joined the meeting for purposes of his attendance and participation in the hearing.

I would like the record to reflect.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I think that's the end of it.

We can go back to the uh PowerPoint, please.

Aside from that short video that we uh took in consideration for uh evidence collection, we also received these uh um meta data uh photos.

Uh, you see the the picture on the left with this probably the same um truck that you saw in the video and the pile of uh soil that was there with the time and and date on the metadata.

Next slide.

Another truck on the left.

And uh various uh photos uh submitted to us by the complaining party on the uh collection of photos on the right.

Next slide.

These are some uh photos that we took on our initial inspection showing uh the downhill slope on uh from this uh taken from the street from the edge of the street.

Next slide.

And this is just showing uh you showed seen earlier that uh the the lot the area where the dumping occurred was beyond that um fencing, and more pictures of a downhill view from the street on the right.

Next slide.

Same picture here with the um uh soil around the uh fallen tree.

Next slide.

These are pictures of the R reinspection where we're showing that conditions uh were not changed.

Next slide.

Uh different angle where the uh soil importing occurred, uh, right where the um fallen tree is showing.

Next slide.

Uh photo on the left, uh, more of that uh photo of the uh hillside, and then the right side is a view looking from we're standing on Mr.

Um Meadows property looking into uh lot 24 and beyond that is the lot 28.

Next slide.

Again, uh pictures here with our consultant that we hired.

Um that day.

Next slide.

So just for uh case reference, uh I think it was important for us to note this that the case was initiated and under 25418 U.S.

Court, but uh it did reference lot 28 and 24 under because it was under the same owner at that time.

Uh for the country records uh but uh a new deed was recorded on uh August 2023 naming US court LLC, who is the appellant today as the property owner and reference uh two five five zero US court as the legal address and um that LLC um not is uh owned uh by the same property owners.

Uh the the records were continued under 25418, but the notes reflect that lot 28 was no longer considered in violation.

Next slide.

This is just to show you uh the uh two lots side by side, 24 and 28.

Uh, the the violation property today is 24, however, it did also was owned by uh owners of lot 28 when we initiated the case under Bishey and Messinger.

Here I wanted just to next slide, please.

I wanted just to go over a few appeal points for a little bit of um response from the county.

So appellant claims that no soil has ever been imported.

So our response is that staff provided photos and video evidence of the importing activities provided by the complaining party, and the county obtained also obtained a license geotechnical company GE, who confirmed that the soil was uh imported at the site.

Um also the appellant claims that lot 28 was uh remediated and approved.

Uh we did, however, send them the letter on October 8th uh clarifying that the corrective actions under the grading permit were deemed acceptable for lot 28.

The case remained open, however, because of the adjacent lot on 24, and no corrective actions or abandonment was done on that lot.

Appellant claims the material source from lot 28 was choosed to repair damage caused by the fire hydrant, repeated failures.

Uh our responses is no credible evidence was provided to support claims that they leverage Apple source from their large lot on 28.

The West BCA agreed that the owner's testimony at the hearing claiming that the soil removal involving using wheelbarrows to move it from the back of lot twenty-eight, piling it in front of the street, and then loading it into trucks and then dumping it at the end of the road into the slope eastment was not believable.

Next slide.

Are we on the same one here?

Appellant claims county.

I think this is the next one.

Or is it the one before that one?

And get caught up here.

Some second.

Okay.

Appellant claims and proper reliance on GI Consultant.

The one before that, I think.

Sorry, thank you.

I got mixed up there for a minute.

Appelling claims improper reliance on GI Consultant report.

Our responses that GI consultant obtained by the county had limited had a limited role.

They were restricted to conducting a peer review of the complaining complainant's engineers report and various documents as well as performed visual site evaluation.

GAI consultant produced a final report with their findings and recommendations, which I included in your packet.

The consultant's conclusion acknowledged the presence of important soil and fill materials, but did not determine his exact quantity or location.

I think there were also GI consultant is attending the meeting there virtually if there's any questions later for them.

Appellant claims that the county relied on photos taken by the complaint complainant.

Our response is that code enforcement did not obtain fiscal evidence of trucks coming in to unload the soil or fill material and then gone out of the from the property.

The complainer provided evidence showing trucks dumping fill material directly at the end of the street into lot 24 by providing photos showing the uh date data and the date labeled short video.

Code enforcement is unable to substantiate that the data information or the evidence for that provided was manipulated.

Code enforcement is unaware of any evidence which demonstrate that the evidence was manipulated.

Appellant claims county did not follow policies and procedures.

Our response is that code enforcement stayed within the proper procedures and policies related to this case.

No addition, additional inspection prior to the hearings was deemed necessary.

Usually we inspect the property prior to the hearing, but in this case, we know that there was no activity or changes made uh at the site prior to the BCAA meeting.

Um, code enforcement met with the appellant on March 14 uh 2025.

In the meeting, the owner did state that there had been no abatement work performed.

Therefore, no inspection was needed prior to the West BCA meeting.

Appellant claims uh they were denied substantive due process.

Uh our response is that the appellants' request to postpone the initial West BZA hearing scheduled for February 26 was granted.

The appellant was informed that the next hearing is scheduled for March 26.

The appellant then asked for another continuance on grants that their lawyer was not available.

Staff advised the appellant that the county made make a request on the record at the West BCA for a continuance.

However, at the March 26th hearing, the appellants did not ask for a continuance, and the meeting went forward.

Attorney Um Catherine Stone from Bedzo and Trepa Green LLP.

Counsel of the appellant attended the meeting remotely but did not make any statements.

Next slide.

The appellant also was sent a hearing notice for the September 24 hearing to the SBCA.

Um to address the neighborhood preservation ordinance violations.

The notice was in compliance of the notification requirements of non less than seven calendar days specified in the neighborhood preservation ordinance 6.65080.

The appellant requested a postponement due to the attorney's inability to attend.

Court enforcement sent a letter to the West BCA chair to consider the continuance, and the West BCA at the hearing decided to proceed uh with the hearing.

In summary, staff has presented credible evidence.

Soil importing activities occurred at the subject property, supported by findings from a licensed technical company, and proper procedures were followed.

And after reviewing the staff uh presentation testimonies and GI reports, the West County Board of Zoning Adjustment determined that soil fill importing did occur at the property and violates section 17.66050 of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance and determined that there is uh presence of the re-concrete pieces and unstable loose fill uh that violates section 6.65030 A1 and 2 and B6 of the neighborhood preservation ordinance, and that the owner did not provide evidence providing uh proving the soil was sourced from adjacent property and move the short distance and that the lot is completely free of debris concrete pieces and unstable loose fill and soil.

Staff recommends that the board of supervisors uphold the decisions of the West Border Zoning Adjustments and deny the appeal, denying the appeal will require the adherence to the BCA action, the West BCA actions, which includes the investigation, reporting, testing, and abatement.

That concludes my presentation and I'll take any questions you have.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Uh I'll start with Supervisor Miley, and then Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you, Chair Tam.

First of all, let me go on the record by stating that I did go out and visit the uh the site on Monday, November 10th.

Uh I went to the um uh the you know um the um the location of um the violation and heard uh information from uh the appellant uh and her um representatives and then also uh heard uh information uh from um uh chuck meadows as well and was out there with uh uh staff person from supervisor, staff people from Supervisor Tam's office as well as uh county staff, and that was on the uh Monday the 10th.

So hopefully that's enough of disclosure there, and then um I have no Levine Act uh conflicts because uh based on information I've received from my treasurer, I haven't received any contributions.

I think county council said I did go back as far as November, I think of 2024, I believe it was, and there have been no uh contributions that um that are in violation of the Levine Act that would require a um a disclosure uh either of the 250 dollar uh amount or the 500 amount.

Um the contributions are below above the 250 uh uh uh amount.

Um, and so I want to go on record that I have no Levine Act uh conflicts as well.

Uh and that would include contributions from Rena Rickles, her husband, uh Glinda Waka, or um uh Chuck Meadows.

So with those disclosures, um, I have a couple of quick questions because I we're gonna hear from like I think both sides, but I'm I'm really interested in uh the the uh the geologists, uh geotech, uh their uh analysis of the soil because we've heard, at least I've heard different um testimony to that effect.

Uh so if can the can the geologist get on and kind of let us know?

Uh, yes, his name is uh Craig Hall.

Because I really want to know uh from his analysis if the soil was imported.

We've you know, we've seen uh evidence to the effect, and staff has said there was no manipulation of those videos.

Um there's no manip manipulation of the videos of the photos.

Um not that we can determine.

Okay.

So I really need to have the engineer talk about the soil.

How did he determine that the soil was imported?

Hello, this is uh Craig Hall, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um yeah, I I am uh the geotechnical engineer, and um I was retained um by the court enforcement uh group to to look at the site and my assessment um of um the site um uh was based on my site visit and looking at existing uh geotechnical information that was provided to me.

Uh I think it's all in my my report as well as um the uh photo documentation of of the area and so you recognize that there were photos and videos of uh active dumping of soil um onto that parcel, um, and then through my site uh and uh visit um I could see along the hillside the uh there's soil with concrete debris and and other um non-soil debris within the um within that soil.

So that in itself uh told me that it was not from uh its it's uh in situ or original site, it was brought in uh elsewhere.

And do you have a sense of how much was brought in?

No, I uh my sense of how much was brought in was based on uh some of the uh geotech investigations that were done um by others uh prior to my being on the site, and um I think one of my recommendations was that um additional geotech investigation would should be performed on this lot to determine the um quantity and actual locations of this uh imported material.

But you could see or I could see on my site visit that there was uh imported material on um on that parcel.

And Mr.

Hall, um I just need to go on the record because I need to understand uh what uh what are your credentials?

How long have you been in the business of doing that?

I'm uh I'm a cal I'm a California licensed geotechnical engineer.

Um and uh I've been in this profession uh for 37 plus years, and um doing most of my work in the uh San Francisco Bay Area.

So I have a lot of experience with uh soil and and rock uh foundations, slope stability.

I've done uh plenty of um investigations of of hillside uh slopes, uh instabilities, um repairs, and uh oversight of construction of uh hillside uh instabilities.

Okay, thank you.

And then uh to County Council, so uh this is a quasi-judicial uh hearing uh that we're taking up today.

So uh the evidence that's present been presented to us um, trying to understand uh w what basis do can we rely upon the um you know the evidence presented?

Because obviously no one's sworn in, they're not under oath, etc.

etc.

And I need to get a sense from our staff, from you know the consultants that were on board.

Then we've got the other side that's maintaining something different.

What you know, how do we determine uh the the veracity of either, or should we just be focused on what our staff has determined?

So the same rules apply for both the neighborhood preservation ordinance and the soil importing ordinance as to the standard that you uh uh are tasked with following for purposes of evaluating evidence, and and by that there are provisions in both those code sections that speak to allowing you to consider hearsay evidence, allowing you to determine the credibility or veracity of the witnesses that are or the folks who speak before you um not requiring you to swear in individuals who testify um but to evaluate based on your own judgment um whether or not there's substantial evidence in the record for you to make your determination on.

Okay, and the the evidence is based on um the findings that have staff come up with, as well as anything that counters that, then we just need to determine uh what we believe is accurate.

That's that's true.

And when you ask, you know, can I just rely on staff?

Well, if if staff's conclusions are supported by the evidence, then certainly um your history and knowledge and and working with staff and their credibility can be determined and assessed as well as those of others who who come before you and speak on the matter.

Okay, and then as a result of whatever we decide today, uh once again, this is a quasi-judicial um hearing, um, we make a decision um uh it is subject to uh judicial uh review if uh if if that were to occur.

That is correct.

Okay, and sometimes I haven't dealt with land use matters for so many years, I know they can be very uh contentious.

Sometimes I wish we could have uh the ability to swear people in so we could determine whether they're speaking, you know, truthfully under oath, and if they weren't, then we could hold them in content contempt, but we can't, so we'll go, we'll just do what we have to do.

So those are all my questions for the moment, but I know I'll have more once we hear from both sides.

Thank you.

I also want to disclose that um I've met with one of the property owners um in person, uh, that was Michelle uh several months ago.

I know this item's been continued many times.

I know that my district director, Ronnie Lachey, has also had multiple phone conversations, and this past Monday, I also visited the site um and met with uh Chuck Meadows, and um in the past I have also had a meeting with um his attorney.

So there's been multiple touch points on this item, and um, with respect to the Lavine Act, I have received below the threshold a contribution from Rena as well as Michelle, but it's below the legal threshold.

So just wanted to disclose that um with respect to the uh the West Board zoning adjustments, um, can you just give us a sense of continuity on that board?

Has it been the same individuals at each hearing?

Has there been any change in positions?

Just trying to get our budget uh understanding of continuity on that board um when the items were heard by by them.

Um I'm trying to recall uh I think uh I'm not 100% sure, but I think the first hearing they were all present, and at the second hearing it was um Jewel uh spaulding that was not present at that time.

Okay, and then with respect to the geotechnical analysis, um that was county staff's decision to hire that person, and can you just elaborate on that process?

Um, how do we select someone?

Um, if you could just elaborate on how we made that decision.

Uh yeah, so when we were contemplating you know how strong our case would be, it was uh we felt it was kind of weak, so we needed the support of the um experts, uh to provide us uh more uh strength in in in enforcing it.

So that's what we did um uh to to provide us the full evaluation, although it was limited uh to um uh uh viewing the site, uh we were denied access to the the lot um because they said there was some um litigation going on with the water company um and we went through a selection process we did an RFB and collected bids from three separate uh GTEX and rated them and that's how we were able to select uh GEI uh so we went through the county process to do that.

And I don't know if you um can answer this at this time but since this uh matter has been occurring for several years do you have a sense of how much time staff is spent on this hours.

Oh boy.

I I didn't um really keep track of it but it has been pretty significant um uh allocation of my time and my staff's time and all the meetings and um evaluating and submittals from both you know parties one more than the other uh it's been a lot uh and then this is one case that's been taking so much and are you the primary contact person on this matter uh yes I've decided to take it on because of the complexity of it and and I do have the support of my supervisor and the area supervis uh area in in officer so okay thank you those are all my questions right now.

Thank you for your presentation I have some follow-up uh questions on the August 21st 2024 geotechnical report mainly the findings from the GEI consultant uh because at the appellant uh in their brief also um disputes uh some of the findings particularly the reliance on the complainants uh reports and also uh I know that uh Mr.

Hall mentioned that he relied on the quantum uh findings from October of 2019 so what I did notice is um GEI did not observe any obvious visible boundary between the fill material and the native material that's on the slope because basically vegetation covered it all and then there's because of some various reasons of access uh they were also not clear on the volume of soil and materials that were potentially imported they did make the observation that uh there is a stability issue uh because the debris appeared loose on the hillside and that part of the abatement requires um the compaction and and uh trying to stabilize that site do you know um what would be involved and the potential costs or is that deferred to um the the homeowner or the appellant to to determine uh yeah I think uh GI is still on board but uh that's that's the reason why we came up with the recommendations that we presented to the BZA because it's not like you go to a property and you see a mound of dirt and you can say take it down all the way to where we can see the uh the native soil this is um more challenging because it's already dropped into the slope and uh the only way to determine uh how much and where uh it ended up is through uh getting an expert analysis so that's what part of the recommendations we have uh aside from that um analysis once it's determined uh how much and where it ended up um obviously they they would need to also come up with an abatement plan to remediate it I think uh G and GI can also speak to that.

Okay.

I it's okay if I speak yes can you hear me we can hear you.

Okay.

Yeah yeah thank you um yeah you know he he is right with the uh the the process the procedure to uh go forward to really understand uh how much of that fill overlies the the native uh soil and um it is based on uh our site investigation or site visit it um it it is uh loose and it is uh moving downhill and uh um i i consider it to be a safety issue and also uh uh an issue of the material going into the the creek that's at the base of the hill so um i think an appropriate geotech investigation should be performed to figure out the thickness of that uh uh fill on on top of the native soil and the extent and um that would help drive what the mitigation or how it will be mitigated um you're gonna overall need to uh the material would need to be removed and um uh the hill hillside um properly uh benched so that any fill that's placed back onto the hillside is uh placed and compacted appropriately for a long-term stability and um the uh construction of that um is would you know you would understand what that amount and cost would be um after that investigation is performed how did you come up with the estimate that it's greater than a hundred and sixty five cubic yards that was placed on the slope yeah so that was based on uh quantum's um investigation and uh what they what they saw i i reviewed that report and um found it to be um uh properly uh performed and uh the recommendations seemed um sound and in that report they came up with the 165 and I had no reason to uh dismiss that so would you expect that part of the abatement would be to be uh remove or uh basically uh look at some potential recompaction of the you could you yeah you could of the hundred and sixty five cubic yards that was placed but you didn't say in your report where it was placed right correct I I won't know that in uh uh or geotech won't know that until they go out and uh do some um test pits or borings to understand uh the thickness and the location of the of the fill in that property and um in in terms of your first uh question um the material that's on site um I think for the most part could probably be reused uh placed back on the slope but it wouldn't need to be placed in an engineered manner um any debris any non-soil debris would need to be removed um sometimes it's it's it's um more efficient to remove that debris and and uh um as opposed to uh sifting out the the non-soil particles um but um it could be removed and then um properly placed on the slope and compacted that's that's one option okay uh I appreciate um the findings and the responses I wanted to understand uh I mean uh this has been going on since at least 2022 right and the report was down that you referenced what in 2019 from quantum was in two thousand was was also more than um five years ago and uh um since then have you observed in 2024 um any um significant erosion going into the creek is that a question for me?

Yes, please.

Yeah, I I I have I have not been to the site since my um initial visit.

But since the 2019 report from quantum that you relied upon to the time in which you were on site uh that resulted in the August 21st, 2024 report.

Did you notice or assess that there was significant erosion?

Yeah, so I I noticed that there were definitely erosion that had occurred on the property.

Um you can see due to the voids that I observed and um the loose soil there, and you could you could tell that that material has been uh eroded and moving downhill.

Um I don't know because the initial geotech investigation didn't show this element, but it I didn't know the differential of what it would look like in 2019 versus what it looked like when I was on the site.

Does that make sense?

Uh yes, it does.

Uh just refresh uh our collective memories.

Um what was the uh scope and the reason for the quantum report in 2019?

I'm gonna let uh Edward uh talk about that.

Uh that was uh hired by the uh neighbor across the street, Mr.

Meadows.

Um he's here if you want to ask him that question.

Okay, I he just provided it to us to be able to.

He provided the quantum report to you.

So that's why the appellant basically said that the GEI report was relying on Mr.

Meadows or the complainants uh reports and observations, uh that could be true, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um that's all the questions I have for now.

Let me open it up uh for both the appellant and the complainant and supervisor halbert.

Do you have any questions now that you're back online?

This is also a test.

Thank you.

Uh let's start with the appellant, please.

Yes, we would like to serve one minute for rebuttal if possible.

Very quick, I thought I had more time.

Uh, my name is Jim Trepa.

I am the attorney.

I'm the attorney for the appellants.

I'm also the attorney for Ms.

Bichet and Mr.

Menzinger in their civil case brought by their neighbor, uh, which is pending in superior court.

The idea of this importation, when you're weighing the actual credible evidence, you have a complaint from the neighbor, who apparently is the only one who saw these 30, 40, at one point it was 200 trucks coming into the neighborhood.

He's the only one who has said he saw it.

No one, no one from the neighborhood has said it, not even his own wife, which is very surprising.

You have uh video, which you you say has not been um changed at all.

Go back and look at the video.

You see a yellow excavator, which is my client's one of the photos, it's white.

So that alone, and I haven't gotten the evidence in the civil case, and I will, but that alone would tell you that it's suspect.

You have affidavits that we have provided sworn, notarized from people involved in the process who said the soil was taken from the top of lot twenty-eight and deposited into that area.

It wasn't imported.

No one else has the videos, the photos, no trucks are coming in or in and out full of dirt, so you have someone who's financially has a financial incentive in the outcome here, and no one else.

That's it.

GEI's report, and it's gonna sound weird, it's completely incomplete because they didn't go on the site itself.

They didn't do any testing themselves.

They sat with the neighbor, got all the evidence from the neighbor, and relied on a report from the neighbor's consultant.

The 165, it's interesting, you asked them about the 165 uh yards that quantum claims that fire hydrant had been hit four times after that, after quantum came up with that.

So you don't have 165, even if quantum said it was 165 cubic yards, you don't have that now.

I'm gonna leave most of the talking to our geotechnical who's been on the site for years, up and down that hillside a number of times.

But when you're looking at the evidence, you have, and and and I hear no credible evidence.

Well, my clients have testified to it, the neighbors have testified to it, the person who is helping them work testified to it.

GEI to make their report complete and to make it unbiased, should have talked to my clients, should have talked to our engineer, should have come onto the property and done their own testing before they came to this report saying, Oh, yeah, we know there's loose fill there.

There might be loose fill there, but it's not imported.

The evidence, if we're in a court of law, the evidence doesn't support it.

You don't have a balancing that shows, more likely than not.

Um, in terms of the second complaint, you know, it's interesting.

My clients got the complaint and were surprised because there's there's nothing on that hillside, debris-wise, garbage-wise.

They went down and looked at it, found stuff there that was clearly staged, took it away, went back down a week later, and magically more stuff was there.

Yesterday, and I'm gonna leave some of these up here, the neighbor decided it was a good idea to post a big sign at the end of the block saying go through fence for dump site, basically inviting people to trespass onto the that exact site to dump things.

I don't know why, but my clients haven't dumped anything there.

The site is completely clear.

We provided photos from Monday that show that, and I'll reserve one minute uh for a bug.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Rena Rickles, and I represent Chuck Meadows.

A few quick rebuttal points.

First, um, the debris has been there since 2021.

Um the debris is not only on appellants property, it is also on my client's side of the property.

GEI did not go on to appellant's property because they were forbidden from doing so by appellants.

Staff was not allowed on appellants property to look at it because appellants prohibit him from going.

Uh Simon Modeski will testify as to how he did the calculations in terms of depth.

What they basically, he did is he's on one side of the line, measured, and assumed that was one foot away, was also equal.

Um, let's talk about what this case is about.

It is about two violations.

One of the soil import ordinance.

Staff has done an excellent job of telling you that the basics of that violation.

I have five minutes, right?

The basics of that violation have all been met.

Every single piece of it.

Continue.

That was the two-minute mark.

That's the reason.

It rang.

And this is a serious danger that has to be abated.

You have seen photographs of soil failure and collapse, creating six or eight feet depth.

Uh, tunnels and rivets and going down to Ward Creek.

You've also seen photographs of Ward Creek.

This is something that does require remediation.

There's also no question that Mr.

Menzinger did it, that is him in the photographs.

And quite frankly, in my 37 years of doing this, I have never seen so much scrutiny go into writing a citation.

The photos and videos had to be metadated.

Then they looked at public works photographs.

That wasn't enough.

No stone was overturned in determining that this was a valid violation.

In terms of failure to abate, they went back three times before they finally cited for the public nuisance.

When Mr.

Meadows made his first complaint to the county, he found to his surprise that the Menzingers were already under a stop work order for dumping they had done two years prior.

They knew what they were doing, and they knew it was wrong.

Moreover, there is no credible scientific evidence to dispute it.

Yes, you've seen photographs from one side, but when you were able to actually see the site, you saw what really happened.

Regarding the report from Mr.

Meadows Engineer, that was done in 2022, not 2019.

So that was after the dumping had occurred.

So if there's any error on the precision of how much soil, that really was caused by appellants themselves.

They prevented the precision.

I'd like to ask for two uh small amendments.

One on the ownership of the property after the BZA found the corporation LLC in violation, the Menzingers went back and changed the deed so that they now are the owners of O24.

We would respectfully ask that the AKA be added to include their names and their address.

Second, we would like to expand the abatement order so that uh you cover the general principles of what the BZA did, but the BZA did not have benchmarks and timetables, and it's very important to have that to be able to enforce an order, and the BZA can be in charge of that.

We provided you with that.

It took us several days to write it to make it complete.

The BZA had to come up with their abatement on the fly.

What they did was good, but it needs safeguards, guidelines, and benchmarks.

Thank you, Rena.

I'd like to follow up on a couple quick rebuttals.

First of all, the sign that was placed at the end of the street was done specifically to meet Supervisor Mickey Fordinato Boss's request that when David Brown came out to the site visit, we did not interact or interfere in any way or even approach him.

Therefore, we place a sign at the end of the street so he knew where to go to examine the site.

Secondly, one of the issues that's been brought up is about the which you have a pack in front of you.

One of the issues has been brought up about the debris on the site.

Just two days before you were scheduled to be on site, we have evidence from our security cameras of them wandering around the site trying to conceal the evidence and remove it from the site.

Now they claim back in their EB MUD site or E B MUD suit that code enforcement was not allowed on the site, and yet here they are scrambling around removing all the evidence just prior to your arrival.

I'll speak in the public comments from other comments.

Thank you.

Did the appellant want to come right back?

So what I would just say in a very quick rebuttal is again looking at the evidence, the credible evidence.

What you just heard had nothing to do with furthering anything regarding importation.

There's no there's no question that there was soil that was backfilled there from my clients' upper portion of lot twenty-eight, but there's been nothing added to show any type of importation.

You have video, you have camera, you can show trucks coming in, you can show trucks that have dirt in them as they're coming in.

Nothing like that has been shown.

In terms of some of these other issues, you have video of my clients removing the evidence.

If they're dumping debris, you would have video of them putting it there.

There have been 30 video cameras and cameras pointed at my clients' property for years, and and there is nothing that has been shown of them dumping anything onto that area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions for either party before I open up for the regular public comments?

Sure, Chair.

Um, can you there was a slide that showed a pile of dirt?

Can we bring that slide up again?

Um is it through the video or photo?

I think it was maybe a photo.

A photo uh in the PowerPoint?

Let's see.

Um, maybe it's in the uh evidence section.

Yeah, the uh if you go up to slide number nine or ten um I think up more, what slide number is that one more up?

Uh that one on the right side you're referring to the amount of dirt.

Yes, I I see, I mean it's there's dirt there, but also I think I saw in um uh the the I guess the videos there the video presentation that we that you've put up from uh Chuck Meadows, a pile of dirt is that the same pile of dirt that's in the video, um I this is a small picture.

There's no way of enlarging it, is there?

Yeah, uh you want to I mean I would have to take a look at the video again of to make sure, but uh I think the videos that were uh do you want to see the video again?

Is that not the whole video?

What I'm trying to find out is we see these trucks coming in, and these trucks came in over the course of what period of time, and then we saw a pile of dirt as well, and uh, what was the date of that dirt that was there?

Well, this slide shows that uh July 26, 2022, where the pile of dirt was there, and the video in the uh photo.

But we were yeah, we received that.

Actually, I'm sorry, that was taken January 30, 2020.

Well, I don't want to hold this up, but if staff could just, I don't know, because I need I'd like to know if over what period of time were the trucks coming in?

From when to when do we have a sense of any indication of how many trucks?

And then the pile of dirt that was there, when was that pile of dirt there?

And we see something in the photo, photos that you've provided, but we also see something in the video that um Chuck Meadows provided.

Uh from from the uh evidence that we've collected, we can um we can verify at least four trucks that were um documented going into that site, and and uh dumping the uh that performed some activity on there of uh dumping the fill.

And yeah, so so that's the reason why we felt it was important to do the analysis because uh we have no definitive uh measurement of uh volume that would come through when the uh report and analysis comes out.

Okay, so do you have a sense of when the trucks came in of what period of time?

Uh I think there was uh time frame was um 20.

I'd have to look at the uh notice here real quick.

Hang on one second.

Yeah, I'm trying to uh reference the initial notice that that we sent.

So while you're looking for that, maybe I could ask Ms.

Meadows.

In your video, you showed a pile of dirt.

Is that the same pile of dirt that we see here as the evidence?

Put that picture back up the uh, the period of dumping, we first documented the first truck, although there was more that occurred.

The first truck was photographed October 30th, 2019.

The dumping proceeded, and we have dated photos continuing up until March, on or about March of 2020.

There are a variety of photos of the piles on the site because they would often stage them at the end of the street, and as you saw with the excavator, they would then take the fill from the street and dump it down the slope.

Is that answer your question?

October 30th, 2019 through March of 2020.

The trucks, and then the pile of dirt was there from when to when?

When was the well there were several piles because the trucks couldn't actually go down the slope?

So they would just dump it at the end of the street there, as you can see in the one photo on the right.

They would dump it at the stage at the end of the street, and then they would go out with an excavator uh at various times and move it down the slope.

So over what time frame was the pile of dirt there?

That particular pile was probably there a couple days.

But was there other piles of dirt too?

Oh yes.

Each truck that came as you can see on the photo on the left and the subsequent photos would come to the street, and because there's no support at the end of the street, would pull up a little bit, dump the dirt at the end of the street.

And then the excavator would put it.

And then the excavator very shortly thereafter would then move the stage dirt down the slope.

Now sometimes it might be a day, same day or a couple days, but it was almost immediately after the trucks had dumped the fill.

And once again, over what period of time was that?

The first documented was dated October 30th, 2019, and we have photos showing trucks delivering up through March, approximately March of 2020.

Okay, so that's so the same time frame that the trucks would come to deliver the dirt would be the same time frame that the dirt was there as well, in terms of it would be a constant sort of thing.

The dirt would be staged for approximately a day or two.

It was only a short period of time that the dirt would be staged at the top of the street.

It was almost immediately then moved down the slope.

It might be a day or a couple days, but it was almost immediate.

And in answering to Supervisor Tam's question about the the report that staff relied on, the report that staff relied on.

You said that report was taken in 2022.

There were two reports.

In fact, the geotechnical engineers available for questioning is online.

They first came out and did the field work in 2022, and the report was dated December of 2022.

We asked him to come out last month, so October 12th, he did his field work and generated a second report updating the report for the changes in conditions from his initial field work.

There was significant erosion that occurred.

So there was a change in the conditions, so we felt it was important to have a contemporaneous examination of the site just prior to this hearing.

Okay, so the trucks came in, the dirt was there between October 19 October 2019 up through March 2020.

Then to determine that dirt that you're stating was was dumped, you had this report done in December of 2022.

Yes, and now there are two additional reports that were also generated, but those are not done by a geotechnical engineer.

In 2021, we had a civil engineer and surveyor came out who examined the site and mapped the locations of the fill.

That report, when I get to my public comments, was attached to the exhibits you received today, and it shows the area that the civil engineer back in 2021 determined were the boundaries of the dumped fill because it was much larger than just what we're seeing on these slides.

So then there was a second report conducted by a civil engineer and a separate environmental engineer that occurred in 2021 after the fire hydrant break.

The dumping was completed in 2020.

The significant fire hydrant that was referenced did not occur until August of 2021.

The first fire hydrant that did break was in January of 2020 after the dumping had already initiated.

The two subsequent fire breaks after the 2021, including the latest one in December 9th, for which we submitted video footage, barely wetted the street.

In other words, the street was did not even have enough water to cover the entire street.

We have the security footage that we can supply to support that.

Therefore, it did not shift the soil down the hill.

And I'm sure the engineers can testify to that.

Okay.

And then the other question I have of you is it's alleged or stated that it's alleged or stated that under the neighborhood preservation ordinance, the material that's there was you know was placed there.

How do we know that that's not the case?

Okay.

During the BCA hearings, we provided extensive evidence, including county aerial photos, showing that the amount of fill, okay.

First of all, to move 350 cubic yards of fill is larger than an RV.

In fact, it's larger than the ADU that is currently at the site.

To move that much fill across their property would require a hole that size.

We provided five years of aerial photos.

The PWA did a geo, they did a topographical site assessment to determine changes in their topographical data, and they found that there was no way to account for that kind of movement of fill.

Secondly, although it's only five cameras, we do have that slope covered with cameras because we are anticipating these kind of activities.

So those five cameras would have detected any large-scale movement, given that that excavator is so loud that when they fired up, we would have heard it.

So the only way they could have moved that amount of fill would take approximately 4,500 wheelbarrels to move that across the property.

And as you saw from the county photos, there is a large 70-foot tree blocking that slope, which means they would have had to lift that soil over a tree or through that fence, which has no opening.

So the BZA ruled that the testimony that they presented was simply not credible, and that they unanimously determined that there was a public nuisance and a violation of soil importation ordinance.

Okay, I think that that that's it, I think it for the moment.

I think I can supervisor Marlowe.

I think you were saying, how can we show that it wasn't Mr.

Meadows who threw the debris and concrete and everything down the hill?

You've picked up that these neighbors are not friendly to each other.

They have video cameras going 24 hours back and forth, and have since all this began.

If Mr.

Meadows had done that, it would show up on Appellants video cameras, and they would have brought it in to you.

The fact that they have it, I think takes care of that claim.

Yes, you do.

My clients do not have anyone that is facing that area, which I have now advised them to put there because we know that Mr.

Meadows is placing things in the area.

We could go through, I'm not gonna, you know, Mr.

Meadows had about 20 extra minutes.

I would like you guys to hear from our geotechnical uh expert.

He's gonna be a public speaker, but ask him the questions because that he he's far more important than any of us.

He's the expert who has the most knowledge, the best knowledge of what's gone on at that site.

Thank you.

Sir, may I ask you some questions?

Sure.

Um, so uh you asserted that you would need 200 trucks to get 165 yards into this site, and that the cameras all 25 but not 30 cameras did not record that during the duration that Mr.

Meadows talked about, which was from October 30th, 2019 to March of 2020.

So where is this coming from on terms in terms of uh the allegations of soil importation then?

The allegation started with the neighbor saying it was 200 trucks, it's not something I said, that's what he claimed.

Then it went to 100 trucks.

Now it's 30 something trucks, and it'll keep changing.

My point is if you had 30 trucks going in and out of that very small neighborhood street, someone else would have seen it.

Someone else would be here to tell you about it.

Someone else would have filled out a sworn affidavit saying, I saw these trucks coming in, 30 of them from this time to this time.

They were full of dirt, they came to the end of our street, they dumped soil down the end of the street, and the only affidavits you have the sworn notarized affidavits are from people who said that's not what happened.

So the videos that showed um ostensibly, even though it wasn't the resolution wasn't clear, uh, that your client was also uh involved or a part of the the truck um the truck the dump trucks that came in.

What was that about?

So my clients had these trucks on their driveway, which now is broken because of the weight of the trucks.

There were three or four, four trucks, four trucks.

That's what they had taken from the top of lot twenty eight and put into that area.

Does that answer your question?

Yes.

So they moved the soil from lot twenty eight.

So lot twenty-eight, yeah, and and some of you who were there the other day may have heard the explanation.

Yeah, but uh to disclose that's Supervisor Miley mentioned my staff.

So the top of lot 28 had it was basically a slope, and they had cut into it to create their backyard at the top of 28.

In doing that, they had to take out the extra soil.

That's where it came from.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Do you have any questions?

Yeah.

If not, at this time, uh let me go to public comment.

Karen Carey, Rena Rickles, and Chuck Meadows.

Uh public comment is two minutes, right?

Yes, two minutes.

Hi, my name is Karen Carey.

I've lived in Fairview since 1959, and I am a neighbor.

Let me begin by saying I have no financial relationship with Mr.

Meadows, nor have I ever been offered or received any compensation from him.

I met him and the appellant when they signed a petition that I had walked down their street in 2022.

That is when I realized the dumping had come from the end of Uvis Court.

I walked the hard Ward Creek Trail several times a week for decades.

This trail passes directly underneath the violation site and provided me with a clear view of the hillside.

In late 2019, early 2020, I saw grading being done above the creek that stayed mostly on the hill.

Then I saw dump trucks dumping debris, concrete, bricks, et cetera, down the hill towards the creek, some going into the creek.

I called hard and was told they have no control of what happens across the street.

I had no way to determine the address, so I could not make a report to the county.

A wet winter caused a mudslide filled with debris down into the creek.

Mr.

Meadows assembled and presented overwhelming, everwhelming evidence to the county, including four reports by licensed civil environmental and geotech engineers.

A second report, including review of Mr.

Meadows' evidence was conducted by an independent geotechnical engineer hired by the county.

The county's geotech testified at the BCA hearing confirming Mr.

Excuse me, confirming Mr.

Meadows' allegations.

The proposed abatement order that has been submitted to this board includes clearly written findings, recommendations, and a specific timeline for the detailed remediation of the site.

The order should also include fines and penalties that address the multiple years of delays caused by the violators actively frustrating all enforcement efforts.

The county should not allow bad actors to sum their nose at code enforcement.

Please impose the fines authorized by the ordinance and equally important given how the violators have managed to delay enforcement for five years now.

Impose the daily 1,000 for each day pass to fine completion date for the abatement.

Thank you.

And I will swear to any of that if you guys want me under oath.

Dan Dickman.

I'm a geotechnical engineer licensed in the state of California.

I've been doing this for over 40 years now in the Bay Area, and then two years before that overseas.

My first involvement with these properties was back in 2021 when I worked with uh Director Wallenbet and uh Mr.

Chu to do some uh soil mitigation on lot 28.

It was an old fill that had been there for years, but it was not an engineered fill and desired to be built upon, so we took it out, rebuilt it.

There was also work that was done at the bottom of the property to remove remove materials that were sitting on the hillside for years, including uh chassis of an old bus from 1938.

In the process of doing the cleanup down there, we were removing an old brick fence.

It was removed, pulled up piece by piece, and we also were cleaning up what was down there.

There were pieces of concrete down there.

There were pieces of bricks, not a lot of them.

They were all on the surface.

Uh, materials that in my opinion had been there for decades.

Um at that time, I also was walking across the uh parcel 24, which is at the end of the cul-de-sac.

I had walked that ravine that had been caused by the uh fire hydrant break years ago.

Um doing that, I was able to actually see layers of fill.

So there's the topsoil, layers of native material underneath.

It was my opinion that the materials out there were generally native materials from the area.

There's some drain rocks and base rock that's in there as well.

It's been washed off the street.

Um, but there's no more than about three feet of newer fill out there.

There's some older fill, and that was probably there from the time of the construction of the roadway.

Uh, there may still be some of the fill that was placed in 2022, but most of it, in my opinion, has been washed away.

Looks like that's about all the time I've got.

If you've had it in question, I'm happy to answer.

Thank you.

Bruce King, you're on the line, you have two minutes.

Hello, this is Bruce King with Friends of San Lorenzo Creek.

Um, I'm familiar with all the creeks in the watershed.

I walked the creeks.

Uh I've walked Ward Creek, this branch of Ward Creek.

Uh, the hillside, uh, I specifically looked at this location down at the creek.

The hillside slopes dramatically from the properties above down into Ward Creek.

Um I'm also an environmental health and safety engineer for for 30 uh four years uh with some experience in site remediations.

Um I've read the geotechnical reported November 3rd.

Uh it clearly says that there are erosion gullies four to five feet deep, and that the sediments are eroding down towards Ward Creek.

Um, in terms of um protection of the creeks, these are this creek and all creeks are considered waters of the state, protected under waterboard and fish and wildlife regulations.

So any deposit of sediments into the creek is considered a violation, and the the creek bank is considered part of the protected area.

Uh, so I think the remediation and abatement is is warranted as described, and that's the only way we're going to keep the sediments from getting into the creek.

And the creek, um, when you fill it up with sediments, it uh does kill the organisms that need the uh the natural creek bottom to survive.

Thank you.

Simon, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Simon McDissy.

I'm with Quantum Geotechnical.

I'm the president of Quantum Geotechnical, a consulting soil engineering firm.

I'm a registered professional civil and geotechnical engineer in the state of California.

I've been practicing here in the Bay Area for the past 35 years, and 10 years previously overseas.

Uh we initially performed uh site business in 2022 to evaluate the depth and extent of foreign fill within Mr.

Meadows property only.

Uh that was uh reportedly dumped on the slope below the southern terminus of View's Court.

We hand dug seven test holes within the slope area and found two to seven feet of foreign fill material that consisted of various types and color of soil with various debris such as concrete, AC, metal pipe, pieces of wood, broken clay, PVC pipes, and wood.

Um at the time there were erosion gullies up to four feet deep, and uh a cut filled tree existed on the slope surface.

We estimated that approximately 165 cubic yards of foreign fill existed within Mr.

Meadows' property, and we did that by calculating the depths, the lateral extent of the fill within his property only, but does not include anything beyond the property lines.

Uh, we did a follow-up visit uh this uh past month, October 12th.

Uh, we found more erosion gullies and deeper erosion gullies, some of which extended into the underlying native soil now.

The additional erosion appeared to have caused the filled tree to on the slope to move further downhill, and it appears to have been stopped by an existing eucalyptus tree at the uh southern property line.

Uh, this eucalyptus tree had some erosion at the base exposing the roots.

The fill on the slope is um it's unstable, subject to erosion that enters Ward Creek, and um, we recommend that the fill be removed, um, the tree be removed and the fill be removed to reinstate the native terrain.

Thank you.

No more speakers.

Thank you.

Turn to the board for comments and action.

Matt Turner, you have two minutes.

There's a lot of complex issues here.

Um but ultimately this is pretty simple.

Um there are violations by the appellate that are affecting Ward Creek and neighboring properties.

Uh that are well documented.

Uh BZA spent three and a half hours deliberating this.

Uh a lot of good thought energy has already been put into this to determine what's wrong.

Uh and how is this going to be dealt with?

Um there is there's a violation that needs to be remediated.

That's just unquestionable.

Um the option is uh impose fines after a certain amount of time that would ensure that the appellant would actually clean up the site in a timely manner, or uh the county would abate so because there's a duty to protect the creek and and people who've been victimized by an illegal act.

And if that's not done, uh then the county has to remediate itself, and that imposes a uh uh property tax lien or you know, payment over time, which amounts to a publicly subsidized low interest loan.

So are you gonna do right by the taxpayers of Alameda County by you know protecting the property and by incenting the appellant to actually clean up the violation, or are you going to uh allow it to fester for many years?

These guys are experts at delaying as has been shown over and over again, and uh and and put that on the backs of the taxpayers by putting it on their property tax as a low interest loan over years.

So please uh have have the incentive set up so that these guys take care of business and and uh repair the damage that's been done.

It's it's well documented.

Uh you don't need to be a meteorologist to tell you that it's raining today, and if you walk along the road in Ward Creek, you can see that the soil is failing and uh debris that is foreign is falling into the creek.

Thank you.

Chris Higgins, you have two minutes.

Yeah, I'm Chris Higgins.

I'm a resident of Fairview.

Um I'm also a member of the Fairview Mac, but I'm not I'm expressing only my personal opinion.

And the you guys have heard all the geotechnical stuff and the timelines and all these changing stories, but I I just want to bring up uh one one side point is uh when going down to the site, uh I observed the appellants were parking vehicles and and restricting access to the road.

So the um complainant, I don't know, Mr.

Meadows or whatever.

People couldn't drive in to access his property, and he was at that time.

I came in, he he couldn't get his car out.

And nobody enforces um easements, right?

You you buy a property and uh you might own part of the street, but that part of the street, there's there's an easement that people are entitled to, and um somehow we gotta figure out a way to to enforce that.

You call the sheriff and the property owner says, Well, I own the property, and the sheriff says, Well, I can't do anything, and um public works and and community development say, Well, this is a civil matter, you gotta sue them.

I mean, that's silly.

Um, but that's not what this topic's about.

But I just felt it was important to say that, and that's all I need to say.

Bye.

No more speakers.

Thank you.

Back to the board for comments, deliberations, Supervisor Miley.

Yeah, thank you, uh Chair Cam.

I thank all the speakers.

Definitely thank the staff for their work on this over the course of time.

And I know Supervisor Marquez asked if we could quantify the hours and time and cost associated with this.

Um, didn't come up with uh anything exact, all you came up with was a generality, uh, but uh clearly that it's been quite a bit.

Um, so that's one thing.

The next thing for me, the crux of what I'm trying to figure out is was the soil imported.

Now we're hearing from the attorney, um, that there should have been other folks who swore that they saw trucks coming down the street.

Do we have any sense from anybody else on the street on the street that they saw trucks?

Because you know, we've heard out you know it's been stated 200 trucks, 100 trucks, 30 trucks, whatever.

And then you said four trucks based on the video.

Do we have any sense from the neighbors if they witnessed um a voluminous number of trucks coming down the street?

Because until I went out there, I I envisioned you with scored somewhere else.

But now that I've been out there, I've kind of seen the um, you know, where it is, and it's a dead end street, etc.

So if I lived on the street, it seemed quite quaint too.

Uh, the the the street and the neighborhood, and I know I haven't gone out and done any uh um outreach and talked to the neighbors, but do we have any sense from the neighbors?

Um we have not uh reached out to any neighbors or have received any information from any neighbors uh regarding uh witnessing the trucks.

Okay, all right.

So that's the first thing.

Second thing is um you mentioned that uh you I think in the report and also verbally, that we need to do a further evaluation to determine you know the soil and uh what was there before and this, that, and the other.

I'm not an engineer like Supervisor Tam.

She probably knows all this stuff really well.

I'm just a layperson.

Um, so why didn't we do a further evaluation of this before it either got to the PZA or to the board?

And uh clearly if if something like that's necessary, the board could direct that staff go back and do that level of evaluation.

Uh I think our the first thing we wanted to uh determine was that whether soil importing did occur.

And we did arrive at that conclusion, however, uh trying to determine the scope of how much and where it ended up was the big issue.

And um the only way to determine that is requiring the owner to hire their own expert analysis to give us that information.

Um and so that's where we are today.

So once the determination of where and how much is established, then we can work on the abatement procedure on that point.

Once again, maybe uh maybe I don't understand it well enough because I'm not an engineer, just a lay person, but we're hearing that the soil came from their property, but we're also hearing on the other side that the soil was imported.

Yes.

So I'm I'm trying to get a sense in the staff determined that it was imported.

So I'm trying to get real comfortable with that conclusion.

Yeah, that was uh tough for us too because um what they presented to the BZA was that uh they did excavate or change the contour of their backyard and put the soil into wheelbarrows, roll it out to the street, and they hired truckers to come to their property with empty trucks, load it from their driveway, back it up, I don't know, 100 feet or so, and then dump it on the hillside.

So there is no evidence of that from the pellant side of photographs or recordings that that we could say, okay.

We see the dirt on your driveway, we see them loading into your trucks.

So there was no uh evidence for us to consider that.

So we thought that was not credible.

Okay, right.

And since once again, this is um quasi-judicial, um, criminal cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil cases preponderance of the evidence.

Is that the standard we should follow?

That is the standard.

Okay.

We're looking for substantial evidence in the record to support your conclusion.

Okay, all right.

Well, thanks, Ed, for kind of walking me through this.

I think I'm okay at the moment, but I might meet uh well.

Wait a minute, Simon.

That that Simon guy who spoke, uh, is he the guy who did the engineer who did the stuff before Chuck Meadows?

Okay, is that yes?

He's with quantum and he is the geotech hired by Mr.

So we've got Simon as an engineer saying one thing, we've got our engineers saying maybe similarly, we've got their engineers saying something different.

Um who should we believe?

Uh hopefully the new person that I get to do the the analysis and report.

I mean, it's conceivable that I'm not a geotech either, but uh, if they determine that the characteristics of the soil there matches their backyard, that's also could be a possibility.

So that's why we want to have this expert analysis and report done, then we can move forward with.

But we can't we do that before we make a decision, uh, because the owner is appealing that they even have a violations to even move towards uh determining if they have soil imported there.

So they're saying no, we didn't have a violation, we don't need to take any further action.

And we couldn't independently do that examination to help us render the uh decision that the soil did not come from their property, it was imported.

Um I don't know.

So, Supervisors, I understand that the difficulty with us doing the analysis has been that the property owner has denied us access to the site, so we've now been able to get onto the site to do that type of analysis.

Okay, all right, yes, because that has been raised a couple of times.

You need to be on the record, though.

So I've been involved in this in a for a couple of years now, and we had a meeting with county and county council, not this county council, a different one, and I offered, and I've offered it a number of times, get the GEI engineer out there with our engineer, tell us where's the imported soil, how much is it, tell us what you actually think you are seeing.

And that was denied by the county, not by us.

The statements uh from the complainant and staff is that they did not have access to your client's property to make certain observations and evaluations.

Is that correct?

The before I got involved, I I cannot speak to that.

Since I've been involved, all we have said is I want to be there, my client has to be there, and we don't want the neighbor to be there.

If some if if everyone wants to come out and look at the property, that's fine.

We just want to make I want to make sure that I'm there and my clients there.

It would be best if the engineers were there because like I said, they know a lot more than we do, but that has been offered and rejected by the county.

Okay, if if I I may.

Uh we did hire uh GEI so that we could review uh the possibility of this violation and what it would look like.

We prefer not to have brought this the citation to the West BCA with you know an ambiguous um uh violation.

Didn't we weren't able to substantiate the amount or anything like that, but we did hire a consultant.

Staff did not have authority to be on the site, and that's why the West BCA receive the citation in the way that they did that um it's it was a general statement and that more action was needed, and that's why the West BCA recommends what uh the action that they took.

This offer months and months and months ago.

Yes, thank you.

I see in the record.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, sir.

We had already um had a response to your assertion.

Um so at this stage, Sirvisor Miley.

Do you have okay?

I just want to ask a clarifying question, and this is really anyone that has the information.

Um I am familiar with the trail that Hard manages.

Um I've walked that trail.

No, you could access it from campus drive.

So there was mention about complaints made to Hard.

Did we reach out to Hard?

Do we have any type of documentation or anything from their perspective to um basically provide any support whether or not there was additional soil in that area?

Is there any outreach to Hard?

Um I don't recall any uh communications we had with Hard.

Uh there may have been uh some communication when they went through the uh process of um installing that ADU there from the public works agency, and there was actually a stop work order in 2018 uh related to the grading that was done on lot 18 adjacent to lot 24.

So this eastman area is very narrow, and uh we were just able to access uh looking at that entire easement, walking on the side of Mr.

Meadows.

Uh and the um I also wanted to add that the uh consultant was only limited to the visual uh analysis and you know evaluating reports, they weren't there to actually test the soil like with uh iron rod to see how deep it is and all that stuff.

Um we felt that at least uh we got some indication that yes, soil importing occurred.

Now we just gotta know when and uh I mean how much and and where it ended up so we can work towards uh the abatement.

Okay, and then um do we know if any neighbors at the start of the street or on second street whether or not any ring cameras, any home video cameras picked up the trucks entering the community, the street?

Do we have any evidence of that?

Um I stated earlier, we have not received any other evidence other than from Mr.

Meadows.

Uh no neighbors or other individuals um has provided any photos, videos, or anything of that sort.

Okay, and then there's a large tree that is on the site.

I is that a eucalyptus tree?

Yes.

Okay.

Do we know if what property that came from?

Do we know when it was placed there?

Are there any concerns about um tree preservation violation?

Because that seems to be an issue as well.

Has that come up at all?

Well, we felt like uh once they complete the analysis and the abatement uh plan to remediate that that would be part of it because right now taking that out there will be make the situation worse.

It's kind of holding things in place, kind of holding things in place, so we will address that as well moving forward.

Do we know when it was placed there, the tree?

Uh I don't know when it was and when it they actually um cut it down uh what's that oh yeah the date yeah cut down in 2018 I thank you for your comments, but uh we have closed public comments at this point.

So uh here's um where I'm at with all of this.

Um we have inconclusive evidence that the soil importation occurred or the quantities that were alleged, the issue could be that it came from lot 28 and four trucks moved some uh some of the soils to the locations that is in question right now, and what the West County BZA is asking for is basically you do the investigation, you help us uh do the testing, and you come up with your own abatement plan, and if the soils are not uh problematic, then you have nothing to abate, right?

Ultimately, for the county, I think it's about protecting the public waterways and it's any erosion that occurs.

That's the reason I I had asked the question a couple times of the um geotechnical engineers is do we have erosion now, whether it's from lot twenty-eight or import it from somewhere else?

Is that happening?

Obviously, with the atmospheric river, we're gonna be concerned about that.

So at the very least, we should find out, and if this uh action that is moving forward by the West County BCA is to find out, I think it's worth pursuing.

So I just want to make sure I'm understanding this.

So if we uh pursue what the West County Board of Zoning Adjusters suggest, uh, is it my belief then that that would be the responsibility of the property owner?

Do we know how will we know the veracity of that?

What how will we know the legitimacy of that?

I mean, again, it just seems like it should be done, it should be done, you know, subject-I mean, objectively.

Uh well, that was uh discussed at the West BZA too.

It's that um to make sure that that analysis is credible.

Uh perhaps a third party uh neutral third party would be uh involved, uh like for example, when they do the testing, making sure that their testing criteria are up to industry standards, not just um arbitrary report done so that it's really valid.

Well, so would staff be involved in helping to uh determine that that is indeed the case?

Um we asked the uh that the reports and analysis come back to um the county and also the the BCA so that they can do a full review to ensure that it can move forward if there's any um plan to uh do the abatement, for example, or if they say that there's there's no problem, the soil came from their lot, they they would make that determination after the the reports are all submitted.

So just playing the devil's advocate here.

So suppose it comes back that the soil came from their property, um who covers the cost of that analysis that evaluation is that gonna be is the burden gonna be on them or is the county picking that up or is you know the other party pick who covers that cost well I think it'll that'll be upon the property owner because also regardless of when it occurred that's why we included the neighborhood preservation ordinance it's been determined that it the the field is doesn't matter if happened before or after the ordinance that it's unstable so they would still need to do some remediation work to uh deal with the safety issue of the unstable uh slope so those analyses would also be to their benefit I see so it so in terms of soil importation we get that off the plate but you're still saying there's a violation of the neighborhood preservation ordinance that's correct I see okay um if this if there's no other questions I see supervisor albert's gone uh could we take a recess because I want to confer with county council for a moment we will recess for five minutes recording in progress reconvening from recess may I have roll call to reestablish quorum supervisor marquez present supervisor tam present supervisor miley supervisor for tonarabas excuse President Howard excused we have a quorum thank you and um supervisor miley okay yes um you have the floor yes I've configured to county council in their uh crafting the uh motion that I would like to make because um what I think um you know the quasi um judicial setting you know I think we have a preponderance of the evidence in one direction but I know based on what Supervisor Dan mentioned that it's inconclusive so I'm thinking that um our ability to move ahead with the soil importation is still um you know um not substantiated even though if I want to go with preponderance Supervisor Tam said it's not um conclusive so I'm thinking of the most we're gonna be able to do today is to deal with the neighborhood preservation ordinance that there was a violation there and then um uh order that it be um addressed and give a time frame associated with that so I think county council is working on um the the appropriate language for me to use to put on the record so that's kind of where I'm at okay um I concur uh with that assessment as well I we've heard from uh three different geotechnical engineers with different perspectives there's some timeline laps and issues that uh make it inconclusive for me when it comes to uh the violation of the soil importation ordinance so um my inclination is to uphold the appeal on that front and then the issue around public nuisance is what we are uh trying to make sure is very clear because that addresses the issues around investigation reporting testing and abatement that was recommended by the West County border zoning adjustment and the timeline that is in the resolution that came from the West County border zoning adjustment is to provide a timeframe of a hundred and twenty days.

But I want to make sure that um county council um can help opine on the adequacy of that resolution and appropriateness.

Yes, I understand that proposed uh motion, the resolution will need to be um modified and and uh cleaned up to reflect your intent um but as I understand it, the motion would be that the Board of Supervisors finds that the property is in violation of the Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, Section 6.65030A1 through 2 and B6, and denies the appeal, upholding the decision of the board of zoning adjustments as to the neighborhood preservation ordinance allegations, but granting the appeal as to the soil import ordinance and the uh violation, the alleged violation of zoning ordinance 1766.050, and we would then um by upholding the decision of the BZA, their order in the in uh regarding the um nuisance abatement with the 120 days would hold unless you choose to modify that date and time frame.

We would clean up this ordinance or excuse me, this resolution to reflect your decision today.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Marques.

So, clarifying question with respect to mitigating the issues and having to meet the timeline.

Does a plan need to be submitted to county staff, or how is that coordinated?

Uh I think the abatement order uh requires them to hire a analysis uh professional to do the analysis uh within 120 days and then uh return that report back to the uh staff in West BZA for um consideration to uh hang on what let me let me uh read it directly here uh prior to finalization so that that was the recommendation and uh resolution from the board of uh West Border Zoning Adjustments.

And then the 120 days would commence today if this um is approved.

This action is voted on.

So we would commence on the day that your order is final, which would be today.

Today.

Okay.

Um I will support the motion.

Um, obviously, this is a very complex issue.

I know there's pending civil matters as well.

Um, but based off the testimony, everything that we've received in advance.

I will support my colleagues with this motion.

So the motion that's county council outlined you would basically have us um deny the appeal relative to the neighborhood preservation ordinance and grant the appeal on the soil importation ordinance.

That's my understanding of your intent.

Yeah, and then um the specificity of our ordinance.

I mean, of our of the motion you've captured.

Right, because you were required by the ordinance to adopt a resolution reflecting your findings, we will uh clarify the draft resolution and have it conform to your decision, but you will be adopting it today.

So that that's my motion.

I don't know if it needs to be put on the record once again, but I can restate it if that is your preference.

Yeah, please restate it because uh either side has the ability to um appeal this or take this to the need for judicial review.

Okay, go ahead.

So the motion would be to adopt a resolution finding that the property is in violation of the Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, section 6.65.030 subsection A1 through 2 and B6, denying the appeal as to that violation, upholding the decision of the BZA uh as to the neighborhood preservation ordinance, but granting the appeal as to the allegations of the violation of the soil importation ordinance in zoning ordinance 1766 point zero five zero.

That's that's my motion, and I make that motion once again based on the fact that um even though I think there might be a preponderance of the evidence uh around soil importation, but I I want to um respect what I heard from my colleague uh that it's inconclusive so that we can address this today and move forward.

I'll second that motion.

Any other comments?

May have roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye, Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas, excuse.

President Howbert, excused, the motion carries.

At this time, we will move to the last agenda item, which is public input on the portions of the meeting that is not on today's agenda, but it's within this board's jurisdiction.

Excuse me, uh Supervisor Tam.

Um, do we need to vote for item 11 separately?

No.

No, those are together.

Okay, thank you.

No speakers.

Thank you, everyone, for your time and your patience.

This meeting is adjourned.

Recording stopped.