I'm ready when you are.

Good morning.

Recording in progress.

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to call to order the board of supervisors planning meeting for Thursday, January 8th.

And I'll start by asking the clerk to please call the roll.

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor TAM.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Supervisor for Tonato Bas excused.

President Haubert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Would you all please rise if you can and join me in the pledge of allegiance?

All right.

Our first item of business is to approve the minutes of the planning meeting from December 11th, 2025.

Is there a motion to do so?

Mr.

Chair, I will move approval of the minutes of December 11th, 2025.

Thank you.

Motion's been made by Supervisor TAM, seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Is there any public comment on item one?

No, sir.

Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas excused.

President Howbert?

Aye.

That item passes.

Uh it's listed as closed session.

Next, I don't think we have anything to go into closed session about.

Is that right?

That's correct.

Thank you very much.

With that said, the next item is the consent calendar.

Item number three, approving a record of cost abatement and authorization of assessment liens.

Is there a motion to approve item three?

Mr.

Charlotte move approval of the consent calendar.

A motion's been made by Supervisor TAM, seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Is there any public comment on item three?

Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunatobas, excused, President Howbert.

Aye.

The consent calendar passes unanimously.

The next item is item four, a second reading of an amendment to zoning ordinances as listed.

Would the clerk please um read the full heading of this item?

An ordinance amending sections 17.04.010, 17.06.030, 17.30.110, 17.52.780, 17.54.225, and 17.60.100, and chapter 17.55 of County of Alameda Zoning Ordinance to comply with state legislation regulating accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

Is there a motion to approve this item?

Mr.

Chair, I will wait.

I move to waive the full second reading and adopt the ordinance and the amendments to the zoning ordinance pertaining to tercerity drilling units and junior accessory drawing units.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Tam and seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Is there any public comment on this item?

See, none I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas.

Excuse President Haubert.

Aye.

I note that the next two items are similar in nature.

We have item five and item six reconsidering reconsideration of appeals.

Can I just ask County Council?

Would you or staff?

Should we take these in this order sequentially, including public comment and staff reports separately, or can we combine these in some way?

First, I'd like to note that we have received a continuance of this.

Okay, a continuance.

What does that mean?

It was a continuance request by the uh appellants.

I see.

Okay.

Then if that case, and that pertains to both items.

Yes.

And we can discuss that as uh both items together.

Well, first, uh yes, you can discuss the continuance of both items together, but making sure you have that discussion and you have that vote before moving on to the substance of the items.

Very good.

Before moving on to the substance of this, and we'll take public comment during our discussions, I guess, but we'll deliberate otherwise first.

Is that right?

Yes.

President Harbor, both items were originally heard together.

This is Andrea Weddle, chief assistant county counsel.

I apologize, I'm remote today.

Um and should be um uh for continuity of the record should be considered together again on reconsideration.

But the first item of business before you commence the reopening of the hearings should be in fact to address the the requests for uh continuance.

Um, if they are continued, then you would not proceed with opening the hearing, thinking testimony, things of that nature.

If not, you would do so.

But yes, you may and and probably should hear them together.

Very good.

Thank you very much for that explanation.

I'll turn to my colleague supervisor Miley for discussion.

Yes, I think uh the request for the continuance came from uh one of the parties.

Um now uh are we obligated to uh adhere to that request?

No, you're not obligated to adhere it, you should consider it before proceeding.

And if we do proceed um despite uh the request for the continuance, will that um prejudice any decision we make?

Well, it it could result in a later challenge um potentially.

We don't know if that would happen um if they're not able to participate in today's meeting, but we we can't um we can't predict that.

Okay, um, it's part of something you could consider as to whether or not to continue today's um items on this.

Miley, if I might add, the issue is one of of due process, yes.

Um, and and the question is whether or not the the reasons for the request to continuance uh are such that the there should be any issue related to the parties having a full opportunity to be heard and represented by counsel and otherwise.

So it is one of uh an issue of due process that could be raised on an appeal should there be one, um whether or not it would be a successful challenge or not would depend upon the merits of of that uh asserting claim.

So thank you.

Uh County Council.

So what specifically uh was the uh rationale for the continuance?

I you know, I haven't seen, I mean I've heard, but I haven't seen anything in writing.

The appellant had noted that they're unable to attend, and their attorneys uh had a conflict as well as their geotechnical engineers, so that they wouldn't be able to attend today.

And there uh there were no uh did the staff inquire whether or not uh the attorneys and the technical people, because they're all professionals and all are part of firms, uh, could have um other colleagues uh attend in their place to represent them at this at this meeting.

We did uh request that they have other representatives in place of the ones that could not attend and uh they did not have that.

And they did not have that, okay.

All right.

Now I do know uh for a fact um there were a pattern of this when this went to the BZA, I believe.

Can you talk to us about the BZA and the fact that there were continuances requested in delays at the BCA on this matter?

Uh yes, there were uh requests for continuances by the appellants even regarding the uh BCA meetings, and for the same reasons uh they were indicating that their attorney was not available to represent them.

Okay.

If we if we do continue this, but that's the will of the board, because I'm anxious to get this matter uh resolved, and that's why I asked the board to reconsider it in light of some new information and evidence that came forward.

Can we continue it to a date certain and inform the party and their attorney?

You know, and they inform the attorneys and the geotechnical engineers and yada yada yada, that this is the date, the time, the place, and that's it.

And with that adhere to due process, counsel.

Yeah, supervisor, you you and certainly may select a date certain and should select a date certain for uh the continuance of the hearing.

It could be a special meeting, it could be your next or subsequent regular meetings.

Um, and you are absolutely entitled to inform all the parties that no subsequent continuances would be granted, um, you know, a certainly absolute absent uh catastrophe or an emergency uh that could not be overcome, but that is well within your discretion.

Okay, I don't know what the board's gonna do because I haven't broken the brown act and talk to anybody about this, but the point is um we can continue this, it doesn't have to be continued to a uh planning meeting date that we could hold those continuance on a Saturday or Sunday.

No, I'm not suggesting that, but it doesn't have to be our next planning meeting date, which is in February or March.

It could be a regular board meeting, it could be a Wednesday afternoon, it could be whatever works that we give them sufficient notification, and then it would once again be uh a hearing to new de novo.

New evidence could be raised and etc.

etc.

Yes, that's correct, it would be a de novo hearing.

Yeah, reasonable notice of whenever you continue the hearing too.

Well, I'll note that our next planning meeting is scheduled for um February 5th, but I'll be asking to modify that date.

I'm not available.

Um we I'll ask uh for public uh for comments from my colleagues, Supervisor Marquez.

Yes, thank you for the questions and clarity around this um request.

Uh are we legally required to uh set a specific timeline if we honor continuance 30 days, 60 days?

Are there any parameters around that?

No, uh reasonable notice is all that is required as long as you give the parties sufficient notice of the new date, which uh would occur basically while we're sitting here in a public meeting that they are aware of and uh either listening or not listening to or observing.

Um there's no mandate that, for example, some meetings require 10 days notice and things of that nature, as long as you determine if you wanted to hear it on Friday, not tomorrow, probably, but next week or whenever uh there are no particular time frames about timelines or hearing periods, but we can if we agree to a continuance, we can specifically call out that this is the last continuance.

You may do so, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um by way of curiosity, do we have our calendars available and can we check for the afternoon of Wednesday the 21st of uh January?

So that's because I in the afternoon, because I fortunately it doesn't work for me.

I have a uh two o'clock and a four o'clock that are both gonna run long, so I doubt this will be a one-hour meeting.

It doesn't work for me either.

I have you and I are in a number of budget meetings.

Would it work after one of our regular board meetings on the 27th, for example, in the late afternoon?

We were to get the regular board meeting of the 27th, would it work in the afternoon?

That works for me.

We're already here on that day.

The 27th of January, 27th, a couple of weeks from now, it's a regular board meeting, and we would have to make it as a set time.

Um I would say three o'clock would be good.

Uh so let's schedule a if we decide to do this.

It looks like we could be.

Would it be a pay uh um appropriate or a possible county council to continue this item until a special meeting to be noticed at 3 p.m.

on Tuesday, January 27th?

Yes, that be yes?

That is appropriate.

Okay, so um, I mean, let's discuss this.

Uh this item's been continued.

Yeah, I think we should we're allowed to take public comment on our discussion.

Let's do that.

And and so for now, we'll take public comment on items five and six, simply the request to continue both items, and um we'll call for public comment in person first, and um line second.

Chuck Meadows.

Yeah, if that's for the hearing, which may not happen, then that's okay.

If you want to make public comment on whether or not to continue this item, you can do that.

I am okay.

2026.

Uh we strenuously oppose another continuance.

This has been going on since 2019.

The request, the basis for today's request that held it in water was that there was a court conflict occurring this morning that involved both Mr.

Meadows and Ms.

Bichet and Mr.

Messenger.

That court case has been continued to January 29th.

That conflict no longer exists.

Saying, gee, we can't come without further proof.

Is part and parcel of the continued delaying tactics that we have seen.

Um the BZA, the last time the attorney asked for another continuance said, tell us under penalty of perjury why you cannot come.

And that was found to be reasonable considering the many, many continuances.

They haven't given you that this.

Maybe not in the room, and so this just provides another time, another delay.

I am a pragmatist, I'm hearing the conversation.

I'm not sure that we have the votes, but I want our rec us to be on record of opposing this.

We have been very reasonable for each and every request for continuance going along.

Enough and thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Chuck Meadows.

Like my attorney stated, I strenuously object to the granting of any continuance.

This has been a pattern that we have been seeing for the last six years, including the BZA meetings, where they requested multiple continuances, and I want to point out they did not even show to the last BCA hearing.

So this is a pattern.

If it was a one-time event and they came to everyone, said, hey, there's been an emergency, our experts can't be here.

That would be a different case.

But as Rena's mentioned, this has been time after time after time after time after time.

I incurred all the expenses to bring my experts, my witnesses were getting fatigued having to show up to these hearings simply to have them continued yet again.

I see no reason why they can't proceed.

Um they made the decision they were fully noticed with more than adequate time to be here.

And again, I just want to stress that this has been a pattern with them, not just in these hearings, but I have the same problem in dealing with them in court.

One continuance after another after another.

Let's just get this done.

We've got everyone here today.

We can finish this thing up.

Thank you.

Hi, Matt Turner here.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

This is has been dragged out uh interminably.

Um I strongly feel that if this was a city issue, this would have been resolved long ago.

Um the idea that this thing has been allowed to just float on and and have everyone twist in the wind over this for as long as it has is quite outrageous.

It's a strong argument for incorporation.

I'll just say that.

We really should not allow people to manipulate this board in the way that it has been manipulated over an issue that is pretty black and white.

What has happened is quite clear from those of us who who visited this site, even just walking up the Ward Creek Trail.

The idea that this has been allowed to drag out and and uh you know this is a unique case and that we have somebody who has uh a substantial amount of money to to throw at this thing uh and to endure the long timetable that we've we've all been under here.

Um most other situations uh you just people would give up.

Uh and and that shouldn't be the case.

Government should not uh be in the business of forcing people to give up in search of of basic justice and decency.

Uh so please do not let this thing be continued yet again.

Thank you.

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

Hi.

Um I hear what's going on, and it's it's it's bothersome.

I mean I understand that people want to move on.

I, but you also have to understand that there are people in this world who have careers, firms that have high caseloads and are in trial.

You know, each time these things come up, you know, it it's hard to get that time off of work.

It's hard for people to get in there and take that time off.

And that's why the request for continuances happen, is because people do have other lives outside of this, and I hear you.

Uh, you know, this is important, but we also have additional evidence, and because of the recent storms, that evidence wasn't able to be recorded and produced until just yesterday, and it hasn't been assembled.

And I want my attorney there to present it because as you know, an LLC needs to be represented, and my attorney should have that ability.

Plus, we have lots of actual local people in this neighborhood that would like the opportunity to speak.

Um, there have been a lot of neighborhood issues here, and I think those people should have that opportunity to speak.

In fact, I I had one person just uh call me a little while ago to um to call me for that their affidavit.

We have several people here on second street, lots of people on Ubiscourt.

So everyone should have this opportunity to be heard.

So I implore the supervisors, please allow this continuance so that everyone can be heard.

Thank you.

No more speakers.

I do have a question of um both the applicant and um the uh appellant.

Yeah, the appellant.

So you mentioned the court date this morning was continued, so the courts are also continuing um items because of lack of uh schedule or schedule conflicts.

The uh scheduled court hearing with uh downstairs um was rescheduled to January 29th.

Because of what?

Because there was a request for continuance on that matter, and the first one in that entire case, because of this matter, and we felt that it should go forward.

I see.

That was continued because of this matter, correct.

Then with regard to thank you.

With regard to the um, I think her name is Michelle.

Michelle, if we continue this item, if we continue this item to a date certain, um, I mean, are you going to be able to resolve any and all conflicts so that you can be ready for that date?

Because if we do, I'm sensing the dialogue that that will be the time we hear it ready or not, it's going to happen.

And I'm sensitive to the comments you made that people's schedules are tight and it's hard to get off work, and that will happen no matter what day we have to pick a date.

So can you comment on if we were to if we were to continue this?

I'm not saying we will.

Will you then be able to abide by it?

If we could put it well, I did thank you.

I did request um the planning meeting in March because I do have a commitment of availability for that meeting.

Whether the any of these other dates that you're suggesting are are available.

I cannot speak to my attorney is currently in trial.

I can't contact him.

Um, and I do know that two of the other neighbors who would like to speak have already said that yes, they can be there in March, and that was why we specifically requested March is because we know it is available for us, it is available for the additional witnesses.

It is available for my attorney.

And I know it seems like a long ways away, but considering this happened supposedly all the way back in 2019, you know, which is seven years ago now, it doesn't seem unreasonable to wait until everybody can be available so we can put this to rest.

Okay, thank you.

We'll bring it back for discussion and um I'll ask Supervisor Miley to weigh in.

Uh yes, um, President Howard.

Um we uh could we recess for a moment so the board could talk to county council uh uh about some legal concerns uh closed session?

Is that okay?

I'll ask another question.

That if we can.

This would not be closed session.

If you want to take a break, you're welcome to.

But I want to have the be able to have the board talk with county council.

Sure.

Okay, yes.

We're gonna have a recess uh briefly at this moment.

Recording in progress, okay, everyone.

We're going to um reconvene into open session.

I note that we have had um deliberation and discussion about roll call, roll call.

That's a good point.

Thank you for reminding me.

Would the clerk please call the role to reestablish our quorum?

Supervisor Marcus, present, supervisor Tam present.

Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunatobas, excused President Howbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Okay, well, um, we'll resume our discussion now, which is whether or not to excuse me, President Howard.

Yeah, point of order.

Uh, do we want to have county council just a report on that?

We did not go into closed session and yada yada.

That's correct.

There was no closed session.

Very good.

Um, thank you for making sure that we mentioned that.

Uh I I will say that we the item before us is to decide whether to grant a continuance um of this.

Um we had discussion about alternatives.

We had public comment from the um both parties, and um I would like to bring that matter now before us to discuss.

Um, I note that one I uh option is to go with a date certain, um, sometime uh very soon, for example, perhaps January 27th, when we already have a regularly scheduled meeting.

I note that those meetings often go long, and so um you know we may have to stop a meeting, have this meeting, go back to our meeting, and it makes for um uh a complicated day.

Um I I also note that um we had public comment that um clarified uh and brought to light um the idea that the March 5th date was um something that uh could be accommodated um by uh by the one of the parties and um as I reflect on this, it just makes uh sense to me that uh a date certain uh on the March 5th planning meeting.

Um it has stands the best chance for all parties to have enough time to uh be available.

I know that's not ideal given the amount of delay that has uh happened.

Uh however, um, just out of due process and uh how long this has already gone on, it feels like another couple of weeks.

Um, it's just the safest thing for us to do for for everyone.

Um that's what I would like to uh just throw out there and advocate for.

Um, we'll bring it back to us to disguise discuss, and I'll recognize Supervisor Miley first, but that's what I would like to do.

Thank you, President Howard.

Um, first of all, I just want to clarify with um staff.

Is the March planning meeting the fifth or the twelfth?

Uh the March planning meeting is the fifth.

I will note that um the appellant had asked for March 12th, and March 12th is not the board planning date.

Okay, so I thought I heard March 5th.

March 5th is the planning date.

So March 5th is our planning meeting.

She's requested March 12th.

Correct.

Because that would be the normal schedule, the second uh Thursday of the month, but in this case, uh for this 2026, it's it's on the fifth.

So, you know, I hear what uh President Halbert is saying.

Well, I can't be there on the 12th.

You can't be there on 12th.

No, but there are, I mean, that I'm in, I'm in LA for the stack.

That's February.

I believe you're talking about February 12th.

You're no March.

Is the plan is the planning meeting?

Okay, the planning meeting is currently scheduled for March 5th.

And the um party is asking for a date that isn't even a board planning meeting.

Correct.

March 12th.

I thought it was the 5th.

So we're all here for the um Mr.

Chair.

Can we ask uh the appellate if the March 5th scheduled planning meeting uh can be accommodated?

Is she still on the line?

Okay, go for it.

I'm inclined to say wet ready or not, it's the fifth, and if you can't, we're gonna do it anyway.

But that's I respect that supervisor.

Thank you for entertaining this.

Um yes, um, when I spoke to staff, they notified me that it was the fifth, and that was after I had already submitted that letter, so yes.

You can move to the fifth, yes, sir.

Okay, very good.

With that clarif clarity, and I appreciate the accommodation on all of our sides.

Uh apologies um to the other party.

It's a little further delay, but it's um a matter of um, I think due process that we want to make sure that we're um as fair as we can be.

Um I'm seeing head nods that the 5th of March can work.

I would like to do we need to take a motion to do this.

I'll move that we continue this item to the date certain of March 5th.

I'll second the motion and support it out of an abundance of caution.

That's the right terminology, Supervisor Miley.

I think that's exactly right.

Abundance of caution.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Um, we'll have a roll call vote.

Supervisor Marquez.

Hi.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye, Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunatabas, excused, President Halbert.

Aye.

And to be very clear, that was on both items five and six.

Okay.

Very good.

With that, um, our next item and last item before we adjourn is public input.

This is a matter for members of the public to weigh in on items that are not on today's agenda but within the purview of this body.

We'll take public input from in-person speakers first, and then online.

If you're in person, please fill out a speaker slip.

And if you're online, raise your hand for public input.

We have speakers.

Kelly Abrew.

Thank you.

So I know that this board is very concerned about propriety and doing things the uh proper way.

Um so when you're taking these public inputs, um there's also a way to do it to uh favor your uh your uh friends and your political supporters.

You can take a public input that was at the back end of the meeting, the very end, and uh maybe uh only your friends know that you're planning to move it to the very front of the meeting, and then um, you know, just uh declare it at the very last second, you know, the moment the meeting opens after the Pledge of Allegiance or after the roll call, just say we're gonna take public comments right now, and then give them all the time that they need for as many of them as there are to uh speak for as many minutes as is uh as there as you have and let them uh express their viewpoints on public uh comment.

That's one way to do it.

There's another way, let's say you have you you've exploded your your neighborhood, your constituents have exploded, their houses exploded, they're lined up to complain.

Um, and you would show up, of course, if there were uh uh a fire department was there to talk about uh fire department issues.

But um, let's say that you were in New York, you wouldn't uh go on the teleconference to appear if it was just these people who would just have their house blow up.

You would just uh you know remain the screen would remain blank, right?

And um, then you would reschedule those people for their public input, would get rescheduled to right before a set matter so that you could squeeze them down to one minute per speaker because that set matter is coming up in 27 minutes, right?

That's another way to do it.

You can just get rid of your enemies that way by uh squeezing them down to no time.

Another one is to go committee shopping.

If you have the fire department that wants a uh a uh a bond advisory committee, you can go to the committee of your choosing, the planning committee commission, the transportation planning commission, any committee that has nothing to do with the issue, and ask them to vote yes on.

Thank you.

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

Griffin B.

Miller, you have two minutes.

Hello.

Hi, my name's Griffin, and I live in unincorporated Alameda County.

I want to speak about housing access, agricultural land, and the unintended impacts of measure D.

My father was 35 years old when he bought our 100 acre agricultural park parcel back in 1978, and he was able to do so because at that time land ownership was simply more attainable.

Today, at the same age, I'm not sure I could afford even a five-acre parcel, and that's not a personal issue, but a policy created barrier.

When the minimum parcel sizes are enormous, rural housing becomes limited to highly affluent.

Agricultural lands turn into luxury assets instead of a place where people can live, work, and contribute.

Extremely large minimum parcel sizes shut out working families and young farmers and local residents.

Wine country is dying under measure D, not because people don't want to farm, but because the rules make it nearly impossible for the next generation to live on and steward the land.

I want to be clear that measure D was passed by a vote of the people, and that matters.

But that vote happened 23 years ago, and many of today's public, including myself, were not old enough to vote at that time.

The housing, economic, and agricultural realities that we face today are very different than they were in 2002.

And asking voters to revisit this issue through a 2026 ballot measure is not undoing democracy.

It is democracy.

I respectfully ask the board to advance a 2026 ballot measure to modernize Measure D by introducing minimum agricultural parcel sizes while keeping land in agricultural use.

This would expand housing opportunity, support new farmers, and keep wine country alive.

If we want agriculture to strive here, the next generation needs a real path to live on the land.

Thank you for your leadership.

Gerald, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Hi there.

I'm Griffin's dad, Jerry D.

Miller.

Just I want to comment on Measure D as well.

Studies have shown that the wine industry and agriculture in general are both in trouble in Alameda County.

And in my view, Measure D is a big part of the problem.

The board is not allowed to make small needed changes that actually enhance agriculture without an expensive and cumbersome ballot initiative.

Like the FARCH that took almost four years to implement.

The county needs to adopt the process that allows these kinds of agricultural enhancements to be implemented in a timely, cost-effective manner.

The board should create a ballot measure that allows for enhancements to be made without having to create a ballot measure for every enhancement.

Wine country and ag in general are in trouble and need your help.

Measure D has failed its stated purpose to enhance agriculture.

Please work on amending Measure D to allow for agricultural enhancements to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Thank you.

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

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on a non-agendaized item.

I'm speaking on uh Measure D as well.

Measure D, what which was touted as saving agriculture and protecting open space, is not fulfilling its its headline.

The restrictions are so rigid that they prevent ag in Alameda County from evolving and adapting and remaining economically viable.

Existing generational farmers are unable to effectively live, work, and grow on their operations, while new first-generation farmers are increasingly who increasingly rely on small parcels, niche crops, and farm to table models are effectively excluded.

Current agricultural enterprises in East County are struggling under Measure D because they cannot diversify or adapt.

Restrictions on ancillary uses, such as on-farm processing, agritourism, and event-based income severely limit farm viability.

Measure D's limitations on building intensity and ancillary development undermine the very agricultural fabric it was meant to protect.

Without change, land will continue to be pushed out of agriculture toward alternative uses such as solar fields or cemeteries.

East County residents are already seeing this shift.

Economic pressures force landowners to choose the next viable option, and that option is often no longer agriculture.

The struggling wine industry with aging vines and limited replanting illustrates how quickly productive farmland can become fallow and vulnerable to conversion.

In conclusion, Measure D's overly restrictive framework is counterproductive to its original intent.

Amending or repealing it to allow smaller parcels and reasonably reasonable ancillary uses would attract new farmers, support existing operations, and ensure resilient agricultural economy that truly preserves open space through active profitable farming.

I respectfully urge the board to prioritize this issue and initiate the necessary changes.

Thank you.

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

Yes, hi.

My name is David Nagerian.

I'm a resident of Alameda County.

I am the current president of the Alameda County Farm Bureau.

And I am vice president of Paramount Export Company here in Oakland, as well as a local farmer.

I'd like to voice my concern on Measure D and its crippling effect on the needed evolution of ag in Alameda County.

As a quick background, our family owns and operates Chetwin Farm, a 10-acre organic farm in the Hayward Hills.

We grow a variety of fruits and vegetables to sell to our local farmers' markets and to restaurants.

I also have a 30-year career in ag on a global scale working at Paramount Export.

Through this, I regularly visit and work with growers not only throughout California and other states, but many other countries.

So this has given me a special perspective on how unique Alameda County is because of our climate.

I have the confidence to say that Alameda County has one of the best growing climates in the world.

And Alameda County has a population that values locally grown produce and meat.

Because of this, there's a need for small diverse growers in our county, growers who are passionate about the environment, healthy soils and biodiversity, as well as young farmers and ranchers who want to have land to start their own farm and raise quality products for a county that's hungry for them.

But there is no availability of small plots of land to farm.

Because of Measure D, the existing large parcel ag properties cannot be converted into smaller, more affordable ag parcels.

To keep ag thriving in Alameda County, we need land for this next generation of farmers.

And Measure D is making it impossible for them to be a part of this important aspect of our county.

We need affordable small parcels of land to farm.

I respectfully request that the board of supervisors prioritize and initiate a process for change in measure D.

Let's make Alameda County a role model to other counties by showing how agriculture is valued and is valuable in our county.

Thank you.

Janessa Hoffman, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

I have also lived in Alameda County my entire life.

I am speaking today to express my strong concerns of Measure D.

The Save Agriculture and Open Space Initiative approved by voters in 2000 has imposed restrictive land use policies that are undermining the viability of agriculture in Alameda County.

We are hindering the growth and killing agriculture in our county or what's left of it, should I say.

The restrictions of Measure D are so restrictive that it is crippling agriculture in Alameda County from evolving and growing.

Measure D keeps generational ag participants from being able to effectively live and farm on existing operations, which reduce viability and creating outside sales.

There is hope that the young farmers and first generation of farmers that have the desire to farm, but they have barriers created by Measure D.

We need to have agritourism.

It diversifies farm income, it revitalizes rural economies, but most importantly, it educates the public about agriculture and preserves agricultural heritage.

Measure D came to life 25 years ago, and we have seen agriculture decline in every year since.

I spend my workday fighting to keep agriculture alive and what little we have left in Alameda County.

We need to amend this measure to help create viabilities for the current farmers and ranchers and help new ones come to life.

Thank you for your time.

Matt Turner, you're on the line.

You have two minutes.

Hey, Matt Turner, unincorporated resident and uh 40 year uh 40 years of ranching in my background.

Um I've seen small parcel ag uh turn into uh essentially wealthy ranchettes uh all across Sacramento and San Joaquin and Amador counties.

Um and I so while I do see that there are places to reform Measure D, possibly through a measure, going down to five-acre parcel sizes would just turn into luxury estates.

Um, you know, then it's very hard to to tell somebody once they've bought their property, um, that you know, this zone for ag that uh if they decide to stop farming, that they're gonna have to sell their property.

It doesn't work like that.

You can just build out your your house and have a nice pastoral area with, you know, some gentleman farmer type activity that isn't real ag.

And uh I've seen that play out all across Northern California.

Um, I think that's that's quite dangerous.

Um, but you know, like the floor area ratio issue and other things like that definitely need looking at uh, you know, to be able to to house ag equipment, to uh to have an you know event spaces, um, and do other things that you know that uh that would uh open up new avenues for uh for current practices, would be really useful.

And uh, no, we can't do that under technical amendments as Measure D stands.

So very sympathetic to the previous speakers about uh those issues, but um having five acre parcel sizes as a way to uh make affordability is also a way to to actually just destroy ag entirely and I've seen it play out.

Thanks.

No more speakers.

Okay, I'd like to thank uh those uh speakers that did speak, and seeing that the uh items before our board uh have been exhausted, we will now um adjourn our meeting.

We're adjourned.

Recording stopped.