Okay, good evening everyone.

I've called the unincorporated services meeting to order for the board of supervisors.

Clerk want to take the role.

Supervisor Chand.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Okay, if we could have this instructions for Spanish translation.

Yes.

Brittany will give the instructions for Spanish interpretation.

Yes, I will.

Hi everyone.

Good evening.

My name is Brittany.

I'm one of your Spanish interpreters.

Along with my colleague, Miss Noemi, we will be providing Spanish interpretation services.

And we do encourage everyone to please choose the channel in case anyone that's monolingual decides to participate, you will be able to hear the interpretation in real time.

Seleccionalo y por favor busque language interpretation.

Busque Spanish or Espanyol.

I am done with the instructions.

Thank you very much, and back to you.

So we have any other instructions this evening.

For remote participation, you can follow the teleconferencing guidelines posted at www.acgov.org and use the raise your hand function to speak.

All right, thank you.

So it's been requested that we move item three to the beginning.

So we'll take that information item first, proposed fireworks ordinance update.

Thank you for uh having me again tonight.

Uh my name's Curtis Imperial.

I'm a sergeant with our Alameda County Sheriff's Office property crimes unit uh at the Eden Township substation, and I'm here to give uh the committee an update on uh the ordinance draft that I presented to you on March 25th, uh specifically uh with some modifications to the appeals process, uh which would include uh using a neutral hearing officer uh rather than the board of zoning adjustments.

Uh that was presented in in the previous draft.

This came about when County Council was doing some research in regards to one of your questions if the BCA could use uh testimony under oath uh during the appeals process, and while they were reviewing Title 17 of the Alameda County Municipal Code, uh determined that uh the BZA actually lacked the jurisdiction and authority to act as the appeals uh body for our proposed fireworks ordinance.

Um they further determine that the BCA only has jurisdiction over land use issues.

So for example, where the county issues conditional use of uh permits.

So therefore the BCA uh will not be utilized in this ordinance uh for the appeals process.

So as a result of not using the BZA, uh the appeals process again will uh now utilize a neutral hearing officer, uh, which will be contracted or appointed by the county of Alameda.

Um, but the same appeal timelines previously presented will apply.

Since we're using a neutral hearing officer, uh a neutral hearing officer was added to the definitions to the draft ordinance, uh, in which it states pursuant to the authority granted to the board of supervisors by government code section 25845 subvision I, the Alameda County Administrator's Office may contract for the services of a neutral hearing officer as appropriate, who may be compensated for their services.

The uh steps in appealing, uh, we change those up a little bit.

Um so any person aggrieved by an administrative decision by a hearing officer may obtain review of the administrative decision by filing a petition for review with the Alameda County Superior Court in accordance with the timelines and provisions as set forth in California Government Code section 530 69.4.

Um a person may appeal the decision of a neutral hearing officer in writing within 20 calendar days after service of the final decision issued by the neutral hearing officer pursuant uh to California government code section.

Uh it's the same one, 530 69.4, but subdivision B of uh with the Alameda County Superior Court.

So basically it's the same process, however, uh instead of uh appealing the BZA's uh decision, they'll be appealing a neutral hearing officer's decision, and they would skip the process, the prior process we had of appealing uh with the clerk of the board of supervisors.

So they would skip that uh portion and just uh file an appeal directly with the Alameda County Superior Court.

County council also determined uh due to some statutory limitations of uh administrative fines, the maximum amount of a third or subsequent violation uh of the ordinance shall result in a $2,000 fine rather than a $2,500 fine.

Um and as far as uh how many times somebody could be cited uh within a certain period, uh I think previously we stated there would be no grace period.

County council determined that there has to be a grace period.

So no person can be cited for a violation of this chapter more than once in a 24-hour period.

So the next steps uh ACSO uh is taking a board letter from ACSO addressing the intent to adopt this ordinance uh along with the responses uh to your committees to to your questions from the previous meeting uh and modifications uh of the original draft ordinance has been sent to the board of supervisors to be placed on their agenda for May 12th, 2026.

ACSO is again requesting the support of the unincorporated services committee to consider uh this proposed ordinance with the modifications I discussed, provide direction and advance the ordinance to the full board for adoption.

Uh this pushes back uh our previous timeline.

So uh we will uh request ACSO will request CA the CAO's office for special consideration for the ordinance to be placed on the Board of Supervisors May agenda with the first uh target reading to be again May 12th 2026 and the second reading to be on June 2nd, 2026, and we hope that the fireworks and social host ordinance to be in effect by July 2nd of 2026, just before 4th of July.

And that concludes my uh my update that I have for you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Jamie have any questions or comments?

Um, thank you.

I just have a couple of questions.

Um this came to the unincorporated services committee after having gone through some of the other bodies as well.

And do we need to take it back to those bodies in light of some of these changes?

And the second question is this is still considered a civil violation, right?

Uh, under the Alameda County administrative code, it's not a criminal violation, and the appeals just goes after the hearing officer if that if the appeal is denied, then a secondary appeal just goes directly to the superior court.

That's correct.

It it is a just a civil administrative citation.

And uh yes, uh if an appellant is unhappy with the neutral hearing officer's decision, they would uh appeal directly to the superior court of Alameda County.

And I'm and and as far as uh your first question uh from what my understanding is uh we we do not have to take it back to the other uh Max for presentation since we uh are putting it out for the public now.

That that is my understanding.

That's correct.

Unless Chris Miley here would like to speak on that.

Sure.

Uh Chris Miley, uh chief uh policy and strategic officer, uh sheriff's office.

Um so the changes that are being proposed don't um affect the uh overall intent of the ordinance, uh and due to the timing uh with the desire to have this in place for this fourth of July, going back out to the max would not uh would not allow for that uh to take effect by July 4th.

Okay.

Uh I I obviously want to see this uh adopted before the July 4th holiday.

Uh and uh I I know the question came up actually from Supervisor Miley questioning whether or not you know you can take you can basically swear under penalty of perjury before the BCA because they don't do that before the planning commission or even the board of supervisors can lie to us all the time, right?

Um so uh when the hearing officer hears this, do they require that the person uh take an oath?

I'll defer that to county council if if you have that answer.

I I'm not quite sure.

Why I said um to answer your question, I don't know that I'll have to get back to you.

Um, but um my understanding is that um it might be up to the the hearing officer, but but let me get back to you on that.

Did do they even need to take an oath in this kind of a hearing?

I'm not sure, but I think it would be helpful because if someone wants to appeal to the superior court, I think the court would want uh testimony under oath because that's like considered actual evidence.

But let me get back to you on that particular question.

Okay.

Thank you.

So the uh appeal process, somebody gets cited, they can appeal to a hearing officer and then to the superior court.

Yes, that's correct, sir.

Is there a cost for the appeal to the hearing officer?

No, not I mean, not in the R ordinance, they there would not be any cost.

No cost whatsoever.

No, but as far as to the superior court, I would say that would be up to them.

Yeah, that's a cost to go to the superior court.

Okay.

All right.

I I do think the ordinance says that um if the uh appealing party loses at the hearing officer level, uh then the cost of that can be applied to the the person who lost the appeal.

I see.

So if I appeal to the hearing officer and I lose, then I could be subject to a charge.

Okay.

And then you said uh no one can be cited more than 24 hours.

Yes, they they could only be cited once within a 24-hour period uh up until you know if you know, so 24 hours hours passes, they blow off more fireworks or they allow people to blow off fireworks, uh, then they they're good for the second citation.

Uh another 24 hour passes, they're good for the third one, another four uh 48 hours, another 24 hours passes.

They're good for a fourth, but it only goes up to 2,000, not 2500.

So, what happens if they violate the ordinance within 24 hours?

Yeah, and they violate it two hours later.

Is that they get a pass?

By law, we can't, yes.

We we we can't just cite.

I mean, we could we could talk to again, but we could continue to to give their uh guests criminal citations uh if we do see them in the act of shooting off fireworks.

So yes, the guests will will definitely deal with the criminal consequences of that every time we have to come out, and hopefully we will be able to catch them in the act, yes.

Okay.

And I would think if somebody violates the ordinance within a 24 hour period.

Um if it goes up on appeal to the hearing officer, I think that could be used against them.

I would think, I would hope.

Yeah.

Yes, yeah, I I think that would definitely um go against them to, you know, if it shows that that we've been out there several times.

Yeah.

Um, but if anything, deputies could always take informational reports as well, uh, and those informational reports, or they could write supplemental reports to uh like the the first violation and document uh that that we came out repeated times within a 24 hour period.

So that information could be documented in the primary report as well.

Okay, because I'm willing to you know, I want to see the ordinance advance, because it's better to have something on the books than nothing at all.

Uh but when the ordinance is implemented, if we find out that folks are taking advantage of that, and we're and we really don't have a way of um addressing it and holding folks accountable, then I'm sure we'll come back and amend the ordinance to try to deal with that situation if it becomes something that's you know very egregious.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So let's see.

Do we have any any speakers on the item?

I have no speakers.

Oh, I'm sorry, I do have one speaker.

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

We're on item three.

Yeah.

Uh I just um this is Diane from San Lorenzo, and I just want to echo what um Supervisor Miley said.

It did come to the Mac before, and just as a MAC member and as a citizen, we really were hoping that we could get something implemented before July.

So I understand and heard your some of your legal concerns, but if we can have something in in play before July, I think that would be best.

Thank you.

Michael, you're on the line.

We're on item three.

Yeah, I'd like to echo Diane's statement.

And as a former uh municipal advisory council member, I really appreciate the idea of getting moving something forward in terms of an ordinance to uh help the people stay stay safe, especially during that time of uh insanity.

But uh my main thought was in terms of the violation of this ordinance and putting some teeth into it.

Is it a violation against the venue at which this explosion takes place, or is it the individual?

Because you could cite individuals every 24 every two hours if you wanted to, because it's a different case.

And I'm just wondering if that could be you know, sort of acknowledged that it's possible that you could actually go beyond that 24 hour window.

So people could be blowing stuff up right and left for 24 hours, 23 hours, and then they would stop.

And so there'd only be one violation if it was just against the venue or the party or whatever.

But if you'd itemized and identified individuals, then you could cite individual by individual, and that would move that 24 out of the window uh a lot further along.

Anyway, just some thoughts on the subject and appreciate your time, and hopefully we can get it advanced to the point of having the ordinance in place by the well, by the third, let's say of July.

Thank you.

Francis, we're on item three.

Thank you.

Uh Fran Krug from Fairview.

I just want to once again sound my support for this ordinance.

I appreciate the clarification that since the changes presented tonight, uh, do not change the intent of the ordinance in terms of the appeals process, it still provides for an appeal process that we don't need to go back to all the MECs and take another month or two before that process was completed.

So I'm grateful to hear that news, and I look forward to the May board meetings.

Thank you.

I have no additional speakers for item three.

Oh, um, yeah, no more speakers.

Okay.

All right.

Um so one of the speakers raised a question.

Do we want to get a response to that?

Yes, it will we'll we'll definitely look in to the timeline for sure.

Um, with in regards to the uh speakers question.

Because he, I think it was in yeah, within that 24 hour period, is the citation against the site, the venue, or is it against the person?

It's it's against the responsible party hosting the um the event.

The event.

Yes.

So probably so if I'm hosting the event at my house, then it's against me.

If I leave my house and somebody else comes there, it's still gonna be against me, or is it gonna be against if you're the person, say uh in charge of that property, and yeah, you leave and you allow this other person to uh you know take care of your property, and they decide to uh they you know, let other people uh shoot off fireworks.

Um it would still and we'll we'll get clarification from this for this, but from what I presented with from that is is that it would still be that responsible party's uh responsibility, yeah.

So it's kind of yeah, wiggle room for somebody to maybe try to figure out how to violate it, but okay.

But yeah, we yeah, we will we will look into that.

Okay.

All right.

So I this is an information item, so I don't think we need to take any action, but I think we're both good moving it to the board for May 12th.

Great, right?

Thank you.

Thank you again for having me.

Okay.

Okay.

So we'll go up to item number one, which is an action item.

The former Cherry Land Fire Station.

Good evening, supervisors.

Thank you for having me tonight.

And thank you, audience, for being here.

Um for those that don't know me, my name's Eric Moore.

I'm a deputy chief, and I oversee our capital projects and our buildings and grounds.

And so tonight I'm here to talk about our former Cherryland Fire Station.

And you could see a picture of our Cherryland Fire Station.

It's located.

If we go to the next slide, please.

It's at 109 Grove Way in Hayward, an unincorporated Hayward.

So Alameda County Fire Department assumed assumed ownership of this station when ACFD was formed in 1993.

Our current fire station 23 was constructed and opened in fall of 2017 to serve the the Cherryland community.

The old fire station 23 was closed after we moved into the new fire station.

Next slide.

So starting in 2017, we worked with um the board, and on December 5th, 2017, ACFD board of directors approved the declaration of the property as a surplus property.

GSA received authorization to develop a disposal plan for the property and to negotiate the sale of of the property.

On August 9th, 20 uh 2022, the board approved a real estate brokerage agreement with Robin uh Robin Santiago DBA Capital West Partners to sell the property.

So we took this property and we went out to auction and we held an auction on October 4th of 2022, and we received no bids.

We came back with GSA and real property management is determined that the minimum bid was too high.

So ACFD and GSA worked to evaluate the minimum bid price.

We've submitted a board letter on February 28, 2023 to seek authorization to place property back on sale via the auction.

The board letter was withdrawn from by ACFD with a recommendation for this building to be evaluated by the parts recreation and historical committee underneath the community development agency.

So since that time, um we the PH PRHC or the Parts Recreation Historical Committee heard the item on April 6 of 2023.

During the meeting, their biggest concern was a historical significance of the building.

On June 1st of 2023, the PRHC voted to have this building get a historical assessment.

And since this time, there has been no historical assessment completed, quote unquote, due to the lack of funding through the historical committee.

So since August of 2020, or excuse me, since June of 2023 until today, there still has not been any action taken on the historical assessment.

Unfortunately, next slide, please.

Over in the past three years, this building has rapidly deteriorated.

The roof has substantial water leaks, and part of the ceiling is caving in.

We have had multiple break-ins, and transient individuals sleeping in cars in front of the parking lot and the driveway.

And I just want to share a few pictures with you of the current condition of station 23.

So you can see uh in this picture here, supervisors.

This is at the upstairs um living quarters, and you can see that the water damage has not only came through the roof, but it's also penetrated our our ceiling and now has displaced the whole roof um in several locations in the second floor of the fire station.

Next slide.

The picture on the left was uh the the old condition about three months ago where we had cars parked in front of this uh fire station.

Just it some were residents, some people were living in these cars.

So we worked with the sheriff's department and we got um those cars removed.

And you can see on the right, we actually put um K rails up in front of the fire station to prevent people from parking um in front of that fire station.

Next slide.

So you could see on the this slide on the left broken windows, and then if you see on the right, that far right picture, you can actually see someone breaking into our building.

Um, someone got a video of this um individual trying to break into our fire station.

Next slide.

This picture to the left there, that is from transients living in front of our fire station, leaving all their debris and material.

The picture on the right is the back parking lot that you um see with overgrown vegetation.

Next slide.

And then we um, as a fire department got all the plants and uh rubbish removed, and you can see that now at least today we have a clean lot at clean driveway at station 23.

Next slide, please.

So recent updates with the help of Alameda County Sheriffs, several of the abandoned vehicles were removed from the site.

The debris and excess vegetation has been removed and the building has been secured.

Barriers have been put in place to ensure no new vehicles are abandoned on the site.

Next slide.

And so I'm here tonight, supervisors, to work with um you to determine the next steps.

And so I'd like to request that the Board of Supervisors Committee recommend that the Alameda County Fire Department Board of Directors authorize the disposition of the property, and we'd like to work with Alameda County Real Property Management to take all necessary steps to place this property for disposition.

And with that, supervisors, I'm happy to entertain any questions or or feedback.

Okay, thanks.

Uh Chief Moore, right?

Yeah, this was brought to my attention a few months ago by the chief.

I didn't know that uh the facility was in such poor condition and that um transients had been living there and it had become an eyesore.

Um really embarrassed by uh by what has occurred because it was declared surplus in 2017, and then the historical assessment was supposed to have been done in 2023.

I'm just amazed um that that assessment wasn't done due to a lack of funding.

I don't even know if we if funding was requested uh in 2023 to do the to do the assessment.

Um at this point in time, the facility from your perspective, or I don't even if you can speak to this, has no historical significance whatsoever.

Well, I don't know if I can weigh on that totally because I mean I'm not a historian and I'm I'm uh I'm don't know, but what I can tell you today is is that the building and the what the current condition, we moved out because of seismic seismic unstability.

There's termites in the building, and you saw the recent pictures of the the current condition, and it it is not a building that is sustainable.

And I believe that the sort of the liability of that building, the way it sits today, really puts ACFD in a position that we have large exposures with someone either getting hurt or substantial damage occurring at that building.

And I know typically, even if the building can't be saved and has to be torn down, we could put a uh a marker there, a plaque, something on the street, uh, something to indicate um that this was once a site of you know Theryland Fire Station at the new station.

Are there any um artifacts or pictures or anything of the former station at the at the new station?

Absolutely, supervisor.

So if you may recall our public arts committee actually made a mosaic that goes from the outside of our building to the inside of our building, and the main center focus is this fire station.

So it actually we carried that history of this the station here into our new building, which I really think is is sort of a good sort of recognition of that old building.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I think the only thing I would like to do, because I do think we need to move ahead with um working with GSA in getting the property demolished, is I just want to uh check in with the park recreation historical commission to see if they want to recommend any type of um plaque commemoration or anything else like that, just to be um satisfy that you know that need.

But in terms of preserving the building, definitely the building, I don't think it has any value uh worth um retaining.

But that's that's kind of my reaction at the moment.

And if it is an eye sword, it's a safety hazard, this that and the other um it is a it's a blind in the community.

I just don't think that's something that we can uh condone.

Uh so I wanted to speak to this initially since it's clearly in my district, but I'll see if Supervisor Tam has any questions or comments.

Um thank you, Chair Miley.

I uh just had a question based on uh obviously a lot of this preceded my joining the board of supervisors, but um we did receive a letter uh from Dr.

Ann Mary's about the historical nature, including the fact that um the building was donated by the fire chief at the time and the volunteers built the facility.

Do you um know first off during the discussion with the uh parks, recreation, and historical commission, whether the Cherry Land Community Association express an interest in taking over the site.

So there was a uh in my prepping for this, I saw about 10 meetings where they talked about this at the historical site committee.

I don't recall the Cherry Land Community Association being a part of that.

I do know that we attend the Cherryland Community Association meetings.

Um, and there was definitely sort of like we we like this as a historic building, and I think that that's where it went from being up for sale to the historic to the to the PHRC, and then that's where it has stalled out for the last three years from there.

So the the the meet the notes that I remember seeing was is that it got voted to to move forward to it never did, and then it just sort of never had a lot of follow-up.

So I don't know if I answered your question, Supervisor.

Um I I think you did because basically the answer is no.

Yeah.

So um when um when you talked about the disposition um next steps, what do you think that would look like?

Do we because you we tried optioning off as a surplus property, and even if we adjusted the price, uh the the market right now is not great for commercial property.

Do you envision uh some sort of community use or or how would that look like?

So my initial thoughts would be was to work with supervisors, there's my lease team to see if there's some sort of path that that could be productive um and real property management, right?

So they're in the the they know the laws of what we can do with surplus property.

So I know that there's opportunities for um other organizations to work to to do that, but I I think my initial recommendation would be is that the building needs to be demolished because it's not safe.

What we do with that property moving forward would be sort of, I think, at the at the discretion of what would work best for that community um as we move forward.

So I'm really sort of open for ideas um and and how do we best fit into the community as we move forward because I do think there's a lot of um need in the community.

I just don't know the best path forward at this point.

Okay, but you said a lot of the historical nature of the building, including uh the respect around the fact that it was donated by fire chief at the time, Chief Hubbard, and also the fact that volunteers helped build that building, that is captured in uh the new um fire station.

Uh 100%.

Yeah, it's it's front and center right on our new fire station.

Okay, thank you.

So um, so Chief, do you know why it never moved forward?

I mean, it was it ever taken to the park and recreation historical commission, because it's one thing for the assessment not to be done for lack of funding.

But did the commission ever hear this matter?

It was on their agenda for at least 10 times with notes and their um when I pulled up the records, they they heard it about 10 different times um as far as like actual action.

The only one that I could point to is what I put in this presentation was that they voted to have a historical assessment completed.

But it just didn't happen.

I wish CDA was here because I need to understand what happened.

Yeah, because it's very frustrating that three years went by.

And and I and I, you know, full disclosure, it was the chief that brought this to my attention.

Chief Moore.

Um I don't understand what happened.

It's it's very disturbing.

Um I don't even know how much money we're talking about to do the assessment.

So the assessment should have been done, but I'd like to know kind of what happened.

I need to find out what happened.

Yeah.

Okay.

But my understanding from the chief is that in the meantime, the last three years, the building has deteriorated very badly and it's become unsafe for any people that might want to go in.

Yeah, and I think, supervisor, one thing that I do recognize in this building, um, in the historical site, um the there is no ADA compliant in this building at all.

I I don't know if you've ever had the opportunity to be in this building, but the stairwell itself, I mean, would not pass any ADA compliance.

So when you think about that opportunity to to maybe renovate it and and turn it up, the the amount of dollars that it would take to get this building into a space that would be um habitable would I would be really sort of astronomical in my opinion, but for consideration.

Yeah, yeah, because at the moment I'm not advocating for keeping the building and renovating it, but I I am curious as to whether or not the park and recreation historical commission would want to have some type of, you know, something to commemorate uh the site.

Uh even though we do have a lot down at the at the new fire station.

Uh that's all, but yeah, yeah.

I don't I don't see how we would because I know at one point local 55 was interested in the site for um an office, but this was quite a while ago.

I know, but I don't I don't think there's any value in the building at this point in time.

But um I think it would be good to hear from the park and recreational commission on this.

But let me the well, we have this here tonight, Supervisor Tam, because I asked the fire ummy County Fire to bring this to us.

So uh you could hear about it and the public could hear, and we could get some feedback on this.

Uh uh so we could proceed.

Because once again, um, I'm I'm embarrassed about the situation.

I'm glad Alameda County Fire along with the sheriff's department has taken care of the you know the the the vehicles that were there, um, the folks that were occupying and vandalizing the building, etc.

But I you know, I don't want this type of occurrence in my district.

Um, because we're supposed to be setting an example.

Right.

And like I said, until the chief brought it to my attention, I was not familiar that this had gotten to this um level of decay.

Yeah.

So let's um let's do we have speakers on this item.

Cindy Torres.

Well, there is no reason why this building had to go to this deterioration.

We have been walk talking about this for six years.

It was not like this.

Okay.

We brought it up at our meetings.

Why the fire the fire department was at our meetings, no conversation.

There were two employees at at the county that no longer work there that we talked to about this.

We have followed this all the way.

We've had um fire department employees come and gave us gave us a tour through there, um, saying we would love to see this as a museum.

We had lots of ideas, but we had to follow this process.

And for something to turn up on the historical commission, if you've ever followed those meetings, they're on there for decades sometimes.

Okay, they just there's just not enough support for that commission to do the work that they need to do to preserve our our significant historical buildings in our community.

We had an Adobe building, and we we got it, you know, it was supposed to be the the wall was supposed to be saved, knocked down, plaque, bumper cars.

Okay, we get plaques.

Okay, this is historically significant to our community.

This reminds me of the the White Cotton Cottage.

You know, why is it why is it until there's a determination made on these buildings that they just sit there and rot?

If GSA is supposed to be responsible for it, then maintain it.

They should not, you know, and so you just wait it out, just like waiting for someone to pass away.

Just wait until there's nothing left that you can do with it.

And I still think that there's a lot that can be done with this.

And if it's historically uh designated, my understanding is it doesn't have to be ADA.

Okay, because it's historical the way it is, and there are there's we had so many ideas that no one listened to us.

Anne Maris will speak soon, and we have she's done so much research on this, and we have so many ideas that could happen, but six years, not three years, six years for those water barriers to be put up just two months ago.

Okay, we would go by there and say, Oh, yep, this we're buying this place, clear it out, but we have no access.

We as the community is very significant and important to us.

So we need to do all we can to get a historical designation on this before anything is done.

Thank you.

So, Cindy, before you sit down, so you said this has come up a few times at the Cherry Land meeting.

Um the um the staff were the staff from fire or from community developed development.

Well, we have we have the you know the the same our first responders there to hear this.

So we've talked to people, um, we've never been able to have a formal conversation with anybody about it.

I see that's the thing, that's the process that we're in that we lose every time.

I'm I'm going at risk here.

Did you bring this to my attention?

I believe we have in the past, and you you helped us in the beginning of this.

Yes, you did.

Okay.

What did you do?

That's what we're doing.

And I think I'm so trying to what did I do?

Well, that took it off of the sale.

Yeah, you did.

Yes, you pulled it right.

Yeah, that's right.

I pulled it from the it's but then it sat for three years.

Right.

But nobody brought came back to me to tell us that the historical because you know we've worked with the historical commission.

That's how we got um the Castro Castro Library determined historical.

That's how we got the White Cotton Cottage determined to be historical, the Nike Missile Site determined.

I mean, so there was no reason for this building to happen like this.

And you know, again, is this the poster trial for changing things?

I'm tired of our issues being the poster child for things.

Okay, when a building is going to be vacated, do something to protect it.

If it was your own property, you would do that because you would see the value in selling that later or doing something with this.

This should be for community benefit.

This was given to the community, it was built by the community.

You know, people that don't live in Cheryland may not realize how important this is to us.

And to say that this all of that is represented on a mural.

No, it's not.

Maybe a picture.

Nothing there saying any of this.

Okay, I hear you, Cindy.

Thank you.

Because uh so this is extremely important to the Cheryland community.

It's like I get the same the similar sort of feeling from what Cindy is saying about this facility that I got from the Cash Valley community about the Ocaster Valley Library, yeah, in terms of its importance and significance.

Um call the next speakers.

Anne Maris.

Hi, Dr.

Maris here.

I uh have helped several organizations with doing the research on this uh building.

Um also I want to mention it has come to the EMAC and it was voted on by the EMAC that they wanted uh to preserve it.

So uh it came to the Mac.

Yes.

Yes.

And that that hasn't been mentioned.

So when do we know when it came to the Mac?

I didn't look up the date, Tyler Dragone just reminded me.

You know, Ashley.

I don't know off the top of my head, but uh I'll check into it.

Okay, great.

Yeah, and then also when it was at the Parks Rec and Historical Commission, um, they asked county via their county staff to make sure the building was protected.

Um, we warned them about the water damage, the rains were coming, and they asked county staff to do that.

So I don't know if it was ever done.

But what's important, what we're also not mentioning about the fact that people in Cheryland built it, they built it during the war.

So these were these were men who were home and they volunteered on the weekends.

They had construction bees to build it, and that's what I emailed you, those newspaper documents about that.

So it's uh, and like Cindy said, we toured it.

Um we have not, I've worked with the broker that had it.

Um he offered it for sale for way too much, over a million.

It's only like 0.1 acres, it's all concrete with the old building, which is a liability, you know.

So, but it never came back.

So we never had any opportunity.

Like if you're worried about it being your liability, why not let someone else assume that liability?

You know, we through um several of my organizations that I volunteer with, you know, we've had a lot of interest.

Um, there was a man who was working with county to try to get to lease the building.

And he wanted to build, he needed the height of the uh engine base to build a type of helicopter that was powered off some new type of energy source that would actually help the neighborhood.

And I invited him to come speak at the Groveway Neighborhoods Association meeting.

Before we did that, we went door to door around the entire you know, a couple blocks around the building.

None of the neighbors wanted it tore down.

They all cared about it.

There were differing opinions of whether a helicopter should be built in it or not, but they uh they all cared about it.

So um it's just it's really it's really important.

It's amazing.

Um, I've also done research on how firehouses, because the Parks Track and Historical Commission asked about it, how of old firehouses have been used.

So they're not always museums, it can be converted to any other kind of use right over in Pleasanton.

I think it was turned into a theater.

So there's there's lots of things that can be done.

I said I just drove by it.

It's not a blight.

You can see the buildings damaged, and uh I just wish you would give someone else a chance to uh acquire it if if you know you the county doesn't want it anymore.

We never were able to get a price, never just never had a chance.

Thank you.

Michael, we're on item one.

Michael Freed, unmute.

Hi, this is Michael Fried, Cherry Land.

Yeah, I just want to reiterate everything that Lenness and uh Cindy said um with the caveat that if it's too little too late and the thing really is just gonna follow down around our ears that at least do a salvage operation where you actually do an assessment of what the value is as a historical monument, and also um realize that in the building of uh the new fire station 23, even some of the uh older firefighters there were really adamant about saving the old building.

Um that their voice behind us as well.

But my main concern is that there was planned to be a meeting room or community room in the new fire station, and just through whatever need was, uh it was turned off and become became a locked room for um I don't know, dispatch or whatever else it was used for, but the community lost that other opportunity to have a community center.

And that was prior to our uh community center that we do now have.

So I'm just thinking that as whatever sale or whatever happens to the thing, there should be some caveat that in the future it'd be sold only to some um you know community uh need assessment to where whatever's built there is place, or even if it can be rehabbed, it'd be for the use of the community as a community meeting, meeting place in some way.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

And I'm just thinking that uh COVID has hit us in so many ways, and that is part of the communication breakdown, I think, is simply because we were all locked away and uh kind of lost uh interest.

So maybe we can give it uh salvage rate of two years of um maybe just write that off and say, okay, let's start over and really push for an assessment, a true assessment with some evaluation of what the possibilities might be, and just uh not just go forward with getting the thing off the face of the earth.

And I do appreciate everything that uh both Dr.

Maris and Ms.

Doors have said.

Thank you very much.

And I'm sorry, sorry for the connectivity um training.

Diane, we're on item one.

Yes, um, this is uh Diane Weiler in uh San Lorenzo, and I'm also I'm on the Mac too.

And I I do remember this coming before the Mac because I remember that Cherry Land did want to um preserve it.

It must it might have been as much as three years ago.

So I think it was maybe a little bit outside of two years from now from today's date.

But I think I mean, I think they're right about the general unincorporated area.

There's a lot of history in this area, whether it be firehouses or places like Mika State or Roberts Landing or whatever, but I um this is kind of pushing another topic, but um regarding like an office of unincorporated services or a department of unincorporated services or some centralized place that is looking out for the unincorporated area, not just the services today's services like um, you know, like public works or something, but something looks out for the whole area, like historical um places or landmarks that you know should be recognized and preserved.

So I I don't I don't know what you can do with the building that maybe is this far gone, but um it is a shame it got to this point because I know it it did come before the Mac before in Cherry Land um groups from Cherry Land spoke out then um that they really wanted to preserve this building and keep it and they gave the history of it at that time too.

So I'm just standing with the Cherry Land group.

Thank you.

Roy, we're on item one.

Yeah, thank you.

Good evening, uh Safe Advisors.

I actually don't know too much about this building, but from the photographs, it looks like it's been uh completely abandoned, and there's not a lot you can do except uh knock it down to it.

It looks very unsafe.

Well, the supervisor did bring up the Castro Valley Library, and I just wanted to make a quick point that designating a building as historic is not an accomplishment.

Yeah, because that building has been sitting empty since 2009.

And there's still no plan for anything.

I know there's talk of it being a veterans uh meeting place, but I don't know if there's actually any real plans in place for that.

The county just doesn't seem to have any plan um or interest in what to do with these older buildings in the unincorporated areas.

And um, yeah, I I don't know if this uh potential new office of unincorporated services would change that.

Um, but really I I think you know, the excuse that nobody told me it was in such a state really is not a viable excuse.

You know, it's your job to be asking and to be really uh be more proactive in finding a use for these buildings within the community.

That's all.

I have no additional speakers for this item.

Okay, thanks.

So appreciate it, appreciate the feet the feedback and comments from the public on this.

So um uh this is an action item.

What I'd like to do, Supervisor Jam is I'd like to hold this over because I need to do some follow-up.

I want to have my office follow up with the community development um agency and the park recreational uh commission.

And I want to have them my office also look into what happened when it went to the Mac.

Um, because obviously I guess I'm I'm supposed to be omnipotent um and be everywhere all the time and know everything all the time.

Um omniscient omnipotent yeah, omnipotent.

But um this one until the chief brought it to my attention, it totally gone off of my radar.

Uh so we're gonna we're gonna look into this, because you know um Cindy and Michael, I've worked with them for many, many, many years on many, many things.

Um that's one reason we have a new fire station, the first one ever in 40 plus years was uh built in Cherry Land to replace this fire station.

Um worked with um Lou over there, Lou Andrade as well.

And then that's another reason why we have in Cherry Land uh a beautiful um Cherry Land Community Center uh that hard runs for the county uh working with Cherry Land.

So I've worked with Cherry Land over the years on a number of things.

So this to me is um I'll take responsibility and I feel embarrassed about this.

So we're gonna look into this and find out what happened because if it went to the park and recreational historical commission and it wasn't followed up on, I need to know once again what happened, why wasn't it followed up on?

Um if it was a question of resources, nobody brought it to my attention that there was a lack of resources to do the assessment, and then I want to get with the Cheryland folks, and I want to find out if it went to the Mac.

Did the Mac make a recommendation uh on this as well?

So I so we're gonna do a little due diligence and background on this.

And I asked the chief to bring this to the committee tonight, um, so we could take it up here at this committee and get public testimony.

Um, and I would appreciate if um uh chief uh can you come back to the mic?

So, in terms of um the kind of making sure it's no longer you know an eye sore, who cleaned up the parking lot and and who's taken, and it's the sheriff's department kind of making sure nobody's utilizing the facility.

So I just want to make sure I clarify something.

I think one of the speakers had mentioned that the county owns the building.

ACFD as a special district owns this building, so it's absolutely 100% on ACFD's responsibility.

So just want to make sure that like we just are pointing to the right agency.

So we'll take responsibility on that component.

Um, but I uh to answer your question specifically.

ACSO came and helped us get the cars out.

ACFD paid to have all the upkeep done on the building.

We're just we're at a spot where we can't have people there 24-7 to to uh to to sort of see it, but we do have a partnership with ACSO where they're helping sort of make sure that we we don't see that.

But that picture that you saw of that individual breaking in, that was after we removed the cars.

So that was just yes, that was just recently within the last three weeks where we received a neighbor taking a picture of someone walking up, breaking into the to the glass, and then you know, trying to trying to gain access.

So just so everybody understands Alameda County Fire District is uh a dependent special district that's governed by the board of supervisors.

Board of directors, yes, the board of directors for the board of directors, take off our board of supervisors and put on board of directors that's the five of us.

Um, but the Alamany County Fire District is a dependent special district, so it's not um part of the you know the typical county government.

Um, and maybe that might have been another reason why this might have slipped through the cracks.

But so I'm gonna I want to make sure we get with um Alameda County Fire District.

So I want to make sure we do our best to keep the property maintained for the moment, work with the sheriff's department to make sure we don't have any vandals there as well while we try to determine what we're gonna do with the site.

Uh ultimately it might be demolished, but before I'm comfortable with that, I need to do a little bit of homework by going to talk to them.

My have my office do the research around the Mac and with the park and recreational historical district to find out.

Uh, and then if we do have to revisit the historical status, we'll revisit that.

But we're not gonna take a lot of time doing all this.

I want to get this done, and then we'll come back to the unincorporated services committee and report out on all of our due diligence around this.

So we'll see what we can do.

So Supervisor Tan's okay with this.

Um that's the direction I'd like to pursue at the moment.

You're you're okay with it.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So Ashley, we've got a little work to do.

Okay.

Uh yes, we're I've already sent uh email to CDA.

Um and Ali even had some notes and Tona's looking for that Mac agenda, so we're already on it.

And once again, appreciate Alamie County Fire and appreciate Alamie County Sheriff.

Um helped me out on this, you know, got a you know a lot of respect for our fire department and our sheriff's department.

So, you know, uh help me out on this.

Let's keep do our best we can to keep the property relatively um in a put in a position so it's not an eyesore, and then try our best to keep unauthorized people from the property as well.

And then try our best to keep unauthorized people from the property as well.

Yeah.

Okay.

And we'll try to see what we're going to do.

And obviously you'll be a part of those conversations.

Thank you.

Well, Chief.

Thank you, supervisors for having us.

And I think that this for me is just the first step in making sure that we do our due diligence as a community member and a valued community member.

So thank you.

And I look forward to working with your staff.

Okay.

Let's go to our next item.

Oh, and one of the quick things, the Cash Valley Ocash Valley Library.

That's that was declared historic.

And there's a committee of people working on that, both through C the Community Development Agency, my office, and veterans and the community.

So and GSA and Hard.

Everybody's involved with that with that effort.

These things, unfortunately, take time, but that one I know is on a course of action, and it has taken quite a bit.

And if necessary, we could bring a status report on that to this committee as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so let's go to the next item.

Sea level rise planning and HASPA membership.

This is an informational item.

Thank you, Supervisors Ali Abbers with the planning department.

Tisa, if you could look for Adrian Harris online and promote her.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

So I'm here this evening to talk to you about planning for sea level rise in unincorporated Alameda County.

And I can start with a little background, or should I wait?

Going?

Okay, I'll keep on.

So next slide, please.

Perfect.

So a little bit of background.

Back in August of 2025, as you recall, Supervisor TAM, we held an internal staff level with the supervisor sea level rise planning meeting to discuss these issues.

So this was attended by county staff from CDA, the Public Works Agency, the Office of Emergency Services, Alameda County Health, and Supervisor TAM's office.

And we had a guest, speaker from BCDC, which is the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, who introduced Senate Bill 272 and BCDC's regional shoreline adaptation plan or the RSAP.

And that was followed by questions and answers from county staff and the supervisor.

And at that time, staff was directed to conduct some additional research and to recommend a compliance path to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

So we are here with some follow-up on that.

And our recommendation this evening is that you hear this presentation from both planning department staff and from representatives of the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency or HASPA.

Take public comment and provide planning staff with feedback regarding staff's proposed path for sea level rise planning compliance.

So some more background on Senate Bill 272.

This was signed into law in 2023, and it's a law that requires all local jurisdictions along the San Francisco Bay Shoreline and California's outer coast to adopt sea level rise plans.

I'll say SLR for short by 2034.

And it gives authority to BCDC that I mentioned earlier.

That's the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission to set standards and to approve sea level rise plans for Bay Area jurisdictions, including our county.

So BCDC's RSAP is essentially BCDC's answer to planning and guiding regional SB 272 implementation here in the Bay Area.

And that was adopted in 2024.

So that is our guiding document as far as SB 272 compliance.

The RSAP sets criteria for local shoreline adaptation plans that all Bay Area jurisdictions, including our county, are required to follow.

And it encourages collaboration and it ensures importantly a coordinated and consistent regional approach to sea level rise planning so that we're not doing things that negatively impact our neighbors or vice versa.

Local jurisdictions engage with BCDC as part of the development process for their own sea level rise plans.

And then those plans need to be adopted locally by your board and by other decision makers and other jurisdictions before being forwarded to BCDC for final approval.

Next slide.

So in parallel with SB 272, which again is the law that requires sea level rise planning.

There's also SB1, which actually uh establishes a grant program to help fund these activities.

So that is good news for all of us.

It supports local jurisdictions and agencies with sea level rise adaptation planning, which is track one or implementation projects track two.

As of January of this year, 21.3 million dollars are available for funding for SB1 projects.

Proposals for track one, which include planning proposals, are accepted through a non-competitive rolling quarterly process.

So that money is there and available right now.

Eligible activities are fairly broad.

They include community visioning, vulnerability assessments, data gathering, and adaptation planning.

So just a good thing to know for this conversation.

So what is the geographic area that the county is responsible for under sea level rise or under the RSAP?

So what is our sea level rise planning obligation?

So the county is required to produce an RSAP compliant sea level rise plan for the unincorporated area only.

And the unincorporated area only has about a half mile of Bay Shoreline.

We're fairly close to it right now in this meeting.

So at minimum, the plan needs to account for the highest sea level rise scenario.

That's six put 6.6 feet, and that's a year 2100 high.

And that includes something that you might not normally think of in sea level rise planning, which is shallow or emerging groundwater.

So that's the water table rising as well.

And this scenario applies to an area of only an area of western San Lorenzo, and that area is just about 1.25 square miles.

So this next slide is from the BCDC website, and this helps us envision what that area is.

So it's the minimum geographic area that the county sea level rise plan needs to cover.

And for folks who are listening in, that includes an area that starts, so it's a landward boundary that runs from the San Lorenzo border in the north.

It runs south along the Accorda across Grand Avenue.

It views west before Paseo Grande through Mervyn Morris Park to Channel Street.

And then it runs southward parallel to Channel Street past Del Ray Park to the southernmost border of this of San Lorenzo and the Hayward Executive Airport.

And there are a number of critical facilities in that area.

Those include and are not limited to Arroyo High School, Mervyn Morris Park, Bay Elementary, the San Lorenzo Community Park and Community Center, Del Ray Elementary School, and the facilities of the Oroloma Sanitary District.

So a fairly small but important area.

Next slide.

So the county has a few different options for achieving RSAP compliance.

We do have to meet specific standards in the RSAP, but we can do it in a number of ways.

One is to go it alone.

So we can develop a standalone sea level rise plan for just our 1.25 square miles of unincorporated area that are subject to this plan.

And that can also include, it doesn't have to necessarily be just a new plan.

It could also include references to existing plans, for example, if we find that our local hazard mitigation plan or emergency operation plan, parts of the general plan, or parts of the capital improvement plan could help us achieve this.

Then those could be referenced in a standalone sea level rise plan.

The other option is to partner with our neighbors, neighboring jurisdictions to develop a sub-regional sea level rise plan.

So next slide, please.

So what are other jurisdictions in Alameda County doing?

Oh, my slide got too big and cut off this slide.

So eight of, I believe, the 13.

There we go.

Eight of about the 11.

So there are 11 jurisdictions, including the county that are all that have obligations under the RSAP.

And eight of them are actually already pursuing collaborative approaches to RSAP compliance.

So starting in the north, our neighbors in Emoryville, Berkeley, Albany, and in the section of Oakland that's north of the Bay Bridge, which is just a small section of that city, are collaborating through the East Bay Crescent Shoreline Planning and Adaptation Plan, which is established in 2024.

And that's organized around what BCDC calls an operational landscape unit that's called the East Bay Crescent Operational Landscape Unit.

The cities of Alameda and Oakland, the portion of Oakland south of the bridge of the Bay Bridge, are collaborating through an organization called Oak or the Oakland Alameda Adaptation Committee, established in 2021.

And that's also organized around landscape unit, which is the San Lorenzo, sorry, San Leandro Operational Landscape Unit.

Our neighbors just to the north in San Leandro have a shoreline sea level rise adaptation master plan currently under development.

And they are interested in collaboration.

Alameda County Unincorporated, that's what we're here, we're here to talk about tonight.

So TBD.

And they're planning to comply via an update to the 2021 regional uh Hayward Regional Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan.

Union City is still working on its plans, so I have nothing to report there yet.

And Newark is currently developing a vulnerability assessment, and they are actively seeking partnership with the city of Fremont.

So lots of collaboration happening across the bay and interest in more.

Next slide.

So planning staff's recommendation is that we that we attempt to seek a regional collaboration via HASPA.

So there are a number of reasons for this.

Sea level rise impacts are regional and shared risks invite shared solutions.

Shared data, shared modeling and vulnerability assessments can help to improve accuracy.

As a partnership, members of HASPA can share costs for technical studies, plan development, and implementation solutions.

Collaborative proposals can be more competitive for grants and collaboratives have stronger collective voices with regulatory agencies.

Collaboration can also help to avoid what I mentioned at the very beginning, which is maladaptation.

So for example, a solution in one jurisdiction, worsening conditions in another jurisdiction.

And HASPA membership would increase the visibility and adaptive capacity of the unincorporated communities along the Bay Shoreline, helping to ensure that they're not left behind in the sea level rise planning process.

So with that, I would like to hand it over to Haspa to continue this conversation.

And I'm not sure if uh did Lou, were you starting?

All right, so I'm gonna hand it over to Lu Andrade.

Hi, I'm Lou Andrade.

I'm um on the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Board, but I'm also the representative of that board on HASPA.

Um so HASPA is uh started, I think we go to the next slide here.

That's the so it's called the Hayward Area uh shoreline planning area.

It started in the 1970s.

Um and it's the purpose right now is turn into a joint powers authority.

His purpose is to uh protect the infrastructure, environment shoreline access to the Hayward uh shoreline and uh through the climate adaptation.

So if I get a next slide.

Okay, so the the history is that it started in the 70s, and uh you may recall if you were you've been around Hayward was one of many that cities ahead um how it had well had salt uh production in the southern part near the Semateo Bridge, but it also had a dump site as well as many other cities, Salandro, Emoryville, Berkeley, they all had dump sites on the right on the bay.

And these were closing down, and there was a movement uh to stop filling the bay uh to start in the late 60s and 70s.

And uh Hayward got on board with that.

And uh, and that's when this you know save the bay movement really started.

So um Hard was involved mainly because we're um you know, we're a little park district, but we uh uh were involved to develop the trail system and the interpretive center and to help enhance wildlife uh and and so on.

Um other members that got involved a little bit later was the East Bay Regional Parks, and they I think they control most of the um well, I think they control all of the um uh the trail system that goes north of us now.

Um so the city wasn't it was interested because they had their uh industrial zone nearby and also their sewage treatment plant next next to that.

And so that's how the whole thing started.

It's shifted over, you know, sea level rise became an issue to to a more active role in how we're gonna deal with that.

So we um I'm gonna go off this a little bit, but we started um we we paid for a uh study in I think 21 uh that talked about the effects of sea level sea level rise and uh it'll be discussed a little further, but you know, it was kind of shocking how how it does affect everyone and really um uh it affects San Lorenzo quite a bit.

And even though you only have half half a mile of shoreline, uh you have all their housing, is right, is closest housing to the bay in the in this area.

And what it's gonna do is it's not just gonna it's not you know, it's not gonna be it's gonna be a long time before salt water actually gets there, but the water level, the the uh ground level um what do you call it, the uh water level, the uh groundwater level is going to be pushing up and flooding the streets way before any salt water gets over there.

So that's the kind of problems that you're having there.

Um there's some and you have uh some real key areas there uh in terms of habitat uh as and uh uh solutions like the uh uh the horizontal levy and so on.

And also, you know, San Lorenzo is the home of Oraloma as well.

So we're trying to get them in to join as well.

Um but it we've already done a lot of the work and we've already gotten grants.

And I think if um you know the county as the municipal services provider, the city really acting as a city if if it joins, it would be already it would fit right in and it would and we've done a lot of the work's already been done.

So I think you would save money on staff time and uh everything else, and it would um present a better picture when grant when you're when you're applying for grants.

So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to uh the agency director who's uh Adrian I'm sorry, Adrian Harris.

I'm sorry.

Uh and she'll take over from there.

Okay, thank you, Adrian.

Thank you, Trusty Andrade.

Good evening, supervisors.

I apologize that I couldn't be there in person this evening.

My name's Adrian Harris.

I'm the manager of Haspa, and I am going to continue the rest of our presentation.

So HASPA today, as Trustee Andrade mentioned, is now kind of refocused its mission from just protecting uh land along the shoreline, is now really looking at addressing sea level rise and its impacts to both the natural and human environment.

There are four members of the JPA currently, that is the city of Hayward, the East Bay Regional Parks District, Hard, the Harry Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, and the Alameda County Mosquito and Abatement District.

Next slide.

This is the service area of HASPA.

Uh so you'll see in the brown, that is the area that we are focusing on when we are talking about planning and planning uh for shoreline adaptation and sea level rise.

But this is overlaid on the jurisdictions of the various member agencies.

So you can see that even though the member agencies jurisdictions can be quite wider than the area we're talking about, we're really um the planning efforts that we've done have focused on this brown area of the HASPA service area, which runs roughly north of the San Mateo Bridge, uh State Route 92, and south of the unincorporated area and San Lorenzo and west of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.

But you can see in the upper um right-hand corner of the area, there is some overlap with the unincorporated area unincorporated areas of Alameda County and the area that we focused on.

Next slide.

So as Trustee Andrade mentioned, um HASPA created its shoreline adaptation master plan in 2021 with a grant from Caltrans.

And this was one of the first shoreline master plans in San Francisco Bay.

Um this was actually created before BCDC came out with their regional shoreline adaptation plan or RSAP guidance.

They actually used our plan in the development of those guiding uh ideas that they set out in their plan.

And you these are two graphics from the approved and adopted plan.

As you can see here, looking on the left one, that even though the dashed black line is the geographic focus of the planning effort, um the HASPA and our contractors were evaluating what was going on outside of that area in the unincorporated areas of Alameda County as they were uh doing assessments and planning for um this master plan.

And the uh right-hand image is the adopted preferred alternative approach that they put into the plan.

And again, you can see here up towards the top of the image, um, the unincorporated area of Alameda County, they did look at um ways to uh extend the uh line of protection beyond what was the geographic focus.

So when we're talking about maybe potentially um bringing County of Alameda on as a uh member of the organization and incorporating that area in our planning efforts, we've already been doing some of that work.

They did a lot of community outreach, which also included outreach to the San Lorenzo residents through their HOA.

Next slide.

So as Allie, these kind of are similar to the benefits that Allie had mentioned in her presentation.

We think that there are a number of ways that joining HASPA could benefit the county.

First is the demonstrated success that HASPA has had.

We have a completed sea level rise adaptation plan already and a track record of successful public engagement on these topics.

We have an established network of partners that meets regularly to share information and support each other's efforts.

Some of those entities are San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Greenbelt Alliance, East Bay Dischargers Authority, and other nonprofit organizations that are concerned with shoreline access and shoreline adaptation.

Access to shared technical expertise and resources, the data that we've already collected to look at threats along the shoreline and any future assessments and planning that we would do as an agency.

Allie mentioned grant competitiveness and the opportunity to jointly shape policy.

We feel that we are stronger and more competitive together when we go for grants, that when we're coordinating projects across jurisdictional boundaries, that is removing competition for those funding, as well as collaborations are just more attractive to funders.

And if we're working together, potentially we can shape broader regional and state plans and policies if we are advocating as one voice for local issues.

We also believe that there could be some cost efficiencies for meeting RSAP guidelines and criteria.

Next slide.

Right now, HASPA is addressing RSAP compliance and how we ourselves are going to meet that.

As I mentioned, our shoreline adaptation master plan was created before BCDC came out with their guidelines.

So we're in conversation with BCDC right now about are there any gaps in our existing plan compared to what they'd like to see in plans and how we're going to address that.

And we think that we are well positioned to have a final plan by the deadline.

Most of the work that we have done from a planning standpoint have been covered by grants thus far, and that is our plan going forward to try and get as much grant funding to support the work as possible.

Next slide.

Just wanted to talk a little bit more about our current efforts.

HASPA is coordinating with regional partners to advance shoreline adaptation strategies like horizontal levies.

We're helping advanced priority projects along the shoreline that support ecological resilience and protect property and critical infrastructure.

Some examples of those projects include the First Mile Levy Project, which is in the Oraloma Marsh area, and the Hayward Marsh Restoration Project, which is further south along the shoreline.

We're continuing to proactively work with BCDC towards RCP compliance.

And we are actually right now in the process of developing an implementation plan for that shoreline adaptation master plan that I referenced earlier.

Next slide.

So the HASPA implementation plan, we have a grant right now from EPA and San Francisco Estuary Partnership to do this plan.

And the idea here is how do we take this master plan, this planning document and actually implement it?

And that is what we are evaluating and putting into the implementation plan.

So we are working with an outside contractor scape to do this.

They are looking at project phasing, which projects should come first, which are the most critical for protecting our communities in the face of sea level rise.

Permitting strategies, how are we going to actually get these projects permitted and funded and completed?

So looking at permitting funding and the governance requirements that we would need to do that.

Next slide.

So Scape is right in the middle of this work.

They are in the middle of their technical analysis for the implementation plan.

They are right in the middle of determining what these implementation pathways might look like, and they're just beginning their governance evaluation of how best to approach the work.

And so if Alameda County did choose to join HASPA at this time, you would have an opportunity to be part of this process and inform the development of this plan.

Next slide.

So my final slide, I apologize it.

But I wanted to put it in here because I think it's a great example of what we say at HASPA, which is we're more resilient together.

This is an example, I think, of where it's so important to collaborate among jurisdictions that are nearby on these potential impacts from sea level rise and the potential adaptation measures.

So this is two images pulled from some current flood exposure analysis that Scape is doing as part of this implementation plan analysis.

And as Allie mentioned earlier in her presentation, we need to plan for assuming a 6.6 foot of sea level rise by 2100.

These um images here are assuming that, plus a 1% storm event.

This is near Oraloma Marsh and the surrounding San Lorenzo community.

And so again, even though this is outside of HASPA's current jurisdiction, when we're doing analysis, um, we have this information from our contractors.

So the image on the left is uh the year 2080, and this would show us what the flooding would be in that area if no action is taken.

And as you can see, water comes into Orlomo Marsh, it's going into industrial areas to the south, it's spilling into the San Lorenzo residential neighborhoods near the community park, and um the Oraloma Sanitary District.

Now, this is just a bathtub analysis, it's not a robust um flooding modeling analysis, but it's showing us that there are potentially significant impacts here as sea levels rise.

This image on your right is the same analysis, except we've included here as an assumption that the first mile levy project is completed.

That's the red line.

I know probably the slides are very small for you.

Um, but the red line on the edge of the Oraloma Marsh is a project that is um being pushed through the design phase right now.

And this will this assumption here is that it's built without connecting to any additional levies or line of protection.

And so it doesn't matter if we spend millions of dollars on the first mile project if we aren't working with our jurisdictions to the north and south to try and connect these levies and lines of protection, the water's just going to go around them.

Um I wanted to just show this as an example of why we really should be discussing and talking amongst um different jurisdictions as we're planning for sea level rise.

And just so you know, Scape, our contractor is going to be reaching out to Alameda County staff to discuss some of the work that they're doing as part of the implementation plan, regardless of whether Alameda County joins HASPA because we'd like to share data and work together as we uh develop these analyses.

And with that, I just go to the final slide where again I mentioned HASPA.

We feel that we are more resilient together.

Water flows across jurisdictional boundaries as we just saw.

And so we believe so should our collective planning efforts.

I'm here to answer any questions that you might have, as well as trustee Andrade in the audience is also Brian Lasco from our technical advisory committee.

Uh, he represents Hard.

And I believe perhaps Devin uh Reef from East Bay Regional Parks District might also be on the line remotely as like I am.

Uh, and we're happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you.

Very informative.

Uh I've been around for a bit, never heard of this of this agency, HASPA, but now this has been very interesting and informative.

I do like the logo too.

So I know I have some questions, but since this is supervisor Lena Tams district, and she is an engineer, and I think she's on BCDC.

I'm gonna I always um provide the courteous courtesy of going to my colleague to the um right of me.

And then I'll ask my questions after she is finished.

But I'm sure she's gonna ask a lot of questions or has a lot of observations.

Um thank you, Chair Miley.

As you mentioned, I am the county's representative on BCDC, and so I'm super appreciative of Allie, my staff getting together along with HASPA in um developing the RSAP compliance for BCDC.

Um actually four out of the eight jurisdictions are squarely in my district, Alameda Oakland, San Leandro, and Alameda County.

And the issue around sea level rise is an existential issue for my district specifically.

But as you showed with your graphic on the current implementation plan analysis and the flooding, there's going to be critical infrastructure uh, particularly in San Lorenzo that will be affected in the unincorporated area.

So when I um saw the recommendation, actually the recommendation came about in a kind of a circuitous way, besides uh Allie finding out and and uh working directly with HASPA.

Uh Supervisor Um Lisa Marquez, when she was on the Hayward City Council, she was active on HASPA and she was the one that recommended that I outreached and so my staff work very closely to find out if there's some logical uh basically importation or joining of the county with HASPA.

So I I appreciate that recommendation very much and I fully support that.

Um the only question I had really is around the uh the implementation plan that is being developed now by SCAPE.

Are we looking at trying to get um SB1 track two funding to implement that and uh what do you think that cost might be?

And I absolutely agree we we can leverage funding when we're uh joined together rather than uh trying to compete with each other.

So I I fully support that concept.

Do you have a sense of like the order of magnitude?

Because there's only 21 million dollars, I think, uh, under S B one.

Um so I would say that we are looking at all funding sources to help with any future planning efforts that we have to do, say RSAP compliance and also implementing the projects that are called out in our planning efforts and the master plan.

And that is probably gonna be funding that we need to look for beyond just SB uh one funds and we looking at all different kinds of funds.

Some of these projects um are very have very large price tags.

Uh the Hayward Marsh Restoration Project is uh is an example.

It's many years with many millions of dollars to do the work.

So I think again, if we um collectively are advocating to the state and to other um regional entities about what we need to make sure that our communities are safe and protected.

Uh I think part of that is going to be talking about what it the real cost is of developing and implementing these regional shoreline adaptation plans around San Francisco Bay.

I appreciate that.

Um I know we definitely need to look at braiding um of funding and looking at multifaceted approaches to addressing the mitigation.

Um the the issue around um uh uh I guess I'm trying to understand uh how is Oraloma planning um to address sea level rise because you have a direct role in, and I'm looking at Mimi Dean, who's the uh board member from Aureloma who's in the audience.

Um because I I think uh uh I used to work for East Bay MUD, so I I know very clearly went with our outfalls with the our um switch treatment plant.

That was a major concern as well.

How are we planning uh and how we're integrating that into our mitigation plans.

Good evening, uh Brian Lasco.

I'm uh uh assistant uh director of capital planning at Hard, but I'm also the staff representative for Hard to HASPA.

Uh and I was really involved in that discussions around Orloma and Oroloma sat with us for a very long time for many years in the uh changing of our JPA mission from just a planning authority to the sea level rise cut adaptation uh uh entity that it is today.

Um they got right up to the right up to the line, the same line that uh Alameda County Mosquito Abateman crossed and joined Haspa.

They ultimately chose not to join for whatever reasons they have.

But uh, but they but they did have a lot of input.

They have a lot of uh as I always point out, they you know, raise your hand if you have a billion dollar facility on the bay.

And uh, but for some reason they just decided that they at this time they wanted to wait and see what how things went.

But uh we're we're hoping that with the arrival of uh the the county at the uh into HASPA as well.

I mean, we're also talking to San Leandro as well, that the more the merrier that they that they'll they'll you know see the ways and and c come join us.

Okay, I I think it's important uh because they as you said they do have a critical infrastructure that serves they do uh a big region here.

Um so I am uh hoping that we can somehow move that recommendation.

I know this is an informational item, but move that uh participation and joining with Haskell because it allows the county to comply with SB 272, it allows us to leverage funding, whether it's SB1 or other force uh forms, and allows me to safe face at BCDC with my alternate.

So thank you very much.

Well, thanks, Supervisor Tan.

Um and I said, yeah, this is very informative presentation.

Uh and some of my questions are uh answered.

Uh so you're looking at maybe trying to get San Leandro to join, and we don't know why Orloma didn't join.

Um I do think based on the law uh and the kind of the economy of scale, and just seems like it's a no-brainer that the county should um be a member.

Um it's a JPA, so what would be the dues?

I can answer that question.

Um Supervisor Miley.

So we have a tiered system in the JPA members are in one of three tiers, and that due structure and the voting structure um is based on that tiered structure.

So say tier one is uh currently at twelve thousand dollars annually dues all the way up to tier three, which is thirty-one thousand eight hundred currently for this upcoming fiscal year.

So the how do you determine what what tier Yeah?

So you uh fall into a tier based on the size of your organization, your budget size of your organization.

So the county we'd be pretty we'd be in tier tier.

So you would probably be tier three.

Um, yes.

Yeah, but we only have half a mile shoreline.

Yes, we have a small portion, yes.

Yeah.

So I think um, and Brian can maybe speak to this.

He's been with the organization longer than I have, but I think every time a new member joins, it is a discussion and negotiation on what that looks like.

Now, if we're in tier three and we're paying 37,000, does that give us more votes?

It weighted voting.

Yes, it does.

It's a weighted voting.

Technically speaking, hard is a tier two organization, and with uh the city of Hayward and East Bay Regional Park becoming in it as a tier three, uh, our general manager opted to pay the additional six thousand dollars so that we could sit at the table and be a tier three voter voting agency.

So thirty-one thousand eight hundred dollars gets you to the table.

And how many votes is that get you?

One but it's weighted.

Well, yeah, but it's the it's with the other with the other three.

So I got you.

All right, because I know probably um the uh the party who sits on the uh it's a member, is that an elected official?

Yes, it is.

Okay, so it'd probably be supervisor jam for us.

Like you guys might like move over there, yes.

Yeah.

Supervisor TM, I'd want to make sure she gets, you know, I'd want us to come in.

Obviously, we'd have to come in at the higher tier.

Yeah.

But I want to make sure she has all the voting.

I'm a little budget conscious these days.

But you know, 30 some thousand, I think.

Okay.

I'm so very impressed with Allie.

She just keeps coming with stuff, and this is fascinating.

So um then would would the county be joining joining through our community development agency or flood control so it would be um through the county structure.

Uh, we're not proposing anything related to flood control specifically.

They could join separately if they if they wished.

Um and I don't I think it it that would be part of the direction that we'd be seeking is um sort of the the mechanism through which we join.

Are we is it CDA that's joining?

Is it a countywide membership?

I'm not sure.

I think that's sort of part of what we would explore as we go forward with this process.

Yeah, my preference is through CD because uh there's some land use uh components to this, like obviously you want to make sure that you don't build any more into this area to exacerbate the problem in the future.

And has uh county council looked at this yet?

Not yet.

Okay, right.

Um let's see members, waiting, voting dues, elected official, and then okay.

Um and then it just seems to me, since a lot of the work is underway, this is definitely at value.

And instead of us having to start from scratch and be kind of isolated, yeah.

It just kind of seems like this is a a no-brainer to do.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think at the moment, I don't have any other questions, but yeah, this this looks good.

And I'm assuming once again that Supervisor Tam, you'd probably want to be the county's representative.

I'm assuming.

Yeah, right.

Because a lot of it's in your district, yeah.

Okay, great.

So let's call the speakers.

And then if we have to make this is an informational item today.

So we would have to get this to the board.

I think um so we were just sort of seeking direction on on whether you you agreed that this was a good thing to begin to pursue.

Um, and once we, you know, if if we have that direction from you, then we can we can bring something back um through your committee for a recommendation to the board.

Okay.

Is that sound good?

Okay.

Okay.

All right, let's have the speakers.

Bruce Keene.

Bruce King with Friends of San Lorenzo Creek.

Uh, we've been involved with Haspa.

We and uh many of us on uh involved with Haspa keep asking, well, why isn't the county involved?

Why aren't they here?

They've got they've got issues, and uh specifically, why isn't the flood control district involved?

Um and when you think about it, flood control district controls the flood control channels in San Leandro throughout the unincorporated area and throughout Hayward.

Okay.

And when you look at the flood maps that they were showing to seeing tonight, the the the inundation from sea level rise, they look very similar to the flood control maps that flood control has for what's going to happen when San Lorenzo Creek goes over its banks because we are improving the flight, the uh the flood infrastructure.

So uh it's really an integrated problem here because what what we're pricking and experience, the first really big event is when we have a high tide, we have more uh sea level rise occur, and we have an atmospheric river, and all those three things converge and and parts of San Lorenzo, for example, are going to go underwater, Cherryland and and uh etc.

So um, you know, I think it's an integrated problem.

The county needs to be involved, and uh um I'm very impressed that planning's doing this uh along with Haspa.

Uh, but I'm kind of wondering where's flood control in the in the uh in the game here.

Thank you.

Mimi, Mimi Dean.

Hi, everybody.

So I'm Mimi Dean and I do serve on the Oraloma Sanitary District, and I am wearing my shirt from my meeting this morning.

I'm sorry, because I'm representing myself, not Oraloma.

Okay.

So I've been going to the Haspa meetings since I was elected, and um, I have to say that I think they're a really great agency.

I go to a lot of meetings in San Leandro, I go to a lot of meetings in Hayward, I talk to a lot of people, I network with a lot of people.

Um, one of the things that I wanted to accomplish when I ran for Oraloma was um regional collaboration.

I think regional collaboration is really important.

So I think it's so exciting that what I'm hearing from you guys is that you're thinking joining HASPA is a good idea, and I really know that flood control, we really do need to have flood control, be a big part of that because they control so much stuff, so much real estate in our communities.

So um I really like the things, um, the benefits of membership that Adrien was speaking about, because I think there really are benefits.

We can go for grants, right?

We don't have to compete with one another.

We can work together, we can find great solutions.

I was at a meeting the other night and I was talking to someone from San Leandro 2050, and we were talking about trees, and you all know how I feel about Sky West, right?

And right, like everybody's like, yeah, Mimi and Sky West.

No, we're not Mimi and Sky West.

So like I just think like, all right, so maybe at Oraloma we might not have a place to plant trees, but how about it's Sky West?

Maybe we could work San Leandro, Hayward, unincorporated.

We could all work together and do things to um work against climate change and protect our communities from sea level rise.

So that's me personally speaking.

I think climate change is our most serious issue, and we need to do something about it.

And the way to do something about it the best is for all of us to work together.

So thank you for listening.

And I'm speaking as Mimi Dean, not as, you know.

Thank you.

I have no additional speakers for item two.

Okay.

Well, thank the speakers.

Uh bring it back to Supervisor Tam.

Um thank you.

Uh as you know, we do support this, and we are um trying to make sure that this comes to the board fairly soon.

Um regarding the issue on public works and the flood control district.

I know they were part of the conversations during the meetings that Allie mentioned.

And uh in general, what I found with our planning department and community development agency is they are in the best position to uh coordinate and integrate all the various departments at the county when it comes to different projects and land use.

So I'm sure they can bring that um part of uh public works and flood control into the conversation at the appropriate time.

If if flood control were to be, would that would they come in as a separate member?

So it would just be the county.

Sure.

Um, Adrian, would they so they are a special district, but they're a dependent special district of the board of supervisors.

Is that correct?

Flood control, right?

The board of supervisors are the board of directors of the Alameda County Flood Control District, which is a special district that does have the ability to uh seek assessments, uh, but it is the public works director that is the head of the flood control.

Yeah, lots of out there.

So um, Adrian, I don't know if you want to take that one.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's a question that we had internally within Haspa as we started to have conversations with the county about membership.

I I think there is a track where maybe the county is a member and Alameda Flood Control District is a member separately as its own district.

Um I think we could also discuss what that looks like if it's just Alameda County representing.

Okay.

And then on one of the slides, it showed Alameda County landfill.

Uh yes, there is a landfill.

I'm not familiar with Alameda County Landfill.

I am gonna ask Brian and or trustee Andrani to talk about the landfill and its location.

Landfill's at the at the end of what uh Winton.

It's it's the it's the uh it's right there with the with the wit west winton uh staging area where the hiking trails go in to the right.

That huge rise right there.

That's that's that's a that's an old landfill that uh flood control now owns.

So it's no longer used as well.

That's it's been capped and okay.

Yeah, it's uh it's a uh deactivated doing what they need to do.

That's uh okay.

I was just curious about that.

Okay.

Okay, so Allie, so I think uh yeah, you've gotten a clear indication from Supervisor Supervisor Tam and myself, yes that we're very interested in the county uh becoming a member.

So I said I suspect um CDA and maybe might talk to public works and Supervisor Tam's office and talk all this through and then come back to the committee with an action item.

Yep, indeed.

Yeah, okay thank you.

Oh, thank you.

All right.

So if there are no other speakers on any other items this evening.

We'll take public comment on non-agendized items.

Bruce King.

Me again, flooding.

If you're member in June, we had a uh the voters voted for a flood control increase, and 80% of the voters in San Leandro and the own corporate areas and parts of Hayward voted down the flood control increase, which was supposed to give flood control about 270 million dollars or so, so that uh we could retain where w water in Don Castro and we could increase the flood the heights of the flood control channels, and uh so that Cherry Land, San Lorenzo wouldn't go underwater because the supposedly the flood control uh risk has gone up because of atmospheric rivers and the and the uh uh infrastructure not keeping up with the times.

Um so and and parts of Castor Valley also have increased flood con flood risks.

So I've asked flood control.

Well, did we go back and reassess why 80% of the voters turned it down?

Are we informing the vote the the people, the communities that they have these higher risks?

And um months ago I got the got the answer.

Well, we're we're working on evaluating that.

So as the board that oversees the flood control district, uh you were given a warning when by flood control up a paragraph that basically said we're at heightened risks.

Um and we have greater uh chances for emergencies, and we want we, the flood control district want to warn the supervisors of the community of that.

And that was in the resolution uh when the the vote when the voters voted against it.

Um so um encouraging the board of supervisors, especially those of you that are in these communities that are uh for in gonna have increased flood control flood risk that you go back and be talking to the flood control district about well, what's the plan now?

And how are we going to inform the community?

And are we gonna come back with some other way to get the money to keep our communities from flooding?

Thank you.

Caller, you're on the line.

We're on public comment, Roy.

Yes, thank you.

Quickly, I'd like to just reiterate a concern that I did send to you uh all the supervisors this morning, uh, which relates to comments made by the members of the Castro Valley MAC at the meeting earlier this week on Monday.

Uh this followed the Board of Supervisors meeting last week where uh the Board of Supervisors approved the uh what's known as the Mosaic Project.

Um just read some of the comments that the uh Castro Valley Map members made on Monday as follow on from the board of uh supervisors meeting.

Uh Chair Moore.

Um actually, just as background, if you recall, there were three supervisors voted uh in favor of the uh of the project.

Chair Moore said we need to do some research on the other supervisors, meaning the three that voted in favor.

Uh and if they don't support agriculture, then we need to look for the person running against them.

We need to do more of that.

Uh and he also said, I don't understand how a planning director gets away with it.

Uh member Thomas said uh supervisors Tam Bask and Marques didn't read anything.

They did what is good for them.

I am disappointed in the planning department.

Something shady is going on behind the back.

And uh member Mulgrew, who is the vice chair, said I am absolutely fried.

I think fried was the word I was trying to transcribe from the video, but I think he said fried.

I am absolutely fried by the arrogance of these supervisors.

You could guess that it's all about optics, all about headlines, all about campaign contributions and party lines, and then said, let's make it as difficult as we possibly can for the three supervisors who threw this community under the bus.

Let's make it really hard for them to retain their offices.

Let's suppose the fundraising efforts, let's suppose the re-election efforts.

I am asking Supervisor Miley to uh remove those people from the Mac because based on those comments, they clearly don't deserve to be holding those positions.

Thank you.

I have no other speakers for any place.

Um Randy.

Um it's just outside of our area.

It's just outside of our area, but tomorrow um at the Moor Fry Historic Farm, which is the house by um Shabot College, which never gets open, but Chabot has purchased the house and they're gonna have a um a farm history tour at 245 tomorrow.

So it'd be just cool to check out.

So I just wanted to let people know.

And then tomorrow on Saturday, April 25th, they're doing a harvest and cleanup from 10 to 2.

Um harvesting citrus.

Anyway, it's like an Earth Day thing.

But anyway, also the more fry, there's like a lot of history in the area.

So it's so cool that Chabot has purchased that house, and you can check out the area because it's always, you know, uh gated, it's always chain-linked.

So I know it's not quite unincorporated, but it's just a little bit down Hisparian.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know about that.

Um thank you.

And Ashley, do you want to announce our Earth Day activities?

Uh yes, this Saturday, April 25th, we have uh the annual Earth Day Cleanup in partnership with Castro Valley Sanitary District.

We have uh the annual Earth Day Cleanup in partnership with Cash Valley Sanitary District.

We'll be meeting at our Cache Valley office uh at 9 a.m.

20980 Redwood Road, and there will be coffee and beverages.

We will be wrapped up by 12 o'clock, picking up garbage along Redwood Road and some neighboring parking lots.

Um, and Bruce King is also having his creek cleanup uh right next door to us.

So this Saturday, 9 a.m., call me if you'd like to come hang out.

Do you want to say anything, Bruce?

Because I know you're you're always out there cleaning that creek little Earth Day.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

I think this is it for this evening.

Very informative meeting, and so we stand adjourned.

Thank you.