Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Today is Thursday, July 9th.

This is the planning meeting of the board, Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

I would like to start the meeting with roll call, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tam present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fotonato Bass excused.

President Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Would you all please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you very much.

I would also like to welcome members of the public, either in person or online who wish to attend our meeting.

We welcome and value your input.

If you're in person and wish to speak on a comment, make a public comment on any of the items, please approach the clerk, fill out a speaker slip.

If you're online, the clerk will now provide instructions on how to participate remotely, including making public comment and making awareness of our interpretative services today.

Detailed instructions are provided in a teleconferencing guidelines.

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

Please utilize the worldly link in today's agenda or the QR codes posted throughout the room and select your preferred language from the drop-down menu.

We have made arrangements for an in-person Spanish interpreter in chambers.

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

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

If you're calling in dial star nine to raise your hand to speak, when you are called to speak, the host will enable you.

If you decide not to speak, notify the clerk when your call is unmuted, or you may simply hang up and dial back.

When called, you will have two minutes to speak.

Please limit your remarks to the time allocated.

Public comment will generally alternate between in-person and online speakers as determined by the president of the board and subject to overall time limits.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next item is approval of minutes from our planning meeting of May 14th.

Is there a motion to approve?

Mr.

President, I will move approval of the minutes for May 14, 2026.

I'll second.

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

Do we have any public comment on this item?

There are no public comments.

Seeing none, I'll ask for roll call vote.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas excuse President Howard.

I vote yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Our next listed item is closed session.

Council, do we have any need to go to closed session?

Good morning.

There's no need to go to closed session today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We'll get into the regular calendar before we go to the consent calendar.

I would like to make a motion that there's been a request to continue the item listed as number five.

And so item five will be continued at the request of Supervisor Miley for a two-month period.

And so would we be able to give the date of that meeting?

I don't have it off the top of my head.

Should be September 9th.

Okay.

So then this item will be continued until September 9th.

We'll triple check that.

Very good.

With that said, our next item then will move on to the consent calendar.

Item number three, approval of the record of cost abatement and authorized assessment liens on properties within within violation.

I'll move the consent calendar.

Supervisor Tim makes the motion.

I have a clarifying question.

I'll second, but I have a clarifying question.

Second by Supervisor Marquez.

Now a clarifying question.

Thank you.

So if I'm reading the document correctly, page one of four, uh, it lists the owner's name, property address, and then the mailing address, which obviously can be different.

But for um David B.

Etel Airdridge, the address of the property is in Mountain House.

I was confused about that.

So it's the second name on page four.

The finance department lists that second address that might be.

They're both out of our county though.

Tracy and Mountain House.

Yes, that's pulled out of county records.

But if the address in question is out of our county, Mountain House is not in our uh I would have to take a look at whether the uh the notice itself.

I think I have it here with me one second.

I think this area can be confusing.

Yes.

It might be in Alameda County, but in the community called or known as Mountain House, which now is a city incorporated in the county of San Joaquin.

Um, it's almost like somebody in San Lorenzo may think they're in San Leandro, yeah.

To learn more, make sure it's in our county for the final.

Yeah, and then I just would love to learn more because I know um our county lines about San Joaquin County, but this is the first that I've seen like Mountain House.

I was just curious.

Yeah.

So yeah, if you could just clarify that for us at a later date, is fine.

Thank you.

A motion's been made and seconded to approve these um violations of abatement orders and issuance of fines, and I'll ask the clerk.

Is there any public comment on this item?

There are no public comments.

Seeing none, I'll ask for roll call vote.

Supervisor Marquez, aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas, excuse President Haubert.

I vote yes.

Very good.

That brings us to the next item, item four, which is a general plan amendment and adoption of a resolution approving amendments to the open space element of the Alameda County general plan for consistency with Senate Bill 1425.

Ms.

Abers, staff report.

Good morning, Supervisors.

Allie Avers with the planning department.

Um so this is a general plan amendment uh to update the open space element for consistency with Senate Bill 1425.

Next slide, please, or first slide.

So I'll uh go ahead and get started.

Um, so the open space element is a mandatory element of the general plan that establishes goals, policies, and programs for the protection, preservation, and provision of open space in unincorporated areas of the county.

Uh your board adopted the open space element on May 30th of 1973, uh and approved amendments to the plan on May 5th, 1994.

Um the open space element was further amended in November of 2000 uh by Alameda County Initiative Measure D, resulting in modifications that were updated or adopted by your board in May of 2022.

Go forward one more if you can.

We're working on advancing the slides, um so we'll keep going.

Uh so Senate Bill, if you could go forward two slides when you have a chance.

Senate Bill 1425, um, requires cities and counties to review and update the open space element of their general plans by January 1st of this year, 2026 to address these topics.

Um, access to open space for all residents in a manner that considers social, economic, and racial equity correlated with the environmental justice element or environmental justice policies of the general plan.

Climate resilience and other co-benefits of open space correlated with the safety element, and rewilding opportunities correlated with the land use element.

And because rewilding is uh a bit of a strange term, um, I'll go ahead and define that.

So SB 1425 defines uh rewilding opportunities as opportunities to preserve, enhance, and expand an integrated network of open space to support beneficial uses like habitat, recreation, natural resources, historic and tribal resources, water management, and aesthetics, or and or establishing natural natural communities conservation plan to provide for coordinated mitigation of the impact of new development.

Next slide, please.

So following draft guidance that was published by the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation in October of 2025, planning staff uh conducted a comprehensive review of the county's general plan and determined that the requirements of SB 1425 are already satisfied through existing general plan policies and measures.

And consistent with LCI guidance, compliance with uh SB 1425 can be achieved by integrating existing policy into the open space element by reference.

So staff has prepared uh proposed appendix B to the open space element, which catalogs is existing compliant policies and incorporates them by reference into the open space element.

And just a note that because this is sort of holding up a mirror to the general plan cataloging existing policies as the general plan uh general plan documents that reference uh are referenced in appendix B are updated in the future, such as the Climate Action Plan or other uh elements, the planning department will revise appendix B simultaneously to maintain 1425 compliance.

Next slide, please.

So in total, uh there are 38 policies, existing policies in the general plan that address equitable access to open space, 22 policies that address climate resilience and the co-benefits of open space, and 49 policies that address rewilding opportunities.

And these are distributed throughout the general plan.

There are um I noted on uh on those the starred elements, um, uh some items that are that have that are countywide elements or that will be updated um in the future.

And there's some elements that have uh policies that address all three of these areas and some policies or some that have only one or two, um, but overall uh the county is um is covered.

So all three of these areas are covered within policies in the general plan that cover all of the areas of the unincorporated county.

Next slide, please.

So we did bring this around to public meetings, uh beginning with the agricultural advisory committee in October.

This was approved 14 to 1.

Um November Eden area MAC approved unanimously.

November, CINOL CAC also approved unanimously, December Fairview MAC approved unanimously.

December, Castor Valley MAC approved six in favor, one opposed.

Um, December 15th, the planning commission unanimously approved resolution PC 2511, recommending that your board approve the open space element amendments and the CEQA notice of exemption.

And then uh staff brought this item to the Transportation and Planning Committee, which forwarded this to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Next slide, please.

So we have prepared a draft notice of exemption.

Um the open space element amendments are not subject to the environmental quality act because it would not result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

And it's exempt from environmental review pursuant to the common sentence exemption where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

Next slide.

So finally, uh staff's recommendation is that your board adopt the attached resolution, approving the notice of exemption from CECOA and approving and adopting the amendments to the open space element of the Alameda County General Plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll ask for any questions.

Supervisor Miley.

Yes, thank you.

A few questions.

First of all, do you know what motivated the Senate and the Assembly, the governor to uh enact SB 1425?

I don't.

I don't know the background of it.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Okay.

And there's no mention of egg, right?

Uh no, there's not directly, however, um, agricultural lands and open space are intertwined in our county.

So, yeah, but is that something we should point out or many of the policies in the open, so in the open space element or that we're pointing to here do um consider agriculture as it is part of open space.

But um yeah, I don't know if we need to to point it out beyond that.

Okay.

Then it also says that uh we needed to um we needed to update our open space element by January 1st of 2026.

So we're this is this is July 10th, 9th, 2026.

Are we in violation or anything?

Good morning, uh supervisors Rhonda Ungal from County Council's office.

Um this has been queued up for some time actually, and because of scheduling delays, it got pushed.

So I think um adopting the um amendment as is currently is the best course of action.

Okay, because I do see at least efforts were made um to get this to us, hopefully before now, but it's been a long time, yeah.

Because you've been working on it by going to all these different um county bodies last year.

And then I think my only other question is um the county, we used to have meetings um with um East Bay Regional Parks.

Um we no longer have those meetings.

Uh and I know hard's out there, but East Bay Regional Parks, they've got a lot of park space and open space.

Is there any mention of our you know the park district in in our in the fact that the park district in the county we've you know, we may be yet in compliance as well.

Yeah, I'm turning my mind to you know, I don't have the the policies that were cataloging memorized, but um the East County area plan, which is referenced throughout this document, does uh mention and integrate policies related to um special districts that manage land such as uh East Bay Regional Parks or SFPUC, the public utilities commission.

Um so those are those policies are cataloged and already exist in our general plan.

Yeah.

Okay, all right, thanks.

Supervisor Marquez questions, comments?

Um yes, I was looking at the uh general plan and just what caught my attention was um the goal to increase canopies by 20% and unincorporated.

So it's excited about that, but just wondering um by 2050, which seems like a very long time away.

So what are like the benchmarks?

How are we tracking?

Because I think that's something that's really important just for the overall health of the community.

So if you could speak to that a little bit.

Absolutely.

Um so this is something that we are currently working on.

Uh the county received a grant from Calfire last year or the year before to complete uh a long-range urban forest plan for the urban unincorporated areas, and we started that work earlier this year.

We're actually right in the middle of uh a street tree inventory, so tree by tree counting, measuring every tree that the county that is in the county's right of way, um, taking a deep dive look at the county's policies and programs related to uh to trees and looking at where developing through this study a set of recommendations to get from where we are now to that 2050 goal of 20% canopy cover.

So it's something we're actively pursuing through that grant.

Okay, great.

And then help me understand.

I'm very familiar with Hard, but for other parts of unincorporated part of Alameda County, um, are there other special districts?

I know we have East Bell East Bay Regional Parks, which is in some of our unincorporated communities, but um, what is the general park inventory?

Do we have a list of that?

There is a uh a park inventory list in the um open space element of the general plan that's really specific to the environmental justice priority communities, um the Eden area and parts of Castor Valley.

Um those parks are largely hard parks, although on the margins there are some East Bay regional parks as well.

Um hard East Bay Regional Parks, and Livermore Area Park District are the three major special district park providers in the area.

Other major open space landholders that are public would include East A MUD and SFPUC.

And those both do have more limited recreation opportunities, but um, but certainly provide a lot of open space.

Okay, that's helpful.

I wasn't aware of some of those.

So thank you.

And then I had a similar question about the timeline, because you did an excellent job with the outreach and went to planning transportation.

What is the name of that committee?

Transportation and transportation and planning in January, then it's here to us in July.

But I was thinking, well, most of our agendas have been really impacted at this body, so I understand, but I would respectfully ask, it's really important that we try to be in compliance, especially when you've done all the leg work.

So if we have to agendize this on a regular board meeting, we know we've done that in the past.

I don't mind us being like a month or two late, but if it's ready to go, we really shouldn't be this far behind.

Thank you.

So the appendix B.

And I see, for example, item one, open space element, and then one, two, three, four, five, and then Castor Valley general plan one, two, three.

Are these all new things?

No, these are existing policies that your board has already adopted.

Yeah.

Do we have a redline version of what like what exactly does this do?

What exactly do we need to do to comply?

Where are the deltas of what we did before 1425 and now have to do because of 1425?

So the the short of it is that um the county is already compliant.

So your board has already adopted policies throughout the general plan that are consistent and that taken together, show compliance and and are compliant with SB 1425.

What this amendment does is catalog all of those in one place and attach them to the open space element such that if a uh you know a person were to look at the open space element and wonder about the county's compliance, uh, it would be it is it will be spelled out via this appendix uh for them.

I I recall that um previous discussions, for example, around the 2022 Measure D discussions that we had, there were various definitions that I thought had to be fine-tuned and adopted.

Would that not be something that we would put into this open space element?

And what's the status of that?

Yeah, Sandy, I'm not sure.

I don't at least for the definitions that they're related to ag, not necessarily for this open space element.

Uh, when we make changes to definitions, we do make sure that there's consistency, and as Ali had expressed that uh there was a comprehensive comprehensive review of the general plan, which includes the East County Area Plan, according to measure D, and um, uh as well as our other elements.

So uh the consistency is uh has been reviewed uh as it relates to definitions that you're referring to that that does live in the ECAP.

In the ECAP, not in the open space element.

Okay, okay, so many different documents governing some overlapping and similar things.

Okay, I would echo that it's pretty straightforward and simple, more administrative than anything.

Maybe we could get it done sooner, but we've been making attempts to do that.

This is an important thing to do.

So I'm in support.

Is there any public comment on this item?

There are two online uh two minutes each charme go ahead, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Charmi Upper.

I'm a resident of Pleasanton and part of this uh lovely county uh I didn't come here with any strong opinions or ideas uh but found today's discussion especially around SP 1425 interesting and I picked on our conversation uh that was just happening recently that you know we are already compliant and in some instances you know we might be going far beyond what the state requires which is great um you're in this made me wonder if you know it's helpful principle for us to think about this a little more broadly uh especially about some of our agricultural land um from what I've seen driving around the county I see a lot of old homes with some junk on the land some are getting converted to solar facilities factory storage um and they're not getting used with you know what perhaps we had desired as an agricultural land so if there is any room to allow more flexibility for agriculture or agriculture related uses like farm to table restaurants small event venues uh something that will develop the land to keep it viable economically and also give community more opportunities to enjoy the land um was something that I was thinking uh I don't know what's the right answer but hearing today's discussion made me wonder whether just as we are asking whether we are doing more than what the state requires for us to be compliant it's worth occasionally asking that the same question about how the land is getting used or you know what are the land use policies as well.

Thank you.

Griffin go ahead you have two minutes.

Thank you good morning supervisors I support this item I also would just like to echo the last caller's comments I think that uh is great I think protecting open space and wildlife habitat and our net natural resources is something that we can all agree on.

I would just simply encourage the board to remember that agriculture is one of the best tools that we have for preserving open space working farms and ranches they don't just produce food they protect the landscapes that make Alameda County special so as we continue future discussions about agricultural policy I hope we keep that in mind conservation and agriculture are not opposing goals and when done well they strengthen one another thank you are shun go ahead you have two minutes good morning my name is Arjun Zutaria and I appreciate county's work to ensure that we're complying with SB 1425 I think it's important that we continue following state's law while preserving the values that make Alameda County such a such a great place to live in my 30s I have always appreciated how much this county has protected its open space and that's partially one of the reasons why all of us love living here.

But I have also realized that every planning decision also has trade-offs for me one of those trade-offs has been watching my brother close friends and other family members live so far because that's where they could they could afford a place to live like Tracy there's although they're still connected to Alameda County they work they work here their families are here but now they spent countless hours commuting every week because that's where housing is within reach for them I don't pretend that there is an easy answer.

I simply hope that we continue balancing conservation with communities with other communities need to remember that the cost of our lands use decisions aren't always visible sometimes they're measured in longer commutes families living further apart and fewer opportunities for next generation to remain in communities that they call home thank you Gerald, go ahead, you have two minutes.

Uh good morning, supervisors, and thank you for hearing me out today.

First, I want to acknowledge the passing of our former supervisor, Scott Hagar.

I believe this guy liked to be the tough guy image and he could be a real butthead at times, but he was our butthead and he loved the snow community.

I can still remember when we had the big floods and rains in the late 80s.

Scott was out there late at night with us, moving sandbags to protect our school from flooding.

We had and still have great supervisors in district warm.

Scott Haggerty will be remembered as one of the great supervisors of Alameda County.

Today I also want to ask the supervisors again to please do whatever you can to amend Measure D to make it more user-friendly towards agriculture.

Specifically, we need to change the 100-acre minimum parcel size to support the people who want to live in the countryside and help grow our agricultural footprint.

Smaller ag parcels will make it easier for current ag families to stay on the land.

This is for item four only.

Measure D actually inhibits our ability to allow the children to build a house on the land they grew up on.

It's been about 25 years since Measure D tax.

Can we keep it to the topic of the open space element, please?

Well, that's so uh thanks, Dave.

I'm I'm just trying I'm trying to just uh reiterate that uh open space is good agriculture and good agriculture is good open space, and we need to try to figure out how to support both simultaneously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead, please.

You have two minutes.

Good morning.

My name is Carol Gabani, and I appreciate county's work on SB 1425 compliance.

Listening today, I found myself wondering about a bigger question.

Are we striking the right balance when we regulate land use?

I value open space, especially parks, trails, and working farms, the public can actually enjoy.

But I also think about large private parcels sitting vacant for decades because the rules make even modest changes extremely difficult.

I have a friend living here that owns a significant land in the county, and through our conversations, I have learned how restrictive the subdivision rules can be.

Even building a handful of homes for local families often is not realistic.

If a small portion of land could someday become five or ten homes for teachers, nurses, first responders, or even other community members while preserving the character of the area, that's a conversation worth having.

Okay, thank you.

So just to follow up.

Does anything in this compliance administrative document?

Restrict further than we currently have.

Does it restrict currently uh what 1425 asks us to do?

Like, for example, the rewilding, is that in here?

You said 49 elements of it.

What page are each of those 49 are on?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this properly.

Sorry about that.

Um, so they are throughout the uh various elements of the general plan.

Um, see if I could find specific uh locations, but they are throughout the general plan in elements such as the open space element itself.

You know, as adopted in 1973, it was actually quite a um document that already addressed a lot of these issues.

Um, it's already in the East County area plan.

Um, and this document points to this appendix B, points to the uh points to the locations of all of those policies within those existing documents.

And it does not create any new policies or any new actions for the county to take.

It's simply is holding up a mirror to our existing general plan and reflecting what the county has already, what your board has already adopted.

So um I want to see if there are any unintended consequences of policies.

And I'll ask a very specific question the former sonole golf course land owned i believe by san francisco the landowner made a conscious decision to rewild that was that their decision and at their discretion alone or was that at one point identified as a possible really wilding opportunity and do our policies did our policies play a role in that decision to be made or was it completely what they wanted to do.

So I'm not familiar with that specific um item but uh these policies have been in in the general plan so it's possible that they could have influenced the you know the work at that site um but I'm I'm not familiar with that specific project.

I mean it's hard to argue with a policy of open space but if it leads to somebody deciding to rewild the golf course that it was a perfectly fine golf course then I have a problem with that.

If it was their own decision to do and I think it was I'm just not sure then fine landowner has property rights they should be able to do that.

But landowners have property rights they should be able to utilize their land as well um I think we're complying with state law we're not changing what we understand I will echo comments that this is a balance and um we have to we have to um keep that in mind so this is a resolution that requires a motion supervisor Tim questions comments I thought I thought you were didn't have comments I I was about to make the motion but if if I I'm happy to make a comment I appreciate the challenges staff had with the timing especially since 16 of the elements on equitable access to open space was in our environmental justice element and we didn't really adopt that until late last year so trying to get that by the January first deadline was probably very challenging so uh all this does is consolidate all the county's plan elements and putting it into one location as itemized in appendix B.

So um this is as you said an administrative need to be compliant with SB 1425 even though that was adopted four years ago so I'm happy to move the CQA exemption and approve and adopt the amendments to the open space element for the Alameda County General Plan in order to comply with SB 1425.

So makes the motion supervisor 10 makes the motion supervisor miley seconds roll call vote please supervisor marquez aye supervisor Tam aye supervisor Miley Supervisor Fortunato Bas excused President Howard I vote yes all right our next item is five's been continued six appeal of Michael Chase on and the chase on a gueda of the decision of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments declaring the property located at 8950 Crow Canyon Road Castro Valley of unincorporated Alameda County in violation President Hobbart before we move to uh item number six just want to clarify that the next board meeting in September it will be September 17th due to the holiday okay to clarify and set the record straight item five has been continued to September 17th thank you.

We'll proceed with item six.

Is there a staff report uh yes, good morning uh board members Ed LaBaya, Code enforcement manager um this um item number six is the uh Michael Chason and uh Gia Son Ageda of 8950 Crow Canyon Road, Castro Valley in unincorporated county, APN 085 1750 00802 uh this appeal of the property owner of the decision of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments declaring the property in violation of Alameda County Zoning Ordinances, Chapters 17.06, section 17.06030, 17.52180, 1752.210 ABC and E, 1752 440, and 1702.130.

And Alambia County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Section 6.65 030A1, B4 and 6, and E2.

So this is an outline of the property.

It's pretty large, 44.3 acres in ag zoned uh ag zone.

And if you'll notice uh there's there's pocket parcels inside of that property, which has the um structures of dwelling in the one on the upper uh lower triangle and the one on the front there, and the rest of it uh the the prop the parcel in violation is the large parcel uh uh you see in the uh area right there.

Uh yes.

Next slide, please.

So this is just a snapshot of the uh 17.06 where uh we highlight some permitted uses um in this particular property.

Um their claim is that they are grazing some some cattle and some horses, which we did not see, and uh the violations that we've cited, uh which which I will summarize uh has um to do with whether or not they are they were subordinate to the primary uses.

Uh right now that parcel that I showed you earlier does not have any uh dwelling on it or um uh because a dwelling is allowed as um uh single family dwelling is allowed in ag zone, but right now it's just uh uh vacant land at this point.

So uh next page, please.

So just to summarize the violations uh unpermitted use of the property, storage yards, parking facility in uh A zone, uh unpermitted use of the property, they're occupying uh recreational vehicles in an ag zone, uh unpermitted home occupations, operating unpermitted businesses from the property.

Uh and I'll I will show you some um evidence of that in in the photos.

Umpermitted accessory uses of cargo containers without principal use.

Um cargo containers are allowed in ag zones as long as they are used for agricultural purposes, and uh having an open wire fencing covered, so no longer open wire uh per the section in the ordinance.

They're allowed to have six feet, uh, but it has to be uh uncovered like a chain link fence, for example.

Accumulation of uh abandoned and discarded dilapidated objects basically uh need the need to um maintain the property, neglect the equipment, parking parts, scrap materials, uh, etc.

on the property uh that needs to be cleaned up, litter, rubbish, debris, or similar materials that contribute to conditions to cost blight and property degradation per uh the neighborhood preservation ordinance.

Uh unpermitted dangerous electro plumbing and sewage.

Uh there is evidence of um solar panels installed without permit permits and um uh RVs and that are uh also being um lived in on the property.

Parking vehicles on approved surfaces throughout the property.

Um so that's per uh uh neighborhood preservation ordinance as well.

Next slide, please.

In terms of the complaints and inspections on this uh case, we we did receive several complaints uh regarding alleged violations on the property.

So on April 10, uh 2025, uh, uh there's some uh date changes here from the board letters, which which I will correct here.

Uh on April 10.

Uh, we did a site visit.

Uh officer confirmed some violation from the public right away, but uh we were not able to access uh the property itself.

Uh on May 12, uh sent uh the code enforcement officers sent an appointment letter uh for May 22 with the intent to obtain a warrant should access be uh the property to access to the property be denied.

Uh on May 22, uh the officers did a site visit uh from the appointment, but the owner was not present and could not access the property.

October 16.

Uh, we did a site visit uh under the warrant authority of a warrant.

We had other agencies involved with the building department and uh water board.

We did confirm violations uh exist at that time, which is the violations I mentioned earlier, and uh building department also uh issues some violations pertaining to the uh bridge that they constructed over the creek, and um the water boards um also has cited the owner with construction violations and also um impacts to the water course as well as building the bridge over the creek.

Uh I believe they might be uh the water board might be attending this meeting if you have any questions for them later on, but I have not confirmed that.

Um so uh on October 16.

We mailed a um, I'm sorry, uh December 30, 2025.

We did a site visit from the public right away.

A violation still remained, and on uh January 5th, we uh sent a notice of pail reinspection that was mailed certified and regular to the property owner.

January 14, 2026, the property owner failed and uh filed an appeal to the West BCA.

So on April 22, uh a hearing was held and the owner requested a postponement.

The BCA granted the owner postponement and was decided that the hearing would be uh continued to May 13.

So on May 13, 2026, uh hearing was conducted, and the West BCA denied the owner's appeal.

Uh property owner filed uh an appeal of the decision of the West BZA to your board is the reason why we're here today.

Uh there is a lot of uh photos, but I'm I'm gonna go through it pretty fairly quickly unless you have questions.

So uh this is the initial site visit on April 10, where we did not gain access to the inside of the property, but we did notice these activities going on with the trucks uh coming into the property um and some trailers in the background there.

Um so uh since we did not gain access and requested a an appointment and and owner was uh there, we did um obtain a warrant, which you'll see in exhibit C, we posted it on the property um uh in front of 8950.

Uh, that was the next slide.

I'm sorry, right there.

Uh next slide, please.

So exhibit E shows more equipment, um, commercial equipment, uh, cement mixers.

Again, anything that's on this property should be associated with the agricultural use or uh subordinate to its primary use if if they had a residence there but they don't.

Uh exhibit G, same uh next slide, please.

Uh more commercial equipment, uh storage of uh dumpsters, which uh is quite a bit there, and uh you can see a forklift in the background.

Next slide, please.

Uh exhibit I, more uh trailer beds.

Uh far on the left there, which you probably have a close-up picture on exhibit I.

There's some uh RVs being lived in in the background there, and the J is like an aerial view from top of uh hill there where it shows the uh scope of uh of all this activities going on.

Uh even uh property owner purchases property, I believe three years ago or so and started making these improvements uh to have these uh storage um activities.

Uh next slide, please.

That's the close-up picture of an RV.

Um, pretty obvious that uh it's being used to be lived in, and exhibit L is um RVs um that are on the property and uh because there's no primary use as a residence, even if uh they belong to the owner, they they cannot use this area for storing uh our recreational vehicles uh at that at this time.

Next slide, please.

And more RVs stored there and uh vehicles, commercial equipment.

See a cargo container in the background.

Exhibit N is um like an electrical panels that are hooked up to the trailers.

I believe they're hooked up to solar panels on the top.

When we were there, the owner did mention that they were using the site for training facility for solar installations at that time.

Next slide, please.

Exhibit O more commercial equipment, cement mixers, um utility uh vehicles, cargo containers, tires, stack of materials, and uh exhibit P is more of an air uh view from the top of the hill.

Exhibit Q more commercial equipment, um, and um commercial vehicles.

Exhibit R is um uh storage of discarded materials, construction materials on the property.

Um, exhibit S is a pile of uh gravel and stored materials that are uh left out on the property.

Exhibit T is uh more commercial equipment, cargo containers.

Next slide, please.

And the background, this is the failed reinspection on December 30, where we uh did identify more of the uh cargo containers in the background and the cargo containers in the front.

This is taken from the public right-of-way.

Next slide, please.

Uh, same thing taken from the public right-of-way with showing the commercial equipment and utility equipment and uh vehicles on the left and um commercial equipment and vehicle on uh the right.

Next slide, please.

This is a pre-inspection uh before we took the case to the West BZA hearing, just to show them that there were still uh the cargo containers in the background, and uh that we were on site, and we we didn't um we had to let them know that the violations were still on the property.

Next slide, please.

Uh, since that hearing was postponed, we did another pre-inspection uh visit on um May 11th, and you see the still the accumulation of those uh dumpsters and utility vehicles on the site.

Next slide, same thing here, pre-inspection meeting, uh degraded uh bags with a concrete mix and um more storage containers, uh the fence in the front yard uh that exceeds uh the height uh limitation, although I think that that was uh already addressed that they have to have it uncovered uh up to six feet.

Um next slide, please.

Um this is still the uh May 11th inspection, truck belonging to a tree care being stored on the property and truck belonging to Gold Green demolition stored on the property.

Still on May 11th uh from the public right-of-way, uh, JCA transportation being stored on the property, the various other front loaders, tractors, transport trailers, uh, as well as a large uh dumpster in the background and uh utility equipment.

Next slide, please.

Uh item nine is the unpermitted uh bridge that was constructed.

We it's not part of our case, but uh, I just we wanted to show that that's uh already addressed by the building department and the water board.

Uh item 10 uh just shows the multiple RVs and some are being lived in or and stored on the property.

And uh this slide here is July 9.

We did uh do inspection there.

We had an appointment, however, the inspector was late uh due to some things happening in the office, so we're not able to meet the owner.

However, we were able, he was able to obtain these uh photograph from with consent from the property owner, uh neighboring property owner.

Uh so uh on number 11.

This uh uh is still uh showing the heavy equipment uh stored on the property.

Number 12 shows large equipment as well as uh the concrete barricades on the property.

13 um showing is still multiple storage containers uh on the property, 14 concrete barriers and accessory structures that were uh on the property.

I think it's that gazebo in the background.

Uh still from the neighboring property uh and some pictures were also taken from the right-of-way.

Uh garbage dumpsters, storage of the garbage dumpsters.

Uh 16 commercial trucks and uh dumpsters, the dumpster you see there in the front.

Next slide, please.

We did want to share this uh CHP report that we obtained where um the driver stated that they were renting space from the property.

Um, so that's one of the violations that we cited the property owner for.

Next slide, please.

So uh uh just wanted to note that the county gathered substantial evidence violations from the public right away as well as the neighboring properties, and in addition to the evidence gathered during on October 16 uh inspection code enforcement of served violations from the public right-of-way from December 30, uh 2025, April 2026, May 11, 2026, and July 1st, 2026.

Next slide.

I wanted to go over some appeal points.

Uh so their first appeal, which was um basically the same the appeal points they made to the BZA that uh failed to identify specific viable reinspection uh violations, the January 5th, 2026 notice failed to identify with particularity the specific conditions alleged, observed during the December 30, 2025 re-inspection that formed the basis for failed determination.

The notice does not, according to them, identify which alleged violations remain outstanding, describe their location, extent or condition, or provide photographic or documented evidence supporting continued compliance.

Since specific findings, the determination is arbitrary, conclusory, and procedurally defective and cannot support the imposing uh imposition of penalties.

And our response was as the owner did not allow the county code for some access to the property.

There was no way to identify which violations remained outstanding.

However, many violations were still observed from the public right-of-way.

Fines and fees remained the same due to overall noncompliance, and all violations were noted again in the failed reinspection notices and subsequent inspections that I noted earlier.

Their appeal point two was a substantial compliance and good faith abatement efforts were ignored.

Significant good faith efforts were undertaken to address the cited issues with the compliance period to the extent and conditions were present at re-inspections, and they were, according to them, actively being uh corrected, temporary, or due to minimum in nature and/or subject to a legit to legitimate dispute regarding their classification of zoning interpretation.

The counties failed to acknowledge or account for these efforts rendered enforcement action disproportionate and uh unreasonable.

So our response was that the initial notice of violations were sent on November 4, 2025.

County court enforcement did not conduct a reinspection until December 30, 2025.

In the 55 days span between those dates, no significant compliance efforts were noted, or on observable areas from the public right away, as there was no efforts to allow us access to the property, and uh good faith efforts could not be verified.

Was that improper and premature assessment of fines and fees?

Uh so the failed reinspection did include the uh imposition of fees for uh re-inspection, 193 zoning 250 fine, administrative fee of 268, and uh obtaining the warrant staff time of 772, which we did let them know in our appointment letter that we would pursue uh at that time.

Um they're expressly disputed according to them.

These charges are supported by uh adequate findings, uh, were imposed without due consideration of compliance efforts and appear punitive rather than corrective, contrary to the state stated purpose of code enforcement.

So our response was that the fines and fees charged for failed reinspections are standard amounts stated within our ordinance 1759-200 and 6.65220, and charges for obtaining warrant were stated to be paid by the owner in the notice of intent obtain a warrant appointment letter that I mentioned early on.

Appeal point four would dispute the zoning interpretation in agricultural zones.

According to them, several cited items depend on discretionary interpretation for uh permissible uses and accessory activities within an A zone designation, including storage, fencing, and alleged accessory uses structures.

The county has uh not demonstrated that these uses are categorically prohibited rather than potentially permissible with uh ministerial approval.

Uh, enforcement actions based on unresolved or unclear zoning interpretations are improper and premature.

So, our response was is that the interpretation of the violations cited uh were not discretionary, any storage equipment, accessory structures or other items listed in the uh appeal must be used for agricultural purposes uh or supports primary uses uh as the area, as there are no confirmed permitted agricultural uses associated with this items stored on the property, uh, they remain in violation of the cited county ordinances.

So their claim was that they're using the property for grazing, uh, which we did not see any animals when we were there with a warrant, and they were only um mentioned a few cattle and a few horses.

I don't know the exact number.

Uh appeal five, the due process violation.

Uh the cumulative enforcement action, including escalating fines and fees, administrative fees, and warrant costs have been posed without adequate notice specifically uh or specific specificity or uh opportunity to meaningfully respond in violation of fundamental procedural due process.

So our response is the county enforcement followed all applicable procedures, uh noticing and timelines as required by the county ordinances.

So uh just to make a note that the superior court delegation regarding administrative warrants, the property order uh filed, did file a motion to quash the inspection warrant and to suppress evidence obtained during our October 1625 inspection under warrant.

Uh, but on up on April 14, 26.

Uh the court did deny the motion in its entirety and held that the county uh use of evidence must proceed through the admissive administrative process, which we did with the BCA and uh now today in front of your board.

Board of Supervisors may broadly consider evidence uh before it under Alameda County Ordinance Code Section 6.65160.

Uh hearings are not government by California Court of Evidence.

The board may consider any relevant evidence reasonably relied upon in serious affairs.

Any relevant evidence shall be uh admitted if it is the type of evidence on which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which will make in make improper the admission of such evidence over objections in table action in course of competent jurisdiction in its state.

So uh we do recommend that the board staff recommends that the board survivor deny the appeal and sustained decision of the West Border Zoning Adjustment declaring the property in violation of Alameda County Zoning Ordinances, uh Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, zoning ordinance in Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, therefore a public nuisance, and require uh abeyman to be completed within 30 days, and also to pay all outstanding fines and peace.

Uh, that concludes my presentation.

Uh take any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Before we go to public comment, I'll see if there are any questions.

Supervisor Tam.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

I just have a couple of clarifying questions.

So from your presentation, um, you said this is zone agriculture, and it's subject to the zoning ordinance.

Is this also um under the Williamson Act?

I mean, in terms of their tax exemptions.

Uh I haven't, I haven't looked at the property if they were uh on the list or not.

Okay, because usually uh as we saw with similar properties on Crow Canyon, uh, there's a certain amount of production that's expected with uh agricultural zoning and and under the Williamson Act.

And it wasn't clear to me from um the graphics on your presentation, uh, what exactly they're producing.

It sounds like a horse training facility with the corrals, but it didn't seem like a setup for horse training.

Uh when we were there during our inspection with the warrant, we did not see any uh those types of um activity or setup.

The what they claimed on the West BCA hearing that they are using the property for grazing horses and cattle, which we did not see at that time, uh, and they said it's very minimal, a few horses, a few cattle, and uh our case is that all these storage of um commercial equipment and vehicles and materials is um you know wouldn't be categorized as using for the grazing of those grazing activity.

Not at least not the majority of it.

Okay.

Um you mentioned there was a bridge that got constructed over the creek that did they receive permitting for that?

No, they actually when we did our uh warrant on inspection under warrant.

We didn't have the uh building department and water board uh with us, and they are pursuing that violation with the property owner.

Uh the building department issues a stop work order, and the water board has been uh sending uh notices to the property owner to comply.

And as of yesterday, they have not uh had any compliance, so they're there are continuing their enforcement action.

Is so is that a separate enforcement or is this under uh this covered jurisdictions with some of these citations that you've identified?

Uh that that's not we did not cover that under our uh we don't have a section that would cover that.

It would be under the purview of the building department and the water board.

Um is this creek uh considered uh is it a um intermittent creek or is it a navigable waters or what is the um designation there?

I have don't have that information.

Uh uh we can ask if the water board is uh present.

They said they were going to attend.

Maybe they can answer that question.

We did confirm that the property is not under the Williamsome Act.

Um, and just to piggyback on the Ed was saying, I mean the water board, it's within their jurisdiction and they have their own process for uh notice of violations.

Um at this at the state level board or state level um agency.

So we uh we are somewhat of a bystander for for those notices of violation, although we do coordinate with them when as needed, and we have another cases as well.

Okay.

Uh I I think there might be some additional clarification that might be needed because a part of the appeal um is that they're not affecting others, and when you are affecting a creek, you are essentially affecting others, and that's why I was trying to understand the designation and the concerns from the water board.

Sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Supervisor Marquez and then Miley.

Um thank you.

Do we know if the owners of this land have owned it for a long time or are they relatively new?

Uh my understanding is that uh it was purchased about three years ago or so.

Okay, and how many acres is it?

Uh 44.3, I believe.

Okay, and then do we have the total cost of the outstanding fines?

Uh yes.

Um I believe the total came out to 1,483.

Okay.

And with respect 1,000, that seems one second.

Yeah.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh so uh the final uh I mentioned it early on.

Uh two 250 uh dollars for the uh zoning fine, uh 193.250, not 250,000.

I just want to make sure I'm here correctly.

Okay, 250 dollars.

Okay, okay.

Sorry.

Um 193 for the reinspection fee.

Uh-huh.

268 for administrative fee.

Okay, and 772 for the inspection warrant.

Okay.

In the resolution that calls for 250 dollars of fines and 1233 of administrative fees.

Correct.

I have lots of thoughts about this, but I'll reserve my comments.

Um, okay, but I'm glad you're highlighting this for us.

Um, with respect to the complaints, um, those can be made anonymously.

We typically wouldn't share correctly to just to keep the piece in the neighborhood.

Can you kind of just speak to the confidentiality around filing a complaint?

And are those received?

Email, phone call?

Like what's the process to receive those complaints?

Uh we've received several uh emails about it and also some um phone calls from uh more than one individual.

And you've already indicated there is no uh dwelling unit on this property.

Correct.

And any plans that you're aware to construct, have any permits been pulled.

Um they did submit an application to install a uh a unit there.

Um, I believe their initial idea was the fifth wheeler.

However, the planning department uh told them that they couldn't do that because it um has wheels and all that stuff.

So I think it's still pending uh their application to they were trying to install a some type of unit on the property.

So the planning department is currently reviewing that.

Okay, and and then did you say solar panels have been installed or you just saw equipment?

Uh they were installed.

Uh, as far as we I think they also were cited by the building department for that issue.

Okay, so they're their um description of violations as bridge over the creek on north boundary and solar system mounted on shipping containers.

So I think whether they were operating at the time or not, because they were installed, that would be a violation because they were installed.

Without permit, yes, without permits.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley.

Thanks.

Yeah, looking at the um time frame associated with this um property.

It's been a long tortured um journey before it's gotten to us um Castro Valley, uh the AG area of Cash Rally.

The um what I find fascinating, and I do want to hear from the water water board.

If they're are they on uh the owner's attorney is here, not the I'm not concerned about the owner's attorney.

The water board is the water board on.

Yeah, uh, my name is Carson Caps, and I'm an attorney with the state board.

If you'd like to do that, yes, please.

Yeah, come on up because one of your water board has to say, and I'm concerned about fishing game and fishing games waited.

Come on, and then um the complaints, the you know, uh once again, code enforcement doesn't um do proactive complaints, although I want them to start doing that in actually land.

But uh this was a complaint driven and seems to me uh getting back to Supervisor Marquez's question or comment, the the fines, fees and metric costs, it just seems extremely low based on my experience being on the board the last 25 years and having to deal with these type of uh actions.

So I'll just check that again.

But let's hear from the border board to begin with.

Sure.

Hey there.

Hey board, uh, my name is Carson Caps, and again, I'm an attorney with the Office of Enforcement in the State Water Resource Control Board, and I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The technical staff that participated in the inspection are they have a conflict, so they sent me here to just kind of listen in and take notes and provide general comments about what's going on.

So, in terms of the involvement of fish and wildlife and specific impacts to the creek, I can't uh speak to that today, but the regional board would like to provide support however they can to the board so we can follow up with each other and I could provide you with a copy of my um business card.

But generally, what uh has happened so far with the water board specifically is uh as the presenter said we've sent two different notices of violation on May 2nd and December 15th, 2025.

These notices of violation alleged unauthorized construction activities without coverage under the water board's construction stormwater general permit, as well as alleged unauthorized fill activities into the creek, which we consider to be a water of the state, which is how we have jurisdiction over it.

Uh, these are public documents, um, and I believe that some people at the county were copied on these as well.

But those uh we we can supply those as well to the extent you would like to see them.

But the investigation is ongoing.

Um, and that's all I could say about it for now.

But the water board would like me to say that we appreciate Alameda County staff's cooperation on this, and we support their efforts and we support the uh decision from the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments.

And again, just let me know if you would like my card or if you want more or if you would like to find ways for the water board uh to help out.

We're happy to do what whatever we can.

Okay, thanks.

And if our staff doesn't have your card, can you give it to them?

Thank you.

Um, and then what about fishing game?

Have they been contacted?

Uh yes, they were involved, they did do their inspections.

Uh my understanding is that they are working with the district attorney regarding that.

Okay, because I mean obviously, no, don't give it, I don't want to give it to the staff, yeah.

Um, yeah, because if I need anything, I'll get it from them.

Um the um, yeah, we can't have people constructing bridges across um creeks.

Um, our water course protection ordinance, um, even if it doesn't identify this as a uh intermittent or uh uh a creek standing creek, it's still uh an issue, and I suspect that this isn't an an intermittent creek.

Um so there's you know major concerns just with the bridge alone.

Then secondly, you're saying there's no ag use on the property, it's like a ruse.

The few horses and the few cattle they have there.

Uh yes, that's our understanding.

Okay, what was the property used for in the past before this owner got it?

Um I don't have any historical uh information about the property.

Okay, so once again, having represented the area the last 25-26 years, I don't recall any issues coming up with this property in the past.

Uh so I'm really curious about the background based on where it is now, because it seems like they're just using it to store junk there.

Um, and as you said, there's no ag use, and the stuff that's being stored there has no connection with ag because there's no ag use, it's not under the Williamson Act.

Um so I'm really curious about maybe the history of the property if staff has any of that.

And then, like I said, I'm very concerned about the the fees, the administrative cost, um, fee charge reinspections, all this, it seems extremely low, extremely low based on uh other uh properties we've had to deal with over the course of time.

I mean, all the time you put into this, it just are you sure this is the accurate amount?

Uh yes, so in terms of the fines, we're limited to what the zoning uh abatement section allows us to find.

There is an escalating fine schedule, however, when we uh did the first failed inspection, that allow only allows us to uh impose a 250 fine, which they appeal.

If they did not appeal that, they would have escalated to the next amount, which is 500 and then a thousand fifteen hundred.

And so we were heading there, but they they appealed the first one, that's why it's pretty low.

Oh, okay.

Thanks for that explanation.

The um, yeah, I think that was very shocking.

The uh, let me see here, and then also just to reinforce this based on the report and the answers to at least one of the supervisors, there's no residential uh dwelling on the property.

Uh, that's correct.

They're probably I think there's a residential use on those little pocket parcels inside there, but that's not part of the big parcel that has the violations.

I see, okay.

Um, and then if the board uh um sustains the action of the BZA, denies the appeal, we're giving them 30 days to abate.

Uh correct.

Uh if they have the option of obviously taking it, you know, sewing and going to the court.

Um, but um uh if they can't, if they willingly want to comply in uh and that 30 days isn't sufficient, um, you have the discretion to try to work with them on a on a compliance plan.

Uh yes.

Okay.

Um because I I can't understand why for such a low cost, uh the fees and everything that's here, um, why the uh property owner is so adamant in fighting this as opposed to coming to compliance.

To come into compliance, what would need to take place roughly?

Well, they need to uh basically clean the site, remove everything.

They cannot use it for storage, cannot have um degraded materials, structure, residential.

Yeah, they don't have any primary use, anything that they claim as a primary use for the cows or horses.

They they have equipment for that or storage for that.

That's okay, yeah.

Yes.

And with our abatement, um we're not tying that to the bridge, but uh we want that dealt with too.

So how do we get that handled?

So um that's um under the purview of the you know, water board and the building department.

We are closely monitoring that with them.

We're uh matter of fact, we were the ones who invited them when we got the warrant, so they were able to do their investigations, uh, but we have um no jurisdiction over the enforcement of that part.

Okay, um, well, we we need to track that monitor that, because that needs to be resolved.

Yeah, because yeah, um, I appreciate the work of code enforcement on this, uh, because you're actually just doing a job, and I very much value that because we can't have um we we just can't, you know, we have rules, regulations, laws that everyone needs to comply with because if they don't, then it's just chaos, and everybody can do what they want to do, whether it's in an urban community or rural community, and um if this party can get away with this type of activity, then why not allow the other um property owners who are out there who are complying?

Um, you know, what was that say uh to them?

So I just want to uh thank the uh code enforcement staff for your work on this.

Um, I'm gonna you know I have an open mind and I'll listen to what the um the property owner has to say, but at this point it seems to me that uh this is uh um um uh uh pretty uh um clear in my mind what needs to happen.

Thank you, uh Supervisor Miley.

So questions I have are around what we saw in um our packet um from the applicant.

So for example, um we talked about unpermitted solar, but the packet they claimed that they had applied for a permit from PGE and have since discontinued.

Do they need a permit from PGE and from the county to install solar?

Uh I know that they need a permit from the county.

I'm not sure about PGE.

If they're I just don't know.

I think they have an application uh the in place to install a power pole because PGE said if they want power for that parcel, they need to supply the pole themselves.

Uh however, we put that on hold because they're uh when we when I called the applicant yesterday, uh she said that they it was supposed to be a for 400 switch gear for EV charger, and an EV charter for what they they're it has to be um any use of electrical should be part of the agricultural use.

So they haven't answered that question and uh 400 switch gears are more for larger um um uh demand of electric electrical for like multiple housing or commercial uh settings and and there's no residential there, so it's wasn't supposed to be for residential use, and residential is limited to one fifty to 100 ounce uh max.

So did you say residential is on the par pocket parcels that are there?

Correct.

There's a resident residential building there so is that being occupied um believe they have tenants okay with regard to people living in the trailers I think I heard it said in the packet that there's nobody living there how do we verify residential activity we haven't knocked on the doors or um looked uh there's a setup where there's a garden and and you know you don't store a RV with a garden in front of it and so it it has um the appearance of um being lived in but the other RVs they can't even be there for storage anyways so uh there shouldn't be any RVs there at all you had a picture of a gazebo in your report is that like not permitted you can't you're not allowed to have a gazebo.

Well the building department um has rules about what requires a permit or not uh we're not sure we're just uh showcasing that and showing that they have uh structures built on the property um I mean it could have been something you buy at Costco yes you need a permit for that if it's over 120 square feet I believe so okay we don't know if it was over 120 I we did not measure it okay um then I think I saw in the complaint that this was originally a complaint about soil importation uh yeah when we first got the reports they were seeing a lot of activities going on there trucks coming in and out and and um we when we went there on the first inspection the inspector did see trucks coming in and out but they were they had asphalt uh shavings which they claimed was they were repairing roadway it's allowed uh for roadway uh repairs so that's the reason why we did not cite them for soil importing uh however the water board does care about anything going into the property that could impact the water quality and also grading department we were looking into soil importation saw asphalt shavings determined that that's okay for us but felt it might be a concern to the water board that was it near a stream or a creek that we saw.

I believe I don't have the reports with me but also the uh um building department uh grading department also was with us when we did our inspection um uh they're not sure if they issued the citation but we had them with us during our inspection but we saw mostly the asphalt shavings and um no clear evidence that soil was being deposited there for us.

What about the what I read where the inspector said something to the likeness of I'll get you back.

Was that just unfounded or is that our word against his word or did he did we ask our employee if he said that um Mr Kratsky I believe is listening in if you would like to ask him the just like you know if he if if that's a he said she said or if that was said if he's online we just like to know.

Uh as far as I know that's unfounded.

If he's online we can ask him go ahead John.

Hello John Kransky with Alameda County Code Enforcement thank you for hearing me um I did not say anything like that to the best of my recollection.

I do know that there were circumstances that had me quite frustrated in the moment because we were forced to cut through barbed wire fences uh we were also forced to hike up a hill that was not safe for my personnel.

We ended up getting stung by many wasps on the way up.

And Mr.

Chason decided to meet us at the top of the hill after we had done that.

So my frustrations were were quite founded um however, I didn't say anything like that to the best of my recollection, and I never would, because I'm just going to enforce the ordinances as they are written.

And as for the um the initial inspection, upon arriving to there, during the first inspection, I did find that there was uh quite a lot of asphalt shavings being brought in, or at least that's what was said to be being brought in by one of the workers there.

Um and I was not able to verify that each truck had asphalt shavings, but I did say to see that there were a lot of other items um that were on the property that did warrant some sort of uh uh looking into.

And that's why when I took it back to the office, um, we basically you know conferred and said that there were other violations that were occurring, and we wanted to make sure based off of aerials uh that we saw that what we believe to be asphalt shavings weren't asphalt shavings.

So that's why we pursued uh the case and went with it the way we did.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate you being here and uh speaking up.

Um with regard to storage of commercial vehicles, we just don't allow that.

That's by our ordinances, is that right?

And probably measure D.

I think the issue is that they are allowed to store things that are associated with the primary use of the property.

Uh you know, or or uh or a um so in this case, uh all those materials, utility trailers, vehicles, tractors, they're not for the horses and cows.

So that's why they're they were cited.

I I'm trying to understand if that's that it currently violates our policies today.

Uh yes.

Yeah, and that's our policy, not a state of California policy.

Correct.

It's in the zoning ordinance.

And if we wanted to change that zoning ordinance, could we?

Uh I guess anybody could propose a change.

I don't know.

Maybe state law says we can't change the ordinance.

Maybe measure D says we can't change the ordinance.

I'm asking the question just because I don't know the extent of my powers of our powers, and it's a maybe a legal question, maybe an operational question.

But if you own a hundred acres or thirty acres, why you couldn't have some storage is it's a big need.

It's a big need.

Why you can't have some storage on property that you own just because we say you can't.

And maybe that's the way it should be, or maybe we should change our minds to allow for some of that, but done in the proper way, with permits and inspections and the like.

But I'm I'm just trying to understand.

And I I don't say I like what I see.

I'm just trying to understand rights.

It wouldn't depend on the nature of uh zoning ordinance change that you're referring to.

Um you're right that it is a big need, but it also uh in our experience, especially in code enforcement, it also is uh one of the major drivers of enforcement is people storing stuff, you know, trucks, trailers that don't necessarily uh relate to their primary use.

Um so if it was like a winery, for example, we would expect there to be trucks and other kind of utility uh vehicles and storage containers, much like you see in these photographs, but there is no winery in this particular case.

So you know that's why that's the illegal nature of of this particular violation.

Um but to answer your question about whether we could change that and allow some level of outdoor storage, that would be done through a zoning code amendment.

Right now we don't allow that.

Um anything close to that, like a contractor storage yard, for example, is not a permitted use in the egg zone, whether by right or with a conditional use permit, mostly because they can be unsightly.

Um people like to look at open space and you know, pristine uh, you know, hills and such, and and that usually is is sort of the opposite sometimes, as you can see in this photo.

So that's why we we don't permit it.

And then lastly, any zoning change would have to be consistent with measure D.

And so we'd have to go through that exercise.

I mean, maybe the reason we see so much illegal dumping everywhere, is because people don't have a place to store stuff.

It's a different topic, I guess, a little bit because I see mounds of dirt on the side of my roads in Sunol.

And that's because people either don't have a place to take it or our zoning ordinances don't allow for what they need to do, and therefore we see illegal dumping happen everywhere or unused vehicles, or you know, are they supposed to drive them out to Tracy, another county, so they can store and go back and forth every day?

So I'm just trying to see that balance.

But as it's today, I'm hearing very clearly the ordinances that we have today.

Not to say that we need to change them, but by what's on the books today.

Our determination is this isn't allowed.

Okay.

I just needed to clarify that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, is there if this is uh an appeal, we have the applicant have the ability to have five minutes or more, sometimes 10, right?

Yes.

And then rebuttal's we don't have really um this isn't a dispute between two parties, so don't we have we don't have to have a back and forth.

We can just have a presentation by the uh uh applicant uh appellant.

Get my terminology straight.

You're the lawyer, come on up.

You got 10 minutes, up to up to.

It doesn't have to be 10 minutes.

And is the applicant here?

Uh appellant.

I don't know if it's not support me.

Okay, just you.

Thank you.

Um thank you, uh, supervisors.

Uh Peter Prause, I'm the attorney for the appellants.

Uh I know you've been generous in giving me 10 minutes.

Um up to, up to, I'm gonna ask for 25 since that's what Mr.

Labaiak got.

Uh, and I think it's fair to get equal time.

Uh, this is a quasi judicial um proceeding.

Um, uh, even though um supervisor Miley uh has said he's not interested in hearing from me.

I hope that he and the other supervisors keep an open mind.

Um we're here on alleged code violations, but the main concern is about the requirement to remove structures that my client uses as part of the principal agricultural and residential uses of the property that are being developed.

Um neighbors showed up at the DZA to complain.

Um you can't see much of the property from the road.

Several neighbors showed up to support my client.

Uh, other agencies are involved, but their complaints are largely paperwork uh related.

It's not true that there's been no compliance with those other agencies.

Um we've submitted survey information uh to the water board showing that the bridge is well above the ordinary high water mark and outside the water board's jurisdiction.

Um there are no allegations or evidence of actual environmental harm here.

Uh the creek issues are not part of this abatement order and really aren't relevant.

Since we're hearing today that the DA has been contacted, I won't be answering questions about creek issues.

Um as you consider the code issues here, you should be mindful that any order is only as valid as the procedures used to get us here.

Unfortunately, the order before you is a result of numerous violations of the law by the county.

Um I want to give some context.

Um, my client bought this property only recently.

He's getting up to speed with his use of the property.

He's built one horse paddock up at the top of the property, which staff didn't show you in their photographs.

They did inspect it, however.

And they're building another that you can see in in the lower part of their property that you can see in their photos.

It's not done, but that's what they're that's what they're doing.

They're getting the back of the property, which has historically been used for graded grazing, it's fenced.

You can see it in historical photographs, uh suitable for grazing going forward, including irrigation up there.

Um the enforcement here was born initially, at least not out of concern for the code or the environment, but by an effort by a neighbor at extorting my client, and then a determination by staff for quote payback against my client.

This uh was not disputed at the DZA hearing, and it's not credible for Mr.

Kranski to dispute that for the first time today.

Want to just read an email that my um that we submitted to the DZA hearing from my client about uh that initial inspection, um, which was not disputed by Mr.

Kransky at that time.

About 18 months ago, Nick Dominakis, a neighbor two doors down who is nearly perpetually drunk, threatened to report me to code enforcement for road work I was having done at the time.

He threatened that if I didn't pay to pave his front parking area, he would ensure that code enforcement would harass me.

My wife and I had always treated both Nick and his wife well, so we set up a meeting.

We met with them and requested that they not blackmail us.

John Cransky from Code Enforcement called me not long after and asked to inspect.

I explained the blackmail situation and that the road work he was concerned about was well within our land use exemptions.

I also mentioned that Alameda County had already inspected it twice, and I declined to submit to a warrantless baseless search of the property, especially since it was my neighbor basically harassing me via code enforcement.

For reasons unknown to me, Inspector Kransky then went on a discriminatory enforcement street spree to punish me for not letting him search.

Inspector Kransky led the charge and kept saying that he was doing he was going to be harsh with me for not letting him search without a warrant.

While inspecting, Inspector Kransky ended up getting stung by about a dozen hornets, which made him appear extremely angry.

After this, Inspector Kransky pulled me aside and specifically stated that he was going to pay me back for the Hornets.

I was stunned and understood this to mean that Kransky was threatening me and that he would use his position to harm me.

Without a doubt, Kranski had just made a very serious threat against me.

In subsequent conversations, Inspector Kransky told me that I couldn't have a car on my property, but only a truck and only during daylight hours.

He also came up with a bunch of other violations that seem to have no basis in code.

I've only been the owner for three years.

When we bought it, the property was not being maintained, but most of what Inspector Kransky has cited is bad fiction heaped upon fractured logic.

So a few problems, uh legal problems here.

Um the warrant was issued based upon an unsworn affidavit in violation of California law in the Fourth Amendment.

The Alameda County Superior Court has invited us to challenge any order you might issue today on that basis, which would include a claim for attorney fees and for damages.

Mr.

Kranski has gone out subsequently to take pictures, which are part of the staff report.

Um thank you for getting that up.

Um can you go forward?

Yeah, one more thing.

Yeah, here we go.

When he when when staff tells you that they've taken pictures from the public right away, that's not true.

This is Mr.

Kransky uh trespassing onto my client's property to take photographs, both uh uh during his initial inspections on the left uh and on July 1st when he was three hours late to um the inspection on the right.

Um these are not from the public right-away, these are are his evidence gathered as a result of trespass by county staff.

You can't base a legal order on illegal trespass by your staff.

Um staff are now interfering with my clients' right to petition the county for permits for some of the things that staff complain about, like solar panels.

My client wants to hook up his house, which is right there on the property.

He lives in one of those pocket parcels, and his Tesla to solar.

That's why the solar panels, that's that's why the power pole are being uh applied for for permits.

As a county, we want to encourage people to get solar, especially in more rural areas.

My client has been trying for months to get solar permits from the county in PGE.

And part of the order you're being asked to approve is we understand it, is to remove the solar panels and containers that are currently being staged on the property while my client awaits those permits.

Those panels are not hooked up, they never have been hooked up, and um they're not hooked up today.

He'd like to get them hooked up so he can get off the grid, but that's the that's the purpose of the solar panels.

They're sitting uninstalled.

He wants to put them on top of the storage containers where they can get some good sun.

That's why the storage containers are there.

Um, that's where the solar panels are.

Um, and that's what he'd like to do, and that's what you're being asked to tell him he cannot do.

Um we learned yesterday that Mr.

Lavayag has personally intervered to quote void those permit applications for the solar, even while this appeal is pending and the DZA's order is stayed.

It's completely unacceptable.

My client has the right to petition the county for permits to install solar without his interference.

You can't complain that my client doesn't have permits all at the same time preventing him from getting those permits.

Um the appeal documents uh address each of the specific alleged code violations and explain that they are based on misrepresentations or misunderstandings uh of the law and of the facts.

Many of the allegations don't make sense.

For example, staff allege that they're unpermitted home occupations, but they admit that home occupations are an allowed use.

Um, they also tell you there are no residential uses of the property, but they're also saying at the same time that they're unpermitted home occupations.

It doesn't make any sense.

Um the client's main residence is right there.

I've been to his house.

Um there's no effort to establish as staff must that any of the alleged violations here violate the general standard of the neighborhood.

If you could go forward.

Thank you.

The neighborhood uh again, please.

Yeah, the neighborhood preservation ordinance requires um a showing of what the general neighborhood standard is.

These are photographs from Google Earth of properties within a half mile of my clients, all doing basically the same thing my client is doing.

I don't know that any of you could pick out which one of those photographs is of my client's property.

One of them is you could go to the next slide, please.

Uh I also took these photographs also within a half mile of my client's property.

These are none of these are my clients' properties.

This is the neighborhood standard.

Nobody's complaining uh except the one neighbor who is upset that my client wouldn't pave his driveway for free.

That's what this, that's what got this case started.

Um I running out of time.

I've addressed all the other specific allegations in uh the written materials, uh, which I could go through, but I think I will leave it there for now.

Thank you.

I think you mentioned in the beginning something about equal time.

I don't know if that's a legal term, but I'm hesitant to cut you off if you have more uh important things to say.

But I also heard what I believe to be legal discrepancies, maybe even violations.

Do you suppose you have a legal course of action against the county?

I believe we would, yes, based upon uh um illegal uh search.

The judges has said that um we've got exhaust our remedies here before we can pursue that claim in court, but yes, we certainly do.

Um I think the county code um staff are also misinterpreting your your ordinances and applying those as a basis for for this order, and certainly that would be the basis for a writ action for this to be adopted.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the law, but I have to ask our county council.

Is there an opportunity for us to discuss this in close session?

Given the comments that were made by the comments I heard was him reserving his right to file.

Not a threat of litigation.

Supervisor, this is Andrea Weddle Interim County Council.

I concur with Ms.

O'Brien.

I've not heard anything at this moment that would allow us to uh recess into closed session.

Okay.

Um you submit I should have asked this before, but these are pictures of animals grazing.

That's correct.

These were inspected and seen by our people.

I don't well they say that they didn't see any of those animals.

I saw the uh the horses, my clients sent me pictures of the of the cows.

They were over the hill when I uh went back to the property, but he's got horses and cows on the property today.

Was it discussion of the discussion of the future plans by the landowner?

And was there discussion about you know what how long that might take and if you were to proceed with those plans that we could work with you as a landowner or was any I guess that's a question for Ed or our team.

Did we ever did we did we're saying that we didn't see these?

Maybe they were brought in after we were there, or maybe they were just out and about while we were there.

I don't know, but there was a horse paddock apparently inspected, and another one being constructed.

So do we have any reason to believe that indeed there are animals there or have we had discussions about could he bring animals?

Could he bring grazing to get into compliance with would that be something that would get him into compliance if we had that discussion.

Uh we have not had that discussion with the property owner but we would support anything that they would propose that was put them into compliance but we haven't had any of those conversations.

Is it your we welcome that discussion and we we invited it before the DZA hearing and and were told that we could not have that discussion.

And in fact our one of our legal grounds here is that you can't order our client to remove stuff before you give him him an opportunity to to get it permitted and we're trying to get at least some of the things permitted we don't believe that the ag uses require permits but um we'd like to get cattle and I mean I don't know if any of you know how the cattle market at the moment but but um record highs so it's hard to get a large number of cattle at the moment but that is I mean it's 40 acres it goes way back and it's fenced it's great grazing ground all the properties around there are used for grazing and that's what my client would like to do with it.

You raised the question about the neighborhood standard you showed photos of properties that I admit I couldn't pick out the one that was yours and these seem to be everywhere in the immediate area they just haven't been complained about.

The code requires the the neighborhood preservation ordinance requires a violation of the of neighborhood standards.

And I mean you that's the neighborhood standard maybe the county would like to elevate the neighborhood standard but I don't know I mean you're making an example out of my client then I guess so that's an ex a question for legal and I'll recognize Supervisor Miley um is that is that a thing that neighborhood standards can be accomplished or determined by what you see around the neighborhood and what do we say when the applicant points out that what his client is doing is seemingly done by so many others.

And I don't say that just because other people do it doesn't mean I can do it.

If other people break the rules then I can break the rules I don't think that that's exactly right but yet we have seemingly this doctrine or thought of if you allow other people to break the rules then how do you persecute one person or enforce against one person?

It's a legal question.

It's slightly a legal question.

I would like to point out that our code enforcement system is largely complaint based um and it is not a defense to uh violating any of our ordinances to say someone else is doing the same thing.

And that's we're legally defensible by saying that that we can we can um we can tolerate other things happening if they haven't been complained upon because we decide to have a complaint based system because I I'm thinking the defense is saying just because you choose to only enforce what has been complained upon leads to an unfair system.

I don't know I I it's again a legal doctrine that I'm not quite sure I understand.

Well I can add that our code enforcement is also largely discretionary so that is a right that's given to code enforcement to um enforce its ordinances on a complaint basis and has discretion.

We have that discretion okay but President Hobbard you wanted to yeah go ahead if I didn't if I could sway in quickly um the law doesn't require you to address every violation at the same time um and I will note in this case that that the appellant's attorney is speaking to the neighborhood preservation ordinance and you also are faced today with a number of violations of the zoning ordinance.

So different standards for those two different types and sources of violations.

So, yes, we can proceed on a complaint-driven basis.

Yes, we can handle them as they arise.

And if this individual appellant wants to complain about his neighbors, then we would address those as those complaints are received.

Finally, yeah, a few things.

Gather my thoughts.

The um just on the code enforcement, it's complaint driven.

That's been the history of the county since I've been here.

It's complaint driven.

We don't have adequate code enforcement personnel to make it proactive.

If we're proactive, we'd catch a lot more stuff.

So that's the first thing.

It's complaint driven.

You know, the board hopefully is gonna move ahead with proactive code enforcement in Ashma and Turin.

Um, but it's been complaint driven.

Um, secondly, those pictures he took, they those locations could be um appropriate because the equipment's there for ag purposes for ag use associated with the property.

We don't know.

But if there are violations, then if it if code enforcement gets a complaint, they'll go out and address that.

We don't have the personnel.

You know, we've got East County.

I mean, a lot of ag out in East County.

We've got Synol, we've got unincorporated Riemann track in Pleasanton.

We've got all of the urban unincorporated.

They don't have the personnel to be proactive.

That's why it's complaint-driven.

Um, I know uh the attorney's pretty pretty um smooth.

Um, you know, I've remained impartial today at this hearing.

Staff's briefed me on this yesterday, as well as a few other parties have briefed me.

Uh, my staff have briefed me, so I was impartial up until the time I heard the staff presentation today, and your presentation hasn't convinced me otherwise.

I think ultimately we'll we'll be in court and we'll get this resolved because no one in here is under oath.

So if our code enforcement officer made some comments that um were inappropriate, then that that'd be helped taken up under oath in court.

But but I'm gonna go ahead because I trust our staff, first of all.

Secondly, I want them to be um very um rigid because we can't tolerate inappropriate activity, at least not under my watch in the unincorporated area of which I have responsibility.

This isn't this isn't other jurisdictions where we just let you know violations go willy-nilly and it's okay.

No, no, no, no, no.

It's not okay.

It's not okay.

And if you dispute the action of our staff, then sue us.

We'll deal with it in court.

Wait a minute, Supervisor Hybrid will let you respond in a second.

I haven't finished my um remarks just yet.

Secondly, or thirdly, um, it's important that we follow, and it's not always the board's decision to follow, but the West County Board of Zoning Adjusters also have held the action of our staff.

And when I've got our staff saying one thing, I've got the BCA saying another thing, and now you're coming here telling me I shouldn't listen to them.

No, no, no.

I think hey, if I'm gonna balance the equities here, I'm gonna balance it on the side of our staff in the West County Board of Zoning Adjusters, as well as any communications that I've received as of yesterday pertinent to this action today.

Communications from either our staff when they briefed me, my staff when they briefed me, or other people uh associated with the ag area out on Crowe Canyon.

So I just want to be clear on this point.

I think there's some concerns here.

The fact that you build a bridge across a creek, I think that's a major concern.

The fact that the property's being used as a junkyard, I think it's a major concern.

And if I'm wrong, I want that to be brought out in a court of law that I'm wrong.

And if we get sued and we have to uh talk about this further, we'll talk about it further.

But that's where I'm coming from at this point.

Now, if President Halbert would like to have you respond to any of my tire, he can do that.

But I'm on the record.

Yeah, so um, I just have to also recognize that this um activity is in Supervisor Miley's district, which is habitually a problem for our county.

Yeah, but Supervisor Howard is.

And so is my district.

When we go out to East County, you'll have you know you have these same things and like staff pointed out.

I mean, yeah.

If they're storing stuff and it's for edict purposes, that's great.

If they are abusing that, that's not good.

I agree.

Um we, I think it's appropriate to allow the attorney to respond.

You run in a meeting.

Thank you.

I don't think it's appropriate for supervisor to be calling me names like Slick.

Um I'm here doing my job.

I thought you were smooth.

I said you're just thank you.

Okay.

Well, I I still don't think that was intended as a compliment.

Um, I do have a point of order though.

Mr.

Miley has disclosed that he apparently had some ex parte communications that were not put on the record with staff.

So I'd like to know who uh he met with uh with staff.

The staff, um, uh who else was in the meeting?

Albert.

Sandy, the head of the community development agency, Albert Lopez or planning director, my chief of staff, Tona Hininger, uh one of my other staff, um, Ashley Strasberg, who lives in the Cash Valley and handles uh Cash Valley for me.

Uh Chuck Moore, who's on the Mac and lives out on Crow Canyon, those were the people were enforcement staff in on that meeting.

Um, okay, thank you.

That's it.

But keep in mind the code enforcement reports to Albert and they report to Sandy.

Thank you for that clarification.

So I wish that we um one, I don't see a problem with the fees, which are south of fifteen hundred dollars.

I do wish that I saw more collaboration and discussion about how to get to good.

I do wish that we had more discussion about uh understanding, you know, we have a pocket parcel with a residence on it, and yet I've heard testimony from our team that we don't even know who lives there.

That's the guy that's this is all about.

So I think we knew who lived there.

Um we have discussion about a electricity that wants to be installed, and I don't know what a Tesla requires, but I'm hearing that they need electricity for their Tesla.

We want solar to be used, and so anyway, it just seems to be a lot of back and forth that maybe could be resolved.

Um I one last question I have is th 30 days to abate, if that's the order given.

Um we have flexibility in that if he needs more time, or if they choose to pursue a plan, you said we would be all ears to hear a plan of getting to good if he needs time to graze.

How much time do we think we need to have those discussions?

Because I'm inclined to think that um it might take more than 30 days, there might be a way to avoid potential litigation.

We might be able to get to good with a compromise, and I would like to see that happen.

Uh, yes, we would we would uh like to see that happen as well.

Um first thing is that the owner has to express their willingness to um abide by whatever order we decide today, and if they uh are willing to do that and we can start conversations about timing and deadlines, et cetera, that we can put into a compliance agreement.

Uh we recognize that it's gonna take more than 30 days to to achieve full compliance, but we would expect you know incremental progress, uh substantial progress that would lead us up to a full compliance.

We're open to that and trying to create a a compliance agreement if needed.

Because I don't want to see this in litigation.

I'm hoping that we can resolve it without that.

Uh I would be willing to support this if the 60 day 30 days was changed to six months no no no no no well okay president halber that gives us time for them to discuss if we if we uphold the bzA and deny the appeal staff will have the ability to provide flexibility oh i see yeah so we don't so you don't have to impose the 60 the 30 days you can continue to have discussions is that right so what's before your board today is to uphold the decision of the West BCA and they um made the 30 day requirement so when you uphold their decision you're up to holding the 30 days and then the order is effective and then staff can reach out to the property owner with that order in place and say we can enter into a compliance plan.

And that compliance plan can exceed 30 days.

Well that's what I'm trying to get because uphold I can also uphold it with a change as part of the compliance plan it would say that this order is in effect um and that they need to come into compliance and how they come into compliance is what could be negotiated with staff.

Okay so again um once again through the chair yeah once they have a compliance plan I mean that might exceed they might need to have 30 days to come up with a compliance plan but then they come up with a compliance plan and hopefully they're moving forward with operationalizing that compliance plan and that could take yeah three months four months six but the staff would be monitoring that then if for some reason they fail to comply with the compliance plan then staff could move to take action against them so uh that's kind of my understanding of how this could proceed is that staff's understanding uh yes the uh if you upholded it the uh decision of the VCA it would default to what their uh requirements are to be in full compliance within 30 days however we do have that option if the property owner is willing to be in compliance to um have a uh plan with benchmark dates on progress uh not just start and finish but you know in between kind of um their lawyer indicates they are yes and then staff would update the West BCA as to the progress of that abatement oh okay is that correct uh yes we could yes we don't have to hear about this unless it goes to court is that right good yes so um miley you want to make a motion uh before you make a motion i want to put on record that I did not void the uh their permit application for the uh power poll there was a hold because uh there was a pending code enforcement case and we wanted to understand uh the the installation or what it was for and uh that's still um being uh discussed okay before and before I um move I don't know if there's uh public speakers on this Mr.

Chair I'm sorry I forgot about public comment public comment if I may add also um if they do not fulfill that order um under the NPO under the neighborhood preservation ordinance at least uh code enforcement staff is obligated to abate so they must abate the word a shall abate if they violate that order so even though they have a compliance plan they're not bringing it into compliance code enforcement staff can take that measure or has to take that measure thank you for that clarity yeah public comment on this item there are no public comments motion's been made is there a second marquez we'll move that we uphold the decision of the West County Board of zoning adjusters and deny the appeal thank you supervisor miley made a motion I'll second the motion and then is there further discussion no second okay call for the vote please can I add on please that you'll also impose the fines and fees and we impose those penny fines and fees.

Secretary Greece.

Roll call vote.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass excused.

President Halbert.

I abstain.

Thank you.

The next item is public input on items not on today's agenda.

Do we have any public comment on items well that are not on the agenda but within the purview of this board.

Yes, one online.

Griffin, go ahead.

You have uh two minutes.

Thank you, board.

Good afternoon.

I just want to leave you with a couple of thoughts on Measure D.

I think it's time to start asking whether Measure D is actually helping agriculture or whether it's part of the parts of it are standing in agriculture's way.

Take the 100-acre minimum parcel size.

100 acres.

That's an incredibly high bar for anybody who wants to start a small family farm, especially a crop operation, or the next generation of agricultural businesses.

I don't think that's what voters envisioned when they wanted to preserve agriculture.

And then there's the requirement that resource management land be only used for quote low intensity agriculture.

I don't even know what that means, and who gets to decide what intensity of farming is appropriate.

If a farmer wants to responsibly grow more crops, plant a vineyard, or invest more into their land, why should the county be telling them they're farming too intensely?

We should absolutely protect open space and we should absolutely prevent urban sprawl.

But protecting open space does not require tying one hand behind the back of our farmers.

If we truly want to preserve agriculture for the next generation, we need to be willing to revisit the parts of Measure D that are preventing it from evolving and succeeding.

Thank you.

There are no more speakers.

Very good.

Seeing as we have uh discussed all the uh business before us today, we are adjourned.