We're going to approve the minutes and go to the close-up. After we'll call.ording in progress. Good morning everyone. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the May 8th planning meeting. I'd like to ask the clerk to please call the roll to establish our quorum. Supervisor Marcus. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Miley excused. Supervisor Fortenadebos excused. President Halbert. President. We have a quorum. Would you all please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you very much. very much our next item is to approve the minutes of the planning meeting for April 10th. Mr. President, I will move the minutes for April 10th 2025. I'll second it. It moved in seconded. Is there any public comment either in the room or online? Seeing none, I ask for a roll call vote supervisor Marcus. I TAMI supervisor Miley excused supervisor for to not oboss President Halbert aye Motion passes approving the minutes of April 10th. Thank you very much. Our next item is that we shall adjourn to close session. I'm advised that close session may last as long as 45 minutes. May be longer. I would like to just give advice that we should be back in 45 minutes, but it may be longer. With that said, we are going to recess into closed session. Thank you all. Recording in progress. Welcome back everyone. I'd like to resume our meeting and ask the clerk to call the roll to establish quorum. Professor Marcus. Professor. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Miley. Supervisor Fortinato-Boss. Present. President Halbert. Present. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. I note that we generally talk about ways to participate. We didn't do that. I'd like to welcome everybody who is here in person and online. We value your feedback and input. We do allow public comment. And I always ask the clerk to explain how to do that. Remotely, if you are in the room in person, obviously fill out a speaker slip. But I'll ask the clerk to give directions on how to participate remotely. Thank you. Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines. A link to the document is included in today's agenda. If you are joining the meeting using a computer, use the button at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand to request to speak. When call to speak, please unmute your microphone and state your name. If you are calling in, that will start on to raise your hand to speak. When you are call to speak, the host will enable you to speak if you decide not to speak. Notify the clerk when your call is unmuted or you may simply hang up and dial back into the meeting. As a reminder, you may always just observe the meeting without participating by clicking on the view now link on the county's webpage at acgov.org. When called, you will have three 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 a consent calendar item three is our motion to approve. I will move the consent calendar. I'll second it. It's been moving second and excuse me, President. However, we do have interpreters and they may be able to give instructions as well. Sure. Let's do that. Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Paula. I'm from International Contact and we will start with giving the instructions for the interpretation. Let me share my screen one second. Okay, can everyone see the instructions? Yes. Okay. We have Spanish interpreters for this meeting and interpretation channels have been created. One moment while we provide instructions. The instructions in Spanish are instructions for the person assisting the meeting in person. I am sure that you have the application of Zoom installed on your phone and have internet connection. Please use headphones with your device to interrupt the meeting room. Now the application of Zoom in the meeting in the number 9-3-9-, 2, 8, 0, 8. And for those who are currently watching, click on the corner of the three points, select the interpretation, click on the language that you can hear in this Spanish case, and optionally, to hear only the language interpreted, click on en silenciar audio regional. Now, the English instructions are to make sure you have the Zoom app installing your smartphone and that you have internet connection, please use headset so that you don't interrupt the meeting taking place in the room. Open the Zoom app and log into the webinar meeting with the following ID number, 93915 72808. And for those attending virtually, click on the bots with the three dots, select interpretation, click on the language you wish to listen to, for example, English, an optional if you want to listen to only the interprets the language selects mute original audio. If you're using a smartphone, okay, that this is important if you are an English speaker to go to the English channel if you want to hear any interpreter comments into English. If at any point of this event a Spanish speaking person has something to present interpreters will interpret simultaneously in the English Channel. A reminder for English speakers is to speak slowly so interpreters can keep up with you. Please keep that in mind. This concludes the Montellungo instructions. Thank you. Is that complete? The instructions? Okay. Thank you. I know we do that because we have an item on the agenda that is happy to have interpretation. If we get to it. Okay. With that said, the consent calendar, a motion's been made. Seconded. Any public comment? In person or online? No speakers. And I ask for a roll call vote then to approve the consent count. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor M'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry the Note on item two that no reportable action was taken in closed session. Thank you for that Okay item four is the second reading of an ordinance nominating to privately owned properties to the Alameda County Register of historic resources as landmarks Yeah, I think the title and this one says at all this is a second reading there is some language which had incorporated into the ordinance, that was requested at the community. I think the title on this one says it all, this is a second reading. There is some language that's incorporated into the ordinance. I was requested at the first reading related to the history of San Lorenzo and its diversity, which you can find in your packet. And that's the short staff presentation on that one. Very good. Are there any clarifying questions or comments from my colleagues on the board before we go to public comment? Recognizing supervisor Miley I guess it's still following up on how we're going to acknowledge this with a plaque or something at the site. Okay, we are exploring that as well. Yes. Very good. Is there any public comment I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. President Howard can I read the ordinance title? Please, yeah. Thank you. In ordinance adding the two properties located at 1-6-026-Paseo del Campo APN 412-0045-089-00 and 225 VL-NATIS APN 413-0086-034-00 in unincorporated San Lorenzo area to the Alameda County Registrar of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 17.62.110 of the Alameda County zoning ordinance. So with the motion made to include that reading of the description. Yes. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. A motion's been made and seconded. No public comment. Roll call vote please.. I supervisor town. I supervisor Miley I supervisor for to not a bus president helper I Motion passes will proceed with Item five General plan and zoning ordinance amendment to promote visitor serving uses in the South Livermore Valley area plan. Good morning supervisors I'm Ali offers with the planning department I believe the clerk is going to bring up our slides for this item. Thank you. So I'm here to present General Plan and Zoning Ordnance Amendments proposed to promote visitor serving uses in the South Livermore Valley area plan. The staff recommendation is that your board hear the following presentation by staff, take public comment, and adopt a resolution finding that an addendum to the 1993 South Livermore Valley Area Plan Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate document to address the proposed amendments. Approving the and adopting the addendum to the 1993 South of Morvalley Plan EIR. Approving and adopting the general plan amendments to the East County area plan to promote development of visitor serving uses, supporting the South of Morvalley area. And that your board conduct an introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending section 17.30.170 of the Alameda County General Ordnance Code Zoning, pertaining to the development of visitor serving commercial uses in the CA or cultivated agriculture combining district with inclusion of a recommendation made by the Planning Commission in Resolution PC25-02. In March of 2022, Planning staff received a letter from the Tri-Valley Conservancy, which I'll refer to as TVC going forward, proposing amendments to the East County area plan and zoning ordinance sections 17-3160 through 30, 180, that were intended to promote the development of economically sustainable agricultural operations in South Livermore Valley. The primary objectives of the proposed amendments is to allow for the clustering of buildings on parcels in the South Livermore Valley area plan to facilitate the development of visitor serving commercial facilities in order to encourage tourism in the south of Ramour Valley area plan to facilitate the development of visitor-serving commercial facilities in order to encourage tourism in the area, support a thriving wine industry, encourage the expansion of vineyards and other cultivated agriculture. The south of Ramour Valley area plan is pictured here. It's outlined in dark green, which may be a little hard to see on your screen there. And the CA Combining District, or Cultivated Ag Combining District, to which the zoning ordinance amendments would apply is pictured in that solid, light green color on the screen. A key part of this proposal is a new program, which we're currently calling program 141, that would establish the parameters for cluster developments under the south of a more valley area plan. Under program 141, for each 20 acre increment of the total acreage included in a clustering plan, the development may include a two acre building envelope with a home site, including a residence and residential accessory structures, and visitor serving commercial uses not to exceed 20,000 square feet. Under this proposal, all visitor serving commercial uses must be contained within a two acre building envelope with the exception of hotels, which may be located within a building envelope or a portion of the building envelope that is greater than two acres in size. Staff has recommended a minor modification to the language that was proposed by TVC to clarify that hotels included in a clustering plan must be located in a building envelope but that the building envelope on which the hotel is located may be larger than two acres. Program 141 also includes conservation easement requirements. The base agricultural zoning district requires a 100 acre minimum parcel size. ECAP and zoning ordinance currently allow for a density bonus of one dwelling unit per 20 acres in the south of in south Livermore provided that a minimum of 90% of the area of a parcel being subdivided be permanently set aside for cultivated agriculture that it be planted and that it be maintained for a minimum of eight years in cultivated eggs. That's what zoning currently requires. Program 141 provides additional flexibility to the existing density bonus provisions by removing the requirement to subdivide that currently that is currently written into the zoning ordinance. Consistent with existing zoning and the general plan, Program 141 would require that an agricultural conservation easement with any qualified entity be placed on the entirety of all parcels within a clustering plan and that at least 90% of the acreage of parcels containing visitor serving commercial uses be planted and maintained with cultivated agriculture for as long as those visitor serving commercial uses are in operation. This provision also clarifies that no planting requirement would apply to parcels that do not have a visitor serving commercial use. So for example, they would not apply to a parcel that is developed with only a residence and a winery. Additional proposed eCAP-wide amendments would include a correction to the header for program 34 to read simply clustering, consistent with the language and measure D. It would also edit policy 81, deleting wineries, which are agricultural processing facilities from the list of visitors serving commercial facilities and instead replace that with tasting rooms on that list of examples. Additional proposed eCAP amendments applicable only in the South Livermore Valley would, for example, edit program 125 to delete wineries and tasting rooms as examples of appropriate commercial uses, clarify the types of lodging establishments is allowed, and would recognize the sewer as a waste water service option. amendments to the CA Combining District in zoning would amend section 17.30.170 to allow connection to sewer or septic to exempt undeveloped parcels under a clustering plan from the planting requirement to add new permitted visitor serving commercial uses including a hotel with up to 140 guest rooms, event space as a subordinate use at a winery, restaurant or lodging place, and tasting rooms as standalone uses. At the amendments would also add a new section, 17.30.178, which would allow clustering of building envelopes on a parcel or adjacent parcels in the CA combining district subject to an approved clustering plan. The Tri-Valley Conservancy spent more than two years meeting with stakeholders to discuss, review and create the proposed amendments before your board today. The TVC brought together key stakeholders to ensure a deep understanding of the limitations and the lack of clarification within the South of a more valley area plan, and to develop amendments to address these issues. And the parties involved in this process, thoroughly reviewed and have indicated support of these amendments. Planning staff also provided the county's Agricultural Advisory Committee with regular updates on the proposed amendments throughout 2023 and 2024. The Ag Advisory Committee expressed ongoing and enthusiastic support for the proposed amendments as an essential improvement to support the agricultural economy in the South of Irma Valley. Staff first introduced the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at its August 8, 2023 meeting. The Planning Commission held additional meetings to review the proposed amendments on December 2, 2024, and earlier this year on March 3 2025. At its March 3rd, 2025 meeting, the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend that your board adopt the proposed amendments with two proposed changes. One, a change to the proposed language in zoning section 17.30.1.78.2 to name the planning commission in of the Board of Zoning Adjustments as arbiter of decisions related to conditional use permits for visitor serving commercial uses on parcels subject to a clustering plan. And a modification to proposed program 141 to exclude the building envelope requirement from the conservation easement. The amendments before your board have incorporated the first of the planning commissions proposed changes. After receiving a letter from the Tri-Valley Conservancy, which I'll discuss in the next slide, staff would like to recommend that your board not accept the planning commissions second recommendation regarding the change to program 141. In response to the planning's recommendations, the Tri-Valley Conservancy submitted a letter to your board on April 9, 2025, reiterating its full support of the proposed amendments, and requesting that your board not accept the Planning Commission's modification to program 141 to remove the conservation easements from building envelope. Per TVC's letter modifying program 141 as recommended by the Planning Commission would jeopardize stakeholder support and invite future criticism, remove landowner flexibility to have a modifiable floating building envelope, invite future isolation of the agricultural area from its development envelope through subdivision or sale and would be inconsistent with the existing provisions of the county's density bonus program. Staff agrees with Tri-Valley Conservancy's assessment and recommends that your board adopt the assessments without accepting the planning commission's modification to remove the conservation easement requirements from the building envelope. The attached CEQA document attached to your packet determines that an addendum to the 1993 South Liff and Mervali plant EIR is the appropriate CEQA document to address the proposed amendments. The 1993 EIR assumed 180,000 square feet of total new visitor serving commercial uses in the vineyard area of South Livermore. A recent TVC study found 30,000 square feet of such uses already in existence, leaving a remainder of 150,000 square feet of new visitor serving commercial space assumed to have been analyzed under CEQA. In other words, this is a DENDEM establishes a limit to its cumulative analysis at a net increase of 150,000 square feet. As supported by the DENDEM, none of the conditions described in the CEQA guideline section 15162, calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur as a result of the proposed project. And this concludes my portion of the presentation if the board president wishes to hear from the Tri-Valley Conservancy. I believe they also have some slides prepared. That would be fine. I think I heard you say that the staff recommendation is to approve the original submission, not to approve the amendments and changes recommended by the planning commission. of them them. Yes, so to, let me go back to my slide there. Thank you. So we propose, we recommend that your board accept the proposed language amendments to ordinance code section 17.317H2, which substitutes in the planning commission as arbiter of decisions related to visitor serving commercial uses on clustered land. So we do recommend adoption of that change. We do not recommend amending the language that's in the ordinance before you today to reflect the planning commissions second proposed change to program 141. Could you share why on each of them? And for example, why the Board of Zoning Adjustments is not the right body and planning commission is. And I note, by the way, we have an East County Municipal Advisory Commission about to be stood up. So what's the right body to hear this? And then to the other question why you would recommend not accepting the planning commission's recommendations. Thank you. I can take the first question related Board of Zoning Adjustments. And I think you're right to mention the fact that there is gonna be an East County Mac that's gonna be seated soon. I think that the East County Board is of Zoning Adjustments, Dessie, other similar projects related to this, such as or large projects of this scale, for example, the wind farms and solar farms. And so they have a pretty active role in these county. We didn't necessarily get any concerns from the TVC about that particular change. So I think we're relatively neutral in terms of accepting the planning commission as the arbiter of those conditional use permits for clustering. But I think some of the comments that you're suggesting that why not the East BZA I think are well taken. They do see other projects that are similar in scale. They're a little bit closer to the ground because they are mostly East County residents and business owners. But it's really up to your board if you want to accept that recommendation or not. It's a pretty simple change that they were requesting. Yeah, I mean on some level we seem to have what we call the road show that runs every little thing we do through a variety of bodies. So we could have it be approved by both the Board of Zoning Adjustments and the Planning Commission. I wouldn't recommend that. I think it should be one of the other. One or the other. Yes, yeah. Well, that'll be a question that when we go to deliberate. So you're saying it's fairly neutral on that one. Yes, I think you can make arguments either way. I'm having taken other large projects to the East County BGA. I think they're quite capable of making this decision, but it really was again, a planning commission recommendation. Okay. Supervisor, if I might just quickly speak to the question of having both bodies weigh in and make a determination, that would be improper because the appeal from either the BGA or the planning commission is to your board and you don't want to potentially inconsistent appeals It should be one or the other I guess it kind of begs the question. Why do we have both but I don't want to open a can of worms today So we seem to have both we have a west County BGA. Well, they certainly have different jurisdictional items where they hear different things, but that is a good question. All right. The second one. Yes, to the second item, I think that the key here is that it would make the, it would remove some flexibility for landowners. And I think that the tri-belly conservancy may be able to speak more specifically to how it would do that if you'd be able to hear from them. Sure, so your recommendation is consistent with the information we'll hear from T. Yes. So let's hear from them. Thank you all for hearing the item today. I'm Diana Roberts, the Conservation Manager for the Tri-Valley Conservancy. We've got a couple of slides just explaining the why, but also the how for some of this. So we can go to the second slide. So the overall vision for TBC promoting these amendments is for the implementation of the South Lumber Valley area plan. This is part of a nearly five year process now to be able to better understand why our region hasn't attracted the level of investment and success as other neighboring wine regions. So we did this in three brackets. So the first was, we commissioned a study from the UC Davis to be able to understand, you know, what is what we have versus what we don't have that are the regions do. So we do have the right soil climate and population density around us to be able to support wine, a wine region. But what we don't have is the ability to have appropriate hotels and investment in restaurants within our area. So part of that was also inviting infrastructure in which is sewer and then this is kind of the third prong the amendments to be able to recognize that sewer line coming in, be able to correct some of the misinterpretations of different documents into the ECAP and then improve upon the clarity of them. So that is the goal of the amendments and we have gone through a pretty extensive stakeholder process to be able to get to the point where we are now. So we can go to the question specifically about the planning commission's recommendations and why TVC doesn't necessarily feel that that would be the right option for investment as well as for property owners. So the first point is just time flexibility. So, a property owner chooses to put an easement on first or partway through their project, modifications to projects happen, funding falls through or things happen at a different time scale than are originally anticipated. This would allow a property owner to be able to modify the location and configuration of their building envelope. So for example, if they have a setback that they feel is appropriate and then at a later time, the planning commission says we'd like a greater setback that wouldn't eat into where they would be able to develop. They'd just be able to move that block. Second point, a little bit longer time scale of changing ownership. So if one property owner has a very specific idea of how they'd like to develop their property, but they either don't get to it or they don't completely develop their property out, you know, a new owner also has the flexibility of where that 10% building envelope is. So instead of having that set in stone and the 90% set in stone, you'd be able to move that building envelope around. And then the same with literally changing conditions of the property. So if there's a rogansinking something that would make a certain area of the property less suitable to build, even if it's already been built out, it can be removed from development potential and another area be opened for development potential. And so that would a much longer time scale we're thinking of in terms of probably more 100 years things that we wouldn't be able to anticipate today. But the other item is consistency with current regulations. So part of measure P is to be able to hook into sewer service with the city of Livermore. It does require that an entire property is put under conservation easement. So being able to be consistent between the regulations that would affect affect a property owner especially if they're doing a larger project that they would want to hook into sewer for That they would be able to fulfill their obligation easily instead of piece mail between two projects and then the other one is the county's current density bonus program So this is you know very similar to that program just without the requirement for subdivision. And this is also a program that requires land to be put under conservation easement. So would kind of run in the same process as the county currently uses. I have a question on that if we could pause. The density bonus program requires that land be put under a conservation easement. I believe that that's 90% must be cultivated. Does that mean that the entirety of the parcel has to be placed in conservation? Which if it does, I don't see how the recommendation from the Planning Commission could even exist if that were the case. So is it the case that the current density bonus program that was approved with South Valley Livermore Area Plan requires the entire parcel or requires allows for the building envelope to remain outside of the easement? Yeah, I don't think that the South Livermore Plan speaks directly to the issue of the entire parcel, but for sure it's the 90% would have to be under conservation. OK. I think there's some language that says, or other means or something like that, but our interpretation and history definitely has been putting the entire parcel under conservation easement. OK, very good. Thank you. Thank you. And then in terms of the conservation easement itself, so these are not documents that are created in a vacuum. So these are made in collaboration with county decision making bodies and staff. So in previous times with the bonus density program, if the Planning Commission wanted something to be, you know, made very clear within a conservation easement, that's something that we're able to put in. And so, you know, the county's will is able to be carried out on a much longer time scale, so it ensures that properties are perpetually compliant with county policy and project specific developments, since they are also going to be monitored annually. And so the main objective is to carry out requirements of the South Lumber Valley area plan of zoning requirements. And they are not intended to create additional requirements or additional burden on the building envelope beyond county zoning regulations. And that's all I have. That's complete in that complete your presentation and that explains why the staff's recommendation is what it is on that last bullet point. I do have a question if we could put it back up. Last bullet point said I think that the Conservancy would just not create additional requirements on the building envelope beyond county zoning and regulation. So that I'm interpreting that It is the easement with the conservation easement and the organization that carries that easement, TVC in this case or any other, would not be requiring anything beyond county zoning regulations. And is that what the staff's understanding of the proposal before us is? Yes. Okay. Then the remaining question I have is what would happen if there were a discrepancy or a question or a building owner that is feeling like there were additional requirements imposed upon them. I guess the first point would be to work it out with EVC or whoever held the easement. That didn't work what would be the recourse for that property owner. And I'm not suggesting that we would have that, but it could happen. So to my understanding the language of the conservation easement would be worked out between the property owner and the holder of the easement. Is that correct? So ideally, those questions would, you know, something like this could potentially be written into the easement in advance to award off any such concerns. And apart from that, Albert, how would we? Well, I think as proposed, the regulations are fairly clear about the then the billy envelope and the part of the property that has to be under conservation easement or the entire parcel, I guess I should say. But I think the idea of having a floating billy envelope that you can move around for unanticipated events, which I think would could give rise to the conflict that you're talking about. So I think that having a conservation over the entire parcel where you can move the Billy Dombalop as needed to accommodate for changes is the right way to go in this particular matter. I guess if applicant has an issue, they can appeal all the way to the board. If the entirety of the parcel is conserved, do they lose that or can they appeal to the board if there's a decision that they want to have that's not being approved? Well, the clustering program does require a conditional use permit, right? So I think that that use permit can always be revisited by the applicant if they feel that there's a condition and they use permit that is burdensome or just infeasible, for example, for some unexpected event. And that's true for all use permits is that they can be reviewed and renewed and and conditions changed by the borders on adjustments. OK. So, I just might add that the conservation at easement itself, the agreement is a private agreement between the property owner and whomever holds the easement for them. And there is no requirement that a particular a particular trust land trust or otherwise be selected. We don't require that they use the tribal conservancy or anyone else. So when staff is reviewing the easement they will be looking at it to determine does it meet our requirements and if there are provisions otherwise then that is between the private parties to address And the property owner made aside, they want to go with a different conservancy or a different group or different land trust to get an easement in place. Yeah, I think that, well, we'll go to public comment. But I think from reading and listening to the Planning Commission that there was a real concern about providing either an additional layer of regulation or what might be perceived as more than our county ordinances and requirements placed upon them. But this last bullet point says that it wouldn't. Because if we then have an owner that's putting his entire property, including the bill in envelope in an easement, if that private agreement allows the holder of that easement to impose more than our county ordinances would provide, then I could see that concern with property rights. If it's exactly the same, no more, no less than what our county would be imposing, then I don't see as much of a concern. So that's the impetus of my question. Any other questions of the board before we go to public comment? Any public comment either in the room or online? Yes, we have four speakers. Rebecca Specter. Good morning supervisors. I'm Rebecca Specter. I'm the executive director of the Tri-Valley Conservancy. And our mission is to protect and promote vineyards, agriculture, and open space throughout the Tri-Valley region. And my colleague Diana explained the benefits to developers and landowners for these provisions. And I just wanted to spend a minute talking about how we got here. As Diana and staff mentioned, we had an extensive stakeholder process over five years that included winery and vineyard owners, residents of the south of Mervalley, developers, and others. And these are constituents and experts in the region where these amendments cover. In addition to coming to consensus about every aspect and provision in the amendments, we also had extensive legal review and that included making sure that the amendments are consistent with other regulations and ordinances, including measure P as Diana and staff noted, which clearly states that buildings if they want to be tied into the sewer, the buildings must be under conservation easement. So by splitting that, according to the recommendation of the Planning Department, they would really tie the hands of developers and landowners who want to tie into the sewer. In addition, by amending our proposal specifically, bullet seven, without bringing it back to all stakeholders, it's really breaking the trust and the good will that has been established over five years of all these stakeholders working together and it could potentially expose the county to legal challenges. Making last minute changes, it really hurts the trust that has been built with the constituents. And I think this might, one of my concerns is is to have a chilling effect going forward. Where stakeholders might be reluctant to come together to develop or support plans, if they think their recommendations are going to be changed when it gets to the board of supervisors. So as my colleague noted, we proposed to keep the building envelope within the easement and this will benefit developers, landowners in the sand, south of a more valley. Thank you so much. Lori Suza, you have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Lori Suza, a past chair of the board of the Tri-Valley Conservancy. I really appreciate your attention on this matter of the East County area plan amendments today. I respectfully request that you vote in favor of the E-CAP amendments without the modifications suggested by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission modifications would create negative unintended consequences. The Southamor Valley Agricultural Economy is failing. If you drive through our region, you will see the evidence that with the vineyards being pulled out in agriculture land going fallow. As you might recall, the Tribalic Conservancy Commission, the research project that conducted by UC Davis, and the research identified several threats to the ag economy in our valley. One of those threats was a lack of infrastructure to support the wine agri tourism, which would allow us to capture our fair share of an $8.6 billion market in California. To address this infrastructure issue, the Livermore Voters pass an initiative to allow the extension of their sewer system into the Southlermore area. The sewer sewer project is in design now and is essential to the preservation of our agricultural area because it allows us to attract the investment desperately needed for this economy to be viable. The planning commission modifications have a negative impact on the parcels that intend to connect to the future sewer extension for commercial use. The sewer line initiative passed by the Livermore voters requires a conservation easement to placed on the parcels being used for visitor serving commercial facilities. So, if the building envelope is excluded from the conservation easement, as the Planning Commission suggests, then that parcel owner will not be allowed to connect to the sewer line. This will prevent the very investment we are seeking to reinvigorate our economy. The planning commission was not aware of this consequence when they voted. So I believe these refinements are very important, and I respectfully request that you accept the staff's recommendation. Thank you so much. Thanks, Schneider. You have two minutes? Morning, supervisors. Yeah, still morning. I was I was part of the team that developed these amendments and I fully support them. In fact, I was the one who spotted the typo about clustering that it was seemed to be restricted only to single family clustering. And when you remove the single family, it allows the commercial development to be clustered as well so that the flurry area for a resort hotel could be aggregated and made feasible. But what I want to jump to is the planning commission recommendation. And as others have already pointed out that would prohibit the sewer line to get to serve the clustered parcel. And I just want to read from measure P, which the voters adopted the relevant provision. It's under policy for section four, urban services for commercial uses on parcels outside of the South of the more UGB subsection F before receiving such services. The property owner will record a conservation easement over the subject property with a land trust accredited by a national land trust accreditation organization. And then moving on, the conservation easement restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses except within a delineated commercial use area, not to exceed 10% of the property, within which allowable commercial uses and intensity such uses shall be permitted and described in the conservation easement. The conservation easement shall require all visitor serving commercial buildings to be located within the delineated commercial use area on a contiguous development envelope not to exceed two acres unless subject to a cluster in plan under measure D program 34 as written when this initiative goes into effect. I won't continue on. But the point is that if the plan you need to have the measure P followed in order to get sort to the to the cluster project. Tracy you're on the line you have two minutes. Thank you supervisors. And this is Tracy Farhad, President and CEO of Visit TriValley doing the marketing for the region for all of the attributes and assets, especially for agritourism. I do serve as the agritourism representative on the Alameda County Agricultural Advisory Committee, as well. I support all the previous speakers and agree with them. And I also want to support the E-CAP amendments. We have an amazing wine region that we can't quite promote to the extent that we would love to, that would bring in such additional jobs and positive economic impact with the fragmentation without having the connection to sewer, being able to scale up and produce. We need to enhance our wine tourism for that visitor attracting commercial uses. And be able to attract more mid-size wineries as well as I also support TVC's and staff recommendation to not adopt the planning commissions adjustment. So that being said, I will keep this short and sweet. Please do provide all that you can for investment into our wine region in Alameda County. Thank you. Mark, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Good morning, fellow. Good morning, supervisors. This is Mark Triska. I am a wine grower and also a we have a truffle orchard in the South Livermore Valley area. I'm also on the Tri-Valley Conservancy Board. I was the past year of the Tri-Valley Conservancy last year. I've been on the board now for five years. And we've been working really hard on these changes. When we did the UC Davis plan, we realized that South Livermore Valley area has the capacity for 180,000 square feet of commercial. But year to date, we have less than 30,000 feet of commercial. And they are pretty much relegated to the purple orchid in and the poppy ridge golf course. So we met with our key stakeholders, which included folks like me, property owners, wine growers association, friends of Livermore, Tri--value conservancy in the Sierra Club. We looked at this language and said, what can we do to enhance and correct the language in ECAP? So we can correct the clustering as Dick brought up. We can clarify the types of uses that would be allowed in a wine country and provide flexibility to allow a wine country to serve in uses such as those that are in places like Paser-Robles, NAPO, NAPO, and Sonoma. With TBC helping pass measure P in 2022 to allow the extension of the Livermore sewer, this was a big move. And now we're faced with having to make sure that the language changes with the addition of the sewer. So we contracted with lamppier Gregory to do a secret review. There's no effect on the current South Livermore Valley area plan. And then the other thing I want to say is absolutely include the building envelope in the conservation easement for flexibility, consistency, and it will certainly help enhance wine country. It's time to adopt these changes. It's time to save Livermore Valley wine country. Please help see our areas popular as Passal Robles or Simecta. Please vote yes to adopt these changes. Thank you. Gina, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Good morning, supervisors and county staff. My name is Gina Bonanno. I'm a Livermore resident and a member of the Tri-Valley Conservancy Board of Directors. I'm speaking this morning as well in support of the Ecap Amendment as recommended in your staff report. These amendments are vital to the success of the South Livermore Valley area plan to the future of the Livermore Valley wine industry and to the local economy in general. The amendments will increase the vitality of the wide region and increase the demand for the Livermore Valley as a wine growing destination. And they follow the recommendations of the 2022 UC Davis study by clarifying allowed visitor services in the area. I respectfully request that you approve these amendments without the modifications suggested by the planning commission that would remove the building envelope from the conservation easement. This is critical for several reasons. The original area plan amendments were developed with significant stakeholder input and consensus was achieved after many years of negotiation. these negotiations included a provision that the entire parcel, subject to the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of for the benefit of the region and industry. Measure P, which enabled the sewer extension calls for the building envelope to be included in the easements. Maintaining this in the amendment provides consistency for landholders, So if you've just heard so that multiple or additive easements are not required to extend extend the sewer to their property. Keeping the building envelope within the easement provides a land over greater flexibility in the development of the parcel whether in stages or all at once. In short, keeping the building envelope within the easement makes it much more likely that the goals of these amendments can be achieved. I urge you to vote yes to these amendments per your staff recommendations. Thank you very much. Derek, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Wonderful. Thank you. Board of Supervisor for the opportunity to speak. My name is Derek Getty. My wife and I were the owners of the purport gate in here in Lumeau. We're also a TVC stakeholder. So we've been very involved with the Conservancy since the past 30 years since I've been here. I think it's one thing that I always say, actually I have a plaque in my office about a news article written about the purport kit back in 1997 and then Supervisor Scott Haggardy was quoted in this news article saying that the purport was the missing link to the viability and sustainability of the Livermore Valley wine country. And being almost 30 years old, I can still say that today. We are in desperate need of moral lodging, mid-size hotels, with the price of land and building costs. It's just not economically feasible to build like a 14-room and like what we currently have. And today's market, you know, 30 years ago it was, today it would not be. So having the opportunity to cluster land and open doors for other hoteliers to come into the market, I think again, it's still the missing link. So I'm excited about, opportunity for if you always say what you want more competition, I think more competition is just going to make this region what it should be. So for that reason I'm full support of eCAP amendments as well. So thank you for your time. Brandon, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Good morning, supervisors. Thank you for the time today. My name is Brandon Cargbole, I'm the director of the Innovation and Economics Development for the City of Livermore. The City of Livermore strongly supports the amendments you're considering today as recommended by staff including staff and TVCs recommendation to not include changes suggested by the Planning Commission. The City believes the amendments as originally proposed by TVC and stakeholders will benefit the ongoing revitalization and investment in the Livermore Valley wine region. This area is not only a defining part of our local identity but also a key contributor to our economy and agricultural heritage. The proposed amendments will enhance the long-term viability of the wine region by supporting visitor serving uses that strengthen the local economy, promote cultivation of agriculture, and ensure continued preservation of open space. The city and county share a common vision for the south of Moore Valley, and we believe these proposed amendments align well with our general plan policies including promoting south of Moore as a unique and historic wine region, taking a proactive approach to protect and enhance and expand viticulture and cultivated ag and supporting coordinating land uses with Alameda County and the city of Pleasanton to provide greater certainty over future development. We appreciate the county's partnership and TBCN stakeholders efforts to advance these amendments and look forward to continue collaborating to ensure the South of the more wine region thrives for generations to come. Thank you very much. We respectfully urge your aye vote. Harrison, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Yes, everybody. My name is Harrison Wood. I'm a director on the board for Trivalid Conservancy. My family also owns Wood Family Vineyards located here in Livermore. I think everybody has done a really good job at explaining the situation. I'm here more to emphasize on the urgency with the Livermore wine community. It provides a large reason you could even argue large part of the soul of the city as to why people wanted to move here in the first place and why people like to continue to live here. It provides a large reason you could even argue large part of the soul of the city as to why people wanted to move here in the first place and why people like to continue to live here. My family as well as others we work very hard to see that this industry continues and to see that people continue to want to live here. And we'd like to continue to do so. The South Livermore Plan and the support of the E-CAP amendments is crucial in order to continue this industry that we've worked so hard to build. And for that reason, I support the E-CAP amendments as well in conjunction with everybody else has been saying so far. And that is all. KDW you're on the line you have two minutes. Hello this is Karl Wenty, a supervisor thank you for what you do thank you for the time. The staff Elmina County Thank you planning department particularly Ali for being a great partner and continuing to move things forward. I'll speak under various hats. The first hat is the chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee. And as Ali said, the AAC has overwhelmingly and infatically supported these amendments going forward as is any changes as another hat as the vice president of the Livermore Valley Wine Growers Association Board of Directors, the Growers Association overwhelmingly support moving forward. and lastly, as a long time family business in the wine industry can reinforce the struggles and the challenges that we are having as laid out by the UC Davis report of what was going to happen. I think the economic economically challenging times are upon us. I'm not going to say that getting this past will solve all of our problems, but it is a solid and good step in the right direction. So as AAC as the Growers Association personal individual, please, please, please move this forward pass it along very much in support in alignment with 100% of the speakers thus far. Thank you. No more speakers. Very good. I would like to thank the speakers and bring the dialogue back after closing public comment to my colleagues. Recognizing supervisor Miley. First. Thank you President Howard. And I just want to thank all the speakers, the Drive-Alice Force work on this. I do remember when the study was commissioned and I think all the due diligence and homework has been very thorough. It's been kind of frustrating for me over the years that we haven't gotten to this point, but I know I'm very pleased that we're now at this point. I appreciate the worker former supervisor Hagerty and the president supervisor David Halbert and the chief of staff Sean Wilson, because all of you were involved in moving this agenda forward. You know, I just got back from from testing in Italy when I'm at a training in Cruz. And you know, I've often, from custody in Italy When I'm at a training in Cruz and you know, I've often in my conversations over the years with folks in Tri-Valley And trying to get to you know, live in more valley to be more prominent and competitive with some of the regions here in our state And I think this moves us in that direction So I mean, I don't think what the planning commission did would produce a chilling effect. I do appreciate the fact that they weighed in, but I do appreciate the fact that all of you have explained why what they suggested isn't necessarily good for what we want to do. It has, as someone speaker pointed out, I think was Lori unintended consequences because I do think the planning commission had the best of of intentions but they didn't recognize all the unintended consequences associated with their recommendation. I do believe that East County, border zone adjusters is the appropriate vehicle for this because they're close to the ground and I do appreciate all once again all the hard work of the Livermore excuse me of the Tri-Valley Conservancy because I know this has been a percolinean effort so let's just move this long it makes this happen and let's see some good results. Very good I appreciate the comments anybody else recognizing Supervisor Tam. I just also want to echo Supervisor Miley's comments, I really appreciate the comments anybody else recognizing supervisor Tam. I just also want to echo supervisor Miley's comments. I really appreciate the collaboration, especially with the co-authors on Measure P and also with the stakeholders because getting this to a point where it has strong and broad support is really important. And I understand some of the concerns that the planning commission raised, but it sounds like the tri-valley conservancy has, I think, a more contemporary understanding because of what's going on with expansion on the sewer project and the city of Livermore. So I'm also supportive of moving ahead. Anyone else? I just want to say I'm heartened to hear the support from my colleagues for everything that's been said and especially Supervisor Miley for having worked on this for so many years. Nobody loves, live for more wine region, more than me. Okay, and maybe we can argue that if you want, but nobody loves, live for more wine region, more than me. And these amendments must be made to save the wine region, to induce and attract investment. And so many people, in fact, people with differing viewpoints often, have come together to agree on this. And when you hear the people that spoke and that are presenting this, to have them all on the same page is miraculous, some might say. Very good, very good. These have to be made. I point out that the planning commission's recommendation, and think supervised my leave said it best while well intended had unintended consequences that was mentioned by the speakers earlier. I don't read this as them requiring that the building envelope could not be included in an easement and therefore precluding them from It's tying into the sewer. So it seems to me that it could be an either or why not have it be the choice of the property owner. If they want to tie into the sewer, if they want to whatever, whatever, whatever they should, they should make that decision. If they don't want to, they should have the right to stay out. Maybe. That's the argument that they've been making It's a property rights argument and and I agree with it in large part That's why I asked the question about the easement and I was convinced and it was said that Nothing more than our county ordinances will be enforced upon an owner. So that if the entirety of the parcel is included, as is recommended in the original recommendation by TVC, then the landowner is still only required to comply with our own county ordinances. And that's how we would want it to be. Nothing more. And so with that said, property rights argument seems to go away in that they'll be holding to our county ordinances anyway. So with that said, I also agree with the speakers, with the presenters, that we should allow for the language to read the entirety of all parcels being included. So as originally presented, it was staff recommendation. And I agree with Supervisor Miley and the several speakers who referenced the Board of Zoning Adjustments being the proper agency body to hear this. So I would like to revise that back to Board of Zoning Adjustments as originally proposed. The other thing I want to say about the speakers is what I heard around not only the desperation in the need to pass these in order to save wine region and to induce an incentivized investment. I heard from people who are already doing business in the region and usually competitors don't want more competitors. But here we have businesses that are operating that recognize this need. And I commend the speakers. It was the purple orchid owners and the WENTY family who already compete in this environment and they're welcoming more competition. They recognize that the rising tide lifts all boats and I think that's what this is about. So with that said, I will make a motion. We need a motion, right? That we would approve the presentation of the general plan amendments and zoning ordinance amendment to promote visitor serving uses in the South Livermore Valley area plan to include language that allows for the board of zoning adjustments to hear these items as they come to us and that we revert to the entirety of all parcels being within the clustering plan as originally presented by the TVC. Is that worded well enough for our attorneys? I would suggest that you follow the staff recommendation in item 5A, starting with the general plan amendment, which is in the resolution, but also making the findings for the addendum to the EIR followed by number two, approving adopting the addendum number three, approving and adopting the general plan amendments. And then after you vote on that, if we could then turn to the ordinance, which is where you need to make an amendment from what has been drafted by staff, reflecting the change from the PC, the Planning Commission back to the BCA. If you don't mind, if we could take item A1-3 first, that would be helpful. So I will make the motion as described and elucidated by our attorney for item 5a. Is that clear enough? 5a 1 2 and 3. Is there a second? I'll second it for. For a roll call. My Lee one second it or Lena. Move by Halbert second by Tam. Roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez. Hi supervisor Tam. Hi supervisor Miley. Supervisor Marquez. Hi. Supervisor Tam. Hi. Supervisor Miley. Hi. Supervisor Fortinato Bus. President Halbert. Hi. Could we then take up item five B and listen to our attorney make this. If I might issue the amendment would be to ordinance 1730.170 sub H sub 2 so that the conditional use approval would be by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and not by the Planning Commission. And then do we have to... Introduction and first reading as amended. You need to do a motion to amend and then... What about the point about the parcels and... so that language was the planning commission's recommendation for that was not included in the draft that the staff made consistent with the staff's board letter making a recommendation to not pursue that so the language is consistent with what you had suggested earlier that the conservation easement would apply to the entirety of the parcel. We just discussed it because it was a planning commission topic. The question was whether you wanted to follow the planning commission recommendation or not. So then we'll have the clerk please read the heading for this ordinance, which is the first reading. In ordinance, amending section 17.30.170 of the Alameda County General Code to promote development of visitor serving uses supporting the South Livermore Valley area by listing additional conditional uses and providing for clustering plans in the cultivated agriculture CA combining district. Then I will move to wave the full first reading of the ordinance and introduce the ordinance as presented and move to second reading in our next meeting. Supervisor Lee, just a clarification. Oh, I'm sorry. You need to include the amendment that you're asking for. Order zoning adjustment. Ah, that's right. I'm sorry. To move the full first reading of the ordinance and to amend it to allow for the board of zoning adjustments to be the hearing body as opposed to the planning commission. Is that fair enough? Yes. What I heard you, the motion to amend was for section 1730.30.170H2 where the conditional use approval to be by the board of zoning adjustments. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Miley seconds. Roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez. supervise a tam. I supervise a Miley. Supervisor Fortinato bus. President Halber. Hi. Okay, very good. That concludes item five. Survives Albert before we leave this item. Can I make a comment? Oh, yeah. Unless you're going to claim that you love wine valley more than you. Oh, no, no, no, no. I prefer my cocktails over wine. Even when I went at a, a wintery car, I mean, a cocktail is supposed to wine. So, let me see here. I dream of wine when I have to drink it. But yeah, I don't, I don't dislike it. But I prefer my cocktails. But Anyway, that's a distraction. I don't want the planning commission to think that we are disrespectful. Then we do. Yeah, I don't dislike it, but I prefer my cocktails. But anyway, that's a distraction. I don't want the planning commission to think that we are disrespectful to them. We do appreciate their input. As I said, we don't think this is going to this process. You have to go to the planning commission, them weighing in. I don't want them to think we're just disregarding their concerns. But I think based on all the many years, the Tri-Valley Conservancy, the stakeholders, everything that was done, this seems to me to be the appropriate course of action. And then secondly, I just want to state, I do think it's important that if these as growth continues, that they do tie in to sewer service. So we don't have the issue of sceptics and other issues associated with growth. So I think it's a good thing that it's connected with measure P and they have to tie into the sewer because if they didn't, that could produce additional consequences, which we've seen as a result of, you know, through Lafko. So just wanted to put that on the record. Yeah, no, I really appreciate that. And totally agree, the Planning Commission, as you said, all good, well intended. And indeed, connecting to the sewer line, super important, and those that are closest to it, will certainly do that. Supervisor Marquez, comments? Yeah, thank you, President Hubbard. I wanted to respectfully ask, I know we have some time constraints today and we do have an item I believe there's many community members interested in hearing item number eight. So I wanted to know if we could call that out of order. Sure, so looking for head nods and or not needing a formal vote, do we agree to move item eight forward? I'm looking at three yeses. So we have that. With that said, let's move item eight to the very next item to be heard. Thank you all in the audience who are leaving. You don't wanna stay stay for the rest of our meeting, it's okay. Do we have a brief staff report for item eight, which is? We do have a final report on a pilot program related to code enforcement inspection of rental properties. I yes, hello board, supervisors. This is Ed Labaiag, Alameda County co-inforced and manager for unincorporated areas of Alameda County. I'm here today to report, to do the final report on the pilot program related to code and portion inspection of rental properties. Next slide. Okay. So this report is related to the tenant complaint house of housing quality maintenance concerns and some standard code violations in the unincorporated area of Alameda County. We recommended the board here to staff the staff presentation today on the pilot complaint based rental housing inspection program, take public testimony and provide direction on future program changes. Given the early stages of program development, that believes that there are various options for next steps, which we will discuss further down. So in terms terms of the background, this pilot program was approved by your board on March 9 to address tenant complaints. Initially, considered as a proactive rental inspection program, but opted for pilot complaint-based program approach to better assess community needs. The program was running for two years from 2023 and 2024 and is generally supported by tenants, tenant advocates and housing providers. So outreach and education benefits advocates highlights the outreach and education components has benefited all parties and the concerns for about harassment and retaliation still persists but your board did approve some tenant protection ordinances just cost eviction and dispute resolution for example that are expected to reduce these issues over time. And our ongoing efforts staff will initiate work on anti-harassment policy and not awareness. So in terms of the program, the program enhances the tenant complaint handling and enforcement in the Anacore Priya county. For a while, we were hearing from tenants and tenant advocacy groups that their concerns were being ignored by the county. They keep saying that these issues are between New New landlord, but with this program, we'll able to enhance our response. And it also helps meet state law requirement that was effective July 1st 2022 that county jurisdictions have to respond to substandard housing complaints and also notify the property owner during and also after inspections about what was discovered in terms of violations and what they need to do to correct them. So the benefits and service gaps, we provide multiple benefits to residents and addressing existing service gaps and also address the need for county to have a representative to provide guidance to the tenants even though some concerns may not be related to housing, at least there's a county representative that will be able to give them resources if needed. We also have in this two year program, we collected the data that will help us assess the resources for a long-term program, if needed, whether it be complaint-based or proactive. And we do see the possibilities for a proactive and inspection program, pending your board's direction and new funding if needed. So in the description of the program, again, we are seeing the same, sorry. I seem to lost the screen here. Oh, sorry about that. In terms of highlights of the program, we did respond to tenant complaints of habitability and substandard conditions only in an incorporated areas. We provided training for code enforcement staff because this really wasn't our regular work. We had to make sure that the staff understands the identifying violations and the corrective actions needed to correct those violations. We inspect the subject residences or units. We reference existing Alameda County codes for the violations identified and we use existing enforcement and abatement procedures as appropriate. And again, we provide referrals and resources to tenants and all those for other programs and resources as needed. We also did launch a outreach and campaign in terms of outreach and education with public presentations meeting and we did workshops and we also created a simple postcard to give out to the community when we're out in the meetings etc. to make it easier for tenants to get to what the program is about and to file a complaint. And this is just an example of a workshop that we did with housing providers in partnership with the California Department Association and Healthy Home Supportment, where we talked about housing quality standards and rights roles and responsibilities of tenants and landlords and also gave them resources. At that time, we had some grant money available for available to housing providers for repairs. And we did also some workshops partnership with my Eden voice in central legal where they talked about tenants rights roles responsibilities and code enforcement staff talked about habitability standards, complaint process and the code enforcement process. We did this in July to 23, and we also did one in August, 2023, and September, 2023. Next slide. And again, in May of 20, 2024. This is the postcard that we created. We incorporated a simple QR code that they can scan and it takes them directly to our webpage that has to complain for a minute where they can put in their complaint. And we made it available in two different languages languages in the most popular Spanish and Chinese. And so this shows how many cases we've had in the two year program. Even though we started in March, we were already started addressing complaints in January. total for 2023 was 106 and total in 2024 is 142. So this is a case status of those 248 cases. So in green you'll see that the cases are still open and we're working on those cases. There's 19 of those. Two are still open in 2023 and 17 in 2024. In terms of the closed cases, there are several categories here. Closed in compliance were the owner or landlord abated the violations. So those are the cases where we initiated action. Send a notice to the owner. We made sure they met compliance and that's how we close that case. We have a close no violation, meaning that for one reason or another they report violations and we go on the site and their problem is not there. A good example will be the advice that are leaking and we check it and it's not leaking anymore. Things of that nature that when we get there and we inspect, we didn't find a violation, we close the cases, no violation. For non-actionable items, those are related to minor maintenance issues. we do want try to cover everything, but it's really tough if they're just minor things. For example, my kitchen cabinets are not hung properly or hinges aren't working correctly. Very minor things, let them know that they have to deal with their landlord about those things, maybe considered a warranty issue rather than a code enforcement violation issue. And then we have closed for various reasons. Other tenant or they have landlord issues. For example, they may be in litigation about their tenancy, which is not really related to code enforcement. So we had to close that for that reason. They may be already doing the, oh, like if tenants already had moved out, they file a complaint and we check back with them and they say, we already moved out, maybe they're leased up, they didn't want to renew it, for example, but we want to make sure we let the owner know to make the unit up to standards before they put in a new tenant, which is their desire anyway, if they want to make, you know, they want to make their money on their rental value. And sometimes folks file a complaint and we call them back, they never respond, phones disconnected, so if there's no response after at least three attempts, we just close the case. And we have a category for close referral to other departments agencies. If we have cases, we know that it's better handled by another agency. For example, the building department or vector control, we refer those to those agencies and we close our case as referred. And close withdrawn by tenant or resolve, these are cases where we tell the tenant say, okay, I don't want to file a complaint, I am working with the owner, or they to let us know that the owner already took care of the problem, so there is no issue. In that case, there's no Code in person action taken we just, you know, note that on the case and close it. So out of I'm sorry back one more. So out of the 230 248 cases, we want to note that 86 86 cases were actionable, meaning that code enforcement did create a notice to the owner itemizing all all the issues that they need to correct, and make sure it's followed up and corrected before we can close the case. This is showing where these complaints are coming from. So if you can see Ashland, Cache for Valley, Chale and Fairview, San Lorenzo Hayward acres, and Sunol and East County, we did expect very low numbers in the east, but higher numbers through Ashland and Kashrubali and Chaelan. So in terms of the type of complaints we're getting, some of them have a combination of things, but we just kind of did a little quick tally marks on them. Molden Mildew is always a big concern, especially in the winter months. Some are severe, which is if we can connect it to a problem with the building, then obviously that becomes a cold violation but some are minor because mold is always present it builds up around windows and areas like the bathroom because there's excessive moisture so at that point we take our time to educate the tenant if it's something that they have to take care of or both the owner and the tenor or just entirely on the on the owner if the problem is severe. Building water damage wall ceilings, maybe there's a roof leak, window leak, etc. Damage floors. We don't cover carpets if they're soil or dirty, but we do cover them if they have rips and tears and it becomes a tripping hazard. Electrical, good examples are missing light fixtures or they don't work at all or they have partial electrical and some areas don't work so there could be issues with the electrical supply and extension cords. We see this a lot that they cannot use extension cords for permanent use plumbing, big thing is the drains Licky pictures and drains are stopped or slow down so Yeah, I mean they have to realize that sometimes these are emergency things especially they only only have one working bathroom, one working toilet and we try to really reach the owner as soon as possible to get these things fixed. Mechanical, a lot of times they have a heater but it hasn't been working. In our areas, kind of tolerable not to use the heater but every unit is supposed to have a working approved heater. Those portable heaters are not really code compliant for permanent heat source. So we try to have that addressed. And sometimes we advise the tenant to copy GNE if they maybe it's just a pilot light that's not working or they will have a report showing that no it's more than that there's damage in the combustion chamber it for example so they actually will cap it and then we'll use that notice to let the owner know that they got to fix the heater, exhaust fans, bent hoods, they have to be working in working order. And other issues could be vector issues with rats, mice, cockroaches, that kind of thing. We do want to involve vector control when they bring up these issues because vector will go out there for free. It's a free service for them to evaluate the vector problems and then notify the tenant and the landlord of ways that they can take care of eliminating or eradicating the problem. And if the owner doesn't wanna do it, then we use that notice to tell the owner that they now have a violation that they need to correct. And exterior maintenance, maybe could be just, you know, taking care of the common areas, siding, roof, et cetera, and then appliances. So even though we don't cover it, we let them know that if it's part of their lease, they were told that this refrigerator or dishwasher is part of your lease. And then that's a warranty issue that the tenant can pursue. So in terms of types of buildings that were these complaints are occurring, 82 are from single family dwellings, 26 are from duplexes. We just kind of copied how the county rates categorizes buildings, three to four units, we have 28 and five or more units were 112 cases so out of all those cases we did find four unapproved ADUs of course we let the owner knows that there are a lot of exceptions now for ADUs maybe easier for them to legalize it. And if they want to pursue that, we make sure that we monitor that their progress until they get it approved or they remove it. And then we do noted 14 cases that we were made aware that they were going through an eviction process, but once we are made aware that there's either they have started it or not started it, we if they haven't started it, we refer them to a tenant advocacy group like Echo Housing, example or Central Legal to give them a legal advice, and they can pursue those issues with the landlord. Our responsibility is only to make sure that the violations that we cite in terms of correcting the housing habitability standards are met. Once that's done, we were close to case and pending issues, other issues with the landlord and the tenant could continue without us. We never get involved in that part of it. We did find one substandard that we had to we asked the building department to help us red tag because they had sewage overflowing and they had a septic system and it was not recorded. I think that that one got already fixed to their incompliance. And out of all those 86 actionable cases, we only cited six property owners that some of them did not comply on the first expectation of compliance date. But all of those cases already have been resolved. And terms of referrals, again, when we're out there dealing with the tenant, I let my inspectors know that you have to be aware of other county programs that are available to tenants. If they bring it up, or if you notice something that they could take advantage of, the Healthy Homes grant obviously was the grant, not just for tenants, but for property owners too that they could use. Vector controller, I explained earlier, tenant advocacy groups like Central Legal and Echo Housing are the 211 if they needed it, building department, if there's issues that they need to address in terms of getting permits, for example. And Asma started, I did a refer one client with a child that had Asma and the carpet was, they felt was contributing to the fact that it's given her Asma. So Asma started program where they will replace the carpet with hard surface. So we connected them with asthma start program to Alameda County Public Health and State Department for Accessibility Complaints and State of California EPA Water Pollution. This tenor was getting brown brown colored water that's really more handled by the EPA, but that case already was resolved. And PG&E, like I mentioned earlier, that tenants can get a free report to take a look at the heater or the water heater issues that that they're having. So data summary, the pilot program ran for two years and we did handle 248 cases, 162, 234, 224. And reports came throughout the county, including the East County, and a range of complaints we went through earlier from mold concerns, plumbing electoral problems, and it involved the whole section of single family through multi-unit buildings, and only 35% of cases were county enforcement took action while the rest were closed for various reasons. So in terms of resources, we did assign these cases to our code enforcement officers. We try to log in hours as best as we can when we first make contact, the site visit. Prepare to notice if we had to make a check. The check. The check. The check. The check. The check. try to log in the hours as best as we can when we first make contact interview the tenant do the site visit prepare to notice if we had to make notes in the system etc so we figured that was about seven hundred hours and and we also try to track the time that we spent in conducting the meetings creating the the workshop, content, and all that stuff. About 100 program hours, administrators support. We needed their help in documenting the cases, putting in a spreadsheet, and mailing out the notices, etc. So we estimated the total cost was about 170,500 for those 248 cases. A pilot program nearly required .5 FTE of Coordinates Staffer plus administrative support. At that point, the program reaches over 200 complaints per year. We think additional resources may be required. So in terms of next step, we staff believes that the progress should continue. I think that it's really a benefit to the tenants to have that confidence that the county is going to be responsive and there's going to be a way for them to hopefully get their housing, how the police standards addressed. Tenant participation, we know and anticipate will increase with greater awareness and we also will continue to comply with AB 838. And we must at least maintain some form of complaint-based program. So while SAP positions continue the current model, your board may use this information gather during the SPILOT to determine future programs and adjustments. So in terms of options, we just kind of laid out least three that we think are possibilities. We continue the program as is with code enforcement staff taking the lead regular update to the Board of Transportation Planning Committee or expand the program to include one above, but with a proactive focus on specific communities. For example, Ashland and Chairland have been discussed as the targeted communities for this options. And then three in combination with the above options expand the program to include a rental registry facility inspections with possibly an nominal per unit fee to the free program and instead of expense and some of these combinations above could require additional community work and adapted ordinance and possibly funding before implementation. And that's the end of my presentation. Thank you very much and I'll take any questions you have. Thank you for the presentation. I'll see if there are clarifying questions before we go to public comment from my colleagues to advisor Tam, then Marquez, then Miley, then Bass. Can we do that? Forza and other bass. President Tam. Thank you, President Halbert. I appreciate the presentation. I know we had a preview of it or a check-in at the unincorporated services committee meeting. And I know two years ago, I think we had estimated that this was going to be a $600,000 program. So having spent $175,000 is probably a good thing or not. I have a series of questions which I gave ahead of time because I have a hard stop at one. I just wanted to understand, sir, the response time between when you get a complaint and how fast it takes to send an inspector or respond to either the tenant or the person making the complaint. Do you want me to just go through the questions and then? Sure, okay. So the second one is, do you have any reported instances of retaliation of the complainant being harassed as a result of reporting out of the 248 inspections that you did and then how many complaints did you receive as part of the pilot project versus, you know, the regular complaint process that you have in code enforcement? And the last question is, can code enforcement keep up with the flow of the coins? You said that after you reach about 200, you would need additional staffing. and so I'm trying to just get a feel for the best program because you wanted to target Ashlyn and Cherryland and those are but against San Leandro and Hayward. And a lot of times people in Ashlyn get confused with being in San Leandro. So I wanted to understand how the cities, the neighboring cities have those programs, because sometimes they get mistaken for being in a different jurisdiction between the city and an unincorporated area. Thank you. Okay. So in terms of the response time that we have, it's typical for all our cases. So we try to reach out to the tenant within one to five days. And most of the time we want to use that time to interview the tenant by now what's going on and you know make a good list of what their concern will let them know if it's something we can pursue as a violation or not and then schedule an appointment if necessary. So that's our response time for a complaint. Day or does it like within three days or between one to five days we'll make the call because our complaints come in through our website or email and it may sit there for a day before our intake staff can get to it. So you know we try to keep it under five days where we at least call the tenant and see what's going on schedule and appointment. And in terms of cases that we noted that could potentially be an act of retaliation, it's hard to document that to whether or not who's harassing or who's, if they have issues with the landlord other than what the repairs are, we you know we refer them to a housing advocacy like legal resources to pursue that because we want to stay out of that scenario. All we tell the tenant is that our responsibility is to make sure the repairs are done correctly and if they let us know that all there's some issues that the landlord is pursuing with us and like harassment or whatever you then we let them know that there are avenues that they can take care of that. And then you asked about in comparison to our cases, tenant complaints. I think last last year we had like over 1700 cases and all of that is 246 was tenant complaints. So we do have a way of tracking and separating the tenant complaints in our system to see, you know, to get all this information of the status where they are occurring and if and and what area. If I may just go back up to the prior question. So you had 14 cases that you heard the central Agau and then 14 you refer to echo housing. The reason for the referral was that they were undergoing a process of eviction or was there any potential harassment involved between the tenant and the housing provider? Yeah, so well, when the tenant tells us that they've been sort of the three day notice, for example, that kind of starts the unlawful detainer, etc. So, and we ask them, well, do you have any resources to help you if they say no, then we refer them to central legal because they have a good eviction assistance, for example. And then for echo housing, if they have issues related to something that may just need some mediation between the tenant and the landlord, but they're not necessarily going to an eviction, then we refer them to echo housing to hopefully a ticket advantage the mediation. But the evictions were not necessarily a result of the complaint for the result of the inspection. It's hard to say, sometimes they get mixed in. So non-payment of rent and then, or maybe repairs were being done and owners of wall they haven't paid rent in a while so we really try not to get involved in the finger pointing of who's who's doing what to who? So we just say, okay, what's the problem? What's the repairs that's needed? Yes, that's a violation or no it isn't And then we write a notice and it's the owner. And we just kind of stay in our lane. Thank you. So you said you received 1700 cases. Normally, 146 were tenant complaints with this time around. With this pilot project, you got 248 complaints. So you had about 100 complaints more because of the pilot program. No, so this data shows that in 2023, we had 100 and... Well, it was... I calculated as 15% of the 1700. 106. Yeah, so in 2024 is 142. This is what we normally have, right? Without the pilot program, the 1700. Roughly in that neighborhood, for overall cases, you mean? Right. So overall, code enforcement gets about 1700 complaints a year and you're saying of that 15% are tenant related. It'll be the 142. So I think I'm a spoke so the 15% is over the two years so if he doubled the 1700 to 3400 then I guess it's actually more like 7.5% over the per year. Okay, so 7.5% per year of the, if you take 1700 divided by 2, is the number of complaints you typically get and 7.5% come from tenants. Did you see a bump because of the pilot program? Prior to the pilot program, I didn't bring up numbers, but I'm pretty sure it's lower than that. Lower than 100%? Lower than 7.5%? Yes. Okay. Because tenants at that time didn't know that they can go to code enforcement to file a complaint. I'm sorry you said tenants already knew they could go to code enforcement. Prior to the program there was no either they didn't know or they didn't have confidence that the county will help them with the housing complaints. Yeah I'm just trying to to gauge the effectiveness of our outreach with the pilot program because we were, even though we already had programs that were complaint driven, that tenants could submit complaints, but we were trying to use the pilot program to enhance it, do more outreach in multiple languages. We also wanted to make it available to not just attendants. I mean, a friend could visit the place. My voice could visit the place. They could file a complaint on behalf of the tenant, right? Yes, they could. Okay. But we need a consent of the tenant, to enter or not of course, okay Supervisor Marquez. Thank you. Thank you so much for the comprehensive report and work. I really appreciate it and especially the outreach efforts and the referrals. I know that you're presenting a couple options in terms of next steps. I believe we're also scheduled to have a work session in July to look at next steps with regard to expanding tenant protections. So, doing, looking at option three, can you give me a sense of what that timeline would look like with respect to the rental registry and past staff engaged in conversation as Supervisor Tam was mentioning surrounding communities, specifically Hayward and Sally Andro. I can't speak to Sally Andro, but I know that there is some interest in Hayward looking at a rental registry. I've heard some feedback. It would be ideal if we could kind of coordinate effort. So, no staff has a response to that. Thank you. Shell Starrat, Housing Director. I'm actually looking to see Provider Miley. He has a fellow right now on staff who is actually doing some deep research on rental registration. And I believe the next steps for that ordinance is a meeting between him, our CDA, and the Tax Assessor's Office to look at whether the business license system could be used to become a rental registry. I don't know that the platform or technology that the Tax Assessor has is the correct type of technology, but whether or not that system and process could be used as sort of what to explore. And then what the cost would be to update that technology to make it something that is compatible with the rental registry. And then whatever system that is would also have to be able to work with the system that Code Compliance has in order to link cases and look at, you know, recurring issues within certain property owners. And do you know if staff has been contacted by surrounding cities for instance Hayward or Celiandro? Yeah, so we actually talking about this at the All City call, which happens once a month on housing issues. And we're asking Hayward and Zanley and Ordo present on their rental registration processes, as well as any other tenant protections. And so we are discussing what else is happening around tenant protections throughout the county. But we haven't done a deep dive yet. And I actually met supervisor Miley's intern last night at EBO. So she had a lot to say. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Miley. Yes. Thanks for the report and the work that says on this. In terms of the recommendations, I do think we need of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of the treatment I think would be very helpful. And I would be very interested if the board gives direction to move in that direction that we get a sense of what it might cost for us to do, just to target it, proactive pilot program for Ashley and Shirley. Because then it's supervisor, Tim, pointing it out, if this only cost us about $170,000, and we were anticipating more money. This came from ARPA funding. Yeah. So yes. Do we have that? Do we still have ARPA funding left over? It's gone. We do not. Okay. So to continue the program for 170, the staff's going to come up with the resources to do that. If we want to expand it, we've got to come up to the resources if we want to do a pilot. Okay, and at the moment, if the board directs you to continue with this, plus come up with a pilot, Ration and Tralea, do we have a sense of what the cost might be? We've run those numbers yet. We were hoping to get some direction today from the board and that we could work up a budget and respond. Okay. Okay. And the reason I think asked on Shirley, because you know, since I represent Ash on an end, Shirley, you know, those are the most challenging parts of that incorporate area. I mean, the demographics of the challenges are similar to West Oakland and East Oakland. And maybe not as much West Oakland any longer, since West Oakland's close to San Francisco and property values are going up in West Oakland. But Ashley and Trillin continue to have similar problems. And I think having a pilot there will be very productive to kind of see what the results are of a proactive pilot there, but continue the complaint jiffing program throughout the inappropriate area, I think would serve as well. I think once again, and I've kind of been a broken record on this, the board's going to have to decide how we're going to use that measure W money. Some of that money we might want to direct towards this. It's going to be important that we show results over the next few years because we need to look at reauthorizing Master W. But also, I don't know if folks have seen, but I've seen the memo from Michelle, you know, the federal government is looking at closing now, CDBG, closing now, coordinated care. I mean, they're looking to take away stuff that they've already diminished it over the years before we had a Trump administration Democrats and Republicans, but now Trump is looking to wipe all that out rental assistance and everything. So we're going to have more of a challenge on our hands so the measured W money might be our only source of flexible dollars to help buttress this, to provide rental assistance and other things. So I think that's going to be extremely important that we contemplate that. And then for the rental registry, you're trying to get our Treasurer, our County Administrator. My office altogether to talk about that has been a challenge. But I'm working on that because if we can set a program, they utilize our business license tax. It's my hope that that wouldn't be as costly and as controversial as saying of yet a new infrastructure because that's something that we got pushed back from the real property providers in the past. And so if we're successful in doing that and it achieves the same purposes, that's the goal. But at the moment, I haven't gotten any clear indication on that because I've been having a difficulty getting three offices, county administrator, my office and the Treasury together to really hone in on this. But that's what we're attempting to do in terms of real registry. And back to Ashwin and Trilin, we do know that Once again the demographics there, a lot of our low income tenants reside there, etc. So I think it would serve the board really well to pilot proactive inspection there. That way we reduce the likelihood of any harassment because our staff would be doing this proactively as opposed to waiting for a complaint driven type of encounter. And then additionally, I know we will be looking at an harassment ordinance down the road, but that's not in place just yet. That's all I have to say at the moment. Thank you. Very good. Supervisor, 14th of the comments. Thank you to the staff for the work as well as the report. A number of my questions were asked and answered. I do have one specific question of the 35 cases that required county action. Do we know where those area's area's area's area's area's area's area's area's area's area's area's area's area's area's area's area's you and I think just having that additional data point would be helpful. And I'll just state. Those are the number of cases, but I'm asking for the, in terms of the number of complaints, there's, I'm sorry, the cases that required action, versus the cases in general. So of the 86 cases that required action, what cities those were in. So perhaps that's something that could be emailed to the entire board. So we have that information. And I'll just state for the record. While I was on the Oakland City Council, we did implement a rental registry that's still being implemented. So I am supportive of thank you supervisor Miley for your initiative and looking into that with the treasurer and the administrator. I'm supportive of moving forward in that direction. I'm also supportive of having a proactive program. I think, as was said earlier, that would be one way that we can hopefully reduce any possible harassment or retaliation by having that rental registry and having a proactive inspection. So I do support moving forward in that direction. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any public speakers? We have speakers. Very good. In person or online? We'll go start with in person and we'll go online. Thank you. Plan. Providing this data. Thank you for providing this data. It's consistent with data that you provided last year. I just want to point out that in terms of the scale and the scope of these habitability complaint-driven cases that we have 104 cases in 2023 or about there in 142 cases in 2024. That represents less than 1% of the rental housing that is in the unincorporated area. We have 19,000 rental housing, so that's less than 1% and most of those cases are not actionable. That is last year, it was 68% and the report that's not actionable. This year is 65% that's not actionable because they're not really habitability concerns. These cases go close because there were no violations. They were closed because there were minor maintenance issues. They were closed because the landlord housing provided to care of it. They were closed because there were other issues with tenant landlord relationships that's not related to building code enforcement, health or safety concerns. And they were also referred to other agencies because they're not related to building and safety. So just in terms of the scale, I wanted everybody to understand how much money we're putting in the proactive rental inspection program was quoted at one point by the county to cost about $200 per unit, which worked out to be a little less than 4 million. This program is a hundred and roughly $75,000. And we're looking at less than 1% and most of those cases, 65% of those cases were not habitually issue related. So provide context for what percentage of these rental housing have major plumbing, electrical, mole rats, Mewdo, cockroach, and festations. Thank you. The lesson person is Leo with my voice. We support the recommendations for targeted expansion that the staff has proposed. We do recognize and our work, the burden is still too much on renters to raise a habitability issue. As we see the trends, you know, in our own outreach, there's still a big gap from people who identify repair. One mentioned, yeah, there's over 19,000 units. In our outreach, 831 renters identify the major repair. And when we follow up with folks, only 51 or 6% follow through. So I think that's where the conversation needs to happen of really, how do we empower tenants to come forward? In Ed's report, there's a troubling trend over half of the majority or 54% are from single-family homes. A community particularly vulnerable and who are left out of the recent just cause protections. And we like this trend to be studied closely. The burden to understand our healthy housing needs to be on the county. And fully resourcing code enforcement who also needs a working rent registry to identify and document rental units needs attention you know a regular inspection we Think it's like akin to a healthy housing check right We asked the county to move forward with a pilot proactive focus for Ashlyn and Cherland It's like you know when you get checked for your health It's a housing health check for neighborhoods with ongoing problems, and we can compare this data with the past two years as a control or baseline. So it will be more than happy to partner with planning to conduct comprehensive outreach and to identify neighborhoods that most need this program, post-oper contracts, those funds have dried out, so we have no resources to do as much comprehensive research, but we definitely like to partner and we ask the board and staff to treat this as anti-homeless initiative via measure W to fund these efforts. Thank you supervisor Miley for raising that need. So the 245 cases we could raid as those are 245 cases we insured all families are in healthy homes. Thank you. Chris Moria on the line you have two minutes. Hello Chris Moria with East Bay Rental Housing Association. Thank you for letting me speak today. I think this is great data. It's great to have a program. Thank you for funding the pilot program. It what it shows to me is there's not a significant problem in unincorporated Elimita County with the, you know, as Tuan mentioned earlier, 1.3% of the 19,000 rental units in the county. I think another important point is that of the cases, that the 86 that were actionable, 93% of the housing providers fixed the problem. So as soon as they became aware of the issue, they fixed the problem. And you know, it had only 7% that did not. And that could have been maybe they didn't have the funds to do it. We don't know that. What I'd love to see a little more data. And I think the supervisor Fortinoto Bass asked for some data, and I think that's important. I'd love to see a further breakdown of the mold in Mildu and also the vector control, because there is a lot of tenants, and we're all in this business, and we see, and they say, hey, there's severe mold in my bathroom, but it turns out to be Mildu, don't open the window maybe or they don't turn on the fan. And so it would be great to see that next level of breakdown on those 88 complaints. What is what was actually mold and what was severe mold? And the same with our vector control. We hear a lot about those rats and that type of thing. But of the 65 items, how many were truly rats or roaches? And so that's important data. I think that the bulk here is if we can apply since there's such a small amount, education is key. And whether an ever does that or the county does that, I think that would be really key. I'll just make one quick, a a president, my supervisor Miley on the West Oakland property values are actually down. You have you have you guys look at the units to the left when you go out and you see these black tall buildings, they're going for 370,000 a unit right now down from about a million. So housing in West Oakland, actually all over Oakland is is down significantly and I was talking about Fungla about that yesterday. Thank you for the time. Elena, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Elena Torre. I am a resident in Sherrilan and also Paro Baye de Mvois. So do you have here to share why I proactive inspection planning suspension, especially for Ashland, and Sherryland and Castrovali, where tenants complaints are the highest. Right now, many tenants live in on unsafe conditions for yesterday's silence, not because the problems are insidious, but because they feel retaliation that includes eviction, or least no renewals, hypes, harassment, immigration related fears, and after they simply don't know their rights to how to report issue safely. Even when problems are reported to vector control, Vector Control can enforce changes. The reports are seen as a suggestions, no requirements. And before code enforcement steps in, the tenant must control laws directly, which can be risky, as I just mentioned, already. A proactive inspection plan says that is that waiting for complaints inspectors identify issues every so problems don't inspire the following. Protector enters healthy and safety. It reduce the risk of retaliations, whole landlords and tenants are comfortable. And we've been through some of this. In places without strong tenant potential, tenant potential, regulatory of rentals, rental control, like in corporate areas, this kind of plan is not smart, but it's necessary. So let's ensure no one has to choose as I did, between the health and their home. Thank you so much, everyone. Sandra Frost here on the line you have two minutes. I get afternoon. So I'm my name is Sandra Frost and I'm an advocate with Eden Rentals United and I listening to everyone's comments. I want to speak to the efficacy of the pilot program. Over the holidays, I had the experience of supporting an immigrant family that was facing pretty severe harassment from their landlords and facing eviction over a particularly family-oriented and spiritual time of the year. And code enforcement stepped up, they stepped up on every account. And it was just exactly the process that was described earlier. Everybody was very timely. We actually walked into the building and files are complaint and the inspector was out there that afternoon because the situation was really urgent and the condition was serious. was was really extreme habitability issues. And as things played out over maybe the four or five months that I was helping this family, they got excellent help from Central Lick Al. Good representation in court. And what could have turned out to be a family of six out on the streets ended up being an extended period where they had more time to find proper housing. And I want to say I'm very much in support of the rental registry because it can fine tune what's happening in the underbelly of our communities that's not being spoken out about people are really frightened of losing their homes and being out on the streets and I think that's not being acknowledged generally. So thank you for hearing me out. Appreciate it. Jorge, he minutes, you have two minutes. Hello? Yes, you have two minutes. Okay, thank you. I was just, my, my, my, I'm a realtor and investor and a renter. Everything above. But my thing is it seems to me like the current process is working well currently. And we're always creating solutions and looking for a problem. I believe if we spent more time with what you guys are currently doing, it would be positive for everybody. Creating the rent registry and then creating another group of people who have to schedule and look at every single property. From the numbers that I saw, I don't see where that's an issue. I think more resources should be spent on providing the information is currently available. I think it'd be great if every single tenant knew that they had these abilities to be able to just contact the county. It would probably cost us less money and we could actually focus on units that need the work done by being called on by either the tenants or the housing providers working with the current programs that are available in the county. So, I get it that everybody wants to help. One of the biggest things that always comes up of course is affordability, but affordability is not created by the landlord. The affordability is created by lack of inventory. So most of the pressure that everybody's feeling is from the lack of inventory and we're not going to solve that problem with what we're talking about today. Thank you. No more speakers. Okay, very good. I would like to ask some follow up, which is a note that on the types of complaints we have mechanical mechanical is no heat, and then exhaust fans not working. And to me, they seem very different. If I don't have heat, that's a bigger deal than if an exhaust fan doesn't work. Do we have a breakout of those complaints? I'm not saying we have it today. This is fine, but if you could, I'd like to know if possible. And then on, well, another question just in general, in cities that are incorporated, do they typically have a program whereby a renter can make a complaint similar to what we've piloted? Is that something that the cities do? Or are we doing that kind of first? Do we know? Yes, a lot of cities that have co-enforcement, their co-enforcement division handles tenant complaints, but some cities use the building department to handle tenant complaints. This is building related issues. Okay, but generally tenants have a place to go if they have Problem with livability. Yes in a city Yes, so they never had before well, they always had code enforcement. I guess right? Yes But so what exactly did the pilot do now that they didn't do before? I Think for the unincorporated areas, there was a loss of confidence from the tenants that the county's going to help them. So we improved our service. Okay. Yeah. Because it seems to me that everybody should have the right to complain if there's a problem and the landlord isn't addressing it. Yeah. And now that AB 838 says you can no longer ignore substandard problems you have to inspect. Yeah. And but a continued concern I have is that only a third are actionable. And then so what I hear from housing providers is the other the two thirds are, I don't want to use frivolous and And then so what I hear from housing providers is the other two thirds are, I don't want to use frivolous complaints, but not without merit. And so that's a concern because if a tenant feels that they can come to make complaints, I think what you said was you're not sure who's harassing who. And if two thirds of the complaints are not actionable, it would indicate that some tenants may be using this as a weapon against their landlord. So it's a concern. Another data point that was pointed out, 93% of the landlords fixed these problems. I don't know that they would have been fixed without a complaint. So a question I have is, are people coming to us after they've tried to resolve it with the landlord and they weren't able to? So part of- We know. That's the important thing about us doing the workshops because we want to explain to the tenants the process of how Tennessee works. So if there's repair issues, we make sure we tell them you need to prove to us that you've already reached out to the owner and they refuse to do the repairs. That's when we can step in. So if they haven't done that yet, we tell them do it now. If it's an email or text, doesn't matter how you do it, but you need to show us that you've done that part and probably wait like 10 days. And some of those cases, the owners, oh, okay, I'll take care of it because they know the county's gonna be involved. So I think more of the messaging gets out and they'll pay more attention to addressing complaints sooner rather than later because they know the counties you know can be involved. Yeah, it's the benefit one of the benefits. Okay, so then it helps actually get it done. Yes, another question I have is if we're talking about a broken light or a broken outlet or Even a tear in the carpet as you talked about do we investigate whether that was tenant caused like Did the tenant caused the broken light or did the landlord break the light and then refuses to fix it? I mean, when does it become now mold that accumulates in a house because of broken pipes or whatever or a breaking pipe or a leaky roof I get? But are all of these landlord created, landlord responsibility problems or do we find that some of these were caused by the tenant? Yeah, it's very tough to prove like give you an example like the drains plugged up and the you know if if the owner hires a plumbing company to clear the drains and they find something that's not supposed to be there then that owner can say well you obviously put it there so that's there's a evidence but something let's say a window breaks and the tenant says oh I didn't do it somebody from outside throw a ball at it we we have no way of proving that but our concern is it's broken it's got to be fixed and that's on the owner the owner owner can try to prove that the tenant did it, but we stay out of that. What's the feedback just anecdotally from the landlords that we talk to? Are they saying that, yeah, I'll fix it I need to? Or are we getting feedback that some of these are tenant related versus their own? Or are they just saying, well, now that the county's involved, I'll fix it. There are a few that are questionable, whether or not, especially when it comes to maintenance, where there's also a lot of vector issues, because some of that is really caused sometimes by the tenant leaving food out or something like that. But that's why we involve vector, because they can say, okay, this is the cause, this is how you guys can fix it. Maybe it needs extermination and that's the owner's responsibility, not the tenant. And it's really a tough spot to be in. But we just identify what the problem is and how to fix it and give it to the landlord. Okay, no, I appreciate that. So again, I'm very sympathetic to a tenant who is not living in livable conditions, very sympathetic. I think with the low incidence, we don't have a systemic, big, giant problem, but anybody that's not living in proper conditions is a concern. I don't think it's a big one. As we proceed, I'm certainly supportive of continuing this pilot, I guess, with periodic updates, either to the full board or to a TMP or unincorporated services, committee, whatever. But my, committee, whatever. But my concerns are the amount that are not actionable complaints. They're just complaints. No action taken. And I would like to understand more about, is it these things caused by the landlord, caused by the tenant, and where we're truly identifying uninhabitable situations that, by the way, I'll go one step further, if it's truly that way, and the landlord has to fix it and it's an egregious problem, we need to probably find mechanisms to de-incentivize that, like find them or do something drastic that it causes them to not do that again, okay, and send the word out, be a good actor housing provider. We haven't really talked about that yet. So I would be in favor of finding ways to alleviate that or make it not happen going forward. But I sort of draw the line there feeling that we don't have a huge problem and that You know anyway Enough said there but anyway, that's just my opinion. Supervisor Mylay. I see you reaching for the mic I will like to say also we've passed the point where we're going to lose quorum I'm going to ask that we finish this item continue the rest with the exception of public comment on items not on today's agenda, and then we'll adjourn. Supervisor Milo. Yes, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the report. And that we, the direction we provide to the staff is that we continue this program that it no longer be a pilot. That we continue the program of a complaint driven enforcement. But we also establish a program for proactive enforcement, a pilot program for proactive enforcement in National and Churriland in that the staff report to the Transfacian Planning Committee and the Under Corporate Service Committee on the status of both of these moving forward. And then once again, there will be a report coming to the board relative to our real inspection as, excuse me, our real registry as well as an update on dispute resolution, as well as just cause our whole package of things that we've enacted, not that report will be coming down the road with full board. So my motion is that we accept the report, we continue the program, and we establish a pilot program for proactive enforcement in Ashley and Charlie. I'm happy to second that. So clarifying question, this dealt a lot with a complaint driven process. What is the mechanism of a proactive approach? Are we asking that we hire bodies? Are you asking that we are we going to go knock on everybody's door and have a census driven every house or apartment is inspected? What does it mean to do a proactive? That would be the response from the staff to come back to a court. So develop it, not implemented. Yes, got it. So bring back to us. Okay, got it, got it. When do you anticipate the rental registry report analysis being ready? So, I see Michelle's gone, but is this coming? Is a report on everything coming to the full board in the work session soon? Well, with the, so there's two, there's a couple of proposals and one is to be at work session in July for the longer list of tenant protections and get some guidance from the board. Then we also have a year after the board has adopted that just caused an anti or dispute resolution that we come back to the board with a full report on that a year after implementation. Right now we've gotten started on initiating outreach. And so we're getting started on that. But we won't come back to the board until early next year for that, that report. Then we have the conversations that we're having with regard to, with the Treasurer, Your Office, CAO, and what that looks like and what kind of system we can use for a rent registry program using the existing systems. And that hasn't been scheduled. Yeah, my hope would be that we'd be able to at least give you a status on that when we have the work session in July. Okay, that's perfect. Thank you. That's clear. Thank you. And one other thing I just want to say, I know, you know, I don't disagree. It has to take to disagree with the president of the board, but I do think the situation is going to get worse than better. If the federal government cuts go through, we're going to have more problems. Trust me, we will have more problems. Our motion has been made and seconded. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam, excuse. Supervisor Miley. Aye. Supervisor F to not a bus. Hi President Halbert. Hi Okay with that said we have public comment on items not on today's agenda apologies for the rest of the items which we will have to push off Because we're about to lose quorum, but let's before we do that. keep warm while we hear public comment on items not on today's agenda. Supervisor before you go there just for clarification are you moving item 679 to your June planning meeting? Yes. Thank you. Chuck Meadows. In summary, during the period beginning five years ago, October 2019 through March 2020, My neighbors, men's singer, bichet, dumped over 35 dump trucks of unsourced, visibly contaminated fill in violation of the soil import ordinance. The fill contained bricks, wires, pipes, tiles, bottles, sheet metal, cans, blankets, and large quantities of broken concrete, all in violation of the soil import ordinance. After hearing extensive testimony, including multiple licensed engineers, the BZA and March 26 voted 4-0 to declare the violation site a public nuisance. The violators have been now cited three times for large-scale dumping and grading at the violation site. The appeal is scheduled to come before you on June 12th next month. To give you an idea of the amount of volume that was dumped, 35 dumped trucks would create a hole 60 feet by 13 by 12 feet deep. You could literally drop their two bedroom, two bathroom, ADU into the hole and it would be buried. The contaminated fill extended from the street over 200 feet down to and including word creek. According to the geotechnical engineer, we would actually dug holes on the site to measure the quantity of fill. The violation site was covered with between two and seven feet of contaminated fill and debris. I cannot access my property as a result of the easement being literally buried. So I ask when this matter comes before you on June 12th that you again hear the evidence and you affirm the 4-0 BZA ruling and require a 90-day remediation plan so that the property is usable before the next rainy season. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairman, if I might speak quickly to this issue. When this matter comes before your board, it will be a quasi-judicial matter. All speakers should make certain that if they have comments that they attend that meeting and make them on the record because this portion of your meeting will not be included in the administrative record if there isn't appeal. So I would caution Mr. Moore to attend the June meeting and make his comments at that time as well. No more speakers. But that we are adjourned. Recording stopped.