you you you you you you you you the recording in progress. Okay, good morning. Board supervisors regular meeting for September 17th, 2024 is now in session. Speakers joining the meeting via teleconference. Please unmute your microphone. Will the clerk please call the roll? Supervisor Howard. Present. Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Carson. Present. President Miley. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. President Lee James. the United States, America, and the Cuban public, both expand and nation. And we'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The Board of Supervisors welcomes you to its meetings. The Board allows in-person and remote observation and participation by members of the public and its meetings. County of Alameda recognizes the important and valuable role of public participation in government. We remounted it disruptive, conductive renders, orderly conducts of the meeting on feasible and habitolerated. This includes disruptive conduct that may occur through public comment. The chair will order the removal of individuals who will hopefully disrupt the meeting so that the meeting may continue in an orderly manner. For those attending the meeting in person, if you would like to speak to an item on the agenda or to a public input, please submit a speaker card to the clerk so your name can be called to speak at the appropriate place on the agenda. The clerk will now provide brief instructions on how to verbally participate in public comment through online teleconferencing. Detail instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guideline. A link to the document is included in today's agenda. If you are joining the meeting using that 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, dial star nine 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 calls you will have two minutes to speak. Please limit your remarks to the time allocated. Public comment will generally alternate between in person and online speakers as determined by the President of the Board and subject to overall time limits. Thank you. Thank you. What I'll do now is I'll see if there are any board supervisors remarks. Okay, hearing none. At this point in time, I'm only going to take public comment on the closed session item dealing with the conference with legal counsel under existing litigation item F. The name of the case is Esther Goalsby at all versus County Valimita. So we're only taking public comment on that one item conference with legal counsel existing existing litigation, item F, name of case, Esther Goalsby at all, versus county of Alameda. We'll take public comment, speakers will get one minute, in the board of recess in the closed session, deal with that item, then we'll come back out after that, and take public comment on items on the agenda, except those listed, I don't know the clock, one o'clock, and three o'clock. Said matters and items listed under the hinting informational items, as well as other comments on any other closed session matters. So right now, just comments on, just comments on the one closed session item, case of articles versus county of Alameda. And we're doing that, so Supervisor Halbert can participate in the board discussion in closed session because he's out of the country and has to get on a flight. And so we want to have him in closed session for that item. Yes, Supervisor Carson. Just for clarity sake and given the fact that this is a very important item and There may or may not be people who've never attended our meetings in the past On this particular item that we're going in the closed session on after we've gone to closed session if in fact there is a Resolve or a recommendation or an action that takes place, are we going to just simply come back and report out in closed session what happened or will there be an opportunity to explain in greater depth so that people who have had lots of opportunities have a public discussion about it and other venues have a better sense of how we're acting as opposed to it being kind of kept in a dark. I guess I'll count a council respond. So in part that will depend on what in fact you do in closed session but certainly last week when the meeting was held the direction was to come back out and announce something out that was more than what we might have done in the past. So I think that that will depend on what you do, but I think it can be discussed in closed session, depending on what in fact happens, what you may want to do next. I think that that's within the scope of what you have the opportunity to discuss in closed session. I was in here last week because I actually was in Washington, D.C. on County Business and at a ton of meetings that I can verify that were County related. So I was in Washington. So I missed that. And so I'd like to have greater clarity on what that means after close session that we come back. You said announce out what took place and then you made it sound as though there can be greater explanation of what took place. And I think personally that it's important that this is the public issue that there's public discourse about it so that the public would fully hear what we're doing and understand what we're doing and understand what we're doing. So the item is not a gen die for a public session discussion. There is no item on your public session agenda for a discussion, a full and complete discussion of the item. So, you know, I want to make sure that we are in conformity with noticing it. If it had been noticed for a full public discussion, then more people may have been chosen to participate. So I'm low to say that it would be appropriate to hold a full public discussion and vetting of the item. But I'm willing to say that it may be appropriate to report out. And I mean, the report out may include some detail, but I think that's something that has to be cited. Because as you know, it's an attorney client. The only reason we're in discussion in closed session is because it's an attorney client discussion. And the board has to waive that privilege to go and discuss detailed discussions about what happened in closed session. So again, it depends on what in fact happens in closed session and what it is that you want disclosed and discussed. Is there a reason why this wasn't scheduled for a public discussion? Wasn't set for a public discussion? Wasn't set for public discussion because we're dealing with litigation. The issue, the issue that I understand gave rise the issue that is before the board for discussion and closed session is a litigation strategy issue. That is the only thing that is under discussion. So we never agindize litigation strategy discussions for open session. Okay so are we making a decision regarding something strictly related to litigation? Yes. The question before you is strictly regarding the litigation. And how does that play out to an action? We take actions all of the time regarding things in closed session regarding impacts of litigation. For example, you take actions regarding settlement authority, you take actions regarding certain strategies, retention of experts to improve our position in a case. There's lots of, in the course of litigation, there are lots of actions that we consult with your board about the strategy for the case. So this is just another one of those. Okay, so as one board member, I'd like to go on the record. I hope that when we discuss this in closed session, that there is a detailed explanation of the outcome of what's discussed in closed session. I'm saying that because basically what we get is what the vote was. 3, 2, 5, 0 and that's normally all we get. And I think that this is such a critical issue that we need to, we owe the general public a lot more understanding of what, in this particular case is going on in closed session other than just what the vote is. And I might also have that depending on what the board decides to do in closed session. The issue around the communication and the affluent sports and entertainment group that could be a agenda for open session at a future time. And I just in to make sure that there are not, you know, my goal here is to manage expectations and be clear. The item that is before your board for a decision in closed session would not be something that I would report out at all. I wouldn't report the votes and I wouldn't report. Well, the nature of this, there would be a public disclosure, not necessarily at this board meeting. It could be at this board meeting, but not necessarily. It's not this, because litigation strategy is not something that I'm required to report out a closed session. It's litigation strategy, and you know, within the privilege but again your board could elect to disclose that but I wouldn't even unless your board directed me to I wouldn't even report the votes out at this meeting but you know again if you direct me to that's you know it can be done. level it appeared to be an urgency matter for us to take this issue up and at time sensitive manner. I don't know all that understanding all of that. And so if it's something that is time sensitive then how are we going to have some public discussion about an action if it's time sensitive unless we're going to have some public discussion about an action if it's time sensitive unless we're going to have it before the I'm not sure if it is or not time sensitive before that time is up. I mean how do we do that? Because I know that there was an effort to try to we were on a scheduled break with the board and there was several efforts to try and get an urgent meeting. So to me, I read that as time sensitive. And so are we taking a time sensitive action in closed session? Is it not going to be discussed publicly or is it going to be discussed at some future date? And I don't know what that impact is to the action that we're taking today. I think we'll probably be able to provide more information based on what the board decides in a closed session. But yes, it is. It's my understanding based on the communications I've had with folks during our recess that this is time sensitive Though the action the board needs to take on this legal action on this legal case All right, this is my name I I'd like to ask county council for I'd like to ask County Council for a re iteration of the statement. This item was considered on August 13th and then was asked to be reconsidered on September 12th and today's third time. And on September 12th, when we reconsidered it with three board members we had also asked county council to make a statement on what was expected from the advocates if she can reiterate can paraphrase it. Generally, the statement that I read out and is in the record was that the board was unable to take an action on Thursday, this past Thursday when the board met, but that the board believed that it would be useful. And in the interest of furthering the board's consideration of this matter, that the African-American sports and entertainment group provide the board with a detail offered to purchase and that armed with that detailed offer to purchase. It could be possible that the board would be able to place an open session agenda item on a future meeting to provide direction to negotiate with AACG. And I think that was the gist of it. In my mind, there's a second paragraph. And since that time, have you received any offer that was in your statement? There was no detailed offer provided. A letter was provided that was basically a regurgitation of a letter that had been provided. Previously, the bulk of the commentary in that letter was merely statements extolling the virtues of the individuals who are associated with AASCG and talking about loop capital but it did not provide any details of what was contemplated. It regurgitated language, saying that AACG was interested in an assignment of the CWP agreement. But it did not address what they contemplated the terms and conditions of that assignment might be. Thank you. I have some other questions from board members at this time. We will have speakers just on the item F under Leo Council and existing litigation. As your goals be at all versus County Valimita will give speakers one minute. We'll go to the first speaker and alternate between in person and online speakers as necessary. Please state your name, the city you live in, and which item you are speaking on. You will have two minutes to speak. Dr. Paul Cobb. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Paul Cobb. I'm the publisher of the Oakland Post and I'm here to speak in support of AASIG. It was my understanding is from the dialogue and the read out from the last meeting that you had requested a detailed kind of term sheet offer. And I was under the impression that that had been submitted as a part of the narrative of which they extolled the detail by the city of Oakland, by the legal departments of both your county office and the city, and their quote, financial worthiness has been established. So it is the hopes of those in the community who have supported this effort from the beginning because of its far reaching impact that undergirds the mission of the County affordable housing, economic development, jobs and expanded social services potential. So we hope that as you go into closed session that you will take this in consideration, and maybe it's an issue of terminology because on a matter of this big, this large, and this consequential to hear a report from your legal staff That there was no terms and conditions submitted. It might be an issue of term monology Rather than intent. So we hope that you consider this and positively move forward. Thank you. So I wasn't at the closed session. Is that what we were supposed to receive? Surprise Carson said he wasn't in closed session. Was that what we were supposed to receive? I think it was that we county council phrased it last week. The board encouraged a proposal, an offer to be submitted. We didn't mandate that, an offer, and be submitted. And I have the detailed language that I read out. So what I said is, however, the board requests, well, I'll read the whole thing, the board was unable to take an action today. This matter will appear on the agenda on September 17th for further discussion. However, the board requests that AASCG provide, as soon as possible, a written and detailed offer to purchase to provide clarity regarding the proposed terms of a deal. The board believes receipt of a proposal will help to move this discussion forward. With a reasonable offer and hand, the board may be prepared to take a public action to initiate negotiations with AASCG. We understand that AASCG has been interested in the purchase for months, so this request is reasonable. I mean, it's been out. City of Oakland has had we received it and have we reviewed it. All I can tell you is I have not what I received. I can tell you a lot but what. I spoke to council for a SCG last week. And so you know I that was a very clear conversation. About what was the issue. I spoke to Council for AACG last week. And so that was a very clear conversation about what was confusing about the language that has been used. And what I can't speak to what other people in the county have received. But what I received back was a letter that as I said earlier was a regurgitation of a previous letter that really just said, you know, we want we want an assignment with no further details and your board has been briefed previously regarding some of those issues, but there has been no clarity offered. And so if other people in the county have received something different, I am not aware of it. I have not received anything about loop capitals, you know, financial wear with all and backing. And I've seen what I read on the ASAASG website, but no financials were submitted to me. So I have not reviewed those things. So what does anybody in the county receive the financials or receive what was requested? Anybody? I mean, again, I've been on county business out of the state watching and working on things. So I haven't, but have anybody? I received the letter that county council reference and it was addressed to the entire board of supervisors. Basically, the county council is accurate in reiterating the contents of the letter, but I have not received any financials or any other details regarding the transaction between ASEG or the Oakland A's. And for the record that letter, I believe was sent to all the board offices County Administrator. It may not have gone directly to board members, but I believe it was sent on what I received was directed to various county officials. All right. Next speaker. One minute please please for one minute. Stephen, your own line states your name. City you live in. You'll have one minute to speak and the item you're speaking on. Can you hear me okay? Hello, can I be here okay? We can hear you. We can hear you. Okay great. I can't be here later this afternoon, so I have to do this now. Supervisor Miley, I've tried to make an appointment with you for the last month or two months With your castor belly office and have been unsuccessful. How can I succeed at doing so? What is this I am on the the goals be case are you speaking on the goals of case? Like I said, I can't be here later this afternoon, so I'm trying to speak to you now. I don't You're out of order. Please call the next speaker. Once again, we're only taking public comment on the Goalsby Legal case versus Alameda County. We'll take public comment on other items as we come back from closed session. Sam, please state your name. You will have one minute to speak. And it's only on item F under investigation. Good morning, everyone. My name is Samantha Wise and I'm calling in support of AASCG. I wholeheartedly support AASCG in their purchase and redevelopment at the Open Coliseum site. It will bring much needed development jobs and revitalization of a crucial part of East Oakland. Therefore I respectfully urge you to grant a temporary stay on the communities for a better environment, surplus land, ag litigation against the A, CWP, Alameda County regarding the civil to Coliseum. What I see interesting here is that everyone that I just listed is on the same page and that's really hard and difficult and the times that we are in a Bayer or that everybody gets on the same page. So I respectfully ask if the county support this motion as well and I believe that AASEG, you can get them apart of AASEG. If there's a need for something, we can definitely make sure that you get everything that you guys are requesting in a timely fashion. So thank you guys for hearing me, and I hope you guys have a good Wednesday. Tim Frank. Yes, good morning. My name is Tim Frank and I'm the executive director of the Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods. We support policies and projects that help build sustainable neighborhoods and regions and think that this is a tremendous opportunity here. It is a rare, very large parcel with great transit access and a neighborhood that could definitely benefit from the advantage of new development. And you have a homegrown development group, the AACG, with the talent to actually build this project. And the challenge right now is that you've got a court action. And every time you go to court, you're rolling the dice. And the lowest risk option for the project as a whole and for all the parties is actually to get a settlement before the first court date. And what the state that we're asking for today would allow you to do is to the parties to develop the information they need to make that agreement before the first court date. And that would lower the risk for everybody. So it's a win-win-win-win. Tommy here on the line you have one minute to speak. Hello everyone. My name is Jason Anthony. Can you hear me okay? We can hear you. I'm Jason Anthony with District Council 16, resident of Oakland, California. We are here to ask the board to support a temporary stay on the communities for a better environment, surplus lands, act litigation against the A's, and Alameda County regarding the sale of the Colosseum. The A's and communities for a better environment have both agreed to approach the court together to request a stay. They have both already signed a stipulation to support a stay. The county has not yet agreed to support a stay. A stay will have no material impact on the case. It will not change the outcome in any way. It won't change the merits of the case. A state will be equivalent of the judge continuing the case due to a shortage of court rooms for any other reason. This is a historic opportunity that can be a massive job generator and was served as the largest development in Oakland's history. Let's take this harmless simple step before the crime. Thank you. Thank you. Allisandre Powell. Good morning, supervisors. My name is allisandre Powell. I represent the building trades council of Alameda. Our delegates couldn't make it today as their main decision making body meats. We're speaking in support of this stay. Both of the parties are in favor of it. And it gives the AAS EG time to do that research to figure out what it means to them. We fear that if the trial goes through on the 24th, whichever side loses, will simply appeal and the litigation could draw on for another year, we feel that this development has massive potential to create jobs and better our community. And so we support wholeheartedly the stay that both parties support and we hope Alameda County will do the same. Thank you for the next one. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. I will be back with you. speaking today in support of the stay with the great hope that the board of supervisors will agree to this. As you all know, this this project is massively supported and and the desire of the community is that it move forward as fast as possible. So any unnecessary impediments should not be placed in its way. And since there is agreement with both parties to ask for a stay we will certainly hope that the Board of Supervisors will agree and move forward with that stay. Thank you. John Jones a third. Good morning honorable board supervisors in esteemed county hits. My name is John Jones and as a member of the African American Sports Entertainment Group, I strongly urge you to vote yes to support the state. And since I have limited time, I just want to talk about one concept. What we're really talking about here, everyone is leadership. That's something that the county of Alameda needs. The people need even as the nation. And this represents a unique opportunity. Leadership from a standpoint of being courageous, collaborative, as well as being empathetic, responsive, and visionary. I won't leave you all on this note because Alameda County is famous for so many things. Chief Justice Earl Warren, when he was a district attorney of Alameda County, he supported that racist policy of relocating Japanese American citizens. However, he had an opportunity to grow because he was a Chief Justice on that landmark case, Brown First Aborder Education. My point is we justice on that landmark case, Brown First Board of Education. My point is we need leadership that's responsive, willing to grow at the end of the day. We want to slow yes, not a quick no. So thank you. Ray Bobbit? Hi, thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I think I should just take this time to sort of give some clarification with respect to AASEG and our expectation of what was reported out of a closed session on September 12th. What we were here to do was to be in support and advocacy of a stay in the item F litigation on September 12th as well as today. With respect to our organization submitting a formal offer, we did provide a summary of the current circumstances with respect to our engagement and transaction with the city. Also our agreement with the A's and obviously we would, with county health who did report is accurate. As soon as possible, we could support and present a full proposal for this process. And we would be happy to have that being public session. We would be happy to provide all the details, but clearly it was not our intention to provide a full proposal as that would take a pretty long time to prepare and submit. So we were here really to advocate for the stay and talk about the benefits of it. But we would, at this point we will certainly take the additional time to prepare the necessary proposal and offer that the county is requesting. But in addition to that, we did require, or we did submit just a summarized notion of where we are. So thank you very much. I wanted to make sure I cleared that up and to our understanding of why we were here. Jeffrey Pete. Good morning. My name is Jeffrey Pete and I have been a long time advocate in our community relative to the interests of African American interests. legendary last week to hear John Jones the third talk about there's no there there in Oakland and he really leaned on the issue and hit the nail on the head. I am here in support of granting a stay in the litigation of the Calisame development. It is the most important and best use for our community and I support it absolutely unequivocally. Thank you. Keith Brown. Good morning, supervisors and staff. I'm Keith Brown, executive secretary of the Alameda Labor Council. We are here to ask the board to support a temporary stay on the communities for a better environment. We are here to ask the board to support a temporary stay on the communities for a better environment surplus lands act litigation against the ACWP and Alameda County regarding the sale of the Coliseum. I was a teacher for many years at Havens Court Middle School which is footsteps away from the Oakland Coliseum. We have a historic opportunity that will be life-changing for families, for the youth living in that area to generate jobs for the community to put needed investments in our disinvested communities. So we need to stand behind a, a, s, e, g, and to make sure that there's no epitomates to this process. Thank you very much. Call the year on the line. You have one minute to speak. Oak lit. Please unmute your mic. Caller, you're on the line. You have one minute to speak. Please unmute your mic. Thank you very much. My name is Septina McDonnell and I'm a native of Erkhoflin and I urge the county board of supervisors to join the CVE and the Athletics stipulation to stay CVE's lawsuit. A stay would grant AACG the opportunity to evaluate ramification of the lawsuit and additionally to work with all parties on an equitable resolution. AESCG's Coliseum project would be a boom to the economic redevelopment of the region. And again, I urge the board to join the stay to allow all parties to continue working toward a better economic redevelopment and a better solution and a better environment for all of its communities and its people. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. We are here representing Lincoln University and most of our students live in Supervisor Tans district. We're here to support the stay. And if the state does not take place, it will put a lot of youth in jeopardy and we would basically lose and risk having the youth at risk. If the stay is not granted in September 24th and it moves forward on either side and the appeal and the litigation might not have the resolution at least for another year in which you're at risk. and we are here in full support of the state. Colle, you're on the line. Please unmute your mind. You have one minute to speak. Good morning. My name is Levant. I'm an Oakland resident calling in support of the African-American Sports and Entertainment Group and also in support of the stay. From my understanding there's two separate items here. One is the stay of the litigation and the other is the assignment of the disposition agreement between the A's and the county to the county and the African-Americans portrait attainment group. So the detailed offer definitely would help with the assignment of the disposition agreement, but the issue at hand before us today is the stay. And the stay will allow more time to provide the county with the necessary information as well as the details of that assignment. So the stay is something that's been agreed upon by CBE by the A's and the ASEG specifically so that those details can be provided to you and the negotiations can continue. So please support the stay and the African-American Sports Entertainment Group. Thank you. Dr. Jones? Good morning. My name is Dr. Jones and I'm a proud business owner in Oakland. And I stand before you today to express my unwavering support for the item F and the AACG purchase of the Oakland Coliseum. This is more than a transaction. It's a pivotal moment for our community in a county as a whole. The Coliseum has the potential to revitalize Oakland, providing jobs, economic growth, and community pride. It's also an investment that will benefit generations to come. Your vote and support to stay is crucial in ensuring the voices of our community are heard that we see this historic opportunity for Oakland residents. And I also urge you to move forward with this decision as it aligns with Alameda County's missions to enrich lives through visionary policies and responsive services. Thank you. Stanley? Stanley. Stanley Six. Lamar. Lamar Howesley Gunnar Cortez Rick I'm going to go to the next slide. My name is Rick Fortenberry. I'm a reentry program manager at Oak Pick. Supervisors. I support this day for AAS-EG. It's been a black man growing up in each Oakland, deep east Oakland. We always wanted some peace, but we didn't have a peace. So we couldn't give peace. With AASE, they offer us a peace. So our community can have some peace. These are some of the people that we look to as our heroes in Oakland. If this doesn't get the stay, I don't know who else coming to Oakland to help us in East Oakland. Who else coming? Everybody leave in Hagarburg. We need your support. Please support AACG. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next slide. Colle, you're on the line. You have one minute to speak. This is Alan Jones. I just want to speak in support of this day. Give us time to work through issues and come up with a productive way to move forward with this important site. Thank you. Ms. Kim? Good morning. My name is Kim. I am in much support of the state for this group. I lived in Oakland. I worked in the area. I worked in that community for over 20 years, right at that Coliseum. I also worked at the Coliseum and at the BART station. So I am in much support for the stay and for this group to go forth and really empower our community like it should be. This is a very great and historic opportunity and a long-term purpose for multitudes, not only just for this Bay Area, but many people come from all around the regions for sports and different things. And it brings a change in the atmosphere. the region for sports and different things. And it brings a change in the atmosphere. It brings a change in communities. It brings a change in counties when people come into this place. So I'm in much in support for the state. Colleague, you're on the line. You have one minute to speak. I'm going to go to the next slide. Caller, you're on the line. You have one minute to speak. Hi, my name is Toya Sanford. I'm a homeowner in deep East Oakland. And I am for the stay. This will bring much needed jobs and housing to the Oakland residents that are unhoused currently. It will allow them to have the opportunity to get jobs and to possibly get into those new homes. So I am in favor of this day. I'm going to ask the committee to be seated. President, I know more speakers on this item. Then we'll come back from closed session. We'll take public comment on other closed session items, as well as other open session items, except those listed. And as it matters at 11, 1 and 3, so we'll go into closed session now. you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. Albert, excuse, Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Carson. Present. President Miley. Present. Thanks. Board's back from closed session on the one item under litigation. The goals be case versus Alameda County. County Council, you have anything to report out. Thank you. In the matter of Esther Gools, be it all V County of Alameda at all, Superior Court of California County of Alameda Case number 21-CV-002126, by consensus, the board authorized council to agree to a 60-day stay in the case. And the board also reiterates the statement that I read into the record following a closed session on this matter on last Thursday, September 12th. The board asks and requests that AACG provide the board with a detailed offer to purchase and to be clear that means the details of any proposed assignment of the CWP and that AACG provide that as soon as possible. And again, the board would be likely willing armed with that information to put an open session item to direct county officials to negotiate if it had that reasonable detailed proposal of the terms of an assignment in hand. Okay, thank you. Right, we're now going to take up our set items before I have public comment on. So before we have public comment on agenda items, another closed session items, we're going to take up the 11 o'clock set items at this point in time. That's items, items 89, 91, 92, 93. So we'll take up those items and follow each item. We'll see if there's public comment on each, on those respective items at this point in time. So let's go to item 89. Thank you, President Meile. It's my pleasure to present the proclamation for the Library card sign up month. The Library card sign up month is an initiative designed to encourage individuals to obtain a library card while highlighting the extensive resource and services available at libraries. And the Library sign up month aims to increase library card registration, promote lifelong learning, and raise awareness with the vital role that libraries place in strengthening our community's support and engagement. Obtaining a library card provides access to a wealth of knowledge, including books, digital media, and educational programs, fostering lifelong learning and personal growth. A library card also allows individuals to experience the library's welcoming and inclusive spaces along with diverse programs and collections that reflect their communities and ensure equitable access. And libraries are essential community hubs that provide access to information, educational resources, and cultural enrichment for people of all ages, playing a crucial role in the education and development of children. Libraries offer a wide range of services from preschool story time to college and career, planning and resources for high school students, nurturing literacy and love for reading while supporting lifelong learning and personal growth. During a time of crisis like the pandemic libraries and library workers play a vital role in supporting the community both in person and virtually. The libraries uphold democracy by promoting civic engagement and the free exchange of information and ideas for all. And the library card ignites creativity while empowering individuals to explore a new interest and pursue lifelong learning. So it is our pleasure that the Board of Supervisors proclaimed September 2024 as library sign-up month and encourage everyone to visit the Alameda County Libraries. And we have our Alameda County librarian, Deb Syka, and Erin Vermin, the division director for Equival Libraries. Yomina and LaMiles for Public Information Specialists, Sloan Denton, and who's the coordinator of Library Access Service in Elisia Raya. So take it away. This is very great to be here and appreciate. Thank you for the proclamation. Not only highlights the value of library cards, but also the pivotal moment in our efforts to connect with and serve our community in innovative ways. We currently have close to 250,000 active card holders in our county. And so I just got that number straight this morning. So it's a very fresh number. And we're always looking for new and exciting ways to invite others into our service this month is this year is actually a very special year for a library card sign up. We celebrate every year, but I'm thrilled to announce that we have a newly formed partnership with the Golden State Warriors. Tomorrow we are officially launching a co-branded Alameda County Library Golden State Warrior Library card. And so we have limited edition of these cards and we've already gotten lots of interest over social media and people want to get this very special limited edition. So they're welcome to come in any of our libraries. Starting tomorrow we'll be giving out the cards. And we'll also have the Warriors model is Strength and Numbers and we decided we were going to add Strength and Readers to that and just grow this partnership to the future and see where it brings us. We've never had a professional sports organization partnership before and we think that it will bring in different people to use the library. And so invite you all tomorrow at Reach from three to five Reach Ashley News Center. We'll be having our kickoff party and the Warriors organization will be there with us and all of the kids at Reach will get cool swag and books about basketball. It'll be just a great launch for our library card sign up. So, thank you very much for all of this. I thank the Golden State Warrior organization. They've been very collaborative in the spirit and the community relations and government relations office and look forward to see what this partnership brings in our future. Congratulations and thank you. Why we bring up our strength in numbers team to come up and take a photo with the board of Supervisors? As a special thing for today for the folks that are in the chambers, we have some of these cards. They're activated welcome cards and they are welcome. They're the lowest threshold of getting a library card. There's no, no residency requirement. There's no real form that you need to fill out. The cards that you're getting right now are active and ready to use library resources. So that's kind of our new launch model for outreach. And so we're happy to present those to you and you'll all get one as well. Thank you. If you want to fly, just say, you might fly. We'll come in there and you'll have to. I'm sorry, I just ran for a little while. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We'll go ahead and give that to your partners. you you the All right. Okay, we're going to go to our next item. Item 90. Thank you, President Miley. I'm happy to proclaim September as service dog awareness month. Service dogs have a history that dates back to World War One when they were first used to assist soldiers with disabilities, particularly those who were blind. Their role has evolved significantly over the decades. Formal training and recognition increased in the mid-20th century, leading to their widespread use and legal protections under the Americans with Disability Act. Service dogs now provide essential support to individuals with disabilities, helping them perform daily activities and enhance their independence. These animals are trained to assist with the wide range of tasks from ability support to medical detection. Their presence significantly improves the quality of life for many and fosters greater inclusivity within our communities. And service dogs are not only trained to address specific needs, but also to ensure their handler's safety and well-being. Thus contributing to their overall health and stability. This specialized training helps individuals with disabilities navigate their environment with greater ease and confidence. The invaluable assistance provided by these dogs underscores the importance of recognizing the role in society. The Americans with Disability Act protects the rights of individuals with disabilities and acknowledges their critical role service dogs play in their daily lives, promoting awareness about these rights is essential for fostering a respectful and accessible environment. Increase understanding of the ADA's provisions helps prevent discrimination and ensures equal opportunities for individuals with service dogs. Organizations such as early alert canines are dedicated to training and deploying a service dog to support individuals with various needs, including medical detection and personal assistance. These organizations contribute significantly to public health and well-being of those they serve. Their efforts highlight the impact that well-trained service dogs can have on improving the lives and public safety. Raising awareness about service dogs and their contributions helps educate the public, promote inclusivity, and encourage respectful interactions. Service dog awareness month serves as a dedicated time to honor these remarkable animals and their handlers. This recognition helps to further the cause of understanding and supporting individuals with disabilities. Now therefore, we resolve the Elimit County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim September as Service Dog Awareness Month in Elimit County. We encourage all residents to learn more about the role of Service Dogs, support their efforts, and raise awareness to foster a more inclusive community. Want to acknowledge Beth Snow, program coordinator, and she's here with the service dogs. So let's give her a huge round of applause, and we welcome any remarks. And just thank you for all that you do, and welcome. Good morning. Thank you for having us today. As she said, I'm Beth Snow, and I'm the program coordinator from early alert canines in Concord. I'm joined today by service dog and training Bernadette, who is a little over a year old from our inaugural puppy raising program. September is recognized in the United States as National Service Dog Month. In Alameda County there are numerous service dogs, handlers, puppy raisers and foster families all working together to improve the quality of life for our community. We appreciate the opportunity to recognize September as Service Dog Awareness Month here in Alameda County. Today we proudly represent our own organization which is based in Concord, California and has been serving people for more than a decade. Additionally we recognize that today we are also going to be welcoming to the Council. We are also going to be welcoming to the Council. We are also going to be welcoming to the Council. We are also going to be welcoming to the Council. We are also going to be welcoming to the Council. We are also going to be welcoming to the Council. We are also going to be welcoming to the Council. We are also going to be welcoming to the Council. We are also going to be for this month in Alameda County. This recognition validates the valuable contribution of these service dogs, as well as the many people within our community who provide training, veterinary care, and a loving home. Thank you. Thank you, Beth, and let's give a round of applause to Bernadette, she's an amazing pup. And if my colleagues will please join us for a group photo. you you . I'm going to present this one. Do we have any speakers on this item? There are no speakers. Okay. Thank you. So let's see. Our next item is item 91. I'm going to present this one. False prevention awareness week. Because anything coming up with older adults, I always like to take the prerogative and present those. So whereas California has an estimated 5.9 million residents aged 65 and older, the largest older adult population of any state in our country. The age 85 plus category is now the fastest growing segment of the population. By 2030, the projected number of people aged 65 and over in Alameda County will rise to 403,429. In 20, 23, there were 261,172 people 65 years and over, representing 16.1% of the population of the county. And whereas that 16.1% of the population counted for 50% of the hospitalizations and deaths due to unintentional injuries. The most common cause of unintentional injuries in leading cause of injury, death among people over 65 in Alameda County have been identified as falls. It is estimated that one in four adults over the age of 65 fall each year with an average medical cost estimated at $53,000 for each fall related hospitalization. This is based on 2020 statistics or information. Falling and the fear of falling can lead to depression, isolation, the minus mobility, and loss of functional independence. FALS can be reduced by at least 20 to 30% through strategies including fall risk assessments, medication management, home fall, hazard reduction, physical activity, programs focused on balance and strength and behavioral health education. The county's senior interprevention partnership, SIP is a county-wide collaboration that has developed a comprehensive approach to fall reduction by providing health and safety assessments, intervention, evidence-based fall prevention classes, and services that have proven to reduce fall risk. The State of California passed legislation in 2008, SRSCR 77, low-in-thole, declaring the first week of fall each year as fall prevention awareness week. In Congress in the same year past the Safety of Seniors Act, S845 calling for the expansion of public health programs, education outreach and research activities related to false prevention. And therefore, the Board of Supervisors of this county proclaims the week of September 23 through 27th as Fall Prevention Awareness Week. And we call upon all citizens and should be grossed to observe the week with appropriate activities that promote awareness of false prevention. That's the proclamation that I've read. Let me just add a few other things. I know a little bit about this. The county started its efforts around false prevention many, many, many years ago with Colleen Campbell and then Marion or Venevates. And this came about as a result of the United Seniors, two of our leaders, Edith Wildington, the Margot Love Life of experiencing falls, particularly as they walked from their residences, the sidewalks and things of that nature. And we quickly learned that if a senior falls, his or health can to be able to date really rapidly. I've known of seniors who have fallen, and mistakenly fallen. And so this falls awareness week and throughout the year, efforts through the senior intervention partnership take place to raise awareness but to train seniors on how to act, maybe not climbing up on that ladder. Maybe, you know, I knew Colleen demonstrated how to maybe sitting down, putting on your pants, so you don't stand up and put on your pants and fall. Doing other things that historically you might do as an older adult but now as an older adult you need to be much more cognizant of falling. Also strengthening the muscles of the bones of older adults help because if an older adult does fall in their bones and their muscles are strengthened, that might diminish the entry to them if they fall. Also showing older adults maybe how to fall so that if they fall they break fall, and that might also help to diminish the likelihood of an injury to them. It just so happens that next week, September 26, will be the 21st annual Healthy Living Festival at the Oakland Zoo, where over 3,000 older adults will be attending from throughout the county. And I know SIP, the senior drip pension partnership through EMS and the health care service agency will have public health, will have booths there. But I know SIP will be making a presentation on injury prevention and exercises for older adults. So it's constantly important that based on these statistics and the fact that older adults age 65 and older, it's a fast-growing population. We take all the deliberate steps to try to ensure the quality of life for older adults. So I'm really, really pleased, excited, and honored that I can continue to present this to all that are involved in working to ensure the quality of life for older adults. And as I often say, if it's good for seniors, it's good for everyone. And as I often say too, if you're blessed enough to live to become an older adult, you want to make sure we've done everything we can do to make your life, your quality of life solid, good, and great when you get to be of that age. So I'd like to present this to Carol Powers from our EMS who heads up our interprevention program. And once again, we can have all of the poor supervisors come and take a picture with Carol. And Carol will be at the Herron or colleagues of the act. Like I said, at the zoo on the 26th to make sure we don't have any tripping hazards or fall hazards for seniors at the zoo next Thursday. Supervisor Myley, I just have to say I Don't know that I could have said it any better, but I do want to express my deep appreciation for all that you do and all that Alameda County does we have health care services Alameda County Health, who supports us and emergency medical services. Partners, our senior injury prevention partnership, we've got a strong group that presents programs in their various organizations and senior centers. it is a group project here and our numbers are only going to need to grow to meet the need of older adults. And I'm going to be sure that all of you get a copy of our Fall Prevention Resource Guide that we do in collaboration with the area agency on aging, which is part of the Alameda County Social Services Agency. And I think that's enough about, yes, let's take our picture and thank you so much. you you I'm Laura Calvert, Executive Director at Spectrum Community Services. I just want to thank you guys and give you a little perspective about what is different here in Alameda County. We're part of the Meals on Wheels of American Network. Across the country, we're all doing what we can to help older adults with a meal and more than a meal. And fall prevention is more than just a meal. Often when I'm talking to colleagues, they say, how do you have such a robust fall prevention program? Where are you getting the funding? Well we know that the federal government has Title 3D funds that come to our county and we utilize them very, very well. But the measure A funds that are here in Alameda County that the voters have supported and supported more than once goes back into not just our health care system but into these preventative things like fall prevention. And thank you for all of your support and because it makes these programs happen and it makes them work. We know at Spectrum I've got not only new clients but clients who've been exercising with us for over 15 years and forming bonds and relationships and friendships and support groups with each other that really is enhancing their quality of their life. So thank you for all of your support. Thank you, Laura. Spectrum's one of our model CBOs working with our older adults. Do we have any other speakers on this? We have no speakers. So Pedro doesn't want to say anything. Stephanie doesn't want to say anything. Okay, yeah, they're coming up. You know, you've got to grab them, you know, the stage. You've got an opportunity. Thank you. It's good to be here. I want to just take a minute to thank you all for your support. And supporting us to support our seniors. My name is Patron the Night Home, the Human Services Manager with the City of San Leandro. And I'm super happy to be part of this collaborative where we get to contribute to these county white efforts and at the same time benefit. I'm happy to share that on July 15th, the City Council for the City of Salliana just approved the city's first ever H friendly action plan. So we get to be part of this larger effort. And in there, we heard out and clear from our residents that personal safety, personal protection is one of their top priorities. So we look forward to continuing working partnership with everyone in our community to support our seniors. Thank you. Thank you Pedro and just for the benefit of everyone, Pedro, you should be the director at the Ashland Reach Youth Center when we started that back in the day. Now he's moved on to lessen, okay, we'll say more important things, working with seniors and Zaeli and Dr. Thank you so much for having me, Stephanie. Yesterday I celebrated 22 years working at Highland Hospital trauma. And it's very difficult for me to get through a speech with being emotional, interiorized, seeing the effects of falls coming through our drama center, the injuries and fatalities. This year's our second year in a row, that Fault Bunch and Awareness Week, is talking about awareness to action. And I'll never forget President Miley coming out to Highland Hospital in 2010, supporting our Fault Bunch and Clinic, and our motivation and mobility is our intention campaign. So it's just a blessing to have the voice advisors, the community support our work at the trauma center. I'm trying to put our trauma doctors out of business a little bit here, make their days easier, but thank you so much for all your support. The awareness, the communication, the education, the access to resources is just priceless. And I'm so blessed to have the opportunity to do this in the community as opposed to responding to the actual falls in the emergency department in trauma center. So thank you so much. Thank you, Stephanie. Stephanie is one of those original folks that worked with us to start all this back in the day. So thank you. Any other speakers? Sure. No more speakers? No more speakers. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay, so we'll now go to item 92 And that's East Bay Regional Park District 90th anniversary 90 90 out of wow 90 years wow So the East Bay Regional Park District has reached a significant milestone marking 90 years of public service as the largest. I mean, I'll repeat that the largest regional park district not just in the state but in the nation. The park district has grown to encompass 73 regional parks, spanning 160,000 acres of park land, 55 miles of shoreline, and over 1,300 miles of trails in Alameda and Controcastic Yonies. Offering diverse recreational opportunities, such as hiking, biking, swimming, horseback riding, boating, fishing, picnicking, camping, and discovering nature. The park district's commitment to environmental conservation and providing positive experiences in nature has been a cornerstone of its history and mission, building upon the visionary efforts of civic leaders in the late 1920s. Who confronted with sudden availability of watershed land in the East Bay Hills, united to preserve the land forever while balancing environmental conservation with public benefit. The collaboration with renowned landscape architect Frederick Law, Umstead, Jr. and the National Park Services chief naturalist, Ansel Hall, resulting in the 1930 Umdeh Hall report. They defoundation for the East Bay Regional Park District, bringing national credibility to the cause. During the challenging times of the Depression, civic leaders demonstrated unwavering dedication by placing a measure on the ballot in 1932 established the park district and tax themselves for land preservation with a resounding 71% approval on November 6, 1934. June 4, 1936, the district made its first land acquisition from the East Bay Municipal Utilities District, establishing its inaugural parks, Upper Walka Canyon, that's Stilden, Timaskal, and Roundtop, Shelby. And as a sense, remained steadfast for nine decades in its commitment to preserving and protecting open space, providing safe and welcoming parks for recreation and enhancing the quality of life for the community. We extend our sincere and repeat our sincere gratitude to the park district for its unwavering dedication to preserving natural beauty, fostering outdoor enjoyment and creating a lasting legacy for future generations. We encourage all East Bay communities to join in celebrating the park district's 90th, excuse me, the park district's 90 years of milestones in history by participating in the various events and programs throughout the year. So the board hereby clears and celebrates and commends these Bay Area Park District on its 90th anniversary, recognizing its significant contributions to environmental conservation, recreation, and community well-being. Is Elizabeth here? to environmental conservation, recreation, and community well-being. Is Elizabeth here? Is she remotely? So we'll get this proclamation or commendation to the East Bay Regional Park District. How many of you have used the park district in the past? Hopefully all of us, because yeah, I mean it's the largest in the country and 76 parks. It's like yeah how can we not use such a jewel. Do we have any public speakers on this item? Okay. All right, let's go to item 93. Thank you, President Meile. And today is a special day. It's national voter registration day. There's 49 days until election. And for the first time in Alameda County, 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote for the Board of Education in Berkeley and in Oakland. So voting is a fundamental right and essential for democracy. And Alameda County strongly encourages all eligible residents to register to vote and participate in our democracy by voting because it creates a stronger and more representative America. September 17th today is National Voter Registration Day that started about 12 years ago. This day has been designated to remind residents of the importance of voting. And November 2024 will mark the first time, as I said, open and Berkeley 16-year-olds will be able to officially vote in their school board elections. And the Legalman Voters of Alameda, which is a nonpartisan group, has actively supported this registration effort nationwide. Residents who have moved, changed their names, or switch parties, should check with register2vote.ca.gov. That is again, register2vote. That is again registered to vote. To ensure registration. So it's resolved that the county board is supervisors proclaim today, September 17th, a national voter registration day in Alameda County and encourage all residents to vote and every citizen to vote in every election. And we have Linda Lines, just as from the legal and votersors here to say a few words and accept this proclamation. Good afternoon and thank you, Professor, sorry, supervisor Tam. There are at least three parts to this very important movement. Voter registration, voter education, and actually voting. Tomorrow I will be registering students at Ensenel High School in Alameda. Students can pre-register at age 16 so they will be automatically registered when they turn 18. On behalf of the City of Alameda League of Women Voters, I thank you. Thank you. I invite my colleagues to take a photo with Ms. Ryan's Justice. you I'm going to go ahead and see if we can get the comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any speakers on the the committee. We have the speakers on the side. Yes, we do have in person and online. We'll go to the first speaker. Please state your name, the city you live in, and we are on item number 93. You will have two minutes to speak. Everyone get people to vote, especially 16 and 17 yearolds, because they're getting such a good education in our government schools that they are now proficient in the three Rs, racism, relativism, and reassignment of gender, and so we can be confident that these children, I mean youth voters, are competent to cast their votes. Now, if they don't show interest, remind them that Taylor Swift is endorsing Kamala, and if we've learned anything about celebrity endorsements, it's that they know what they are talking about when they join the voices of elite people in charge who are smarter than any of us, and have crowned Kamala as a Democrat nominee without the vote of any of us, not smart people. Because Taylor Swift simply knows all about saving our democracy. So if you go out to help at the voter registration locations, be sure to bring a large poster of her and her rhinestones and her tight shorts. Nothing says democracy like rhinestones and tight shorts. So have them look to Taylor. That's for all the girls out there who need to register to vote. And if they don't obey Taylor's command, tell them about her boyfriend. He's a football player. And everyone knows football players like Taylor Swift's boyfriend know all about inflation, our borders, wars and other countries, all that stuff that Camila is going to solve on day one of her administration. So tell them about Taylor Swift's boyfriend for all the guys out there. Some are Swifties maybe, but the ones who aren't Swifties are KELSEY-SEES. They just need to know that both Taylor and Travis have endorsed Camila. And that's really all just need to know that both Taylor and Travis have endorsed Kamala, and that's really all they need to know. And be sure to tell them that if they don't vote for Kamala, they are anti-race, anti-woman, and worst of all, anti-rine stone. Thank you. Mark Zulem. Good afternoon supervisors. Thank you for putting this on the agenda. My name is Mark Zulum, Casper Valley, and I just want to say thank you and also to the Registrar of Voters Office, Mr. Tim Tupui for this on the agenda. Today I'm representing a volunteer organization called United Sovereign Americans. I'm here in this capacity. I'm going to read and I apologize for my voice. I've lost it from all the yelling I've been doing about registering people to vote. So United SmartWin Americans is a nationwide organization with thousands of active volunteers in over 20 states. Today we come to you as concerned citizens, sharing alarming information about our states, voter registration, database, which also affects Alameda County. Research of a state's voter database was done through hundreds of hours of research conducted by highly qualified and credentialed data teams. An analysis of the 2022, I repeat, 2022 election results researched by highly, again, by highly qualified data teams using only official data provided from Secretary of State California election officials. Indicates serious issues with compliance of federal law. We are here to present to you in the public the results of the aforementioned analysis showing the votes cast counted and certified may not be all valid and accurate under the Constitution and under the law. We are not here to cast any blame. Let me repeat that. No blame or aspirations on any elected official. We do not suggest any candidates in any race have wrongly won or lost their races, nor do we advocate for their overturning or rerunning of any past selection. Today, we present to you a resolution to be followed by me, another four, will share additional information on this. Thank you. We have a resolution in front of you, too. Thank you. Deborah Gilbert? resolution in front of you too. Thank you. Deborah Galber. My name is Deborah Galber, resident of Oakland. And I'm going to read the first portion of this USA resolution for a legally valid 2024 general election. Whereas our constitutional system of representative government only works when the following four tenants of an election are upheld number one, the voter rolls must be accurate National Voter Registration Act 1993. Number two, votes counted must be from eligible voters, US Constitution 14th Amendment Section 2. Three, the number of votes counted must equal the number of voters who voted. Four, there can be no more than one in 125,000 ballots in error by the Voting System, Help America Vote act 2002. Whereas the analysis of the California 2022 general election has uncovered evidence of massive inaccuracies that appear to violate both federal and state laws. One, 5,886198 ineligible or uncertain registration violations found than the California State Voter-Roll database. 2,776 939 votes cast by ineligible or uncertain registrations. 123,785 more votes counted than voters who voted. No one knows who cast them. 2,776,849 apparent voting violations in excess of the legal standard of system accuracy for a valid federal election. Maximum allowable system errors for the 2022 general election was 90. Certification is defined by law is a test station of accuracy and compliance. The certification of the 2022 election appears to have been fraudulent and illegal. Thank you very much. Wayne Hankens. I'm going to continue reading from this message. Well, good afternoon board members. My name is Wayne Hankins and I'm resident in Castro Valley and lived in Elimita County for 42 years and I'm going to continue reading from this message. Whereas these findings trample legal accuracy requirements of the voting system during a federal election, whereas the intent of the voters must be known factually before certification can be lawfully conducted, whereas the 2022 general election appears to have been invalid. Depriving us of the guaranteed protection of our natural rights, under a government duly and provably chosen by us, the American people, resulting in inculcable damages to our families, our way of life, and the fabric of these United States. Therefore, we call upon our representatives to provide relief to the people and the assurance of domestic tranquility by joining us in demanding a valid 2024 general election that upholds these existing laws and equitable principles of law. One, proof of citizenship, identity and eligibility required to register and vote not anonymous attestation. Two, voter rolls certified, accurate and available for public review and challenge 30 days before the start of early voting. Voters added after that date must bring proof of citizenship, identity, and address in person to a qualified official at each polling place. Number three, hand marked secure ballots similar to currency, where imagining imaging technology is used for tabulation, the security features must be verifiable in the ballot image. Thank you. Next speaker, Richard, I, I, Rhea. Hello, my name is Richard Eurea. I'm here to read into the record the last section of the USA resolution. And ballots regardless of entry source, election operations and systems must be must maintain end to end chain of custody from voter to vote count to final canvas including auditability and witness transfer with paper records. A National Institute of Standards and Technology compliant randomized statistically valid end-to-end audit with a 95% confidence level of all elections pursuant to the 14th Amendment, Section 2 must be performed. These audits are to be conducted by qualified insured and bonded security force and ex or financial auditors, not personnel from within the elections system. Reconciliation will include the vote count, real physical ballots, adjudication, cash vote, records, ballot count, qualified voter count, real physical ballots, adjudication, cast vote, records, ballot count, qualified voter count, custody transfer, and all other paper and electronic election systems, including logs. If the total of unique variances above is more than 10% of the margin of victory, a new election must be held in the state for those candidates affected unless the issues can be provably corrected by a manual hand recount and full review of records. Number nine, waiver of requirements is not allowed. Only end-to-end system compliance from registration through certification can guarantee the intent of the people is accurately recorded. And then be it resolved, the Alameda Board of Supervisors, City Council Member, Supervisor Stan in support, with the concern and remedies presented here. If we employ the Alameda Board of Supervisors, California legislature, federal legislators, law enforcement, and other state prosecutors, judges, Secretary of State. So, got it. Next speaker, Hunter Cobb. Yes, I, Supervisors. My name is Hunter Cobb of Alameda. Um, I'm here to conclude this presentation from United Sovereign Americans. What you've turned today is a powerfully written resolution outlining massive inaccuracies in our 2022 election. From registration through certification. The resolution delineates meaningful remedies that will proactively protect the validity of the 2024 general election for all Americans. Your written copy cites many US Supreme Court precedents and federal and constitutional mandates that support the need for such actions. Large numbers of Californians have questions about the trustworthiness of our elections. Official data show that concerns are valid, and the law says revolving them is essential in securing our liberty. The cost for not fixing the enumerated problems is immeasurable. So we urge you to put this resolution on the agenda of the next board meeting where you can vote to join us in supporting a fair, honest, and valid election. United sovereign Americans website showcases our initiatives nationwide and features some extremely informative election videos. We encourage you to visit UniteForFreedom.com and learn more about our organization and our goal to restore valid elections throughout our country. That's UniteN four freedom.com. One more time, Unite number four, freedom.com. Thank you very much for your time. Mindy, you're on the line. Yes, hello. This is Mindy Petchenuk. And as a candidate for Oakland City Council at large, I request that all voter information, including that of 16 and 17 year olds eligible to vote in Oakland school board elections, be provided as part of my voter information request. Oakland City Council places significant emphasis on Oakland's youth through various initiatives such as Oakland's parks, recreation and youth development programs. These initiatives are vital to providing equitable, relevant and high quality services that meet the specific needs of individuals and communities across the city. I am committed to supporting and advancing these goals and to do so it is essential that I have access to the full scope of eligible voters, especially the young voters whose futures are directly impacted by these policies. As part of my campaign, I seek to advocate for candidates who will bring tangible value to Oakland's educational system. To effectively campaign, I need to reach those young voters and engage with them on issues that will shape their educational journey and community environment. Therefore, kindly request your response in ensuring that all voter information, including the 16 and 17 year old voters participating in the school board elections, is included in my voter information requests. This is crucial for my outreach and commitment to improving Oakland's youth programs and education. Thank you for your consideration and I will just add that I have requested this information several times from the registrar voters and have not gotten it complied to. So this is why I am calling on you, the Board of Supervisors, on this great day of national voter registration day to uphold the sacred right in these elections. If these 16 and 17-year-olds are going to vote, they need to be discussed, the real ideas, and get the real input they need to make real decisions. So thank you. This is Mindy Petchenuk, Oakland City Council at Large Candidate. the state's state's state Noel Nueger? Ned Noel? Good afternoon. My name is Ned Nureke and I might assume that the supervisor Tam wisely chose this date September 17th, 2024 as National Voter Registration Day in memory of our historic September 17th and 1787 when our Constitution was first accepted as the founding document for the Organization of this people on this land. That constitution places the sovereignty among the people. We the people are the sovereigns in this land, not the property as the previous governments on this planet, generally known as Empire. In Empire, the Emperor has a sovereignty, in this land, the people. Along with that sovereignty comes the responsibility to hold our elected accountable for the welfare of the people. But it's the people. But it's the people's responsibility to hold our elected representatives to that charge. It's a serious matter. We might say today it's a life and death matter. We're looking for, yes, the maintenance of life, the longevity of life, and a happy life. A life rewarded by productive work, rewarding to the individuals in the population, the people. People doing productive work is critical to their own happiness as well as their own welfare. Thank you very much. Laura, you're on the line? Yes, this is Laura Caders Oakland. And I'm very pleased to hear some of the comments today. I have been looking at some of the research and data for many nonpartisan election validity and election integrity groups. And the results are extremely unsettling. There's, you know, you can see why people are disenfranchised and don't even feel like voting. I would just like to ask the board of supervisors to look into this issue, to investigate what's going on with it. Because we, because these issues are serious matters and they are not in compliance with federal and state election laws. Thank you so much. John, you're on the line? Yes, I'm also very satisfied with the comments, the common circle with regard to the voter registration or everything from 16, 17-year-olds have life experiences or have not had life experiences that many of the other people in the general population do, mainly getting a real job, a part-time job, holding down a real job, being responsible to their customers, having a family, raising kids, and then having grandkids, great grandkids. And you know, you're 16 years old, 17 years old. It's like, you know, only one, one third, one fourth, one fifth of your life experiences. Or, you know, it's very small compared to the education you're gonna be getting for the rest of your life. And yet, you know, you, you, I can't, you know, fall, birth, clear, open, but, you know, but the rest of that one, I mean, the county, we don't have to, you know, succumb to this. This is, if you're an adult, you've got to, it's just common sense. These are children. And this is a real community that, you know, we're trying to make laws and live together on. And yet we're bringing people, like these children, and to skew the vote one way or the other. And we call, oh, they have the right to vote? Well, no, they don't. They certainly don't have the right to have an eligible registration to vote. And that's more. But well, thank you very much. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. This is Gerald Petchenuk in Oakland and I would like to remind all the Board of Supervisors every single one of you of what happened in 2022 when Mr. Dupuy, the Registrar voters was not very forthcoming and would not allow for a fair and open viewing of what election observers, particularly in the case of Rank Choice Voting, which is still the law of this county, and we're gonna have another Rank Choice Voting. So we need openness, transparency, and since there are many contentious issues in this election coming up, including the recall of Pamela Price DA and recall of St. Tal, I would especially appreciate if all of the board members would do what Democratic Congressman Row Conho Khan did yesterday in the Washington Post. And I'll just read it, I would ask all of you to make a similar statement. He said to assassination attempts in 60 days on the Republican nominee is a massive security breach that not only jeopardized former president Donald Trump's life, but it also puts our nation's social cohesion and faith in the democratic process at risk. I assure you an ounce of prevention to make sure all the roles are clean is worth a pound of cure. And let me just say in conclusion that Kamala Harris, former DA Alameda County, has said a very bad example. June 17th, Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedom. July 3rd, it's simple, Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedoms. July 13th, what is taken to selection is the clear threat that former president Trump represents to our democracy. What kind of example is that? There are no additional speakers. Okay, thank the speakers on item 94. So, now I'd like to take up public speakers on items on our regular agenda and on closed session, except for the legal matter deal with goals reverses out in the county. We've already heard public comment on that and then we'll take public comment on set items for one and three o'clock when those items come up. So now if we could have any public comment on closed session items in regular agenda items, except for one o'clock set and three o'clock set in the Goalsby closed session litigation. Any public speakers? We do have a speakers. We'll go to the first speaker and alternate between in person and online speakers as necessary. Please state your name, the city you live in, and which item you are speaking on. You will have two minutes to speak. Simi O'Ramie speaking on item 27. My name is Simu Raimi. I'm with the California Open and the Home Health Outreach Program. We're independent living, for community garden, and no court of partnership, they are being. It's kind of saying, because the American people have been denied by the people of the government, which is the people. And we denied them. They rights to men's. They said people walking downtown naked. Boo Boo, increasingly I was out walking stuff. That seems to be walking around looking at this. What kind of society are we setting for the future? They're looking at this too. And we have no housing for them. To get them off this physical, we do have, we're gonna provide it for them. We provide it for immigrants, we provide for everybody else, but the American people, and it's sad to say, it's gonna get worse down there because the American people are disabled. And pretty soon we'll help people wander around and shoot me, Jen. People don't understand, they are not in this thing in the mind. Once more and go all the way off. If you're going to shoot everything, you can change the topic. But we've got to stop before it gets to his point versus come to his point now. And it's getting bad. If I can't stick it down there, people die on his tree and no one cares. You see, like I'm only one care about these people. They don't like care about. They can help themselves. I'm going to keep commenting with this. So help with them. care about. They can help themselves. I'm gonna keep commenting with this so help well. We need a hospital to get them all to raise them and get them treatment. So we think you're better and we need a land so we can both fool the feed us. People are in a same way. We all got to eat. We don't have a fool. We don't have not your food shop. We need to do something by so I'm thinking to land from now. I'm carrying the feed to people. to refresh food with vegetables, all this sad, we've got to do this, y'all. We really do have to feed people, we have a full choice, a real full choice, y'all. We can garbage, it's sad, the health bill is going high. I'm coming back, I'm not gonna keep coming. We've got to do something, we're working with some ampers. Thank you. Jackie, you're on the line. Please state which item you're speaking on. Hi, thank you. I'm speaking on item number 33. I am making a comment today about item number 33, the first reading and introduction of an ordinance. You looks like you are going to be extending the offices of assessor auditor controller, county clerk reporter, treasurer and tax collector. This is something that the public does not agree with. As this ordinance would then extend these offices for another two years. How is that, how is that right when these people were elected to four year terms. And then now you're going to extend it for another two years. How is that how is that right when these people were elected to four-year terms and then now you're going to extend it for another two years that doesn't make any sense. So I want to just log into the public record that the public disagrees with this ordinance and we should continue to have our elections according to our county charter and not mirror the state because of the fact that you guys want to try and save money. However, you're doing something unlawful. And we don't appreciate all of the unlawful things that this board, especially Ms. Supervisor Tam has been creating since she's gotten seated in her position for instance underage voters 16 and 17 year olds that are going to be voting in elections. It's unacceptable. So we want to make sure that we get it on the public record that we disagree with this ordinance and want it to be canceled. Thank you. That's it. Shade Rick Small speaking on item 28.1. Hello supervisors. My name is Shade Rick Small. I'm a as an individual, but I am a member of the county's reparations commission. So this is about item 28.1. And I just want to urge you to continue your support of the commission. As a professional researcher, I have a doctorate from UC Berkeley in sociology, as someone who's worked on multiple archival projects, the weight of the task that's before us demands resources. And so if we don't have those resources, we won't be able to do the thorough job that you have nominated us to do. We're not a research body, we're a deliberative body. We're meant to aggregate all the data and public thought to create good solutions, but we need resources to do that. So I just wanna urge you to continue your support and as we move towards a budget for the commission, again, I urge you to consider that we need resources to do this more properly. Thank you. John, you're on the line. Hi, yeah, item 27, I believe it is. Which item are you speaking? Yes, which item are you speaking on, John? 27. 27 and what I'd like to do is inform the board of supervisors how we can save, we can save a whole lot of money on this and solve the problems very rapidly. All you have to do is take up all the homeless people in the county and bust them down across the border into Mexico and have them renounce their citizenship so they are no longer citizens and of course Mexico won't want them and so they'll just come tell them to come right across the border again and seek asylum asylum from Mexico and they will get housing they will get money for food they get to even you know registered available if they're not registered they can can come in, they can register, not well, that indirectly what they do is they are given a so security number. If they say, oh yeah, I wanna work, they've given a so security number, they go down to the DMV and get their ID or driver's license. And unfortunately, a lot of those people accidentally registered available or send a voter registration card. And in, in Springfield, Springfield, Ohio, many of the patients there were, were also given cars. And they didn't even know how to read the, you know, I don't think they even got the test because they don't not fluid in English, but they're giving cars and they're wrecking a lot because they don't know how to drive because they don't have cars, you know, they don't have cars when they're in the heat. So we could save millions of dollars and solve the problem. We just go ahead, just bust them all-mucks account and have them come across. Make it. I'm going to ask you to go ahead and ask. Bob Britain speaking on item 94. We're not taking that item's not up now. Ninety four is not up now. 94 is not up now. It's a set item. She call it mistakenly. She call it mistakenly. Call her your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. Call your own line. I'm sorry. Tenant protections? No, we're not on that. That item is that enough yet either. That's a set matter at three o'clock. Thank you so much. Seeing your own line, please state which item you're speaking on. I just logged on and I want to speak on Sheriff's oversight. That item is not until we're not taking that item right now. It's. You can stay on the line and we will call that item later There are no additional speakers Okay, I want to thank the speakers so on and then we'll have a second. So, we'll have a second. So, we'll have a second. So, we'll have a second. So, we'll have a second. So, we'll have a second. So, we'll have a second. But we also need to go back into closed session. So I think what I'd like to do, because we need to get into closed session and deal with some attorneys that are calling in. We have to go back into closed session and deal with some legal matters with some attorneys. So we're going to delay taking up the set item at one o'clock. We'll come to, we'll take out the council. Do I need to get, can I just set a time, a time for that? You can, you can. Okay. I'm going to have to take up the bill. I'm going to have to take up the bill. You can you can. Okay. I can't tell you with certainty how much time but obviously you could. How many how many items do we have? We have to take up with outside council. I believe they're only two items. Two. Okay. All right. So we're going to delay the one o'clock set item until two o'clock. So we'll be back in the chamber at two o'clock right now. We'll recess into closed session. Recording stopped. you you you you you the recording in progress. Okay with the clerk please take the role. Supervisor Halbert excuse, supervisor Marquez. Supervisor Tam, president, supervisor Carson, president, president Miley. Yes here. We have a quorum. All right thank you. All right so we haven't concluded. We've not finished processing yet so there's no report out at the moment. So what I'd like to do is take up our set item that was set for one o'clock that we put over to two o'clock and now we're taking it up at two 15. So I'd like to take up item 94 at this time. 94 is the first reading and introduction of an ordinance dealing with 1185. So for the record item 94 is a recommendation from the supervisors, Mark Hez, and President Miley, it's the first reading and introduction of an ordinance implementing AB 1185. Is there a staff report? Or does the chair of our public protection committee have any comments? I'm happy to make some opening remarks as the Chair of Public Protection. I will keep my comments as succinct as possible. Just want to thank the public for their patience. Just as a quick timeline, back in December of 2020, it was actually President Miley had requested that the full board review AB 1185 also want to honor the work of late supervisor Richard Vier. My Richard Vier, my predecessor, he was the architect of Reimagined Adult Justice. And Sheriff Oversight is one of the elements being recommended in that report. There's been lots of community engagement on this. I want to thank county staff, give deep appreciation to Chief Assistant County Council, Andrea Weddle, as well as retired Elimita County Chief Provation Officer, RHA Project Manager Wendy Still. Her research in developing the RHA work included hundreds of interactions with members of the public, one-on-one meetings, Town Hall meetings, AB 1185, had nine public presentations at the Public Protection Committee since March of 2021. Eight community engagement meetings, coordinating a partnership between R.J. staff and every board office, two board of supervisors work sessions, and since July 2nd, Wendy still has also engaged with the four Macs, Dublin City Council, and all of these efforts were done to strengthen transparency and ensure ongoing community engagement around AB 1185 implementation. It is my hope that we have a deliberation that reflects the full breadth of the county wide initiative and that's taken years to get to this critical decision making. It's ultimately an opportunity to build on what is needed, rebuild community trust, and this is not limited to sheriff's oversight. So we've had multiple touch points on this item, and I know my colleagues back in June, we weighed in on different components, of then we had two options presented to us in terms of ordinance to weigh in on and based off that feedback is how we have the current ordinance that was submitted in the board letter that was published in the agenda last Thursday. So I look forward to specific questions my colleagues may have also want to flag that Wendy still is online so she's available to answer any questions my colleagues may have also want to flag that Wendy still is online so she's available to answer any questions my colleagues may have and also open to your comments from the public but thank you everyone that's worked really hard to get us to this point this is a discussion almost four years in the making, so thank you. Thank you, Ms. Markins. Now, just to remind the board and the public, if we are successful in passing a first reading today, this still will then need to go to meet and confer. And that's meet and confer with all the bargaining units associated with the sheriff's department. It would be meeting confer with all the bargaining units impacted by the action you're taking today would be broader than just the sheriff's department. Okay, all right. So the first reading we'd have a first reading but there's still and meeting confer and as you're talking to meeting confer that could have implications on an ordinance the first reading. Sorry, so you would not be able to do today, you know, ordinarily our process is we do first reading then it goes on the next agenda for second reason. Because of the Myers-Millian Brown Act and requirements that we have, we could not do that. We would be precluded as a matter of law, because there's a case law that indicates it. From bringing this to a second reading until we've completed meeting conferred with the impacted unit, unions, we don't know when that will be, so we can't give you a date or an estimate of when it might come back for a second reading. And of course, if through that process, the county agrees to changes that subsequently change the language of the document, then it would need to come back for a first reading. For another first reading, okay, gotcha. And then I believe, and I hope I'm not speaking on a turn, but I believe, I'll supervise your tab. You've asked me if we could bring this back to unincorporated services? No, yes. My recollection was that at the July meeting, we received a number of comments, including one about making sure the individual municipal advisory councils, the max, had an opportunity to review it because several of them said they had not. We received letters from Deputy Sheriff's Association, the ACLU again. And so since July, I think there's been a number of meetings. So I didn't think we needed to have one separately with the unincorporated services. Okay, but if we do, if we're successful with the first reading today, we could still take that back down in corporate services while you're doing meeting confer. There's nothing that would preclude you but the idea about meeting confer is that you're taking the proposed version that your board is approving to meet and confer because if you took it to order it, it, unincorporated services and then wanted changes, then that would have to go, you know, back. So the idea is that there's a version that the board, you know, the way this is being orchestrated is that there's a version that the board can sign off on that the board supports so that that can be the subject of the meeting conferred. Okay, right, but certainly you can, you know, it's up it will be what you approve if you if you approve something here today that will be a public document. So it can be certainly be presented to other people. Okay, all right, That was my basic come. I thought on that. Okay. Any other board members have any comments? Or this county council have any remarks or presentation you want to make on this today? No. Okay. All right. So I think other than to say this is the version that we were directed after the last time your board made substantive actions with respect to substantive amendments. This is our understanding of those amendments that we have brought back to you. In this, just from my own clarification, the ordinance before us, this ordinance would have established an office of Inspector General and oversight and both of those bodies would have outside counsel. That is correct. Okay, because I'm not supportive of that. And then does this ordinance have any fiscal implications? At the moment, because I do believe in terms of the breadth of the office and the oversight body, does this ordinance establish, you know, personnel and the magnitude of the budget implications? So there are financial implications from the adoption of the ordinance from the basic provisions of providing stipends for the oversight board member participation. There's a cap on that, but there is a stipend to be paid for attendance of meetings. The creation of multiple county positions offices and other associated employee costs. I can't speak to the magnitude or the cost that would be associated with but there are certainly financial implications of adoption of the ordinance. Yeah, I'm just trying to get clarity. Does the ordinance mandate that we hire X, Y and Z? Beyond two positions, it does not. There is to be the position of the executive director and the inspector general. Those positions are required. But it does allow you to choose to provide outside counsel and so that you know outside counsel would come at a cost that's a cost Yeah, and then There's the ordinance Allow for Because I do believe that was agreed upon and I just want to make sure I'm clear on this as your ordinance allow for retired law enforcement to be qualified to be selected beyond the oversight body other than sheriff, you know, retired sheriff personnel. So the oversight board prevents current employees of a law enforcement agency as well as former sworn employees of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office from being members of the oversight board. But others would be allowed. So former employees of a law enforcement agency who are not sworn officers of the Sheriff's Office, the Alamedita County Sheriff's office, could be eligible for the members. And do they have to be retired for a certain period of time? There is no time period for the retired members to be eligible, again, as long as they're not Elimita County Sheriff's sworn personnel. Okay, all right, I think those are all my questions at the moment. Anybody else have any questions or comments? Okay, so let's call the speakers. We'll go to the first speaker and alternate between in-person and online speakers. Please state your name in the city you live in. You will have two minutes to speak. Bob Britain. Good afternoon Supervisors. I'm Bob Britain with the Interfaith Coalition for Justice in our Jails, speaking in support of the proposed ordinance. You don't always get everything you want, but I think that the elements are there for a strong oversight. The issues raised just a few minutes ago, especially concerning meeting and confer. I know a little bit about meeting confer. I bargained contracts here for many years in Alameda County. It's not called meet and agree. It's called meeting confer. And if there is an impasse declared by either party, there's a procedure in the county charter where the impasse is adjudicated by you by the board of supervisors. It's not a change of the signed contract. It, I even question whether it's related to terms and conditions of employment, but so be it. We support it because it has independent legal councils, the Pena Power, no retired cops or active cops on the panel. No panel members from outside of Alameda County, the ability to investigate absent the invitation or approval of the sheriff, the executive director to be appointed by the inspector general. Fortunately it directs all officers and employees of the county to cooperate with the OIG and the IG and the executive director and all provisions to be interpreted as consistent with federal state and local laws including the county charter. That's why we support it. We object to the delegation of the board's authority and granting an appointment to the city of Dublin. I don't even know if that's legal. But 21 people have died since supervisor Miley first introduced the idea and That's Cause for us to want something to happen soon Yes, there are things that have to happen first, but we don't start now. We'll never have it. Thank you Caller, you're on the line. Yes, I'm gonna speak My name is Carlos Archileta. I'm from to call you on the line. You have to submit a speak. My name is Carlos Archelello. I'm from the Castile Valley and I'm an advocate for the community. The reason we need a civilian oversight board is obviously because internal affairs has not worked. And we learned that whenever you have not just cops but friends or families of the cop, there's a conflict of interest that does not allow it to work. And what we're afraid of in the community is that this board is gonna give halos to people. So we wanna make sure that this board is conflict of interest free. We wanna a tool for the community where we can finally get trust back from the community and the policing. And if there's some form of conflict, I feel that this will make it even worse where they're like see even this doesn't work so we need to have a conflict interest-free board of actual members not police officers not ex-prey officers somebody completely independent so that way we set a precedence moving forward where when it comes to our sheriffs we know that they get balls and strikes called on them. And that is literally the first step to bringing back trust between sheriffs that want to do good, if you've ever volunteered with their D-cell programs and a lot of the other programs, they want to do good, but their trust has been broken with the community. And in order to get that back, we need to separate any form of conflict, which I feel that this board is moving towards. We need to separate that and we need to vote yes on a civilian oversight. So that way the community can trust their policing and the sheriff themselves can feel proud that the job that they're doing is correct because an independent oversight is verifying that for them versus a gang mentality where they have to protect the badge. This allows them to do their job and worry about someone else calling balls and strikes and allows the community to feel confident in the police that are policing them. Thank you so much. I hope you vote yes on this. Kathy Rodriguez. I'm with the sheriff oversight coalition. I'm with the sheriff oversight coalition. They reached out to the police. I'm with the sheriff oversight coalition. I'm with the sheriff oversight coalition. They reached out to me once they found out that I was in Santa Rita County jail. And there needs to be oversight due to the fact not only in the jails because if one person dies that's one person too many. I was a Councillor at Alameda County juvenile hall and one of my kids was Mario Martinez. because if one person dies, that's one person too many. I was a counselor at Alameda County, Juvenile Hall, and one of my kids was Mario Martinez, and he died in San Rita, jail. He had an asthma attack, and the sheriff's just watched him die. My son was incarcerated at the time, and he watched how the sheriff's just watched him die. When he called me and he told me what happened, I was appalled by what was going on. We do need oversight. We need oversight for the sheriff's that are even out on the streets making false police reports. And we need to investigate these. I have a police report right here that has false information on it and had me incarcerated and the person who did it was Donna Ziegler and her name is on this and then I was charged with domestic violence because there was a protest in front of Alameda County's Board of Supervisors office. And the reason why they did that is so I could lose my job because it has to do the domestic violence charges has to do with the child and there was no child. And so these are the kind of things that do need to be investigated because there are people who are getting incarcerated on false charges and there's corruption going on from the head of Alameda County all the way down, you know, as border supervisors, you guys really need to look into this and do an investigation because not only did it affect me and affects other people. I've never been in Santa Rita County jail, but I know what it looks like now and it's very disgusting. Once you go into receiving, oh, it's clean. But once you go into the second part, oh, that place is so damn nasty and dirty. And we need to do something. Chuck, you're on the line? You know, hi. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Great. My name is Chuck Warm. I am a resident of the Castro Valley. I also set on the Castro Valley Mac. I'm not speaking for the Mac. And I am I'm opposed to this oversight for a variety of reasons. One is I think it shows a bias to the Sheriff's Department. It don't allow them to participate, but yet you're going to allow ex criminals to participate on the board. It's a strong bias and it's prejudice against them. I don't know how they will tolerate it. The next is nobody has said what the cost of this is going to be. With all the homeless and the problems we have in our community We're going to spend millions of dollars on a program like this The jail has more oversight than any other area in the county. I mean we have a grand jury to get overlooked We have a turning general. I mean it there's so much oversight that the jail is unbelievable And yet we want to spend money to put another some more oversight on them. You know, this is driven by people outside of the area for the most part. And it has gone way too far. There's nothing wrong with having a inspector general, maybe an assistant. But now we want outside counsel. I mean, what about the max? Do they get outside counsel? And then we're going to have to pay outside counsel for the sheriff. I mean, there's no end to the cost of this. And there's other places to spend money in our county. When we look at this, and it came to the Mac, and really the comments that we had didn't get included anything. It was just an exercise to bring it to the Mac and somebody to read it to us. Very frustrating. You know, and you look at the, I mean, I look at things like, is this a need to have or a one to have? And this is more of a one to have. It's not a need to have. We got a great Sheriff's Department. Thank you. Mikey. Mickey. Hi there I'm Mickey Ducksbury. I'm from the Interfaith Coalition for Justice and our jails and the working group of stop Desan Haram in Santa Rita. We were appalled to read about the murder of Yuri Brand and Santa Rita Jail. Deputy's placed a detainee with a lengthy history of violence and sexual assault in Mr. Brand's cell. He was subjected with deadly and lengthy attack a mere 45 minutes after that person entered his cell. What is clear is that Alameda County is not adequately protecting the citizens in our a mere 45 minutes after that person entered his cell. What is clear is that Alameda County is not adequately protecting the citizens in our jail. The board ratified the Babu settlement to improve treatment of those with serious mental illness, but it seems that the Sheriff's Department has not taken crucial steps that could have prevented this totally avoidable and unnecessary death. Given all the legally mandated intervention that this county sheriff's department has had by county, state, and federal agencies, how could someone with a history of violence and sexual assault been placed in a cell with a seriously mental detainee. How could it be that there wasn't increased and mandated monitoring that is called for by these legal mandates? These aren't rhetorical questions. We want answers and we think the board should want answers. We want the Sheriff's Office to respond to these questions in a public setting and we want Sheriff oversight with an independent council. It's long overdue. Yuri Brand's death must be heard as an urgent call to the board. All the mandates that are in place to make a death like this not happen are not working. The board needs to get involved. Law suits by aggrieved family members are not going to take care of this. The board needs to care about your rebrand suffocation with a mattress at the hands of a violent person in the jail that you are ultimately responsible for. This isn't about blame, it's about accountability. Thank you. And I'm leaving a petition with signatures of 50 different people in the county for each of you. Thank you. Brian, you're on the line. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Brian Holfer. I'm the executive director of Secure Justice. I urge you to adopt this oversight ordinance. And I don't think it's worth holding up, but when the item returns after meeting confer, I do kind of take issue with two sections that essentially say the same thing. 2.134.020 and 2.135.080B. The mere or parat parts of government code 25303 about not interfering with the investigative functions of the sheriff, we don't need to incorporate existing law. At best, that's superfluous. I interpret that as a chilling effect, possibly signaling that robust investigative efforts will not be appreciated. AB 1185, the expressly states that the exercise of powers under this under 25 303.7, which is AB, where AB 1185 is codified, it expressly states that the functions do not interfere with the investigative functions of the sheriff. So when that item comes back, I think it's worth looking at what the purpose of those provisions really are since they're unnecessary. Thanks. Good afternoon. My name is Anne Janks. I live in Oakland. And, you know, I'm sorry. This issue of former law enforcement being on this board, first of all, let's be really clear. The Sheriff's Department has an internal affairs department that's run entirely by law enforcement and its problems when law enforcement polices themselves that has caused this entire discussion about having independent oversight. It will severely degrade the trust of the community, which is what you want this oversight board to have. It's also against a vote that was taken by this body, which decided to oppose permitting law enforcement to serve on this board. The community engagement, which was referenced by Supervisor Marquez, overwhelmingly supported a strong effective independent oversight board that did not include law enforcement. So, I mean, that's an essential element that I don't, you voted on it, and we're still discussing it as if that didn't happen. I would like to mention in terms of meet and confer with the bargaining units that are impacted by the legislation, this legislation creates some transparency and it creates a body that makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. So I'm really anticipating that this is going to come back with no changes from that meeting confer process and I would also hope no delays. It's in your interest as a board to have a place to send serious concerns. It's going to save money in the long run by limiting the number of lawsuits. And I think everybody would deeply benefit if it was possible for Yuri Brand's death to be looked at by an oversight board, transparently, at this time. Thank you. Jackie, you're on the line. Thank you. Jackie, Code up, Pleasanton. I'm speaking today about the oversight. I realize that the state gives you authorization to create an oversight board. However, the public does not agree with this oversight board not having professional law enforcement included on the oversight board. I can see where it is not okay to have current employees of law enforcement agencies or former sworn employees Valimita County Sheriff's Office. That's not okay. If somebody is a former sworn employee of Valimita County Sheriff's Office, they have great insight as to the workings that go on within the department. These are professional law enforcement. There should be some opinion about professional law enforcement on an oversight committee, people who know the inner workings of law enforcement. I'm sorry, but these interfaith people who are speaking, you know, God love them. They have care for prisoners, but guess what? Criminals kill criminals. It happens. Our sheriff's Department is professional and they work under the constraints of the law and they keep our prisoners criminals safe as much as they can. You cannot prevent someone who has it in them to kill someone from killing them if they are absolutely adamant. So therefore, it is very apparent from the comments that were made today that we need professional law enforcement to be included and that includes former sworn employees of the Alameda County Sheriff's Department or any other law enforcement that has experience with this department needs to be on there. We need to have commissioners that are experienced in law enforcement and not just only the public. So please, strike this. Thank you. Jane Kramer. I'm in favor of an oversight committee, a citizens oversight committee. I think from my experience it would best be composed of people who on their own time, on their own time, serve on this commission. It will be a lot of work. They will have to investigate thoroughly the workings of the system as it is. Having said that, they will have to keep open minds that are sparked by what others say to come up with creative solutions. Thank you. Helen, you're on the line. Good afternoon. I'm Helen Hutchison and I'm representing the League of Women Voters of Alameda County. We support this measure. We sent a letter yesterday that we're requesting three more amendments that we'd like to see, but we support it. We also ask that you act quickly and decisively. The pattern of repeated delays on this matter is really concerning and we'd like to see some real action soon. Thank you very much. Juan? So, Oakland has had oversight over his law enforcement for super, super long time. And it has cost the city of Oakland tons of money. And yet we have no public safety. So something seriously is wrong when we have over 3000 businesses going under because they get robbed and rammed into their shops and seniors are assaulted by the dozens every week and the Asian community don't have enough money to hire more law enforcement to protect our seniors and respond to 911 calls. And yet, the mayor of Oakland shanked how wanted to budget 20 for 21 dedicated investigators looking into police misconduct. And when I talked to police officers on the ground, when we're rallying with victims of murdered, families of murdered children and victims, we're saying why aren't you doing more? And the police officer says, our hands are tied, we're good cops. What we really need is more training. For example, the police academy was used to train people for 36 weeks. Now it's been cut to like 21 weeks because we need to get more people on the ground. But we don't have that. And now we want to micromanage at the top when the years of institutional experience on the ground is needed. And that has been a huge gap in Oakland why things are not working. I would suggest you take this back and get the voice of all the people are getting hurt and see what's not working because I don't think this proposal fixes it. I will encourage more work on it. Thank you. Vee, you're on the line. Good afternoon. My name is Jean Moses. I reside in Supervisor Tam's District 3. And I want to thank you all, particularly Supervisor Marquez for your work on this ordinance. My feeling is very similar to that of Bob Ritten, who spoke at the very beginning. And also Ms. Hutchinson, I think that the draft as it stands is actually fairly poorly written and not a good reflection on our county council. There are contradictions, particularly the provision of independent counsel was dropped into section 2, chapter 2, 2.135 of the original document with no consideration of how that concept would impact the rest of the ordinance. That was a huge disappointment. But the revised document suggests that the inspector general should get authorization from the sheriff to investigate office personnel, which one's completely counter to the spirit of an independent investigative body. The sheriff has emphasized that the oversight body does not have the legal right to impose discipline. That is certainly true. The oversight body supports the board of supervisors, is up to the sheriff to manage her staff and it is up to you, our board, to see to it that the sheriff and the ACSO fulfill their duties at the county. I also strongly disagree with those who say, I strongly agree with those who say that the ordinance unfairly privileges district one. However, we need to move forward and I thank you for voting yes on this ordinance. Thank you. Tom Silva. I'm going to have to go to the next slide. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Tom Silva. I'm a lifelong resident in San Lorenzo, the unincorporated area. I stand here today in support of our sheriff and our DSA troops. I have known the previous sheriff, Greg Aher, and since we were in high school together. And the changes that have occurred with the most recent election of sheriff Sanchez are astronomical and has really improved overall the quality of life and quality of service for our community. I stand here today in support of the peace officersers Bill of Rights, and that they have a very hard and difficult job to do. We need to support them at every opportunity. As part of those bill of rights, why are we treating the retired police officers as second-class citizens and not allowing them to participate on the sport? I would also further print out that in districts two and in districts five Each of your that entire district has total Excuse me incorporated cities that have their own PDs so the sheriff's office is your jailer your marshal and Your contract services provider But for those of us who live in the unincorporated area, the Sheriff's Office is our police agency and they are charged with all of the different aspects of policing, community policing, all the different things that we do. So we are recommending that along with other items that have been brought forward by law enforcement community that you revise your board membership to where there's nine commissioners. Districts two and Districts five since you're on incorporated cities, one seat. Dublin gets its own seat as a contractor. And the other three districts each get two seats representing all the areas. Please remember all nine commissioners are going to be responsible for all of the aspects of it. So we ask you to take this back, rework it, support our sheriff and support our brave personnel in the DSA. Thank you. Jenkins, you're on the line. My name is Reverend DeRoyne Jenkins from Bay Area Christian Connection, a position for police academy. I mean, for police accountability and faith in action these days, I'm in support of the sheriff oversight for a few reasons, but because we only have two minutes, I'm going to only talk about a couple of, as far as police officers being on the, former police officers, the law enforcement being on, the actual board, we know that there is bias. They come in with a biased view. However, the compromise that I would propose because police officers say that the citizens do not have a view of what they go through, why not make every person that's on the commission, do at least 20 hours or right along with the sheriff's department before or when they get appointed so therefore they can have some kind of experience and know what's going on with the deputies each day as they ride through the communities. I'm also against Dublin. Dublin is its own city. Dublin have its own city council. Dublin has its own website that says they have their own police department, not the sheriff department. Why would Dublin get their own seat? Dublin has their own mayor. There is no reason for Dublin to have their own anything within the sheriff oversight. It should be like everyone else. No one is privileged. Period. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is John Lindsay Poland. I'm with the American Friends Service Committee. I'll be brief. I want to support passage of this measure. I agree with all items that Bob Britton raised at the beginning. And I just want to add one other thing that has reinforced support for this. The sheriff's office is responsible for overseeing contracts with medical providers in the jail, principally well-path. And as you know, well-path has been litigated a number of times for its poor medical treatment in the jail. It also has independent evaluations that are paid for by the county of its services in the jail, which are consistently below par. And yet, the Sheriff's Office, which is responsible for overseeing these contracts, has not invoked the provisions in the contract with WELPATH to hold WELPATH accountable for its poor services. And these are all kinds of things from record keeping to ensuring that tests are done, to ensuring that different medical standards are followed in the jail. They're supposed to get to 90 to 95 percent compliance with those standards. And typically in the evaluations, it's 70 percent, 50 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent. 50%, 30%, 40%. So this type of oversight will be one more step towards ensuring that people inside the jail get the constitutional level of care that we're paying for because Alameda County is paying a very high price for that medical care. So I do urge you to vote in favor of this measure. Thanks. Sandy, you're on the line. Thank you. My name is Sandy Kurtz. I live in Kastra Valley. I am the volunteer chair of the Alameda County Chapter of the ACLU. And I want to draw your attention supervisors to a letter that you received just about an hour and a half ago from a while, the criminal justice director at ACLU, NorCal. He's on a plane right now, so I'm going to try to do my desk to encapsulate what he's saying here. In brief, yes, we're very happy to see the county moving forward with Sheriff oversight. It's something that definitely needs to be done. However, we have significant concerns about the current writing of this and will not be supporting it until those concerns are addressed. As Ms. Moses mentioned earlier, the language around independent council is still unclear. Section 2.134.00, it just says the oversight board may have legal counsel. That leads to say the oversee board shall have legal counsel. Again, in section 2.135.010, same thing. It says the oversight board may have legal counsel. It needs to be shall have legal counsel. And then there's a whole paragraph that needs to be replaced in 2.135.040. Again, clarifying that independent counsel is really independent counsel, not just sort of independent counsel. The second item needs to be addressed, which is also mentioned by Ms. Janks, that this was voted on by you guys a couple months ago, and saying that there would not be any law enforcement officers retired or not. And I think it's clear there's already internal law enforcement mechanisms to address wrongdoing and they haven't worked well enough. The last one that we're concerned about is the composition of the board. Dublin has ways to address their issues. They don't need their own person. Thank you. Pamela, you're on the line. Oh, thank you. Well, I want to say I go going back to Bob Britton. I'm Pamela Drake and I'm with the Wellstone Democratic Renoul Club and Formula of the Coalition for Police Accountability. In terms of what Bob Britton said, it's really important to listen to all those parts and the last speaker, Sandy, about the Independent Council. terms of what Bob Britain said, it's really important to listen to all those parts and the last speaker, Sandy, about the independent council. It's very, very important that council be independent. And it's also very important to understand that any former law enforcement personnel holds a much stronger sway over a group of civilians than that normal neighborhood person that's learning about this. So it really doesn't work to put any of them on there. Dr. Reverend Jenkins was right there other ways for them to learn more about what the Sheriff's Department does that are more effective. And my other and also that what Brian Hall for a secure justice who really knows his stuff I was very And also that Brian Hulfer of Secure Justice really knows this stuff. I was very concerned about the two aspects of the measure that he talked about. The other thing is meet and confer. Once again, meet and confer is really for working conditions. This probably does not actually come under that. So if you're going to do meet and confer, it cannot be. Let's just use this as a delay tactic. This thing has been delayed far too long. Far too long. People are losing faith in this board completely. You have to move this forward and make it as independent as possible as soon as you can. Thank you. Clyde, you're on the line. Thank you. My name's Clyde Howell. I'm a Sheriff's Technician working in Dublin. The Oversight Committee legislation seems to be a little overreaching the way it's written. We'll give total power to the outside board for review and discipline of the Sheriff's Office. I as many others in the sheriff's office agree, oversight is necessary. And as for any in custody deaths at the jail, one is too many. So oversight transparency is necessary. The sheriff's department has initially been voluntarily had oversight. That didn't work. Now we formally have, because of the class action lawsuit, we formally have the consent decree. We also have DOJ findings on ADA accountability. I'd argue we already have seven layers of oversight. An eighth layer of oversight is only going to continue to just investigate the investigations. We, I would refer you to the Sheriff's Letter of July 2nd. We worked hard to have change in the office. Now that we do have the change, I support what she would ask you to look at. And that would be the three caveats, the use of outside council versus a hybrid, humus council approach allowing the sheriff to request or authorize OIG investigations. We already have SB2 and post examinations and look forward to seeing where we can work collaboratively for a just system. Thank you. Nelson, you're on the line. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Hello. You're on the line. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Hello. Okay. Hi. My name is Norman Nelson and I am a long time former resident of Supervisor Valle's district in Union City. I appreciate Supervisor Marquez taking up the mantle to keep this going. According to the nationwide police scorecard, researchers from UC Irving and Columbia University have ranked Santa Rita jail as one of the most deadly as jails in the nation. That calls not only for urgency, but for strong oversight. The death of my brother at Santa Rita Jail within two hours of being brought there speaks to the deficiencies and the need for improvement, the need for strong, independent oversight. The earlier testimony concerning falsification of a record, arrest records, that can change the course of a person's life. It could cause a person to lose their life. Someone also testified that criminals kill criminals, but the jail is not supposed to serve in the function of judge and jury like in the death of my brother. I also like to address meeting confer. I like the echo with Bob Britton and some of the other speakers have said that that should not be used as a tool to delay this process. The Board of Supervisors develops public policy. The employees carry out that policy. The employees carry out that policy. So as long as this policy does not affect their working conditions or to the extent that it does affect the number of hours that they work and their reporting relationships and so on and so forth, there shouldn't be any changes in the ordinance. I would also like to say that the draft ordinance before you that's not necessarily reflect what you voted on at the June meeting. Specifically around independent legal counsel, you voted that it would be included in the ordinances made. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. I drink my heart of urging a yes vote. We have heard together many well well-consistent thoughts by responsible people. Think this is necessary for the health of our citizens and the health of our inmates. Let us do that. Let us focus on this proposal. Thanks to everybody who has contributed their time and council. Thank you. John, you're, I've lived in Dellamita County for probably 40, 50 years. And my experience with law enforcement here in D the Aluminum County and in with the sheriff's office also. It has been actually the very good one. I've never been to Santa Rita. I've never visited it. But I do hear things. Yes, you've got to take the criminals off the street and put them somewhere away from the public. You have to protect the public. And yeah, when you put them all in, the criminals concentrate them in one place for the safety of the public. It makes that place a very dangerous place. And you got to hand it to whoever's, you know, volunteers to do this. They are volunteers. Something they don't have to do to work. They can, you know, do other things. And so, yes, they volunteer to do this. And many of the people who volunteer to do this kind of work are good people. And you know, you don't certainly don't want bad apples in there. And they do from what I said, you know, they get weeded out pretty quickly, hopefully. But you know, it's kudos to those people who do this, and put their lives on the line for this. And I will have to admit that the impact of communities, when you go to, if you're going to get more, I'm sure you've done town halls and stuff, but the public is an impacted community. I really don't want to Hello, can you? Yes, we can hear you. I'd like to turn in my name is Duwau Highlander. I work with the Manges Program at the Australia and Hong Kong platform. Thank you so much for all the working down to the Australian University of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the Department of the point of the independent council for the staff oversight board and for the OIG. The way county council drafted this provision on independent council is deeply problematic and it highlights the reason why we have advocated for both the OIG and the oversight board have independent council for the beginning. The Board of Superbideers never instructed county council to add a provision that the oversight board or the OIG's legal council cannot immensely go to students on their behalf address the county. More importantly, if the independent council for the oversight board or the OIG cannot commensely go proceedings against the shell, it would render their investigative authority and subpoena power useless, since they cannot enforce compliance with the subpoena and the court of law. As such, it would contribute to the fact that this board of supervisors has explicitly recognized both subpoena power and independent council, the critical components of the only meaningful oversight function. So we would really strongly urge you to adjust that language so that the independent council actually has the ability to do what they're hired to do, which is amongst many things to be able to enforce the subpoena power that this board is giving to the oversight board and to the OIG. I'm just wanting to point out that this was not what you asked of County Council at the last agenda discussion of this item. So to adjust that, the second point is the issue around having former law enforcement on the oversight board. This board also on the last poll vote of this issue. Just stated not to have prepared law enforcement, but also address those three issues. Thank you very much. Allison, you're on the line. Hello. Allison Monroe here with families advocating for the seriously mental Yale. I support the ordinance. I concur in Bob Britton's comments. I would also like the language to have have say that we will have a real independent council. The reason I'm interested in Sheriff's oversight is that I know many people in Fasmy who have loved ones with serious mental illness. And these people are very often in Santa Rita jail. And the problem is not the people that work there so much as a system. The system needs oversight. It bothers me very much when I read stories on KTVU and elsewhere of people who died in the jail. And their families are not told that they died. Their families are not told why they have the injuries they do. The family is not told why the family member was here or there or why they were placed with certain people. These families are left with this horrible ministry which is hard for us to read about, which is very upsetting. I know because my family member also died when she was someone else's responsibility. And what seems to happen now of the 70 people who died in the last 10 years, about 20% were seriously mentally ill. You can tell that from reading their stories. And what seems to happen in these cases very often, the family files a multi-million-dollar lawsuit because they've been cut off from what happened to their family member. They don't know why they were lost. And these lawsuits are not a good way of spending our money, of overseeing the sheriff. We don't need to catch problems at the back and we need to have oversight to have communication with the whole culture of the sheriff and have oversight. Thank you very much. Cheryl, you're on the line. Yeah, hi. Can you hear me okay? We can hear you. Okay. So, I think we got our priorities upside down and inside out. A previous speaker spoke of 70 people dying in the jail last 10 years. I think we need an oversight, a fentanyl coming into the Bay Area Committee. The sheriffs should get a gold medal for the crap they've put up with from sociologists and political scientists who don't know what it is to live in fear every day because they weigh out in the hills somewhere, but they're not even protected. In other words, if we are talking about a seventh oversight board, I know in Oakland there's four oversight boards. So you got the oversight of the oversight of the oversight of the oversight. Well, what about the tens of thousands courageous people who are working as deputy sheriffs who are working as a some oversight to stop the drugs from coming in. Then you won't have mental illness. Then you won't have people dying in the jails. Wanted to get at the root cause instead of grandstanding like a bunch of bozos who are showing contempt for the people who are protecting your rear end. That's something you guys should seriously think about before you grandstand with another oversight of oversight of oversight of oversight. Thank you. Linda, you're on the line. Hi, thank you very much for the opportunity to address the board on this important topic. Again, my name is Linda Smith. I'm the city manager for the city of Dublin. I want to thank the board for their continued support of having the city of Dublin, giving them an opportunity to nominate a member for the oversight board. I want to ask the board to reconsider excluding Dublin residents from being considered for the first supervisor district. Dublin has a vested interest in the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. Not only do we contract for services and are the only city agency that does so. We are also home to the Santa Rita jail and we have to deal with the impacts of the jail on our community. We are also home to the Office of Emergency Services, the Sheriff's Regional Training Center and as well as the headquarters for the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. There is no other community that has more facilities and services offered by the Sheriff's Office than in Dublin. This gives us a unique perspective and one that should not be limited by an arbitrary constraint. Thank you very much for your time. How many more speakers? Seven. Seven. Okay. If there's anyone else out in the virtual land who wants to speak please sign up now because after this we're going to cut off speakers. So you've got a minute to raise your hand to getting the cue to speak after that. That's it for the speakers. The other thing I want to say, we have a three o'clock set item. That three o'clock set item will be delayed. Let's see, it's 315 now. I'm going to the County Council. see it's 315 now. Good. Yes, County Council. The supervisor, Miley, do you want to set a time for that in the event? It's two o'clock now is in the event we are able to take it by three. Save that again. If you set a new time, then we'd have to stick with that time. So we have another hour before three o'clock. Are you sure you're okay? Or I set a new time. I thought oh I'm sorry I was looking up there and I said maybe a clock drawn. Okay. I'm looking at my monitor and seeing two o'clock But it's two minutes. Okay, right. So yes, so for a three o'clock set matter we're going to set that for four. I would say four, 15. We're going to four, 15. With three o'clock set matter. Yes. Again, now that I know what time it actually is, I would say, do you, do you want to not set a time definitive because if you complete this discussion earlier, you could take it earlier, but not if you said a new time. I'm going to say 415 because we still have the regular agenda. We got to get through as well in closed session. So we'll say 415. who are on this item, the oversight item, which is item 94 should have signed up. Tom, are we speakers? Do we have six speakers? Okay. This is the last six speakers. Tasha Baker, you're on the line. Good afternoon. My name is Natasha Baker. I'm a district five resident and I'm also a member of the Care First Jail's last coalition. And my comment is in support of Sheriff Oversight. I'm glad that this is finally being agendas. And I'd like to echo some of the prior comments of the necessity of having independent council and having that independent council have subpoena power and be and and relatedly enforcement power. And this is not only important for all of the reasons that have already been stated about the conflict of interest of having current county council be the council when county council has to represent the sheriff when the sheriff gets repeatedly sued because of deaths in the jail or other matters that happen under the sheriff's watch. But we also know that the sheriff is also the coroner. And that creates a massive conflict of interest anytime there is a death in the jail or on the sheriff's watch. We really need independent counsel with enforcement power. And I also was a signatory to a letter that I believe that the board received today about yet another death in Santa Rita jail and the importance of having independent council to address this ongoing issue. Voters of Alameda County did vote for a new sheriff a couple of years ago because we wanted to see change and unfortunately we have not seen the change that we have desired. The county is continuing to have in to deal with lawsuits at both the local and federal level because we continue to treat people horribly within our criminal justice system, particularly the jail. And we need independent oversight with independent council to bring an end to these legal abuses and hopefully to be able to use those millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to actually support public safety both within and outside of the jail. Thank you very much. Cindy you're on the line. Thank you. Cindy Rocha, San Leandro. I'm glad you're on the line. Thank you. Thank you. Cindy Rocha, Sam Leandro. I'm glad you're talking about this. It's very important, and I support what you're doing. I would just ask that you consider allowing, bringing on at least one retired professional, law enforcement professional. It's very important to tap into their life experiences, their lived and worked experiences. I think it's very important. You wouldn't have a completely non-law enforcement board because you're simply going to lose out on that very valuable insight. Other other bodies have in kind professionals serving on the board, medical boards, legal boards, even general contractors. So I think the same applies here. But I understand the backlash against law enforcement in general because of, you know, what happened to our nation in 2020, the summer of love, right? The George Floyd tragedy that happened. That was something that put everyone on a very definite opinion of how they felt about law enforcement, and that was unfortunate. And I too, I, you know, nine minutes of watching someone be let down by someone who was supposed to be there to help them. It was very saddened and shocked by what happened. Saddened that my brother in Christ, George Floyd had to die before some changes were made. But I don't think this is the right change, right? Because I have other brothers and sisters in Christ that are out there serving daily. They leave the safety of their families, they go out into their world and they try to be that thin blue line between prime and the people that they're trying to protect. So please reconsider your stance of not having professional law enforcement representing at least one or two on the board. Okay. Thank you. Dale, you're on the line. Hi, my name is Dale Silbile. I live in Fairview. I'm not speaking as a member of any group or association. I'm speaking as an individual. I'd like to speak in opposition to allowing members of the oversight commission and the Inspector General to seek outside counsel. I don't think this encourages the impartiality that should characterize the oversight commission. They say there's a member, excuse me, the commission, not particularly sympathetic to law enforcement, when given the opportunity that he or she will probably seek outside counsel that's also not particularly sympathetic to law enforcement. I don't think that serves the cause and impartiality. I think what it does do is encourage such things as grandstanding and press conferences and so on and so is to buy us the opinion of decision-makers and contaminate the jury pool. Our county council people are by the nature of their job hugely impartial and are the logical body to provide counsel to the commission and to the inspector general. Thank you. Mike, you're on the line. Hello, I'm Mike Chase. I'm a resident in district two. I'd like to see the board acted a time no matter. Has a show of oversight, which is truly effective. One thing that's needed is for independent council to be truly independent. Their power to be an ambiguous crystal clear that they shall have the power to initiate legal proceeds against the share of particularly to enforce subpoenas. Second, I think independent, independence is also needed in the makeup of the board itself. It is not going to be independent from the Sheriff's Office and law enforcement. And for that reason, former law enforcement officers should not serve on the oversight board. Thank you. Thomas, you're on the line. Hello, can you hear me? We can hear you. Okay, how many of us, Tau Jo Tamis, are living in Kestra Valley? A lot of people have spoken, so I'm not going to repeat everything. I feel that there's too many oversight committees out there that doesn't work. And the speakers have spoke about that. And one thing I want to put it out there is how are you going to make sure that this oversight committee is going to work? It's going to be millions of dollars spent on this, so we have to make sure it works. Otherwise, there's no point for it. And the second thing I want to say is, Sheriff Sanchez, she just got elected. She's doing her best to clean everything up. Can we give her a chance before we enforce this committee? She was elected for this reason to change the culture. And the third thing is corruption and if some people spoke about corruption, that comes from the leadership. If you have ethical and leadership with integrity, corruption doesn't happen. So yeah, we need oversight and we need to clean up things. But I would say give Sheriff Sanchez a chance before we spend all that money on the oversight committee because it loves us a lot of them. That doesn't work. Thank you for your time. California coalition, you're on the line? Yes, thank you so much. I didn't have, I couldn't change, sorry for not changing the name. My name is Katie Dixon, I am a resident in District 5. I am also a member of the Care First Task, Sejillo's first Task Force Coalition. Sorry. Oh, I wanna first say thank you to the Board of Supervisors for finally hearing this agenda item. This has been pushback for a long time now. We have been working on this for years now. So thank you so much for finally getting this on the agenda. It is unfortunate to see another attempt to get this thing watered down in the slides and other stuff in there that's very unfortunate. We have spent a long time putting this to the community, getting feedback, drafting different versions, proposing these versions just to see another attempt to come up with something else. That's very unfortunate. We need to go ahead and get the Sheriff's oversight established. This is not, this is something that's very needed we just had another death in the jail and you know I mean there's that and to the caller the community member that calls us both of us I guarantee you we have more in common and we have in our position go ahead and get in contact with one of our first Jill's last community members. We'd be happy to have a conversation with you and welcome you into a respectful discussion about these matters moving forward. We are all looking for in the interests of public safety. We all want to save community members from whatever it is that has folks caught up in dining the jail, whether that's drugs, mental health, we are all looking to protect our community members in the best way possible. Thank you so much. President Miley, that was our last speaker. All right, I want to thank all the speakers and very helpful hearing from all of you and as often say reasonable people will disagree. So this matter was raised more than two and a half years ago. I think but for the untimely death of supervisor, by a, we probably would have had this matter before us as well as untimely death as supervisor, Chan. But a lot of circumstances have gotten us to where we are today. So I'm hoping as a result of today's discussion, we'll get an ordinance out there that can go to meet and confer survivors Carson. Thank you. Thank you very much. We've been talking about the fact that this has been on our agenda for quite some time, and quite honestly, it was September the 30th of 2020 that this was signed in the law. 85 was actually signed in the law. So, in another couple of weeks we'll have had four years in which this has already been signed in the law in the state of California and we're still discussing it. Doing that time as you just hamply said, unfortunately there's been lots of change. And as it relates to this board that change has been that we've had two of our members of the board that were here, when this originally became law, there is no longer with us. And in this case, they were two individuals who were on the record supporting an oversight board and committee and went on the record saying what the details of that should be. We do have a different board. We respect that. Conditions have changed. We respect that. Conditions have changed. We understand that. And we are still here talking about yet, giving yet another body opportunity to engage in the changes that we continuously, continuously chip away at on this ordinance. For me, this has never ever been about our sheriff. This has not been about her. For a number of reasons, she has been elected in a time period of that change. And in the early stages there are some reflections that she is a part of leading that change. Personally I've gotten along with Sheriff Plummer when he was here on a personal basis. I got along with Sheriff Aherne when he was here on a personal basis and up to date I feel as though I get along with Sheriff Sanchez as well. This all of them had a different philosophy. All of them had potentially a different governance style. All of them individually bring differences to their job. So this is not about them. It's about the institution of the sheriff's office, whoever the sheriff is in the future, whoever that individual may be, it's about governance and oversight with respect to that. I have felt as though public safety is one of those sacred areas that everybody, regardless of the class, geographic, education, their income status, or their ethnicity, is concerned about in some regard, public safety. They're own personal and family public safety and the safety of the community around them. And so it's one of those sacred areas, just like voting is one of those sacred areas. Just like healthcare is one of those sacred areas that we have a responsibility of overseeing as elected officials in this county. And obviously this has been an issue of concern not only in this county, but because of the fact that it's been a law signed in to law since 2020. It's an issue that is of concern not only here in the state of California but on a national basis. One of the many meetings, tons of meetings that I had on last week, I think it was Thursday, I'm losing the date, was with the United States cops office in Washington, D.C. To get yet an update about what the trends were, what's happening nationally, and what's forecasted, what differences have taken place since the last meeting, all of those things. Again, trying to better understand what our responsibility is locally but also what's happening on a national basis to see how different we are or how aligned we are with everyone else. I have been consistent, consistent in my support for an oversight, a board. I've been consistent in my support for an inspector general and inspector. I've been consistent in talking about the fact that we need to have independent counsel as it relates to this. Again there's no dispersion on our current counsel and as county council has said many times in the public arena her client is the sheriff her client is the sheriff her client or with the other department is are they're her clients and while I trust her ability to be independent and are thought the perception of being able to represent both It's the same thing that you would have around perception in our voting process And a lot of the issues that are being raised and it's quite important That while we deal with factual information, especially in the community that is observing how we operate that we also try to dispel perceptions. And so therefore, I've been consistent in saying that we need to have an independent counsel. And I know that in many cases, we have a firewall that's put up. And I respect that. The general public may not understand a firewall when you have the same people in the same office, but being able to say we don't talk to each other, but yet in still, we come out of the same place and we're representing, in this case, the sheriff. And so I think that it needs to be independent as well. It should be funded so that people can really spend the time on these key issues that are important so that we can hopefully start to walk and by inch by inch back to embracing and celebrating and trusting all of those, not just the share, all of those in law enforcement, all of those who have responsibility, the same thing that we desperately need in the body of politics this days. The ability to try to stop what's going on with all this crazy stuff that's happening, not just in Washington, D.C., right here in Alameda County, and try to establish some credibility and respect for the office that we hold dear. And so I'm hoping at the appropriate time that we won't push this off any further, continue to cross the T's and dot their eyes because we've been doing that since 2020 and that we go ahead and we take strong action, which my predecessors, as I stated earlier, both Richard, and Wilma Chan, on the records that they support. We have three votes there, but things have changed over the period in time. And so we have a new board, and I'm hoping that the new board, doing their own due diligence, will understand the importance of making sure that these things in the eye of public opinion is looked at as being clear, transparent, and above board. Thank you President Miley and thank you. Surveys or Carson, I agree that we need to restore trust in our law enforcement because of national events and I think having a sheriff oversight board as identified under maybe 1185 will help us get that accountability and transparency. I do appreciate the fact that we've had a number of community meetings recently that included many of the affected communities, particularly in the unincorporated areas and also with some of the advocacy groups. And I'm actually comfortable with the fact that this version of the ordinance, while it's not perfect, it doesn't get to what everybody wants. I think it's a compromise. There is one accommodation that I would like to ask for, and that is under section 2.135.020I. The page number is seven. It's investigates specific incidents involving the Sheriff's Office personnel. That's 2.135.020I. I don't think we need to include that. I mean, our already parts of it are being striccons, so I would suggest that we strike out that entire provision, which doesn't really change the ordinance substantively because other parts of the ordinance talks about referring the investigative matters to post of sworn personnel and as a long standing practice in the sheriff's office based on my understanding, non sworn personnel are also afforded this investigative provision of if there's any allegations of wrongdoing that this investigation goes to post and based on 2.134.020 since the oversight board serves as an advisory capacity to the board of supervisors. They don't have the ability to manage or direct the activity, so to Sheriff's Office or to recommend discipline. So it seems like this would be unnecessary, but I'm comfortable moving this to a first reading if we eliminate I, 2.135.02i. I'm sorry. 2.135.020i. Can I'm going to give County Council a second to review that. I just want to make sure I'm clear if we strike that I'm reading it as taken away powers of the Inspector General. So can you clarify? That section does involve authority being granted to the Office of the Inspector General as compared to the oversight board. It would preclude the inspector general from conducting incident investigations of specific incidents involving sheriff's office personnel. Of course, that provision also requires that they not, that investigation not interfere with active investigations of the Sheriff's Office, which would then limit the inspector general to following up after investigation is completed by the Sheriff's Office as opposed to conducting their own independent investigation. If that provision were strong. Just to get some clarity, can I get an understanding of your intent behind that? Excuse me. The provision talks about investigating specific incidents of non-sworn personnel within the Sheriff's Office and it provides that the Office of Inspector General should not interfere in the matters under active investigation by the Sheriff's Office. And my understanding is that there's been a long standing practice where non sworn personnel are treated like sworn personnel when it comes to investigation on personnel matters. And so I think it's somewhat redundant to include that provision when it's already covered in terms of sending the investigation through the post process. Oh, in the case of well path, how does that fit in? Is there a contract? I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. In the case of well path, there a contractor. So how does that fit in? Well path is not a staff personnel within the office of the sheriff's office. Well path is a contractor, it's a consultant, that the Board of Supervisors approves for the Sheriff's Office. And we have the ability, if there's advice, to get the metrics in terms of monitoring the performance of well path. OK, so what was being presented? I am not comfortable with what I'd like us to consider, but also don't want to add further complexity was open. We can get to a first reading. So I'm going to recommend that we just adopt what is before us. If there's support from my colleagues to make a few minor revisions. And that is just swapping out the word may and taking out the word may and adding shell under section 2.134.010. And that is page number of the ordinance ordinance just so we're all fallen along that is on page number three in the ordinance and making sure that it's consistent throughout the document. This is specific to independent council. that we received from ACLU. That was going to be the only minor change that I wanted to propose in order to get to a first reading today. There are other things I'd like to see change, but I also don't want to delay this. Can you cite the section again, please? Yes. The section is 2.134.010 subsection K. So the Reservoir is seeking a similar change in 2135010 sub D. Yeah, so it's consistent throughout the document that we take out the OIG instead of saying may it would say shall have legal counsel I think civil vice-marques for the moment is finished I Will not be supporting that because I have been consistent as some of you have been consistent in the other way of saying that I think county council should be the body that provides legal counsel to this body. So if that's the ordinance that is a red before us, I'll be voting against it just on that alone. But I do think the fact that in section 2.134.050, you know, we call for an annual, or excuse me, both an annual report, but also a three year review of the implementation of this ordinance. And it would be my thinking that should we need to go with outside council, we could make that amendment at that point in time, or even sooner, if necessary. I think it's always easier to add as opposed to subtract because I think it's bringing an outside council just adds more expense. It's supportive. We can supervise Carson, point out we can, you know, we do have the firewall, even though people don't trust it. I do think that's the most prudent thing to do in terms of enacting this ordinance at this point in time, because I think we could go too far as opposed to being balanced. And I think people have always heard me say, I always try to look for some type of balance. And I just think having outside counsel goes too far as opposed to having our President County Council provide that service of which once again, if we find through an annual through the review of this after implementation. It's not working then we can go to outside council. Furthermore, I think some of the powers that are invested in the oversight body in 2.134.020 as well as powers invested in the often expected general 2.135.020. I mean, there's a lot of powers there and upon review, annually in the three year review, maybe some of those powers might need to be curtailed or maybe they might need to be expanded. At the moment, I'm not gonna approval about those powers, but there is quite a bit there. I, for one, feel that the oversight body that was put in place in the city of Oakland is just too extensive. I think law enforcement needs to do their jobs professionally. We need to support 21st Century policing. That's the direction we need to be going in, but we don't need to go in a direction that's going to put a chilling effect on the ability of law enforcement to do their jobs. And I think some aspects of this would put more of for chilling effect. And then, yeah, that section, I think you've already talked about 2.135.040, that's the section dealing with outside independent council. So if there's a motion, as you've suggested supervised markets, I'll be voting against that motion for those reasons. I have a question could you maybe clarify and I respect our opinion and position. In terms of the fact that the client currently, the sheriff is the client of the county council, genuinely, and you can't nobody can speak for the general public. And also the attorney for the coroner's office, especially since there is a heightened attention around any death that takes place that having independent counsel. And we spent a lot of money on lawyers. We spent a lot of money. And now all of a sudden say, oh, in an area that is so critical, such as public safety, we spend a lot of money on lawyers that has released public safety now. That it's too much money. Given the areas of oversight and already client responsibility, how does that work? Even with a firewall in terms of perception? From someone who's agnostic to some pro police or anti-pro police, how do we deal with the perception of that? And I think you're right, Zuvuz Carson. The perception is that county council can't serve in that function with a firewall. That's the perception. I think there's a lot of things in government that we who are in government understand better than the general public. But you're right, the perception is people feel that there's a lack of confidence that a firewall would serve that purpose. That's why I'm suggesting that let's try that and see if it works. And if it isn't working, then we can amend the ordinance. Can I really like to get us to a first reading someone to ask, um, supervisor, would you be amenable if you make the motion with what you propose, eliminating a section I, but also accepting that we replace the word may and substitute that which shall with respect to independent council for the IG as well as the oversight board? Yes, I've been consistent in my agreement with Surphyser Carson on the importance of having independent council because of the inherent conflicts. I'm comfortable with turning May to shall. I can move the first reading of the ordinance unless there's a different protocol with the amendment to eliminate 2.135.02i. Can we be clear for the record when we're citing the code sections that we're referring to. I believe the section should be 2.135.020 subdivision I. Correct. The titles, powers and duties of the Office of Inspector General. Under that section I I, sub, subsection, I. And do you need clarity on the shell? The shell is... the clarity on the show. The show is I only heard one action item is a motion by Supervisor Tane. Is that inclusive of the other changes? I didn't hear that. Yes, I did. Did Jim's fish. She did agree to it. So I think this is a need this specific section to so in order to have an effective first reading because again We are making changes from the floor. It is important that there be clarity as to the changes so the public can follow the changes that are being made So what we would like is clarity is the code sections I mean the sections of the ordinance that are being changed and what is being changed about those sections so that we can stand by that we had at first reading of the ordinance if that's your goal to have the first reading today. I can't read my own writing. I'm sorry. Section K. And it is under the Sheriff's Oversight Board. So I may call on at large member advisory selection panel under the Sheriff Oversight Board section. And it is section K as in kite. And the second change is the elimination of 2.135.020i. And that is under. So if I can assist. So with respect to the first change that you referenced, it's a change to 2.134.010 subdivision K correct the change that you're making is to replace the word may with shell yes So that is the first amendment It's also in subsection D as in dog Of the same section the same change it's not in the same section. I believe thing. The same change. It's not in the same session. I believe it's 2.135.010. Some. Changing the word may to shout in there as well. I can give it an attempt to rephrase. That's fine because I'm scrolling through this. I still want you to make the motion. I don't want to take it from you. Just trying to provide some clarity. So let's go in order in which the ordinance reads. So the motion's been made by supervisor Tam to conduct a first reading and introduction of the ordinance implementing Assembly Bill AB 1185, including a county of Elimitie County Sheriff's Oversight Board, Office of Inspector General, and Inspector General. The amendments that are being made within this motion start with section 2.134.01. This is the heading that reads Is it 010? Give me a second. It is 2.134.010. Sheriff Oversight Board at large member advisory selection panel. Subsection K as in kite. We're replacing the word May with Shell. So the second, the last sentence in that subsection reads, the oversight board shall have legal counsel independent of county council as provided in section 2.135.010. Let me get there. Give me a second. Second. Let's second. This is Office of Inspector General, Inspector General, and it's subsection D as in David. The last sentence will now read the OIG shall have legal counsel independent of county council as provided for in section 2.135.040. And then the next amendment is 2.135.020. The title is Powers and Doodies of the Office of Inspector General. This is subsection I is in Igloo. Supervisor Tam has asked to eliminate that entire wording correct everything under. That's correct. So that is the motion and is there a second? I'll second it. Okay. Is that clerk at the reading ordinance? the ordinance. The title and ordinance adding chapter 2.134 and 2.135. The Alameda County ordinance code, establishing the Alameda County Sheriff's Oversight Board and Office of Inspector General and an Inspector General. As amended. As amended. As amended. Before we call the roll, I just want to say I'm going to, there are aspects of the ordinance that I like, but there's a couple of things like I said that I don't like solving, so instead of voting now I'm going to abstain on the vote so call the roll. I just want to confirm that the motion includes waving the full reading of the ordinance as amended. I will move the way or the full reading of the ordinance as amended. And they move for the approval of the first reading. Move for approval of the first reading. Move for approval for the first reading. As amended. Seconded. Seconded. All right. It's been moved in a second. We call the roll. Supervisor Halbert, excuse. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. Mr. President, please. and see if I can get a motion on the consent calendar. Mr. President, I'll move the consent calendar. It's been moved, is there a second? I'll second. Okay, it's been moved in seconds. If no, board questions or comments, call the roll on consent. Supervisor Halward, excuse, supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President Meiley. Yes. I'm going to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to ask the mayor to the item. Item nine, 10 and 75 to your next meeting on October 1st. Item 35 has been withdrawn by the department. All right. Okay. Mr. President, I'd like to move items one two question on two Question on two is that two to correct and I just know you've already approved item one that was a consent calendar I'm sorry, I didn't I didn't hear you We already proved item one that's already approved item one. Oh. It's not part of the mass motion. OK, thanks. I'd like to move item two, three, four. Question number four. Five, six, seven, eight, both nine, and 10, as well as 75 has been continuing to October the first. Can you take nine out of the mass motion? Take, which one is continuing? Nine's been continued. Okay. Both of those have been continued. Okay, gotcha. Okay. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2.4, $2 point B. Question on 28.1 point B. But 28 was okay. It's 28.1. You're interested in. Is that right? OK, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 30. thirty two thirty four thirty six thirty thirty thirty eight thirty seven has been removed. We're taking that out of the mass motion. 49, question on 30. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46. Questions on 46. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 58 49 50 51 22 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 64 65 66 67 68 66, 67, 68. Question on 68. 69, 70. Question on 70. 71, 72, 73, 74. Question on 74. 76, 75 has been continued. the bill. 76. 76. 7. 7. the case. So we have the case. So we have the case. So we have the case. So we have the case. So we have the case. So let's start with the items. Thank you. Supervisor Crescent. So item two is about a company that specializes in branding and marketing. I'm just trying to understand because there's a desire to increase this contract amount for a different phase. What kind of experience have they had with onboarding and training, which is the intent of this contract for child care? Good afternoon, members of the board, Supervisor Tam, this company specializes in brand, the brand experience and the work that they're doing is aligning the mission and values with our employee engagement. And in that they are developing not onboarding conversations, but they're developing an alignment with our training as it relates to creating that engagement for our employees that aligns with our commitment to service in the community. So they do brand experience, and in that brand experience, they're doing employee experience. And they try to align with whatever you say your commitment to service is for the community. They try to align that employee experience, meaning they try to build the engagement and the tactics that will advance your customer service. And so much we are looking at, there are lots of things that are changing in a child support program. And we're looking at aligning those things with understanding the training aspects, things the knowledge that needs to happen in our agency. So they are putting it all together as a package, as a framework by It's a framework by we can use for the future. So they're developing a training program that reflects some of the core missions of your department, but I know you're short staff, so how much progress have you made, and are you gonna be making with this contract, with onboarding and training the employees to deliver that customer service? So we have developed competencies for the classification because there's some changes in the program, and in that we have identified the types of competencies and the types of training that's needed and the knowledge and how to advance that to staff. So yes, we are short staff, but we think that making sure that our staff that are here are able to do the work and understand it from a different perspective, we think that that is absolutely what we need. And we are seeing some, we are seeing lots of, I shouldn't say lots of progress. We are seeing progress in that area. Okay, thank you. Next item is item four. Four. Oh, I'm sorry. So item four calls for a peer review and county self-assessment and system improvement plan to the children and family services of the social services department. And I just have a quick question on will the system improvement plan be presented to the board at some point and basically whether there will be recommendations for executing that plan? Thank you for your question, supervisor Tam, Andrea Ford, Social Services Agency Director. The answer to the first question, yes, we can present it at the Social Services Committee. The answer to the second question is, I don't know if there will be recommendations because I haven't seen any draft of what's come out of it. Okay. And I had one similar question tagged on to the citizen improvement plan. When do you anticipate it being available to be presented to the system improvement plan, when do you anticipate it being available to be presented to the committee? Yeah, it'll be some time in 2025. As this war letter states, we're asking for a six month extension to complete the entire process. So I would anticipate any time beginning mid 2025 to late 2025. Okay, all right. Thanks. Next item is 28.1B, I believe. Thank you. So this is basically approving the ad hoc committees request to the reparations committees ad hoc request to appoint a diversity equity and inclusion officer a sponsoring unit for the commission. And I wanted to understand where that schedule was at with our recruitment for the DEI director? We just reopened the recruitment for the DEI director and hope to conclude by the end of the year in terms of the recruitment and initial interview process. Thank you. And also on this particular item, I'm 28.1, the recommendations from the ad hoc committee of that supervisor, Mark Hasen, I serve on. We were hoping that this would have gotten to the board prior to our recess. So the fact that we're up like September and the end of the year. I mean some of these time frames are a little challenging, but we hope the staff can move along as expeditially as possible to try to meet kind of the spirit of what's being asked here through the committees and our committees recommendations. Because I had the board taken this up before we went on recess, staff would have had time to meet these time frames. So I just wanna state that for the record. Next item. Next item is item 39. The question I had is this is an item to enter an agreement with the Food and Agriculture Department for funding for the Industrial Cultivation and I understand that Governor Newsom had issued new regulations to protect children from some of the intoxicating hemp products and I wanted to understand whether these new regulations and state law will be a part of these activities in the county. Thank you, Supervisor, for the question. Sandy Rivera, Director of Community Development Agency. There are ag weights and measures department. We do contract with the state, so we would follow state regulations as current as they are. So we follow their lead and we contract with them to do that work. So yes, it would follow and stay long. Thank you. Next is item 46. Thank you so much, trying to pull it up. But I think I remember my question. And thank you for the work on this. My understanding is this is extending the contract with Lisa Wise with respect to the third draft of the housing element. In mentions in the board letter that it's going to recirculate to the max and the planning commission. So my question is how those meetings been scheduled? So where we are now we've had at Sandy Rivera Community Development Agency Director, we have had a single round with Max and the Planning Commission with the version that we are going to submit to the state. And so once the state receives it, then we have 60 days. So it depends upon when the state provides comments and we're receiving positive feedback right now of what we've been discussing with them. There's been regular meetings with our reviewer. So we haven't scheduled those meetings yet, but we anticipate that they'll be November, December. Okay, and then I apologize, I should know this by memory, but I don't. So I'm going to ask, we've had multiple touch points with respect to the housing element. It's come up in planning commission. It's come up in other discussions. And I remember at one point there was information shared that if we don't adopt stronger tenant protections that we are at risk of grant funding, can you just rephrase that commentary for the public and just so I'm also clear? The state as well as at the regional level have encouraged tenant protections and to increase tenant protections for the unincorporated area. It's not prescriptive and they're telling us exactly what those center protections are to be. And so the state is aware that the board is in consideration of the tenor protections. And so at least our version that we're circulating now and we're getting positive feedback on is that the board is considering a number of tenant protections and within in two years we'll come back with an assessment with how those tenant protections have been implemented and approved. What funding is at risk if our housing is adopted? It's okay. So in terms of the consequences for not having a certified housing element, there obviously is the local control, land use control that would be compromised as well as now it's linked to HAP funding, which is part of our homeless funding. I don't recall the exact amounts, but Director Chalo may be able to state that. And along with that, we also have some regional funding, transportation funding in around 55 million. That's also a consequence of not having a certified housing element, along with some planning eligibility for planning grant funds and a variety of other infrastructure funds. Thank you. Put an in Board of Supervisors Colleen, chocolate director of Alameda County Health. So in support of what Director Rivera just said, the HAP funds in the current year, the HAP funds are about $50 million total that come to the county. A little bit over half of that is going directly to the City of Oakland. And the remainder goes for the rest of the county. So Oakland receives a direct allocation and the rest of the county we receive the allocation for and the total of the two is about 50 million. And in the current year we have to show that we are making progress as director Rivera said. But in the next round which might be about the same amount of money I'm not totally sure but you know in that neighborhood we have to show that we have them in place the protections in place that meet the requirements that Sandy laid out. Thank you so much. Next item is item 68. So item 68 is the adoption of a county, generative, AI policy. And I know the policy has specific language about preventing bias or actually looking at bias and encouraging the departments that used AI tools, have some training that they're not overly relying on this technology. And I'm just trying to understand that this is a rapidly moving technology. And are there mechanisms where we as a board will periodically update this county policy? So Tim Dupuis, Chief Information Officer, absolutely as the technology evolves, we'll be continuing to watch this policy. As you just mentioned, it is a relatively new technology, but rapidly evolving. We want to get ahead of it. We've done a lot of research and putting this particular policy together, researching from all the different levels of policies from the federal level all the way down to the county and state levels throughout the United States. And we've also participated in our associations, the National Association of Counties and CSAC. Certainly, a supervisor, Carson has been actively involved in that as well. So all of that research has been put into this current version of the policy. But yes, we do recognize that it's going to change rapidly and this policy may require change over time and we'll be bringing that back to the board if policy change is required. Thank you. Just before we move on and kind of do a brief overview, everybody is grappling with the question that you just raised in terms of the ever changing, that's taking place in the area, not just General David I, but also as they start to overlay voice and pictures to all of that. I mean, so it's every evolving, right? What everyone's grappling with, and I say everyone because NACO has a, the National Association of Counties has had a staring committee of which civil from ITD has been a major contributor to on the national level. And then I've had the privilege of chairing the State of California's Artificial Intelligence Committee. And we just actually had one of our state meetings on yesterday, regarding where we are around policy as we're also kind of moving in the direction as the state legislature, and the governor works out what the policy is for the state of California around the use of generative AI or machine learning. And so, what we're attempting to do on a national estate level is given enough flexibility in terms of what the policy is in order to adapt to the ever changing changes that are taking place in that space. Thank you. Next item is item 70. I have a question on that item. Next item is item 70. I also had a question on that item and that is looking at doubling the contract practically. For psychological assessments on juveniles. And so I just wanted to understand what's the anticipated increase in the number of juveniles that would be going through this assessment. Yeah, good afternoon. Thank you for the question, Supervisor Tam. Brian Ford, Acton Sheet for the probation department. So we have seen an increase in the number of youth that have mental health needs at the facilities. Sort of the primary issue is that we've had difficulty finding the right psychologists to provide the competency, specifically competency evaluations on youth. And so we wanted to put enough funding in the contract to make sure that we were at least able to get through the remaining of the fiscal year. So you don't expect an increase just because of the need for additional resources because there's been a shortage. So you don't necessarily expect an increase in the number of assessments. No, we don't expect necessarily an increase an expected increase in the number of assessments. It's the number of psychologists that are available to perform these assessments. Yes, just so far, we had a panel of three and of the three, generally, well, not generally not generally over the past probably six or so months only one has been available to provide these Assessments and it's just been this particular provider. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you 74 74 is an MOU with the Department of Justice the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . limited English proficiencies and there's obviously a lot of challenges and and there's going to be some public accountability and I just wanted to understand how the Sheriffs Office is going to address some of these challenges and how there would be community engagement. Good afternoon, Speaker. Thank you very much for the question. So along with this agreement comes with lots of policy and structure changes within the Sheriff's Office. There's a law, a language, efficiency person that's going to be sort of monitoring these different policy changes and how we implement this. Some of this also has been engaged with community just in conversation with different, like the Sheriff's Advisory meetings that we have. We brought this topic up at that meeting as well. There hasn't been any other outreach to the community. However, I do know that there was a community organization that was involved in some of the agreement that was made with DOJ and I can't recall the name of that organization off the top of my head but I will get that information for you. And this agreement was made so that there was to avoid further, I don't know how to explain it, but to avoid further sanctions by the DOJ to the Sheriff's Office. This conversation started back in 2018 when there was an accusation that the Sheriff's Office may have been discriminatory towards folks with limited English proficiency. So a lot of things have been changed. We changed our policy. Again, we created that coordinator position. All of lots of different things going into training for bilingual officers, and to buy a training for all of our sheriff's office employees, reporting to the DOJ, different communication tools, translation of vital documents, recruitment hiring and effective use of bilingual employees, outreach notice, notice outreach and participation with LEP communities. A commitment to LEP communities, I can read this for you, ACSO is committed to strengthening its ties with all communities including LEP communities within the 120 days of the effective date of this agreement, the language access community will develop a plan to inform and engage all LEP communities 46 68 70 and 74 out of the mass motion. Okay. So I think supervisor Carson moved it. Supervisor Tam, seconded, no board other board comments or questions. Can we call the role on the mass motion? Supervisor Halbert, excuse, supervisor Marquez. Hi, supervisor Tam. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President Miley. Yes. I think the one item that was pulled. I am. I am. I am 37. Item 37, which is a recommendation from the community development agency. Yes. In reference, I am 37. I asked for that to be out of the mass motion, because I need to determine if I can vote on it. I just want to check with the County Council under the Vine Act. The last time I got a contribution from a particular party, Don Frazier, was February of 2023. So the 12 months after I'm safe now, right? And which item is this? This is 37. Okay, I just need to make sure that there's that it's there's nothing like lingering in ongoing. Yeah, because I haven't received any contributions from that party in more than a year. So it's 12 months under the vine act. So yes, if the reason you're disqualifying yourself is because of a campaign contribution. If that contribution was more than 12 months from now, then you would be able to participate. All right. So I just wanted to make sure that. So we can move. I'll move item 37 Is there a second Second by Marquez report comments or questions on item 37 It's called the wrong Supervisor Howard excuse supervisor Marquez I supervisor Tam I supervisor Carson. Yes, President Miley. Yes. Right. So I said we would take up item C90. Do you want to do your ordinances now or do you want to go to the set matter? The set matters that we had set for three o'clock, 95 and 96. We just have four ordinances to read. Okay, so we will take up the set matters 95 and 96 in, let's say four, four, five, about 450. So let's go ahead and do the ordinances. Item 33 is a recommendation from Supervisor Tam. It's the first reading and introduction of an ordinance amending the Alameda County Administrative Code to align elections for the offices of assessor, auditor controller, county clerk recorder, and treasurer tax collector with the presidential primary as authorized by the elections code section 1300. So first reading the title and ordinance amending title to chapter 2.12 2.14 2.18 and 2.58 of the county of Alameda administrative code will align elections for the offices of assessor, auditor controller, county clerk recorder and the treasure tax collector with the presidential primary as the arthorah as arthorized by California election code section 1 3 0 0. I will move to wave the first full Reading and introduce-day ordinance amending title to you. Thank you And before I have the clerk call the roll. I just want to verify with county council Earlier one of the speakers said that this was an illegal action on the part of the board. This is not an illegal action. We're on item 33. No, there's a specific legislation at the state level, where the state authorized members of the board, the board of supervisors to extend the term. So this action is specifically authorized by state law. I believe a speaker made a statement that the charter that this is somehow conflicts with our charter, but actually the terms of the elected department heads are said for in the state law, not in our charter. So this is consistent with what is authorized by state law and the terms that are authorized by state law. Okay, thank you. The no board questions and comments call the role. Motion is before us. I'm sorry, President, I didn't get the second. Yes, it was moved by, Tam, second by, I'll't get the second. Yes, the mood it was moved by 10 second by all seconded seconded by Miley Supervisor Howard excuse supervisor Marquez I Supervisor Tam I Carson yes president Miley yes Your next ordinance is item 61 is the second reading of salary ordinance amendments. The first one is in Oh, and and the second reading of an administrative code amendment as well. First one is certain provisions of the 2023 2024 County of Alameda salary ordinance. The second is certain provisions of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second of the second is the second I'll second move my madly second by damn No board comments or questions call the room on both on both ordinances Item see I'll move item C as well in my motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Supervisor Halbert, excuse, supervisor Marquez. Hi. Supervisor Tam. Hi. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President Meile. Yes. Item 62 is the first reading and introduction of an ordinance to amend the military time bank. Ordnance and extended through June 30, 2027. The title and ordinance amending ordinance number 2021-37, an ordinance establishing and implementing a time bank for military absences of county employees during novo eagles. the first reading. We will introduce the ordinance. Second. Moving on. Second by. No board questions or comments. Call the roll. Supervisor Halbert. Excuse. Supervisor Marquez. Hi. Supervisor Tam. Hi. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President Miley. Yes. Item 63 is the first reading of the salary ordinance amendment affecting a classification and the social services agency. And ordinance and many certain provisions of the 2022, 2023 County of Alameda salary ordinance. It was only a balance of the full first reading. First reading move for the introduction of the ordinance, the way the introduction of the ordinance. Second. Well, by my Lee second by Tam. No board questions or comments. Call the roll. Supervisor Howard, excuse. Supervisor Marquez. Hi. Supervisor Tam. Hi. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President Myley. Yes. That's your last item on the regular calendar, the councilmember and the councilmember and the councilmember and the councilmember and the councilmember and the councilmember and the councilmember and the councilmember and the councilmember and the So we're recessed until 450. you the recording in progress. Okay. We're back from recess. Can you take the roll? Supervisor Howard. Excuse. Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Carson. Present. President Miley. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. All right. I'll real quickly can we get a motion on the minutes from the board's August 13th special meeting? I move approval of the August 13th minutes. Second. Move to move by 10. Second by Marquez. Clerk call the roll. Supervisor Halbert. Excuse Supervisor Mark. Yes. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor Carson. Yes. President Miley. Yes. All right. And I will take up our sad items that have been postponed until 450, item 95, 96. We have made arrangements for Spanish interpreter service for this item for these two set items. The interpreter will now provide instructions and how to participate in the meeting using the Interpretation Channel. Hello, everyone. I'm Gracia from International Contact, your language host for today. We have Spanish interpreters, where this meeting and the Interpretation Channels have already been created, one moment while we provide instructions in their language. Gracia, gracias por asistir a este reunión para las conexiones virtuales. Por favor, haga clic en la figura del mundito en la barra de tareas que aparece abajo en su pantalla. haga clic en interpretación o interpretation y seleccione ES español o SP Spanish de manera opcional. Para escuchar solo el idioma interpretado haga clic en silenciar audio original se está In the next video, we will talk about the first thing that we will talk about is the first thing that we will talk about is the first thing that we will talk about is the first thing that we will talk about is the first thing that we will talk about is the first thing that we will talk about is the first thing that we will talk about is the first thing that we will talk about is the first thing that we will talk about is the first thing that we will talk about is Comments. Simplely, raise your hand and you can comment on Spanish. If this is present in the meeting room, open the application Zoom in your smart phone and enter the meeting with the number that appears on the screen. 982-71-49-1041. Click on the corner with the three points and select Spanish. To hear only the interpreted language, click on the corner with the three points and select Spanish. To listen to only the interpreted language, click and silence the original. Thank you. For English virtual participants, please go to the English channel, go to the world icon in the lower part of your screen and select English or EN. If you're using a smartphone, click on the three dots and select English. This is very important if you want to hear the interpreter comments into English in the later part of the meeting. A reminder for English speakers is to speak slowly so interpreters can keep up with you. Please keep that in mind. This concludes the multi-language instructions. Thank you. Now I will pass it the multilingual instructions. Thank you. Now I will pass it on to Supervisor. Thank you. Thank you. So we're going to take up item 96 first. We, both with 95 and 96, Supervisor Mark Hansen, Supervisor Halbert served as an ad hoc committee to see if we could come up with some consensus around some tenant protection ordinances. And Supervisor Halbert, with us, you would have been a week. We weren't able to bring him in because the other matters took too long today, but we're going to move ahead with these two informational items anyway. And once again, I'd like to start with item 96 first, the mediation dispute resolution item, because I do feel that item. We have more clarity there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. time that your board heard this was in March and that's when Supervisor Marquez, Supervisor Habert, were appointed to that ad hoc committee. Jennifer Pierce, our assistant housing director who will do the presentation has been supporting and working closely with the ad hoc committee. There were three ad hoc committee meetings that she'll go over and what she's going to present is the summary or outcomes of those meetings and we're looking to your board for guidance as to whether there are aspects of the ordinance that you want to move forward or whether you want to move the ordinance is forward at all. So with that I'll leave it to Jennifer Pierce. Thank you Supervisors. Jennifer Pierce, Deputy Director, HCD. Reading the room, I'll go quickly, I just have a few slides. We're going to be discussing the rental housing dispute resolution ordinance first. There we go. For context briefly, I know you know this, mediation, which is what we're discussing, is a facilitated discussion to resolve disputes. Many local jurisdictions have either an optional or a mandatory mediation program. Without mediation, renters and rental housing providers can resolve their disputes in other ways through small claims or a Viction Court, and there is no statewide mediation law. So for a quick background, we started this process for tenant protections in 2018 when your board directed our agency to start working on tenant protections. In February of 2023, after a failed second reading, your board sent the just cause ordinance back to the unincorporated services committee. And then in 2023, that committee tasked Supervisor Miley with having some stakeholder meetings to find compromise on just cause. This past March, your board heard the just cause and dispute resolution ordinances and directed Supervisor's Marquez and Halbert to be an ad hoc committee to conduct more meetings to see if they could find compromise on those two ordinances. The ad hoc committee met three times. Twice in May, once with just rental housing providers, one with just tenants, and then once in July with both rental housing providers and tenants, these were highly structured facilitated meetings which focused on specific areas of disagreement between the stakeholders. Stakeholder groups self-selected a maximum of 15 representatives per meeting and most individuals attended both meetings. For context, the March 26th ordinance that we brought before your board was the starting place for the discussions. The prior mediation, local mediation ordinance requires an initial notice of mediation requirements within 30 days of renewing a lease, providing a rent increased notice or a receipt for notice of untenable conditions. The mediation request is required within a certain number of days depending on the circumstances. If rent over 5% is disputed in the draft ordinance, tenants do not have to pay the rent increases until the mediation concludes. And the mediator is determined if a party is acting in bad faith and the mediation. So I'm going to have just a few slides that talk about each of the stakeholder group's positions with regard to mediation first. The rental housing providers propose that a housing resource hub be developed to both provide mediation services and ensure that both stakeholder parties know their rights. The tenants propose requiring that all participants attend a Know Your Rights training session prior to mediation, and they favored having a housing counselor to advise the participants. With noticing requirements, the rental housing providers prefer a longer window and have requested removal of the requirement to notice at least renewal. The tenants support the draft ordinance language, and I have another slide which will go into this in a little more detail, and they have requested additional noticing to make tenants aware of other county resources. So it's a little confusing, so we put together this slide. So there are different lengths of time from an event to the deadline to request mediation. 90 days from the enactment of the ordinance is what the current draft ordinance says that you can request a mediation 60 days from a notice of untenable conditions and 21 days from a notice of a rent increase or learning other facts that give rise to a dispute. Then a mediator needs to be assigned within 10 days. There's a notification window of the other party of two days, and mediation needs to start and conclude no more than 30 days unless the parties request a longer period of time. The tenants groups are in support of these deadlines. The housing providers would like shorter deadlines to request mediation from the enactment of the ordinance as well as notice of untenable conditions. So that is an area in which the two stakeholder groups disagreed. They did have several agreements. They agreed on a mediation first approach, as opposed to mandatory mediation. They requested that additional resources be available to all actors as part of the mediation process. They agreed that the principal should be present for mediation, which is the tenant and a rental housing provider or someone empowered to make decisions if it's a corporate owner of the rental housing. And they agreed that tenants should have to pay undisputed rent during the mediation process if the subject of the mediation is rent, but can refuse to pay the disputed rent increases for the period of the mediation. But if the mediation concludes the rent was justified, then they need to pay that back-ode rent. But any rent that is undisputed needs to be paid during the course of the mediation. And that is my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions. Anybody have questions? Okay let's have the speakers on the side. We'll go to the first speaker and alternate between in-person and online speakers as necessary. Least state your name and as city you live in, you will have two minutes to speak. John Williams. Good afternoon, everyone. Vizers, really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to the first one. Good afternoon, everyone. I really appreciate the work and the thought of this. You guys have put into this with the ad hoc stuff and also working on behalf of the property owners. But still, I think the just cost and for some more protections for tenants is overburden some on small landlords like myself, and they continue to overburden. And I think I want to be a part of one of those ad hoc conversations too to participate. So I said that the last time at one of the means that I want to be a part of this conversation, you know, but in all hopes I appreciate your efforts, but definitely I think we ought to not be pursuing additional protections for tenants. And thanks. Best squares, you're on the line. Best squares, you're on the line. Please, I'll meet your mic. Good afternoon, supervisors. And thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today. My name is Kulia Vazquez and I represent my hidden voice organization. We are today in a spirit of collaboration and a goal to point the counties by negotiating in good faith for the passage of Jessica's tenants protection ordinance. We recognize the importance of balancing the needs of small landlords while protecting tenants. And we believe our proposed accomplish just that. We are willing to compromise by excluding landlords and we believe are proposed accomplish just that. We are willing to compromise by excluding landlords who are for fewer units from the ordinance. We understand that the challenge is smaller landlords face and we believe this exclusion is a reasonable accommodation. We believe residents should have the right to return after being displaced. However, the current language regarding rent increase upon return is to pay. To prevent clarity and fairness to all parties, we propose a percentage increase of 2% in rate up on return. We are happy to see this in the existing bill. We ask for a commitment from the board to pass the Jessica Stennis Protection Ordinance with this resident of our community in place. We also ask that these ordinance remains on the agenda and now be the lay or the layer any further. As timely action is crucial to the tenants establish stability throughout the Alamera County. Comprehensive, just call tenants protections. Once these protections are in place, we will be ready to support the housing element and help ensure that county remains in compliance with state law. We believe that commitment we have online today are fair, achievable and necessary to protect the tenants below, also addressing the concerns of smaller landlords. We look forward to your commitment to passing these ordinance and keeping it on the agenda. I just want to mention to speakers we're taking up item 96, the dispute resolution ordinance. So please make your comments towards that ordinance. We're not taking up the just cause ordinance just yet. We're taking up the dispute resolution ordinance. So if you want to speak to that ordinance, raise your hand. Feel out of speak a card so the clerk can call you to speak. But that's the ordinance we're taking up at this moment or we're ever talking about. Paul Taylor, I knew 96. President Miley, esteemed board. My name is Paul Taylor and I am the executive director of the real housing association in Southern Allemina County. So specifically, since we're talking about 96, I just wanted to say, and I think, well, I know for sure, President Miley, you were there when we tried to do mediation. There were several times and we thought that we were gonna be able to have a consensus. And at the last moment, they pulled out. So it's something that we really want, but what we really wanted was mandatory mediation because that forces both groups to communicate with each other, to talk with each other, and it's not binding. The only binding part would have been if both parties came to an agreement. That's still what we want. So I'm not recalling that the group I was with agreed to mediation first. It's mandatory mediation. We really think this is the best way to get all the attorneys out So you can actually have a real civil dialect with tenants and heavily providers with a If you were a mediator up front, so what we're asking the board to consider is that and Consistent with that throughout, even with the meetings in your office to the ad hoc meetings, we just wanna be able to have a mediator be present. With that, I yield my time. Thank you. David, you're on the line. Good afternoon and thanks for the opportunity to be part of this discussion. I'm David Stark and I represent the Bay East Association of Realtors and many of our members are housing providers or they represent clients who are housing providers. And many are actually questioning whether they should continue with housing providers. And I mentioned this because your direction to staff this afternoon will not only have public policy consequences, but it could also directly impact the supply of rental housing available to your constituents. With that in mind, I urge you to consider policies which will do no harm. Policies which will not inspire housing providers, particularly those low volume mom and pop housing providers to sell their real units. We along with other organizations representing housing providers encourage you to adopt a dispute resolution ordinance. As your staff shared earlier, there have been some efforts to bring stakeholders together and bringing people together is efforts to bring stakeholders together. Bringing people together is key to addressing housing issues. That's exactly what the dispute resolution ordinance does. It brings people together. Finally, I encourage you to take action on this ordinance first. I know that you've got another ordinance coming up on your agenda, but we'd really ask you to focus on this dispute resolution ordinance because it brings people together. And I know that staff may not have shared this, but if you do have limited staff resources available to address these issues, we focus on ones that aren't going to drive people out of business that aren't going to reduce the supply of rental housing. Focus on solutions that are going to bring parties together like this dispute resolution ordinance. Thanks. One. A couple of letters. I also have a deviation from these. That would be obvious. In this extra further. That good. So we actually submitted our mediation ordinance first and it was a group of housing providers and community members. I'm with a group called In It Together. And we are our housing providers, duplex, triplex and fourplex owners that live in the same building, and the same roof alongside our renters. And we have a tight relationship. And we want to continue a harmonious relationship because as we feel it's a symbiotic relationship between housing providers and housing consumers and we share many common interests. My understanding is we would like a mediation process that would allow us to resolve disputes before we move on to the much more onerous and costly legal process right now that is clogged up, takes too long, and doesn't work for a lot of people when they're dealing with habitability concerns and they're dealing with expenses through lawyers that are too much. So that's the ordinance we liked and we wanted to be two sides coming together in good faith and have it be mandatory which have some teeth into it and not have a superfluous performative ordinance where some people could just ignore it and the ordinance doesn't work and now we're back to square one with a very onerous legal costly process that takes too long. So I would encourage you to make this be good faith with some teeth and some consequence so that we could move forward and adopt the ordinance that we provided to you in its entirety For our housing provider group because the group that ordinance are presented before you is not what we've put forth It was brought drafted after the one that we drafted and it doesn't have any teeth and you could just ignore it and we're back to square one Thank you Archie letta you're on the line. Look and hear me. We can hear you. My name is Sandra. I live in Castro Valley and I am in favor of the mediation process. I think it is an important tool that we can have to keep it well housed, to keep a conversation open and I think that it allows for residents and landlords to have a process that allows them to settle disputes and address any issues that might come up. So I am in favor of this ordinance. Thank you. Tom Silva. Good evening supervisors. Assistant Director Pierce, misspoke. We are not in favor of mediation first. We are in favor of mandatory mediation and that it has teeth and that it has consequences for lack of good faith effort. Assistant Director Pierce, Ms. She said that there was training programs for know your rights. No. We want to see know your rights and responsibilities. And that needs to be before going and needs to be there in in on the website. It needs to be there for everybody to see. You know, we support the ongoing planning to part, a complaint-driven inspection program, as you'll hear in the next item, it has been doing very well. You know, we look to try to end the misinformation, and you can tell them a little upset because I was in those meetings. We never agreed to mediation first. That's just a dodge that they constructed. We put forward this mediation ordinance that Twahn just put up. It's never seen the light of day. They took parts of it, but they managed to make it to where it's ineffective. And you could tell we're very frustrated just as everybody else is with this process. It's been going on far too long and it needs to be resolved now. We need to have an effective mediation ordinance such as the one that we've presented that will allow for dispute resolution without enriching the lawyers. Without creating grief, it will create an environment in which we have harmonious relationships in our community, which is our goal. So with that today, we ask that you instruct staff to adopt our version, the provider's version of the mediation ordinance, so that we may promote harmony in the rental housing in the unincorporated area. Thank you. Colle, you're on the line. Yes, can you hear me? We can hear you. My name is Carlos Arceleta and I live in the the Unicorpid area and the reason we need really any form of tenant protections are because housing associations and organizations like the San Lorenzo Homeowners Association where to this day their bylaws say people of color cannot live there. We're not talking about the 1800s. We're talking about 2024 literally and they are not the only organization institution in Alameda County that has those type of ridiculous rules that they can't remove from their bylaws. So how do you think the landlords and those environments treat tenants? We need a perspective where it's not just getting lawyers where somebody can step in independently from them and try to work things out. And like the gentleman said before, we shouldn't have to have lawyers to start that process because oftentimes the landlords are the only people that have money for lawyers. So when it comes to stuff like this, we absolutely need this. So I ask you please vote vote for this. I'm going to ask you to vote for this. Please vote yes for this. Thank you. Chair, Okay, my name is Terri Clancy, again on 96. We just wanted to chime in. I was at those at Hawk meetings and we had a lot of back and forth about whether it should be mandatory or mediation first. And we came to the conclusion that mediation first did favorable sides and was favorable to both sides. There was a lot of conversation about power struggles between tenants and landlords and possible retaliation and intimidation. Counseling was important and those things should be available but maybe not required. But we also could not support mediation without a just cause law. We feel like mediation would not be a real resolution in most cases and a lot of people would be left out of this conversation completely if they're not included in just cause. So we wanna make sure that those two things go together but we do support mediation first. Victoria, you're on the line. compromises and compromises additional that we are willing to do at this moment to the extent that the cause is approved balanced in this moment today we are here with this opportunity that is approved a governance of just cause balance and with its help to ensure the good start of our community. in this package that we have in two phases. Thank you. I think we can. Hello, can you hear me? This is the interpreter. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ask you. Yes. I'm going to go. Hello, could you hear me? This is the interpreter. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Hello, yes. I just wanted to come on and say that I do. I am in favor for the just cause and we don't oppose to this. And we ask that you please vote yes for this just cause that it would definitely benefit our community. And for the well-being of the community, and it's important that we continue on and we maintain this community safe and we please vote yes. Thank you. Lauren, you're online. Hello, can you hear me? We can hear you. Okay. Good. Hello Board of Supervisors, members. This is Warren Kushman from Community Resources for Independent Living in Award. And with this one, we tend to lean towards the housing provider space with regard to mediation. We feel that it's reasonable to hope that the housing providers and the tenants and the tenants' rights folks can meet in a space where it's safe to work things through, perhaps even solve problems. We do like the idea of a housing counselor in the ordinance. We also like the hub idea, the information hub, and we prefer a stronger or a mediation approach. We see that it's reasonable for some some support to make the mediation work so with that we do support this concept. Thank you. Clark, you're on the line. Thank you. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Okay. So I'm a very small housing provider in Alameda County and I can tell you right now that between the costs of keeping the house up and paying the mortgage and all the other costs associated with being in Alameda County, the business taxes, etc. Plus supporting my dad who is an assisted living and is the legal owner of the property, we do not have money for lawyers. And if something came to need a lawyer, I don't know what we do. We maybe we'd refinance, maybe we'd be forced to sell. So to assume that housing providers can afford lawyers, it's really kind of a myth. Mediation seems like a really strong option. My impression is that post-COVID, the courts have been really backed up. They take a very long time. And in some jurisdictions, lawyers are provided to renters, free of charge to the renters paid for by the tax payers and those lawyers push for no mediation, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, all the way to court making it as onerous and as long and as expensive as possible for both parties because hey, they get to charge the city, or I don't know, in some cases, I suppose they probably charge the housing providers, these lawyers that work for renters. And it's a system that's really being abused in many cases. So that's something to really be aware of when you make these determinations. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. Lynn Antonio, you're on the line. Good afternoon, members of the board, Roeville and Antonio with the California apartment association. We are a trade association that represents rental property owners and operators. We're calling in to support the continued discussion on the feasibility of a mediation program for Alameda County. Looking at rental disputes situations, we know that the reasons why they happen is the lack of communication. And therefore we are advocating for the county to support a neutral venue for both parties to come together and settle disputes. Time and time again we have seen that mediation works in the city of Fremont. Most of the cases that has reached the city were resolved amicably because two parties got together. And looking at the example of the Code enforcement report regarding the pilot program, cases were resolved because two parties also came together. And we are supportive of this continued communication, the continued creation of a neutral venue for both parties to come together. Additionally, this would also allow the county to gather data on real rental disputes that are happening, so that this county is not passing laws or pursuing legislations that is based on unsubstantial allegations. We need to have the data and we believe that by adopting a pilot program for a mediation, we'll provide us with that data of what are the type of disputes that are taking place. And what kind of resource are needed by both parties that the county can support and deploy to settle those disputes. We had a great project of conversations hosted by President Miley in an November 2023 meeting where the bulk of the discussion revolved around the creation of a mediation program. We thank you for your leadership and please move forward with the feasibility of a mediation program for County. Leo, you're on the line. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi, Catherine and Board of Supervisors. Beosalmado with my Eden Boys. I think overall we wanted to point out as much as mediation program is needed, it wasn't even in top five of tenant concerns. When we did our comprehensive stakeholder engagement back in 2019, we do realize there still needs to be a space and a need for tenants and landlords to negotiate. But we are concerned that bad mediation can happen, especially without a full knowledge of what ones rights are. That's why we really recommended housing counselor. And we also implore the county to look at evidence-based models that have worked and have really approached it from a eviction diversion standpoint. We recommended the Philadelphia model. We'd be interested in what our neighbors in Hayward and other surrounding folks pursued. We also wanted to point out, you know, setting up a program like this. It's also a different infrastructure, right? Because, you know, we don't have a rent board and we don't have things in place to help safeguard that mediation for happening, right? Like, you know, the bar for learning, the ins and outs of ones, you know, rights covered under state law to ones covered that are local is very high for the average renter. We've seen that. We even seen it from the legal service providers who are also not being able to represent people because they also don't have enough money even to show so you know I think even that line of the legal aid representing everybody it's also not accurate because everybody is asked you know if you are available to sustainably pay rent as well so you just need to be strengthened or So we just made it mean be strengthening board. Calling you're on the line. Hi there. Can you hear me? Yes. All right. Good afternoon. Well, good evening board of supervisors. Derek Barnes calling for me. Stay rental housing association. Sorry I had to leave the chamber. I had another meeting schedule in the evening. Good afternoon. Well, good evening Board of Supervisors, Derek Barnes, Conor Bimmy, State Rental Housing Association. Sorry I had to leave the chamber, had another meeting scheduled in the evening. But I and our members and the coalition of owners, including other organization stakeholders, like my invoice and Crill, are thrilled. We are thrilled that the board is considering this. This was something that has been discussed for a time now and we think that this is a game changer quite frankly. I'm not going to tell you anything that you haven't heard already. I left the board a letter that kind of outlines some of the specific recommendations around mediation as well as some of the other accommodations under just cause. And so I encourage you to read that letter and reach out to me if you have questions about it. But I think it over the overarching message that we want to send is that we appreciate being at the table in these discussions. Sometimes they are very difficult, but I always, I think we always learn from them. And part of being solutions architect is understanding that not one person can claim to be an expert in housing. There are so many dimensions of housing and when we come together, I think we learn a lot and we can put forth some great solutions that just help the community. And so we continue to continue to seek out those opportunities to work across the lines with mentors and staff to create these programs that we really believe can make a difference. So I thank you we fully support this alternative to speed resolution approach and so we look forward to the next step. Thank you. President Miley that was our last speaker for item 96. Thank you. Thanks, speakers. Going back to the board. This is the dispute resolution, mediation ordinance. Any questions, comments? May I? So President Miley, I appreciate starting. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. not what I heard, a lot of the concerns from the tenant groups was on the livability, the conditions of the rental units, and that's not going to be solved with just cause and or the provisions that are being called for with relocation at the onset. We have mechanisms that we put in place. We spent $600,000 to put in place the piloting of the program from mental inspection. And that has garnered at least over 100 different complaints, even though honestly the website is not all that clear. But a lot of those issues could be resolved. And clearly from what I heard with the ad hoc committee, some of the groups are talking past each other. So having a dispute resolution process in place where we can start with something that where people have consensus on. And it gives us an opportunity as accounting to evaluate the effectiveness of the just cause provisions that are in place under state law under AB 1482. And also the strengthening of AB 1482 with SB 567, which basically gives the county council the authority to enforce 1482. And to understand whether or not there are changes that are needed in state law, because since it was enacted in 2020, we imposed an eviction moratorium that didn't get lifted until last year. So that essentially was just cause, but on steroids. And so we didn't quite understand, you know, how are we going to enforce it? And what are the unintended consequences? The, I think the, the interesting thing about having the alternative dispute resolution start first is because many of the tenants were concerned, especially in Castile Valley, that it didn't apply to single family homes. That it was all multifamily units because of cost of Hawkins, because of different laws. And the version that I read that was handed out of the existing just cause provisions that are in place now. So I just want to state just how disappointed I am in this process. Even the request to take 96 before 95, to me that's extremely favorable to our housing providers. It's listed in the agenda for a reason. We've been at these discussions for five years. The tenants have compromised in many, many areas of just cause. And that's what's been before this body nearly passed several years ago. We were close to a vote at the end of March and then we formed the ad hoc committee and we brought everyone together. And now it's like a new set of recommendations. It just feels like we continue, continue to delay this much needed protection. We nearly had a regional housing bond on the ballot. And I was struggling with that because we've got to be able to lead in this county. If we can't even adopt the principles of the three P's, how can we ask our other cities to weigh in and do their part? So it feels strongly like this decision is way past due. I'd prefer us to discuss 95 and look at the significant movement that's been made. There's been many, many concessions. And what was said earlier, our housing element is at risk for losing. I heard one figure, 55 million in grant funding, but that's not calculating all the transportation funds. That's only the half funds. So it's just really concerning to me that we've taken so long to move on this. So quite frankly, I want us to focus on 95. We have consensus there, not consensus, but we have concessions that have been made. The owner is now took up 96 first, because I thought that would be the easiest one, but we can kind of take up both simultaneously. We can now hear just cause. Here's a speaker's on just cause and then decide what we want to do on speed resolution as well as just cause. Quite frankly, I do think if we adopt a dispute resolution ordinance, a mediation ordinance, that's mandatory. It has to be mandatory. It would bring both parties together, and some of the issues and concerns would be rectified there. But at the moment, if why don't we just bring up 94, 95 now, just cause and hear that and then we can figure out where we're going to go with these two matters. I just have a couple slides on this. I'll go even faster. This is just cause for eviction ordinance, or context for everyone. Just cause has two categories at fault, which is evictions that are caused by attendance actions and no fault, which are not. And that are typically caused by actions that the rental housing provider wants to take, like taking the unit off the rental market or a substantial remodel. This is the process we went through. I will not reiterate it. This is the ad hoc slide. I won't tell you that again. So the role of existing state law, which supervisor Tam referenced earlier, was central to all of the stakeholder conversations in the ad hoc committee. So as you know, state law already provides some just cause protections. It defines the allowable evictions. It makes tenants who have occupied a unit for 12 months or more eligible. It mandates that tenants evicted for a no fault reason are entitled to relocation assistance equal to one month rent, all tenants. It gives tenants evicted for an owner moving or substantial remodel the right to re-rent their units if the conditions of eviction are not met within a certain period. It now allows state and local governments to take enforcement actions. And it exempts some housing types, like single-family homes, dorms, and housing where the owner and the tenant share facilities. These are the delineations of the types of eviction for at-fall and no-fault. I won't read them out loud. There are quite a few. Again, the at fault ones or for actions that the tenant has taken and the no fault are for ones that the rental housing provider is taking and are at no fault of the tenant. So for context, again, the ordinance that was before your board on March 26 was a starting place for the stakeholder negotiations. It mirrors much of state law. It has the same types of allowable evictions, and it includes the same housing types. The draft ordinance did increase tenant protections in a couple of areas. It applies to tenants with six months of occupancy. It increases no fall eviction relocation to three months current rent or the fair market rent, whichever is greater. And adds an additional month for households with children under 18, senior tenant at disabled tenant or low income tenant. It expands attendance rights to re-rent units that are returned to the rental market within five years after eviction, removing or substantial remodel, and it expands noticing requirements. I have a couple of slides which talk about where the stakeholders are in opposition and where there are an agreement with regard to the concept of just cause, the rental housing providers oppose local just cause and state law is sufficient and that any additional protections would be harmful to rental housing providers during the conversations in the ad hoc committee there are primarily focused on relocation assistance. The tenants strongly support local just cause. They would like it expanded to single-family homes because many unincorporated county single-family homes are a rental housing stock and they believe that a local ordinance is necessary to protect tenants. With regard to the effective data protections, the rental housing providers would like to keep it at 12 months, like it is in state law, they believe a reduction of time would give insufficient time to get to no tenants and would increase their risk and make them less willing to rent. Tenants would like the protection started on day one of tenancy. They believe that that matches the fact that tenants start paying rent on day one and they compared it to car insurance and other products which have no waiting period for protections. With regard to covered units rental housing providers again do not want to expand beyond state law. They say it's difficult for small housing providers to rent single family homes or do plexes and this would make it more difficult. Tenants would like it expanded to more housing types, especially single family homes, again, given that the Unincorporated County has many single family homes that are rental units. With regard to relocation assistance, the rental housing providers did not wish to expand it beyond state law. They say that multiple months of relocation assistance is a financial burden on smell housing providers. And in addition, they mentioned they wanted relocation payments available only for households earning below 30% AMI. As a reminder, the state law provides one month of relocation for everyone, and that cannot be modified. Tenants would like at least three months relocation as identified in the March 26th ordinance and they say that it's a financial burden for tenants to find interim housing, the application fees, a moving cost and deal with other expenses for evictions that are not their fault. With regard to additional protections for protected classes, the rental housing providers do not want any relocation assistance for protected classes, the rental housing providers do not want any relocation assistance for protected classes and say that those kinds of protections will disincentivize renting to members of protected classes. The tenants support the draft ordinance language for three months of relocation plus an additional month for protected classes and they say that protected classes of people have additional difficulty finding new housing and incur increased costs as a result of being evicted. There was one area of agreement and that was both rental housing providers and tenants believe that households with a child under 18, a person who is disabled and elderly tenant or a lower income tenant should receive additional notification before a no-fall eviction. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Has staff been contacted by the tenant organization, my Eden voice, my office has been in communication with them, and I know that they've made several modifications to when we met in July. I don't know if your office has received what they're amenable to make an adjustments on. No, not to the best of my knowledge. Okay, so I'm going to ask them to please speak on that just so the full board has that information. So when these ordinances were before us, I think they were ready for adoption, that had to be I think December of 2002? No, no, like way back when. Has the just cause ordinance been modified since then, or are we seeing the same version that was? The just cause ordinance was modified from the prior version, and then Supervisor Miley had some stakeholder discussions, and then we brought back a modified ordinance in March of 2024. Can't delineate all the ways in front of me, but one way that I'd ever call is that the modified March 24 ordinance now says that tenants should be protected as of six months of Tenancy as opposed to from the very beginning or or 12 months So that was a modification that was made after the stakeholder negotiations And I'm happy to bring back additional differences between the ordinance if you would like me That's okay. I just needed to remember how many touch points there's been. So I just wanted to recall that timeline. So thank you. Anybody else have questions? Okay, thank you. Let's hear the speak. Elaine. Elaine Torres. Good afternoon, supervisors. I am a resident of Chirilan. In right now, my neighbors and I are not covered by use cars without protection. My landlord rents housing and dangerous conditions and when residents are trying to get reparsed to the serve the landlord a big thing. Here is here you can see several reports for enforced code that has been implemented in the city. conditions and when residents are trying to get repressed, they deserve the landlord eviction. Here is here you can see several reports for the first code that has been ignored for years. This isn't about money, this is about an equal distribution of power and protections. Residents have no opportunity to protect themselves against these abuse, even when we are doing everything that we can do to be in compliance with our contracts. This unique power is not only allowing the evictions but disposing people into homelessness. We need the water supervisor to pass use counts ordinance for incorporate a medical to create more equity and balance between landers and residents. We need you to not only be involved but what committed to the most vulnerable families in our community. Residents living in family single homes are especially vulnerable because they have no protections whatsoever. In our area, this includes at least about 5,000 households. We need a local use-couse extensions. We need a local use-couse that extend protections to these residents, at least those that live in homes owned by landlords that operate five or more rental units. It will prevent the landlords like mine and we abuse their power. We seek to reassure that we are on the same page as we come on you to accept this protection extension. As a supervary person, this is the decision to proceed in the best interest of the most vulnerable families. And this will be a legacy that will lead into a better relationship between tenants and landlords. Furthermore, it will be given to our children finally some protection. So we seeking to get homeowners from landlords that operate five of more rental units. So can we please have this pass at the end of December? Colle, you're on the line. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. My name is Carlos Archeoleta and I live in the Castile Valley, the Unincorporbid area. And I'd like to state this again, the Thursday, literally, housing organizations in charge of housing to this day where their fundamental rules, their bylaws, their charters say people of color cannot live there. Nate, you have the president of the San Lorenzo Homeowners Association tell you in an unincorporated services meeting that to this day their bylaws say people of color can't live there and the law tried to force them to change it and yet the law can force them to change their rules. So that means we need county rules. County just cause to protect us as tenants because the majority of the people in the unacorporated area are minorities. We need protections. And let's be honest, the majority of this area, a lot of the landlords are descendants of the people that wrote those rules. There's a reason why they can't get a majority of their owners to vote out those racist bylaws, because they won't vote for it. They'll vote to keep it in effect. And again, the court couldn't force them to change these laws. So that means we have to have county laws that protect us, that that overall these racist laws, these racist organizations. And let me state this again, this isn't some radical organization in Mississippi. This is right here in the San Lorenzo Omoners Association. This isn't the 1800s. This is 2024. When you get a house with the deed, it literally says people of color are not allowed to live there. We need protection. And the board, you guys know this. Every single one of you guys know this. Every single one of you guys know this. The general public might not, but all of you guys, you've been known about this. So we want this. Protect us. Teri Clancy? I'm Tara Cleansie. I'm 9.5. The state intends for each county to develop policies that build upon state laws. The state laws are only a starting point that lay the groundwork for this process. This allows for strong local enforcement and oversight. Just cause for mobile homes is one of those policies. Mobile home renters are included in the state's just cause policy because they are renters, not homeowners. This means that they are not included in the MRL, rent stabilization, or would not be covered by the new closure ordinance. Given that we are extending protections beyond what is already state law, not taking away from it, there should, we should at minimum be including mobile home renters in the local just cause policy. Also, the state law has a shortcomings before, as you have experienced, is very confusing who is covered and how they are covered. In the last year, all of our renters at Avila Mobile Home Park have been evicted. This is about 15 families that had to relocate and we had a very hard time figuring out what their rights were and fighting for relocation payments to help them move. A local just cause law would help families in the future to get legal help and to know their rights. One way we should build upon the state's law is to begin those protections at day one because they are currently included only after 12 months. And we believe rental protections should start on day one, especially since we have seen a trend where tenants are being evicted every 12 months before they can get rental protections. Also, the state's policy is due to expire in the year 2030. We would like to get some local protections in place before this happens. Now that we are experiencing a housing crisis, we cannot afford for families to be evicted at this rate without just cause. The state's housing crisis bill favors policies which prevents homelessness and uniformity amongst all renters is our goal. Also please don't forget our previous conversations about our views. Anything less than 400 square feet is considered an RV, even if it is standard construction. So to prevent loopholes, language should refer to the space. Archuleta, you're on the line. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, perfect. I definitely want to echo what the previous speaker said, and really emphasize that state laws were really meant to be built upon by municipal governments. In the unincorporated area, we don't have a municipal government. A municipal government is essentially the board of supervisors. And so in only having state laws, you're actually not giving us our full potential of what we deserve because there should be another layer of municipal structure to protect tenants that is not happening because we are an incorporated area of residents and it is severe disadvantage because of our own incorporated status. This is something that has been worked for for five years and it's something that we really need in our community. Including single family homes is so essential because though Ashland, Cherryland, and including single-family homes is so essential because though Ashlyn, Cherryland and Hayward acres have predominantly housing that is multi-unit communities like Castle Valley which I live in and Fairview, a lot of single-family homes that people rent and so we really need those additional protections. I urge you to take action today and really offer that protection that residents need in order to support good housing measures. I understand that there's a lot of good landlords out there. My landlord is an amazing landlord but it took having a really good landlord to understand how many abusive situations I was in and how unfair those situations were. So for all the lands that are here saying, hey, you know, I'm a good landlord. I believe you. There's a lot of them out there, but there's a lot more that are not good landlords. And there's a lot of predatory landlords that take advantage of that power imbalance. So I urge you to pass those cost protections to protect us and to give us the municipal structure and protections that we are entitled to and deserve. Thank you. Kristen Hackett. I'm here today to offer some additional context for why we must pass a balanced and fair version of just cause by the end of this year. As Mark, a supervisor, Mark has mentioned our commitment to this goal has led to new compromises on our end Which have been shared today and will continue to be shared in testimonies significantly we have taken seriously the concerns the landlords raised during the stakeholder meetings about the repercussions for small landlords and have decided to focus mostly on single-family homes that are owned by bigger landlords that have five or more units in their operation. We also accept the six-month compromise that's in the existing bill before you today. Instead of day one, as we pushed for during the stakeholder meetings, we think that between state policy and where we were standing, that is a fair compromise. And we also are in favor of the right to return. Originally, we wanted tenants to be able to return at the same rent. But today, we're suggesting that a 2% increase would be fair or a rate of return that is tied to the cost of living in the unincorporated area. And we're really pushing for just cause because there's a lot of research that suggests this is very important and effective at preventing evictions and preventing evictions is not just about evictions but it's about preventing homelessness. Eviction is the leading cause of homelessness in Alameda County according to the county's own studies and addressing spiraling home the spiraling homelessness crisis has become a big public expenditure. The state has put nearly $10 billion into that since 2018. The county 2.5 billion since 2022. These aims are admirable, but they're not truly addressing the crisis. There was a study last year that shows that. In other words, we're only throwing money at the problem. Just cause would be a simple regulatory fix that could address, that could stop evictions as well as address the only one. Thank you for your time today. David, you're on the line. Thanks again for the opportunity to share our perspective. I'm still David Stark with the Bay Association of Realtors. The proposed just cause ordinance, the one that's in front of you, won't create a single new unit of rental housing. Now think about that for a moment. The cost of the housing providers that will come with the ordinance that you're looking at now this evening, will give housing providers another reason to give up because it ignores the financial realities of mom and pop housing providers who contribute single family homes and condos to the rental housing supply. Now, earlier this week, your staff announced another round of funding to help housing providers who are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. They're clearly still digging their way out from under that catastrophe. Now, these are the same housing providers who are hearing and reading about Proposition 33 and the chance that even more layers of regulations could be coming. Now, do you think the current version of the Just Cause Ordinance will inspire confidence among housing providers. Now, if one of the three Ps is preservation, please do not adopt policies that will reduce the supply of rental housing. As I mentioned earlier, please focus on policies that will bring providers and tenants together, not policies that will displace tenants and shrink the rental housing supply. Thanks. John Williams? Good evening. Good evening boarded supervisors. My name is John Williams. The Abiction Board Tournament was definitely disastrous for not just myself but a lot of people. As the caller earlier said to we are still bearing ourselves, getting ourselves out of that mud. Just caused is harmful and even then the suggestions are doing three or four months for relocation is ridiculous. How can small landlords even afford to do that? Still, the system is already rigged where we're paying more money now trying to evict, time trying to do small claims, court trying to get our money back from the last three and a half years. With the policies that you guys have made, keep making and adding on. It's just overburden some where it's all ten and heavy. Nothing is equitable in regards to making a balanced policies where probably only small owners are also considered in the policies. The narrative about homelessness and evictions continue to kind of rewrite the narrative about bullshit. It's not really true. We're here to house people, not just place them, we're here to house them. But you keep putting it on, we can't even afford to maintain our properties here. And I'm one of those small landlords, like I would love to get out. The new policies are considering that for California. I mean, for Alameda, still kind of making it more even lessing the values of our properties, currently here in the Alameda County. We're folks who invest in them not even considering buying properties anymore. I would love to be with God, I'm focusing now currently. The addiction more to our created this narrative between landlords and tenants and all the support that tenants get, it creates this animosity, which is unnecessary. And there's already a policy, state things examples are ready for landlord, I mean for tenants, habitability, covenant and joint, and habitability standards, how do you remade these? There are already things there for tenants. What about the small landlord? And everyone actually will not even live small business. Thank you for your time. Leo, you're on the line. Hi, can you hear me? We can hear you. Thank you. Hi again, Board of Supervisors. Leo with Mind and Voice. Thank you, staff for this important update. We believe it's time to move forward with the balance and fair just cause. Our members have truly conferred all the possible positions and agree on a compromise to focus solely on covering landlords who own five or more units. This is a drastically different position than our hope to cover all of the rental homes. And our members believe it's time is of the essence to pass a much needed just cause and we hope our efforts to meet everyone halfway will be taken into account. These protections help relieve an unprecedented eviction wave locally since last year court data from Superior Court, Southern Alameda County processed 40% of all the counties eviction court cases. Southern County totals over 3,000 eviction cases or 140 local eviction perma. Our families need local just cause protections to stand this tide. Too many of our families are being evicted without a reason, increasing homelessness. Without local just cause. We spoken before how tenants will also live with a local just cause tenants will live in less spirit of participate in programs that the county desperately needs that is such as the rent on inspection program. We validated this through lessons of our own research. So some data out of 3,900 residents we currently engaged at least 850 people identified a major repair. They spoke about broken plumbing, broken water heaters, and living with infestations such as cockroaches. Of the 850 people, only 51 proceeded to talk to code enforcement. So even out of that random sample of 3921% had major repair issues, and a minute 1.3% completed the referral to code. Without protections of just cause, we predict this trend of silence will continue and will even affect our participation in the upcoming mediation and the SP resolution program. Thank you and we hope we can move forward. All Taylor. Good evening, Supervised. Here's on, I'm still Paul Taylor and I'm still with the RHA. So we've heard a lot of rhetoric over the last hour, some of it being accurate, some of it being hyperbole. So one of the things I do, I don't speak for me personally, I speak for my members. And so my members are still kind of trying to get out underneath the moratorium, They're still hurt. They're still owed money. They don't have the ability to go ahead and to go on the Small Claims Court. They do, but it's not financially feasible for them. So, as you all know, the moratorium put them through a lot of hardships which they'll never recover that and They haven't left They value what they have here in Alamina County, but I don't want to put them in a position What do they have to leave? Financially because it doesn't work out One of the things that kept saying to me was Basically we have enough between 1482 AB and Senate Bill 567 and state of California, the laws are there. Now maybe the reality is how do we enforce those laws? That might be the reality that I think the board can take a look at. So one of the things I did notice in your mission statement what it says is, and I quote, to enrich the lives of Allen County residents through missionary policies and the successful response and effective services. Just as a reminder, moment pop housing providers are also residents of Alameda County. Thank you. Caller, you're on the line. iPhone Laura, you're on the line. Please unmute your mic. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm here speaking because of just cause. The ordinance that this would include the three months of assistance for relocation. One more month, additionally, for the protected classes, including minors, including elderly, including disabled, and the right to return to the apartment without a raising of the rent, including with this also the mobile homes and single family homes. If I don't remember incorrectly, this was included in the last draft that was presented to Supervisor Miley and some of the other speakers have said, it has been years since we have been asking for just cause. So I believe it is now time to reflect upon it and that you would approve it for everybody just by the end of the year or as soon as possible because many of our people are suffering with their lack of housing. So if you could please support our community with a big show. Thank you. So let me tell you, there's no just cause and no justice when there is huge imbalance of power. How could there be balance of power when somebody is clearly a bad actor. Don't pay rent for years and years on end. And poor housing providers, immigrants, minorities like George Wu is owed $150,000 and goes on a hunger strike and cries out to the community for help so he could send his kids to college. Where John Williams over there is facing foreclosure all tons of money to the bank and let me tell you how the providers don't own the homes outright. The banks own them and the banks pay for labor, construction workers, immigrant labor that dig for foundations and bend rebar and frame up and do the roofing. If you believe that there's no consequence when you say, give something for free and have all a sub superficial story, then you believe in labor theft and material theft. It's all immigrant, hard working, working class labor. Electricians, plumbers, and people like myself who are immigrants. There is no justice when you allow theft and robberies and at-bat actors to come out and rob from hard-working people and deprive people of their hard-earned income to support their families, send their kids to college and have generational wealth and an upward social mobility. And let me tell you this false narrative about, oh, if we don't have just costs, we have increase in homelessness. Let me tell you during the eviction of Motorium, nobody was being pushed out in the street yet in the streets of Oakland. We have encampments that blew up all over across the city. 10 cities that proliferated, and yet you guys did nothing with the fentanyl crisis that we suffered without treatment for substance abuse. Get to the real problems, their consequences. Who is paying for everything? Because George is paying for something and poor John Williams paying for something. And this false narrative needs to stop. Colle, you're on the line. I met a clerk. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Thank you. Good evening, supervisors. Uh, still Derek Barnes with the EBRHA. Um, I want to get back to, um, a central theme here, which is about, you know, how we can build solutions. And so I think most of you know me well, I being in these conversations and being a part of of solving problems is really what my board and my members have tasked with to doing. So when I hear these issues and the concerns, I think about what we're doing in terms of the 3P framework of protection, preservation, and production. More specifically, what are the pillars that we can build underneath that framework where it addresses all the stakeholder needs in that David Stark said earlier does no harm. So things that address the economic stabilization in housing, the education programs, you've heard me talk about so many times and the accessibility of those programs. And then finally, the enforcement piece of this. We can have all the laws in the land, but if we don't have adequate ways to enforce and target those enforcement tactics, well, we're just kind of creating more complexity for the sake of complexity. And I think there is something that we ought to be doing to address the owner operators who may not be creating habitable living conditions and may not be operating to the fullest extent of the law. With all that, I think there are opportunities here around devising a complaint-driven rental inspection program that tethers special financing and a grant for financing repair. And then there are exceptions that we talked about too. Advancing just cause would not be something that we would support without having other accommodations and exemptions so that there's a fair treatment and equity across the spectrum of stakeholders. Thank you so much. Tom Silva. These are heavy. I would hope that you would be able to pass it off because I'm going to be referring to it. Again I'm Tom Sola. In this, there's been a lot of talk here today. One of the things that I want to point out is, again, Assistant Director Pierce Miss spoke, we did not agree to the additional resolutions. We are in the coalition once state law. There's a big complaint that they have no protections from day one. And that is absolutely false. The law of the land of America for the last two generations has been equal opportunity. If you look in that book I gave you on pages 31 through 33 it talks about the harassment protections that are afforded every person in America from day one of their tenancy day one So if they're afraid of being harassed they have protections that are in place There needs to be mechanisms to enforce that. There was talk about habitability. If you look in that book, page 1, chapter 1, page 1 through 5, go through all the habitability items. For the people to say, and it's been echoed by staff, that exist and others, that the existing anti-harassment, and the discrimination laws are inadequate, and we need additional protections is wrong. In the book you'll see the envelope I gave you and it has our beta testing challenge. We asked six questions of ten at protections and we asked that you do more. I'll tell you more frankly questions two and three are trick questions and I catch challenge you to find questions two and three are trick questions and I catch challenge you to find out why there are tricks. I can go on and on but I only have 20 seconds left and I want to be respectful of the hour. We believe in education. I passed out this book earlier today to your CDA staff and I asked her to give it to County Council. We need to everybody needs to be up on all the existing laws. Let's enforce what we have. Let's put the mandatory mediation program in place. And let's get on with creating more harmonious relationships between rental housing providers and consumers in the unincorporated Area. Thank you. David, you're on the line. Hello, my name is David Thompson. I am co executive director of my Invoiced and Unincorporated Alameda County. I'm calling today in support of a fair and reasonable expansion of just cause to include single-family residents of that are owned by landlords that have more than five units. You know, we've heard a lot today about people wanting to have good relationships and I believe in a landlord tenant relationship, one thing that can facilitate that is having good guidelines. And I appreciate that that landlords are now occurring themselves housing providers because providers often have a set of rules that guide the way they provide their service. So we have an opportunity to provide guidance to how fair and just evictions happen. As was mentioned, single family residents make up one third of the rental properties in Hunting for Pradelemi to County. And so expanding 1482 is critical. In addition, having just cause for as many units as possible, also is a pathway to protect generational wealth. Speculators across the country are buying single-family residents at a rate of about 20% nationally. And they prey on communities that don't have protections because they can jack up rents, they can kick people out, they can operate as they will. By putting in strong protections, you're allowing homes to stay locally owned. Thank you. Warren, you're on the line. Can you hear me? Yes. Warren, you're on the line. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, good. Hello, board of supervisors, members. This is Warren Kushman. Creole supports a just cause ordinance of some kind. We would like to have a strong just cause ordinance. People with disabilities in seniors are suffering. Most almost, well not a lot of our consumers that come through our creel doors are either homeless or are looking for housing. It's very difficult out there to find housing. People are being evicted. People are being sent into the streets. We do need a just cause ordinance to, as a one of several options to obtain protections to deal with this challenge. I'm disappointed that the housing provider community essentially wants to stick with state law. It's just not enough to deal with people with disabilities, seniors, and other disadvantaged groups. So please consider a strong, just cause ordinance along with the mediation piece, which I've already spoken of, where I do support the provider community. Thank you. Man Antonio, you're on the line. Good evening Board of Supervisors, Roe and Antonio again with the California Apartment Association, CA. CA continues to oppose the creation of a just cause eviction ordinance law locally. It's unnecessary due to AB 1482's existing state law and how it was strengthened by SB 567. In addition to what you've already heard of why we oppose, I wanted to point a few problematic issues on the current just cause eviction ordinance that's before you today. The big issue regarding the right to return on the rent regulation on returning to a property post renovation. The rent caps that's being proposed is effect to de facto rent control and we fear that this will actually disincentivize investments on the property and minimize capital improvements, which will then lead to neighborhood blights. This ordinance is costly, the relocation ordinance, the way that it's written is actually up to five months, which is unsustainable for independent rental owners. And there is also the introduction of a new just cost fees or attacks, another fees to make it more expensive for Alameda County providers to provide housing in Alameda County. May I remind this board that they are still recovering from the effects of COVID and now with this ordinance adding more financial liabilities in Alameda County, it's making it very difficult to provide the much needed rental housing. I think we need to be looking at the real solution here, which is enforcement of making sure that people who are reporting habitability concerns know that they are protected under state law, but also understand that you can have the strongest just cause eviction ordinance, but so long as people can't afford housing, you will have continued terminations because due to non-payment of rent. And so the real solution really here is to take a look at how we can prevent people from having a non-payment of rent termination and that will keep them in their homes. And as long as we're looking at a just cause, we're never going to truly solve the root cause of the problem. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. I'm going to ask you a question. recognize the importance of balancing the needs of small landlords while protecting tenants. And we believe our proposal accomplish just that. We are willing to compromise by excluding landlords who own four or fewer units from the ordinance. We understand that challenges is smaller land or space. And we believe this inclusion is resonable accommodation. We ask a commitment from the board to pass the just cost tenants protections ordinance. With this resident of a commitment in place, we also ask that this ordinance remain on the agenda, a not be delay or delay or any further as timely action is crucial to tenants stability throughout the Alameda County. We believe that commitments we have outlined today are fair and attributable and necessary to protect the tenants, while also addressing the concerns of small landlords. We look forward to seek commitment to passing these ordinance and keeping it on the agenda. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working together to pass tenants protections that work for everyone in our community. Thank you. President Murray, that was our last speaker on item 95. I'm going to thank the speakers. This has been very informative here on all sides of this issue. Appreciate the board's patience. Back to the board now. Surprise, Marquez. So from when I recall the end of March, there were two of us in favor of the two ordinances that were presented and to opposed and present my Lee abstained. So I feel like you charged us to form the right answer. I'm not sure if you're going to get the right answer. I'm not sure if you're going to get the right answer. I'm not sure if you're going to get the right answer. I'm not sure if you're going to get the right answer. I'm not sure if you're going to get the right answer. I'm not sure if's just going to further delay a decision point since this discussion's been taking place for nearly five years. So I think we're at a critical point where we need to make a decision. We've also heard from staff how much funding is at risk if we don't adopt our tenant, our housing element and the state is looking to us to adopt these ordinances that are on the record and my understanding is those are the ordinances that were presented back in March. And again, tenants have been willing to make some compromises with respect to specifically just cause. So I feel like they've been operating in good faith and so I really want to honor that and hope that we could adopt these two ordinances as soon as possible. And I am in full support of the modifications that have been presented by the tenants. They made a lot of compromise here. So that's what I'm leaning towards and hope that others will join in on that so we can finally get to decision making on this. Anybody else? I have the opportunity to read the letter from the state HCD about the comments on our housing element. Apparently, if I'm not mistaken, Alameda County itself is the last entity in Alameda County to have a certified housing element, but everybody else has is that correct? In Alameda County we are, but there are other counties like Marin County, Santa Clara County, some of King County that have not adopted their housing elements yet. So I had a chance to talk to some of the supervisors in some of those other counties and I asked them for a copy of their RCD letter. It seems pretty boilerplate and very unspecific about what the expectations are with respect to tenant protection. So I am not convinced that that is the reason we don't have a certified housing element. That's been you know we're several years late right and trying to move that forward. But I have to admit I had high expectations with the ad hoc committee because poor supervisor Miley, which I serve on the unincorporated services committee with him, had a mediation all his own and the same arguments are coming back. And so I was hoping that the ad hocawk Committee, which forged consensus in based on what staff is presented There's maybe like four or five areas where there's still no consensus except for the protection of households with children under 18 or those with disabilities Which are protected classes, which I appreciate. So my sense is that if the ad hoc committee of which one member is not here, wasn't able to forge consensus and I've been on this board for 19 months and the same arguments are coming back and the same people are coming back Probably in different names and different banners. So I am not convinced that moving forward we can get The kind of consensus that staff is seeking in terms of direction from this board and crafting adjust cause ordinance. Is that something that you concur with? I think that's correct and I think we probably were at that space earlier on in this year when it came to your board. I think when Suvvisor Miley was working through with facilitator on both of these ordinances that folks had their positions in Suvvisor Miley tried to find a compromise with his own version if I'm saying that correctly. To your point about housing elements that they don't, it's not prescriptive as I said before, and it also depends upon your community. And so the state does look at the needs assessment and the fair housing portion of your housing element and compares that to what kind of programs you have in place. So it's not the same for every jurisdiction. It depends what type of community you have, what demographics and what they see as programs that would help with fair housing. So at least to that point. Yeah, I appreciate that because we're talking only about the unincorporated area, the 160,000 people that are there. So, I mean, basically you concur, we're not likely to head down a path of consensus despite every effort by my colleagues. So I would like to proceed with things where there is consensus. And that seems to be the dispute resolution having a rental inspection program, having an enforcement program in place, making sure that all parties know what the rights and responsibilities are. So that's my comment. Can I just add that those conversations weren't charged. It wasn't under the preview of the ad hoc committee to address anything outside of the two ordinances that we've let it on at the end of March. So that is my point of like us further delaying and let's talk about this and let's talk about that. That wasn't the assignment. That's not what we were tasked to do. And again, the only group that is compromise, we're not going to get consensus. It's been clear. We've been discussing this for five years. We're never going to get consensus. But what we do have is people willing to compromise. And that speaks volumes to me. So I feel like we truly want to tackle this issue. If you don't want to tackle it, I mean, they just need to be clear and stop wasting everyone's time and energy because this is wasteful of time for staff, time, energy resources, the public. It is so disrespectful. You're wondering why people aren't here is because they're tired they've attended hundreds of meetings the meeting we had on July 1st or 2nd that was a heavy discussion over 100 degrees in a room with no AC I mean these people have been through so many hurdles so the responsibility is up to us if we're going to lead and make a decision. And quite frankly, we're not doing that and we haven't done that. It's very disappointing. Okay. So I'd like to start with mediation and the dispute ordinance. As I've stated in the past, on many occasions, I've been both a tenant, a rental property provider, and in this presently, I'm neither a tenant nor a rental property provider, and I've probably been a tenant longer than I've been a homeowner. Okay, so I think I have empathy for both sides here. So with the mediation ordinance, that, you know, I've supported a mediation ordinance before the pandemic, and I've supported a mediation ordinance prior to the the fellow from San Francisco Foundation who worked with staff on a whole menu of tenant protections. But we held off on a mediation ordinance so to get that menu developed. And we know that a voluntary mediation ordinance hasn't worked. We've had that in place. So a mandatory, it's got to be mandatory, and it's got to be required of both sides, the rental property provider, as well as the tenant to participate. And the mediation is mediation on whether it's single family, whether it's a duplex, a multi-unit, whatever it is, the mediation occurs. And it's a mediation on any type of issue. So maybe a Jennifer can answer a couple of quick questions on the mediation dispute resolution. So on your PowerPoint page 8, notice of untenable conditions. So the housing providers say 30 and the tenants say 60. What's the justification or the rationale behind 30? Do you know? You know, I don't think a justification was provided, they just wanted a shorter period of time. Okay, so if I split the baby, I'll say 45. Okay, so I'm gonna split the baby there and say 45. That means Bart's gonna support it, but I'm trying to like supervise my kids, move this along. And then learning the facts that give rise to a dispute, seven versus 21, what any reason there? The rental housing providers were again, just interested in a shorter period of time between that incident and requesting mediation. Okay, so once again, I'm gonna split the baby time between that incident and requesting mediation. Okay. So once again, I'm going to split the baby and I'm going to say 14. 14 is between 7 and 21. So that would answer my questions there. And then I know you kind of got blasted for saying that people were supporting mediation first. Yeah, mediation first. What did you mean by that? I don't know if you're fairly fair, the characterised. So the notes from the facilitator, which is what we were abacing, are PowerPoint on as well as discussions with staff after we heard some comment, you know, staff of the facilitator heard mediation first. That's also what the draft ordinance from March is mediation first, as opposed to a mandatory mediation, which is if you have a dispute, a concern, you want to do anything, you have to go to mediation first. We can certainly revise the ordinance in that regard, but that wasn't what we had heard of the meeting. Okay. Because I think, have we had a mediation first ordinance? What's the difference between that and voluntary? It is, that is voluntary. Yeah, right. And you know voluntary hasn't worked. You and Michelle know that. I mean, we've lived with that. And we have data in terms of how many people have gone to. What's an echo? Yes. Yeah, echo to give mediation. It's been very few. So it's got to be mandatory. So I think I would propose to the board, because right, Mrs. Information will give in direction. I would propose to the board that we tell staff to bring back a mandatory dispute resolution ordinance in that we adhere to everything that's been laid out except that the notice of untenable conditions be 45 days and that's days, right? Yes. And the learning the facts give rise to a dispute before teen. That's, I think that's what I would suggest to the board. And I can go to just cause if you want me to. Then with just cause, and you might not want to sit down Jennifer. I do think there's legitimacy in keeping single family residents out of the just cause and having it mere state. But I also feel that we have a number of entities that are buying up properties. And so I think our ordinance should just cause ordinance should start with if it should not regulate single family residents five or fewer. I think that's fair. If you own more than five single family residents, I wouldn't consider you a small landlord. That's just my gut instincts. When you get above five, you're not a small landlord. Are you going to say some general? Yes. I would also add, that's a challenge to ascertain without a rental registry. I'm going to talk about that in a minute. Yeah. So that's the first thing. And it's supervisor Mark Kispoin. That's a compromise on the part of the tenants. Because I know I've been pretty adamant that I didn't want single family included. But I do think there's rationale behind if somebody owns more than five single family residents and you're not you're not small at that point and my big concern is small landlords I mean most of them have duplexes, triplexes, single-families, residences that they're renting out. They don't have five or more. Okay, that's the first thing. The second thing is, I think you said there was around protected classes. There was support for households to children under 18, persons who were disabled and elderly, right? Well there was support for additional notification of no-fault evictions for those protected classes. Yes. But on your PowerPoint it said no additional relocation assistance for protected classes from the rental housing providers. How does that match with what we're just saying? I don't think I understood the question. Your PowerPoint page 12, it says rental property, rental housing providers, no additional relocation assistance for protected classes. Yes, they are in disagreement that there should be an additional month of relocation assistance for protected classes. But if protected classes are going to be evicted due to no fall to their own, they would like them to know for a longer period of time but that will happen. So we could still protect increased protection for protected classes, but what they're saying is they want them to have a longer lead in time. Yes, but not an additional month of relocation. I see that's what you're saying here. Okay, got it. Okay. Well, let's get to this. What? Let's see. I don't understand. What's the, this is, well, maybe it's the same slide. They said the protections will disincentivize renting the members of those classes. Do you have a reason to understand why that is? the protections will distance and arise running to members of those classes. Do you have reason to understand why that is? Once again, it's on slide. 12. Sorry, would you say that again, I don't have it up in front of me and I should. It says protections will distance and arise running to members. Oh, yes. So discussions with regard to additional relocation assistance for protected classes, the rental housing providers made the point that having additional assistance for those classes would de-inscentivize rental housing providers renting to those classes. And that would that be a violation of the law? Yes, it would. So that's kind of a red herring was put it that way. Because I know Tom's provided us with this great resource guide here. And so you can't discriminate, right? Correct. OK. Then this was just what was, right? Correct. OK. Then this was just what was said during the meeting. OK. Well, with the just cause, there's a lot of paper we've gotten today with the just cause. Where I'm landing at this point is we should include, we should not include single-famil residents, five or fewer. And we should have a provision that protects those classes of single, I mean, protects those classes of disabled, elderly, and children under 18. And then with the relocation piece, I think the issue around relocation, there should be, I think there should be that additional protection. Does that make sense? Sure. Additional protection in terms of an additional month of relocation assistance. That how many months would that be? Under the existing law, what is it? Under the existing law as one month. One month. And under, if we give an additional month, there'd be two. Yes. I'm sorry, can you recite that question? What was that? Pardon me? There was a sidebar. It was everybody's looking at me. But I'm not sure if there was a question there or come on. Sorry, I just thought you guys, I thought you wanted to interject. No. OK, all right. So right now it's one month under 1482. Yes, and if we Increased it to be two months. Yes. Our dropped ordinance said the remonst plus one month, but 1482 is one month and this would add I think once in that would be compromised on my part to go with two months as opposed to one month or Opposed to three months plus an additional month. So we've got two months, we've got the protected classes and we've got it would not apply to single fighting residents five or fewer. And though and then otherwise I would have it mirror 1482 and I've also Recognized the protections that are under SB 567 and I think we've asked that we look at having county council Weaving enforcement entity. I know none of that has been we don't have the ordinance has been drafted yet But I think that would be important that we have local enforcement through County, through County Council and I know they'll need the resources to do that. And then, the start date of which one? The effective date? I'm just raising it because just indicating that this is significant movement from the tenants. I believe the ordinance, sorry, I'm having trouble with the ordinance. I'm just asking if you just indicating that this is significant movement from the tenants. I believe the ordinance, sorry, I'm having trouble tracking all of the stuff, but believe the ordinance and correct me if I'm wrong, states. 12 months and tenants were asking for effectiveness on day one. No, no, no. But no, no, no, no, they made significant movement. Yeah, they said six months. Correct. So, yeah. Okay, so is your position still the 12 months? It's still 12 months. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. So when you said the effective date, I thought the effective date of the ordinance. Okay. And then let's see here. Okay, then with the rental registry, I know we haven't addressed that yet, but we have had proposals that we look at trying to address that through the business license tax. So that's why I want to follow up with staff, the CDA staff, the Treasurer's Office around the County Council, how we can make the business license tax serve as a registry. And then fair chance, we support a fair chance, but legally we can't do anything there. So that's why we haven't done fair chance. Proactive Reynolds. So right now with our rental inspection, it's a... Complaint given. Correct. But I know I've talked with you about looking at, potentially having a proactive pilot rental inspection ration and churrilate. So that, you know, that's not on the table just yet, but the point is I'm just giving folks a preview of some of the things I'm going to be raising after we get through these two if we can get through them and Then I think ultimately we'll begin to look at Reynolds mental stabilization as well But for now what I would propose the board is what I laid out here the mediation and The just cause and we direct staff to bring those ordinances back to us as I suggested. Yes? Oh, I just want to make sure we... We just want to make sure we caught everything that you had noted. And so, single family is not gonna be covering unless, well, those that have more than five properties for single family would be included included can we put up pause there and ask can may I ask a clarifying question when you're saying that any property owner who has five or more single family residential rental units, is that in the unincorporated county? Where do they have, I mean, if I have five rental units and three of them are in Oakland, are they my cover? If I have two more in the unincorporated, what's the geographic area of the ownership? You would have to ask me that question. I got a draft. I didn't thought about that. Yeah, L'Aliso, I was anxious things in general. Why don't we say at the moment? But the data we collect through the registry will only have data for the unincorporated area, right? So I think we're going to have to tie it to the unincorporated area, just because this has got to be data driven. And if we have the, we're not going to have a rental registry, but if we have, it, the data is being collected through the business license tax. We wouldn't be able to get the data, accurate data outside of the annual corporate area. So I think it needs to be tied to that in corporate area, unfortunately, but I think that's going to be the case. So a good question. Thank you. Go ahead. And then for protected classes, we keep the protective classes the earlier notification. And then we have for relocation for everyone, it's two months, is there an additional month for the protected class? Okay, so it's just two months across the board. Yes. All right. That's what I'm proposing. Yes. Okay, and in terms of effective date, we're going to stay with state law. Yes. Okay. Was there anything else? I'm just wondering if they own everything I didn't say once again, we want, well, I did say county council will be the local enforcing entity right And that needs to be included as part of this package and then the other thing is I Would like to have the ordinance Building a review Roughly 18 to 24 months after its implementation So that's why people's around these matters So 24 months after its implementation. So that's why people are around these matters. Can I ask just to clarify in questions just because hoping we could get this cleaned up and brought back for a vote as soon as possible. So just so we're clear. There was also a request to explicitly include mobile home renters. Is that? Now with the mobile home, I wanna keep that separate. Yes, because we're dealing with that through having a local closure ordinance and other aspects with dealing with the mobile properties. So unless staff can kind of give me some feedback to the contrary. Those are mobile home owners. And I think we're talking about here are mobile home renters. Mobile home renters are covered under AV-1482, so they would be considered within the realm of these discussions. Okay, so there would be included. Do we need to explicitly delineate that in the ordinance? Or is it just, I would probably defer to to kind of state law or do we need to? So we define a rental unit within the ordinances including spaces for mobile home dwelling units that are rented out. The mobile home rents would be included. If they're renting the space. That they are occupied but not if they are renting the mobileullahome itself. The county has a mobile home rent stabilization ordinance since 1990 and got amended a couple times including last few months ago. So is there any conflict on that or? That or SB 567 added mobile home protections under the state law And does that include whether they're running space or specifically for renting the units not for the spaces, okay? So not for this basis. Okay. So do we need to say any more around mobile home or is it already included with? So we'll need to revisit that section of our ordinance and review. Just to make sure. SB 567. Okay. Because this ordinance hasn't changed since 567. Okay. So let's flag that and county council's gonna Take a look at that to make sure We have that protection, but it would be helpful if you know today what you want it to include so that you can inform us Well, I if I'm listening to I'm listening to staff and if mobile home renters aren't included, I think they should be included. And then that's separate from our mobile home ordinance dealing with closure. Because we're gonna, we're all, just so the board knows, we're looking at creating a local closure law too. Yes, correct. Yeah, stance got a lot on their plate, but yeah. And so I did have one question because I wasn't clear on your comments, Supervisor Myley. Did you say that having County Council conduct enforcement is within the current version? I said I'd like it to be included. So it is not in the current version. Right. The new state law does allow County Council to be enforcement. And I want it to be included. Are you asking that that be an alternative to enforcement or that it be the exclusive method of enforcement? It could be an addition. Because who, right now, is it just code enforcement? Who does the enforcing? So if you're talking about how the ordinance itself is enforced, there are three sections that allow the different type of defense and remedies as well as penalties. And that includes the tenant having the ability to assert a certain noncompliance as an affirmative defense in any eviction or other litigation. It allows the tenant to pursue civil remedies and injunctive relief. So my assumption is what you're asking for is that we include language that says County Council is an additional approach. To enforcement. Yes, yes. And so I just feel compelled to go on the record that if there is an expectation that County Council will enforce this ordinance. Then there should be a discussion about the resources and staffing. You know, I don't want to keep create false expectations that suddenly we can take on an enforcement, a robust enforcement program where we have never done that and never had been authorized with staffing to take on. We generally do not provide those type of public facing services for the community. So I just, you know, that would need to come with a conversation about how that could be funded and staffed. Yeah. I do want to clarify that there is a provision in 3.7, 0.1, 3.0 under penalties penalties of B that does say county council may seek injunctive relief based on violations of this chapter which is consistent with state law doesn't say we shall or must but it's a it's a may okay and I think it's important when when staff comes back with this and maybe you kind of give us a sense of maybe what the cost might be and if there is I mean if we if we feel we can't come up with a funding source for that or it's too exorbitant the board can you know modify that. But right now we're giving kind of direction to bring us an ordinance. It's a days informational. Sorry. I said today's informational. So we're trying to give direction to bring us an ordinance. Yeah, we, I mean we. Again, we have no experience with this. This is brand new. It doesn't exist now. And within our scope of services. So we, we don't have a clear idea on what the resources are. We are very expensive, as you know. So we'll look at it. We'll see if we can confer with our colleagues and see if there's some additional information and try to address that. I just do think it's important to manage expectations about what it's realistic to expect our office to do with our existing staffing and resources. Okay, and like I said, maybe we'll carve that piece out. I think I'd deal with it the best, but I'm open to not advancing that aspect if we feel we can't afford it. The present, Miley? Yes. So my understanding is that SB567 gives the authority, doesn't necessarily require that you enforce 1482. And then there was an amendment where it's more than just consultation, you can nullify a termination notice or rent increase if the owner is not compliant with 1482. So the way it works now is if a tenant is not in compliance, by a nonpayment of rent, or there's some rent increase, the only recourse is for them to go directly to unoffload the tanner and go to court, right? How would this be different? Well, the way it's gonna be different first off, if we enact the speed resolution, that's mandatory, they'll be going there. Yes. Because it has been shown that that alternative speed resolution does reduce the case load with unlock retainers. Yes, and that would be the intent. So unless the board is uncomfortable with what I'm suggesting. Staff's got direction and I'm not gonna ask anything else of you relative to business license tax, rent registry, rent stabilization, pilot program for proactive enforcement, because if you can concentrate on these two and get these back to us, because I think what I'm surprised my kids with San, and I think I feel the same way, is we need to enact something to get it in place and then begin to see how that's working for us. And that's why I think the first piece is the speed resolution. But since people have died, just cause so close to you that we could have both of those with those slight revisions that I'm suggesting. We'll work with County Council and with the updates of the ordinance. I'm just questioning the census matters before the full board now. Is this the board's consensus that we provide that we move forward in this fashion? So, County Council, I want to make sure those consensus. So I was in support of what was before us, at the end of March, we made some modifications modifications which I'm in supportive. So that's at least two of us I don't know about the others. Supervisor Carson or Tam? I can be supportive. Totally confused and I'll just wait until I have a thumbs up. Thank you. But at least I got three. I got three. But yeah, I do understand supervised cards. And if I hadn't been living and breathing this stuff for the last five or six years, I could be very confused myself. OK. Alrighty. So I think we have concluded items 95 and 96 So if I could just maybe ask to have when do you think this can get back to us for first reading? When do you think you just get back to us for first reading? I you know, I don't want to put a lot of pressure on you, but what do you think? I'm not sure when you're next meeting. Certainly not your next meeting. Oh, yeah, I was hoping maybe October's at some point in October. It may be mid October, but we need to coordinate and make sure we're all understood what was happening. So hopefully it's one of our meetings in October. You'll give us a you'll let me know so we can come in. It's actually October 8th is a possibility. Okay. That's possible October 8th. Okay. Can I just ask just so we're clear for whatever reason? Let me just speak, there Andrea's not going to be here October 8th. So it's not coming. So the 20 second. So that's I was just going to flag. I was going to flag after the 8th. When is the next regular board meeting? The 22nd. Correct. So can we commit to the 22nd of October? Okay, very good. October. And a set matter. Yes, we'll make a set matter October 22nd October 22nd is the target date for it. Yes, yes, the first set matter for the first reading Oh, okay We made progress sitting on two major fronts Actually three major fronts So let me see here I think that concludes our agenda other than that we've already had public comment on items, but we need public comment on non agenda agenda items. So do we have any public comment on non agenda items for the Board of Supervisors today? Richard Johnson. One minute for public comment on non-agent items. Him ship. Byron prior. Kathy Rodriguez. One. I think you guys are doing a great job at addressing all these issues, but I just want to pull back and say there are unintended consequences and with regards to a lot of things that you guys think of with. It's really an ecosystem, housing is an ecosystem. It's really a wide variety of needs from the community. We have homeless folks who need shelters with supportive services, we need permanent housing with supportive services, we have low income renters who need below market pricing, then we have higher income renters who need first time home ownership opportunities and then we have other people who are trying to downsize. And because we have all this variety of needs, we have a plethora of providers to meet each of these needs and when you push some people out, it actually has repercussions and you could end up with more homelessness. Everybody's doing something in the system. There are no additional speakers. I want to thank you all of you for all the efforts and we have been trying to be in to do the best for the community. The end of the day you are the leaders. We need the protection for our children, for the new families, for the community. Then the day you are the leaders, we need the protection for our children, for the new families, and for the future relationship between us and the landers that wanna be more peaceful. Thank you so much. Whenever we're ready to adjourn the meeting, I wanna adjourn in the memory of someone. If you know more public speakers on non-agent eyes items, right? I would like to adjourn the meeting. I want to adjourn in the memory of someone. Do you know more public speakers on non-agent items? Right. Okay, super-excursion. I'd like to adjourn tonight's board meeting in the memory of Martin A. Paley. Many of us worked with Martin years and years and years ago for those who don't know who Martin Paley was, is in terms of still his presence. For 13 years he led the San Francisco Foundation. For 13 years he grew the San Francisco Foundation from assets of being about 50 million to 600 million. He was a philanthropic leader in the Bay Area, worked on a number of philanthropic ventures. The Ashby Village, the Berkeley Symphony, the Kayla Art Institute, and go on and on and on. Prior to K, you want to being our consultant, Martin A. Paley was the consultant to the county and for a number of years, work with us to kind of chart our horse head as well as work with the department heads in terms of strengthening their abilities. He passed on September the 12th and wanted to adjourn in his memory. Okay, so if we have a moment of silence. Okay, so the Board of Supervisors meeting. For Tuesday, September, what is the day? 1770 is now adjourned. I know we're not going, we're not going to bicycle session. Are we? Oh, oh, well, maybe we're not. Okay, so I'm sorry we're not adjourned. We're going to recess back into closed session. I thought we were done. So we're recessing back in the closed session. you you you you you you Recording in progress. We're going to be back in the next meeting. Recording in progress. Like to reconvene this meeting we're back from closed session. Is there any announcements? We need real cool. Thank you. Supervisor Halbert, excuse supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Carson. Present. President Meilly. the councilmember Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor the county of Alameda at all, Superior Court of California County of Alameda Case number 21CV00459. This is an announcement that that case has settled and the board granted settlement authority at a closed session on July 23rd and the settlement is now final and it's settled for the amount of $140,000. The vote was Supervisors Carson, Tam and Marquez voted yes, Supervisors Miley and Halbert voted no. So that was a three to vote. In the matter of Gonzalez V. Boyd at all, Superior Court of California County of Alameda case number 22CV 018 171. That case has now been finally settled in the amount of $150,000. The board authorized settlement in the case on July 9, 2024, and it is now settled. Supervisor Halbert Tam and Marquez vote it yes, and Supervisor Carson and Miley Works used. So that vote was 3-0. And that concludes my announce out. Thank you. So the board supervises the meeting for September 17th, 2024 is now adjourned. Recording stopped.