Okay, good morning everyone. I'd like to call the April 7th meeting of the Board of Supervisors Transportation Planning Committee meeting to order. And I would like to say that in person, first of all, I'll call for the quorum roll call please. Supervisor Miley here. Supervisor Halbert. Present. I would like to say that in-person participation and remote participation is encouraged if you're in person and wish to speak on an item please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to the clerk if you're remote the clerk will now give brief instructions on how to participate. For remote participation follow the teleconferencing guidelines posted at www.acgov.org. If you'd like to speak on an item, remotely use the raise your hand function at the appropriate time. Thank you. The first item is an informational item. The Castro Valley Boulevard resurfacing and restriping project. I believe we have a brief staff report. Welcome, staff, Director, Agent, well, that's in bed. Welcome. Good morning. Daniel, well, that's the director of public works. This item is an informational item of a project that we have undertaken along Castro Valley Boulevard. Castro Valley Boulevard was resurfaced from Redwood Road all the way to five canyons. And the resurfacing is typically, you know, our annual resurfacing program where we resurfaced. But to amend our worth of roadways in order to ensure that they continue to provide us good traveling surface without actually creating a lot of issues for traffic, with particles and various other failures. And as part of our resurfacing program, one of the strategy that we follow is once we do other surfacing, we go back and look at our Black Pet Master Plan to see if any of the resurfaced streets were identified for any other different kind of treatment, because there's a lot cheaper to perform a restriping. Once we do the overlay rather than actually doing it separately as a separate project. So Castrovala Boulevard was one of those that posed that opportunity for the agency. And when we look at the bike-weight master plan, Castrovala Boulevard was designated as a class two facility. So we have gone out and of course, like do diligence to look at what impact it would have if we were to put in a class two bike lane. So we looked at availability of adequate off-street parking, preservation of as much of the on-street parking as possible. If there are any adequate right away to install the class to bike lane, we also checked side distance for driveways and safety for people pulling it out to see if the parking has any impact. The recent law compliance was AB 413, which is a daylighting law that provides for some type of visibility at intersections by eliminating parking, at least 20 feet from the intersection, so that the vehicle traffic could see pedestrians and folks on wheelchairs. And then retention of existing parking restrictions like red zones, we looked at far hydrant access so that we can have adequate access as well as uninstructed bus stops. So we looked all of these things and the determination was that there was adequate off-street parking afforded by that area that it's warranted to put in a class to bike lane. So we did that and as a result, for example, if you go to the slide next piece, you can do visually also So This is the limit of the project. As you can see from redwood all the way to five canyon. Next. And as you can see from center street, basically all the way to five canyon, there is no change. There existing existing, no parking restrictions and all those things are the same. No change has happened from Jensen to Santer Street next. Now from this kind of give you a good contrast right there from Redwood Road all the way to Center Street as you can see all the existing red lines that you're looking at are existing restrictions that stay in place no change to the red lines where you see a green with numbers one four two and five and nine Those are the areas where we are actually removing on-street parking so that we can provide a class two by claims. And as you can see from this area, I think it's a good representation. If you look at on the north side, from Redwood Road to Forest Avenue, there is no parking is taken on the north side. It stays the same. No impact on street parking or we still provided a class too. From Forest Avenue to Marshall there are about 12 spaces taken. As you can see there's one, two, and nine and as you can see nine out of the 12 was in front of the right aid parking lot right there. That's substantial number of off-street parking that is readily available at that location and you know the frontage of those nine spaces as you can see is the right aid building so that to us indicates is adequate off-street parking to warrant the nine spaces. Marshall Street to Center Street and Center Street to Five Canyon, no parking impact, zero. And if you want to follow these numbers, that touch memo that I provided you gives you these numbers in a clear fashion. At the south side, from Redwood Road to Yendell, which is, you can see, we would have about approximately seven of street parking that are impacted, but those seven parking spaces, right there at the beginning, are I read, we're road and various areas, you can see it adequate off street parking, I mean, substantial amount of off street parking available. And then from Yandelton, or bridge, there are 10 spaces impacted, six of which are in front of what is now KB homes developed, right there by in order to break North Bridge, you can see that six spaces. And then from North Bridge to Marshall, all the way up, you can see from front of the mobile homes and those areas approximately five space impacted from Marshall to center and center to five Canadian zero spaces have been impacted. So we believed and we believe still believe that there's adequate off-street parking to offset any loss of on-street parking that might have been impacted by this improvement. The one issue in question that was raised one time was the conditions of approval for the KB homes had consideration of use of all street parking in front of the KB home development along Castro Valley Boulevard when we look at the conditions of approval, it was very clear that no conditions were set for those all street parking, as a condition of approval for that development. In fact, the only condition that has was a long Norbridge, which had 13 spaces that were allocated and they have constructed the 13 spaces, a long Norbridge for that development. So clearly from the agency's point of view number one, we are installing or implementing the board approved by PID Master Plan number two is adequate spaces provided by off-street parking. And if you go to the next several slides, I just want you to see specific to this area. Right there, that one space that you see that we will be losing is in front of the bank. And generally speaking, not many in the bank has adequate spaces. As you can see next to the two spaces by KFC, KFC has its own on street parking, off street parking. And as well as when you look at the bigger picture here on the bottom right hand side you can see the peas that shows you the blue are all the off-street parking available for loss of approximately the first seven spaces spread out along along the that green area as you can see. So there is absolutely adequate spaces available next place. And then when you look at between Eastbound Castro Valley at Keto, there's four spaces. And as you can see from the aerial view at the bottom, there is the CVS has enormous amount of parking. All right, next to it is a business that has its own off-street parking. And the little cottage housing has its own parking. And my understanding is a couple of these spaces have been used by guest parking. Or guest parking purposes occasionally. So we feel like that that's adequate. Space is available for the occasional use for people to use offsite on their own property. So these are the two, the four areas that are impacted because of this improvement. Next. And then in front of KB homes you can see, the six spaces. But if you look at the area, there's a several off-street parking available along Norbridge, including on KB home sites to adequately accommodate that development. So we strongly felt that this is a worthwhile trade-off to provide a safe biking facility along Castro Valley Boulevard for these parking trade-offs next. And then as you move on, this is one of the most vocal ones that we heard, the Burrito place up there, they basically lost one parking space. That's it. And from listening to the conversation, you think this is a lot of spaces. But I think the Burrito place was afforded a lot of off-street parking along Norbridge, it's a simple walking distance, and along Aspen Avenue for the purposes. Currently, you know, people park illegally right there by that white, as you can see, there are fire hydrants and all those stations and we don't consider illegal parking as part of the consideration for the trade-off. So these places only lost practically one space only and yet there is over 13 spaces provided by the KB home side as well as across streets from the KB home on Norbridge. There are several parking spaces, on street parking that are available, which is currently being used by the way by the customers of that corridor place. Next. And then as you move on further, you can see the spread out is, you know, about five spaces and almost all of them have their own off-street parking accommodation. And so this is about five spaces that we're talking about from Norbridge all the way to Marshall. And we feel that these parking spaces are available. Each one of these mobile homes have parking accommodation for each one of the mobile homes. And there is a business area that has actually its own off-street parking for business customers. So this is also why we considered a very reasonable trade off between providing a good safe bycline along Castroviali Boulevard versus Parking. So, and then the other one that we heard quite a bit was this animal dog and cat, I don't know, maybe some kind of business there. And they basically have approximately two spaces, three spaces that potentially was impacted by this action. And same thing, you can see the area they have a long forest avenue, the parking, off-stri-parking, on-stri-parking as available. And these areas, if you go across forest and go down further, who was red would road that entire area. On street parking is not touched. It's there. It's available for any business that want to do business with this small business there. One of the interesting thing about this business was the person was expressing their frustration by the amount of abandoned vehicle type of parking, RVs and various things, which we were experiencing over the years. And one of, in fact, one of the value that we think this project has brought in this area is a lot of, you know, people parking cars for sale, abandoned trucks and, you know, RVs. Those were the people that were actually using this area, more so than this business particularly. And the business owner and their email actually expressed that sentiment when they communicated with us. So this area also, my judgment, has three spaces with adequate space available to compensate for the loss of these two three spaces. Next. And this one here is another one. As you can see, I don't know how many spaces out there on a right-end space, but that entire area should have an excess of a couple of hundred parking spaces. And the front edge right there, we're losing the numbers that you see are the number of parking spaces that will be removed to accommodate the bike lane. And this one, to me, is very obvious. There's adequate spaces available at this location. And I just want to say, if sometime in the future, this become a highly developed area and all of a sudden these nine spaces become critical, we could always re look at something like that in the future and see and do that trade off again. But at this time, the trade off is very obvious for us that a safer bike lane along this route for lots of these nine spaces in front of this enormous parking space is somewhat logical to me. So that is something that we considered and implemented accordingly. So the conclusion is very straightforward. I think the opportunity to restripe and implement the Bike Pridmaster Plan class to a long cost of valley boulevard was apparent when we looked at this project. And some folks might say, how come you didn't discuss this in a broader setting? You know, the Bike Pridmaster Plan has gone through an enormous amount of public scrutiny and public process to be implemented and adapted by the board. So the notion of further additional engagement from my judgment was not at this time necessary because clear analysis was done to even further affirm that the bike with master plans recommended action adapted by the board is a reasonable action to take considering the fact that the impact associated or the trade-off associated with these spaces is really in the interest of a better and safe bike route rather than maintaining bike lanes. I mean, parking at this time are not as critically necessary. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any question. This is informational. We're not asking any particular direction. At this time, the project was implemented. And we have received enormous amount of kudos for the very nice work that was done on Castolvali Boulevard eliminating the cracks and and the pie holes and all those things. And the project is considered a very big success for us. Thank you. Okay, very good. I'll see if there are any clarifying questions before we go to public comment. Supervisor Miley, any questions or comments? Yes. I just want to make sure I heard this correctly. So before moving ahead with this, the only public engagement was to the bike pen master plan that's been approved. Otherwise, you went ahead. So this didn't go to the Mac or anything like that. No, it went to the Mac after the fact because somebody inquired about it, so we went there. So remember, this is not a capital improvement project. If it's like a capital project, like some of our sidewalk project, we would go through a community process and go to the Mac and all those things because that is a capital. This is a street overlay project. This is a routine maintenance project that we undertake and take advantage of that to make sure that we adapt or implement the bike master plan when that opportunity arises and we've done this now since the master plan has been adapted. Yeah, that's what I want to understand. So that's your your basic of procedure just to go ahead and do this sort of thing. Yes. To implement the master plan, it's not okay. And with these resurfacing projects, okay. So if it was a street, so this is just resurfacing and restriping, it's not a construction or improvement or anything like that. No, no, this is, like I said, we just wanted to make sure that when we restripe the street after your surface it, can we implement the bike-good master plan? And in most cases it's not relevant because the bike master plan does not acknowledge because this is like one of the out of the 10 million project, 10 million dollar project, one of the project that we have, we Okay, so no typically you could have sized for not doing bike lanes or not being as sympathetic. So this is a class too. So what that means is it's just a dedicated bike lane. And people, drivers can I go in that lane, nor will they be parking? No, they can't, yeah, they can't park on the bike lane even though some people do while it's those things. It's an enforcement issue, but they can't park. And I think that's why I'm saying I think it's just a matter of balancing. This is as you know parking versus bike lane is not a very easy discourse among the public, but this one is a fairly much apparent thing that you have a very busy, very much highly traveled roadway that has a bike lane on from Redwood Road, you know, Mac, and then from five canyon up towards, so this was a gap. And the other interesting thing is that KB Holmes development has actually implemented a bike lane along Norbridge connecting to BART. So this is almost a very logical thing to do to have that continuous connection for bikes. And look, I do appreciate some of the argument that we never seen bikes and stuff like that, but we've received also comments from bike folks saying that they appreciate the safe pathway that we have provided along this roadway. Okay. Yeah, so that's new news to me that we have, of course, we know there's a bike master plan, but that this is fulfilling that bike master plan is what I'm hearing. You say maybe it's important that we would identify and just remind everybody this is going, it sounds like, may continue to happen. Are there other future overlays? We do them every year, certain sections at a time. What's your next overlay and eliminate parking? What's your next overlay? Will it eliminate parking? What are the future overlays that will eliminate parking? Because that's the plan, is why I understand it from the bike lane master plan. And I haven't reviewed it in detail, so I can't comment. There's no parking master plan. There's nothing that says preservation of parking master plan or anything like that, but it sounds like you're doing this as part of a plan that's already in place. Did the bike lane master plan, was that approved by the master? Yeah, the bike lane master proved and adapted by the board. By board, but we did it go through the Mac. Yeah Yeah, I would guess it would oh it went through an extensive public process Before it was adapted. But the point you're making out yet. Well, what other thing that we do in addition to We don't just blindly say because this is what the master plan say less adapted. We actually do do diligence like in this case. We literally evaluated block by block. What is the impact? And as you can see clearly our position was that the master plan should be implemented as recommended because the impact the trade off. So help me understand that, because if if this is, it's still, even though we have a bike master plan, there is still some discretion in this. You mentioned you did this as part of that plan, but you also mentioned if there's a problem with parking, we can undo this. Yes. So this is not so explicitly prescribed by the master plan. It's a discretion, allows us to undo it if we see the need for parking, as I heard you say. And so that's interesting to me, the bike lane master plan doesn't specifically require this, but it's consistent with the plan is what I'm hearing. Is that more accurate? That's correct. It never takes away your authority to change your mind basically at the board, because you could actually say, we don't need, and then we're seeing in some different jurisdictions where they're moving by claims because the need for parking was a lot more apparent at this time. So this, I think, is at this time, this one makes like a very logical sense to ensure an active transportation system that we all endorsed historically that we need to implement. So I would say, if sometime in the future, the need arises that this is no longer a viable option for the community, the board could always change its position. So with regard to the properties there, you mentioned the right aid property. I think is that under redevelopment, something activity going on there? Are we going to convert that? or are there other projects in the immediate area where parking is going to be a concern, either parking going away or additional parking needed based on the activity that we're going to be conducting in that area. Is there things going to change in the near future? So I don't know what the plan is. Well, the planning department with the cash early max going through an update of the specific downtown specific plan, which will include that entire area and the right aid site. I mean, ideally we wanted it for mixed use, but the owner apparently according to the zoning is going to do a commercial development there is supposed to mix use but I think I see it's a hover here but I can see it again. Oh right, but I think once the master plan the new downtown master plan is created I think there will be some changes along that that whole stretch going all the way down to state 580 potentially but, but I don't know. Roger you want to speak to this a little bit more Yes, good morning, Rod Rieger doing you with Alameda County playing the current yes supervisor the Castra Valley Central Business District specifically plan is still in its draft form. We are still working out a very generalized improvement proposals for the boulevard itself, Councillor other boulevard as well as land uses and other potential multimodal transportation updates. Regarding the right aid site, there is commercial development that has been approved, a large restaurant and banquet hall as well as a grocery store and not mixed use development. And that's because it's the zoning allows for that now, right? Correct. Yeah, but I'm hoping when we do a new downtown specific plan, you know, going prospective into the future, we kind of make some accommodations for mixed use. It's quite frankly that site. We've been a great site, but there's other sites along the Boulevard there as well. Anyway. Very good. We'll go to public comment now members in the more comments. Yeah, one other quick thing because I just indicate clarity in my mind. So on summer said that wasn't restriping or resurfacing. That's a construction project. That is a camp from a project. Totally brand new. We will become, and I think we went to the Mac, we went to, as you know, we went to Hugo's a couple of times. And there's several other projects like that that we go and actually hold a community meeting because it's just more than by a clinician. It's a sidewalk, it's a safety, it's all kind of stuff. Okay, all right. Yeah. Well, let's go to public comment then we'll start with in-person speakers. And. and by a condition, it's the sidewalk, it's the safety, it's all kind of stuff. So let's go to public comment then. We'll start with in-person speakers and then alternate with online. Kelly, Upper. And do we have people raising their hands online? We just went through a whole presentation based on the assumption that parking is an end in and of itself and that we should have a parking master plan with the ultimate goal, the God, we should all worship at the altar of parking. This of course is a you know, we should burn these pagans at the stake. The Castro Valley Boulevard has, we just heard Mr. Proven to have plenty of parking. We shouldn't be measuring parking. We should be measuring how many businesses are going out of business because they don't have pedestrian traffic, because they don't have bicycle traffic. How many people are going bankrupt because they can't afford the rents because all the space was taken up by parking? How many people are getting killed on Proctor Road by cars running them over? And now, Mr. Waldecin-Bett is here spending all this time telling you about Caster Valley Boulevard. He just spent a lot of time, he's going to be spending a lot of time rebuilding sidewalks on Proctor, so maybe fewer people will get killed. Ashland, a mission Boulevard on Ashland, or he's 14th or whatever you call it, has no parking. And he's not, you know, who is attacking, who's standing up for Ashland, saying demanding more parking on Ashland, because it ain't got no parking on Ashland. How about that shining beacon of modernity and advanced urban planning and the fastest growing city in the county? How about, we were talking about Castigali Boulevard, how about Dublin Boulevard? How much street parking they have on Dublin Boulevard? The most advanced, the most well planned, the most carefully thought out, the most intelligent road around as zero parking. So all of this goes to say that we're wasting our time with, you know, bowing down to the people who are demanding more parking, we don't need it. Garland, you're on the line. You have two minutes. unmute your mic. Garland. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I agree with these speakers that mentioned that parking is a false right. Roads are meant to transport people. And it's not meant to store private vehicles. So you really need to support safe transportation. And that's all kinds of safe transportation. I agree that the Bike Master Plan was something that went under intense scrutiny and tense review and needs to be supported by this very body that approved that master plan in the first place. I think that Somerset was a clear miss. This is an ability to write that at least part of it by continuing to support alternate means of transportation. Somebody said that there were very few bicycles and that's actually not true. I see more and more especially electric bicycles on the road and people of all ages are now using that. We owe it to the Valley, Castro Valley community to ensure that they have a safe place to ride on. So thank you. Matt, you're on the line, you have two minutes. I think you, if this was a major gap for east west transportation in Castor Valley and so it's a big win for everybody. I bike this area quite regularly and it's you know it was a serious danger and the road is incredibly wide here. This could have even had like an elevated, separated bikeway, you know, not this part of any kind of construction plan, but there's room to do that. The idea that this is an area that's having compromised over parking, there just isn't any compromises needed. And a huge number of the cars parked along this area are cars for sale, which are illegally vending in the right away and expired cars that people are just storing. But they aren't even losing those spots. That stuff will continue to happen out there. This whole gap from Redwood Road all the way over to Crockanean, it was a massive hole in bike safety for Castor Rally. So this This is a big win for everybody. It's not really interfering with anybody's parking and is making biking. And this route actually connects many schools as well. The elementary schools and routes to the high school. So it critically important stretch of road and grateful that we got it going. I went that it opened I went out and wrote it and it was much more pleasant and safe experience than having to hope that people would respect my section of the road. So thank you. Collar you're on the line. You have two minutes. Bruce Judy here. I'd like to thank public works for actually implementing the, not just the bicycle and pedestrian plan, but the climate action plan as well. There was no mention whatsoever of the climate action plan and there generally isn't, which just puzzles me. I don't know the decision makers. What is it's going to take to get the decision makers to take this climate crisis seriously. It's going to have to be an injury to a close family member, a flooded house of their own house or something. I don't know what it's going to take. We keep having fires. We just had another big one in L.A. That is definitely linked to climate, the crisis because of the extra dry weather that they had right before. We got the extra high winds, 200 mile per hour winds, they have never been recorded before. So I think this is, we know we need to reduce driving. That has to happen. We will not reduce driving by promoting driving, by maintaining parking spots, and by making it more difficult to have some kind of an alternative. And connects directly to BAR. This is a very critical first-last-mile connection. That's very important. It also connects, now you have a continuous bike route, from a little before Redwood all the way to Dublin and San Ramon basically. And so this is like a big win, just like the last speaker said, and it's a big continuous route. And people do commute those distances, especially when that's Safeway headquarters, which right there on the other side of the hill. So I definitely appreciate it. I use it now frequently because I actually write out to Dublin. Thank you. Dail, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Yeah, I'm Dail Silver. I'm speaking as an individual at this point, not as a member of any group. I live in Fairview, but I do a ton of business and a ton of shopping and cash to Valley. Those of us questioning the loss of parking in front of two or three or four businesses are not antivicycle. I for once certainly agree that safe and well-marked bike lanes are an asset community and public works to the beautiful job and repaying and and and doing the stripping that they did. No one's against the bike master plan. The opposite of compromise can be reached where the one or two spaces in front of one two or three only impacted businesses can be restored. These businesses had parking spaces when they moved in and when they've long conducted their business. It's not hard to see, for example, the importance of the single space in front of Framework Bank, how important that is for a mom of small kids hoping to make a quick stop at the ATM right there, or a slow moving elderly person. I drove by last Thursday, there was a Luma's van, a Luma's money van parked in that space, illegally at the moment. Is it safe for Luma's to park around the corner and it crowded parking lot with lots of others around? Regarding coming up with a compromise plan, it would seem that the subject needs to be given a full public hearing at the Caster Valley Mac. Their businesses can suggest modifying the striping to accommodate them while continuing to provide a safe route for bicyclists. There should be a public hearing where possible changes are put on the table for recommendations by the cast and Valley Mac. Thank you. Mark, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Hi, good morning. Yeah, there's a little bit of misinformation going on here. I actually chaired the Mac at the time that the bike pet plan was going through and the Mac was uniform in removing the idea of removing parking from any of the public streets. The bike people wanted all the parking removed from center, Lake Shaboe, Redwood Roadcast, Boulevard, all over town. That was all stricken by the Mac. Every time this on-street parking has come to the Mac, the Mac has been uniform in trying to preserve the on-street parking and Supervisor Miley knows that very well. In this case, doing an aerial survey using Google to determine parking demand is inadequate. The right-aid building was just approved for a seat restaurant and 25,000 square foot grocery store. It has 300 parking spaces and when those buildings are open, they're going to need that parking on the boulevard. The KB project, there was a lot of discussion that occurred about the six new retail units that are being built that front-castor-bell valley boulevard and the six parking spaces right there that were part of that. They wasn't in the conditions of approval because the applicant didn't need to build those, they already existed. But public works isn't really involved in this part of the process. That's why an issue like this needs to go to the MAC. It needs to be vetted before parking is removed. And the MAC has said they would like the parking restored, the Chamber of Commerce is weighed in, and the Planning Commission has weighed in. So the ask is that, you know, two tenths of a mile of parking be restored on a two mile stretch in front of businesses that need it. And no adequate parking survey was done as far as what the parking demand is per thousand square feet of retail, which is what would have been done in a planning part. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Yeah, thank you very much. This is Gary from the Cush Valley Eden area Chamber of Commerce. I am speaking on feedback received from the community and not necessarily my personal views. We have heard from several businesses along with residents along the restriped area that parking has become a concern and that no business knew this was happening beforehand. KB homes is putting in commercial buildings along CVB and as parking was allowed at the time it was approved they didn't consider it to be a needed condition. Nobody's perfect dog and cat rescue lost parking in front of the location and does not have its own parking lot. They are looking for a new location, possibly outside the area. The CVS building is being developed and will have large events in the banquet area and these spots will be in high demand during a wedding reception or similar event. many of the residences of the mobile homes don't have visitor parking inside and use this area for visitor parking. We do support bike lanes where appropriate, but we have concerns that no public input was available from the business or residence in this section on the removal of parking. We ask that this is looked at and public comment is allowed. Our understanding of the bike master plan is that when parking is removed, public comment is needed. So we'd love a clarification on that. I tried to look through, but it's very long and I couldn't find exactly in there, but at some point that would be a great thing for planning and the community to know. Thank you very much for your time today and we appreciate it. I'm sorry I have a question for that speaker Gary if you could raise your hand again and be recognized. Gary question for you as you have you're a part of the chamber there. Have any businesses gone bankrupt or out of business because of lack of bicycle lanes? For lack of bicycle lanes? No sir. Pardon? No we have not heard any feedback that anybody went bankrupt because they did not have a bicycle lane. Any businesses close or refused to move to Castra Valley because of that? No, sir. Okay, I'm just clarifying because the comment was made earlier that businesses are going out of business bankrupt, able to survive because of lack of bike lanes. I just wanted to clarify your opinion is not all right. Thank you. Next speaker Dan Hello, I'm Dan DeBinney. I sit on the Castor Valley Mac, but today I'm speaking in my personal capacity The Castle Valley has some wonderful bike lanes. Part of those bike lanes in the past have sacrificed big portions of our transportation infrastructure. For example, on Redwood Road and Lake Shaboe Road, entire lanes of traffic in each direction were removed. Those were appropriate decisions. Those roads are less traveled and the advantage of having bicycle lanes, particularly leading to recreational areas, made a lot of sense. It was earlier mentioned the Somerset Road, bike lane proposal was denied because that didn't make sense. I think a lot of this restriping does make sense because it doesn't affect parking, it doesn't affect the transportation system that we have. However, I disagree in the downtown area on East Caster, the assessment thatullabar. The assessment that there's adequate off-street parking relies the facts. When you try to visit those businesses there and there's some 20 odd businesses, they're all greatly impacted. The mobile home park there to be able to have guests is greatly impacted. So I think we really need to do a more careful analysis of the trade-off between transportation, infrastructure, and recreation infrastructure. Like I said, we do have great bike lanes, but they don't work for all of Castro Valley. You have to be fit. You have to have leisure time. We have a lot of hills in Castro Valley where the major developments are. We have families elderly disabled. I think that the bike lanes are really, really for a very small privilege of a little bit of that. Thank you. There are no additional speakers for item one. Okay, very good. I'll see if you provide. Why is there any other questions? I have a couple. Yeah. Okay. So, um, I want to speak or mention that before parking is removed, the bike pad plan may call for some type of public engagement? Is that in the bike pad plan? Not in all cases, but in some cases when it's not very clear it will say to be evaluated further. So, to me, I think we evaluate every action we take on the back of the headmaster plan before we implement it. Number one, it's just a timeline itself. It was adopted five years ago, something's changed. So we always look at them and see if they make sense. So, you know, look, Kaby Homes, yes, they're putting in something, but the on street parking was never accounted for as a condition of approval. So, you know, your board has heard this dichotomy between biking and parking and various things all the time. So, at end of the day, if you read my memo, you can see that we've done the necessary due diligence to actually look at, is this a worthwhile investment? And the public interest to make sure that there is a safe access by clean. And like I said, anything changes. And if you both decide this is not insist with the community's need and value, you could always change. At this time, I think it's an action that was taken by public works that makes absolute sense in advancing active transportation, complete streets and, and by paid master plan, as well as one of the speaker mentioned, climate action plan. So these are all actions that you board has adapted that we implement and you adapted them through extensive public process. So I think it's a little bit of unusual for people to kind of say there was no public process. There was. Okay. Because, you know, we heard from, I don't know if Gary was speaking in his capacity with the chamber, the Cassiali in chamber, if you speak in his official capacity, but's raised concerns, a few of the Mac members have raised concerns. And I think what they're saying is, can this be vetted more publicly? Yes, absolutely. I think if we were to make substantial impact on a smaller area, I think that would make sense. But if we want to do a public discourse on every single part of the space that we want to manage for safety reasons or for ADA reasons or something like that would be very unproductive for use of time. But I would say, look, as we speak, there are several jurisdictions removing bike lanes. I just read one in Houston, they were doing the same. The other maybe was a California thing, but it is. So the decision to modify action taken by public works or by whoever by the board is always a true discretion. So at this time, I think this is a very safe, connected, consistent with your policy action that is not affecting really that many people that I can think of even as a business. I think the Chamber of Commerce might want to also evaluate to see if there was value ad by having bike lanes and pedestrian ways for businesses. I think, you know, Castro Valley is growing. There's a lot of activity downtown and promoting pedestrian access to businesses actually is one of the ways a lot of businesses and large jurisdictions are benefiting from. So I personally don't have any value statement in either side but implementing the board's action and promoting making sure that every transportation user, every petrion of our transportation is safe. That's our objective. Because another speaker mentioned maybe removing parking at certain, because I know you did a real thorough analysis, but is there any place where we should have kept parking? Because I was even thinking, for mobile park home where to there visitors park. They have on street on site parking. They have on site parking you saw there's a little parking lot right there in front of the business. So if every mobile home person have a guest all at the same time, you can have all the on street parking that won't be enough. So I think that's the other thing we need to look at. If we're going to think of worst case scenarios that every mobile home park should have an extra parking space and it needs to be on street, you might as well, there's a net the entire Castro Valley Boulevard as a parking area. So, no, I think, you know, sometimes we make business decisions, and I like the burrito place, is at a corner that is, you know, very naive, I mean, there's a nice place. But, you know, it was never well thought out decision to put that business there if parking is critical because there's only one parking there and I doubt that business survives just on that one parking. But we also provided about 13 plus and other five on either side of Norbridge for people to go into business at that location. I think these are the kind of trade-offs every jurisdiction makes and I think you know the And the other thing is you mentioned the mobile home park I would hate to see people crossing Castro Valley Boulevard and park across street in front of in front of Right aid and crossback That busy street that would not be something I would encourage anybody to do even other visitors. So. And then. These are striped bike lanes. If you needed to remove it, how rapidly can a can, you know, portion be removed? A can be removed. Removal is not a custom. Consume it. It's just you go in and scrub them off. Yeah. Because I know the in San Francisco and the Valencia, they're removing that by laying you out because of the concern because merchants. And then I need to determine because you you said, with some parking, you do a more public process. How do you make that distinction between doing a more public process before parking is removed versus just going ahead and doing the restriping and resurfacing. So the parking by itself is not the subject matter discussion when it comes to capital and from a project. We go to the community and say we're going to be putting this project forward. It's going to include bike lanes. It's going to include we give them options by, different type of bike lanes, and sidewalk, different widths of sidewalk, and plant trees, and we do all these things. And then the community have a discourse there, what their priority is, and that's what you heard at the summer set. So the summer sets case, the community was very clear that they prefer to have a sidewalk, and they do not want to lose their parking in front of the homes and That was their priority Parking was not the decision why we went to the community To start with it's because we wanted to present to the community This is the project that we intend to do in your community and that's how it works in most of the cases So if this was if Castro Valley Boule Valley Boulevard Resurfing was a capron from a project that we undertake, it would have gone through the community process. And that discussion would have taken place. And all sides will have the say. And the other thing that's kind of fascinating to me is in some cases of like this, and most public discourse, you know the issue, no and yes, I want parking, I want bike lane. These are direct, I can't let no, there's no in between. So what we did, and when we do this assessment, is not answering the yes or no, but rather would this action make sense in ensuring safe and continuous transportation system that and is consistent with the board's policy. So we don't add any value or ideological position of our own. I'm not an advocate for either side, but rather to say this. So sometimes people say, how can we do bring it in? Well, you know what, we are here. The answer is yes or no. Choose one. So we make the argument that at least from the public interest point of view, we advise the board, this is, the best interest of the public to proceed with a safe, continuous connected, active transportation system that we think at this time is viable. Good. So I have a question following up on the annual overlay. When I was on the City Council in Dublin, we would see every year the city's plan for the annual overlay. We had a public meeting, people come in and just what you described, yes and no. I want this, I want that. It's the balancing act of what the community wants. To me, when I was mayor, that's, was played out at a city council meeting. The same is true for the Caster Valley Mac. The de facto, while their advisory, they're the de facto city council. I would like to see an annual presentation to the Caster Valley Mack before the year starts or before the overlay is going to happen. They often happen during the summer when the weather is conducive to overlay, which I guess this happened during the winter. So I guess we've judged the rain. But if we could get to the point where we have an annual overlay, anything changes parking going away, parking added, bike lanes going away, bike lanes added because of overlay that we would present that to the CV MAC. Can we do that? Oh, absolutely. By the way, our overlay list is sent out, is posted on our website and every household that we have a street overlay receives the card telling them that the street is going to be overlaid, you know, usually by the summer of this time. We should have sent something, for example, right now for 2025, surfacing less. We take it to the Mac. And then I think that's a good idea. We could take it to the Mac with one caveat that is some of the decisions as to whether to adapt the bike paid master plan or not is usually done at the latter part of the process, but I think we could bring that up to the Mac. I think it's good best process. With regard to another comment made, you have one department that is approving projects. For example, the bankwood center, it's going to have 500 seating capacity. They make that decision because it's consistent with zoning and it's consistent with growing the business needs. There, it's filling a need obviously. Somebody's putting their own money on the line to develop a banquet hall, seemingly to support the need of the community. But that we have another department that's considering the public works needs. And I hear again in a city where I was previously serving, you have them both under the same at least city government. You have a city manager, you have the city council reviewing planning projects and public works projects seemingly putting those two together. Can you describe though what I heard a public comment made is that they're rather disjointed. We have a planning effort, we have a public works effort. Did the planning department come to you and say we're going to have a lot more parking needs, don't get rid of those spaces? Or did you go to them and say I'm going to get rid of these parking spaces is it okay with the future plans? How did we how do we marry those two together? So I think I think that's a miss no more miss information by some folks we there's no development process of this magnitude that gets approved without public works having some type of feedback to that approval process. And, you know, it's a standard practice. I think it's intentional. I think it's makes sense. is that the public asset is a public asset. Your board had that authority to kind of make the exception, otherwise by policy, we don't want to use public parking spaces, some folks, some private enterprise to use or approve that kind of improvement. Sometimes, your board and city council to do those things. But as a matter of policy, you want to make sure that the public asset is reserved for the public or anybody got in park on the street, not just the patrons of their business. So that kind of policy discussion and discourse need to take place at your board level and see is that something that you want to modify. Otherwise, just about all development, as you know, is reviewed, managed whether it started by planning or by us is managed internally in a collaborative fashion. So planning does send us everything whenever before they approve something. All right. So you knew there are 500 more spaces are going to be needed up to 500 and then you and then you took away you knew it anyway Don't think planning knows that yet. So okay Well the capacity is 500. Yeah, so it'll be an interesting restaurant 500 seat restaurant I look forward to see it Good point good point. All right. Well, at least you knew about the upcoming changes to the uses of the writing aid. Yes. You took that into account when you took the part. By the way, one caveat is we are going to go through the renewal or the update of the backpair master plan. And the public will be engaged involved. They will bring it to the MAC. And there is that additional opportunity to kind of make a distinction as to, you know, we want parking or bike lane car discussion could take place at the time. And I think that's how this current one was adapted. And when we updated, that's going to be the case. And the master plans also are reviewed and viewed by all the departments in the county, including planning. Since this is information only, it's our chance to weigh in and disgust this. I'm glad that we were able to understand it. And also is an opportunity to provide direction. I think and so I'll see if my colleagues, you've readiley, then this is in your district. Yeah. That's your way to provide direction on that. Yes. The appreciate this informational report coming to us today. I mean, I kind of look at these issues terms of balancing the equities. I think public works is made strong enough argument rational for the action they're taking. I don't like to second-yes public works. We did a lot of analysis when it came to Somerset. For example, Daniels kind of explained to me the difference with this versus Sommerset. Summerset, he's also provided a rationale for why they want to move ahead or move ahead with this restriping and resurfacing. So in this case, if I thought it was just totally monarchy, then I would say we need to since it's an informational item, we need to bring it back At first action, but I just think at this point Prospectively we need to move ahead with this if it's already been done if we find that a particular business doesn't need to petition Public works to have its parking restored that maybe they consider doing that on a case by case basis Because once again, he said they can remove the you know the striping or or install the parking once again So I'm just kind of thinking at this point I'm okay with moving ahead and not second guess public works It's rare that I try to to second guest them. And we're going to allow the Castro Valley Mac to do that if they want. Yeah, the Castro Valley Mac could have taken this up as an information item or they could have made an action item, but as a resurface thing already taking place. Yeah, it's already taking place? Yeah, it's already a done project. So, but the Castro Valley Mac has been a good body for us to bring in items and will be happy to bring these and future resurface in projects to them and seek their advice. And so they could, yeah, say could definitely establish a protocol that they want to have, these type of things come to them. There's no restriction on that. They could have that, which you suggested. An annual report on resurfacing and restriping projects. They're going to take place in Guestra Valley as a list to kind of review. So I on me. All of this is within their purview, if they so choose. At the same point, the Guestervalley Chamber can petition that this would be an item to be discussed. Is there a mechanism for that? Yeah, they could, the Chamber could ask the Mac to pick it up as well. In the future, but I think at this point, it's kind of like a failure complete. And there's enough, I think, rationale for supporting it. But I'm looking prospectively, and I, and I want to get, I do, do want to say, if a business, the mobile home park, or whatever, if they're seeing their experiencing some real challenges, I'd like for them to go back and that public works now they can re-evaluate maybe that portion, that aspect of this plan and how it's affected that business so that they can re-evaluate whether or not to remove the or restore the parking for that particular locale. Very good. I want to thank public works for the presentation, the information. I'd like to thank the members of the public who weighed in with public input. And we had a robust dialogue, a very important dialogue. And so, and there's, you know, potential future action, if needed. So we have a path forward. So thank you for that. We're moving now onto our second item, which is an action item. This is a nomination of two privately owned properties in the, to the Alameda County Register of Historic Resources and Landmarks. I note that we have an extensive staff report before us in written form. We'll have a brief staff report orally now before we have public comment. So I welcome our members for a staff report. Thank you. Good morning supervisors. My name is Dominic Luckezi. I'm a planner with the Alameda County Planning Department. Today I'll be presenting an action item, including an overview of the Alameda County Register nomination process and discussion of the proposed designation of two privately owned properties as landmarks. These properties are located at 1-6-026, Paseo del Campo, and 2-2-5 Villanaris in San Lorenzo. Next slide, please. So I wanted to begin with a refresher on the Parks, Recreation and Historical Commission, or PRHC, and the Historic Preservation Ordinance, or HPO. The PRHC is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and they oversee Historic Preservation and the Unincorporated County. In 2012, the Board approved the Historic Preservation Ordinance, establishing the Alamena County Register of Historic Resources, and outlining the nomination process. This ordinance provides a framework for recognizing and preserving historic properties. Next slide. The HPO defines four categories for historic designation. Landmark, structure of merit, historic preservation district, and contributing resource to a historic district. Nominations can be initiated by the Board of Supervisors, the PRHC, or Property Owners themselves. Regardless of who makes the nomination, Property Owner Consent is required before a site can be listed. Lastly, the PRHC must hold a public hearing to consider nominations before final approval by the Board of Supervisors. Next slide. Once a property is added to the register, it is subject to regulations that help preserve its historic integrity. Some of the key regulatory effects include a review process for modifications such as relocation, demolition, or exterior changes. Properties must be maintained in a state of good repair. And owners of properties listed on the register are eligible for Mills Act contracts, which offers property tax relief in exchange for preservation efforts. Next slide. Here you can see a timeline of the nomination process for the two properties that we are discussing today. The applications were submitted by the property owner in December of 2024. The PRHC then held the public hearing on February 6th and voted unanimously to nominate the two properties to the register. In March, staff presented to the Eden Mac and the unincorporated Services Committee. And today, staff requests that your committee hear this presentation, take public testimony and provide comments on the proposed placement of these two properties on the county register as landmarks. I could just interject. I know when it came down to the Corporate Services Committee, we and I believe the EEDMAC was supportive as well. It was an informational item. Okay, well I know we were supportive of the corporate services. Supervisor Tam and I heard this item and we received a lot of public testimony, property owners here and I just want to mention it have been informational, but we support this. Yeah, I would like to say I've read the report. I'm very supportive. I don't know if we need to, you've heard it once already, so if you want to hear it again, we can. But somebody once said get to yes and then stop. And anyway, that's a business term. Keep going, just know that we're on the right track. Nobody's opposed this so far, right? There's a few more slides that kind of speak to some of the concerns that we've received. This is the new material. So with your committee's approval, staff will present the nominations of the two properties to the full board on April 10th and request final approval. Next slide. So before discussing the nominated properties, it's important to provide some historical context. The information on this and many of the following slides comes from the historic resource evaluations, which were prepared by a professional architectural historian for this application. These evaluations are included in your packet for reference. The two nominated homes are located in San Lorenzo Village, one of the first master plan communities in the United States. On the left, you can see a boundary map of the San Lorenzo Village and the location of the two nominated properties. San Lorenzo Village was developed by David Bohannon, pictured on the right. Bohannon was a nationally influential real estate developer who pioneered the use of mass production techniques for housing construction. His system came to be known as the California method and was adopted by developers across the country, establishing Santa Lorenzo Village as a model for post-war suburban expansion. In 2016, the California Office of Historic Preservation determined that the San Lorenzo Village was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a district. This automatically placed it on the state register of historical resources. In addition, staff acknowledges the history of racial exclusion, associated with David Bohannon and the lasting impacts of these policies in San Lorenzo and other parts of the Bay Area. During World War II, the Bay Area experienced rapid population growth as people from across the country relocated in search of jobs in the defense industry. This led to a boom in housing construction. Many housing developments in the unincorporated areas were designed to promote home ownership. However, policies such as redlining and racial covenants explicitly excluded communities of color from these opportunities. These practices were widespread at the time and had long-term consequences, including codifying segregation and limiting intergenerational wealth building opportunities for non-white families. David Bohannon, like many developers of that era, implemented racial covenants in the communities that he built, including San Lorenzo Village. Now we'll take a closer look at the two nominated properties in San Lorenzo. This map shows the location of 1606 Paseo del Campo, just west of Asperian Boulevard, and 225 Villanars, just east of Highway A80. Next slide. Here's an image of the first nominated property. It's a one-story single-family home that sits on a parcel that was agricultural through the mid-20th century. David Bohannon bought this lot in 1944, along with the surrounding parcels, and started to develop the San Lorenzo Village, the house wartime workers and soldiers. The first owners of the home were Carl Indora's Britain who purchased the home in 1944 and then sold it to Wallace and Ann Smith in 1948. Smith ran a variety of businesses in the area including a service station and an overhead door company. The house stayed in the Smith family until 2014 when the property was purchased by the current owner. And here you can see some more photos of the property. This home represents the earliest phase of the Santa Rens of Village development, which is characterized by small single family, one story homes with concrete parking pads, and a limited variety of roof lines and fenestration patterns. The house is an intact example of the postwar minimal style or GI homes that were popular across the country from the mid-1940s until the early 1950s. Unique features of this home include the small-scale L-shaped footprint, low-pitched tip roof with overhang eaves, and the five bands of a horizontal wood trim connecting the primary windows. The second nominee is 225 Villanaris, which you can see pictured here. Similar to the previous property, this home sits on formerly agricultural land and David Bohannon purchased this parcel in 1950 as the San Lorenzo Village continued to expand. The home was purchased by the McKean family in 1950 and later sold to the home family on the house until 1979 until it was purchased by the current owner in 2022. Here are some additional photos of the property. This home represents a later phase of the San Lorenzo Village development. Examples of unique features found in this home include the small scale rectangular footprint, two car garage and woodloops shutters. So according to the evaluations, both properties meet landmark designation criteria listed in the historic preservation ordinance. According to the HPO, a building is eligible for designation as a landmark if it meets one or more of the criteria listed here. The evaluations found that each property met four of the criteria. They are associated with a significant historical event, the development of the San Lorenzo Village, they are associated with a significant historic person, David Bohannon. They are intact examples of post-World War II tract homes that embody the distinctive characteristics of a tight period or method of construction, and they represent the work of an important creative individual or master. Again, David Bohannon. So just to reiterate quickly, the PRHC voted unanimously to approve a resolution nominating these two properties to the county register. And prior to the public hearing, the planning department received 11 letters of community support. A copy of these letters are included in your packets. Staff also received a number of comments at the Eden Mac and unincorporated services presentations, and this slide summarizes three key concerns and the staff response. First, staff heard concerns about landmarking two individual homes versus establishing the Santa Renzel Village as a historic district. So to clarify landmarks and historic districts are two of the four historic resources, categories identified in the HPO. A landmark is an individual building, but a historic preservation district is a defined area that has a collection of historically significant buildings. Local examples of historic districts include the Victorian Row Historic District in downtown Oakland and the Deboes Park Historic District in San Francisco. So regardless of type, any category of historic resource is subject to strict architectural regulations. For example, owners of property listed on the register must obtain a certificate of appropriateness for any exterior changes, relocations, or demolitions. It's important to emphasize that getting a district listed on the register is more complex than a landmark. Districts require signatures of approval from at least 51% of property owners within the district area. Community members have expressed interest in establishing the San Lorenzo Village as a district, but speakers at the Unincorporated Services Committee meeting explained that previous attempts had been unsuccessful in part because of this high bar for approval. approval. Another concern that we heard was about the potential financial and policy implications of Mills Act contracts. So for context, the Mills Act is a voluntary economic incentive program for owners of historic buildings. And under this program, property owners receive a reduction in property taxes in exchange for a 10-year commitment to restore and preserve their properties. The tax savings are determined by the county assessor's office and can range from approximately 30% to 60% annually. There's currently only one active mills-at-contract in the Unincorporate County, which was approved by the board in 2016. The overall impacts of multiple mills-at-contracts is unclear at this time and may require further analysis to understand all of the implications. Finally, there were concerns that landmarking homes associated with Bohannon could inadvertently celebrate a problematic history of racial exclusion. At the request of the unincorporated services committee, staff has added language to the draft resolution scheduled for consideration by the full board on Thursday that acknowledges the history of racial discrimination and housing, including the prevalence of racially restrictive covenants and communities built by David Boannon, including the San Lorenzo village. Despite these concerns, denominations have received notable community support, including from 10 members of the public who spoke at the Unincorporated Services Committee meeting. So I'll just end by asking that your committee take public testimony, provide comments on the proposed placement, and with your committee's approval staff will present the nominations of the properties to the full board on Thursday and request approval. That concludes my presentation and again the property owner manual is here to help answer any questions that you may have. Very good. Thank you for the presentation. Very informative. Supervisor Miley any comments or questions before we go to public comment? No, I just hope on Thursday we don't have to hear the full report because three of us would have heard it. And we... before we go to public comment. No, I just hope on Thursday. We don't have to hear the full report because three of us would have heard it. And we can, I don't think there's anyone opposed to it. Any public comment? I have no speakers for this item. Seeing none. I'll entertain a motion from my colleague. Do we need a vote on this or we just provide? Well, I do think it'd be important for the property owner to speak. Yeah, because, you know, I estimate the, I estimate the meaning, why is he doing this, etc. And I just think it's really good he's doing it. And, you know, the fact that both, both, both, both, and, um, have the racial covenants. I mean, that was the practice at the time. So we just wanna acknowledge that is that bit of history. It's not lost, but we're not condemning, well, and I'm a member of the University of New York University of New York. I'm a member of the University of New York. I'm a member of the University of New York. I'm a member of the University of New York. I'm a member of the University of New York. I'm a member of the University of New York. I'm a member of the University of New York. items that have been brought up as a mixed race person. The community has changed drastically since its initial creation, but I'm able to move a property forward with consideration for landmark designation that over the years I've restored. And it looks exactly like it would have looked when it was originally constructed. And you brought up a really interesting question when I first came to the podium at unincorporated services is why am I doing this? Areas in the South Bay that had similar housing stock solve rapid changes within those communities with the McManchin effect and that's starting to impact the East Bay now. San Lorenzo would be a prime target for communities that have old 1940s and 50s housing stock that are then wiped off the map. Getting an awareness for historic preservation is the only thing that we're going to be able to do for the unincorporated areas to make sure that we remember how the urban fabric of this portion of Alameda County is preserved. And I'm passionate about making sure that when I leave this planet, these two homes are preserved in perpetuity. And so that's why I'm excited about making sure that these two homes are preserved as the first two homes in San Lorenzo for landmark designation. Very good. Yes, and I think it'd be good to put on the record your background, you know, professionally and in the community. I know you kind of said you're from the community but you also. Yes. Santa Renzo, homeowner's board. Correct. I just wanted to. I want to go to the supervisor's note that. note that so I born raised in San Lorenzo. As at the age of 16 years old, I was actually appointed by the Supervisor at the time to serve on the San Lorenzo-specific plan task force, which oversaw the redevelopment efforts for the 26 acres in the heart of the San Lorenzo village. As a result of that, I decided to pursue an urban planning degree from Cal Poly Pomona. And I've been in development ever since I've been in industry now for 20 years on the home building side of this. I just know that the area is going to consistently change as all areas do, but having these two landmarks contribute to the remembrance of the past is good glimpse into what the past and always making sure that we're looking at the future as brightly as possible. I'm on the board of the Salarans of Village Homes Association, which represents 5,700 homes, and that actually is part of what is the state has deemed as a Salaranzo Village historical district. I've been on the board now for approximately 10 years, and currently the board president. I'm not here just for the record. I'm not here in a capacity as the home of the association board president. Right. And then my last question is to get on the record. How do you help? Because I'm confident we're gonna support this. But how will this be designated? Will there be a plaque? How will people know? There was no specific sort of plaque standards that I'm aware of that Alameda County has. I am planning for my own as long as I get approval through the Holmes Association which I'm sure I'm going to but be able to put a historical plaque on to the right of the garage doors on both properties being the first two properties in the village that would be deemed historic. We know that there's been conversations with members in the community and other members have expressed interests as well as some concerns in terms of what this means for them. Again, this is a self-nominated process for myself. If residents decide to engage with this in the future, this is something that the Holmes Association would be supportive of. So can the county put something up to, like on the sidewalk or in the right of ways so people can see that these two properties are designated historic? As the manual said, we don't have any standard at this time, but that's something we can work with him on. There are some areas, commercial corridors that have had plaques put in the sidewalks, but we'll work it out. I just think, I mean, this is unique, and it's great he's going to have it on the garage, or in the house, so people notice it, but I'm just thinking if there's something like a pole with a plaque, I mean, people driving down the street, people walking down the street, people cycling down the street, they see this, you know, you often see this in, you know, in historical locations. So I'm just thinking it maybe kind of talks a little bit about the history as well. I don't know,. If that, I mean, I think it'd be good for the county to consider doing that. Great comments. I appreciate that. And maybe after 10 years on the HOA Board, you're up for a promotion to another committee that we might have in the county. So that's up to Supervisor Miley or Tam. Thank you for your effort to make our community strong Appreciate that. Okay. Well, that said a motion gonna be made by Supervisor Miley move it second by me and I'll ask the books that call the role I guess Supervisor Miley. Yes. Supervisor Halber. Yes We'll see you Thursday everyone The next item is information item creation of permit coordinator position to oversee county permitting. So I know that I've raised this several times in the past. We've had several presentations and discussions about this, but I would like to open the discussion again and see if there has been any more dialogue internally by our staff, but otherwise end this meeting, this item by giving direction to staff to work with the human resources department to develop a job description and available position, not to say that we would approve it today, we can't, but that we may possibly approve it in the future, not to say that we will, but we'll have that discussion. So with that said, I don't know if there's any buddy from staff that wants to weigh in on this. I know that in the past we have also had, I think we called it a czar, but I don't know I wasn't here. We may have already have something on the books in terms of a job description, but seeing that we don't have it formally, I'd like to make that direction. And then I'll also see if Supervisor Meiley has any comments before we go to public comment on this item. Was is the intent to have a person who coordinates the county departments and agencies that are responsible for the permitting process. This person would still, the permits and things like that would still be subject to approval or whatever through the BZA, if it has to go through the BZA or the planning department or whatever, but because when we had the ZAR, this was before we had BZA's. So that was the context of the ZAR. I think you're talking about somebody who can marshal all county departments to use a portal or whatever it might be so that we can streamline giving these permits issued and handled. Yeah, I know that the impetus for this is indeed that feedback from the community that it was very cumbersome and difficult to navigate between departments so somebody that can help coordinate that. We've had numerous discussions about that. And we've also taken steps to alleviate that, the creation of a portal, the onboarding of our staff departments on the portal. Yet we continue to get my staff spends an inordinate amount of time with residents trying to accomplish permit requests. It's hard for me to say if it's gone up or down, gotten worse, gotten better, stayed the same. I do believe that we have made progress, but it doesn't mean we don't need more effort on this area. I'm open to ideas about adding a position or carving out from different departments, portions of an FTE to create this position without creating a new additional headcount. We're headed into the budget season, so it's timely that we talk about that. My hope is that we will talk about this before the budget season. The end goal is that my staff doesn't receive phone calls from people who have permits before them. My goal is that nobody will go past the expiration of their permit time frame and have to reapply and pay another permit fee because it took them so long to process their application. We've seen that happen in the past. And my desire is that at the end of the day, our consumers, our constituents, the people that elect us, our boss, if you will, feels better served. That's the goal. So I'm trying to recall in the study that was done, was there a recommendation for this type of position? I can't recall. Yeah, I think very in levels in the beginning. I've heard that from the public for sure. I think the initial study that was a very cursory overview recommended that I think even it was raised as a possible possibility by the Baker-Tilly report. I don't remember how conclusive or how strongly they didn't recommend against it, that's for sure. I think they recommended for it or for discussion, but on its own, nothing has happened. A body at rest stays at rest. I am not the body at rest. We're either going to get this done one way or the other, and we'll draft a position and take a look at it and then decide an upper down vote, whether to add it in the next two months. I think there's also an effort of foot to we have a fellow working with us examining a process this or coming up with an office for unincorporated services or an unincorporated manager or something like that. And what that office or manager's responsibility would be, I'm just thinking that this might be something that would fit within that office. Because I don't know once again we're talking about public works, planning, or CDA, fire, environmental health. And is there another? Yeah. And to put this into any one of those entities, I just don't think it's the best approach. I think it needs to be an office that possibly comes through the County Administrators Office. That is there. There's a position there. I don't even know if the County Administrator has an analyst who works with all four of those fire environmental health CDA and public works But I do know we have in Tonas tonas on now as well we have a Fellow that's working with us in the unincorporated area to examine how we might come up with an office of unincorporated services. And I know you don't want to wait for that analysis, but I just want to make sure you're aware that that analysis is underway as well. And this could be a function through that office It's a good point I'm recalling now more more Inclusively the Baker Taylor report made this recommendation Anybody from staff want a way and before we go to public comment will first recognize Daniel a desenbed and While she's not clamoring to the microphone, I'll ask Sandy to weigh in. I would recommend that we implemented the portal system recently. It's a self-regulating, very much very effective way of kind of promoting accountability and responsiveness. I've, you know, it's fascinating if I was to wear my, you know, professorship hat as a public policy person. It's unusual for me to hear that we solve these kind of problems with adding additional staffing or additional, what I call bureaucratic bodies. I don't think that will solve the problem. I think one of the things that we need to recognize are your offices fundamentally have a constituency service that you provide through your staffs. And I don't think that will ever stop. If people will not stop calling your offices for constituency service, was that we have a person independently that you can go to or you go to each individual department head. So, you know, I know Nate mentioned about the county manager and that has also been a very fascinating concept to me because, you know, for if you take cities like Los Angeles and all that stuff, each district is larger than some jurisdictions that are managed by individual council people and border supervisors. So I am not one of those who promotes adding additional biocratic system to solve policy areas or nor increase accountability, but rather in this day and age, especially that we have a system that we put in and invested time and energy that literally tells you what's going on at any time, any moment, and maybe using it effectively so your offices might be the best approach. So I just, this is my two cents. I don't think we can solve this kind of problem by adding more staffing or more people to take the truth. I think there's a proposal, Nate, that we would have this person report to us and we would just augment our budgets to them off of that. So that's one idea. Okay. Sandy. Stadia, your very right to actually give you development agency. I do echo what Daniel stated about adding, using technology as well as adding transparency to help with process of development review or issuing permits. We're continuing to expand that as well as what was in the Baker-Tilly report that talked about more project management on the side of those apartments, particularly that are issuing these permits. And we have seen an increase of speed in our development review process from the planning side, you know, 25% or so, 30% of quicker reviews. So that has added improvements together with our collaboration through this portal with with our colleagues in public works particularly. So with those things, I think the development approval process has sped up and approved, but in terms of getting continuing calls at your office, as Daniel has said, I don't know if that will go away because there is that missing layer that maybe city offices have with regard to their consistency. So with that, I just want to note that there are programs in place and we're continuing to improve on it. As you know, Baker Till your report came out a little while ago and we've been working on those on those recommendations for a. Very good. Thank you. Is there any public comment on the item? Kelly? An economic downturn could lead to reduced revenues increased demand for social services and the need for budget cuts or relocations. I hope you're all taking notes. All of which could challenge Elimita's county ability to provide its central services to its residents and maintain it's triple-A So here we are, we're adding a new staff position. And if you're gonna do that, and be fiscally responsible, you'd wanna ask for smart objectives. That's another business phrase. Remember those business phrases? That professor was teaching us, they would have to be specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time-bound. Remember, smart objectives. So what are the quantitative objectives for this new position? Permit turnaround times? Is anyone measuring that? Is it on the portal? Constituent service, opinion polls? Does anyone measure constituent service or opinions of the receivers of the recipients? Are there job descriptions for constituent services that can be transferred over to offload tona handager staff? Functions, her functions? Two, the new ZAR. So, are we just creating new work? And we're gonna have a two sets, we're gonna have overlapping. This is just tinkering around the edges. If the org chart is in clear, who would this ZARA report to? It would be building permits. Would it be planning community development? Would it be planning department? Would environmental health, fire department? These are separate legal entities, right? Very important. Remember that. Separate. So you can't. If your is our can, it can't even would have to sue them separately the the fire department or whoever they are so in someone I suggested just having them report into us who's at us is that is that the board of supervisors you're gonna just take over the executive functions you don't need staff you can just do it yourselves thank you Color, you're on the line. You have two minutes, Mark. Thank you. I didn't even know this was on the agenda today. So I wasn't prepared for this, but I know that you know we're the planning commission permit streamlining subcommittee is working on the Baker-Tilly recommendations. We recently asked for from the planning department much more specific information about the moves that they've made on on six of those recommendations and what we got back was a table that was the same as what was presented to us months ago. So something needs to be done, something needs to change because the perception that we're getting is that the portal is the answer to everything. And that's simply not the case, because a lot of these problems are personnel and leadership driven. If you're gonna have somebody bring in a new position, it's gotta be somebody that is outside of all of these departments and is independent of them. There does need to be some monitoring of the permit process. Sandy just said they've improved 25%. I'd love to see the proof of that because that's just a number out there in thin air. So I don't know if adding this czar at this point in time is the thing to do. One thing that's needed is some sort of appeal process. When you've got applicants that feel like they're especially like with the fire department, this happens constantly with them where fire department will send out plan check comments. They don't even apply to this person's project. And then Bonnie Tara just won't get back to you for weeks, the months, and you know, basically believe you of time until you agree to these things. That's been consistent for years. You know, they they talk about how people get abused by the sheriff's department. There's a lot more abuse of people and applicants from these other departments that occurs on a daily basis. And that really needs to be addressed somehow. Whether that happens through this new position or some other process, something needs to be done because the portal is not the answer to everything. Thank you. I have no additional speakers for this item. Okay, well, I want to thank the speakers for coming. I do really like the comment around having metrics, smart goals, certainly important, specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time bound. And maybe this position can put more metrics before us. In formerly my metrics have been phone calls to my office and people complaining about taking so long they have to re-up their request and pay additional fees to do so. That isn't going away. So it's an information item, but that means we can provide direction. I would like to provide direction for the CAO's office, the HR department, the planning departments in question, I'm not in question, but rather relevant departments to work with unincorporated services, if needed, to develop or to dovetail with that effort that's going on. But I would like to create a position not to say that we fill it right away, but to understand what a position would look like, where it would best be housed and managed through. I think I also have to address the comment about the executive functions. I understand it. Supervisor, we hire and fire the department heads. They work for us. I don't know if that's a quasi-function that we hold but as I've experienced it we have that authority and function. I know it's legislative as well but we have an accounting administrator but we also have direct reporting through the department heads. So anyway, I would like to see more effort put into this, including the creation of a job description. And if we decide to fill it, we fill it. But to actually have that dialogue. It's been recommended on multiple occasions. Communities been asking for it. Again, we have to do it wisely, but I'm willing to give direction to get that done. I recognize my wise elder. I understand what you'd like to do. And yes, we do have executive authority. Different than me on the city council. It's what I like being a county supervisor. But what I would suggest is if I can go back and talk to the county administrator about what you're suggesting and see if we can bring a report or a direction back to this committee in terms of the next steps. Because I think we should hold on it here as opposed to Senate and Incorporated Services, because we can even do a joint meeting of unincorporated services in this committee, because's just adding Supervisor Tam. But I think we should hold onto it. But if you would just allow me to talk with the county administrator about this, then maybe find out what she would recommend and then bring it back to this committee, we could do that at, let's see the main meeting. Let me see here. Because I did want to have a conversation with her about the office of unincorporated services. Because as I said, we do have a fellow working with us on that. A grant was approved with the San Francisco Foundation and that person's working through CDA, my office and with the community around coming up with an approach on that and we could kind of look at all of this in that context. This committee meets again on May 5th, right? Yeah, could we bring it What at the June meeting, June 2nd? That's okay, Mr. Chair. I'll be remote on June 2nd. You'll be. Oh. Well, can you. Because I'm not here on May 5th. Yeah, not here on June 5th. We may just have to move out a week. Maybe we move May 5th at the 12th. Yeah, or something like that. Okay, so the chair will figure out where we're going to meet again if we're going to meet in May or if we're going to meet in June. And then whatever that date is, if you allow me to talk with the county administrator administrator and we'll bring something back to the committee. Bringing it back for discussion including public input and comments. Yes. Would be a great thing. Okay. Okay. If that said we'll close that item out and move to item number four, understanding, using pools and other forms of water suppression systems, presentation from the Alameda County Fire Department. Is there a member of the Fire Department on the call? I'm not sure if this is related to the idea of also providing a description of pools to not be included in FAR. That was supposed to come back in April. We can talk about that. I'm not sure if it's mistitled beer, but I remember that item was to come back. Yes, supervisor Rodriguez doing with the Alameen County Planning Department. That other issue regarding polls and not being considered as buildings that's making its way through. It's made its way already through the municipal advisory councils. It is going to be heard by the Planning Commission on the 21st of April and then make its way to your board in May. Okay, very good. With that said, I'd like to continue this item. And we'll continue this item to a future date. Moving, well, it is an information item. We take public comment on all information items. I wonder if there may be a request for public comment. So Mr. Chair, if I'm continuing the item, then it doesn't need to have that, I guess, but I'm willing to allow it to rise my own question. Yeah, so what item for is this? So when there's like a fire, there's access to the pools for water, is that what this is about? Yeah. So my understanding is that it is allowable. It can happen. There are procedures that need to be in place, the right equipment. But the point being that a large body of water city next to a potentially burning house could be a good way to put a fire out quickly even before fire department may arrive perhaps or when they do arrive to just utilize that water and so identifying the ways to do that, whether it's through the permitting process, the project architecture, design, and to provide information so that those that do have pools or that are planning to build pools can take advantage of the opportunity to do that. allow's allowable, it can happen, and it's not just for a pool, it could be if you have a pond or, I guess, a large, very large fountain type feature that it may also even be in lieu of needing a water tank. Properties are required to build water tanks now to use for fire suppression. It may be the case that you could use your pool instead of water tank or En supplement of a water tank. Maybe you don't need as large a water tank. So, but we don't have fire on here, so we'll continue the item, but because we have discussed it, we'll allow public comment on it. So anybody in the audience or online, Kelly, a bird, will recognize. Adam, four. Just like all the other technical subjects that get thrown into politics, this is a technical subject. And when you frame the question as, oh, I've got this big pile of flammable wood here, I call it a house. And should I build a pool of water next to it to protect it from burning down of this massive kindling getting ready to explode in flames? Then, of of course the answer would be yes. But think about existing fire infrastructure. You know, just throwing in pools everywhere is kind of a solution for rural fires is a little bit crazy. You have to think about what are the existing fire hydrants out there? Did you already build giant water tanks and fire hydrants there at the property? I know of properties that have them. I know that they're out there and you want to come in and say, oh, pools are going to be some kind of a fire hydrant, a fire protection facility when you already had the fire hydrant there. We shouldn't be giving pools any credit then in that case, right? If you already had a fire hydrant, isn't it more work to go and suck water out of a pool and require specialized equipment as opposed to just looking up to a fire hydrant, which is kind of standardized? And how about the lakes and the dams? The existing lake, the six million gallon lakes and things that you have out there? Maybe that should count for fire protection. How about integrated fire protection systems that might include sprinklers for assembly facilities for banquet halls? And maybe the fire department should go out there and make sure that they have sprinklers. Maybe the fire department should be talking about requiring sprinklers for all new, large, rural, residential buildings. Well, how about that for a concept? How about if we have integrated fire protection, not just a pool of water, which you kind of hard to use, but how about if we have a sprinkler right there? I live in freemont, we just had a person jump out of a fourth floor of a building and die, you know, fire a couple of days ago. So, and it's not that easy to extract water from pools by the way. Okay, we'll continue to a future meeting and I'll ask my staff to make sure that we're ready for fire to give a presentation on this. And it'll probably be the same meeting that we're going to talk about pool and FAR. We'll close that item out and move to item five and informational item and update on soil importation ordinance. Yes, good morning, so, providers. This is Ed LaBio, Galamy, the county code enforcement manager for unincorporated areas. I was here in front of you in February where we talked about the soil importing fees. And today we're just wanted to finalize what those fees are for. Basically, that administrative fee charging $1.29 per cubic yard for soil and per rotation into the lots were charged for each project. So the fees will be used as a deposit that we can charge against for staff time. We can either then charge more for the true costs or issue a refund at the end of each project. If it is a paste operation, the balance will be reviewed after each phase to see if additional deposit is needed. And to cover to cover that pace and so on. So if they're requesting a separate face depending on the quantity additional $29 will be charged for that face as well. We did talk about graduating fees the more import that they bring in then the fees get lower but I don oh, we don't need to do that. I think the $1.29 per cubic yard, so far has covered staff costs. If not, we are sufficient enough to cover the costs and probably even have a some type of balance at the end of it. So again, this fees are collected to assist planning staff in the permit application review, set a project face requirements, provide checklists and benchmarks to establish project timelines, review approvals and site conditions prior to project start, perform periodic site monitoring and compliance inspections, respond to concerns or complaints, respond to enforcement, I mean, provide enforcement of conditions of approvals. Issue notices, verify compliance or if we have to, we issue fines and fees. Review, require documents and approvals for job completion phases, coordinate with other departments and agencies as needed, consult with professionals if needed, maintain the tracking data and ensure the completion for each project. So this is this a snapshot of what's been going on since the ordinance was adopted in in November 2019 2020 we had 19 cases 21 15 22 9 23 12 24 10 and so far this year we've only had one although we did receive one last Thursday so that would be two and where they are occurring liver more 21 Casual Valley 19 here were 17 plus and 23 and 23, Sinol 3, Mountain House 3, which gives us a total of 66, and 48 of them are in the Agzone, and 18 of them are in residential zones. So in terms of the statuses of the complaint, so far we still have six cases that are in process, meaning that inspectors has gone out there and are following up with the enforcement, it perhaps even doing their investigation. Four have not been in compliance and we have been issuing fines and fees, so the enforcement is ongoing. three were monitoring. They've indicated that they wanted to comply and provided us with their plan to do that. And as far as the close cases, 24 no violations found. We found out when we respond to complaints, sometimes people see trucks committing an out, but they don't necessarily know what's in the trucks. In some cases, property owners are bringing in mulch, road-based material, sand, and those types of things are exempt from the ordinance. And five of them, we go out there, we couldn't find a violation and we were unable to verify. 12 have been in compliance, so I have been removed. 9 have obtained permits and 3 we refer for public works agency because they weren't really importing. It's more a grading violation that they've done. So when we do get cases, even development projects, we do have coordination, not just within county agencies, but also outside agencies. We refer the project to public works agency and we a lot of times do request a joint site visit once we get obtained the permission of the property owner and usually it's for grading issues they either issue them a permit for the work that they they're doing or if they've already done work without a permit, the issue stop work order followed by a notice of violation, water protection either through the water board or the zone seven. Same thing they do their investigation and if necessary the issues the could issue stop order or notice a violation and refer refer also again to the water board same situation if they need permits or approvals from them usually when a project is application is submitted the planning department will make referrals to all agencies involved to either get their comments or obtain their required permits if necessary. Currently, environmental health does not, Alameda County Environment Health does not play a role in the soil importing. We make property owner's responsible for writing testing and data either through their development projects or if they brought in if you're already brought in soil field that's not documented. So that's their response. We make the property owner's responsible for obtaining that. And I'm sorry, what does P.O. mean that? Pardon me? We make P.O. responsible for providing property owner. The property owner. Okay. Question about the, sorry to interrupt, but the referral to Water Boy, the referral to Fish and Wildlife, are we required by law to make those referrals or is that a function of our ordinance that we may if we want to refer them. So, Red Regarding, I'll make any planning. So the water board is responsible for water quality and all throughout California. So, yes, we are required by law. We've actually had deal with the water board regarding stormwater treatment measures and they've done some enforcing on the permits that they give us, the state gives to the county that we then have to pass along to the property owners. Some of the situation with a fish and wildlife they are responsible for protection of species, there are many species of concern. I would not incorporate the lands that we have to let them know about. So if a property owner requests a permit, we will go through a process of understanding if that permit triggers the need to refer. But if it's nowhere near a stream and nowhere near wildlife, they can import soil without a referral to these agencies. Or is it always required? So there are maps that indicate the potential habitat for species of concern. And so we have to refer to those maps. And if they're not in those maps, we don't refer. Correct. OK, that's what I want to know. Thank you. So this is just a review of the fees that we charge for soil importing and also for zoning cases. So reinspection fees, if violations are not corrected under $93 and we added administrative fee 268. And for zoning violations in addition to the inspection fee we charge zoning fines first 250 and it escalates to 500 for the second 1,000 for the third and 1,500 for the fourth and beyond six months and at every six months until violations are corrected, we had an additional 5,000. And for ordinance violations of 17.66, the soil and pouring ordinance is $1,000. And we've already applied that in a couple of cases that we have. Beyond that, we can take the case to an abatement hearing that's scheduled in front of the border zoning adjustments either West or East. We just had one recently or we could pursue any type of injunction to relieve or potential criminal events. This is an example of just one case we have that's still open in Hayward, a property owner appealed the fines and fees. West BCA heard it on March 26th, and their decision was to require the owner to hire professionals to evaluate and test the soil within 120 days. That's for disability and cleanliness and provide a final report in the Bateman Plan and it will require a third party peer review. And then after the property owner provides this information, they want to go back to the West BGA for full review and next steps action. another case we have currently in Livermore. This probably owner keep bringing in soil so we've charged him a thousand dollar per truck up to 32,000 so far. This is after he's already received the initial violation notice and he did not appeal those fines and fees initially and he continued the violation by bringing in truckloads. Again, our inspectors has to visually and be out on the site and verify that the trucks are coming in, document the move photographs and charge the property owner. So far, we have not heard any further complaints after we charged this $1,000 per truckload. We did do a joint inspection with public works grading on the site, and we refer to the Water Board and Fish and Wildlife. Since then, they hired their engineer to submit a solar registration, which was denied by the planning department, because based on the activity that they wanted to do, that they are required to submit a conditional use permit first. Who's the property owner? Are you liberty to say the property owner at this one? not? I don't have that mission in front of me. Okay, but I would hope you could coordinate with my staff to make us aware. Yes. Maybe they already know. I don't know. Thank you. And I was asked also to provide some data regarding what other counties are doing. So in your report, this is spreadsheet that was completed by planning staff when they were doing some research for this ordinance. And basically all these counties do allow in some form some soil importing depending on circumstances and the type of project that they're doing and most of them require a grading permit. And that's the end of my presentation. So they require a grading permit. Do they have ordinances similar to ours, those other counties? So regarding the amount of soil and the need for verification that it doesn't have any contaminants, yes. It's handled through the grading permit and not through their planning department. Okay, so we spent some time on the instances where people violate the permit. We have code enforcement, we have fines and fees and all that. I'd like to understand the cost side of implementing this permit and maybe how it compares to grading permits in other counties they handle it a different way. But are the costs that we're passing along to our constituents, typically reasonable, $1.29 per cubic yard does that? I guess what I'm getting at is there's an administrative function in providing the permit. That function is going to be dependent on the scope of the project. A smaller project may have less need than a larger project, but there's sort of this economies of scale dynamic that a very large project may not be directly proportionately relation to a smaller project and so I guess what I'm getting at is, I'd like to see an upper limit of a $1.29 per cubicard up to a certain amount. Not beyond that. And to be very clear that, if we have a large project that is likely to have a refund at the end, that we're monitoring those costs, that they're fair and efficient, not exorbitant because we can charge more, but that the property owner can then receive a refund if there is one due to them, and that they have the ability to appeal that cost if they think that it's excessive. If we're, I don't know, inspecting more often or requiring more. Those that work with us that are good actors that follow the process that allow us to inspect that they not pay, I think one of them is on the hook for $1.29 turns out to be over $100,000 and I don't think it's going to cost that. I would like to either see them have an upper limit and if they've overpaid give them a refund or find a way to not charge them for the next load of dirt they bring in. Whatever it is, let's work with that. And I don't understand that's a not-layer. But there may be others in the future. And I just want to make sure that we're being reasonable with not talking about the people that we're finding because they've violated our codes, talking about the people that want to import, want to follow our process. So yeah, that could be possible to set an upper limit for what we call the tipping fee. Just for information, the county did conduct a fee study at the time of drafting the soil-importing ordinance to determine the adequate staff time recovery cost of drafting the ordinance and working on the subsequent enforcement, audits, and discretionary permits. Staff did come up with a 129 per cubic yard of soil imported but again we can we can work to try and come up with a reasonable cap on that amount. Perfect. Thank you. Supervisor Miles, any questions or comments about this item before we go to public comment? I would just encourage staff to use fairview as opposed to Hayward. I think folks are very sensitive to that. Yes. Fairview. Thank you. Thank Thank you public comment. Is there anybody online or in the room that would like to make a public comment? Kelly. We'll go first online rather in person and then we'll alternate to online. And thanks staff for the report. That was very good. Thank you. Thank you. So many unjustified assumptions in this interpretation of this soil-important coordinates. Let's start with the idea. Nobody thinks about this, you know? But take notes on this. Well, you know, soil. What is soil? Soil is a complex mixture of minerals, organic matter, such as decomposing plants and animals, water and air. It's rich in nutrients and supports a diverse ecosystem of microorganisms, fungi, insects, and it makes it ideal for plant growth. Does anybody go out there? You know, and then the economic to make, to assess the agricultural viability of this supposed soil. And then 100,000 cubic yards, does anybody know what that's being used for? It's used for fill to create some type of flat land for a building project. And what is, is that poor property owner or wealthy? Obviously, if they've got enough space to accommodate 100,000 cubic yards of fill. Are they doing that in order to produce agriculture? Are they paying a lot of money to obtain this valuable material? Are they getting paid for dumping that stuff on their property? I rather think that they're getting paid, don't you think? I kind of think that's what's more common out there. I know your staff knows this and I know it and you know it. And then when you're out there and you say, your Mr. Walt Desenbet claims that he's been bringing in the water board, he has sent out his people out to a place in Castro Valley with new storm drains and forgot to notify the water board. And Ms. Rivera, or maybe it was the previous of Chris Spasos, maybe they sent out their planning, their code enforcement out to the same place. And they forgot to bring in the water board when they saw all those storm drains out there and they saw all that dirt and all that flat land and all those hillsides carved out. They thought, whoa, so they forgot to bring in the water. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes, Chuck. My name is Chuck Meadows from October 2019 through March 2020. My neighbors dumped 35 dumb trucks of fill down the slope at the end of U.S. Court where I live. This visibly contaminated fill contained wire tile pipe bricks scrap lumber concrete asphalt sheet metal and other visible debris. To give you an idea of how much fill that is you could dig a 60 foot by 13 foot by 12 foot hole a A whole literally large enough to bury the entire ADU they later built on their property. I'll repeat that. You could literally bury a house inside the whole necessary to move that much dirt. The volume and location of the dumping has now been confirmed by four engineering reports. The county also engaged in an independent geotechnical engineer who reviewed all of our documentation and validated our allegations. All of this contaminated fill was dumped on a slope just above Ward Creek. Given the lack of engineering and permits, the heavy rains in the winter of 2022 washed much of the contaminated fill into Ward Creek, literally leaving a large crater on the slope. I want to commend code enforcement as they did prosecute this case. Given the overwhelming evidence of the property owners dumping, the BGA declared the property a public nuisance. As Ed mentioned, they now have 120 days to come up with an abatement plan. I fully expect an appeal to this board. Given my experience, I ask for two changes in this ordinance. First, allow photos and videos of dumping to be accepted as evidence. The requirement that a code enforcement officer witness the actual dumping makes enforcement nearly impossible. Two, impose meaningful fines. These property owners caused an estimated $450,000 in damage yet face a fine of less than a thousand dollars. The fines should be commensurate with the damage caused. Thank you. Chris, you have two minutes. Yeah, hi. My name is Chris Figgins. I live in Fairview. I'm also a member of the Fairview Mac, but I'm speaking just on my own ideas. I, supervisors, I hear your concern about the good players. We probably should find some way to change the ordinance. So the people that run ethical businesses don't get unnecessarily punished. We had a case where a loan tree cemetery was bringing the affiliate from another cemetery and they got in order to stop because they didn't have a permit and they couldn't afford to do the permits. And you know, this is like a known source in a known destination. Our concern in the Fairview community or my concern is people that bring in dirt from unknown locations, unspecified locations. And that's kind of a big deal. I followed a truck that left a service station site that was being mitigated and dumped dirt in a lot in fair view. Fortunately, the county came right up and had it fixed. But I'm on that in trouble speaking. I'm out. Karen, you have two minutes. Karen, unmute your microphone. Karen, Carrie. Hi, I'm Karen, Carrie. I live in Fairview, and I'm speaking on what Chuck Meadows spoke on. I saw the dumping from the hard trail, which is on the other side of Ward Creek. Hard said they couldn't do anything about it because they only had control to the center of the creek. I had no idea where the address was. Then I encountered Ed says that they can, when they do inspection of of the site what happens when they won't let you on the property I think Ed and had that problem with them. So I'd like to see that addressed by you guys. And the county really does need to accept pictures and videos that by the time they get up there with their 30 trucks it does not take that long for them to be there and gone. There's no excuse me, no way the county or the sheriff can be there in time. Also, was this issue that Ed prostituted? Was it referred to fish in wildlife? Was it referred to the wild water board? I'd like him to address that. Also, it says that it has to be if it's going to go into a creek, well, Alameda County has decided there are no creeks in Fairview. So if it's not identified on your map as a creek in Fairview, then people can just dump because we're getting more and more people doing this up here. They build it, they buy property on a hill, excuse excuse me on a hill and then they want to level it out So they don't care what they're doing to creeks or anything else around here Also they were given 120 days to do there and whatever They're supposed to do to be able to get rid of all this dirt that they dumped there So that means is there any way to make them have to clean this up before more rains come and another mudslide goes into word creek. Thank you. Kathy, you have two minutes. Hi everybody, Kathy Langley here living on Maude Avenue in your D. I just wanted to go back in history when we had the pandemic and we were shut down under mandatory essential work only. And at that time, my neighbors were calling me about dump trucks coming up here every 15 minutes and then returning every 15 minutes due to an airstrip that a man who owned a lot of property on the other side of Fairview Avenue was making it into an airstrip or continuing his airstrip. Now Ed Lebiogg mentioned that you know we as laypeople don't know what they're dumping well I got in the car with my husband who's an underground construction superintendent and he verified that what was falling off the trucks going in were asphalt filings. So we call code enforcement. They came out, they talked to the owner, and the owner convinced them that he was only doing essential work on a road going to his house. Although it was very obvious, he was filling in the creek and asphalt filings to continue his air strip, which then flew stole plains, his hobby. So code enforcement did nothing about that and it continues to this day. Now we have the USGS saying that we don't have tributaries in some locations. And now we've got dumping coming in, landfill, and then bearing some of these creeks so that people can build. And that supports the housing element that the state of California wants to push on Fairview. Thank you for your time. Matt, you have two minutes? Hi, I was calling in support of code enforcement and their ability to be able to prosecute these things has been severely hampered by their, you're having their hands tied behind their back essentially. You know, code enforcement doesn't do weekends or in the evenings and when dumping is happening, you know, neighbors gather evidence and cannot be able to use such evidence is ridiculous. It'd be like saying you can't have security cameras in a convenience store when there's a robbery. You know, that type of evidence is admissible and has been for a very long time. and the idea that we don't allow that in these cases is just ridiculous and causes harm. To the point that other people have brought up about creeks, public works and or rather flood control in this case, delisting the creeks in the bizarre concept that USGS maps are the thing to use, which no one else does. I mean, that's coming home to roost and problems like this. And we're causing serious environmental harm without recourse, and it's going to continue to happen as long as we don't have, you know, our creeks listed. I mean, just going back to our previous maps on that would be wise. So anyway, hoping we can continue to prosecute people who act inappropriately and cause damage rather than just letting them go because we've chosen, chosen purposely to tie our hands behind her back. Thanks. No additional speakers on the side. Okay, very good. Supervisor Milo, any comments or follow-up? Well, I'd like to see if staff can respond to some of the questions that people posed. Yeah, I think responding to some of those questions, certainly, is it legal to allow us to review photos and videos? Because if it is, I would agree that's a good one. I note in other circumstances, when we observe code enforcement, we require to take photos and have them part of the backup evidence sometimes not always A lot of times but not always so we we can use photos if we're allowed That's one the other thing is well. I argued against it Create an upper limit or costs for people wanting to do it the right way and comply with the permit to import soil I would like to see there be no upper limit on the cost for those that break the rules. It seems that abatement costs to abate and if there's a legal action to do that then I'm assuming we can take advantage of that. The comment made, they may face a fine of only $1,000 when they imported so much soil. I guess just a question we could always require them to abate by taking it all out and that might be costly and we can negotiate around that. So making sure that we do that I want to make just the direction is make it fair but simpler easier, cost effective for those that want to work with us and make it difficult punishing costly for those that break the rules within reason. Yes, I heard comments. Thank you for those who made comments on this. So we have to be very careful about accepting photos, even videos from complaining parties and we've done that in several locations. This case in a fair value matter fact we continue the enforcement case based on photos and videos provided by the neighbor. So that is something that we do accept. But we're being very careful about it because there's concern about manipulation and all that stuff. So we do take other people's evidence, but photos and videos are acceptable, but sometimes declarations are harder. Somebody just says, I saw 100 trucks. I mean, we still need to have some kind of physical evidence available. Even if we see the dirt on a property, we don't know when it got there. And, you know, the time frame is also crucial for us. In terms of the process of finding violators, again, we start with the zoning fines. And if they still ignore that, we mobilize our inspectors, sit on a property and see how many trucks coming in out and we charge $1,000 per truckload. And we also escalate, use the escalating zoning fines. And beyond that, again, there's some other legal things we could pursue, but the fines and fees usually motivate the property owners to take action, but like everything we find out in zoning, once the fees are low, they are like a cost of doing business, but as soon as it starts escalating, it it makes a bigger impact and that's the whole reason why the escalating fines and fees and zoning were established. And in terms of abatement as a way to get this violations resolved, that's in process right now. This is one of the first cases in Fairview that we brought to the BZA. So they declared it public nuisance. They know the soil was brought in there. So they required the owner to provide professional assessment of the site and even test the soil because it's really tough, especially if the soil has already rolled down the hill for us to know where it ended up. Even the timeline is important for us. So hopefully with that information that they provide that we can move forward with some type of abatement, the owners of the property should be performing. But if they don't then the county can move forward with performing abatement actions that is sanctioned by the county. That requires getting bids and perhaps even a warrant if necessary and then, you know, trying to get the work done for that reason. And so I think any other questions? No, I'm glad we clarified that people we can use photographs. I know that in the past we've even used Facebook photographs as a method to complain about somebody. Yeah, sometimes there's metadata encrypted on the photo, which is, I mean, anything can be manipulated. But if we generally accept that within the time frame and the video corresponds to that so it's something that we decide if we decide to accept it in that county. I guess the folks in Fairview will be happy to know that. Thank you. Supervisor Miley and other folks. Yes, couple follow up. So With so with the action in fair view This will be reported back to the PGA in 120 days That's correct, okay There's the party Have the ability to appeal I think there's still within the appeal period and maybe a few more days because after to do the resolution they have 10 days from that to appeal. And with the abatement plan that's going to go back to the B.J. And will the B.J. have to approve that. I believe that once we receive the reports we will make a recommendation and then it's up to the B.J. to accept our recommendation or give us some further instructions. Okay. And if the payment doesn't take place, you said the county can go ahead with the abayment. If we were to do that within a lean-by on the property, we recover our cost. Yes, so on cases this is more typically done when we have like we the bait men or removing trash and so on. Once we are done with the work, we build the invoice, even additional staff time to the property owner. That invoice has to be paid within 30 days. If they fail to pay in 30 days, then we'll submit it as a lean request for approval to the board. Okay. And it's attached to the property taxes. Okay. And let's see, in this particular incident, also one of the speakers said, was this reported to regional water quality and to fishing game? Well, initially when this case started, it was during the pandemic time. And we had meetings with the public works agency and they were going to cover it under the water protection ordinance. However, sometime later on, it was determined that that creek was taken off the list. list so I'll have to do some research if that was done early on in public when public works had it but I'm not 100% sure at this moment. So even if it's taken off the list would it's would we still report it or you need to find out? I need to find out. I think I had one other question based on speakers. Oh, yeah. Because we've heard this come up before and you talked about it. I think at the Mac and at the Ag meeting the other night. So the issue about weekends and nights, and I know you've got maybe five inspectors in yourself, maybe a super assistant. Yes. Is there any way that we can provide sort of like a additional incentive for folks to work weekends or nights? We'll have to talk to labor relations about scheduling or right now, like we said, if we need to mobilize and weekends, we either supervise or myself does it or if an inspector is willing to do some overtime. But I do want to explore it more with labor relations. Yeah, because this has come up in a nauseam. I think at you and Albert and Sandy need to address this because I mean it can it just comes up up and up and up and up and up and we need to figure out how we can get Inspectors out there on weekends and in the evenings and if overtime isn't doing it We have to provide some incentive or something. I mean, I'm not even saying you'd hire more staff, but some kind of way we've got to get a better handle on this because we're constantly hearing this complaint from the community. Okay. Very good. Again, thank you for the report. With that, we've concluded the items before us with the exception of public comment on items not only agenda, now is the time for people to do so, either in person or online, do we have any speakers? Kelly? So I just wanna comment on how these ords and committees and commissions are being run. you look at like the city of Fremont or the city of Dublin, they actually came up with rules that say that the limit, they're elected officials from just going on their cell phones all the time and not paying attention to the meetings, or maybe communicating with their, whoever it is that's telling them how to vote, and it's coming in via the little text messages. And they're trying to tell people to actually pay attention to the meetings. I don't know, maybe it's just an extra level of extra credit kind of, and it's not really required by state law that you have to do any of that. You can just fall asleep, I guess, is the way that the laws are set up now. I don't know. But apparently, not in Dublin and not in Fremont, they have a higher level, higher standards, higher standards. Then who sits in these seats? You know, we can't just come in here one month. And for example, last month, I was on the bar train and there was no, you guys, there was the meeting got canceled or something. We're're not gonna have a meeting today. Thank you. Bye-bye That was a little strange and Bart got a lot of money from me because they charge you when you get off when you're Going I went nowhere but the Who sits in these seats? We can't just Bring in you know we shortly assumed that supervisors sit in these seats But they actually name the supervisors so we can't just have grab another supervisor and throw them in your seat And we can't just have anybody Sitting your seat, you know, they have to meet certain residency requirements and they have to be appointed by the board and And we can't just have, you know, you're one of it, somebody you pick, you can't just delegate or inherit a seat and from this is not your fiefdom, so you can assign somebody else to sit in your seat for you. Think about these things. I have no additional speakers for public comment. Very good, thank you with that. Thanks all for participating today. We are adjourned.