you you you you you you you you you Board planning committee meeting and I'll ask the clerk to please call us to order by calling the roll. Supervisor Marquez, President, Supervisor Tam, President, President Miley, Supervisor Carson, excuse, Supervisor Halbert. Present. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. I see our first item is public comment on closed session items. I see no closed session items, so we'll move. Oh, are we gonna convene the closed session? No. I'm looking at the agenda for today's afternoon meeting. So I won't be doing that. No, no, I have it here. I have it here. I just was lucky that the wrong agenda. Apologies. Our first item now is to have the salute to the flag. Would you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic of the United States of America to the Republic of the United States of America to the Republic of the United States of America to the Republic of the United States of America to the Republic of the United States of America to the Republic of the United States of America to the Republic of the United States of America to the Republic of the United States of America to the Republic from August 8th. I'll move to adopt the minutes as presented in our packet from August 8th. I'll second. Is there any public comment on the item approval of planning, meaning minutes? No speakers. I'll call for roll call. Can we just say all in favor or can we still need to take roll call vote? I have a roll call vote is not required. There are no remote members. I'll just say it all in favor. Aye. Aye. Passage unanimously. Thank you very much. Next item is our consent calendar approval of record of cost abatement and authorization of assessment leans on properties and violation of abatement orders under the neighborhood preservation ordinance with an attachment. That's a consent calendar item is there. I'll move to consent calendar. Move by supervisor Tam. Second. Second by supervisor Marquez. Is there any public comment on our consent calendar? We have a general in his hand up. I'm not sure which item he'd like to speak on. Yes, please recognize speaker for two minutes. I'm sorry. I'm for item three. I didn't mean to do that. I apologize. Okay. No problem. Seeing no public comment for the item number two. It's been moved by supervisor Tam second by second by Mark As, all in favor. I passes unanimously. The next item is a regular calendar item number three. This is two, five, six, eight, grove way, Hayward area of the unincorporated Alameda County designated a parcels, assessors parcel number, APN 416-0040-037-00. This is an appeal hearing. We have a brief staff report. Yes, good morning, sir Reviters. My name is Edward LeBio. I am the Code Enforcement Manager for Unincorporated Alameda County. This item is regarding the appeal of SEKK investment Grove LLC of the decision of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustment declaring the property in violation of the Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordnance Section 6.65030F1NV6 based upon paving over 50% of the front yard at 2568 Groveway, here in California. Apple pool neighborhood preservation ordinance sections are 6.65, 030F1 paving limitations. This is regarding paving of more than 50% of front yard or street side yards, including any standard walkways or driveways on any residential property after June 1st 1999. And Section 6.65030B, any other conditions or use of a property that gives rise to reasonable determination by the enforcement officer that such conditions or use represent the threat to the health and welfare of the public. My virtue is unsafe, dangerous or hazardous nature or contributes to blight or property degradation. We need to take a five minute recess to we have a technical issue with our equipment. We'll take a five minute break. Okay. We're up. I'll just call roll. Yeah, we'll reconvene now the open session. The clerk will call the roll. Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. President Miley. Supervisor Carson, excuse, Supervisor Halbert. President, well thank you all for bearing with us there. I was notified by our clerk. We also have translation services available today at the request for item number four. In order to accomplish that, we'll have a brief instructions at this point on how to access those translation services again, which will come up at item four. Would the clerk please invite our translators? Thank you very much. I'm going to provide instructions now. So hello everyone. My name is Garcia from International Contact. We have Spanish interpreters for this meeting and interpretation channels have already been created. So please give me one moment while I provide instructions in the language. that appears in its area of ​​the area below your screen. Click on the interpretation, select that Spanish and, in a way, if you just want to hear the interpretable language, you can click on the audio-original. If you are using an intelligent phone, click the top of your screen where there are three points and select Spanish interpretation. Later, there will be a part of the meeting where you can make comments here, so that you can simply raise your hand and make the comments in Spanish. If you present the meeting room, there will be a telephone call application and you will enter the meeting with the number that appears on the screen. 9, 3, 9, 8, 1, 5, 7, 2, 8, 0, 8. For English Virtual Participants, please also go to the English Channel. To do that, you need to click on the Wall icon in the lower part of your screen and then select English or EN. If you are using a smartphone, you need to click on the three dots at the upper corner of your screen and then select English. This is very important if you want to hear the interpret comments into English in the later part. A reminder for all English speakers is to speak as lowly so that interpreters can keep up with you. So with this, I conclude the multianguage Instruction. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now proceed with the rest of our meeting, jumping back into item three. Now that we have the technology working properly, you can proceed. So thank you. Okay, thank you. Good morning again, survivors. I'll start from the beginning. My name is Ed LaBaya, I'm with Alameda County Code Enforcement and the Code Enforcement Manager I thank you. Good morning again, supervisors. I'll start from the beginning. My name is Ed Labaiag with Alameda County Code Enforcement and the Code Enforcement Manager for Unincorporated Alameda County. This item is regarding the appeal of S.E. K.K. investments, grow LLC. Of the decision of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustment, declaring a property in violation of Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, Section 6.65.030F1 and B6, based upon having, based upon paving over 50% of the front yard, a 2568 Grove Way in Heward. Applicable neighborhood preservation section, ordinance sections are 6.65030F1, Paving the limitations. That's the paving of more than 50% of the front yard or street side yard, including any standard walkway, driveway, or any residential property after June 1st of 1999. Section 6.630-030B6. Any other conditions or use of the property that gives rise to reasonable determination by the enforcement officer that such conditions or use represents a threat to the health and welfare of the public, by virtue of its unsafe, dangerous or hazardous nature, or contributes to blight or property degradation. We're also using definition of the front yard just for reference for the neighborhood preservation ordinance section 6.65.020 that means front or streets side yard means the area between the public street or approved private street and the building wall facing said public street or approved private street. Pertinent facts on November 27, 2023 this we did a site visit and confirmed the violation on November 28, 2023, declaration public nuisance noticed to a bait was mailed to the property owner. January 10, 2024, we did a site visit, conditions still remain the property is not in compliance. January 12, 2024, sent out a notice of failed reinspection and final notice to a bait, ma to obey, male certified and regular to the property owner. On January 22, 2024, letter of appeal from the owner was received by Alameda County Code Enforcement. On February 28, 2024, appeal hearing held, and the West Board of Zoning Adjustment decided to continue the hearing for 60 days to allow the owner to work with the planning department and code enforcement on options to comply. Then on May 22, 2024, the continuous hearing was held since the owner did not take any action. The West BGA declared a property in violation of Alameda County neighborhood preservation ordinance and a public nuisance. At the May 22, 2024 meeting the property owner was advised also that by the BGA to contact the planning department to determine if the labeled parking spaces could remain for a property to be in compliance. The West BGA went on to order a statement within 30 days and or comments with fines and fees. The owner never contacted the client department instead filed this appeal. We are recommending that the board of supervisors uphold the decision of the West County Board of zoning adjustments and an idea appeal Just for reference. This is a Google photo that we took that we took from the Internet so this is how it looked like prior to the owner Installing the pavement you look it's look at it the left side is covered with IV and the right sorry, those two did not make it in the your packet because it was added just to show the the lush coverage of the IV growth on the left side and next slide. And then the right side has the lush IV growth and also that huge, I think that's some type of juniper type of vegetation there that's overgrown. This is the photo of the inspection on November 27, 2023, where the IV was removed and paving was installed and also was striped for parking. And this is the photo of January 10, 2024, more photos showing the frontage and the owner did install a short fencing on both sides. And this is a photo of the, towards the inside of the fence showing that the owner did take out, I mean, have some of the unpaved areas with gravel and planted some plants in there. And just for reference also, this is what we're showing in the front, whether the property is approximately 125 feet in length in the depths of to the sidewalk and to the front wall is 25 feet. So if we calculate that it's approximately approximately 3,125 square feet and 50% of that will be 1500 62.5. And we wanted to bring up the appeal points from the appellant. So the first appeal point is that they're saying that let the record reflect that an order has already been made against SEKK investments to go away LLC on this matter by the West Board of Zoning Adjustment two days prior to the hearing. So our response to this is that in red you'll see that all hearing packets that we provide includes a draft abatement order and we even put a watermark across it that says draft for the board to for the members to see so that if they do agree with our recommendation that draft is in there already ready to go. The draft does conform with our recommendation and it does change depending on the outcome of the hearing. This is just an next slide please. Oh, we're back to this previous slide. This is just an example. This is actually the abatement order draft that we include. And you can see the watermark across it. This is draft. Next slide. And there are appeal point number two. There's no president or legal otherwise for this violation. It's not a public nuisance. So our response to that is that this section 6.65020 ordinance defines public nuisance. affects the same time and entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. This constitutes a public nuisance because the owner has violated two provisions of the neighborhood preservation ordinance, the violation increased potential for hazardous runoff and storm-brain pollution, which affects the community and the neighborhood. On his appeal to be section F1 refers to residential property. Residential defined as single family homes. Commercial, not commercial building. Our response to that is that the common dictionary definition of residential property is as follows. Anything any building designated for people to live in. So these are apartments and they are entirely used for residential use. The properties considered residential are not commercial there for the ordinance requirements does apply. Under PLC and 2C, Groeway is not residential. Same thing, our response is that the property is residential. It's designated RM zone, it's residential multi-density multi-family and it's considered a residential area. The rest of the arguments does not apply other properties in question upon receipt of complaint, maybe investigated for code violations. This is just showing that area, specifically to that address does belong to an RM residential medium density zone. Next slide. Here's a pill point number three. Access to the sewer lines were blocked by the IV. The IV needed to be ripped out and controlled to prevent further intrusion of the IV into the pipes and also access to the clean-out insurer. This is, you know, and it provided some photo evidence. This argument is not a valid reason. This is photo evidence. This argument is not a valid reason. This is our response. That it's not a valid reason to be exempt from the ordinance. The property owner has discretion on how to, how the sewer line issues should be addressed. And then must be in the property compliance after they are removed by, you know, example, reinstalling landscaping or unpaid areas that are not paid. He's a pill point number four is at the IV that was previously overgrown above six inches threshold. In the ordinance was used as a dumping site, intruded into the plumbing system, causing sewage to leak into the open areas, causing a hazard, fire safety, egress hazard, and also violate sections of neighborhood preservation ordinance with harboring rats. And that ripping out IV and adding new plants and permural assholes stop and prevent all of those things keeping their tenants safe. So our response is that this argument is not a valid reason to be exempt from the ordinance The property owner has this discretion on how to mitigate any adverse conditions and still comply with the county ordinances a PL.5, adding permrival, asphalt, creating such way to allow for better drainage plants and other areas under the fencing. So for us, this argument is not a valid reason to be exempt from the ordinance requirements. Section 6.65.0302 refers to any dirt or gravel or sand or concrete that is not incorporated in the landscape in such as mounds and a 50% paving ordinance applies to residential properties which includes this residential apartment complex and permeable or not this still considered paving permeable just means that the material allows liquid or gases to pass through It's a pay 0.6 is that the previous driveway area was a significant tripping hazard and needed to be repaired. The cement was cracked, raised, chipping and grew one to two foot weeds each year. The only way to fix it, driveway was to add permural asphalt with proper drainage, which he did. This is safer for the elderly tenants who face stripping hazards and serious injuries and to prevent damage from vehicle bikes, et cetera. So our response is that this argument is not a valid reason also to be exempt from the ordinance requirements. The driveway is unrelated to the violation because the owner paid the landscape areas. The paved driveway are counts towards the calculation of the 50% total of the front of the paved area to comply with the ordinance. Any new installed paving after the effective date of the ordinance after June 1999 are subject to the paving limitation requirements. The European number seven is the property looks better than any of the property on the street. Our response is that the argument is not valid. The reason to be exempt from the ordinance requirements regardless of how the property looks, the 50% paving limitation still applies. It's a pill point number eight. This is the new ask will allow us for four additional parking spaces on the premises, all of which are rented to the elderly. So by ordering it to be ripped out, they're required into park on congested street. So our response to that is that the argument is not a valid reason to be exempt from the ordinance requirements again. The location and number of additional parking spaces will need to be reviewed and approved by the Alameda County Planning Department and at the initial West BGA hearing, the BGA continued the item for 60 days and advised the owner to work with the planning department end-code enforcement regarding options to comply that may include maintaining additional parking or at least some of it. Pio.9 that that he's referencing table 1759.910 that requires two parking spaces for every apartment on the premises and while adding these four still does not get them to that ratio it gets them to 21 which is within three the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. The first issue is the first issue. here the owner did not work with the planning recommendations by the West BGA at both hearings. So in conclusion, although the property owner claims that the violation and it and associated fines and abatement order should be rescinded, the written rationale and the appeal letter does not provide valid reasons to be exempt from the ordinance requirements. Although the applicant believes the additional paved areas paved areas provides necessary parking and improvements for the previous landscaping. The limitation on paved areas to 50% of the from yard is a well established requirement under the neighborhood preservation ordinance. Against staff recommends that the board oppose the decision of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustment and deny the appeal. So this is an appeal hearing we should allow the appellant to have presentations. Is that correct? Are they online? I have two participants. I don't know who if they are. So the appellant isn't here in person. I'm assuming they're online if the appellant could raise their hand on Zoom. We could give them a chance to speak and offer their reasons for appeal. That's our typical process, isn't it? Could be... Stephen, your online please unmute your microphone. Hello. Hello, can anyone hear me? We can hear you. Oh, okay. Great. So I'm in kind of two places. I'm viewing the hearing here on my computer and also calling in. I'd like to share my screen if you can be accessed. I think I'm both people here. You can share access to the screen. There I am. I'm going to share your screen? I am. Yeah, I'm trying to share my screen. I emailed you guys yesterday to bring out those files. So I was for like, the other you would share my screen. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go ahead and do that. Stephen, if you could share your screen, you have permissions to do that now. I have to raise my hand to do that. I did. It's like if she has to allow me to share my screen. Let me try. I'll promote you a tool panelist and see if that will allow you to share your screen. Thank you. We'll typically give an appellant between five and ten minutes to speak. Stephen, you have five minutes to ten minutes to make your presentation. Is the speaker still on? Okay. He needs to just, his speaker's on. He needs to just share it, put it in the PowerPoint mode. It's on his hand for him to complete that. I'm not sure if you're not able to continue this to another day. All right. Staff have any objections to that? Anyone else? I'm not sure if that's the case. Anyone else? This isn't that time sensitive is it? It's not time sensitive. This has been continued once. And then again. Do we have any other speakers on the side before this. Besides the appellant. Any community members. There's a speaker that there's one more speaker. Bring them up. Yeah. If they can't get technology to work or they can't come in in person then. Okay. Okay. Can you guys hear me? We can. Okay. So this is still Steve Pinza. And I have the other files in front. But now I can't see you with my computer. I'm not sure what happened. Steve, we can give you a choice to come back at another meeting or just have you give a verbal presentation. It's up to you. I'd like to come back unless you can give you can put this after item four today and just know that I can share my screen and then speak on this. So I'm both callers for this. I can share my screen on on the zoom and then speak as I'm speaking now and maybe since I got signed off we can have this heard after item four today. We've had a staff report and I'm still, is a way that email us your presentation and we can have it printed out before us and that way we could take it up after item four. You know, I did email you guys previously, but yes, we can do that. And then maybe we could just reconvene today after item 4. So let's table this item for now. We'll go to item 4. And in the meantime, you can send us email. Okay, I'm so sorry. Thank you guys. Caller, you're on the line. That's a different one, isn't it? This is a which item? Still on item three, but it's a... We're going to table item three. Okay, you want to take the caller out. Yeah, so we're going to move to item number four. I note that we have a translator on the line as well, but this item. So this is item four tobacco retail or appeal for trophy smoke shop located at 22299 Redwood Road. Is there a brief staff report? This is Ed Labaiag, the co-inforcing manager for unincorporated Alameda County. This item is regarding the appeal of FACRI, Alwaji from the decision of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustment, declared tobacco retailer business in violation of the Alameda County ordinance chapter 3.58 and 3.59. Tobacco retailing with suspended tobacco retail license under TRL 2022, that's 0,0007, 0,0007. And electronic smoking devices displayed for sale at 22299 Edward Road in Castile Valley. Applicable tobacco retail ordinance sections are 3.58030A. Tobacco retail license is required. It's unlawful for any person or to act or to act as a tobacco retailer in the unincorporated areas of the county without first obtaining and maintaining a valid tobacco retailer license under this chapter for each locations which in which tobacco retailing is to occur. 3.59.030, sale of electronic smoking devices is prohibited, no person may sell or possess within tent to sell any electronic smoking devices within the unincorporated areas of the county, 3.58020 and the definition of a tobacco retailer means any person who sells tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia. Tobacco retailing means doing any of these things. The definition is without regard to the quantity of the tobacco products or to tobacco paraphernalia sold. Also 3.581-140A, the suspension or revocation of tobacco retailer license and the highlighted section number four upon finding of four or more violations of this chapter at a location within any five year period, the license shall be revoked. So the pertinent facts are on November 24. This is building up the case for the violations that have existed on this location. So November 24, 2020, the retailer received the first violation within a five-year period. They failed their inspection for processing and displaying a flavor tobacco products for sale, violation of the Code Section 3.58040. Number two, failure to display pricing or also a buck or products, a violation of Section 3.58050B. Payler to package little cigars and cigarettes in packages, no less than 20 cigarettes in violation of section 3.58050D. Number four pricing little cigars and cigarettes less than $8 for pack of 20 in violation of Section 3.5805. E and 5 possessing and displaying vaping devices for sale in violation of Section 3.59030. As a result, the retailer received a 30-day suspension in addition to fines and fees. Retail, the retailer appealed this failed inspection to the board of zoning adjustments and was ultimately denied in order to pay outside and fines and fees and serve a five-year period. The county sheriff's department conducted a routine minor deco operation in which the retailer sold tobacco products to a minor. As a result, the subsequent site inspection was conducted by the Sheriff's Office, officers in which they discovered a significant stock of flavored tobacco products concealed in the restroom of the business boxes of tobacco products were opened and organized in a manner that made them easy accessible for sale by staff. The retailer was found to be in possession of flavor tobacco products for sale in violation of section 3.58, 040. The retailer received 90 day suspension in addition to fines and fees. And the retailer appealed this failed inspection to the West Board of Zoning Adjustments and was ultimately denied in order to pay a standing finance fee and serve this 90-day suspension. And then on January 4, 2024, the retailer received their third violation within five years. The retailer failed their inspection for number one, processing in displaying flavor tobacco products for sale in violation of section 3.58040. Number two, operating tobacco retailer operating asset tobacco retailer during a license suspension in violation of section of 3.58030 and processing and displaying vaping devices for sale in violation of section 3.59.030. As a result the retailer received a one-year suspension in addition to fines and fees. This retailer did not appeal this violation. A one-year license violation, one year license suspension became effective on January 22, 2024, and was scheduled to end on January 21, 2025. On March 28, 2024, the retailer received their fourth violation in a five-year period for a failed inspection of their facility for number one operating as tobacco retailer during a license suspension in violation of Section 3.59030. On April 22, a notice of pale inspection and license revocation with fines and fees were assessed and mailed to the retailer. On April 30, the business owner filed an appeal to the West Board of Zoning Adjustment appealing the violation with fines and fees in the tobacco retail license revocation. In May of 22, 2024, the West VGA meeting was held. Retailer PO was denied and the planning department recommendation was adopted. The retail was found in violation of Alameda County tobacco retail or ordinance 3.58 and electronics mocking device ordnance 3.59. In addition, the retailer to back license under TRL 2022-007 was revoked and the retailer was ordered to pay outstanding fines and fees that had already been assessed. in June 3rd, 2024, the retailer appealed, a file appealed to the board of supervisors. And that's why we're here today. The board of supervisors, we recommend that the board of supervisors uphold the decision of the West Board of County zoning adjustment. And deny the retailer's appeal, order a retailer to pay outstanding fines and fees and revoke the retailer tobacco license, retail license under TRL 2020 to 00007. These are some photos that Inspector took at the site. Exhib exhibit one shows the display of the hooker devices which are considered tobacco, product and paraphernalia. exhibit two is this close up view of that. exhibit three is showing the shelving unit which is visible from the customers showing electronic smoking devices, accessories, and smoking devices and accessories. Exhibit 4 just shows the close-up of this product showing the electronics smoking devices. So in terms of the retailer's appeal, he's appeal.1 is saying that this issue with the inspector inspecting the business found when he was inspecting it found that everything was in good order then in good order. Then he decided to point out things that has he ignored for years. He has seen those old vaping devices for years and has passed them numerous times. If it was ever an issue, why would he pass us even once when we had an old wave since the ordinance passed. So our response is that the retailer was previously made aware of vaping devices in the notice of failed inspections issued January 2024. The retailer was instructed to remove all electronics mocking devices from the premises To avoid for defines and fees penalties which the retailer failed to do This just shows the The letter that we sent and If you look at item number three, tobacco retailing without suspended to be tobacco license, the action required was to remove all tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia from the sales area and discontinue the sale of any tobacco products and tobacco paraphernalia during the suspension period. Tobacco paraphernalia means any item designated or marked for the consumption, use or preparation of tobacco products. Appeal point number two, he's saying that now as far as the hookah violation, why was that never an issue on previous suspensions? If the inspector mentioned these things during previous inspections, he would have corrected them instead of writing the appeal to save their business from being shut down. So our response is that with a valid tobacco license, the retailer would not have been cited for hookah because the license was valid and other tobacco paraphernalia during routine inspections. We do monitoring and compliance inspections of all the retailers that are licensed up to two times per year. They were not currently under and during that inspection they were not currently under, and during that inspection, they were not currently under that suspension when the inspector saw those hookah devices. In the previous notices of failed inspection issues in January 11, 2004, the retail was made aware that they would not need to remove all all the tobacco deposits in paraphernalia during the suspension period and the retailer failed to do so. And again, the definition of tobacco means paraphernalia was included to clarify what items would need to be removed from being sold in the store. Again, this is the same blow-up of that section that we notified the retailer regarding that issue. Again, we recommend that the Board of Surveys uphold the decision of the West County of Board of Zoning Adjustment and deny the appeal. Thank you. Very good as the appellant here to make a presentation on their behalf between five and ten minutes to do so. We have in-person and online speakers. Well, the appellant will give a presentation of their own and then we'll have public the public speaker. We have in-person and online speakers. We will give a presentation of the own and then we will have public comment. Is it a parent here to speak? The parent may be online. No. I think it raised their hand online. Or if you have in- Are you here as the appellant, the speakers in the room? Now they're just public speakers. Okay, so if the appellant, the owner of the store or anybody representing them, do they have... Okay, they can raise their hand. It's their chance to make an appeal and then we'll go to public comment. Brian, are you the appellant? I am not. Okay, seeing the absence of the appellate we'll just go to public comment then speakers are in the room and online we always start with in the room first and then alternate between in-room speakers and online. We'll allow two minutes for each speaker. I again note that we do have interpretation services available if anybody needs them. Let us know. We'll start with the in-room speakers. Good morning. There's a first speaker, Luis. Welcome. Good morning. My name is Luis and I'm gonna be speaking the comment on behalf of Andrea Narayan, which is Youth Advisory Council member at Eden Youth. So, good morning board members. My name is Andrea and I'm 18 years old. I'm a member of the Youth Advisory Council in Hayward and I work closely with Eden Youth to advocate for commercial tobacco prevention policy in our community. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The TRL and ESD ordinances established by Alameda County are intended to limit youth access to tobacco products and ensure that retailers comply with tobacco control laws. The penalty provisions ensure accountability among tobacco retailers in adhering to the TRL and ESD ordinances. Collectively, these measures are essential for protecting the health, safety, and welfare of orange incorporated residents. Current data demonstrates concerning trends in local youth tobacco use. 2023, California Healthy Kids Survey reports that about 4.5% of Casar Valley high school students surveyed said that they used tobacco products for one or more days in the past 30 days. The 2023 youth tobacco Survey reports that among high school students who vape in Alameda County, 29.9% reported vaping daily in the last 30 days and frequent use, which is 20 or more days in the last month, was the most common response of users for vapes, little cigars, cigars, and smokeless tobacco. For cigarettes, hookah, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, using the product either one day or two days in the past month was the most common responses. These figures highlight the troubling extent of tobacco use among youth in our community, emphasizing the urgent need for active enforcement of tobacco control measures to mitigate the risks of access and exposure to these harmful and addictive products. By working together to meet the local and state standards in place for commercial tobacco retail, we can create a safer environment for our youth and reduce the negative impacts of tobacco on their health and well-being. Thank you. Thank you. Brian, you're on the line. You have two minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning, supervisors. My name is Brian Davis, and I am the project director of LGBTQ Minus Tobacco. We are funded by the state to work in the Bay Area to help reduce sales of tobacco products that appeal to kids. I've worked in Fremont, Concord, and Vallejo. The sale of flavored electronic smoking devices is illegal under state law. Most of these products are also illegal under federal law, and all electronic cigarette devices are illegal and unincorporated Alameda County. Yet there are stores that continue to sell them. The store in question today is clearly one of those stores. The Planning Department's report shows that this business has repeatedly been observed selling electronic smoking devices in violation of the law, including during the year when their license was suspended. This business does not respect the law and should not be given any special consideration. Their license to sell tobacco should be revoked permanently. Further, if the store continues to sell tobacco once their license is revoked, as they did during the suspension period, the entire store should be shut down until they comply with the order. Regarding the hookah pipes, the store owner has been properly informed that they cannot sell them since the Artobacco paraphernalia, which cannot be sold during licensed suspension periods. But even if it were the case that the store was not properly informed about hookah, they have clearly been informed repeatedly that they cannot sell electronic smoking devices yet they have continued to sell them. We are ever going to stop a horrible epidemic of nicotine addiction among youth due to these so-called vape devices we need to get them off store shelves. Please revoke the tobacco license of this retailer permanently. Thank you. Thank you. Raina, you're in person, Raina. Good morning. My name is Raina Persaud, Youth Educator Lead at Eden Youth. I'm a current resident of Alameda County in a recent graduate of University of California Berkeley, specializing in American government. I'm here to express my strong support for upholding staff recommendations concerning the repeated violations by trophy smoke shop. The tobacco retail license to our L, an electronic smoking device is the ordinances where enacted to limit youth access to tobacco products and ensure compliance by retailers for the health health safety and welfare of Alameda County residents. The penalties for non-compliance were designed to hold retailers accountable to these standards. Trophy's Mochot despite being well informed of these requirements through retailer education efforts in 2020 has shown a repeated disregard for both TRL and ESD ordinances. The sale of ESDs including electronic devices and components intended for nicotine delivery has been prohibited since September 6, 2020. Despite these clear regulations, trophy smoke shop has continued to engage in unlawful practices, including selling electronic smoking devices and displaying tobacco, paraphernalia during of the health and health and health care and health health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care youth smokers. With study showing they contain harmful substances similar to cigarettes including nicotine tar and heavy metals. The continued sale and promotion of these items by Trophy's Smoke Shop undermines public health initiatives and reducing youth tobacco use. It is also concerning that Trophy's Smoke Shop, a business that has gained popularity on social media, continues to appeal decisions that have been made in line with the law. Their social influence does not exempt them from compliance nor does indicate that detrimental impact their non-compliance has on the community. In light of their ongoing violations and disregard for the community health, I urge the board to uphold the order. Over to you, yeah. Thank you. Okay. Original staff recommendations and primary revoke trophy smoke shops, TRL. The shop has consistently failed to meet the standards set by the county in as crucial that the integrity of these public health provisions it is crucial that these provisions are maintained thank you okay thank you I'll just remind all of our speakers that our translators are really good, but yeah thank you. Next speaker. Call it you're on the line you have two minutes to speak. Hello my name is Sandra Macias, I'm the project manager for SLAM. We work a lot in prevention and I personally and my team worked really hard to have this TRL ordinance passed and enforced. I will just, you know, really echo what everybody else has said, but I really want to highlight what an impact these ordinances have on the on combating youth tobacco use. Since it went into effect, we use the Healthy Kids Survey to determine whether these policies are effective or not, whenever we advocate for policies. And we in one year, so like an 8% drop across the board and all tobacco use, that's like 30-day use, lifetime use, on campus use, you name it, it has dropped. And it really is because we are attacking the accessibility of these products towards youth. And so it is really important to enforce these policies. It's not just enough to have the policies, but the enforcement piece is so important. Because we have worked with code enforcement and one of the things that they let us know is that these hearings, us attending them, us, the board and the BZA enforcing them are a huge deterrent for other retailers. So it's not really just about the community, the kids. It's about making sure that retailers know that if they violate these ordinances, they will lose their license. They will suffer consequences. And so I urge you to take up the the staff recommendation protect our community and allow this ordinance to work in the way that it's supposed to be working which is to protect our youth and to make sure that retailers are responsible. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. commercial tobacco in the community. These actually didn't replicate the strides necessary to reduce the risk of youth using tobacco products as many other individuals have spoken about. Alameda County's TRL and ESD ordinance is an example of local policy efforts to protect and preserve the health of future and current generations from the negative impact of big tobacco. The Alameda County ESD ordinance language prohibiting electronic smoking device sales pertain to any ESD and is written without regard to the quantity of electronic smoking devices for sale in the store or the length of time the product has been on the retailer's shelf. Furthermore, both state and local Alameda County tobacco laws define tobacco paraphernalia as items designed to be used with tobacco like hookah pipes. And during TRL suspension, retailers are prohibited from selling tobacco paraphernalia, like hookah or tobacco products like electronic smoking devices. In best practice, active application and enforcement of the current tobacco retail license and electronic smoking device ordinance is a protective factor for the young people in unincorporated Alamina County. This may provide them an opportunity to live a life free from the many harms of tobacco products. Thank you again for your time and efforts in making our community healthier and safer. Caller, you're on the line. Please unmute your microphone. Hi, hello, my name is Jim Hernandez and I'm a coordinator with the SLAM program. I'm here today to express my support for the decision to rebook the tobacco retail license of the business and question. Derby Teller has a history of repeated violations spanning several years demonstrating a clear risk of our federalism meant to protect our community. While the storyteller has appealed their arguments do not provide a valid reason to accept them from the ordinance requirements, the ordinance exists to ensure responsibility business practices, especially in matters as critical as tobacco cells. A poll in the decision to rebook their license is justified and necessary to maintain public trust and community health. I urge you to support this defreq combination to affirm this revocation. Thank you for your time and consideration. I tell you on the line. I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and has not been compliant with the counties tobacco retail licensing and electronic smoking device ordinances. These were adopted by the board over four and a half years ago with the intention to limit youth access to tobacco and protect the health and safety and welfare of residents in unincorporated Alameda County. Since the adoption of these laws, our program has worked closely with CDA providing support to achieve successful implementation. Before the laws took effect, we provided education about the laws to every tobacco retailer in the unincorporated areas through mailings, in-person store visits, emails or phone calls around COVID, as well as online training webinars. In July of 2020, our program staff spoke directly with trophies owner by phone and provided information about the requirements of the new laws, including that the sale of all electronic smoking devices would be prohibited as of September 6, 2020. Additionally, hookah pipes are primarily intended to be used with tobacco, which is widely recognized by the FDA, the CDC, and the World Health Organization, as well as many hookah companies in their online descriptions of these products. Hookah is known to post serious health risks to youth smokers and contain many of the same chemicals found in cigarette smoke that are known to cause lung, bladder and oral cancers. Both state and local tobacco law definitions of tobacco paraphernalia include HUCA pipes and in our communications with tobacco retail enforcement agencies across the county, HUCA pipes are uniformly treated as tobacco power finilia which is consistent with state and federal law. The expectation is also that hookah products sold in tobacco retail establishments are intended to be used with tobacco. According to the TRL, if the retailers license was suspended, they should not have been selling tobacco power finalea or tobacco products, including electronic smoking devices, and this reinforces the retailer's historical pattern of non-compliance. Thank you so much. Buenos días, miembros de la Junta de Supervisores. Mi nombre es Julia Vasquez, miembros de SLAM. Y estoy aquí para expresar mi apoyo a la decisión de revocar la licencia de venta de tabaco de este negocio que estamos hablando. Porque esta tienda tiene un historial de violaciones de petidas y que abarca varios años. of rape, and that there are several years. This shows a clear price for the rules intended to protect our community. If the store, for example, their arguments do not think they bring valid reasons to maximize the requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance exists to protect, to guarantee the to protect, to guarantee the practical, commercial practices and especially in such critical issues as the tabacco sale, to keep the decision to revoke its license is justified and it is necessary to keep the public trust and the health of the community also makes it to support the recommendation of the staff to sign this revocation. Thank you very much for your time and for your consideration. Thank you. Interpreter. Hello, can we have it the interpreter speak now? In order to hear the interpreter, you need to select the English Channel. If not, you won't be able to hear the interpreter. Sure, I'm not sure if you are able to select the English channel. We're in I'm in the English channel. Are you able to hear clear, clear, interpret everything into English? I hear her. Okay, I put both laptops in English channel. Could you summarize, Gracia, what the previous speaker said? We didn't change the channel. So could you summarize? Possibly. Or whoever was providing the English interpretation. Maria, Clara, can you repeat what we said? Yes, I can summarize. Okay. I'm in the English channel. Are you able to hear me? No. Yes, we can hear you. Oh, board members. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, we can hear you board members Yes, we can hear you Public speaker Julia Vasquez identify herself she is here in support of the To revoke in the appellance position she is considering that this store, trophy smoke shop, which is located at 2029 Redwood City in Calcord Valley, has repeatedly violated the rules and regulations and that she is here to please request your support in not accepting the appellance request since it has been in violation for many years and has not invited by the rules according to the ordinance. Clara, thank you so much. We'll go to the next speaker and if they are in Spanish, speaking, we'll move to the different channels so that we can hear Clara in English. Collar, you're on the line? Hello. We can hear you. Yeah, I'm the store owner. I tried to answer when you guys were talking earlier, but I was having technical difficulties. Go ahead. Do I just go? Okay. Yeah, so the issue that I had was it's not really about the dangers of vaping or everything that, you know, these people keep bringing up. The issue is when we were on the suspension, we didn't do anything wrong. All we did is we had the hookas in the back in the storage room and old vaping devices in the storage room that are like four years old. You can look at the dates, you can see the dust, you can look at the pictures. And the person who does the inspections have seen it a million times on our previous suspensions, and he has never brought it up, never said we had to take it down or anything. He walks right past it every single time, completely ignores it since he's known it's not for sale, but this time it was almost like it was planned where, where they knew that it's almost like it was planned where they knew that we were honest. It's almost like he saved it for this third suspension just so he can get us a fourth one and shut us down. Like that was like almost a genius idea since that's exactly the whole point of that whole TL ordinance. So that's just my issue. I'm gonna just keep it simple because that's really what I believe. If it was an issue this entire time he could have told us, can you take down these hookers? Can you take down these, can you get these vapes out of the warehouse section? But he's never mentioned it before. And he goes to our shop all the time. Like, if it was that, why is it an issue now? Why was it an issue on the first suspension? He should have gave us a second violation on our first suspension or on our second suspension or on our third suspension, it did happen, but it should have happened on the previous two suspensions. It doesn't make sense to not be consistent that way. It's unfair to us because we're relying on what you guys say. Like you're supposed to let us know what we can and can't do because the ordinance isn't clear enough. The ordinance, you know, it does mention, you know, electronic smoking devices are banned, but that's not what we got. That's not what the issue is right now. It's not the electronic smoking devices. It's the, what's issue is right now. It's not the electronic smoking devices. It's the What's in the back storage room because because when the ordinance first passed what they told us what the what the people told us was Like the people who did the ordinance. They said it just can't be in view of the customers So that's why we put it in it back there But anyway, you know you guys I see everybody wants to shut us down, but I just want to remind you guys, I know you guys are, you know, want to do good for the community. But just because we get shut down doesn't mean it's going to stop anything. You know, you can go online right now and order a vape to your door with doing a no type of online verification. You could order anything online. And it'll come straight to your door. Your child can order it without any verification. At least when they come into a business, for example, to buy a hook, a pipe, they have to show us their ID. And we have to verify who they are. We could look at them, see how old they are. Online, you don't have to do any of that. You just order a straight to your door. So yeah, you think you're doing something good, but you're really just making it much easier for kids to find these. You're really not doing anything. I'm just being honest with you guys, that I don't wanna hurt anyone's feelings, but you're really just making it easier, especially since you're, when you close our store down, it's just going to have other unregulated stores popping up just like in Oakland. You could drive through Oakland right now and you'll see 100 stores that are unregulated. But you know, that's just what happens when you think that you think that you're so smart and you want to ban a couple legal stores, the unregulated stores start popping up. And that's what's going to happen in Castro Valley. Once we shut down, you're going to start noticing these unregulated stores. And it's already started happening. But I'm just going to let you guys, you guys can go ahead and ban us. But I'm just reminding you now that that's what's going to happen. Because that's what always happens. Similar to the prohibition, when alcohol got banned, you started seeing the black market comes in and they take over and you guys can't regulate it, you can't control nothing and then everyone is screwed since there's no way to regulate it, no way to control it. With us still being open, you guys can come and tell us, all right, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this. And we're trying our best here. You can, we're trying our best. Yeah, we mess up every once in a while, but three suspensions within four years, three violations within four years is not bad compared to not being able to regulate someone completely. You can't go to the person on the corner and tell him, hey, stop selling vapes, he's gonna say, get the hell out of my face. I gotta make money right now. You can't regulate the streets. So if you wanna, you can continue to work with us and realize that it wasn't that big of an issue, that hookah, that hookah bongs were in a storage area, that old vapes from four years ago was in the storage area that should have been mentioned us to remove them You know or you could just take away our tobacco license and let the streets And try to regulate the streets pretty much that's all I'm saying if you want to regulate the streets go ahead and try We already see how that went down with the with the drugs and the prostitution and the million other things that you guys can't regulate and control You know, so it's go ahead. You guys can pretend to be heroes right now and ban the store. Not to the board. I'm more concerned about everybody that's showing up and giving all these speeches like they're just going to save the world right now. That's not how the world works. So. Thank you for your help. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. Next speaker. That was your last speaker. Very good. Any questions from my colleagues of staff or the applicant or any comments? I see. Supervisor Tam. Thank you chair Harbert. Just wanted to ask some clarifying questions. Based on the staff report and the submittals and the presentation. This business isn't in operation for a little over six years, right? Yes, they were in operation before the ordinance as a smoke shop. Then it just, so their first violation happened shortly after they opened, right? And I'm trying to understand, because each violation seems to be for different things. The first violation that occurred in January of 2020 resulted in a 30-day suspension and the payment of outstanding fines. So during that 30-day suspension, did the applicant or the appellant pay the fines and also complied with the suspension and mitigated the issues that were identified during the inspection? My understanding is that the operator was, when they were given the 30-day suspension, we were not able to do an inspection during that period. So after the 30-day suspension was over, then he was out of the suspension period and the subsequent inspection we did later on, he was already out of the suspension period and not under a suspension on the second violation, that we issued. Okay, because I understand during COVID, we probably didn't do a lot of inspections in 2020 but then when we got out of COVID in 2023 there was a different violation it was a sale to minors and that resulted in a 90-day suspension. Then on in January of this year, there was a third violation with a suspension that's still in place until the end of this year. And so during the suspension periods, have there been corrective actions that were taken by the operator? So typically when when they're under a suspension and we do an inspection that's when we are scheduling our monitoring compliance and during that inspection, we did discover that they had a violation and also that the additional violation was that they were operating within their suspension period. If a violation or suspension is issued, we either try to go out there, you know, we always go unannounced. And either we, there's no really time frame, we just decide that, okay, we have to do an inspection or maybe there's a concern or a complaint. So every time we go out there during their suspension period aside from finding other things, we do indicate that they are operating under a suspended license, which is a violation as well. So during the suspension, what can the operator do? Can they sell tobacco products at all? They cannot sell any tobacco products at all. They're not supposed to have it available for customers. And, in fact, the last violation that the letter that the inspector gave them told them that to remove all tobacco products in tobacco paraphernalia from the area and they indicated what those products would be, not just the actual tobacco, but also the paraphernalia, paraphernalia is which include the hook of pipes. So the paraphernalia removal doesn't necessarily distinguish between whether they're displayed for sale or whether they're in the storage in the back room? So they can pack it up in boxes where we're comfortable enough that they're trying to keep it away from the sales area, but in the photos that we provided, their dose are easily visible from the sales area. Okay, thank you for that clarification. President Miley, questions? Yes. What type of business is this? What type of business? They sell tobacco and other products as well, like almost like a gift shop type operation. It is the tobacco retail license, they're only license. Say that again. Is the tobacco retail license? They're only license. I believe they own another store on loveling. If we revoke their license, would that put them out of business? So the revocation is only for the tobacco license. So if they're selling other products in the store, then they're allowed to keep that business to sell those products. The fine $2,000. The fine right now. Let's look at... I have to find that section. I had the packet here. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and get the money. I'm going to go ahead and get the money. I'm going to go ahead and get the money. I'm going to go ahead and get the money. I'm going to go ahead and get the money. I'm going to go ahead and get the money. I'm going to go ahead and get the money. Notice of faith it is a thousand dollars a thousand dollars plus two sixty eight for the administrative fee And the inspection fee of 193 so What's the inspection fee how much is that? Because I'm looking at the notice of failed inspection and it lists $1,000 fine to 68 administer a fee. Is there any other cost or fees? So the April 22, I think the relied on... So, the evidence from the Sheriff's Office, so there's no inspection, it's just a $1,000 fine and 26 an administrative fee and a fine totaling $1,268. That's correct. Okay. And then because a supervisor, TMS, the question and the owner spoke as well. Were they clear that everything had to be removed? Because I'm trying to get a sense if they were very clear on that, everything had to be removed. And if it's in storage in the like in the bathroom or something, that would have been okay. That would have been okay, yes, if they kept it in a storage area, ideally boxed up so there's no question that they were trying to keep it away. And I'm trying to understand, from the owner's perspective, did the staff clearly indicate to the owner, operator of the facility, of the store, that all the hookah stuff, everything had to be removed. I think I believe I have the investigator that went out there online if you wanna recognize him, Afonso. Because I heard the owner operator over here is say he felt he was set up. So I'm just trying to understand And get clarity on that Yeah, the Fanzo is on the line and again to the point discrepancy is a prior Visitations without comment clarity of Necessity on what to do when subsequent violations were mentioned, really important to understand that. We could elevate Alfonso. There we are. I think that must be him. You're on the line. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thanks. So as Ed mentioned. Excuse me on the first inspection that we. I'm sorry. This is off on the floors with Alameda County, unfortunately, by the way, sorry. So during the first inspection back in, I believe it was 2020, there was a 30-day suspension issued. We do have a lot of retailers that we have to visit, so we weren't able to get back to that, to circle back for a second inspection before the 30 days expired. So on the second violation, again, that was conducted by the sheriffs. We weren't not there at that inspection that we found that they had, the sheriffs have found that they had stock in the back. You know, there was like a display that you would see at a store, except it was in a bathroom. Boxes were open, looks like packs were missing as if there was sales being conducted there. And again, the ordinance with regards to flavor tobacco says that you can't possess any of that in the, you know, with the intent to sell. And it said the store, it was displayed in that manner. So we felt that that was a violation. He was instructed to remove those particular products and the electronic smoking devices from the, excuse me, Anna, the flavor tobacco products from the premises. So when they share us to their visit, we were only informed of the photos of those flavored tobacco products. We were not informed that if there was any electronic smoking devices, there's a police report that's available from that previous inspection and that previous violation. It looks like it was a decoy operation where they were found to have sold to a minor and that led to some events which led to the backroom of being looked at and that's where they found the products. So in previous inspections, we generally conduct them with the sheriffs. So leading up to that sheriffs inspection, we had had inspections with them. And when we generally do the inspections, they have to be coordinated with multiple people, sometimes multiple agencies. So when we're up doing the inspections, time is of the essence. So we don't generally go into the back if we don't have enough time. We try to stay in the general sales area. So if those products were in the back, they possibly could have been there. And they just weren't seen in the during the previous visits because of the share of visit where they had products in the back. Upon our return on the third inspection or that led to a violation, we felt that necessary to check all of them. And when we did, that's where we found that the flavored products had been moved to a different area of the store. And that's where we found the electronic smoking devices. So during that inspection, and we did inform them via notice that they had to remove all the electronic smoke devices from the premises. Flavor tobacco products needed to be removed from the premises. And then the HUCA had states on there that needs to be removed from the sales area. And unfortunately, when you walk into the store, on the last visit, there's an opening in the wall where you can see clearly see the, the, the Huka from the previous inspection where I saw the electronic smoking devices. I just from the sales area, even though they're difficult to see from the sales area, I knew that I recognize that the boxes were still there. So that's how this resulted into the situation or where we are. And they were notified via the notices that we gave them that they were not allowed to have those products. And that they, and it's specified in the notices. I don't know if you have copy of them, that they needed to be removed from the premises. Okay, so I just want to get clarity. So was it the January 4th inspection or the March 28th inspection when they were told to remove the hookah products? Which is via notice they were they were informed to remove tobacco paraphernalia of all kinds. And the notice that was sent as a result of those earlier inspections did not specifically state hookah. It did say tobacco paraphernalia and I provided a tobacco paraphernalia definition. And that was at March 28th or January 4th. Those that was on the January notice, I believe January notes and they were to remove all products from the premises which included hookah Sorry, just to clarify so the Whenever I say remove from the premises that refers to flavored tobacco right in the previous notice and the electronic smoking devices for the tobacco products in paraphernalia, they were asked to remove them from the sales area. And that was in January. Is that the January notice? That's correct. Okay. And was it clear to them that Hookah was a product that needed to be removed from the sales area? Whether it was clear, I need have to ask, how unfortunately the business owner, we specified in the notice tobacco paraphernalia, I did not state Hookah on the document, nor did I call him and say specifically to remove the UCA. I understand. Okay. And then in March, then what happened on March 28th? Fourth violation. And that yeah, so on the on that particular violation when we returned. With the sheriff, so we did our inspection and I knew where the products were the last time, so we kind of went by those same areas to check and they were still there. So the products were still on the premises and the devices hadn't been removed from the sales area. You think you might have got that reversed right? So the electronic smoke and devices were still on the premises. There were still no exact same location and the hookas were still visible, clearly visible from the opening in the sales area. What about the flavor, the back all know all that stuff? Was that still on the premises? I didn't the the flavor tobacco that I saw from the previous inspection just before that one were not there. Okay so I'm I'm just asking these questions because in my mind and it's just me I'm trying to decide whether or not I want to support revocation of his retail license. If it's revoked, what's the implications of that? Will he be able to apply for that again? What's the implications? Currently, the county has a limitation on the number of retailers based on the density requirement of 1 per 2500 residents of the county if that's calculated based on the latest census data that's 60 retailers but right now we have 77 because the ones that had the business prior to the ordinance were allowed to continue Almost like a grandfathered situation. Okay, so a new license will not even become available until we are below 60 Okay, thanks. I don't know how long that will take. Yeah, thanks it. Yeah, I remember all this stuff Manage of bringing it up Okay, and if it's if it's suspended again what duration can we suspend a license is it 30 days 60 days 90 how long can we suspend the license? Right now they are under a one-year suspension. I would recommend to go back to the one-year instead of revocation. So if we suspend the license, so for one year, would that be one year from now, from this date going forward to September of 2025. I would defer to it. Or is it one year based on the fact that it's been suspended already? And we just can. So the ordinance is drafted in mandatory language regarding the nature of the suspensions and the revocation. If you determine that there is a violation and it is the fourth within the five-year period, then revocation is mandated. Oh, it's mandated. We have no discretion. There are accelerated escalated provisions and they have been through all of the steps. So if this is in fact a fourth violation within the five-year period, then revocation is the only penalty available. And there's no wiggle rum. The ordinance is drafted without discretion if you determine that there's a violation and that is the penalty. And there would be a violation if the products were still, the devices were still on site. On the premises, and had been removed from the sales area, and the other products for sale were still on the premises. Those facts wouldn't, in fact, support of violation because they were suspended. So all products had to be removed from the sales floor. And if there's, if it's contested that the owner didn't understand, is that a factor? I'm just trying to give this person the benefit of getting it as much as possible. Correct. So they do have to be given notice of the violation which the staff has presented the notice. The question that you are asking is whether that notice was sufficient to inform them of what they were supposed to do. The ordinance itself is the law and ignorance of the law is generally no excuse and that plus the notice presents a difficult case. So the question is, I believe you are presenting is whether or not they were sufficiently informed of their obligation. And if you believe that they were not, then it may be possible for you to determine that there was no violation, but you'll have to weigh the facts. But I interject the question. Because I think there was a discrepancy of they were in the back room, boxes were open, maybe they were selling, looks like maybe they were not sure. As the owner verified whether these were being sold, does his POS system show or his sales system show that they were actually selling these items because as he mentioned, they were collecting dust somewhere. Now what I also understand is they were still on a shelf and we have a photo of that, but if they were under a suspension that they were about to come off of, it was a temporary suspension and they just left them on the shelf, but weren't selling them. It's, I guess, technically a violation, but kind of not because they weren't selling them. Was, were they for sale or not? Do we know? We did not check their BOS systems or sales records, but in terms of what the inspector reiterated that prohibited products like the flavored tobacco and Electronic smoking devices should not even be in the store at all. So the flavored tobacco is just not even legal to sell It's illegal. Yes. Period. Period. So the hookers, because they are a tobacco paraphernalia, they are allowed to have that in the store, but under a suspension, they cannot have it in the sales area. Okay. Okay. And they had it in the sales area? It was visible for customers, yes. And all I'm trying to get at is Did they sufficiently know if they couldn't have it in the sales area and If we determine that they didn't know Then there wouldn't be a violation I'm looking at counting council. I think that's a fair statement of the issue that you are faced with. And if there's not a violation, then can we still levy the fine and the administrative fee? If there is no violation, then you, so that there are violations of two violations here. One is regarding the Huka paraphernalia and the other relates to the electronic devices. So that's a separate chapter of the ordinance code. One is in 3.58 and the other is 3.59. The violation with the HUCA paraphernalia is if found to be a violation you must, as this would be their fourth within the one-year period imposed the $1,000 fine I do not believe that same language is in the $359 statute I mean I want to be as tough on these retail tobacco retail outlets as possible, just like with alcohol outlets. But you know, I don't want to be overly burdensome because the operator does make a point. We put them out of business. It's not going to stop the product. It's going to be online. It's going to be, you know, on the streets. And if we can get compliance here, that's what I'm trying to achieve. So let's suppose there was no violation of the pair of the devices. There's a violation that he had the products, the flavored products on site. That's a violation. So, I'm just playing with this at the moment. If that's a violation, what's the fine? And would that be grounds for revocation of his license? Mr. President, I'm now reading the enforcement provision of 35950, which relates to the electronic device. It provides that a violation of this chapter regarding the electronic device. It provides that a violation of this chapter, regarding the electronic device, is deemed a violation of chapter 3.5, 8, and the enforcement, and the procedures for the violation are the same. So if you determine that there is a violation of either the hook of paraphernalia or the electronic device, then that either one or both would be a fourth violation, triggering the $1,000 and the associated $5,000. Triggering the 1,000 associated administrative fee and revocation. Yes, as a fourth violation. All right. Thank you for helping me walk through all this then. OK. All right, those answers. All my questions are for. I noticed the applicant has his hand raised Do you want to hear from the applicant that store owners on the yeah, I just think He should be able to respond to this and then I see surprise mark has next Hello, as you guys see, they didn't do any inspections while we were on suspension. So this entire time, we were thinking that we were doing the suspension the right way. So when they come on the third suspension and tell us that we're doing it the wrong way, you know, I feel like that could have just been told to us and we would have complied. You know, he mentioned that we could have flavored tobacco, so we got rid of the flavor tobacco, as he just said. But for the hook up paraphernalia, we didn't know that it couldn't be in the storage area. Same thing with the electronic smoking devices. And those devices weren't for sale, like I said, there, you could look at the picture, you could look up the brands and everything. Those are all four years old. It's just we put them in that storage area. And since we usually don't go to that area, it was basically out of view, out of mind pretty much. So if you guys want us to fix the issue, if this is about getting rid of the problem, we could get rid of the problem by just telling us, take that out of the store, which we already did by now. So the problem has already gone. But if this is about just punishing someone for not knowing whether or not something is supposed to be not in view of from the sales floor, or if it's not supposed to be not in view of from the sales floor or if it's not supposed to be in the store at all or if it's about punishing then yeah revoking the tobacco license would work. But if it's just if it's about solving the problem which is getting it out of the store then the problem was already solved. What about the flavored tobacco items that are just not even legal to have and you had them there. No, we didn't have them there. He just said that we didn't have them there. On the third suspension, we got rid of everything. We got rid of everything and Alfonso just said that we didn't have it there. While they had there was the Huka tobacco paraphernalia and then old electronic smoking devices, which don't have any tobacco in them. Both of those items don't have any tobacco nor nicotine. They're just devices that you would use to smoke tobacco. Okay, thank you. But we already took them out of the store. So the problem has already solved is what I'm saying. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We already took them out of the store. The problem is already solved. Thank you. I'll ask you so much. Thank you to my colleagues for asking a lot of detailed questions. With respect to a business operator like this, are there any rules or guidelines with regard to lighting signage? Is that looked at this type of establishment, whether or not there in any violation? We have an address that in our inspections. Like what examples are you referring to? I've been near this operator in the nighttime and I believe they have very, very bright lights. I would say excessive lighting. I just want to have a better understanding if there are any regulations around what is allowed. According to planning, we don't have any regulations for brightness of lighting. I do remember something about parking lots where they have to shine the lights down or but I think what you're referring to is lighting around the windows. They're bright and above it perhaps. thank you. Well, I guess deliberation flavored products were removed in March. That's correct. The Fort P fourth violation only indicated the electronic smoking devices in paraphernalia. Okay. So if the flavor products were removed, that was handled and you was confused about the hookah devices being in the sales area. I'm willing to be lenient in this situation. Once again, I understand the importance of us regulating tobacco and alcohol, marijuana, all these legal drugs, and not getting them in the hands of youth. But I'm also reticent to want to take away a license if there's not clear evidence to indicate that. And I think in this situation, I mean, I don't know if the staff from a code enforcement, the Sheriff's Department clearly indicated to him, get these, the hookah products, you know, out of the sales area Put them somewhere else where they're not visible or And that's the only piece that's troubling me and so if that's not clear then there would be no violation right I think you could certainly conclude based on the facts that if the appellant was not aware that the Huka and other products were subject to removal and there was no violation, but the facts have to support that conclusion. And right now the facts are just his testimony as far as I know. I don't think there's any other facts. I think that's consistent with what occurred today. And I think based on what I'm hearing from the staff, I don't think the staff clearly in what I have the shortest part, we're not here to speak to this, but I don't love the staff clearly indicated that to him about those hookah products get them out of the sales area. So if there's no violation of that, then there would be no fourth violation of the ordinance. And if there's no fourth violation of the ordinance, there's no fines, fees, or revocation. If you conclude that there's been fines, fees or revocation. If you conclude that there's been no fourth violation, there would be no basis for a revocation. Okay. All right. Now, if we go, if the staff goes back and we find out that there's a, you know, those products are there. Then that would be subject. I mean, it's clear now to the owner that those products need to be removed. He's saying they've been removed from the sales area, et cetera, et cetera. But if you go back to an inspection, it hasn't occurred or there are other violations, that would trigger a fourth violation. It would have to be calculated, is that within the five year period or fourth violation, their current suspension would continue obviously through January of this coming year. They are still on suspension. Okay, all right. Okay, all right. Okay. So I know this has been a very lengthy item in discussion. And what I'd like to suggest to the board, my motion would be that we sustain the appeal based on the grounds that the owner operator of the facility did not understand that the tobacco devices in this case, I believe we're talking about the hookah products needed to be removed from the sales area. And so the motion is that we sustain the appeal and deny the violation of the ordinance. I'll second that motion if we can have a brief discussion and I'm not sure if it'll pass. But I've seen situations where you initiate a penalty, but you suspend that. Revocate the license, you immediately enforce that revocation. I don't know if that's possible or not. We've done that in the past. I'm going back to my school board days. So student would be expelled from school. But the enforcement of that was not enforced so that student was still at school. They're expelled, but they're still at school. If they mess up, then they are all expelled. They would be removed from school. Is there an opportunity to do that? Because I agree with Supervisor Miley that this is kind of a odd situation. Is there an ability to revoke but then just bend that? The ordinance does not provide a last chance opportunities such as that. It clearly states that upon a finding of four or more violations of this chapter at any location within any five year period, the license shall be re-bought. Okay, well, then I guess I was just trying, but Supervisor Miles' point about the wooden of Beneforth violation, if there hadn't been more clarity, now I understand that better. So that's why I said that. Yeah and I'm in and that's why I was kind of trying to quiz County Council. If we had some discretion then I would try to play with this and say let's do something like you're suggesting but it's sort of like if there's a fourth violation the license shall be revoked. We have no wiggle room here. And that's, and I'm just giving the owner operator, the benefit of the job based on his testimony and the lack of certainty on the part of our staff that they informed him that these products need to be out of the sales area? I would be equally convinced if they were at truthfully no sales. The owner would testify in a test. That's the question. You know, if the owner's still on, if there were no sales while those who could devices were visible in the sales office, present, I don't even know if they knew they could sell them or not, because they didn't think of them as tobacco product. It's a accessory. I think that's what I heard him say, but that's where the clarity of this comes in. And I totally agree with County Council, the ignorance of the laws, no excuse. But that's where we need to be really clear with people in the field, I guess. I don't know. The owner is on, were you selling these things? This also includes having the electronic smoking devices, which he's not supposed to have any of that in the premises. You're not allowed to have electronic smoking devices on site at all because they're prohibited products They're not they're not legal. No, they're not And is this point that they were just being stored there? Well, his reason was that they've been in the back room. They're not telling it. It's been there for four years, but we don't have any proof of that. Ah, okay, that he's not selling any at one point they were legal. And so he's saying these were just left over from when they were legal. I believe that's his position that it's been in the back room kind of thing, but it's still in the premises. So those, so those electronic smoking devices, do they include hookah? No hookah, those hookah pipes are not electronic. So they're different? Yes. But he had the hooker, any of the electronic smoking devices. Correct. The electronic smoking devices, you're saying are illegal and they're not supposed to be on the premises at all. Correct. Were those the ones that were just displayed also? The electronic smoking devices? Yes, based on the photos that we saw. They're visible from the sales area. Well, let's see if the sustaining gets three votes. What's been moved to second it? Do we have any other comments? Chair Harper, I will not be if it's been moved in seconded. Do we have any other comments? Chair Halpert. I will not be supporting the motion on the table. I appreciate that there's a desire to give the benefit of the doubt, but I think staff, you know, after the third violation has given them the benefit of the doubt. And when the sheriff was part of the second violation, there clearly needs to be more than just, you know, we kind of didn't know that this was in the back room, but it's open and displayed. So I just don't feel comfortable sustaining the appeal and I would refer to the in conformance with the law when it comes to the fourth violation in five years. Mr. President, Marquez. Thank you. My position is to uphold the decision. I really appreciate staff's work on this, respect the people that have called into weigh in, but this is just really problematic and concerning that there's so many violations. So my position is to uphold the decision. Well, I'll withdraw my motion because clearly, I'm just trying to weigh his situation with the realities, but sure, I'll withdraw the motion. Is there another motion? Yeah, go ahead and make your motion. I move that we uphold the decision of the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments and Deniety Appeal, a preface it by saying, I have a staff member that's part of the American Lung Association that work to put these laws in place. And I appreciate staff's effort and the county's efforts to help with the enforcement. And we want to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when you're at the fourth violation, that's problematic. I'll second the motion. Okay, motion's been made and seconded, supervisor, president, Miley. Yeah, I'm going to support the motion, only be all the conversation discussion, just because I hear what my colleagues are saying. There's no one that's done more around addressing problems with alcohol. Let's in tobacco outlets. Then I have, and my history has elected official going back to my days on the City Council. So I'm very familiar with these matters. And I just try to weigh everything. And I think in this case, based on what I Council. So I'm very familiar with these matters, and I just try to weigh everything. And I think in this case, based on what I'm hearing, I'll support the motion, and we'll let it stay at that. So his license would be a retail license would be revoked, doesn't put him out of business, but his ability to sell tobacco products will be basically ended because under our law we already have too many of those retail outlets in existence in the unincorporated area. Very good. I'll also be supportive. I appreciate my colleagues' comments and I have have listened to that so we'll have a roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez. I supervise your team. I president Miley. Yes. Supervisor Carson. Excuse. Supervisor Halbert. I very good. Are we able to go back to item two or three. Have we received the technical rather received emails of presentations is the caller still on the line. I'll thank our speakers in the audience as well. And if anyone's listening online for coming, thank you. The caller is online. He's do we have the technical difficulties resolved, any chance? Or does the Stephen want to go for another day, even though it's been two times already? We continue. Yeah, I'll be very brief. Now, she's supposed to share the screen and I'm'm gonna talk on this one if you guys can hear me. We can hear you. Okay, so now the clerk will share my screen, and then we should be able to do this. Okay, do you, I know we have your PowerPoint. You were gonna attempt to share again, or is that what you're gonna do, or what? How do you want to do this? Right, I've been corresponding with the clerk, and so if you share my screen then I can bring this up and orally go over it. So we were able to share the screen last time, and now we have the confusion put away that I'm gonna be talking on this line. That makes sense. Okay. 5107254775, I'll be speaking, and then the Zoom one where I'm sorry. I'd like to be able to share my screen. So are you able to do that? I, I, yeah. I cannot share your screen. I can only share my screen. But you can let him share his screen. He can, I can promote him to a panelist and he can share his screen. That's what he wants to do. And now he's able to go to the right screen before he wasn't able to show the right screen. Steven, she's gonna let you have the ability to share your screen. Okay, great, yeah. Left. You're now a panelist so you can share your screen. Great. Is everyone with me here now? Okay, now you need to select the document that you want to share. All right, I just want to make sure everyone can hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, great. So thank you guys for your time. And Edward did go over the appeal points, but he conveniently left out the most important issue here. And that is, this ordinance came in in 1999, however, this property had cement throughout the entire front yard and the middle area prior to that. That means it is legal non-conforming. It is grandfathered in. There is no legal precedent for him to require any type of abatement in this situation. And I'll give you a case sample on this that I think is quite interesting. But first, let's go over it. The intent is to improve the general appearance and cleanliness of real property in unincorporated Alameda County. That's the intent of the ordinance. I think anyone could agree here, even at that this improved the appearance of the property. Okay? There's no longer trip hazards. There's no longer overgrown Ivy. There's no longer the general lack of appeal now that the asphalt is there. However, this is a grandfathered property rights law. And I think this is why in the appeal hearing, the council for the county did not opine on it. I think she was aware that this is something where you cannot apply this abatement order because it's grandfathered in. Let me give you an example of this. This is two, three, six, two, three Nevada Road and Hayward. It's a single family home. As you can see, the vast majority of it is cement. What's interesting here is this is the home of John Kransky who is the Alameda County cold enforcement officer for this case. So I discussed this ordinance and this issue with. If you'd like to object to something and Steve Steve, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm going to ask you to stop for a moment. Steve, time out. Okay. This is Melanie O'Brien. I'm a deputy county council with the county council's office. And I just want to point out to the board that the appellant is providing the personal information of a county employee to be using as an example here. He works for the code enforcement planning's office office and he's putting his personal address on the screen I'm going to ask that he move on from doing that. Thank you. Unfortunately this is public record so the ownership of property is public record. Mr. Kransky does illness but that's not the point of this the point is that he's a code enforcement officer and he has the exact same violation that he's accusing me of. But I will continue to what the Hayward code enforcement officer discuss with this. As you can see here, he stated the ordinance only applies to single-family home. He's not even in the unincolpated county. I think I'm sorry you cannot interrupt me. Yeah, so I'm sorry. This is the same as every other on it. It does not. I'm sorry. Steven, we're going to re we're going to revoke the panelist and the presentation. He can he can appeal this Whatever decision we make can be appealed to the board or to a court of laws, right? He can provide information and he has the right to. And let him tell the courts then. Well, he can submit whatever information he wants. But unfortunately, he's providing information that's one. He's doxing the county employee to the property that he's speaking to is not in the unincorporated area, not subject to your ordinance. It's a false narrative about whether or not this is relevant or not. If he wants to speak to the issue of whether or not he believes his property was subject to the grandfathering, that's a legitimate argument. We should hear that, but I do believe he needs to not be taking a position that is intended to call out an employee for doing their job and certainly with information that's not relevant to the proceeding. So I do suggest that we, you consider continuing this item and ask Mr. Crancy to provide his written material in advance so that we can determine whether or not it's appropriate or whether it's inappropriate. So for a third time we'll continue this item. We will request respectfully that presentation materials be provided a week in advance so that we can review them. We certainly respect the rights of positions to be heard. For example, whether this could be grandfather to consider grandfather the situation, but I also take exception to pointing the address of employee out. So we're going to continue this item until the next planning meeting. Thank you. Now believe that next meeting will not be until November. What day and November is that? I think that's November 14th. So November 14th, there will not be a meeting in November. Till November 14th. Very good. Thank you. Any objections to that?th. Very good. Thank you. Any objections to that? Very good. With that we have public comment on items not on today's agenda. Item five. Item five. I'm sorry. This is the second hearing and adoption of an ordinance amending sections of an accessory dwelling unit. So second reading. Yes, Rodriguez, Dunea, Alameda County Planning Department. So 52 7 8 0 17 54 2 2 5 and 17 60 100 and adding chapter 17 55 to adopt the accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit ordinance to the Canada of Alameda zoning ordinance. So your board held the first reading on August 8, 2024 and And we are here for the second reading in that. Complaints my report. Mr. Good. Mr. Roger Tam. I will move to wave the full second reading and adopt the ordinance amending the sections related to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units as read by staff. I'll read the ordinance of title. The title of the ordinance is an ordinance amending section 17.04.010.17.06.03017.30.11017.522.78817.54.225 and 17.60.11, 17.60.00 and adding chapters 17.55 to adopt the accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit ordinance of the County of Alameda zoning ordinance. Very good. That's when motion made by suffrage or tab. and the next item is the item that is the item that is the item that is the item that I will call vote. Supervisor Marquez. I. Supervisor Tam. I. President Miley. Supervisor Carson. Excuse. Supervisor Halbert. I. Item five passes unanimously. Then we will move to the last item on our agenda. Public comment on items not on today's agenda. Do we have any speakers? No speaker. Seeing none, we're adjourned. you