Good morning everyone. I'd like to call the Monday, November 4th meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Transportation, slash planning committee meeting to order. We'll go through the agenda after we do roll call to establish form. Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Halbert. Present. Very good. Our first item is an informational item which is an update on the county's application for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's transit-oriented communities planning and implementation grant. So our staff report, please. Michelle's on the route. Good morning supervisors. Thank you so much. This will be a very quick update. We did a presentation back in July to let you know about the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's requirements that will be coming down for the year 2526. And we're letting you know now that there is an opportunity for us to apply for funding next slide to help us reach the goals. So just as a reminder, there's a one Bay Area grant that is approximately $10 million a year that goes to the Public Works Agency. And then there's regional early action planning or REAP planning grants that come to CDA between $400 and $600,000 annually that we use primarily to implement planning department objectives. So in order to continue to receive those funds, we do need to meet the TOC requirements. Next slide. So there are four goals behind the Transit Oriented Communities program. You know, increase the overall housing supply, impart by increasing density for new residential projects. That's an alignment with our housing element goals and objectives in areas near regional transit hubs. Increased density for new commercial office development. So that for us would be capture valley bar and Bay Fair part. The third one is prioritized bus transit active transportation and shared mobility within and around these transit hubs. And then the fourth is support and build partnerships to create equitable transit-oriented communities within the entire Bay Area. So that is the goals and objectives of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Next slide, please. So the four main areas of policy requirements that they are now requiring local governments meet in order to continue to receive their funding. Their funding flows from many different sources, but primarily the big one that comes to us again is that one Bay Area grant that goes to the Public Works Department. So the first requirement is the Affordable Housing Production, Preservation and Protection Policies and Commercial Stabilization Policies. The second is parking management. The third is station access and circulation requirements. And the fourth one is zoning density and intensity requirements for residential and commercial office development within a half a mile or one mile of the major transportation station. So, again, beginning in 25, 26, we have to have policies in place that meet their requirements. Next slide. This gives you a graphic of the areas that are impacted and what is within one mile of our two barred stations. You can see that a big chunk of the area is within the city of San Leandro that's near the Bay Fair Barred station, but that Castro Valley is clearly all within the uninquart rated area. Next slide. So MTC is providing planning grants to assist local governments in meeting these requirements. We're going to be eligible for up to $2 million in a combined of four grants, one per policy topic area. The uses for these grants can include hiring consultants, covering staff time and materials, preparation for adopting the plans, and ordinances to meet the requirements. Next slide. The areas that we are planning to apply for funding include inclusionary zoning. This is one of the areas in the housing policy requirements that has been in our housing element for several cycles and now is the time to get it adopted. So we will be asking for funding to help us write the ordinance and take it through the planning process. Ministerial approval ordinance, some portion of this we've met with the design guidelines but we still need to meet the ministerial process and so this will be the second ordinance and then we are proposing an anti-harassment ordinance under the tenant protection section. We'll talk a little bit more about that but it seems like that will probably be one of the better things that we could do to meet that requirement. Again, we're requesting funding for consultants and staff time to draft and bring these ordinances through the MAC across. Next slide. The zoning application on develop and additional general plan chapters that comply with the TOC policies for both station areas. The PWA is working with CDA to confirm the scopes for parking management and station, access application, and then we'll be request for consultant and staff time to draft and bring those chapters through the public process. So those are the additional areas. Next slide. So again, for the housing piece, we have to have two policies for each of the three piece, production, preservation and protection. And in July, we walked through what each of those in a lot more detail are, and then we have to have one for the commercial stabilization. So next slide, this lays out the housing pieces. And so, again, currently under production, we have zero of seven possible policies. What we are proposing is in blue, adopt inclusionary housing ordinance, and ministerial approval for affordable housing, which is again part of our housing element. So those two things together would allow us to meet the production requirements. Under preservation, we currently have one one met which is we are funding the Eden Land Trust with some capacity building funding that will last for a minimum of five years and that had to be done in order to meet one of the preservation policies. The other possible preservation policy is the mobile home park overlay zone, which the board directed us to bring to them. And we went to the Antincorporated, the planning department went to the Antincorporated Services Committee last week. And I think the direction is that we will be taking this out and meeting with stakeholders and probably holding another public meeting. And then out of protection, there's possible ten policies that we could adopt. And the two that we think are most likely is the current just cause ordinance, which must be stronger than the state AB 1482 in order to qualify. The current version that we have drafted and brought to you and is up for discussion is it meets those state requirements. It is stronger than the state law and therefore it would meet that TOC requirement. And then of the other possible nine, we think the one that is most likely to work to work for us in the Antigorpory County is to adopt an anti-Harrasmian ordinance. That anti-Harrasmian ordinance has, we had some language previously in the just cause ordinance and this committee directed us to remove the anti-harassment ordinance language or the anti-harassment language and move it into a separate ordinance and we agreed we'd be talking about that later. So that anti-harassment language would become its own standalone ordinance and that would also meet one of the two required protection policies. So at this point, we think we can get there and the grant that we're applying for would help cover staff time, it would help cover drafting of the ordinance, and help cover the presentations to the different communities that you would need to go to. Next slide. So again, this is the same slide I brought to you in July. Just reminding you that there's both the care and then the stake. The care is these funds come from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and they are requiring that we need certain requirements in order to continue to receive those funds. It's not unlike our affordable housing world where we provided funding in the form of a low or no interest rate loan for 55 years as long as they give us affordable units. So if we're providing the funding, we get to require restrictions and requirements and that's what the MTC is doing to ask if we want to continue to receive these funds we have to meet their requirements. Happy to answer any questions Albert is also in the room and so as Liz and all three of us are working on this in coordination the planning department and the housing department and we're happy to answer any additional questions. Good. Is there any other comments from staff? I guess not. Could public comment first and then we'll go to questions and deliberation. Is there anybody wishing to speak on this item? Kelly, a brew. Thank you. So this is a very focused presentation on the county's unincorporated housing policies, but there's a lot broader implications in this. The county and MTC both have a great influence on planning policies of cities. There's an Ardenwood Transit Center and nearby that the city of Fremont wants to build light industrial. They shouldn't be building light industrial. They should be building higher density office buildings there, higher density. Same in Livermore. Livermore wants to build a lot of industrial up along the freeway, but there's this valley link. Valley link should have higher density housing and higher density offices higher value developments near it. And then the there's a lot of stuff. If you read the policy the MTC policy that they adopted a year ago, if you read it, it says that they don't want too much parking in downtown areas, they want less parking. And this county needs to actually think before you send out your general services administration to go build a new parking lot next to the Dublin Pleasant and Transit Center, you need to ask yourself, do we need a new parking lot if the bar utilization as of the end of last month, October 31st, Halloween, a few days ago the bar utilization as of the end of last month, October 31st, Halloween, a few days ago, the bar utilization was 46%. And they already had 2000 or 3000 parking spaces there that were underutilized. So that was a massive $30 million waste of MTC money and state money. And then the mobile home parks, here we have transit, no housing experts, talking about mobile home park overlay. You know that mobile home parks only have a density of like what, 20 units a acre? They're not the world's highest density things. You've got giant apartment buildings that are probably 50 or 100 or 200 units a acre. Let's say 100 units a acre. So maybe we should be building giant apartment buildings and not mobile home parks. Thanks. I have no more speakers for this item. Thank you very much. Questions from staff, the supervisor, Miley? Sure. First of all, thanks for the presentation. So under production, can you give us a little bit more information on the inclusion or zoning ordinance. Um, I think I'm going to ask Liz to come up and talk a little bit about that. Okay. Just the community. Just the highlights. Good morning. Supervisor. I'm Liz McCallagot from the county planning department. Michelle is correct. This is the inclusionary zoning is something that we've talked about for a long time but never really got to the point where we were. Formulating an ordinance and bringing it forward. So the draft housing element that we're just finishing up now does have a program that calls for the development of an inclusionary zoning ordinance. It's not written yet, so I can't tell you the details of what will be included. There are certain standards that MTC is asking be included. But we don't have the details yet because the ordinance is in written. So typically those ordinances, ordinances include affordable housing, right? Right. There would be a certain percentage of affordable housing that would be required. And do they typically allow for in lieu fees. There may be in lieu fees as well, but as I said we don't we don't have the details worked out yet. Yeah, it's denied support inclusionary zoning I'm just hoping when the staff brings a draft ordinance you know we bring to us the best practices in terms of draft ordinance. Yeah, yeah, we'll be looking at what other jurisdictions are doing and what seems to be working and what seems to fit our communities. Okay, then under preservation. Let's see here the mobile home park overlay. We need that ordinance to protect mobile home parks. Should they become, should the owners of the parks want to sell them in the mobile home parks? This provides additional protection, local protection, right? Right, right. Mobile home parks are a recognized source of low income housing in all communities. So that's why we're looking at the preservation. Yeah, and this is something. I know the tenants and the residents at the Mobile Home parks have been requesting furthermore with our local ordinance should a park owner want to sell or convert or end the mobile home park. We'll have certain findings and standards that they'll have to adhere to, that could achieve a higher public good should those findings be met, right? Right, I'd like more dense. Right? Like, you know, move on, park might have like 20 trailers, but if a park's gonna be closed down, then if the owner's saying we're gonna build a hundred units of affordable housing and then also provide housing opportunities for those who currently have trailers should they choose that to me would be a higher and better use and also serve the public interest but that's what our local ordinance would look to do. Right. Okay. All right. Um, and then under protection, can we consider the mediation ordinance that the board has approved on the first rating as part of, with that qualified under protection? I go. Unfortunately, it doesn't qualify. It's not one of the 10 options that the MTC is providing us So it it is an additional protection for tenants and landlords and we think it will improve Relationships, but it is not it does not meet the TOC requirements. All right, so yeah, I definitely support an entire rasmid ordinance and you're saying we if we get So yeah, I definitely support an entire harassment ordinance. And you're saying if we get the submit the grant application, we get the money, then we'll start working on the anti-harassment ordinance, okay? Right, thanks. Right. So again, thank you for the report. Questions that I have just following up on the ordinance. Inclusionary housing ordinances are everywhere. All the cities have them, all up and down the state, a bunch of them. We can find one and copy paste it pretty quickly, I think. But there are key elements like you mentioned, do you wanna have the ability to fee out or not? Do you want to have 15% or 20% or 25% or not? There's maybe three or four or five specific policy questions that I think we should be weighing in on. And you can lay the questions out which way do we want to request that you draft the ordinance? My hope is not that you're going to come to us with an ordinance of what you think we want to have, because it's a policy decision that we should be weighing on in the beginning. I would hope that we can weigh in on those few questions and then just go cut and paste or find one that's exactly like what we wanna do and get it done. How long are we planning to take to do this as an ordinance and what process are we gonna go through? Well, we're still working out at the exact process as we formulate the scope of work for the grant application. It will involve extensive community engagement. So we'll get input from the residents as well as MAC members in planning commission and so that will add time to the process. So the way we do policy you'll just follow that process, the MACs and the road show and all that. Okay. Right. And as Michelle mentioned, the TLC requirements have to be met beginning of 2026. So we are targeting the end of 2025 to have all of these requirements completed. That's good. That was a question that says these standards must be met by 2025 slash 2026. So that means July 1, 25, or does it mean June 30, 26? The requirements, the TOC requirements need to be fulfilled. So we can qualify for the O-Bag funding. They haven't set an exact date, but it'll be the beginning of 2026. the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the to make it well in advance so that we don't get caught short. Okay. Right. That makes a lot of sense. We referenced the Eden Land Trust as it relates to preserving affordable housing. How does that work? What does the Eden Land Trust do? And how does it preserve affordable housing? Or how can it help us preserve that? Thank you. That's a great question. So one of the TOC requirements is that you have a local land trust that exists within your community, and we do, we have the Eden Ariel interest, and that we are providing capacity building and funding to help staff that organization that meets the TOC requirements. That organization is, it's been around for about three years. It's got started right before the pandemic. It has an executive director and they are an supportive directors and they are currently looking for affordable housing opportunities to preserve. There was one apartment complex that was for sale and we had provided that with some money to acquire that property and that deal fell through, unfortunately, so we reprogrammed the money and they are still looking for other apartment complexes where there are low income tenants that they can purchase and then preserve those properties from increasing rents. So that organization is new and it is in its early stages of development within its sort of organizational capacity. And our hope is that through some technical assistance that we're providing and these funds they will become a local affordable housing developer that is targeting the Eden area. All right so it's it sounds like a different kind of land trust than what I currently generally think of land trust which are managing open spaces and vineyards and things like that. This is a very different kind of a land trust. It seems like. The different kind of a land trust. Thank you. The idea behind a housing land trust is let's use wholesale housing as an example because I think that that is the most clear example. The land trust will buy the property, the single-family home, and it will then condominiumize the house. And the house will then be sold at a below-market rate cost to a low-income or qualifying household and the land underneath the house will be owned by the land trust and the land trust then has the ability to control who buys it next and who and how much it goes up in value so that it can become a permanently affordable for sale opportunity within the community. That's on the poor sale side, on the rental side. It works more like a regular affordable housing situation where the land trust owns the property. They do, however, have a very strong commitment to tenant councils and tenant control and tenant engagement with management. So the idea behind it is that it empowers the tenants in the community to have more control over their housing situations. And one of the things that we're hoping is that the land trust would also be available to purchase mobile home parks in which case that they would then own the land and lease the spaces to the coach owners, which is also another good example of how land trusts housing land trusts operate. Very good. Can you remind me which meeting of the Board of Supervisors this Eden land trust was approved and maybe point me to that the enabling legislation and maybe we'll take this offline. You don't have to do it now, but I'd like to learn more about this how when we approved it and yeah, it was a contract. Yeah, it was a contract. The administration of it. Do we have seats on their board? Do they? You know, if we fund it, what do we get out of it? Those are questions I have. Yeah. I'm happy to take it offline and I'll get you those details. It was six to eight months ago that we brought you to the contract. So I don't have the exact date, but I'll forward you a copy of the contract and happy to set up a time to talk. Thank you. I do like what President Miley mentioned in that if you have a mobile home park and a public speaker even mentioned it as well, they are not the most dense use of land. And if, as an example example there are 20 mobile home sites and the property gets developed and has 20 set aside affordable units for at the discretion of the mobile home current owner if they were it be provided first right of refusal for example but then we would also produce additional housing that would be a good thing. I'm assuming that we when we have this possible option of a mobile home park overlay zone that we're going to account for that possibility. I believe that's correct. Yeah, sorry, let's go ahead. Liz, you first then Michelle. Oh, I just said I believe that's correct. I'm not directly involved in developing the overlay. OK, Michelle. Yeah, so one of the things that we're trying to codify within the mobile home park overlaid zone is making sure the state rules and regulations are very clearly written now as well as some preservation of the units. And so if we're in a situation where there are 20 low income people. We want to see some kind of one for one replacement, which follows some state laws. But I'm also not directly involved in that, but I did provide comments to the ordinance. Okay. Sorry. Albert. Who is the ordinance? Yeah, I can speak for that. Yeah. I'm working on that as well as Christine Green from the department. And so we have a draft ordinance that's been circulating. We've done a road show at the Mac and and a corporate services committee. We've got some direction from them. It's pretty strong right now. I think the idea is more on preservation as opposed to redevelopment. There are a couple of exceptions to that. One of them being the Paradise Mobile Home Park where years ago the county actually, this is back in redevelopment existed. It doesn't no longer exist as you know. And so the idea for that particular mobile home park was to slowly close it down, mostly through attrition, as people would either pass on or move out what have you. So that mobile home park is in a different category through mostly through attrition as people would either pass on or move out what have you. So that mobile home park is in a different category where possible redevelopment of that one could occur. There still will be required to follow state law of the mobile home residency law and provide a closure impact report to the county. But it is that it's really adopting a local ordinance that goes above and beyond state law is where we're at right now. And you heard some comments about, for example, allowing for the possibility of purchasing a mobile home park. So that's one of the things that's in the ordinance. And also the idea of being able to return to a project after it's constructed at more or less the same rent is another thing that the ordinance also is exploring as well. So that the idea is that mobile home residents, they do have value there and they're in their mobile home that they've invested in. And so the idea is to not lose that value and also to allow them to come back to a project if one is, is constructed and meets all the other requirements of state law and the local ordinance. So there's it's pretty right now obviously it's very heavy on protections to kind of keep things status quo but in the event that there is a redevelopment of the park there is also the protection so that folks can come back and they have a you know so the right of first refusal to be able to come back to affordable units and that new projects be constructed at a density that would also lend to affordability as well. All right, very good. It sounds like we're on the right path. I would support preservation of unit count. I would support first rights of refusal. I think I heard in the land trust discussion that there was condominiumization capabilities with the land trust. I would support people being able to have an equity ownership interest in their unit if they were condo-ized, I guess, if that was a rule. I'm just speaking out loud here, but making sure people are protected, making sure that they have a place to live, making sure that they have ownership capabilities are all things that I support. And, but I'm not supportive of something that says, you can't change this mobile home park because we've always had a mobile home park here and we always want to keep a mobile home park here. And yet somebody else owns it and they want to do something else with it. Then I think we have to have a pathway for them. That's just me. I'm sorry. We definitely have a path for that. It is very much written right now in protection of existence and so that things like affordability and their ability to pay the current rent or with some escalator that follows the cost of living I think is built into the ordinance. I mean the idea is that we're not going to displace anybody. And that's I think the main purpose of the ordinance. Very good. Thank you. I will also say that I agree with President Miley, anti-harassment, good options to provide. We should not be seeing harassment, and if we have the ability to create a policy against it, and it qualifies under these requests from MTC, great, I would further say that, and I've said it before, we have some, not a lot, but some housing providers that provide untenable living conditions or unsuitable living conditions. If we have additional protections for people that are being not necessarily harassed, but rather just provided unsafe, untenable, unsuitable living conditions. Let's create an ordinance against that or another ordinance on top of what we already have or something that complies with this. It seems like there are ten possible options. Michelle, you list a couple of them here. I'd like to see what all of them are, and I would like to make sure that we are weighing in on the things that we want to see happen to comply with this MTC mandate, and it seems like we only have six months to get it done. So we need to move quickly. I can show you those very quickly. Would you like to? We have until June 31st, 2025, because that's the beginning of the 2526 year. And so I think we're using the calendar year January 1st, 2026 as our sort of midway points since they haven't given us part in the best deadline that like we're shooting for January 1, 2026. But here are the 10 options under protection. We went over these in detail in July. Can you see my screen? Yeah, I do and I'm looking at foreclosure assistance looks great legal assistance for tenants I'm not sure if we also include legal assistance for property owners small property owners. We should and so relocation assistance Minimum three months. I don't like that. So I won't support that but That might get votes anyway And all of these, so very good. These are all the 10, and we're picking a few of them. Fund fair housing program. Yeah. So the issue here is about money. So if I go to the next slide, I can share with you the amount of money we would have to provide is actually, you know, pretty high. So we would need to be spending, oh, shoot, sorry, we would need to be spending about $450,000 per year for each of those items in order for them to qualify. And that's not money we currently have in our budget. So that is not one of the ones that we used. These are the, if we were to use money to meet production, it was 4 million a year. If we were to use money to meet the preservation the protection, it is a minimum of 300,000 per year for legal assistance for tenants and for closure assistance and fair housing is a minimum of 450. make sure you are aware of how much money it would be and at this point those dollars are not in our budget. I understand. Thank you. President Miley, questions or comments? Yeah, thanks for asking those questions. First of all, I was going to say, and Adam Michelle is pointing it out. Hopefully, before the board recesses for the Christmas holidays, we have four more meetings left. I'm going to have the staff bring a report so that we can discuss the housing bond. Because, you know, our A1 bond is pretty much exhausted. The regional bond didn't take place. And Baffa is still looking towards a potential regional bond in 2026, but I don't want to wait to determine what Baffa's going to do. We need to make a decision what we want to do. And furthermore, the Bafa approach might not be something that we in Alameda County will support both the board of supervisors as well as the cities as well as the ACTC. I don't know because there's nothing definitive just yet. And I know staffs tracking this, but hopefully the board. And if on that the president next year, I'll be working with the president, we will have an update on this sooner than later, because we need to have fun funding for protection, preservation and production. That's first thing. Secondly, now rental assistance is on that list. I thought we had money for rental assistance I thought we were putting money into rental assistance. Yes, no, maybe. No There is some flexible funding that the Office of Homeless Care and Coordination has that they spend for homeless folks for rental assistance and those funds come from through the healthcare system part of gosh, I can't remember the name but But but right now we don't have rental assistance rental assistance is you know six to eighteen months subsidy or a household to remain housed. And right now what we have in our AC housing secure contract which of course is a countywide contract, a contract that is serving about 10% of low income people who are going through the eviction process. And you know we have some emergency flexible funding that might come up with one or two months, but that is not, that is not a rental assistance program. That's the emergency flexible funding. Okay. Well, excuse me. I thought we had, I know through ARPA, we probably have more money. Okay. And the... Yeah, through ARPA we have more resources. Yeah. The housing and homeless office just received a grant from the governor, half money, 27 million. And some of that's going to be for my qualified for an assistance. Are we coordinating with the housing and homeless office? Yeah. That we can maybe, because I would think the board would be very supportive of putting money into rental assistance so that, you know, we And qualify that under MTC's program for protection. That would allow us to reach another MTC requirement. Plus, it would provide funding to keep tenants housed. Yeah, so the money, the half money that came in is countywide funding. It's not money that set aside for the unincorporated county. It's money that is available to homeless individuals who are going to coordinated entry. So there's no way to earn more money for the unincorporated county, which is what the requirement is, is that there be money just for tenants and the unicorpory county. So each city is also having to come up with their own funds to meet these same requirements. So they would have to set aside money from their budgets to meet this requirement. If that's the way they plan to do it. So essentially, unless there was a set aside or unless that agency gave CDA money, it would be very difficult for us to prove that tenants in the unincorporated county were actually getting served. And again, it's for homeless individuals. So there might be some homeless individuals that are served. But what you said, downless, you're making me nervous. Well, that you have something to add. Oh, no, I don't. Okay, all right. So what did you say? All right. So Michelle and Sandy and that whole department in agency, I'd like for you if the chair is okay with this to bring back some thinking around rental assistance Because I actually thought we had a more robust program in place and maybe once again It went away as result of our but bring us a report on that in options Because I think we need to be funding that so that it qualifies So I We need to be funding that so that it qualifies. So it was my bad in terms of not realizing we didn't fully fund it. Okay. So I'd like to see all options, any money available anywhere in the county that we have the ability to fund rental assistance, I would like to see come back to the committee. But I also want to make sure that I heard that there's no way that we can find a way to allow for the $27 million hat funding to have a portion set aside. There's got to be a way, and I just want to get to the bottom of it. Do we, we're sure there's not a way and I just want to get to the bottom of it. Do we we're sure there's not a way, Michelle, or we're not sure if there is, but it might be tough or. So so all of the half funds I really appreciate this question, but all of the half funds and half has been a one time source of funding, but they stood up programs four years ago when we first started getting the half funding. And those programs are supported by this new award. There are no new programs that are being funded with that 27 million. Instead, we are supporting the programs that you reward has previously approved. And so if you wanted to redirect funding and unfund something over here to fund something new over there, you can take money from Peter to pay Paul, but this is not a net increase. This 27 million is coming and is supporting existing contracts and existing programs that your board has previously authorized. Got it. Yeah, I would like to see those options. And I'm happy to cut somewhere else to fund this. Possibly, I'm happy to look at that. Everything should be on the table. And so let's look at that. All right. No other questions for me, President Meile, any other questions for you. Thank you for item one, item two is an informational item, a request for a review with TNP to consider proposed change to policy for driving restaurants. I'm sympathizing before you jump into item two. I just can I just say one more thing about item one related to the OBAA grant cycle. Thank you. So that's a two year cycle and we we have there was some a slideshow in that we had an annual award through OBEG and I just wanted to clarify that that generally we're running on an MTC cycle which tends to be two years as opposed to annually. That's all I wanted to say. All right, drive through restaurants. Good morning supervisors. Aubrey Rose, Alameda County Planning Department. I'll be brief. All right, drive through restaurants. Good morning supervisors, Aubrey Rose, Alameda County Planning Department. I'll be brief. This is a proposal request, preliminary review, to consider proposed changes to the policy for driving restaurants in Ashland, Chiriland and San Lorenzo, adopted by the board on February 4, 1999 to eliminate the prohibition of new driving restaurants along his Spirien Boulevard in San Lorenzo between the cities of Hayward and San Leandro. Next slide please. The corridor along a experience between the cities of Award and San Leandro composes approximately 130 properties of which 31 are subject to the policy prohibition under numerous general plan and zoning designations. This review is exempt from environmental review as a statutory exemption section 15262 feasibility and planning studies. Next slide please. And this is an area of the Hesperian corridor subject to the 1999 policy. Next slide please. Here's the document itself. Here are the three corridors in the policy. Quarter number three is the area in question and the excerpt at the bottom of the page is what is prohibiting new drive-ins along this corridor that we're here to consider repealing. Just as a survey here, drive-in restaurants along the area three-quarter. So there are there are seven one is closed. So there's six open sites. And this table and the map on the right are just to depict the zoning of the parcels, 31 are subject to the prohibition and two of those are currently vacant. This item was heard on June 11th by the Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council, who heard staff report and received public testimony and forwarded the item would no objection. Went on to on incorporated services committee on September 25th and move forward to this body here today. Next slide please. So in terms of discussion, staff's looking for either preferences for continued applicability of the policy or potential changes to accommodate driving businesses along a Spirion Boulevard. If the latter, if it's potential changes, then the case would go on to the Planning Commission and on to the board for changes to the policy. The Board of Supervisors changes the driving policy to allow driving businesses on his spirit, and future applicants would need to apply for a CUP conditionally used permit to allow a specific driving project. So in conclusion, staff recommends that the Transportation Planning Committee consider changes to policy for driving restaurants in Ashland, Churriland and San Lorenzo adopted by the board in 1999 to eliminate the prohibition on new driving restaurants along Asperian between the cities of Hayward and San Leandro and the San Lorenzo area of an incorporate to Alameda County. That's my presentation staffs will be available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Before we go to comments do we have any questions or comments from the public? Members of the plethora with question. Yes. Thank you. Henry Grief. Good morning everyone. I'm representing diversified restaurant group. We are in full support of the potential lift of the 1999 ordinance. We have been looking to bring innovative projects to the market for quite some time now across the corridor. And we are excited that the county is considering this change. Eliminating the prohibition would allow operators like us to pursue exciting new opportunities here in the Alameda County. There's over six current drive-through restaurants operating. And we believe that lifting this outdated 1999 ordinance would allow operators like us to come into this corridor the state's community. The state's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's community's as well, but we're in full support. Thank you. Could you give an example of what the innovative opportunities might be? So new drive-through opportunities. We are a Taco Bell franchisee, and we're always looking to figure out what our customer wants to make it easy and efficient for them. So just reworking, drive-, drive through, makes everything easier for everyone when they're trying to get food, right? No one wants to pull in, walk into a restaurant. So this ban has been hurting us and it's hurting other people as well. Yeah, please do reach out to my office. We can have a conversation offline. Thank you. Cool. Thanks. Any other public comment? Kelly, a brew. Yeah. That was a very, very confusing and misleading slide where he said, Oh, yeah, the Mac listen to all this and listen and they had no objections. And then at the bottom after saying that they said, uh, it was the proposal was expanded or modified or changed grew after the Mac hearing. So it seems like to me, my impression is that actually the Mac only heard a specific exemption for one project. And now we have a generic exemption for everything. And Mac never really expressed an opinion on that. I'm not sure, but I think it's highly misleading. Then there's always environmental concerns with drive-ins. But first, let's think about the county has this habit of always focusing on what's on the paper and hardly ever looking at what's out there in the real world. If you go down East 14th or the Welling or Hesperian, there's sillions of drive-ins already. So we don't have a prohibition. We're a drive-in paradise. I mean, County Uncorpore Drive-in Paradise. And what are city planners in the US? They increasingly view drive-ins and as a problematic for urban development. They contribute to traffic congestion, discourage walkability and conflict with goals for sustainable vibrant neighborhoods, cities like Charlotte and Salt Lake City. In Utah, that bastion of liberalism are considering bands on new drive-throughs to promote more pedestrian friendly environments. Overall, there's a shift towards prioritizing misuse, mixed use developments that foster community interaction over car-centric, centric designs. So, you know, there's a lot of opportunity to restructure these or go back and, and I guess if you sell it, you can't redo it. But I would suggest only within 500 feet of a major intersection maybe, and not just ask for a CUP, but also ask for public hearing. Thank you. I have no other speakers for the sign. Very good, President Miley. Yes, I support the ordinance, the change. As I stated at the Anacorpion services meeting, this doesn't provide, it's not an entitlement, it still has to go through a CUP process with findings, conditions of approval, et cetera. So I believe the Homeowners Association doesn't object to this. I don't think the Supervisor who represents the district objects to this. I certainly don't object to it. I think I love, I mean, my talk goes well, it's nice. I love to see in an outperger there. I mean, anything to make us more competitive with our surrounding cities would be great. I know tonight they're entertaining lifting the prohibition in Ashland and in Cherryland. Right now it's just San Lorenzo, but I have no objections to us moving ahead with this because once again you can't force people to do something they don't want to do. If they don't force people to do something they don't wanna do. If they don't wanna walk, if they don't wanna bike, they don't wanna take transit, but they wanna drive their car to a driver and restaurant, get a burger, get a milkshake, get some fries, get a taco bell, whatever they should be able to do that. So I'm good with it. I agree, I would like to see us explore the rest of the areas that President Miley mentioned. I'll also point out that indeed fast food dining has evolved. I love the options you mentioned, President Miley. But there's even, I think, like Annie's all natural food, organic natural food, healthy. Healthy. It's not going to work. Come on. That's not going to work, it's in the lab too. We need like a sonic burger. Sonic burger. You want white castle? Maybe? I don't know. Come on. I would like to see us be aspirational and go for something like an antide... But that's not my district. So we'll see. Anyway, I think all fun aside, this is an option that we do need to explore. I'm actually even willing to say that if we can legislate the right opportunities that if we can streamline the red tape, I'd be happy to explore that. Not to say we shouldn't have a CUP process, not to say that we shouldn't have a public hearing. People should always have an opportunity to weigh in. That's what our board meetings are for as well. But owners and operators, if we want to get something done, we need to make it easier for them. So let's not overly complicate. Let's see how it goes in this area and maybe expand it to others. Holy supportive. Thank you. Good morning supervisors. I just wanted to clarify for the public and I heard President Milo use the ordinance. This is a policy. It is not an ordinance. It provides guidance on a framework, but it doesn't have the weight of an ordinance. All right, very good. Yeah, thank you. I did that intentionally. So, County Council could come to the mic and correct me. That's awesome. All right, very good. Thank you. We're on to the next item then, which is item three, status of amendments proposed by the Tri-Valley Conservancy to modify development restrictions to allow for clustering of building envelopes and square footage allowances in the East County area plan and South livermore ver- Valley area plan. I believe this is still working progress and We'll just get an update informational item only. Thank you. Welcome Thank you again. I'm Liz McEllig out from the County Planning Department. And this will be a very brief update. These amendments have been in the works for or quite some time. But we are getting very close to the end. So I just wanted to let you know what the timeline is for completion. We do have an addendum to the earlier South Livermore EIR that was done some years ago that will cover the the sequel requirements for the amendments. And we plan to bring the amendments to the Planning Commission on November 18th. We'll come back to your committee on December 2nd and then board planning meeting on December 12th. And because there are some ordinances included in the group of amendments, we were shooting for December 17th for the second reading for those ordinance amendments. So we are still, it's a tight schedule, but we're shooting for approval of the amendments by the end of the year. Thank you very much. Before we go to our comments, there's any public comment on this item. Kelly, Abru. So we didn't the only detail that we're getting here is clustering this idea of clustering of building envelopes and square footage allowances in the East County area plan, which clustering. That's it. That's it. There's no detail. So I have no idea. Are we talking about, see? Let's talk about the The two acre envelope that kind of stuff This is kind of like you know in the Old West and the homesteading and you know 100 200 years ago as the settlers are going out across the plains and you had a section of land and then you'd have your Your house on a piece of the corn or the piece of the land the farm land and then another'd have your house on the piece of the land, the farm land, and then another section with another house. This is the idyllic sort of dream. And that's in corporate. That's reflected. That's mirrored in this measure D. And now we're trying to cluster. So we're going to grab the property rights from somewhere else now If a person is going out and and took the trouble to buy All these different pieces of land all these different property parcels and then tried to combine their their Rights that be one thing because they had some skin in the game But if they had a deal where they okay okay, I've got my little thing, but I want to expand it. So I'll take some property rights from the Sahara Desert, the Sahara Desert of the Livermore Valley, wherever that is. I won't say where it is, but it must be some worthless place. And then we put that in, and now we've doubled our, tripled our property rights and a building envelope by using the unbuildable worthless land, worthless property rights from somewhere else is, that would completely subvert measure D. So yeah, I think we need to keep in mind the spirit of measure D and not let clustering destroy measure D and not you let clustering destroy measure D. I have no, oh I'm sorry I have another speaker online. Collar you're on the line you have two minutes, Dick Snyder. Good morning supervisors. I've been involved with the Tri-Valley Conservancy on these amendments for many years, several years anyway. And I'm glad to hear that it's going to move forward quickly. And just to LA Kelley's concern, this is not a transfer of development rights. It's a clustering of contiguous parcels of area where the floor area already exists under the South River More Valley area plan and it is allowed to cluster on a adjacent two-acre development envelopes to combine the floor area to build a larger structure, but it does not transfer development rights from a floor area, from a distant parcel. It just makes it feasible to build a slightly bigger project within the South River More Valley area plan, but keeping the total square footage intact, not increasing it. Thank you. I have no other speak. Very good public comments over then we'll go back to questions. We'll just address it. Are we the department you planning to subvert measure D in any way, shape or form? No, and the reason we are able to. You see yet no. Okay. to. You see yet, no. Okay, good. So just be very clear. No, thank you. But these are things that we've been talking about for a long time. This was approved by voters in 2022. This is part of the ordinance that was approved. No, no, this is separate from the ballot measure. And we're not amending any portion of measure D, which is why we are able to do this without a ballot measure. Okay, but we have been talking about it for a long time, as you mentioned. We are very, very close. So I know at a previous meeting, we talked about some of these things are more complicated than others. I think some of these definitions are easier to come up with language around. Some of them are more difficult to come up with what we're going to do in December and the time it's taking us to get here we're going to cover all of the contemplated definitional changes or just some of them. Which ones are we attacking and which ones will we cover in December 17th? We're going to we're anticipating bringing to the board in December is there just the amendments some to eCAP and some to the zoning ordinance affecting South Livermore to enable the clustering. the summary of the committee. So we're not addressing any other definitions at this time. I think you're referring to a longer list of definitions that the Ag Advisory Committee has discussed in the past. And these amendments would not address those definitions. So the Ag advisory committee has discussed in the past and these amendments would not address those definitions. So the tribe Valley Conservancy ones the amendments that they proposed Every one of them not a subset all of them will be addressed in December Right, but only those nothing that others Have also wanted to address The ag committee those are a different set. Right. Can you please send to me in my office your draft review? Whatever words you have on a document as of today so that we don't have to wait until December 17th or three days before to see these would be helpful. Sure. Including that list of the Tri-Valley Conservancy requested definitions. And then separately would you send me a list of the Ag Committee requested definitions. Okay. Thank you for the report. We'll see it in December. And I mean at this point because of the meeting that we've had today I think we can be pretty confident. It's going to happen in December. It's not maybe by December-ish. The 17th of December is when we're gonna see this. Is that that's not going to happen in December. It's not maybe by December ish. The 17th of December is when we're going to see this. I'm looking at head nods. Okay. Nobody's. That's correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. With that, we'll move on to item 4, informational item overview of the process for applying for a variance. I note this is for the planning department, but I will express interest in understanding what all of our agencies do in the way of people that want to apply for a variance. But here we have CDA, Albert. Yes, yes, I can speak to the planning part of this. I was unsure if there were specific questions about a project or if it involved other agencies. I do understand that there are other agencies that issue variances for their scope of work. I couldn't speak to that but certainly can speak to planning. In terms of the variance, it's certainly a word that you hear thrown around quite a bit. Other terms that are used for this, for example, are waivers or relief in the zoning code or an exception to the zoning code. So those are all sort of used interchangeably, although variance is a term of art for us. It is a specific permit that we issue. And speaking very generally, it's to provide relief to a, generally to a numerical standard that's in the zoning code. For example, if you have a 10 foot setback requirement and just based on your lot, you can only provide 8 feet for whatever reason, then you can apply for a variance for that 2 foot relief. So that's a very standard example. Or if you required to provide 10 parking spaces, but your project would really work out better if you can only provide nine. And there's some sort of characteristic about the lot that is pushing you towards nine parking spaces. And you can ask for a variance to wave one parking space. And those are, again, numerical standards. They're not, there's no such thing in California at least of a use variance. Like, for example, if you don't allow liquor stores in some zone, you can't ask for a variance to then allow for liquor store. That's just one example. Probably not the best, but that there is no use variance, I guess, is the main point there. And then also variances, we're provided guidance by the state law, which provides the findings for a variance. They usually have to go to the border zone in adjustments, whether West County or East County, and they have to make findings to approve a variance. And those usually are that there's some unique characteristic of a lot. It might be shaped oddly or it could be on a slope or it might be some remnant that's just kind of something weird about it. That's like where the applicant can essentially say that, well, I'm not treated the same as everybody else in my zoning district. I have something unique about my situation where I should be granted variance. So that's one of the findings that there's a unique characteristic. It also can be a grant to special privilege which is also can be called the opportunity of variance just because nobody complains doesn't mean that you should be given a grant to special privilege. For example, if everybody else on the block has the same zoning and you want to go to 35 feet just because you want to and everybody else has held the 30 feet, that's not a good reason to grant a variance. It should be again something unique about the lot. And then there's also a sort of zone. Is it appropriate for the zoning? Is there any health and safety sort of impacts, which is a pretty standard of finding as well? So those findings come to us from state law and we've adopted those. They're similar pretty much throughout California, I think all jurisdictions pretty much operate under those same guidelines or same state law. And we issue a number of them every year. I mean, they come in once in a while. There's a lot of weird conditions in the county that suggests the variance is appropriate and we give them out. I would say, you know, definitely several times a year. It does vary, but it is one of our more typical permits that we issue. Very informative. Thank you. I have a few thoughts and comments but I'll ask for a public comment first. We have any public speakers on this item number four. Kelly a brew? A theoretical and very misleading description of the variances. The county's discretion with these is so broad, or at least they think so, so broad that it's being abused, abused and stretched and destroyed. There's a lot of it has to do with causality, putting the cart before the horse, exposed facto legalizations. It's rampant, it's rampant. Let's all go. Remember back to Fairview, okay? So there was a six-foot high fence that supposedly needed to be built and then there was a driveway that was going to be paved and And then there was an existing shed that was on the drawings. And but all of that was just fiction because the shed had actually been demolished and replaced by a building that was four times larger. And the new building was already there. These people don't look at Google and they don't go out with boots on the ground to see what's happening. So they just believe what's on the drawings. The driveway was not just the driveway, it was the front of the house, it was the side of the house and it was the back of the house paving it all. And the six foot fence had already been built on the main road and it was higher than the allowable. And the fences are normally allowed to be four feet high, you know. So yeah, there's a lot of this kind of thing where the county's issuing variances, but in their mind, a variance and a legalization is the same thing. And if the time order is reversed, and the card is before the horse, it's okay, it's okay. We've got discretion. We've got discretion to do anything. And if the drawings say that there's something there that's planned to be there, but it actually was built three years ago, it's okay. We just approved that now. Nobody will see it. Nobody will figure it out. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Dick Schneider. the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the East County area, plan area, as well as the Canyon lands and the Castra Valley general plan. That does not permit variances, which are inconsistent with the ordinance measure D. The exact language includes a few more things as well. I'll just read the one sentence. Except is required by state law. No subdivision map, development agreement, development plan, use permit, variance, or any other discretionary administrative for quasi-administrative action, which is inconsistent with this ordinance, maybe granted, approved, or taken. So that's the end of the passage. Just reminding everybody that some variances are allowed, but not once it can flip with measure D. Thank you I have no additional speakers for Very good. I want to say thank you for the report Referencing last comment measure D is meant to protect and preserve agricultural space. So, variances that are requested that do that seems like could be contemplated, is that right? It's highly variable. It could be, really depends on the context. I mean, if somebody wanted to variance from the 2A, a Crubili novel love, I think that would be against Measure D but if it was something like a setback or a height for an ag building or something like that then that would be different. I was told the story that in some location that was a 30 foot setback and because of the shape of the lot, they were off by 18 inches. Seems like a rather insignificant amount that could be easily justified with the variance. If that property owner would request that of our department, would that be something that could be signed off on? Would it have to go through BZA? Could it be just signed off on and if if if it didn't pass BZA they were upset about 18 inches it could be appealed to the board is that right? Yes, it could be appealed to the board. I mean again it really depends if it's new construction we probably would ask the applicant just to move it 18 inches back to meet the code. But in theory, the variance process is always available up to somebody. But we do work with applicants also to try to find resolutions that don't require a permit because it is extra work for us and for them is timing of money and that's also a consideration. Very good. Do we, I mean, this was very helpful. It's can be complicated. I don't know that many of our residents know or applicants know about this. Have we ever done an information session or a town hall or some community outreach to let people know we have rules for good reasons, but we also have an opportunity to provide a variance under certain circumstances if needed. Have we ever done anything like that? I'm not saying we will, but just curious. I think that folks, you know, you do hear the term variance being kind of thrown around and community meetings and such. I think it is sort of in people's psyche. We haven't done any kind of, you know, major outreach to talk about variances in all of our different permits. And any other than maybe a Mac training or a planning commission training, that's where we would handle something like that. But generally folks don't kind of get into the weeds on the variance until they're asking for one. And that's when all the findings and sort of the process become more, more clear and something that they're more aware of. All right, very good. No other questions from me, President Meile, anything on that? Okay, item five, an informational item. When does an application for a project become necessary? Ah, yes, for the county's planning or building department to request an on-site visit and of the application being processed. And I'll just note that since I've got on the board, I've had comments and it's gotten, I've had more and more recently lately. People concerned about government people coming on their property. Asking to access, asking for on-site, asking for, and then that leads to more than just the stated reason for wanting to come visit or if it's in response to an application it leads to review of other parts of the property than what was requested and so I just want to be very clear do we have a policy and maybe it's something that needs to be more of an internal policy decision as opposed to an ordinance or something else that we do that's a little more concrete. But I just want clarity for people to know it's okay to let inspectors on their property. We're not here to do anything that isn't going to be helpful to them. We are invited in generally unless it's code enforcement and even that I think we have to be invited in. But under what conditions, right? And I say that because sometimes we hear things like, you know, warnings, you know, if somebody's out there looking to come into your house to inspect something, don't let them in unless they show you a PG&E badge or something like that, because bad people are out there. But we want people to know it's okay, but under what conditions, what to expect, what not to expect, and that we shouldn't have things leading to other things that an inspector might want to go look at. If you could explain what I'd be appreciated. Sure, I can certainly cover the planning department's role in doing site visits. We don't necessarily do anything that I would say falls into the category of an inspection, and that's usually like the building department or maybe environmental health that issue permits. We do issue permits at a discretionary, which means that they're asking for a special entitlement from the county, and we do site visits on a regular basis for all projects. We encourage people to go out and look at the site before they ride up a staff report and go into a public hearing. I think one of the speakers just talked about that a little bit in terms of making sure that we are aware of what's, you know, the lay of the land and what's actually being, what's existing on the site versus what's being proposed. And we have a lot of different rules depending on what part of the county. If you're in the urban county, it's a little bit more straightforward. We have standard setbacks and height restrictions and parking requirements that are pretty easy to assess by just looking at the drawings and maybe using Google Maps. SiteBizit always helps also just to, again, just to kind of verify what's in the field When you go into East County, it's a little bit more tricky because the parcels are much larger And harder to get to and harder to kind of assess by just looking at Google Maps But we do SiteBiz is so that we can ensure that the Permit that's being requested is following all the various Rules and regulations and standards that are in our code. And for example, we also need to verify that the general plan is being adhered to in certain cases. And as you know, in measured territory, it can be very complicated in terms of building envelopes and what particular structures are being used for what? We have a very strict residential and non-residential square footage caps that we wanna make sure are being adhered to. And so many times that does require us to go on-site and ask questions about certain activities or what's being used, what buildings are being used for what. This is not necessarily a gotcha moment for staff, but it's really to just verify what the applicant is providing. It should come as no shock that sometimes applicants will not tell us exactly the truth in terms of what's on their property for a variety of reasons, which are probably beyond the scope of the meeting today. But we try to just verify and make sure that they're adhering to the general plan on not just the uses, but actually what's going on in particular parts of the project or parts of the site. If they're doing grazing, we wanna be able to see some proof of that. If they're doing some kind of bit of culture, we obviously wanna be able to look at their why making capabilities and are they really making wine or are they just going grapes. Those kind of things are the nuances of a permit that do require us to ask questions and to look at buildings and such. We're not, again, trying to prevent a person from getting a permit, we're trying to help them get a permit. And I think that may feel like that because we're asking questions about private property, but as part of the application process, you know, we do ask them to sign an affidavit that lets us on through their property. And with bi-invitation, of course, we don't do any kind of surprise inspections or we just show up, you know, we asked for their permission and we want them to guide us through the site to show us well this is what's going on here. That's what's going on there. That kind of a thing. State law also provides us some cover there where they do encourage us and there's language and state law that says that planning agency staff may go on to a site and for inspection purposes and to be able to verify land uses and activities and that kind of thing. So we look at it as more of a partnership with the applicant as opposed to trying to catch them doing something. And you know, not everybody takes that same approach, but we do have the ability to go on the sites if we need to, to be able to verify things. And again, we do that on a regular basis through the normal course of our work. Very good. Stopping short of creating an ordinance or very specific and clear guidelines, I'll trust that we can handle this at the procedural level, at the policy level. My hope is that it's very clear when we go on a property, exactly the things that we're going to be asking for, that they know in advance, we want to know if you're making wine or just growing grapes, we want to know in advance, are you complying with the things that you're supposed to be so that they can be prepared for that, that we don't have a, you know, we're very narrowly focused and only looking at the things that we say we are and we're not looking somewhere else and making referrals, getting back to the office. Oh, did you see this? Let's go get them over here on something else. They're letting us on to their property for a very specific reason. We should be focused on that. So, short of writing an ordinance that prevents you from doing that. I'll just trust that we are okay. Sure. At the policy level. I see we're going to get a schooling on what an ordinance really is and does from our legal team. I just wanted to point out that the board and the employees of the county and the officials are mandated to prevent violations of the ECAP. And if there is something that, say, planning sees that is a potential violation, they're mandated to follow up on that interdepartmentally. When they can only see it if they look at it. So, right? Okay. But we have to follow the rules, I get that. And, but I've just heard too many complaints about things that have nothing to do with what they're trying to accomplish and then all of a sudden, if somebody's breaking the rules, let's ask them and get to the bottom of it. But you say we're not in a gotcha and I think people feel like they're in a place in gotchas. Sure. So, well, we'd be happy to talk to any applicant that feels that way and try to resolve that. I think that, you know, the idea that we have to, that were mandated to follow the general plan, you know, it's the basis of our work, right? I mean, we, that's the basis of the overall plan department is to implement the general plan. So it is one of those kind of things that, you know, it's, again, we don't try to overdo any inspection or site visit, but we want to get a complete picture. And one of the reasons is because when we go into a public hearing, you know, there's always lots of information coming from neighbors or from maybe a special agency like the Department of Fishfficient Wildlife, they may have some claims or concerns. And we try to get a full picture of this so that we're not sort of over-conditioning the project when it doesn't need to be. But at the same time, we want to make sure that we're complying with all the local ordinances and plans that we have in place. President Marley, questions, comments? Yeah, I was going to basically say, I think it's a balancing act. I mean, obviously, if the staff is invited out of a property to look at something, to make it a transformation about a permit, okay. But if they see something that's a violation and it's not related to why they're there, I think they're obligated to report that they just can't close their eyes because that could be a danger to the health, safety and welfare, not only that particular property, but the surrounding community. So I just think it's a balancing act and it category taken on a case by case basis because I do think Staff that going on property when there's a perm an application submitted to us to to kind of penalize someone They're going on so they can do the job, whether it's a building inspector or one of Albert's people or anyone else. And I think citizens have the right to, you know, the quiet enjoyment of their property and their property rights, but they also understand if they submit an application that we have to approve as a government, they have to let us see if that's necessary, what we need to see, or we might deny the application. So I do think, I mean, there's got to be some sensitivity on both ends of this. And then once again, I just want to defend the staff. If they go on property and they see a problem, I just think they've got to understand that if they don't report it, they in turn could be subject to some liability potentially. So I just think it's kind of, I understand what you're saying. I just think we have to take all these factors and variables into consideration. We absolutely do. And I think the balance to take all these factors and variables into consideration. We absolutely do, and I think the balance is maybe, in some instances, way out of whack, where I've had stories where an applicant wants to put a solar panel up, and all of a sudden, they're having questions about their septic tank. Nowhere near the solar panels that they want to put up. And we suspect maybe there's an issue. Don't know why, haven't explained why, haven't told the applicant why, just all of a sudden, something comes out of left field when they want to put a solar panel up. And I know that there are two sides to every story. And I know that our applicants and lanos don't always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Okay? I get that. And so I just want to bring that balance. And you're absolutely right. And we do have state law that requires mandated reporting. But if you're there to inspect one thing, it's a fine line between how you get. So we might just have to be understanding that a little bit more. I'll defend staff too as well, so rise them out. And staff, you should hear this too. I have your back when we're doing the right thing. And it's, but when I have 18 inches holding somebody up, then I'll want to see those variances get approved. And if it's something that has completely unrelated, we need to be... In this particular case, I think it took a year to get a solar panel put up. So anyway, but again, there are many different answers to many different stories and the story sometimes changes, but we shouldn't be holding up good things that need to happen for other causes. And so there is a balance there and I just feel like sometimes it's off to one side. This is planning, but is building on the call? Is anybody from building on here? Daniel? I'm not sure. How do we handle our onsite inspections, Daniel? Yes. Can you hear me? Thank you. The building department has basically two ways that they might go on somebody's property. Number one is the permit and a building is under construction and then as part of the permit, the property owner is supposed to call us or the contractor is supposed to call us at various stages of the construction for building inspection to come and check that, you know, the foundation is constructed according to plan. The electrical panels are in place. So these are all formal requirements of the permit the foundation is constructed according to plan. The electrical panels are in place. These are all formal requirements of the permit that the building inspector will have to go on-site and inspect and sign off that these are done pursuant to the building code. All property owners do that. The second way we might get on somebody's property is the code violation. Somebody calls and says there's a court violation or somebody's doing some illegal work. So we will go there, we will present potential IDs and inform the person that we were informed of some illegal activity or some violation and request to be on site and and that is also allowed by state law as well as our building ordinance court violations are something that we go out there to inspect nothing beyond that. And I think surprise, Miley is absolutely right. If we go out there and we see a fire hazard or something that is in violation or in illegal grading, we cannot look the other way. We have a both ethical and legal obligation to inform the applicant that they need to secure appropriate permits and correct whatever violation is on site. And at the same time, inform the appropriate authorities our findings and that is nothing personal to that private property owner. However, it is both in the interest of the public as well as the property owner to make sure that they comply with the health and safety standards of the county and the state. So those are the two premises that we will go out there on site. We do not go out there to penalize anybody. We go out there to make sure that things are done for so to the approved plans and permits in order for someone to get a certificate of occupancy. We have to finally sign off saying that it is constructed for so to plan and that person could actually go. And I believe the same scenario exists with fire and environmental health also because these are, you know, as you heard today, the word discretionary has been mentioned so many times. These are non-discretionary actions that the county will have to do, otherwise, will also be itself in a little trouble. So thank you. I'll be happy to answer any question. No, thank you. No other questions. With that we'll move on to. I have a speaker on this. We already took public comment. Did we not? No. Maybe not. Let's go to public comment. Kelly. So for those who are living in mortal fear of government overreach, fear not, fear not. The staff, your staff, county staff has been blindfolded. They're hog tied and they operate, they work in separate silos. So for example, if something is happening out there on the ground, those hog tied to staff, they don't, they might knock on the door, but they don't bother with going to Google and looking at those aerial images on Google. And did you know that county puts it cameras on airplanes or the hires contractors in airplanes to run around three inches per pixel and they take pictures of every square inch of this county and they have access to all that, but they don't, they don't look at that. They're again blindfolded, so they're not looking at the data that's out there. And then when we just heard about how the communities of all many agencies, otherwise known as planning, goes out there and might do an inspection, when they're out there, they don't bring the public works agency, they don't bring the building inspectors with them. They do those separately. That's how they're working in separate silos. And then if they're out there and there's also a concern about, is this creek been destroyed? Is the creek been, you know, dammed or whatever? Is there a lake there that wasn't supposed to be there? Whatever. The, you know, what they do about that they don't reach out to state Department of Water Resources or the state Fish and Wildlife They those guys have to come in and do a third inspection So that's how your staff is working in separate silos. You're gonna have separate inspections for every little thing They don't talk to each other. They don't look at their at the at the Googles. They don't look at the data and they're they're just operating, you know, so that's how government overreach is impossible. Their hands are tied, their eyes are blindfolded. They're not looking at the, at those cameras on the, on the airplanes and they're not looking at the Googles. Thanks. I have no more speakers for this item. Very good. Thank you. We'll move on to public comment on items that are not on the agenda item six. I have no speakers for public comment. Very good with that. We are adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.