recording in progress I would now like to call to order our meeting of December 12th or the Board of Supervisors planning meeting. We will start by calling the roll call to establish quorum. Supervisor Marquez. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. President Miley excused. Supervisor Carson excused. Supervisor Halbert. Present. Would you all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you very much. Item number one is approval of the minutes from the Planning Meeting November 14th. Is there a motion to approve? I move approval. I'll second. Is there a motion to approve? Aye, move approval. I'll second. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, I'll ask for a roll call vote to approve the minutes. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. President Miley excused. Supervisor Carson excused. Supervisor Halbert. Aye. That motion passes. I'll make a brief comment that we are going to hold our general meeting items slightly out of order. We're going to take five and six which are very quick but need to get done first and then proceed with the rest of the agenda. However, at this point, as noted on the We're going to take five and six, which are very quick, but need to get done first and then proceed with the rest of the agenda. However, at this point, as noted on the agenda, we will convene to close session briefly before we come back and continue the rest of our meeting. So we will now adjourn for a brief close session discussion. Recording in progress. Okay, welcome back everyone. We're going to reconvene our planning meeting. I'll ask the clerk to call the roll to reestablish quorum. Supervisor Marcus. Present. Supervisor Tam. Present. President Meiley excused. Supervisor Carson. Present. Supervisor Halbert. Present. As the next item is going to be... Forgive me here, our consent calendar. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? I'm with the approval of the consent calendar. Very good. Is there any public comment waiting to be had on the consent calendar? Seeing none. Not on consent calendar, sir. You hear for specific item? Okay, then it wouldn't be the consent calendar. But good point of clarification. That said, I'll ask for a roll call vote. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. President Miley excused. I'm going to take five and six supervisor Marcus. I supervisor. I. President Miley excused. Supervisor Carson. Yes. Supervisor Halbert. Yes. As mentioned earlier, we're going to take items five and six because they are. Speedy and important. We're going to get them out of the way. There are brief staff report on item five. There is good morning, Allie Avers planning department. So this item is regarding an application from Whiskey-Ry LLC for establishment of an agricultural and land use conservation preserve and land conservation agreement. More commonly known as a Williamson Act contract for 120.7 acres located at 6033 Dagnino Road in North Livermore. The application is for a single parcel with assessors parcel number 902-6-3-1. The parcel is located in the agriculture zoning district with a general plan land use designation of E-CAP large parcel agriculture. The primary uses of the land are cattle grazing, olive cultivation and private horse riding. This application meets all pertinent state and county requirements and is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15317 of the CEQA guidelines because it involves the making of a Williamson Act contract. So in conclusion, staff recommends that your board adopt a resolution that establishes a new agricultural and land use, sorry, an open space preserve and land conservation agreement, totaling 120.7 acres for APN 902-6-3-1, and the your board approve the new land conservation agreement with Whiskey-Ry LLC, restricting one parcel, totaling 120.7 acres of land in the unincorporated North Livermore area of Alameda County to agricultural, open space, and compatible uses for term effective today until either party serves written notice of non-renewal with no financial terms. Very good. Are there any questions before we go to public comment? Seeing none, is there any public comment on this? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve? I move approval of the resolution. Very good. It's been moving seconded for item 5A and B. Yes. Very good. Roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. President Miley. Supervisor Carson. Yes. Supervisor Halbert. Aye. That item passes unanimously. Item 6 is a second reading and adoption of an ordinance. This re-quires us to hold, no. Second reading of an ordinance. So, do we have a brief staff report and or reading of the title of the ordinance? This is a second reading and adoption of ordinance amending and ordinance amending title 2, chapter 2.122 of the Alameda County administrative code regarding membership and voting provisions for the Agricultural Advisory Committee and adoption of a resolution approving revisions to the AAC's bylaws for consistency with county code and your board conducted the first reading of this ordinance on November 14th of 2024. the AAC's bylaws for consistency with County Code and your board conducted the first reading of this ordinance on November 14th of 2024. Very good, thank you. We'll have a reading of the title. An ordinance amending title to chapter 2.122 of the Alameda County Administrative Code regarding membership and voting provisions for the Agriculture Advisory Committee. the committee. I will move to the second reading and adopt the ordinance. Is there any public comment on the scene? None will ask for roll call vote. Supervisor Marquez. Supervisor Tam. Aye. Supervisor President Miley. Excuse me. Excuse. Supervisor Carson. Yes. Supervisor Halbert. Aye. Very good. Having those items taken care of will now move. So the motion did not include the resolution that is an item B. We could get a separate motion I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I'm sure. I see no public comment. I'll ask for roll call vote please. Supervisor Marcus. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. President Miley excused. Supervisor Carson. Yes. Supervisor Halbert. Aye. Thank you. We'll now proceed to item four, which is including a public hearing, which means we'll first have to receive a motion to open the public hearing. Is there a move to do so? I move that we open the public hearing. I'll second. Then moving second, it's a hold of public hearing for item four. A roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez. Aye. Supervisor Tam. Aye. President Miley excused. Supervisor Marquez. I. Supervisor Tam. I. President Miley excused. Supervisor Carson. Yes. Supervisor Halbert. I. So we now have a public hearing. We'll ask for a brief staff report. This is on considering the adoption of the sixth cycle housing element for Alameda County General Plan Staff Report. Good morning supervisors. Liz McElligot from the Alameda County Planning Department and I will be getting the PowerPoint going here. So as you said, I'm here today toorporated areas of the county and in addition to general plan, specific plan and zoning ordinance amendments to implement the housing element. The housing element and all the related documents can be found on the county website and at this link The housing element is part of the general plan for the county and state law requires that each city and county in the state have a general plan. The housing element is one of eight required elements. The housing element is somewhat unique in that there are very extensive sections of the California government code pertaining to the housing element with a lot of requirements. One of them being that the housing element be updated every eight years. Another being that state HCD needs to review and certify the element. And as I'm sure you've been hearing, there are a lot of new requirements that have been added in the last five years or so. So this particular project has been much more extensive than previous updates of the element. So the, as I said, the housing element is part of the general plan. State law requires that the housing element be consistent with all other general plan elements. Because all parts of the general plan are required to be consistent. As you might recall in August of this year, your board voted to approve the Environmental Justice Element. The Housing Element Program 7D commits to implement the EJ Element policies and programs to help to ensure the addition of more housing. In the identified EJ priority communities, does not affect the quality of life or exacerbate existing issues with access to opportunities in these communities. State law requires that the safety element be updated on the same cycle as the housing element as well. And the county has a revised draft that is currently with the planning commission, so that should be coming your way soon. Just a little background on the process. Staff began working on the housing element in late 2021. We completed the first draft and submitted the first draft of the element to state HCD for a 90-day review, which is required by state law on October 6 of 2023. We received a comment letter from State HCD on January 4th, 2024, and began the process of addressing the state's extensive comments. On May 10th of 2024, we submitted the second draft to the state for a 60-day review and that was after we presented the second draft to the Macs and received public comment and we received a letter from the state on that second draft on July 9th of 2024. The third draft housing element was submitted to the state on that second draft on July 9th of 2024. The third draft housing element was submitted to the state on September 3rd of this year for another 60 day review period. We received comments on the third draft on October 10th and submitted revisions on October 21st. The review periods and our ability to respond quickly shortened as we, as the process went on, because we were, there were fewer comments each time the state reviewed the document. We did receive a letter on November 7th of this year from the state indicating that the housing element meets state statute and that provided the ability for us to come to you today for approval. There are four sections of the draft. The section one is the overview of the document and the relevant regulations. Section two is the summary of project to housing need. Section three includes the summary of the adequacy of available housing sites and housing resources. And section four is what we call the housing plan, which includes the goals, policies, and actions related to housing in the county. There are also a number of appendices, which include analysis that informed the goals, policies, and programs in the housing plan. One of the sections that has received the most interest is Appendix B, which includes the sites inventory and a description of the methodology for the selection of sites. And another significant section that's new to this particular round of how the housing element update is the appendix F, which contains the affirmatively furthering fair housing assessment. And that is important because it state law requires that it serve as the basis for much of the other content of the general plan including the location of sites on the sites in mid-tory and also a lot of the programs that are included. There are seven housing plan goals, including providing for a range of housing for all income levels, ensuring a wide range of housing types, mitigating constraints to housing development and affordability, creating housing opportunities for people with special needs, conserving and improving the existing housing stock to improve the quality of life for our unincorporated residents, and ensuring fair housing opportunity for all people without discrimination in accordance with state and federal law, and also minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of housing and encouraging sustainable measures. Just briefly to give a little background on the regional housing needs allocation. And this is the number of units that we need to show we have capacity to accommodate in our jurisdiction. The regional housing needs allocation arena starts with state HCD. They identify total the total number of units across all income groups for which the region must plan for the eight year rena period. That number goes to the regional level. So the Association of Bay Area Government receives that number from the state and collaborates with local governments and stakeholders to develop a formula to assign each community a share of the Bay areas housing need. And then our each local jurisdiction must update their housing element and zoning to show that their plans are able to accommodate its share of the regional number. And I know I've been showing this a lot over the last few years. So a lot of people have seen this already. This is the increase in the arena number that we received over the last cycle. The 2015 to 2023 cycle, our total arena was 1,769 units for this cycle are through 2031. Our total arena is 4,711 units. So that's a significant increase in its been a challenge working through the identification of sites to accommodate that number. To accommodate these sites or to identify the sites we started by identifying projects in the development pipeline. So these are projects where we've already received or received an application or that an application's already been received or approved but not constructed. Then we identified vacant public and private parcels using assessors data, satellite imagery and local knowledge. We identified under utilized parcels defined as property where the value of the land is higher than the value of the existing improvements and these are properties that are considered to be likely to be redeveloped within the planning period. We reviewed vacant and underutilized sites that could be rezoned to accommodate more units to help meet the arena. We considered findings of the Affirmative Feathering Fair Housing Analysis in the site identification process. We considered potential environmental hazards and sensitive areas. And we also provided analysis showing the properties that are likely to be developed in the current cycle. And these are all requirements from the state. And for example, early on, one of the comments we received from the state. And for example, early on, one of the comments we received from the state was that we didn't show enough evidence that these parcels are likely to develop. So we had to go back and add analysis to show that. The site's inventory was also revised through this process to respond to state HCDs, comments, particularly in the January 4th letter indicating the need to increase housing mobility by expanding housing choices through the addition of unit capacity on sites in high opportunity areas, which include much of Northern Castra Valley and lower density areas like Fairview and much of Northern Castra Valley. To respond to the state's comments, staff has proposed rezoning some currently vacant residential zone parcels and fairview and northern Castro Valley to allow up to 17 units per acre Units at this density are considered to be above moderate housing It would be something along the lines of townhouses or kind of minions and these are some numbers for our draft site symventory. I won't go through all of them. We identified a total of 527 properties throughout the unincorporated area. So there are sites in all of our unincorporated communities. 103 of these parcels are proposed for rezoning, and that's another aspect that you'll be considering today. The distribution of the sites, about 44.5% of the units are in the Eden area, so that includes San Lorenzo, Ashland, Sherryland, and Hayward acres and about 32.9% of the units are in Castro Valley. The remainder of the units are in Fairview and East County. And the sites in inventory does include 427 accessory dwelling units. We're not following the state's guidelines for site identification. We're not able to identify specific sites where these ADUs will go. Or we anticipate them going, but we were able to use, to calculate a number using a process recommended by HCD based on the average number of ADUs built in the last four years. And this table is taken from a more detailed table in your board letter. This shows the total number of units that we've identified. And the table in your board letter includes a breakdown by community. And you'll notice that the number of sites that we've identified or units that we've identified in the sites of inventory includes a buffer. And the reason for that buffer is to comply with the the known net loss law that was adopted by the state a few years ago. The no net loss law is intended to ensure development opportunities remain available throughout the housing element cycle to accommodate a jurisdiction's rena. So basically if development were approved on one of the sites on the sites of inventory and it was lower than the estimated number of units included on the site's inventory or if the site was developed with some non-residential use, we would have to demonstrate that there are enough units remaining in the site inventory that both the number and the income level included in the site inventory to make up for the loss of the units that were not included in the proposed development. So including a buffer enables us to have a little cushion where we don't have to go out and find new sites to potentially rezone to make up for that loss of units indicated on the site's inventory. And there is, most jurisdictions do have some kind of buffer. They vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and there's a table in your board letter that includes a few examples. And so you can see the wide range of buffers in some of our neighboring counties. Some of the major sites on our sites in Mentory, and you can see that they are distributed throughout the unincorporated area. One of them is Bay Fair Bart. On the unincorporated, the surface parking lot on the unincorporated size of Bay Fair Bart were anticipating 448 units. There's the County Sheriff's Substation on Foothill Boulevard in 150th Avenue, which is planned to be moved to another location. We estimate that that site could accommodate 96 units and that takes into consideration the proximity to the earthquake fault and also the freeway. The site of the former Cherryland Place development at the corner of Mission Boulevard and Hampton Road. We estimate 145 units for that. There is the first Presbyterian Church site on Grove Way and Castro Valley. They have expressed an interest in developing about 260 units on that site. And then there is the Builders Remedy project that we've received an application for in East Pleasanton. And that application requests 445 units of senior housing and that has been added to the site's inventory as a pipeline project. And I will turn over the presentation to Albert Lopez. Thank you Liz. Good morning supervisors, Albert Lopez, plan director for the county. The next few slides I wanted to talk about the implementing documents that you have in your packet. There's basically two of them. One of them is a resolution making general plan and specific plan changes. And then the other is an ordinance of making the actual rezoning on a number of parcels as Liz discussed. We have roughly eight documents that we have changed as part of this process, including the Eden area general plan, the cashier valley general plan, the Ashland and Cherland business district specific plan, the San Lorenzo specific plan, Fairview specific plan, as well as the Cache Valley specific plan. So we have basically amended all of our plans to be able to accommodate the sites inventory as Liz discussed. And in terms of the specific zoning changes, we have changed the density and allowed residential uses on a number of parcels in order to meet our regional housing needs allocation. And you will see lots of detail in the ordinance and we could have you to answer specific questions about any of the sites or why we've chosen them. And then also wanted to mention that we have created a new housing element zoning district overlay Which apply it sort of sits on top of all the parcels that are in the inventory and that is really the one of the major implementing documents of the Housing element which essentially so this new housing element district It is a combining district and it is intended to incentivize housing production. It is provide ministerial approval, which is by right approval on many of the sites based on income category. And it does provide guidelines and the approval procedures for our, for the development community so that they understand that there is a very distinct process. It's well laid out in terms of from project inception all the way to approval. And the table one in your draft, which is found in the ordinance, it does include the applicable zoning districts and the standards, the planning permit that would be required based on density and then the procedure that a developer would have to follow in order to be able to build a project. I want to talk a little bit about CEQA. We did comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. We prepared an initial study in a mitigated negative declaration. That's a document allowed pursuant to state law to be able to review impacts. We did have a public process for that and took comments on that document. We didn't get a lot of comments on our CEQA document, a lot of comments, but we did follow the mandated comment period that was roughly between September and October this year, and there were no impacts that were identified that couldn't be mitigated through that process. Our secret consultant is online if there's any questions about the sequel process. A little bit about the last couple of months on our road show, we did do a series of meetings that are the three max impacted by the housing element, the cash of all eaten and trade view max, as well as the planning commission. We didn't get as much support as we hoped for in the Mac process. All three max voted to reject the draft housing element and recommend that the board not approve it. The comments received were mostly regarding the impacts of new residential development on existing communities. There was concern about impacts on infrastructure, utilities, schools, public safety. And there is a summary of all those comments and attachment three of your of your board letter today. I think that that was a pretty consistent theme throughout the Mac process is that there's really concern about up zoning and the sort of compatibility of new projects in comparison to existing conditions. Just a couple of weeks ago, we went to the Planning Commission. There was a four three vote at the Planning Commission to not approve the draft housing element. There was a concern about the accuracy of the document, the transparency during the preparation, and the fact that there was not support from the max. Some of the comments received were, again, related to the accuracy and that there was a suggestion that the current draft should be discarded and start the process over again. And there is, again, summary of those comments in your attachment. But I think that they were fairly consistent with some of the Mac concerns about the, I guess the lack of support at the community level for the document. At the December 2nd, Transportation and Planning Committee meeting, we also provided a very similar presentation that you're hearing today and took public input. We have heard mostly from the Fairview community related to land use changes, specifically re-zoneings and changes to their specific plan and for the process for approving projects. There was other general comments that were critical to the document but just a few one or so speakers in support of the project and at that team P, we did respond to questions from the supervisor and explain some of the next step to receive state certification by the end of this year. A little bit about community engagement during the overall process. We're at the end of about a two year process right now. We've had roughly 30 meetings before different county advisory and decision making bodies to present the project and request input from the public. And that again, of course, includes the cash value max. I'm sorry, the max, the agricultural advisory committee, planning commission, and then the boards on the corporate service committee. The other outreach that we've done, we've had a very robust website where we've pushed out information to over a thousand emails and folks that are on that list serve. They you know folks signed up to get notices. We've posted notices on next store. We've had virtual office hours with county staff. We've had workshops with site inventory property owners. We've outreach to the school districts and utility providers. And we made a number of presentations that other unacorporated organizations as well as, we've offered all of our information on the website in both English and Spanish. And most of our email blasts are also bilingual as well. There's, we have, you know, throughout the process, we have done a lot of listening in terms of what folks' concerns were about. And I think that there is a sense that the, while we did listen, that we didn't make a lot of changes to the documents, I want to talk a little bit about that. We did have to balance the input from the community members with the review and direction provided by State HCD. We were in very close contact with our State HCD representative over the last couple of months. And they're very aware of our current situation in terms of our timing as well as some of the things that we've had to do in terms of community meetings and any sort of amendments to the document. Where there was conflict between what the community concerns, the direction that those were going, when there was a conflict with state requirements, we weren't able to be as responsive, but there have been some changes that have been made and I'll talk a little bit about that. Some of the changes included in removing are adding sites to the inventory at the property owners request. In response to public comments between just this last year and May of this year, many of the commercial sites in Cache Valley, Ashland, San Lorenzo were removed from the sites in Mutori to address a concentration of sites in these communities. Not all the requests to remove sites could be accommodated and still fulfill Rina at all the income levels that were needed and to maintain opportunities for housing mobility. So we were able to remove sites we did and we were able to add sites in. We also accomplished that. There's a couple of amendments that I'll talk about. Specifically, for example, in cash or value, there was a request for a property to be removed on summer sets of church. And they didn't have interest in developing housing. And so one of the amendments to the site inventory that we're recommending is to remove that particular property, which consists of five parcels from the inventory. And then there's also a parcel on Bartlett that there's strong interest from the property owner. And that was identified, that was identified by one of our committee members. And we were able to contact the property owner and they said to provide housing at all income levels. And this includes venture protections, adding housing to transit, housing mobility, the EJ element as we discuss briefly, park permitting, and then also play space improvements and related to our capital improvement plan. So there was some programs that were either amended or added in, mostly in support of the goals of the housing element. Another thing that we really heard from Fairview in the last month or so was the process for reviewing and approving projects. And initially, we had ministerial approval for most projects if they met the county's objective design standards. Over the last several years, the county has invested both time and money into developing our objective design standards and we continue to do that. We actually have a consultant starting in early 20 to 25 to continue to review and refine our objective design standards. And so, but we also did understand that there was a concern that there was no ability for a discretionary permit. And after some back and forth with state HCD, we were able to determine that for the above moderate income category, and that's roughly from nine to 21 units per acre, we were able to require a discretionary permit. So this change would allow the community review and a maximum of two hearings at a Mac, and that would depend on the particular location. But for the other income categories, at higher densities, we are still proposing a ministerial approval if projects meet the objective design standards. So that's another amendment that's being proposed today that's reflected on this slide. If you can look at the strike out, we have we have struck on out the ministerial review and now for the 9 to 21 units per acre category, we do allow or do require a site development review and compliance with zoning and objective design standards. This will be a discretionary permit with a limit of two hearings at the at the Mac and that would depend on where it's located if it's in Fairview goes at Fairview Mac, pasture valley cache valley Mac etc. I just want to take a drink of water before I talk about the consequences and not having a 35,000. I think most immediately there is a couple of grant funding sources that are in jeopardy. One is the one Bay Area grant money. This is regional money. This is about $9 million for the Salar Renzo Creekway Trail. We have been in contact with MTC and A-Bag around that issue. And they are very much aware of our schedule. And again, we're hoping to, if adopted and certified by the end of the year, we would be able to ensure that money. Also, we have a transit oriented communities grant that's also available by MTC. That deadline is early 2025 and we are requesting about $2 million to be able to pursue our transit-oriented communities program. We wouldn't be eligible for that funding without a certified housing element. There's also other regional money coming from ACTC in the form of the Active Transportation Program, and that's about a million dollars that's been applied for from public works and public health. And there's also some homeless funding, some fine funding as well, and the home key program. These are all programs that most of these are not run by the planning department. I would just want to clarify that most of this is actually going to other county agencies. So it is kind of an interesting dynamic in the sense that it's the planning department's document, but this money is tied to that, but it's not money that we actively receive. There's also sort of state potential impacts or consequences in not having to certify housing element. Mostly in the form of litigation, either from the state directly or from housing advocates or developers. There could be litigation that results in mandatory compliance. A court may order the county to bring the housing element into compliance within a certain amount of days, in this case I guess 120 days is the standard, or they may appoint an agent to bring the housing element into compliance. There's also financial penalties of up to $100,000 per month. We could have our ability to issue building permits suspended by the state, and there could be court approval of housing developments. And then of course, attorney's fees would apply in many of these cases. There's also the potential for a builder's remedy project. So if we do not have a certified or compliant housing element, then we would have, we lose our ability to deny a project regardless of the zoning or general plan. As long as that project has at least 20% of units available to low income, we do have one builders remedy project that being proposed out in East County. It's a senior housing project and they do meet that 20% and so that is something that is now part of our inventory, but it is also leads us vulnerable to other projects. Other builders that want to take advantage of the builders remedy provision and that could happen at any time and any place for the most, here is the calendar that we're hoping to accomplish before the end of the year. Essentially December 12th today, we're hoping for your board approval. December 17th next week would be the second reading of the ordinance. We would quickly submit that back to state HCD for their review. And we're hoping that they would respond quickly and also Provide a letter saying that our housing element is substantially compliance with state law and thus would be certified and And that what takes us just about to the end of the year With that calendar state HCD is again, they're very aware of our timetable and where we're at in the process. And they have been pretty responsive in turning things around for us. And that's the end of the presentation. We have our team here. We have our consultants online. If need be to answer any specific questions that you may have. And thank you for your time. Very good. Before we go to public comment, are there any clarifying questions or thoughts to see, President, my lady, questions? Sure. Sure. I have them, I guess. Yeah, thank you. A few questions. So I appreciate all this information. The with the zoning ordinances, do they address anything So, we're not proposing a inclusionary ordinance today. It's not part of the package. It is one of our programs we have about another six years plus four in the housing element cycle and we've committed to exploring and adopting and inclusion or ordinance within that time period. The woodman help us meet our numbers it would yes. Is there any particular reason why that's not here now? Well that will require another robust community process with our development community and our overall community to explore that and to develop a draft. There is some potential, the transit oriented communities money and some regional money from MTC and a consultant bench to help us develop that ordinance. But that will take some time yet where we are hoping to jump on it right away in 2025 and 2026. I think we've committed to adopting that by, is it mid 2026? Mid 2026 for hoping to have that accomplished. Yeah. The reason I raised that is it just seems to me for instance the one site in that you know I was very interested in having this have as part of our site inventory was the right eight site in Castro Valley that could accommodate a lot of units but the owner wants to do something else on that site. So I'm trying to look at ways so that we can incentivize development. And I don't see any thing before us that incentivizes developers and property owners who want to have their property on the inventory and then actually want to develop it both of those pieces. So is there any? Yes, and I think that the overlay drives that incentive piece. Essentially, what the compliance or once a developer, if they follow the objective design standards in the zoning that they can receive ministerial approval, which means that there is no discretionary permit allowed. And so as written with two hearings or two meetings at the Municipal Advisory Council at the MAC, that would be the extent of the review process and after that a project would be deemed approved. So that is a very substantial incentive to build a project and in sense that there's some surety to it and it sort of takes out a lot of the discretionary process. They probably would also get sequa exemption just because of the state law for infill. And so it is a very fast track process compared to what we would normally require, which could be, for example, a very protracted community process that would go all the way up to the board, potentially, on appeal. So I think we have built in some incentives to be able to expedite housing. And that's certainly the main focus of the overlay is to be able to remove a lot of uncertainty if a project meets zoning and the objective design standards then they get ministerial approval. about that I mentioned for the above moderate, which was in Fairview and parts of Casher Valley predominantly, where we'd still require discretionary permit. But other than that, for higher densities, which something like the right-eight side would surely me, they would have a minestereal process. Now, with the overlay, is this overlay different than the overlay we're thinking about for mobile home parks? Yes. So this is a different overlay. Totally separate overlay, yes. Totally different? Yes. They're compatible, but it's a different zoning order. Did we take into consideration any sign inventories for mobile home parks. For instance, if a owner wants to convert his or her mobile home park, did we take into consideration the conversion to affordable housing and the ability for folks to have trailers there and facilities there to be provided with housing as a result of the conversion. We have we taken any thinking to consideration with mobile home parks. Well, there's a couple of things there that are worth mentioning. One of the is that our direction from state HCD was to not put any mobile home parks on our sites inventory for the housing element because they are formed a naturally occurring affordable housing. The other is that we are developing the mobile home park overlay as you know, and that process we're still in the middle of that we planning mission and we turn to unincorporated services committee in early 2025 with a report out of how that process is going. And that process, the idea around the mobile home park overlay is to be able to first and foremost protect residents that are there in case of displacement. And that ordinance is a very draft mode at this point, but that's the overall idea of it. Yeah, because the reason I raised that once again, is we wanna keep people housed, but if a park owner wants to convert, we wanna allow folks who are there to have an opportunity to be housed. So if a park has maybe 12, I'd say trailers on it, but if it was converted, could have 250 affordable housing units in the 20 trailers that are there, they could be in one of those 250 housing units, and then we'd have an additional 225 or 30 housing units and then we'd have an additional 225 or 30 housing units for others. To me, that adds to our site inventory list. But that's not contemplating at the moment. Well, so it's not in the mobile home parks or not in the inventory, but I think what you just described is the best possible outcome of the mobile home park overlay is that it would allow folks to have the first right of refusal to come back to a project. Ostensibly at the same brand or essentially the same income category. increase but again that ordinance is sort of in a very draft mode and will probably be doing that in 2025 but I think the outcome that you are suggesting that would be a good one. Yeah and I think that's between the inclusionary zoning and the overlay for mobile home parks and the potential conversion for more housing units and to preserve housing for folks who are already there. I mean I think those are two components that I think are missing here at the moment. Then the issues around infrastructure, traffic, water, schools, how do we respond to that? Because I was looking for information on that and maybe I just missed it because it seems to me that there would be impacts. Yeah that's a tricky one. I mean any new project would have to pay for example school fees and they'd have to play park fees. They would have to meet all the standards that the county has around fire and traffic. You know egress and egress and accessing the site, they'd have to meet fire code. Most of the challenges that I've heard of are related to concerns related to congestion. For example, intersections that might be more congested than they are now, especially for sites that are around schools and just the overall impact that that might have. The way that the California Environmental Quality Act looks at congestion is really through. The old model was looking at level of service, like an intersection. If it was a really easy intersection, you'd get an A. If it was really congested, you'd get an F. That model is no longer used. Now we look at vehicle miles traveled as the sort of the measuring stick, the metric for traffic impacts and through our SQL process, I mean, none of the projects were the oral impact of all our inventory didn't trigger any, or didn't hit any thresholds of significance so that vehicle miles traveled was exceeded based on the modeling. So the idea of congestion alone isn't enough to sort of, doesn't necessarily by itself mean that it's a significant impact. We have outreach also to the school districts and some of the sanitary districts as well. We've got some comments back. I think the same goes for safety, the sheriff's office, and fire. None of that really ended up concluding that there was a specific project or site that would be problematic on its own. And again, there's going to be specific standards in any project that has to follow when they once they're in the queue for approval. And the public work stage and see what they look at things like traffic and potential impacts on intersections if there was a safety concern. But congestion alone wasn't one of the things that sort of rise to that occasion. Oh, I understand that. But what's troubling me is we have an initial study and a meditative negative declaration for CEQA. It just seems to me either consultants or the modeling just didn't hit the mark because I know for in fact for fair view there's issues around fire cash valley there's some issues around fire and I just don't understand how the modeling didn't pick up on all the potential impacts from our, you know, if we approve this housing element, that might occur. So I don't see how we could have an initial study that shows a mitigated negative declaration for CEQA. Sure. We further explain that? Well, we do have our sequel consultant online. I'm sure they could speak to it overall. But on the issue with fire, for example, we did look at the very high fire severity zone for cash of alley and we removed parcels that were in the very high category. In fair view, it's not very high. It's high, which of course is concerning, but it doesn't hit that same trigger. So we were able to include parcels there. We have asked for input from both Alameda County Fire and the Hayward Fire Department, as you know, Hayward provides services to if you have you. There wasn't any concern that we saw that came from those agencies about our housing element. I did talk to the fire chief in Hayward several months ago about that issue and a lot of it came down to, if there's infrastructure needs, like water supply, new fire hydrants, what have you, the developer will have to pay for all that. I mean, that's standard procedure for development. If you are creating an impact on services that require an upgrade or a bigger pipe, what have you, the developer would have to pay for that. All right. Well, my last question at the moment, is that I don't want if I can make a decision. I don't know if I can make a decision. I don't know if I can make a decision. I don't know if I can make a decision. I don't know if I can make a decision. I don't know if I can make a decision. I don't know if I can make a decision. I don't pass the housing element. But if we don't pass housing element, and as long as we're working towards a housing element, that could delay any negative consequences from the state. And it might also delay any negative consequences from MTC, ACTCE, bear housing, finance authority and others. Is that an accurate assessment? I'm going to. As long as we're working towards, if we say we're not going to comply, that's one thing. But if we, for instance, remain this back to the Planning Commission to work with staff in the Maxon and we're legitimately working towards some of the resolutions here, particularly some of the stuff I've raised and I know I've heard from the community, that could delay any compliance consequences. It is not a shorty, but that's a possibility, right? Supervisor Andrea Weddle, Chief Assistant County Council, Officer County Council. I think there is some risk of not acting today. The state, HED website process that they discussed openly with the public about what their potential actions could be. State that they look at each case on a case by case basis to determine what is happening and how it is happening. They have communicated with us that they and it have worked with us for the past year to achieve a document that they have identified as compliant with the state regulatory provisions and if adopted, we'll likely be deemed to be compliant. If I were in their shoes and I am not, if I were, I would look at it and say, well, county, why can't you adopt this plan? It is compliant. We think it's a good plan. Why are you not? So there is risk of them saying you should have acted now. But again, we won't know until we know what they decided to do. Right, right. And you know, I'm not risk averse. Being taken risk is different than being reckless. I mean, reckless is being very extreme. Taking a risk is taking a risk. And I'm not risk averse, but I am. I don't want to do anything. That's reckless. So taking a risk to try to continue to get this in a place that's better acceptable to the community, the unincorporated area. Because quite frankly, I've never seen the 3 Macs in the planning commission all be in concurrence around a particular matter. I've been on the board for 24 years. I've worked with the Macs. I've felt developed with two Macs. I've appointed people to the Macs to the planning commissions. And I've never, ever seen them all in alignment on any one thing as they are today. So I just think there's more work that needs to be done here. And I think as long as we're working in that way, there's a risk, but it's not reckless. So I'll talk more about that later on, but those are my questions for now. Very good. I recognize Supervisor Tam and then Supervisor Marquez. Thank you, Chair Hopper. And thank you for that presentation. I just have a couple of questions. On your slide 16, the major sites on sites inventory. When I was reading through some of the comments from the Chair of the planning commission. They were talking about how there didn't seem to be some equitable allocations and East County wasn't getting enough sites. But when I looked at this site's inventory for the major sites, obviously not every single one. The Builders Remedy project has 425 units of senior housing. Was that a project that is being proposed and being in the pipeline despite the fact that we don't have a housing element and how, or obviously including it in the inventory. And then when I looked at the Bayford Barth Station and how, or obviously, including it in the inventory. And then when I looked at the Bayford-A-Bart Station parking lot, the other major site, because between the Bayford-A-Bart Station and the Billers-Rominee Project east of Pleasanton, that's like almost two thirds of the major inventory list. It just seems like, or I mean, this is identified throughout the unencoded parts of the county. So I'm trying to like reconcile some of those comments that came about from the Planning Commission to what I see on this sites inventory. Sure. I think we have, as part of the original, we started this work was to distribute units throughout the unincorporated county, roughly representative of a population. We didn't, it's not a perfect match, admittedly. But for example, the bulk of the units are in the Eden General Plan, second is Cache Valley and then Fairview has roughly 500 units and then the rest are probably in those east county projects that you mentioned. So we tried to avoid an over-concentration in any one of our general plan areas as best as we could. However there are some opportunities that we just couldn't pass on, for example, the Bayford Barth. Also, there's some parcels in Cherryland, which are also pretty large, that could accommodate a lot of units. And so I think we, again, we try to distribute as much as we could. We didn't want to also over concentrate all the lower income units in any one jurisdiction. And so we mostly distribute those in the Eden all the lower income units in any one jurisdiction. And so we mostly distributed those in the Eden and Cache Valley areas. I think fairby, for example, doesn't have any low or very low income units. And so that was the premise. I mean, I think as we started that, how we started the product was to distribute units as best we could. Good, could I just also elaborate? The project is an East Pleasanton. The Pleasanton City Council hasn't annexed that portion of Pleasanton into their city yet, so it's still in unincorporated out in the county and that quite frankly is very controversial because that development at the moment is lacking infrastructure, it's lacking water, David knows it's lacking a lot of stuff. The builder's remedy will probably allow for it to go forward but it's a controversial project out there and it had pleasant and annexed. It wouldn't even be before us. It'd be something pleasant and be dealing with, but it's very, and it is a long, long, long history. Then the Bart station, quite frankly, the Cache Valley Bart station should have been included. But it's not on the list because Bart didn't say it was for development. So I think there's, you know, we still have opportunities and, and I'm not necessarily pleased that we don't have the Castralli Bart station on the list. It's not the fault of the staff, but that's another opportunity site that needs to be on the list that could develop as well. I appreciate that background and clarification. I would, for example, when I'm looking at the Bay for a bar station, which is a bulk of the more higher density development projects, that's the portion that's in the unincorporated because the bar station, the property includes the city of San Leandro. So I assume we're not taking credit for the city of San Leandro. And the San Leandro is not taking credit for our allocations either, right? Yes, that's correct. It's a, it's a, it's six or seven acres and unaccorporated. And that's we're taking credit as much credit as we can for that site. It is on Bards short-term list for development. And so we're actively engaged with them on that. Just last night we went to Eden Mack and presented that item to them about all the different programs that are related to Bayford Barth which are extensive in combination with working with the City of San Leandro. Do you know the reason why Barth was more amenable to the San Leandro Barth station site versus the Castile Valley when they're looking at transit oriented development. I mean, they have a work plan that they've published over the last several years and they just updated it in early 2024. And I don't know exactly how they do their analysis, but they do have sort of short, mid and long term and Bayfair is in a short term and Cache Valley is in the mid term. Could I ask a clarifying question just on that point? I don't believe or do we need to have them designate this as a short term development in order for us to proceed with the zoning and planning of these units. I believe can't we just include it in the plan even if they have said right now they're not wanting to develop it. This is an eight-year plan they could change it any time. Yeah it's a good point I'm glad you brought that up because we are re-zoning the the Cash Vali part-station to meet state law. You have to have a certain density at 75 units per acre. So we are doing that, but it's not on the inventory. So there's a little bit of a distinction there, but we are rezoning it. We're going to put it on. There's nothing that includes us. Bart, I think that they would have some concerns with that. When we wanted to put it on there, they said we don't want you to do that so that's why we didn't do it. Okay, concerns from some people, concerns from BART. We got to weigh those consequences. All right. So, you know, we had to demonstrate viability, you know, within the cycle and because BART had it on their midterm list it really was not something that we could count for the cycle. But hopefully for the next one. Thank you for the commentary. I want it to. My last question is on your slide 32. When you looked at the consequences and the funding that could be at risk if we don't have a certified housing element, I know you focused on some of the things that are in the unincorporate area. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. could be at risk if we don't have a certified housing element. I know you focused on some of the things that are in the unincorporate area like the 9 million, but you also mentioned that it is more and beyond just the unincorporated area. For example, I think you illustrated that the homeless funding, the homeless assistance and prevention, that's like $27 million potentially at risk out of the entire amount that's like $47 million. So it's beyond just the nine millions. And so when you look at like the potential funding for homeless prevention, because this is the housing element. We're trying to build in affordable housing, and we're trying to prevent people from getting out of housing to address the homeless issue. And if we don't get funding to address the homeless issue, it creates this do-loop cycle of not being will solve your problem because you can't get the funding. So when you look at the potential risk of not being able to solve your problem because you can't get the funding. So when you look at the potential risk with the homeless funding, how much of it is, because the homeless problem seems to be concentrated in certain parts of the county and not so much in the unincorporated. So how much of a risk are we talking about with the areas outside of the unincorporated without a housing element? For this cycle of a half funding, it's a homeless funding, the state was able to approve the funding for this period. So the next cycle is the one that's in jeopardy because it's a new requirement that's been added and it's for countywide funding. And that countywide funding includes for the programs that have cover our transitional and permanent supportive housing. It also provides street health and outreach teams countywide. So much of that work would also include expanding resources for youth in terms of accessing housing and as well as services in the continue of care operations budget is also included as part of that half-plenty. So it would affect the county, county wide, even though this housing element is for the unincorporated area. My point was it seems like it's disproportionately affecting the non-unincorporated areas because the housing needs for the homeless are not so much in the unincorporated, right? Correct. And that would be for largely areas of the urban area like Oakland and where we have much of our services for homelessness. Thank you. Supervisor Marquez. Thank you. Thank you for'm going to ask the question. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I know this has been a discussion years in the making. So I do appreciate everyone's engagement. Can you elaborate on the builder's remedy if we do not adopt the housing element? Actually, it's today. It's not even by the end of the year. It's today because there's a follow-up action that needs to come forward to Our regular board meeting in our last regular board meeting of the year is on Tuesday So if this isn't passed today Give me a concrete example of what happens. Let's just say hypothetically January 6th if we have a pending application development project, what could that developer do? Under that law versus having some guardrails if we had a housing element adopted. Per acre, I just want to understand the impact density wise. So state HCD has sent the letter, one of several letters to us basically saying we no longer have a compliant housing element. We cannot look to our housing element as a basis to deny a project as not being in conformity with a general plan or the specific plan because if they're proposing affordable housing of a certain nature. The pipeline project that was discussed earlier in the East Pleasanton area is an exact example of that. If a builder comes in and proposes a qualified project that has certain levels of affordable housing, we cannot deny that plan. We look to their application, they complete an application, and they essentially have a vested right to develop that project, to the extent it is affordable housing. Now there are certain elements of that project that had commercial and other things with it that we could, in fact, look, can they qualify? They still have to comply with fire codes, building codes, things of that nature. There may or may not be an obligation for CEQA to be conducted. So the project that has come in, and I always hesitate to say a project is vested, but that project is vested as to the affordable housing. After they submitted the plan, we had 30 days to review. They can build that project. And they can maximize density, correct? Their proposed project maximizes density. The numbers that they have proposed maximize density. And if we were to drop the housing element, what would be the offset? That program, that project, that building project, is vested. It will not come to you. It will not be subject to the plan. It is, it is already there. It is arguably grandfathered. Okay. We adopt a plan today. Any, any builders project that is already on the books, they submit their compliant application, their complete application is done. If we get one today, you know, within the 30 day timeframe, we don't have an adopted housing element, it too, or others are gonna be compliant. Okay, and everything moving forward in the upcoming year, 2025. So we have a certified housing element, that is fair game. Okay, and with respect to the program within the housing element for tenant protections, can you highlight the top three programs that are intended to provide tenant protections? I believe that the just cause ordinance was definitely at the top of the list. There was a couple other ones. I can get that free. I think we're compiling that. Cause we've only passed a first reading on that that has not been adopted. That's coming back on Tuesday. So in order to meet all the deadlines and guidelines, that component of the ordinance has to be successful the second reading, as well as the housing element adopted. First step is today, follow-up is Tuesday. If there are any delays based off the comments that the supervisor, the question supervisor, Tam asked, there is immediate funding that is at risk. And it's like the point she was trying to make is services that are county wide, not specific to a certain district or area. Yeah, I would agree with that, yes. Okay. And also there is a timeline in the housing element to adopt some of those tenant protection ordinances. I not believe that's also in 2025. Okay. And then can you elaborate? You mentioned there were some areas, some modifications have been made discretionary decisions with respect to moderate housing. Can you re-emphasize that point and was that throughout the unincorporated part of the county are just specific areas? That would apply throughout the unincorporated area of the county are just specific areas. That would apply throughout the unincorporated area, although it would mostly impact fairview and cash revali just based on density. And so we have listened and changed the document where we can, and that was one specific thing that came out of both the planning commission and the transportation and planning committee. A number of the folks here from Fairview were there at those meetings. And ministerial approval across the board was a concern. We had to go back and forth with state HCD a bit to determine that there was an income category that we could require discretionary permit and still be under state statute. And that was that above moderate category, which is predominantly, I would say most of Fairview rezoning are above moderate at 17 units per acre so we did there was a slide that I showed where we are now requiring this part one of the proposed amendments for today is to require discretionary permit at that density range would would which would apply again mostly in Fairview I'd say predominantly all the parcels in fairview up for rezoning fall into that category. And so it would allow two hearings at the Fairview Mac, they get an up and down vote, but that's the limit is the two hearings at the which point the project would be deemed approved. Okay, and then did anyone in staff look at the housing element that draft plan and kind of compare it to see if it aligns with our legislative platform that we just approved on Tuesday. There's a lot of focus on keeping people house, reducing our unsheltered population, making sure we have a thriving community where any of those components considered or do they come up at all during the Mac meetings or planning commission meeting, just trying to make sure that this document is aligned with our overarching goals and priorities for the county. I would say that generally they are aligned or substantially they are aligned. The county's legislative platform as far as I understand is a board approved document. Of course, the housing element is separate from that. But given all the emphasis on affordability and keeping folks housed, homelessness programs and such, I think that the legislative platform and the housing element are aligned. Okay, and then do you have a question on the response on the tenant programs and you mentioned just cause already, but are there any others you want to highlight? The mobile home park ordinance and also programs that support our HCD unit which provides her housing services to local tenants. Okay thank you. President Miley did a good job of asking the questions that I have and eliciting the concerns. We are in a housing crisis. We do need to produce more homes. The best way to keep people housed is to build homes and provide jobs so they can afford to live in them. And we need to do better. We need to build these homes. That said, in addition to the comments present Miley made, I don't know that I can contemplate 17 units as an up zone on certain parcels in Fairview. I just don't know what that looks like. I know it looks like townhomes, but townhomes right next to single family homes seems like it disrupts the character of the neighborhood. That's, unless I see more closely what that might look like, I'm just concerned about that. Again, we need the units. I just don't know that a vacant lot in the middle of a single-family neighborhood looks like 17 units is going to be, I think we'll hear comments like that. That said, seeing no more questions from our board, then we have public comment. And if I could, how many speaker slips do we have? If people online want to speak, I'll look at how many we have. We will restrict the amount of time we have. We have another one o'clock meeting, and we're going to have to get this done before that. So if you want to speak, raise your hand. I'll ask the clerk to take note of who has their hands raised and at least write them down. And if you are in the room, I think we'll allow. See how many speaker cards we have and how many we have online. Yes, there are speakers online and in person total of 25. All right. We'll allow two minutes for each speaker. We're going to cut it off though in about 45 minutes to allow us time to deliberate 45 or 50 minutes. All right. Thank you. We'll always start with in room first and alternate back and forth. First in person speaker. Bobby Clark. If we could call the next and the next to come sit in the front row that would be good. Next speaker would be Barry Carol and then Cindy McClature. Very good. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you so much. I do have a video if you would allow a two-minute video. We have it. Ready to go. Go for it. Bobbi Clark resident Fairview Starridge Road been there 15 years. My wife's lived on Starridge for 40 years. I'm also on the board of directors for the Fairview Fire Protection District but I'm speaking as a resident today. This is a picture opening video of what the Clover Road site looks like. From Fairview Avenue, you can see goats free-ranging up on the top of the hill. The owner of those goats lives on Starred Road and he has a permit. This is turning off of Five Canyon's Parkway onto Starred Road. Star Ridge Road and Clover Road, probably the most rural area in Fairview. Star Ridge Road is only 22 feet wide. We are privately owned roads are responsible for our own repairs. Our CSA is grossly underfunded. It takes us three or four years just to raise enough money to fix potholes. You can see the shoulders of the road are very, very poor quality. We are all minimum one acre home sites, 88 homes, three dead end streets, water service over 70 years old from the Hayward, Hayward water, with all dead ends for the water service. There's no adequate water to build or extend. This is Clover Road going down to the site. It's less than 20 feet wide with no shoulder. Many times people are parking on the side of the road, creates a single lane road right here. This is the rural aspect of our community. Horses, farms, goats, chickens coming up on the right is the easement that staff has determined is an ingress point for 17 homes per acre. There it is. It's a 30 feet wide is designed for a single family driveway to reach those lots. We're leaving Clover Road again now. Staff has supposedly said that methodically they can put 153 homes in our community and bring over 300 vehicles of traffic. Impossible. Please remove it from this housing. Thank you. Next speaker is online. Please remove it from the housing. Thank you Next speakers online Collery on the line Brenda you have two minutes Yes, hi Brenda Clark star Ridge To get back to something that Albert said about the community notice about the sequel um and Nobody made any comments. It's because as usual, nobody knew about your comment period. You notify people that have signed up for emails. You never put anything in the mail. I wanted to mention your slide nine stated on there that all this has been vetted by stakeholders. That's not true. I'm not sure if you're wondering if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the community or if you're interested in the to the extent that it is including the access on the Clover Road by 17 Humsper for Acre on that unbuildable parcel in November and several of us have worked through the holidays to try to get the word out to people about what this means to us We have no services in Fairview. We have no store Planning is planning to remove that commercial zoning right there so we never will have a store. We have no buses. What are you telling the state when all these acronyms, the R-H-N-A-H-C-D-A-Bag, that they have what you've done on your own without vetting it through the planning commission, which you've applied and sent your plan. What are you telling them about the feasibility of building 17 homes per acre off of two private streets, where the homeowners on these streets can barely get by now. A, and and b there's one way in and one way out of here for 88 homes and we homeowners own to the middle of that road. What is your plan? Is it imminent domain to make us comply? Please send the plan and commission. Next speaker come on up and let's get ready to move and be lined up who's the next speaker and the speaker after that. Thank you. Hello. I'm with as fast as I can. My name is Barry Carroll. I live in the fairview community. Apparently for years our state politicians behind closed doors have been working on the six element plan with no real consideration for acceptance or input from our citizens. They have done this with no regard to the results or damage to our communities that will last forever. Our government has spent years modifying this plan and laws to make sure we citizens could not stop this plan for proceeding so it could be crammed on our throats. This is called dictatorship and it is not how the process is supposed to work. They are now dictating this horrible plan to us. What happened to we the people for the people in our constitution? I am begging you, our board, to supervise to reject this plan proposal until we, the people can respond legally with our own referendums, petitions, and ballot measures to change our Constitution to stop this wrong agenda by the state of California. The state has yet, has had years to put this plan in action and we should have the same to refute it. This plan is forced upon us and goes forward that damage done to our communities will never be able to be undone. Our communities will suffer forever because of the greed of the government and the developers who have somehow managed to purchase our representatives. Tell the state to keep their money and we will live without it. The state will take care of those people who need taken care of. I want to thank you in advance for listening. You guys have all the information. We've been doing these MAC meetings. Everybody said no, no, no. It really seriously need to modify this. And I want to make sure that the store itself, the laws keep changing. But do the right thing, set down the store, re-zoning so that, and let's all everybody have let us have her say. Thanks for your time guys appreciate it. Thank you next speaker. Collar you're on the line you have two minutes Keith. I'm Keith Barrox from Sound Lorenzo. I'm trying to make this quick. In Sound Lorenzo with the thisresoning for the luckies and black angus shopping center parking lot is going to basically basically eliminate the parking that's there virtually and and bury what little commercial area we have now increasing the increasing the densities in our bill is specific plan from 19.6 units per acre to 86 units per acre. But one of my real major concerns is that more people in Fairview are going to die if there's a fire up there. It's bad enough as it is now in lonely exacerbate the situation. Another major concern is this removal of the public process. I heard that that's been changed a little bit, modified a little bit. It's a step in the right direction. Also, yeah, the safety element, yeah, that was what I was gonna, I had been making notes while I was listening to this. At any rate, I might agree with, we're trying to agree with the last speaker about changing things at the state level. But it would have been nice to have more input over these past eight years regarding this, rather than getting what feels like a bum's rush on a bad deal. And to put it a little more graphically, I feel like, you know, we're getting a square pig shoved into our round hole. I don't think protesting or road blocking would be out of the question if this moves forward. Whatever we got to do, we got to do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you next and we'll speak with you. Cindy McClatcher, I'm a Fairview resident. Fairview has about 80 properties on the inventory. Planning has proposed that of the 512 units allotted to Fairview, about 244 of those units will be absorbed by just 10 properties, concentrating traffic, parking, and evacuation issues in these areas. The increases in density proposed could have been more moderate and spread out over more of the parcels to minimize the impact in any one given area. In many cases, the proposed zoning density brings the property far above what the county is assigning it on the inventory list. If the max density of the zoning for the 10 properties providing the 243 units is considered, This is really 417 units. For instance, one of the properties on MOD, a 2.5 acre parcel is counted as providing 15 units. But with a 17 unit per acre density that allows multi-family, 42 units could actually be built, especially with administrative modifications granted through the zoning overlay. The current R1 zoning is very low density residential, changing it to low density residential would allow for 21 units. Why doesn't need to be rezoned to 17 units per acre multi-family? This parcel opens onto an already high traffic area in front of an elementary school, and there are many state laws that require developments to be allowed at the maximum density. If the county wants to count this property at 15 units, it does not need to be re-zoned at 17 units for acre. SB 1123 passed in 2024. It's effective in July 2025. It allows any R1-zoned vacant land under one and a half acres to be developed ministerially with lot sizes of 1200 square feet or 10 units or less. There are almost 60 properties in Fairview on the inventory that meet that criteria for a total of about 544 units without any rezoning needed. Fairview cannot absorb this in their infrastructure however it would actually be affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes, Janice. Hi, Janice Keller. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. I live on 259th, or a fair- view avenue for those of know us where the llama ranch be in the um we're going to be pretty much in fill around the two mark development. Something that to consider is there are a bunch of us that have large parcels like this. You don't want to open up this pandora's box if this person couldn't do a mass development on nine acres, will the rest of us be allowed to do that? Please don't allow that to happen. Let's keep the flavor of and the tone of fairview area the way it should be. Second of all, high fire density. It is so fire dense up there that it would be a paradise situation, paradise in the effect that we would not be able to evacuate if there was a fire and fair view. I love our fire department out there, but they cannot handle that type of a fire. This is a mistake. Third of all, why is fair view specifically Starridge and Clover identified for high density? And this is pushed up that we have to make a decision today or else we're going to lose funding. I agree with net, Nate, let's be risk adverse. Let's push this back into the high traffic areas of Castra Valley Boulevard. Don't displace the residents at the Mobile Home Park, but utilize those areas. Please don't approve this. Don't allow eminent domain for those other property owners too. You cannot expand those roads and who is going to maintain them? They are not county roads. Be really careful, take a step back, put this back in the planning to the mission and into the Fairview Mac. Thank you so much for your time. Next, three speakers will be Kathy Langley, Sally Filben and Chuck Meadow. Kathy Langley, resident of Fairview for 25 years. Destroy our neighborhoods. Don't think we can't fight this. There are eight cities that have joined together to fight the housing element and get this on the ballot where it belongs. They have joined together as our neighborhood voices.com. Per the president of ONV. They include the mayor of Huntington Beach and the mayor of Fullerton. Our neighborhood voices are fundraising to put a measure on the ballot to stop this. The city of Huntington Beach won their first battle at local court, lost it in appeals court, and are planning to go to the US Supreme Court. Their polling shows that it looks favorable for them to win. It may take a few years. They have elected a city attorney who has fully aligned with the city in fighting this legislature. The state continues to threaten, but no action has been taken to date. Push back to planning. I have two words for you, Paradise and Malibu. Fairview is not yet designated a high-fire danger severity zone because califier has redrawn their maps and they've given it back to the local responsibility areas to move forward. Build housing or housing makes sense. The state should not have the authority of eminent domain and to rezone our land. It is blackmail and it is coercion and it's a developer's dream. The failure area specific plan has been the law of the land for 50 years. The governing laws created by the community should prevail. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. Bill, you have two minutes. I have to need to see if I can use this film on through the record in the Castro Valley and members of Castro Valley. But I'm not representing that body here today. I cannot support the current draft to housing and the element. Mostly because the sites in the inventory don't really just have adequate exposure to the community or to our most. Um, therefore it does not really reflect the community concerns. Uh, there's also been my opinion, little thought, giving to the infrastructure needed to support the requirements and it feels like these incredible number of housing units is going to be approved and the community's being told deal with the same fairies or very counsel to me because similarly I think these county needs to carry a little bit more of a responsibility for me to hit. I would like to see that. I urge your board to hear that the freeing and support to actually counsels on the planning commission have rejected this graph. And I ask you to give that the way it's reserved is that public opinion and public feeling is not supporting this graph. And I ask you remain this graph that back to the planning and making so that the revisions can be addressed in the coordination to the climate and 18. So, the three vacancies can be addressed in the coordination of the municipal advisory council. Thank you. Sally Philvin, 40-year resident of Fairview. I'm currently on the Fairview Mac. I'm here speaking as an individual. The changes that are being proposed for the various specific and general plans is a direct slap in the face to the residents of these areas who have spent years carefully planning their plans so that their communities would be safe. These plans will completely undermine what's being proposed, will completely undermine the plans and make them essentially worthless for the control of safety and quality of life in our unincorporated areas. I would like to point out that currently there are approximately 19,000 residential properties for sale and rent in Alameda County. to county? Check it out. Why are we having to basically cram new development down the throats of our residents when we already have available properties? I guess I'm going to see some of my time. I just think that it's ludicrous that our plans are being so undermined as to being useless. We were created to provide, I mean the max, were created to provide a focused feedback from the residents of our communities to the Board of Supervisors because we matter. We've been told that we matter and this proposal shows that we do not matter. Please do the right thing. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes, Greg. Please unmute. Unmuted. Grinchalance here. I just want to focus on a couple of three elements that I think have not really been discussed until today. President Supervisor Miley brought it up. That is there is no transportation in these hills. In fact, it's been in almost every one of these discussions. Therefore, really, there is no chance that anyone will be building housing for the bottom three tiers of the housing elements. So we're not really helping any of the people that are of the low income, below income varieties. Those who are up here in our area, most are in that AMI that's kind of the standard AMI. And most people have to have cars because we have no transportation. And I don't think we'll ever have it. In fact, I'm even wondering if Bart's given away property is Bart going to be around a few years. The other thing I'd like to say is that Hayward has done very well on this housing house on the HCD. They have 1200 extra units actually, which is way more than anything we'll ever get built here in the Hayward Hills Fremont. I mean, excuse me, Fairview. If you look up in the hills, you'll see that we have a march of trees that goes from the plunge in downtown Hayward all the way up into the hills. Those are all most all eucalyptus trees. No one has really addressed the fact that hard, which owns fair amount of that land, does no abatement. I've spent thousands of abatement up here in the hills because of the fire dangers. So what we're doing is we're just creating a situation, fire danger. Do not include the fairview element in this plan and you will go forward with all the other needed plans. Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Chuck Meadows. I'm a resident of Fairview. I'm going to ask the board, push this plan back to the planning department and require that it be revised in such a manner that it goes through all of the Macs, receives their unanimous approval along with the Planning Commission. As you've heard today, the citizens are upset. They communicated this through their local governments. It is now in front of the board of supervisors. I attended multiple Mac meetings and I saw a couple common themes that occurred. First of all, there was an apparent lack of notice. By this, we had a commercial property owner show up at the Eden Valley Mac, which just three days prior was informed that her commercial property that they had run a successful business on for almost 50 years had been re-zoned high-density residential. This was a surprise and she just learned about it three days before the MAC meeting was obviously upset because it was a family business that passed down through multiple generations. Second, as you heard from the last speaker Sally Filvin, we're basically overriding and overruling the max that took, or excuse me, the specific plans that took years of development and solicited extensive community input before they were drafted. This would basically gut key elements and protections that the citizens wanted in those plans. Lastly, I want to address the assumption that the developers will somehow pony up all the costs to address these infrastructure issues. Why on earth would it pencil out for a developer who wants to build on the street to have to improve the entire road? For example, we saw in the Star Ridge video, would require extensive, expensive infrastructure upgrades, and that cannot be pushed onto a single developer just because they want to build a multi-unit property. For these reasons, I suggest you send it back to planning and accommodate the state. Consider a resolution stating your support in compliance. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes, Bruce. I'm concerned about losing some of the funding, especially the Santa Lorenzo Creek Trail funding. That's not something that's easy to get. It's once it's gone. That's a $9 million check of changes that's gone. I understand some of the frustration I grew up on a dairy farm, you know, like a hundred acre dairy farm in the Central Valley. That dairy farm has been developed into, you know, residential sort of suburban-style houses. Had a similar road, rural road that you just saw in the video. Super narrow ditches on. I'm not sure if you're interested in the work that I'm going to do. I'm not sure if you're interested in the work that I'm going to do. I'm not sure if you're interested in the work that I'm going to do. I'm not sure if you're interested in the work that I'm going to do. I'm not sure if you're interested in the work that I'm going to do. houses. Once they're in, nobody wants to change the character of the place. But obviously, the places that people presently live in were subdivided from larger chunks of land. So, I live in Castervalley. I live in a house that was part of one of those chicken ranches and it was cut up into six parcels. So that's just the way, it is. San Francisco obviously was totally rural. There was very few people living there and now it has all these high rises on it. So it's just kind of a natural progression. So I totally get the under the frustration, but like what else, you know, sending this back to the planning commission, they're really not going to come up with anything else because you need a certain number of units and it might be slightly different, but it's going to be mostly the same. Thanks. Next three speakers are Dale Silva, Kelly Abra, Karen McCary. Hi, my name is Dale Silva. I'm a resident of Fairview. I'm speaking today as an individual and not as a member of any group. I urge the Board of Supervisors not to defeat this, but to remand it, to remand the housing element to the Planning Commission to work with the MAX on revisions to the site's inventory and other changes. Here we are, of course, there's huge opposition to this. The MAX in combination voted against it 18 to 1. Planning Commission voted against it. How many speakers will you hear today in support of it? We live in this community, we oppose it. None of you live there. None of you live there. Where the ones who are suffering the consequences. Why is such universal, why is there such universal opposition? Because emphasis in this document is on rezoning areas in residential neighborhoods residential single-family neighborhoods SharePoint Supervisor Halbert folks living in single-family houses where they have their long-time financial and emotional investments No, I want to find themselves living between two 17 Units per acre multi-story multi--family buildings. Now of course there is the great unknown. What will the state do if we ask for some more weeks to accomplish? We don't know. What we do know is that the state has been very willing to work with us for the last two years that this has been late. Yet for the two years since this thing was due. We do know that the famed municipalities in Orange County have done far more than we have to merit punishment to the state. They are vigorously resisted. We're working very hard on the planning as the people have. The state knows this. To our knowledge, none of the Zorch County communities have been punished yet. Please return the housing element to the people to rewrite. It's not starting over. Thank you. Paul, are you on the line? Let's roll. You got two minutes. I'm not sure if you have any questions. Paul, are you on the line? Let's roll. You got two minutes. Hello, board. This is literal pal speaking again on behalf of public advocates as well as a castra valley resident. I'm speaking in support of the renters that have been doing housing element advocacy for the past 23 months now that the county has been non-compliant. The state itself and its letter issued to the county this past summer, explicitly said that the county needs to add programs including but not limited to increasing tenant protections and enhancing place-based strategies in order to improve residence stability. And again, as I mentioned in our joint letter with EBO that we sent into the county on September 23rd, I ask that you actually revisit reading that letter. We are urging the county to adopt just cause ordinance that protects renters in the manners that have been explicitly identified in your own housing element. There are several fair housing issues that the state HCD has identified and that they've seen needs to be adopted and we urge that you pay respect to the voices of renters that have you know been speaking at the board for the past couple of years now. I've gone in person to several housing element planning commission meetings and I've spoken directly with the staff. I've contacted the supervisors directly several times over these past couple of years working our best to try to bring this housing element into compliance. And as Albert Lopez mentioned, the just cause program isn't is a large aspect of the compliance as well as future considering future programs like proactivedocto-Brental Inspection and Event Registry. Again, ask that you revisit that letter and thank you for your time. Thank you. I'm Kelly. This housing element is a Shred. It's a fantasy world. And it shows a reckless disregard for reality, not a risk, a reckless disregard for reality. As we just heard, there are six years left in the cycle, about six years, and the cycle is an eight year plan. So that means one quarter of this plan is already done. And we don't even hear how you've been doing in the last two years. How many of those things have you approved? What is the progress so far? It's been carefully hidden. You're hiding stuff from the state. You're just playing a game with the state, telling them, oh yeah, we're gonna get this planned out. We're serious. We're here, we're doing in good faith. We're doing nothing. Now, last cycle, you put out less than 700 units, less than 700, but that didn't show up in your charts today, in your slides, all those numbers. You don't know how many you put out. You put out 37% of what you were supposed to put out, which was you were supposed to put out, 1800, you did 700. And now you want us to believe that in the next six years or eight years, accounting of the few that you've already put out, that you're gonna produce 4700 plus the bonus extras, 40, at least 4700 units, up from 700, a factor of seven. And then you're also telling people that this is roughly representative of population. Well, on those charts you talk about Eden, but you don't mention, you forget that Ashland is a population of 23,000. Castro Valley has a population of 65,000. Castro Valley has got 33% of these units. Ashland has got 29%. You're dumping all these units into Ashland, almost the same number, two and a half times more per capita into Ashland because there's nobody here from Ashland to defend Ashland. Ashland, so I suggest let's just do the builder's remedy. Don't approve it. Collar, you're on the line, Bob, you have two minutes. I, Bob Zappatoski with Fairview, and I would like to echo Supervisor President Myles' comments about gaps in the plan as well as, you know, through my participation, the planning process. The proposals that are on the table here and how they've come to some of the conclusions just seem to ignore reality Using the fair view I live in fair view. So that's what I'm familiar with but using that as an example Bobby Clark spoke to the lack of a road there and I really want to emphasize this that is a private road and there's no way a developer can actually Expand that road even if they had all the money to do it, without the approval of every resident on that street. So how did the rezoning get targeted for that site? In addition, there is no service up there. The Hayward Water System only runs a sewer line, part way up Fairview Avenue, which if you dump in this 153 units, you're talking about close to 500 new residents, all of the deep street sewer infrastructure may not be sized to handle all of that in addition to what Hayward has planned for their own city. The, again and again, we'll hear staff referred to not wanting to get a residence, not wanting to disrupt the look and feel of their neighborhood. But there are fundamental safety issues that in taking into account the rezoning of these different properties, they appear to not have been taken into account. And I think that's why the MAC has every MAC has resoundingly defeated this. They know the local conditions, they know the local safety concerns and all of that has been left out of this planning process. I urge the board to put this back to planning to address the real world implications of how they're going to append these sites onto existing infrastructure. Hi, my name is Karen Kirin. I live in Fairview. This board of superpowers has approved the Fairview Pacific Plan on June 3rd, 2021. This proposed ordinance gets it. In September of 2024, the governor signed AB 2243, which tries to protect neighborhood plans. Section A, item I, paraphrasing, says that a site cannot be streamlined, put under ministerial review, unless it was already zone multi-family previously under the neighborhood plan. No properties are zone multi-family under the Fairview plan. The county solution to this is to have this board allow them to simply rewrite the Fairview Plan with no input from Fairview residents. Case in point, there is one community commercially zone property in Fairview. It has been a store for the 65 years I have lived in Fairview and was a store before that. This ordinance rewrites our specific plan, taking away all commercial zoning and fair view. People walk to this store in 2022 and 10 days, six under 60 people rejected rezoning it in 2023 same response. 2024 County proposes this ordinance. County wants more housing and fair view, but wants no store close by. That makes no sense except for developers. Please leave it commercial. Housing has exploded in fair view over the years. We were once mostly just ranches and as such our roads were not built to accommodate high levels of traffic with our hills, blind curves, and few ways out in an emergency. The county needs to listen to our legitimate concerns regarding our safety. We realize the state is being a bully and making threats, but taking time to do thoughtful wise development is better than simply caving and cramming as many units as possible on any available piece of land with no thought to the consequences. Please send this ordinance back to planning. It's silence in neighborhoods and it can ignore its safety issues. Thank you. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. Carmen, you have two minutes. Please unmute. Hello. Yes. My name is Carmen and I live close to the intersection with a campus and second drive and I just want to say a big note to the planning that you guys have it right now. I'm talking now strictly about the Bay Hill food space and across the street also, the corner, which is right under the power lines. And the project, as I remember, was for low house units. That, you know, just, you know, through me is a way when I hear, you know, building right under the power lines. And I just want to say, I heard that you guys said it's not high fire risk. How come people have a hard time to get house insurance because of high fire risk. The green bell trails are right there. Also, I know that storage is a low density, but all the neighborhoods below that are high density and all the traffic comes by our houses, which makes the neighborhood actually a value going down and the standard of living going down, the crime is going up. My house was broken to twice. So don't tell me that bringing more units in a neighborhood that is residential will make this easier. We already have townhouses right between second street on second street and the traffic is just horrible as it is. So we need some road closures right now to cut the traffic. I say a big no for this project. Next three speakers are Kristen H. Judy E and Sheila E. I'm here today to urge you to vote yes on this draft of the housing element. In this version, there are two key housing programs that hold a lot of meaning for residents in the unincorporated area. Specifically, the just cause ordinance and the mobile home overlay built on state policies and ways that would help preserve housing affordability and Create more stability and security for renters and mobile home owners in the Eden area The local just cause ordinance would extend a eviction protection set thousands of renters currently not covered by state law This ordinance would create more balance between landlords and tenants and could improve housing quality By lessening the ability of landlords to use eviction as retaliation against renters who are exercising their right to repair and Save living conditions The mobile home park overlay would create stronger protections for mobile home park residents in the event of park closure By ensuring residents are financially compensated for the loss of their home and provided relocation assistance. Both policies could prevent a worst case outcomes like health crises and homelessness, which is critical for residents and their quality of life and well-being, and can help you all move closer to your own key goals like ending homelessness by 2026. Additionally, these programs can help Alamina County qualify for critical funding for infrastructure in the future, which has already been discussed. In some passing this version of the housing element can help us chart a course towards a more equitable and brighter future for all Eden area renters, and especially some of our most vulnerable community members. Thank you for your time today, please vote yes. Collar, you're on the line. Don, you have two minutes. Please unmute. Please unmute. Don, you're on the line. Color you're on the line Mark you have two minutes. Thank you Albert states that there's been 30 meetings in the last two years less than half of those were public meetings. Reality is the public process has been a sham from the start. The public meetings have been nothing more than window dressing. The Mac meetings have been standing room only and have been some of the most contentious meetings in recent history. Staff has continually ignored the public's input. Each of the three drafts sent to state HCD do not contain the community's input. The planning commission had to write letters to the Board of Stoops and state HCD to require staff to engage in a robust public process as required by state HCD. Each plan check letter that came back from the state requires that public participation in the development adoption of these plans and incorporating their comments. The public was not involved in the site inventory process. The buffer is far too large. The housing element sites inventory is being imposed on the community and staff should have met with the max and crafted the sites inventory as a collaborative process. these projects when they come up. I found out yesterday that mobile park home park owners wanted to be listed on the sites inventory and caster valley that would account for at least a thousand units. The sites inventory is deeply flawed and if you would allow me another 30 seconds, I have three examples I can show you very quickly. In conclusion, I would ask that the housing element be remanded back to the planning commission to adjust the site's inventory to include the castor right bar station. I must use me in other changes. And I think that the key point here to remember is that a challenge to the housing element. Simply would be failing to identify appropriate sites. And there's a lot of those that are in the site's inventory. Thank you. We're gonna have to take a two minute break because we no longer have quorum. Thank you for noticing that two minute break, everyone. Excuse Excuse, supervisor Tam. Excuse, President Miley. Supervisor Carson. President. Supervisor Halbert. Here. Good morning. I support the current housing element draft and encourage a yes vote today because California has a housing crisis. This is not because there aren't enough homes for everybody. It's because homes are not affordable to anyone. People are being forced to lower their quality of living in order to afford a roof or the red heads. Many have just given up and decided to live in a car or a tent or no longer care what they're this desk to our society. Suicide and declinement of health is an increasing problem. Traffic from people having to live in a different city from where they work is a nightmare. And we just keep incentivizing and incentivizing redevelopment projects for moderate and above moderate income levels. The numbers speak for themselves. In 2023, Alameda County made plans for more than 5,000 new homes, but the majority of them were market rate and above. This is mostly due to the cost of construction. It cost an average of $1 million per door to build in brand new unit. At this price, builders and investors, obviously you're not going to be interested in in a field affordable and definitely not low income housing. There's only one way to accommodate residents below the medium income level is to subsidize and ascend it and sanitize new projects. They feel this falls on the tax payers and the very people who cannot afford a roof over their heads. the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day, the next day at all income levels, but it all focus more attention on not replacing or already existing affordable housing. Thank you. Please unmute, Don and Janice. Collar, you're on your line. Emanuel, you have two minutes. Good evening Board of Super, good afternoon Board of Supervisors, the 50 manual Robin's then President of the Salarans of Village Homes Association. I just wanted to advise that we did meet with county staff in regards to the housing element early on in the process. We did hold a meeting open to our residents in which we represent approximately 5700 homes. During that time we had numerous concerns and comments as related to the proposed housing element sites in and around the San Lorenzo village. The current proposal of re-zone sites goes against the intentions of the San Lorenzo-specific plan, which was adopted in the early 2000s, in which we had a historic downtown that had the original Mervin's department store. Furthermore, housing element sites that have been identified in and around the St. Lawrence village have been identified as low income housing sites, in which only further to concentrate wealth disparities within the unacorporated areas. I would urge the Board of Supervisors to reconsider any consideration for adoption of the proposed housing element. Thank you. I am a mobile home park owner speaking on item number four. Gold number one is to accommodate a range of housing for persons of all income levels in accordance with county regional housing needs allocation and we must follow through for the plan To be approved. We do need more low income housing to be built To counteract the historic impact of red lighting But we are we must also we also must be careful not to repeat those past mistakes by erasing and existing communities in favor of new development. One way we can do this is through the ordinance and overlays. One such ordinance is being created that will help minimize the impact of redevelopment on low income families, living in mobile home parks. This ordinance is something which was being developed by our community development agencies prior to COVID and has just this year been moving forward with an increased investor's interest in these parks. This ordinance is needed and will help with oversight and enforceability of already existing state laws, but it also will help our county to meet our regions affordable housing preservation policy goals. This has been included in the housing element because it also satisfies the state requirements for preserving and protecting low-income housing in the homelessness act, the crisis act. It also, it is our only unsubsidized planning prevention, homelessness at the extremity of low income levels. And I support current housing development draft in a curative vote. Yes. Collar you're on the line. Berisha you have two minutes. Hi, my name is Berisha Spregs. I am a 30 year resident of Ashland. I have worked in this community with various organizations such as My Eden Voice to make our community more equitable. There are homelessness is the number one problem in Alameda County and the state of California. We, my invoice worked. I'm a founding member and we worked for, I have been working for just cause the entire time since my invoice was initiated in 2018 and other interest protections. I am totally for this plan. We in order to prevent homelessness and to stop homelessness in Alameda County, which is the responsibility of the Alameda County Board supervisors. We must approve this plan. We need just cause to prevent homelessness. We need affordable housing, particularly for low income. We need the transit oriented development plan. And all of those additional plans that was mentioned previously. We cannot lose the funding that has become available. We cannot lose this opportunity when the county is already going to be losing money next year. Trump is going to be taking away federal money for different solutions. And we cannot afford a lawsuit to take away money further from the budget when we need this to solve the problem. So this is, it is a, it would be a total disservice to not implement this plan and implement it today. Thank you so much. Last two in-person speakers are Tara Clancy and Lindsay. My name is Tara speaking on item four. In a technical assistance letter written by California HCD to our planning department regarding the preservation of low-income housing, it's saying, quote, the California Department of Housing Community Development commends the efforts by the county of Alameda to protect mobile home parks from conversion to other uses and wants to ensure that counties aware of key requirements under state law relevant to their conversion. HCD understands that the county is in the process of developing mobile home park overlay and conversion ordinance as proposed in the program 6N of the county's August 2024 draft of the housing element and HCDA plows the county's efforts to protect this important and unique type of affordable housing. Sided in that letter were relocation provisions of the Housing Crisis Act that states the county shall not approve certain development projects that involve demolition of housing units and less certain requirements are satisfied. A change in use that would result in the demolition of a mobile home park would trigger those requirements. The mobile home closure and conversion ordinance with overlay would help us to monitor and enforce these requirements and will not inhibit redevelopment of affordable housing. It is an important step to preventing homelessness of low income families, including many seniors, and an important step to a well-rounded housing element plan, the state that the state is currently satisfied with. Our plans to make Elimita County an affordable and desirable place to live must include residents of all income levels, and it is our intent to not be pushed aside when goals for redevelopment tend to favor mid to upper income levels. I do support the current housing element drafted and encourage a yes vote. I'd like to mention that with the net loss provision, we do have the ability to take away and add units. And we think that those can be played within the next six years. This passing at today does not mean that something is going to be pulled off the market or imminent domain or redeveloped tomorrow. So these other things that come with the housing element are really important and funding is important. We can play with the sites later. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Lindsay Wright and I've lived at Deleroy on Mobile Home Park for 25 years. This home is provided by family affordable housing and long-term stability when you might not have otherwise had access to it, especially given that we live in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. I'm here to date or urge you to vote yes on this draft of the housing element. This draft includes a closure ordinance for mobile home parks in the unincorporated area of Alameda County. This ordinance is important because it expands protections for mobile home owners, many of whom are disabled, veterans, seniors and elderly, low income and formerly homeless. Specifically, this ordinance provides more protections for people who have no safety net in the event their park is closed. These protections include financial compensation for the loss of their home, relocation assistance, and local oversight and enforcement to make sure park owners abide by the laws in place. It also provides a pathway to resident ownership which would provide stability and affordability indefinitely. These protections are important because they offer help to people who would otherwise not have any and would end up homeless. This is because the rental market is prohibitive. For comparison, most people in my park pay under $1,000 a month. This is considerably less than our median rent, which is about $2,500 in the area. This high rent would be unaffordable to most of my neighbors who are on a fixed income. Alternatively, the de-prefortability we now enjoy means many of us have lived here for two, three going on four decades. I promise you some of my neighbors would be homeless again without these protections in place. This is a vital program for preserving deeply affordable housing in the unincorporated area and should be a part of the county's plan. We have a proposal for the council. We have a proposal for the council. We have a proposal for the council. We have a proposal for the council. We have a proposal for the council. We have a proposal for the council. We have a proposal for the council. I think probably 99% of speakers were from either my district or supervisor, the Natam's district. So appreciate comments we heard from people today. Before I make a motion, I want to ask staff. Supervisor, I apologize. May we first close the public hearing? Oh, sure. We'll close the public hearing. Okay, before we do that, I did receive a request earlier, a speaker referenced the need or desire to show examples of something that was presented earlier at a MAC meeting and I'm inclined to allow for one extra minute. If Mark Crawford could raise his hand and be recognized for one minute, I would be willing to do that. Can you hear me? Yes. Everyone? But, well, might we're working on it? Go ahead, you have one minute. We can see it. Please unmute. Yeah, I just did. I'm sorry. So this was. This is a parcel on Jensen Road in Castro Valley. This is East Castro Valley Boulevard to the right. The site's inventory lists these two parcels for seven units. If you look at the picture that's one house on the other side of the hill there. So just picture of putting seven units on this hillside. That is an inappropriate site. This other one you've heard a lot about from Fairview residents with the red circle. You have to go way, way down a private street that's single lane in some areas to get to a place where you're going to put 140 units of multifamily housing at that density. That's just not even possible for many, many reasons already stated. That is an inappropriate site. This is the listing here that shows the different parcels and how many units can be fit on them. Then this is the video we saw earlier. The road, the fire department's never going to go for this to get to 140 units. And then this is the listing on Castor Valley Boulevard for 126 units. And this is essentially the parking lot at the Lucky Store. That's not realistic. You have to have parking for a grocery store. I don't think that we want to give up 50% of our grocery stores in the downtown area to put 120 16 units in this parking lot. The landlord has leaps with luckies to provide parking. It's completely unrealistic. This is not an appropriate site. There are many, many more of these in this site in the store. It needs to be redone. Thank you. President Miley, close public hearing. Is there a second? Let's take roll call vote please. Supervisor Marcus. I supervise a tab. I president Miley. Yes. Supervisor Carson. Yes. Supervisor Halbert. Yes. Let's bring it back for discussion comments and or Emotions, okay, so what I was about to test the staff is because I support the overlay for the mobile home parks and I also support a local conversion ordinance. That's come before Supervisor Tam and myself in the Anacorporated Services Committee. We've directed you to go down that road and we've also stated that we're very interested in protecting tenants who reside in these low home parks, but we're also very interested in any conversions that would produce more units. So once again, I asked earlier, is that contemplated in your site inventory and or is it contemplated in what's before us today or is that something that needs to be queued up? It is contemplated in the housing element is it is one of the tenant protection We have there's a list of of tenant protection protection programs and the mobile home overlay is one of them It is contemplated in the site cemetery by not being on the sites of inventory currently As I mentioned earlier there is a provision that but precludes from adding existing mobile home parks because they're naturally occurring at Fort Biowzing So you said we're precluded by state law from including it on the site inventory. That's my understanding. Yes, that's correct. Interesting. Does it mean that we can't adopt an ordinance on the conversion? It's just that those sites are not on the current sites inventory. I see. Okay. Right. So I think I wanna make a motion, and if I get a second, then I'll speak to the motion. I'd like to move that the housing element and the associated ordinance and Sequa be referred to as the and the associated ordinance and Sequa be referred or reminded back to the Planning Commission, for the Planning Commission to work with the staff in the max to come back to the board with a more acceptable element as well as ordinance and the necessary sequel reviews because and I'll speak to all of that if I get a second. Sufizer, point of order, are you referring or demanding? There's a distinction from a legal first directive. If we refer, it's one thing if we're not remand, it's another. So tell me this distinction, so I'm clear. That's something that you are allowed to do legally for a procedure that has come to you from a commission recommendation. State law does allow a referral back to the planning commission for further action. It is capped at a 45 day period for them to come forward. So I'll follow up county councils advice and refer. My motion would be refer. Although I thought we had under our board procedures operating procedures that we could remain and and item back to the planning commission and or the max. But if that's not appropriate here, I'll use refer. So this is a general plan. I mean, right? Now, I don't want to get any trouble with any legal issues. So my motion is to refer these matters back to the planning commission, for the planning commission and the staff to work together in the max or together to bring this back to us. In the USA, that would be in 45 days. There is a limitation of them to act within 45 days. 45 days, okay, 45 days. 45 days? Okay, 45 days. So that's the motion, and I'll speak to it if there's a second. That answers my question was the timing. So I'll second the motion, but very concerned about the timing. And 45 days is quick, but perhaps reasonable. So any other discussion present, Miley, but then others get a chance to speak. They want us well. Thank you. So the motion, maybe the motion has been seconded. So let me speak to the motion. I'm speaking, I've made this motion not because I don't support housing. I think everybody supports housing. The need for housing and the support for housing is like motherhood and apple pie Nobody is supposed to motherhood and apple pie if there is somebody who's supposed to motherhood and apple pie Please let me know so we all support housing so the question is what's the appropriate course to get us there? I Think What's been presented to us today raises a lot of concerns. As was pointed out, I do think there's issues around you're coming forward with an inclusionary zone ordinance. The issues of coming forward with the mobile home park conversion ordinance, there's issues with Sequa because I mean, I for the love of me, I just can't wrap my arms around the fact that this past negative, mitigated declaration when I know know him with the photo, that was pointed out the video up in Fairview, I know for a fact there is shoes of fire, there's shoes of traffic, there's issues of infrastructure dealing with water and sewer and other things. And I'm not just talking about Fairview alone, but in Castro Valley as well. So I don't know how this could get through with a negative mitigated declaration. So that's baffling me as well. And I think further analysis of that with the Planning Commission, the Planning staffs, and the Max would help that. I think the site and the Victoria is deficient. I think we need to pursue getting the Caservale part station included on this and maybe having a new part director Melissa Hernandez for that area. We might be able to move this up possibly. Some of us know Melissa very well. I think she actually works for one of the supervisors. But she's the bar director for the area now. I really do think we need to be looking at other sites, dip it on the inventory list, and then has been pointed out. Some of the sites that are on the list, I think are good and be overly constrained with development that's inappropriate to all of the work that's going in to develop the specific plans like in Fairview, like in San Lorenzo, etc. So I think a more appropriate interaction collaboration between the Macs, the Planning Commission and the staff will bring us a far superior product to advance to the state. So that's the first thing. Second thing is, as I ask County Council, there are risks associated with us not passing this today. What my understanding is, even with that risk, it's not reckless because it's long as the state sees that we are working towards developing an appropriate housing element, which we will be doing and which we have been doing. And this would be for 45 days. I think, and then there would be even two meetings if it referred to the Attorney General. I think we are still on path to develop an appropriate housing element, and we wouldn't face litigation in legal action. If we did, I think we need to address that as appropriately as possible. But I suspect we wouldn't face legal implications. And then the same thing with the funding that is possibly threatened, because at the moment, the only money that's definitely threatened is the $9 million for the San Lorenzo Creek Trail. And that I know come back to MTC in February. So this still gets us within the 45 day time frame. And I serve on MTC, so I'm very familiar with what's happening there in terms of some of these resources. The next thing is this doesn't apply to anyone else other than maybe Supervisor Tam. It's just hard for me to go against the Planning Commission. That's a decision making bad body and the three Macs that are advisory. Since I've been on the council, on the board, we've worked very hard to give the unincorporated communities more of a say in their destiny and how they see their future and how they see their communities. We've created two additional max for every unique area. We've created two additional max, Fairview and Eaton area. We had Castro Valley. And for them to unanimously, along with the Planning Commission, say that they feel this is deficient, it's hard for me not to recognize the bodies that I have said I would support. We haven't all the time agreed with the Planning Commission nor the MAX, but I don't know an instance where we've gone against all of the MAX and the Planning Commission when they've all been in harmony on a particular matter and there you are all in harmony so it would be hard for me to go against them. It'd be like and some of us serve from City Councils so it would be hard for me to go against them. It would be like, and some of us serve from city councils, it would be like, you're on the city council, you're planning a mission, oppose something, in your communities, oppose it as well, and you're saying, no, I'm gonna support it, because I'm the council member. I just think that would be crazy in ludicrous. So I'm in the particular position, I just think that would be crazy in ludicrous. So I'm in the particular position representing about 130,000 people who live in that incorporated area that I've got to listen to the bodies that I've supported and put in place to give me advice on these matters and then one body that's the decision making body. So that's the other reason why I want to refer it back. And as I said, I do think we have merit to refer it back. And I do think if the staff works hard with the planning commission and the max, this can be back before us within 45 days. And then I think we could have a more superior product to consider. And once again, I'm very, very concerned about the sequel to Termination. I mean, one of the speakers talked about Paradise. I mean, my ex-wife, Linda Paradise, she told me about the horrors of Paradise. I was on the council with the Oakland Hills Firestorm. I know about these disasters and I don't want to reject my constituents to anything that's going to threaten their safety. And I do think these the the sequel didn't take into consideration some of these safety features as thoroughly as it could. So those are some of my arguments for my motion and we'll see whether or not we have the support from the board to refer it back. So thank you. Mr. Vice-O-Tam. I would like some clarification and responses from staff on President Miley's motion. I know staff has worked very hard over the last two years to try to balance trying, complying with state law and also trying to meet some of the considerations that the community have talked about and I wanted to understand with respect to the MAX. And I have deep respect for local control, local input. I argued that when I was on the board of the legal California cities, but I wanted to know that when the MAX were put in place, was it around 2019? When Surveyser Chan was here? That sounds about right. So can you just help me historically understand with the prior housing elements eight years ago, what happened? Did the max provide input? Was it in the same, did we end up in the same position that we are in now? Well, so the previous cycle, the fifth cycle, I don't believe the Eden or Fairview Mac were in place at that time, but just a cash for Valley Mac. What I understand is that there wasn't as much controversy then I think the requirements from the state were much lower at that point. The six cycles is, I think, you know, the requirements are quite a bit more robust than the previous cycle. So the primarily was a planning commission forum to discuss the housing element for the previous cycle. I believe it might have went to the MAC. I would say maybe once or twice. This is going back a number of years. I can't recall everything. But there wasn't this level of engagement. I guess you could say this round. It's been more robust this round in terms of going to all the max if we've gone to we had at least two all Mac meetings and then separate Mac hearings at least two occasions as well. So it's kind of it's not an apples to apples comparison but I think if your question was what do we do last time I'd say what because the Macs didn't exist we didn't necessarily go to them. We did attend the cash of alley, Mac, however, and but it was primarily a planning commission exercise in the previous cycle. Okay, thank you for that historical background. In 45 days from now, what do you think you can accomplish that you haven't done in the last two years that supervisor Miley would like to see? Are you going to be able to get the BART board to approve housing on the Caspar Valley BART station? Are you going to be able to address all the issues that typically come with site specific plans when it comes to traffic, fire hazards, utilities, schools, tax base on individual projects within the site's inventory? And then are you going to be able to get input that's different that you think in the next 45 days between the specific plans consistency and this housing element? That would be a tall order for 45 days when we do have of course the holidays right in the middle of that or you know coming up in a couple of weeks or so. I can't speak to the VAR station and cash of all you know that seems to be a process that's you know above and beyond our control. I think that the input I imagine would not be too different. I mean there was a lot of inputs to develop the sites inventory so a of a lot of push and pull, and we didn't want to trip any particular wires when we were addressing sites. And so I think that I imagine there might be some slight change, but in terms of covering all those issues, SQL alone is going to require probably, I would say, way beyond 45 days to be able to address that just because we have to do another document potentially we circulate it that right there is at least probably three to four months so to answer your question no I don't think we're gonna be able to do all those things in 45 days. Thank you. So related to that we have a large buffer. We have a lot of concern about fair view. I think we could take out from the site list all the fair view sites and still be compliant and or not bring them all the way up to 17 units per acre. Some comments were made earlier about how two or three or four units is already acceptable by the community are already allowable and we could add that much in, but otherwise take the rest out. I know we can't get to full, likely full change of the BART board, but darn it, it needs to be housing, it will be housing. They don't want to put it in just now, but I think we should push them that way by including it, and if it's in their next element or gets pushed to the next element let the state tell us it's not a good site And we could just reduce the overall buffer Period what I'd like to see is maybe a joint Mac meeting Where we can meet with the Macs Ernestly sincerely see what they have to say, not take more than 45 days, schedule that now for whenever that is, and either meet with them jointly or have a succession of meetings with them. And I know that's not easy to do, and I know that staff is already working really hard, has worked really hard. I feel like we're really close, really close. 45 days away, close. And I'd rather get it done in partnership with our community, with their support than not. So that's why I'm supportive of this. But one last supervisor Carson, and then President Miley, then we're going to have to take a vote, I think. Great. Thank you. supervisor Carson and then President Miley then we're going to have to take a vote I think. Thank you. A couple of comments because I did listen intently to the presentation and also the speakers each of them may not appear as though I was but I did. I even took some notes. You know the land use issues are always fundamentally very challenging, very difficult issues to deal with. Probably since the founding of this country, because most of the constitution and everything else is based on land ownership. actually here in California, which has been known as a state historically as an agricultural state. The loss of that agriculture to development has continued to be a very challenging, energetically challenging area for decision making for local politicians in particular. And so these decisions are extremely difficult and challenging, but they've always been since the founding of this country. And even then, the land wasn't in real ownership of the people who wrote the laws, the people who really originally occupied this land were not included in any aspect of the writing of those laws. But to move fast forward to this discussion in today, a couple of things. The president of the board mentioned risk. And yeah, I agree with your definition of risk actually, that you laid out today. The governor has risked a lot regarding land use in terms of forcing and pushing some laws in the last year. There have been regional bodies which I've had the privilege to serve on for a couple of years. That had a multi-plicity of participation from key stakeholders. All of those related to land and those closely related to land. Senator Weiner kind of conven-convened those in San Francisco, had the business community present, had government present at that decision-makers in all of those areas. And in each case, talking about the regional land and housing element, there was always pushback. There was always some reason that this didn't work. With respect to all of our commissioners who we ask to serve and volunteer on commissions, they are our pointes. They kind of reflect to some extent our values and who we are, even though they are independent and can operate independently. So I'm a little less concerned that there are the appointees to the Commission, Alameda County Planning Commission, conflicted and those who are part of the MAC who are involved in the MAC. Now, I'm necessarily saying that they represent the feelings of the people who live in that area have a vested interest. And so it's just like in planning meetings for local government, the ones who are deeply concerned find themselves and make a way to be present. So their voices can be heard. But I'm not always sure that that's reflective of a general population that's in that area. I'm not going to support the motion, so let me say that up front, that President Miley has put out. Because I think that the sacrifices that we all have to make and that the previous decision making bodies in local government had to make has to move forward in a way that we do increase our housing stock, our representative area that is urban. Our representative area that has the city of Piedmont area, you go into Piedmont, you say you can't build any place, people are already living on top of each other. Yet, and still Piedmontima has found a place in their borders to build multi-housing so that individuals can move in, maybe who don't reflect the character of Eastman of Pima. You know, we all are comfortable with what we know as opposed to the unknown. We all fight to maintain our existence the way we are familiar and comfortable with it because of the unknown. And all of our communities that have gone through growth, including the district I represent that is highly organized that has, that has the same kind of terrain and contour that I saw in the pictures. In many cases, small narrow streets, inaccessible, multi-housing. But at some point in time, from an economic perspective, not just from those who benefit from development, but from an economics perspective. If we are going to have restrictive housing, non-housing for whatever the real intended purpose is, or the defined purpose is, to the extent that we continue to keep that from happening, it will have a profound effect on our economy. It will have a profound effect on our economy. It will have a profound effect on the services that we're supposed to deliver. It will have a profound effect in terms of individuals who can attend these meetings, they can't afford the housing, that need the housing that we're talking about in the backdrop. You know, we spent a lot of time on Tuesday talking about homelessness. And that number continues to rise even as we find housing and that is subsidized. So at some point in time we have to make the hard decisions, increase the housing, and we do have checks and balances because as each of these products come to us, as each of these developments come to us, it will come back before a decision-making body before it moves forward. That's a part of the checks and balances that we attempt to put in government. So I'll stop there because I know we have another extended meeting. And I say that not out of disrespect for the people who have come and the people who raise legitimate issues that will impact their personal life, but as an elective body, we have a greater responsibility. President Miley, when last comment then and we'll take a vote. Yeah, I just wanted to say, I suppose you appreciate the staff's response to surprise the Tam's question. Because even if we don't succeed in making it perfect in 45 days, I do think we'll build more public confidence and trust because we've gone this extra mile having staff to work with the planning commission and work more diligently with the max. I think it will build more public trust and confidence given another 45 days further more. Given another 45 days, the state will still see we're working towards a housing element. It's not like we're saying to the state no no no we're not going to do a housing element we're going to fight you what we're saying to the state is we're trying to listen to our constituents and come up with something that we have greater and broader consensus around as opposed to opposition. And as I said, I don't think any of us oppose housing. You know, it's like I said, mother but not a pie. We all support housing. We all want to see that happen. We want to help. We all want to ensure that there's, you know, rental assistance for people, emergency rental assistance. We all want to ensure that people are protected and miss that neither but the point is How do we craft these policies and these laws that serve the you know the public interest in the best way? So I just think given a little bit more time we can achieve a broader consensus Because the planning department planning department The planning commission in the max will universally be working on bringing about a better product to us Very good with that said do you want to respond? Mr. Rajasthan if I may. Thank you, Mr. Chair I'm not looking for the perfect to be the enemy of the good. And I agree that everyone on this board wants protection, production, wants preservation of housing, and we want to make sure that we are the county with the best resources it can have to secure the funding that it needs to provide mental assistance, to provide the kind of housing productions, to provide the subsidies for affordable housing. But without a housing element, we cannot do that. And I don't have a sense of the risk that you're talking about in the next 45 days because based on what staff is saying in the next 45 days, we'll have more forums, but we won't necessarily get to consensus to what I said earlier. I think that's one thing I didn't actually mention was state HED review would have to happen within that 45 days. And I mean, they have a two month, that's usually their turnaround time. And so even with all the other things that were addressed and I mentioned earlier, I think just the process of holding a meeting and getting any input would easily extend beyond 45 days. I saw Supervisor Carson raises hand. I'll be sure. That really is honestly, if we're being serious, it's kicking the can down the road and it just come back. So it was asked earlier to have a little bit more neighborhood meetings. I'm all in favor of that. But I do recall when Mary came was on the board, when other people on the board, we had meetings out in Castro Valley regarding planning with the Castro Valley Mac. That was before the other Macs were formed and individuals who had a direct impact by the decisions we're making did what we always do, which I respect they rallied their supporters to come to the meeting and the other individuals who had other things to do weren't there. I don't know how they do anything different in 45 days through the holiday season, through transition that allows us to come back here other than kicking this down the road. Let's take a vote. Roll call vote please. Supervisor Marquez? No. Supervisor Tam? No. President Miley yes, yes supervisor Carson no supervisor Howbert yes So I have a motion denied no motion denied and so I want to just pull the the team here because If we're going to have a motion to approve this We do have the ability to modify it and I note that there are a couple hundred units in Fairview. A lot of consternation about Fairview. We have a large enough buffer to absorb it. I'm willing to perhaps entertain the motion to send this on, but with the modification that we strip the Fairview units, that's a slight modification that I believe, and I'll ask our staff to weigh in, especially legal to weigh in, if we were to delete those from the list, would we still remain with a number that we can accept and Can we submit it to HCD that way? Is that an option we can do? I'll speak to that. I don't think so. And the reason why is because the one thing we didn't really cover today was the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Component of the Housing Element, which is a new component for this cycle. And it is something that did implicate our higher resourced areas, as well as our low density areas. Stay HDD looks at vacant single family zone land as an opportunity for housing mobility, which means that it provides an economic ladder for someone to be able to afford a home in those areas by increasing densities. The theory is that by increasing densities, you're probably going to be getting a housing product that is not detached single family and then would be more affordable. So you know, someone that maybe couldn't afford a detached single family home, might be able to afford a town home, for example, which would be much more, would be less expensive. And so, and Fairby was really the only area that we could meet that program because they have a lot of vacant single family on Zoned Land, which is the reason why we zoned it from around eight or nine units per acre, which is standard single family to 17 units per acre, which is multifamily usually attached. So I don't think that would pass muster with state HDD. There is, we have committed to looking at our site's inventory, at least, or not at least, but no more than two times a year, usually it's just once a year. And I think that, so there is some ability to tweak, to adopt and tweak that is a possibility that state HDD would allow. But in terms of removing all those parcels I think that would that would be contrary to state law and we'd probably be in a situation where our we would no longer be found to be we no longer be found to be in compliance with state statute and we'd be kind of in the same place all over again. Okay. Thank you. President or supervisor Carson. Yeah. Yeah. I'm assuming I'm not saying that staff is always perfect. Keith Carson is not perfect. A lot of times. But I have to assume that they've done their due diligence and looking at this in a comprehensive way that Hopefully the decisions and the recommendations they made for us Well, nobody not everybody's gonna be happy that they are really trying to put together a puzzle That that meets the housing element requirement and for us to start to Cut and surgically try to change this at this point in time with the time frame we're up against is problematic. Should be up or down. So, Rasmarra Kazicas, we're ready to make. Thank you. Yeah, I'll just some brief comments. I'm just I really appreciate everyone's engagement. I know this document isn't going to meet every neighborhood's needs. I acknowledge that, but I think on balance and whole, it is addressing many, many issues. Our entire county is facing. It's also aligned with our Biannual Legislative Platform. We just adopted on Tuesday and with all due respect from my colleagues that have an incorporated part of the county this continues to be an ongoing concern and theme that there hasn't been enough community engagement. We want to make sure everyone's an alignment number one. Don't think we're going to be able to agree on something 100% all of the time. So that should never be the goal. Number two, if it is truly a priority to get all the input from the max and enough time, then let's be disciplined and focus on our priorities. We're constantly adding more and more to staff's plate. We're constantly moving the objective the goals. So if this is a priority to get community input, we have to figure out what's gonna take a step back in the process. We can't make everything a priority and get to everything. So that's on us up here to be disciplined. So in the future items that are contentious, we shouldn't be two years behind. There should be a timeline of framework in advance so that way we can address these concerns. Had we started earlier potentially we could have had a better site selection, site inventory selection, but we're already behind and so that's just my frustration. If we truly mean we want engagement and input, then we have to have very clear timelines and focus on a handful of priorities. We just can't get to everything that's constantly being asked of staff. So thank you staff for all your hard work and I'll see if someone has a motion. I'll make the motion that we accept the housing element is prescribed by our staff. So, Professor, just to clarify that again. To clarify that the motion should be adopt the resolution. The adopt the resolution. Correct. As provided for it, there is in the staff agenda adopt a resolution adopting the housing element six cycle general plan, the initial study, the mitigated negative declaration, and making a general specific plan text and map amendments to implement the housing element. Exactly what I was going to say. And then a separate, are you included in it? Let's do the resolution before the second reading. The ordinance, thank you. Well, second. Very good. We could have any discussions to President Miley. President Miley. Did you want to speak? Oh, well, do the. The motion is limited to the resolution. We'll do the ordinance next. All right. So yeah, I'm just going to say. I mean going to try to represent my constituents to the best of my ability in the unincorporate area. As I said, there's about 150,000 folks living in an incorporate area. It'd be the fourth largest city in the county word city. I try my best to represent your needs and concerns. Recognizing that I probably know your needs and concerns better than anybody up here. I do my best and I also represent Pleasanton and also represent Oakland. So I look at the broader county, take everything into consideration. I think we're making a mistake. I'm going to vote against the motion and in terms of priorities. This is a priority. The county's got a lot of priorities. Trust me, a lot of priorities, this is a priority. The county's got a lot of priorities. Trust me, a lot of priorities. And I've been on the board for a while. We try to manage our priorities, but we have a lot coming at us, a lot coming at us. And our staff does as they can. As you know, after COVID, but the point is, it is what it is. And if people don't wanna recognize my leadership representing 130,000 people in an incorporated area, then they just don't want to. Roll call vote please. Supervisor Marcus, I, supervisor Tam. I, president Miley. No. Supervisor Carson? Yes. Supervisor Halbert. No. I'm not going to be a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who I believe staff had made a recommendation in their presentation regarding to propose amendment to the ordinance if you are going to entertain that I would encourage you to make that amendment before you do for a treaty. I would like to adopt that amendment into section 17.31.050 table one in the review process and procedure. And I'll let Director Lopez speak to the specifics of what that change does. Yes, thank you. The the proposal amendment is to create a discretionary process for the 9 to 21 density arranged as part of that housing element element overlay that would allow a discretionary process to occur, which was something that the community expressed a desire for. So that's what that amendment is about. And then there's a couple sites that were identified as amendments removing sites in cash for valley and then adding a site in I'm Bartlett in the I guess that's in sound Lorenzo those are the two amendments I accept those two amendments as a part of the motion is there a second to the motion. Is there a second to the motion? All in favor. Yeah, you have to read the. Okay. The title of the ordinance is an ordinance amending title 17 of the Alameda County General Ordinance Code zoning to implement the 2023 to 2031 housing element 6th cycle. Surprise, we need a motion to amend before we do first reading. So just to make the amendment. Okay, I heard a supervisor Carson make a motion to amend and Marquez second it. Right. So we shouldn't read the title. If there's an amendment on the floor, so vote on the amendment. Please. So roll call vote, please. Supervisor Marquez. Hi. Supervisor Marcus. Hi. Supervisor Tam. I. President Miley. Staying. Supervisor Carson. Yes. Supervisor Howbert. Yes. Now Supervisor Carson can make a motion because the it was already read. It needs to read as amended. We just need to make sure that it is a motion. Because it was already read. It needs to be read as amended. We just need to make sure that it is as amended. Read it again, as amended. Yeah, thank you. The title of the ordinance is an ordinance amending title 17 of the Alameda County General Ordnance Code zoning to implement the 2023 to 2031 housing element six cycle as amended. You need a roll call on there. Well, I think since they've read the amended ordinance, now would be the time to move that ordinance. Is that right right legal counsel? Okay. I so move that ordinance. Perfect. Now we can take a roll call vote. Supervisor Marcus. I supervise a tam. I president Miley. No. Supervisor Carson. Yes. Supervisor Halbert? I would typically vote no, but I think these amendments are positive. And so wait a second. This is the actual order. I'm going to vote no. Sorry. Still passes. But I do think the amendments are good ones. And the step in the right direction just not far enough. So with that said, we're going to move to the last item on our agenda, which is public comment on items that are not on today's agenda. Seeing none, we're adjourned. We have one speaker. Okay, we have a public speaker on items that are not on today's agenda. And then I would ask Calming Council after that. Do we need to report out because we did have a closed session item? No report will actually take it. Thank you. Any other speakers on items not on today's agenda? Two minutes. I'd like to note that the county council is paying careful attention to all the legal requirements for this meeting. And there are three county councils in or assistant county councils in Tolari County and they wrote some slides. They said the discussions in closed session must not go beyond the limited scope of the closed session. There are special requirements for closed sessions according to their slides. They said, agenda must include a brief description of the nature of the closed session. You didn't do that today, did you? They say that the board must disclose in open session the items to be discussed in closed session. You didn't do that today, did you? Your lawyers just completely fumbled the ball here today, didn't they? Then finally, the three county councils from assistant county councils from, we're losing Nate Meiley, co-supervisor Nate Meiley, we lost the seat. the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of too late, not too late. And also for, you know, we just heard today that land issues are energetically challenging difficult decisions and the representatives of the people will find a way to be present in those decisions. And, you know, this committee, I've been doing these committee meetings, planning commission meetings for five or eight ten or eight years I have watched over and over again meeting after meeting as Four seats were filled and one seat was empty This commission was not here representing the people because one fifth of the commission failed to show up and Today's Today's committee meeting we did have representation. We did have all of the county represented and you saw what happened as a result. Thank you. Future, you guys, you said that in the future we should do something. Okay, in the meantime we should do something okay in the meantime We've been screwed. Okay. We're not being here right now. You've passed this so now the neighborhood it's silenced We have no say on what goes on in our neighborhood none whatever they they they won And that's what people had said you guys were gonna pass it no matter what we said it was gonna get passed Wouldn't matter because we're not going to be heard. And now we're really not going to be heard. No one's going to be heard. That's wrong. Also to find out what is going on here, we're going online, trying to find out what this meeting was going about, what your agenda was going to be. It's really difficult to find it. I did flyers, people didn't even know this was going on. You know, they're saying, yeah, everyone was notified. They were not. Congratulations. You won. Where's Grood? Is there something that is not on today's agenda? What's not on the agenda is you really need to have it. So people know what's going on at your meetings. OK, it has to be put online where it's easily found and where it's posted soon enough so people know about it. Okay? This was not posted until the last minute. I know you guys say you have to have your agenda. You can put a temporary agenda. You can put something you know it may change, but something to let people know. There wasn't even a notice there was going to be a meeting today until just a few days ago, right? I went online and there was a tent. There wasn't anything for the 12th, although that needs to change. Public needs to be able to feel they can have a voice, not like today feeling we're just not gonna be heard. Thank you. You have two minutes, Keith? Yes, all right. Keith, you're also Salar Enzo. I agree with that last speaker regarding in the future notice about not just this about anything to concerns the community. And I would suggest that the next cycle with something like this comes around that the community is engaged to possibly help identify sites that might work well that may have somehow been overlooked. I happen to be the citizen that told the call to the Department and told them about that parcel on Bartlett that happens to be right across the street from another site that they had identified was on the list and that property owner was more than willing to be put on the list. I don't know how it got missed but my point being is that if we had more community engagement like you know like that and Request to the citizens that live in the area to help identify sites that may be appropriate for this This is an item we've already discussed thank you for a comments. We're going to turn our meeting. Thank you Is there anybody else? All right, all right. Okay. We're adjourned. Recording stopped.