Board of Supervisors Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening.

Good evening. Sorry, I was running a little behind. So we're going to call the meeting to order for the Unincorporated Services Committee for the Board of Supervisors. Clerk, want to take the roll?

Supervisor Tam? Present, Supervisor Miley. Present. We have a quorum.

All right, if we could have instructions and interpretation.

Steven.

Yes, they're loading on the screen now. Y dice, para seleccionar el canal del lenguaje, En español, instrucciones para la persona asistiendo a la reunión presencialmente. Uno, asegúrese de tener la aplicación de Zoom instalada en su teléfono inteligente y conexión al internet. Favor de usar audífonos con su dispositivo para no interrumpir la sala de reunión. abrir la aplicación de Zoom e ingresar a la reunión con el número 846-8443-0209, haga clic en la esquina con los tres puntitos, seleccione interpretación, haga clic en el idioma que desee escuchar, español, y opcional para escuchar solo el idioma interpretado, haga clic en silencio audio original.

Thank you. For in-person participation, the meeting site is open to the public. If you'd like to speak on an item, you can fill out a speaker's card in the front of the room and hand it to me, the clerk. And for remote participation, you can follow the teleconferencing guidelines posted at www.acgov.org and use the raise your hand function.

Thanks. All right. So first item this evening is a background in history or busy interpreter speaking, please.

Please turn on the interpretation function.

Okay. Okay, yes. Okay. So first item is informational item on background and policy briefing on junk fees. And that'd be the housing and community development department.

Good evening, supervisors and members of the public. My name is Aaron Tiedemann with the Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department. I'll be presenting this informational item on junk fees tonight. I'll wait to get the slides up. Thank you.

Thank you for putting those up.

So tonight we're talking about junk fees at the request of the supervisors. This is a background and policy briefing, so we're not taking action, but just discussing the situation and defining some terms. So if we can go to the next slide. Now, to define what we're talking about, there's a variety of fees that are routinely charged as part of the rental market that are outside of base rent. Often these are part of the lease, though sometimes they're not, and they can include a wide variety of things. Examples may include unbundled parking fees, which has been a Focus of a lot of housing advocates recently to decrease base rents by taking parking out of the necessary base rent if tenants don't need it. Also, usage-based utility costs, things like water or electricity that may have to be directly paid by the tenant or paid through the landlord and are based on the level in which they are used. and things like renters insurance or other required costs. So it is quite common for there to be a variety of these fees and many of them are very necessary. If we can go to the next slide. However, the term junk fees specifically refers to fees like this that are charged outside of the lease and outside of the rent that are perceived as hidden, excessive, or often deceptive. And you can see a chart on the right there that is from a National Consumer Law Center study on this that says, cites some of the most common fees that are perceived as junk fees, and that's from a survey of legal service providers across the country and cites, you know, excessive rental application fees, excessive late fees, utility fees as some of the most common types of what usually constitutes junk fees. The informality of these fees often makes them very difficult to track consistently and, you know, just for them to show up in the data. And these fees can often be part of what prices tenants out of their homes or can lead to evictions if they're unpaid for a significant amount of time. So they can be used to start that eviction process, even if they are outside of or sort of hidden as part of the cost of paying rent. Go to the next slide. Now, as I believe board members have heard, we have heard some data coming out of the unincorporated county that there has been a significant increase in the use of junk fee charges in the unincorporated areas. We have received a report from the Eden Renters United, my voice, that canvassed several large rental communities. in Ashland, Cherryland, and Castro Valley over the last year. And they found that in about five of those buildings, and this is not an exhaustive report, but shows that this is somewhat widespread, there were significant fees being paid in addition to base rent that were categorized as junk fees. Most of these in these buildings were categorized as utility fees for sort of garbage, water, or sewer services, which makes it difficult to determine exactly what the source of those fees are, but we'll go into that a little more on the next slide. Like I just said, these fees, they are attached to utilities, but for a variety of reasons reported by the tenants in these surveys and door knocking that's been conducted by these groups in the unincorporated areas, these appear to be junk fees for a couple reasons. They have increased significantly in the last two years. We've seen them used a lot more as well as the actual amount of fee being charged. These are not part of the lease and are being used often to pressure tenants into signing a new lease, as reported by those tenants. They aren't being accompanied with any sort of written notice that the fees are going to be increasing or what they are related to. And they do not appear to be tied to a specific service, meaning that there are tenants across certain buildings that are receiving radically different fees for the same utility charges. And those fees range pretty widely. So again, in that report from surveys of renters in the unincorporated county, we've seen reports of fees from anywhere from $85 a month to $700 a month. So there's a very wide range. Next slide. Now, part of the difficulty in determining junk fees and regulating them is that they exist in essentially a legal gray area. Now, as we've covered in the past, there are state laws that regulate the rental market. And one of those, AB 1482, as well as its update SB 567, the Rental Protection Act, does regulate rent increases and does cover many units in the unincorporated areas, units of a certain size. And that limits base rent increases and certain fees like security deposits, late fees, screening fees. But it does not limit other fees specifically, and it does not define junk fees in a way that can be read as necessarily limiting all of these fees that we're seeing in the unincorporated areas. There has been an effort to regulate this at the state level. There was AB 1248 that was introduced last year to try and close this loophole and define rent. However, that failed to pass the assembly and has currently not been taken up, so it is not moving forward. And this leaves tenants who may be experiencing junk fees without a lot of legal recourse, especially as even if they are trying to claim the protections of 1482 or 567, that, you know, these practices just may not be covered. And so there may even when they have legal assistance, there may be nothing that they can really do in response to these fees to regulate them. Next slide. Next slide. Now, we should state here that the landlords would contend that a lot of these fees are necessary parts for the rental market. These points are taken from the California Apartment Association's opposition to that bill I just talked about, AB 1248, and lay out some of the common arguments for why this regulation may or may not be needed here. They say that separate fees and charges are really a standard part of the rental industry, like I covered at the start, that often these fees are subject to voluntary usage and allow tenants to manage or reduce certain expenses. Like I mentioned with unbundled parking or utility usage, this can be a way for tenants to manage things based on what they're using. Banning these fees outright could result in higher base rents because without these fees being charged apart from rents, that base rent needs to increase to capture that full cost of rental housing. And importantly, the CAA did agree with some parts of the bill that listings should be transparent and include both rents and fees to give tenants an accurate idea of the costs that are included in renting. Next slide. Now, the most complete report that's come out on this subject was a 2024 report by the National Consumer Law Center, a report called What the Heck Dude, that went over these common types of junk fees and practices to kind of regulate them at the state and local level. The main recommendations they had were ordinances or state laws that could limit which fees can be charged. They recommended a specific list, though obviously that would be up to the jurisdiction that's putting that law into place. That would be banning excessive or mandatory optional fees and requiring informed consent and opt-in, basically meaning that a landlord would have to Submit to a tenant a summary of why this fee is being charged and give them the chance to opt in rather than be automatically charged that fee. And then lastly, transparency requirement, just requiring all advertisements for rental agreements to include all the costs and fees that will be charged as part of that rental agreement and not just the base rent with fees sort of left out of that equation. So those are some of the common suggestions. Now, locally, some cities in the Bay Area have tried to regulate this directly. And while there are a variety of Bay Area cities that have some legislation that regulates this issue, especially rent stabilization ordinances, Salinas and Mountain View are... Given as an example here, because they have sort of specifically targeted some of their legislation at closing the gap on junk fees specifically. So both of these cities have rent stabilization ordinances that very specifically define what rent is and disallow certain other fees that are not commonly a part of rent. And that is specifically to... lower the chance and illegalize junk fees as a usage to get around leases and base rent limitations in rent stabilization ordinances. So these are two examples. There are a wide variety of other examples, but these are probably the most targeted at this specific issue and defining of rent specifically. Next slide. So to wrap up, this is just an information item tonight. So these options are not for direction. We would have to go back to the full board as well as talk about our larger packet of tenant protections that we have received direction to work on already. But we wanted to give the members some idea of some of the common ways that they could try and regulate this issue. One of these would be like Salinas and Mountain View, sort of a rental definition as part of that stabilization ordinance, limiting what rent is, limiting what fees can be charged. Another option would be banning fees and opt-in requirements similar to the NCLC recommendations in that report that I talked about in one of the previous slides, requiring informed consent, clear advertising, written opt-in for additional fees, sort of targeting this more specifically. Another option would be trying to get at the sort of gray area that this exists in with existing statewide rent stabilization, as the state could either change the definition of rent in the existing law or give some clarification about, you know, Where this ambiguity stems from and what the meaning of rent is should be understood as in that legislation and the Attorney General's office could possibly offer that And then just regardless of a lot of these if this is a large problem in the board is interested in pursuing Additional resources for legal assistance enforcement We have heard from tenants that they have you know had difficulty Claiming these rights and being able to get the assistance they need in navigating these situations But again, all of these would have to be talked about the board as well as our county council who hasn't had the chance to review them in detail. And with that, I'm happy to take questions.

Great, thank you. I'll turn to our supervisor, Lena Tam, and then I'll have questions and comments.

Thank you, Chair Miley. I just have some I think clarifying questions. So as it stands now, the county has a rent stabilization ordinance. We passed the just cause provisions. How is rent defined currently?

So the county does not have a rent stabilization ordinance. We have the just cause ordinance and I would have to double check that legislation, but I am not sure if it defines rent currently.

Usually the ordinance has a beginning part with definition. So I thought it includes all periodic payments, non-refundable fees and charges demanded by the landlord for use and occupancy of a residential rental unit and services. So it's fairly broad. So I need to understand specifically the fees are at issue. The ones that you identified in your slide, So unbundled parking fees, the usage-based utility costs that they're not directly paid, and the required renter's insurance. So I want to understand that better because I agree with the – it seems like everyone agrees that it should – any listings, rental agreements should be transparent and include both the rent and the fees to give the tenants an accurate idea of their costs. And that includes the advertisement. So when you were talking about the survey that the Eden Renters United had conducted in the eight rental buildings over the last year, were these three fees, the issue that you found that was common?

Thank you for that clarification. So those three, the unbundled parking fees, the usage-based utility costs, and the renter's insurance are more examples of fees that really we usually wouldn't consider as junk fees as they would be sort of the normal fees that might be charged in addition to base rent. If you look at that slide the the fees that were most commonly reported in that Eden United in renters United survey that Seemed like these junk fees because they weren't tied to any specific service or didn't receive notice We're really around garbage water and sewer services so that that's the part that's helpful to understand because Usually

With gas and electricity, there's a submetering that goes on for each unit. Garbage, probably not so much. A whole complex would have a common service. And then when it comes to water, there was some talk about submetering at some point. I don't know whether that has happened or not. And are they, when these fees increase, Um, as from the surveys that were conducted, was there ever, um, like a notice given because like when East Bay mud, for example, increases your water bill or, or a Loma increases your sewer bill, they will tell you ahead of time because they have an obligation to go through a prop two 18 rate setting process. And, um, Similarly, with renter's insurance, which I don't understand, that's usually something the renter chooses to...

obtain not so much the landlord so i don't know how that would potentially get incorporated into uh like a rent based payment amount uh yes so that report does say that you know these uh fees that are being charged uh these garbage water and sewer service fees are uh you know don't seem to be part of a notice process, don't seem to be part of rate setting that the utilities are doing, which is, I think, why they've been identified by these groups and by tenants as a junk fee that's being added, you know, off of their lease and without that notice and why they're worried about them. And yes, these are largely services that are not routinely separately billed to the tenant, like electricity might be. Whereas, yes, you are correct that garbage, water, sewer is often by the building, and so it can be hard to parse out the usage for an individual tenant.

Okay, so when the county had passed the Just Cause Ordinance a couple years ago, or in 2025, We were told that there was going to be like a whole set of issues that would come about with unlawful detainers in court proceedings. Have we found whether or not these fees have become an issue during some of these unlawful detainer proceedings?

I'm not sure if I have data on that right now, but I'm happy to get back to you when we look at the court filings.

Okay, that would be helpful. Thank you.

Right. Thank the department for the work you've done on this research you've done on this. And I want to thank my voice for doing their surveys with those eight large rental facilities. Now, there are landlords that are unscrupulous, and there are tenants that are unscrupulous. So we don't want to do anything that punishes good landlords, nor do we want to put a burden on tenants who are good tenants. What we want to do is get at the problem. And I do think there's a problem, but we need to look at it in a manner that allows us to address the problem. So I do think looking at the ability to have full disclosure, listings should be transparent and include both rent and fees to give tenants an accurate idea of their cost. So legally, maybe that's not a question for you. It might be a question for Andrew. Legally, can we impose that?

I'm going to.

Andrew, can you come to the mic? Okay, give him the mic. So look into that, please. We would need to look into that.

None of...

I have to count again. Okay, so I think that's important that, because you might need to keep in mind, obviously some fees are justified and some landlords are justified in having those fees, but some landlords might be trying to take advantage of tenants for any number of reasons. So we need to look at that whole issue of transparency around the listing of rent and fees. Another question I would have is, Can we require all rental agreements to include all costs and fees? So that's another thing I think if County Council hasn't taken a look at this, I'd like to know that as well, whether or not we can require all rental agreements to include all costs and fees. In addition, I'd like to know And I know we haven't, you know, we had a whole menu of things we're looking at doing. So that's why we haven't done a stabilization ordinance. We're aligned with the state. But we are looking to do an anti-harassment ordinance. I'd like to know whether or not if we can ascertain whether or not a fee is a junk fee. And if we determine that it's a junk fee, if that could be included as an indication of harassment? And then if it's harassment, what is the penalty and the consequences of that landlord harassing that tenant because that landlord is trying to either impose or has imposed a junk fee that's unnecessary? Now those are, I mean, I know we have to figure out how we work through all that, but those are some of the things I'm looking at, the transparency, around listings so that all listings include because you know I was a tenant for a good few decades um college law school post law school growing up coming get my career together um Didn't buy my house until 1994. So I became a property owner in 1994. Then when I couldn't sell my house, people heard me tell the story. rented my house while I was renting and moving to another house that we were purchasing. And so for a while, I was both renting my house and then getting ready to move to another house and pay a mortgage. So I've kind of experienced it all, being a renter, being a property owner and landlord, renting, and then obviously owning my own property. So I kind of, you know, I don't see it myopically from one particular set of lens. I see it from multiple lenses. And so I don't want to do anything that's punitive, but I do want to get at those who are being unscrupulous depending on whether they're a landlord or a tenant. That's why I think it's important that the listing agreement or the listing determines what's rent, how much the rent ends and what are the fees. The agreement includes what's the rent, what are the fees. Then if somebody wants to abuse that and it's not justified, then it's harassment and we should be able to go after them. And hopefully we'll have a mechanism to do all that through our mediation ordinance, as well as other appropriate measures. So those are some of the things I'd like to suggest we look at, but we'll hear from the speakers. Then I'll come back to Supervisor Tam, because this is informational today to determine if she's in alignment with my thinking around this. And if we can get County Council to look at all this and talk to staff and then come back with an updated report. And that report could be informational or action. So, but thank, I want to thank the, work you've done on this thus far and thank my voice for bringing this to our attention.

Thank you. All right.

So let's call the speakers. Give speakers two minutes. Kristen Hackett.

They may already have it. So good evening, Hunt Incorporated Services Committee. Thank you for putting junk fees on the agenda this evening. As you know from our summary report submitted last month, more and more neighbors are being hit with these excessive and predatory fees for utilities and services that have historically been included in the rent. Common charges include trash, water, and sewer, but some residents are also paying for parking and storage and other amenities that are free of charge to other neighbors that have lived in the building longer. This week, I also learned that one neighbor is paying a new fee, a month-to-month fee. I have not come across that before, and I'll say a little bit more about that in a minute. But that's quite concerning because a lot of landlords do not renew leases after the first year, and tenants are pushed into month-to-month leases. So tonight, I want to deepen your understanding a little bit of this issue, and I shared a copy of one of the bills of one of your constituents. So the constituent already pays $2,723 in rent every month to house his family of four. In addition, they're also being charged $86 for sewer, $204 for trash, and $194 for water this month. And they were charged $250 for the month-to-month lease fee. So this is an extra $738 per month that this family is being asked to pay in addition to their rent. And it's a quarter of their overall rent that's just being added on top of their existing rent. Additionally, I want to highlight how divorced from reality these charges are. As I mentioned, this neighbor is paying $200 for trash every month. That's just their bill, and other neighbors in this building are also paying. And do you know how much it costs the landlord every month for a regular weekly trash pickup? It's only $76. So there are only two trash bins at this property, which costs the landlord $153 every month. So there's three things to deduce here. One, these neighbors are individually paying more than what the landlord pays every month for trash for the whole building. If distributed evenly and accurately, it would cost neighbors only $3.50 for trash, not $200. And this is a crisis that is unfolding. We really need to pass a ban on these fees as soon as possible. Thank you for your time. Lindsay Wright.

Dear members of the Unincorporated Services Committee, I am reading this testimony tonight on behalf of a fellow Ashland neighbor, Mika B. from Liberty Hill, and I will read it in first person. I am asking for immediate assistance in addressing the unfair utility billing practices that have placed an unnecessary financial burden on tenants in our community. My monthly rent is over $2,600, yet I am expected to pay an additional $200 or more each month and utility charges that continue to increase without explanation. There's no transparency regarding how these charges are calculated or why tenants are paying different amounts. It appears that some residents pay little or nothing at all, leaving those who do pay to shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs. As a single-person household, I work multiple jobs just to afford my housing and avoid becoming unhoused. Even with steady employment, these unexpected and unexplained utility increases make it difficult to budget from month to month. There have been times where I could not pay my full balance at once because of these excessive charges. This is especially devastating for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and families living on fixed incomes. Housing costs in our community are already extremely high. Tenants should not have to worry about unpredictable utility bills on top of already unaffordable rent. If landlords cannot provide transparent, equitable and verifiable billing, they should absorb these costs as part of the rent, just as many rental properties already do. At the very least, any utility fee should be capped at a reasonable fixed amount so tenants know what to expect each month. We respectfully request that the committee support ending separate utility billing and require utilities to be included in the monthly rent. If separate billing is allowed, require a fixed monthly utility fee that is reasonable, transparent, and applied equally to all tenants. investigate the current utility billing practices to determine whether tenants are being overcharged or unfairly subsidizing other households or the landlord, require landlords to provide detailed documentation showing exactly how utility charges are calculated and allocated, and strengthen tenant protections to provide excessive, unpredictable, and unexplained utility increases. We ask that you take immediate action to protect tenants and ensure that housing remains fair, transparent, and affordable to everyone. Thank you for your time.

Sandra Hernandez.

Buenas noches, miembros del Comité de Servicios No Incorporados. Mi nombre es Sandra Hernandez. Soy organizadora comunitaria con Maiden Boys.

Oh, can I read?

Okay.

Además de un nuevo problema existente que está empeorando considerablemente la situación, específicamente estamos conociendo las nuevas tarifas que les cobran a los inquilinos por basura, agua y alcantarillado. De ocho edificios que visitamos puerta por puerta el año pasado, este problema estaba presente en cinco de ellos. La mayoría de los vecinos se ven afectados. Tarifas que varían entre los 80 y 700 dólares que deben pagar sumado al alquiler para evitar ser desalojados. Esta práctica comercial surgió tras la aprobación del control de alquileres en todo el estado en 2019. Y es un intento de evadir dicho control para aumentar los alquileres y para aumentar sus ganancias. Ver de primera mano como las familias luchan por sobrevivir al tener que destinar más del 50% de sus ingresos mensuales en el alquiler de vivienda, que en algunos casos ni siquiera reúnen las condiciones saludables. Y ahora, además de tener que pagar facturas exorbitantes y cubrir los gastos de reparación, los inquilinos sienten que no hay esperanza para solucionar este problema. Estoy aquí esta noche para escuchar de ustedes cómo apoyarán a sus electores del área no incorporada para que puedan vivir con comodidad y tranquilidad. También soy inquilino y no entiendo cuándo la vivienda dejó de ser una necesidad y un derecho humano básico para convertirse en un lujo. Estos costos superan nuestras posibilidades y nos impiden tener un techo sobre nuestras cabezas. Sin duda, esta es la razón principal por la que hay personas sin hogar en nuestro condado. Por lo tanto, me interesa saber cómo ustedes, nuestros representantes políticos, abordarán esta problemática crucial que afecta a sus electores en el área no incorporada. Gracias por su atención.

I'm going to read Sandra's in English for people in the room. Good evening, Unincorporated Services Committee members. My name is Sandra Hernandez. I'm a community organizer with Maiden Voice. During the past year, while doing community outreach in the unincorporated area, we have encountered various problems that are affecting our community. Common concerns include negligence by management and high rents that our families cannot keep up with. On top of these existing concerns, we learned of a new problem that is worsening the situation considerably. Specifically, we are learning about new fees tenants are being charged for garbage, water, and sewer. Of the eight buildings we door knocked in the past year, this issue was present in five of them, and most neighbors in those buildings are impacted. These fees range from $80 to $700, which they must pay in addition to their rent to avoid being evicted. This business practice emerged after rent control was passed statewide in 2019, and it is an attempt to circumvent rent control to increase rents and profits. It's worrying to see firsthand how families are struggling to survive while having to pay more than 50% of their monthly income in rent for housing that, in some cases, the housing isn't even healthy. And now having to pay exorbitant bills and cover repair costs, many feel like there's no hope to address the problem. I'm here tonight to hear how you will support your constituents in the unincorporated area so that they can live with more comfort and peace. This is something we all deserve. I'm a tenant too, and I don't understand when housing stopped being a basic human need and right and became a luxury that not everyone can afford. It worries me because these costs increasingly exceed our means and prevent us from being able to afford a roof over our family's heads. And this is actually the number one reason in our county that people are becoming homeless. So I'm interested to hear how you, our political representatives, will address this critical concern impacting your constituents in the unincorporated area. Thank you for your time.

Jennifer Arizzo.

Good evening, supervisors. My name is Jennifer Rizzo and with the California Apartment Association, a nonprofit trade association representing rental housing providers throughout Alameda County. Fees are complicated because there are already existing laws. While AB 1482 does not regulate fees, there are state laws that do so. Effective January 1st, 2025, SB 611 prohibited landlords from charging fees for delivering notices of termination or accepting rent payments by check. It also imposes new restrictions on security deposits, for example, for military service members. New laws are not going to help. CAA supports education and transparency. Renters should understand what they're being charged. and how each charge is calculated, and whether it's mandatory, optional, or based on usage. We also believe education is more effective than creating another local ordinance. CAA provides rental housing providers with forms, educational programs, and webinars covering issues such as utility charges, fees, and a lot of times overlapping state and local rules that apply. The staff presentation tonight includes data gathered by My Eden Voice identifying the most common fees in unincorporated Alameda County are parking, and utilities. But has the data been fact checked? What were the questions asked? Were renters asked just what were fees that they were being charged in addition to rent? Rather than adopt another complicated local law, we encourage the county to pursue education and clear disclosure standards. CAA is prepared to work with the county to educate housing providers, and renters about existing rights and responsibilities. Thanks for your time and your consideration.

Caller, you're on the line. You have two minutes, Sandra. Hi, can you hear me? Yes.

OK, so I just want to quickly address what the previous speaker said about education. This is not a problem of landlords not being educated on an issue. It's an issue of capitalism and greed. Right. They're going to try to make as much money as they can as possible. you know landlords do and that's not good or bad that's just the nature of capitalism but it is our job to or the city's job unincorporated whatever to put in protections to protect people from that excessive fees from people taking advantage so this is not an issue of education and there's not anything that i've ever seen that has where education has been the solution to these issues between landlords and tenants because it's a power dynamic issue and it's a money issue, right? Landlords are trying to make as much money as they can because this is a business and tenants, this is where they live. And so they're trying to just live. They're trying to get by. And it's difficult. And as a tenant, we have such little power. And when we're tacked with these fees, it's very difficult for us to really have any room to negotiate away those fees. And when you're doing application fees, that's also really cumbersome for people to get into homes because it's like you can apply. You might not get in there, but you have to pay these fees. And so I think that there is obvious abuse happening. Um, and I think that when you have an issue of greed and abuse, education is not going to fix that problem. And so I just hear that all the time from the apartments. Let's just educate people. That's not the problem. It's not that people don't know what the issues are. It's that there are competing interests and we need regulation to make it fair for both ends, right? There are fees that feel like they're necessary based on the presentation, but there are clearly fees where they're just trying to make more money. and on the backs of families in our community and just remember most landlords don't live in this community so who you really should be protected are the residents of this community not landlords that don't live here caller you're on the line you have two minutes tahira

Hello, my name is Tahira Dean. I'm a policy advocate at Public Advocates. Public Advocates is a legal nonprofit based in San Francisco, and we work across the Bay Area in the areas of housing, education, and transportation justice work. We were one of the sponsors of the state bill, AB 1248, that attempted to ban junk fees at the state level. Unfortunately, as you heard, it did not gain the necessary support it needed to pass. And so we must rely on local ordinances to protect vulnerable tenants. And there was a lot of work done to work across the state to see what these fees were, what types of tenants and communities were receiving these hidden fees. And it's something that's a statewide concern. Even though it didn't get enough support to pass, there was a lot of evidence put forward that this is a huge issue that people all across California are dealing with. Unfortunately, landlords, a lot of them are sneaky. They allow these hidden fees. That are either not advertised when a tenant signs an initial lease or they are added into a new lease when a tenant is forced to or is coerced to sign a new lease. Sometimes they're put on the REB system, which is ratio utility based system. which leads to fluctuating amounts in the utility bill, leading to uncertainty on a month-to-month basis. And this is all completely legal. No amount of tenant education is going to fix that. What we need is either an amendment to existing tenant protections that really outlines what is rent, what are the types of fees that a landlord is allowed to add to an existing lease agreement, or we need a completely new ordinance that outlaws these hidden fees. As the staff presented, Mountain View and Salinas have already moved forward with banning these fees, and this county should move forward with that as well. Thank you.

Caller, you're on the line. You have two minutes.

Hey, good evening, supervisors. Derek Barnes with the Bay Rental Housing Association. First, we support protecting residents from surprise, deceptive, and duplicative charges, but I encourage the county to consider or reconsider the term junk fees. You guys know how I feel about language. It's a politically loaded phrase that presumes every charge outside base rent is illegitimate before the county has established the facts. I think a more Accurate term would be something like non-rental housing charges or mandatory housing-related charges. The county can clearly identify which practices are actually prohibited, undisclosed fees, charges for services not provided, double billing, or fees introduced contrary to the lease. At the same time, we must distinguish those practices from legitimate utilities like garbage, service, parking, and other documented costs, particularly in older, smaller properties where individual metering may be technically difficult or prohibitively expensive. Supervisor Miley and Tam, you're on the right track. The goal should be transparency and fair billing, not simply forcing every expense into base rent. And before regulating or banning, the county should document what charges are occurring, how widespread they are, and who imposes them and their actual financial impact. Let's protect renters from abusive practices without mischaracterizing legitimate housing costs. and creating unintended consequences for small rental property owners, especially those who may already be experiencing financial stress due to the high cost of almost everything, insurance, utility, garbage, waste, and so on. The other thing I'll add to here is that typically if people don't see the cost of services, especially precious resources like water and gas and electricity, there will be no you know, reason for, you know, conservation efforts. Thank you.

There are no more speakers for this item.

Thank you. She's leaning over there playing with the door. So before I go back to Supervisor Tam, let me just ask a few questions. One of the speakers suggested we do a study. Is staff contemplating us? Because I'm not questioning at the moment the efficacy of My Eden Voices survey. I'm not saying it was good. I'm not saying it's bad. But would we contemplate doing some type of study?

We have not discussed doing a study. This is the sort of first item that we've put together on this, and it's based on what we received from the community. If the board direction is to do some sort of study, we'll happily do one.

Okay. And then I just want to ask Jennifer, right? Yeah, Jennifer. Yeah, could you come here for a second? Would CAA be opposed to requiring advertisement and rental agreements to include all costs and fees? Is that something you find?

Can you say that again? Can you repeat that?

Well, on the slide, it mentioned that one of the recommendations from the National Consumer Law Center was that all advertisement or rental agreements include all costs and fees. Is that something that CAA would find repugnant?

I think it can list that it should include, it can list out certain costs and fees. One of the speakers did talk about a number of the older units, older buildings do have the RUB system, which changes each month for utilities. So that an actual specific dollar amount would be hard to, you know, identify in some of those units.

I see.

Just like your utility bill changes each month, their utility bill would change each month as well.

I see. And because I know you mentioned that. We need to determine what fees are optional, what fees are mandatory, and what fees are based on usage.

But I think transparency is helpful for residents to see that this is how that number is determined. And I think that's what you're hearing today is a lot of people are concerned that their neighbors have one number, and they just want a verification that that number is similar, or they want to know what it is. Transparency, no.

So I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I'm trying to understand. So how would we do that short of an ordinance? Because everybody's not going to cooperate. I mean, once again, they're bad landlords and they're bad tenants. I mean, quite recently, my office had a tenant call in and say, why should I even have to pay rent? And then I know they're unscrupulous landlords. So the point is, if we don't have an ordinance and the state doesn't require it, how do we get some type of assurance around this?

Well, the state, I mean, the ordinance could be about rent and define certain items that can be included in that rent, including such things as rubs and others, just knowing that that could fluctuate and asking for transparency in that.

Okay, all right. Just like I said, I don't wanna put you on the spot, but just trying to get some clarity. Now let me get the staff back up here for a moment, then I'll turn to Supervisor Cham. In the presentation, you've mentioned Salinas and Mountain View. How long have the ordinance has been in place? And do we have any information on the impact, the results or anything like that?

I believe those ordinances and the definitions I shared are fairly recent. I don't have the exact date to hand at the moment, but I can check. And I'm not sure if there's going to be a lot of information about the results, given that they are, I think, passed fairly recently. But I'll double check.

Okay. All right. Well, once again, I appreciate the work of the staff, my voice, because I really do think there's an issue here. I don't think this is a solution looking for an issue. I do think there's an issue here that we need to grapple with. And I think we're just beginning to look at it. So let me pass it to Supervisor Tam. Yeah, go ahead.

So I agree with the speakers and Supervisor Miley that we are trying to provide a way in which we can get more transparency. So when we talk about rent stabilization in the county, We often think about AB 1482 and then how rent is defined there is very broad. So I can understand how there could be some issues. The concern that I am trying to wrestle with is there seems to be existing law that bans hidden fees and junk fees for goods and services. That was passed two years ago. And I'm trying to understand how come it doesn't apply in this situation. And who enforces it?

I am not sure about that particular law.

It has to be 478.

I would have to consult with county council to give you a more exact answer.

Okay. I mean... I see the problem here, for example, the handout that one of the speakers had provided. We have a month-to-month fee that's kind of vague with no specificity, and it's just arbitrarily a round-off number of 250, and then having that potentially increase, that doesn't give the tenant any comfort that that's a fair and reasonable fee that they could do something about. But If it's water service, for example, they could say, well, I'll use less water this year or reduce my electric costs or my gas costs. But some of these things, I think if there's a way in which that we can require that they justify the fees in some way, I think that would help alleviate some of the issues. But I'm kind of with Supervisor Miley. How do we get that to happen?

We're happy to look into that more, pending direction of the board.

Okay.

Well, I think, so we're just kind of getting the tip of the iceberg here. Because I know like when Supervisor Tam was talking about water and electric and gas and this and the other. I know I have a condominium and I pay maybe, let's say about $100 a month for PG&E. But I know another person who has a condominium And she pays about $300 a month for PG. So I know it can vary with usage and a whole bunch of other factors. But I think people need to understand, is this, once again, optional, mandatory, or is it based on usage? And then how is all of that calculated and figured? And there needs to be transparency around that. And then if it's disputed, we need to have a mechanism take it to a mediation. And further, if it's determined, as I said to County Council, that it is harassment, then we need to be able to deal with that as well. So I think, Supervisor Tam, we need to ask the staff, the community development staff and County Council to come back to the committee with a more thorough discussion informational report to us on what are, you know, legally, what are some of the options we can pursue, whether we want to do a study, what that study might look like, maybe confer once again with the industry, confer with my invoice and others. But clearly, we want to try to get a handle on this as best as best we can. And right now, we're just kind of, this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of trying to look into this, this particular matter.

So the reason I bring up SB 478, I'm trying to find out what exactly we at the county can do, for example, with some of the landlords or housing providers that are now imposing these hidden fees that are causing issues. Do we send them a notice under the law, or do we...

file a complaint and further what what is that law i mean i'm just hearing about this do do we have any familiarity with that law uh i'm actually i've just gotten uh some more information from my colleague jennifer who's online um but 478 essentially excludes residential leases from its coverage so it would not cover this particular practice say that again repeat that again SB 478, the law that Supervisor Tam is referencing that requires businesses disclose the full price of goods and services upfront. It excludes residential leases because its scope is limited to transactions where the buyer is using the good or service for personal non-commercial use. And that would not include residential leases.

Okay.

I understand that part, but I'm looking at something similar because some of these fees are not necessarily housing related, especially if they're not clear what they are. For example, a month-to-month fee for what?

And, you know, that's one of the things we would probably have to look into more deeply. And to your question of understanding how you respond to that, we'd probably have to work with county council's office to really understand more in depth what the options are.

Okay. So does staff, both community development agency and county council. Do you have a sense of what we're requesting? And I know, Andrew, you don't have enough work to do. So at least this is legitimate good work as opposed to some of the stuff some people have you doing. And I'm not going to mention any names. Okay.

But yes, if I understand correctly, you'd like us to come back with more information, research this with County Council, which we can do.

And how much time do you think you'll need? Three months, four months, two months?

Let's say three to four. We're, as you know, working on a variety of other tenant protection measures that we've been given the order of operations on for the board, but we will try to bring this back as soon as we can.

So this is July. recess for the balance of the year? I mean, before we end the year, like before December? We can do our best. And if you can't, then we'll just wait until January. Okay. All right. Well, thanks. Thank you very much. Okay. All righty. So this was our first informational item. Our next one is an update on the unincorporated area urban forest planning project and Okay, that's the planning department. Okay, Ali.

Good evening, supervisors. Good to see you. I am here with what will be the first of at least a few updates on this project. So excited to share with you where we are so far. Next slide, please. And so a little bit of background on this project your board adopted the environmental justice element back in August of 2024. And that document direct staff to develop an urban forest plan for the incorporated area to explore tree protection strategies to conduct a full inventory of right of way trees and to evaluate and revise the tree program for the right of way. So in late 2024, to pursue that directive, CAL FIRE awarded the county $685,000 in IRA funding to support urban forest planning. We had some delays because of course this is federal funding, but following resolution of those delays, CAL FIRE authorized the county to go ahead and proceed with that work in July of 2025. And your board adopted or approved consultant contracts to support this work in March of this year. So we have just begun this work and we are required to be completed with that work based on our funding source by March of 2028. So we have about two years to complete this process. Next slide. So there are two major deliverables as part of this project. The first is an unincorporated urban forest plan, and I'll go into some more details on that. And then the second is a workforce development job training program that we're calling Growing Futures. So we'll talk a little bit about the unincorporated area urban forest plan first. The major pillars of that project include civic engagement in urban forestry, And that includes establishment of a multilingual outreach, doing multilingual outreach and establishment of a tree advisory group to follow us throughout this process. As part of this process, we're going to study and document existing conditions related to the urban forest. That includes assessing the county's tree policies, tree ordinances, plans, and programs. As I mentioned, a complete street tree inventory and an inventory of planting opportunity sites for the urban unincorporated areas. And this is the first time the county has ever had a complete street tree inventory. So we're really excited about that. And an analysis of canopy, equity, urban heat and fire risk. And then once we have that information, And with input from the community, we'll develop a set of recommendations for how the county can meet its urban forestry goals. And as a reminder, I think I didn't mention it in the earlier slide, as part of that environmental justice element, your board adopted a goal of 20% urban canopy cover throughout the urban unincorporated areas by 2050. And, and then, once we have developed that set of recommendations and completed our urban forest plan, we plan to celebrate its adoption with a small 10 tree planting event. And that will kick off implementation we hope that'll be a really fun event toward the end of this project next slide please. So the project's geography, this is a map of all of Alameda County. The dotted area is the unincorporated area. It's about half the land of the county is unincorporated. And the part of the county, the unincorporated county that's covered by this project, are those green areas. So those are the urbanized unincorporated areas as defined by census that include San Lorenzo, Hayward Acres, Ashland, Cherryland, Fairview, and the urban areas of Castro Valley. Next slide. So this is our timeline. We are here at the beginning where that circle is in summer of 2026. That top row shows outreach and engagement. That's going to be happening all throughout this project. It's really a pillar of the project, including presentations to the MACs, to your body, the planning commission this summer, and at several other points throughout the project for community workshops and bi-monthly meetings of our tree advisory group. We are also right now in the process of completing our sort of in the middle of our tree inventory and in the middle of our existing conditions study. So we anticipate having those done within the next season or so. So by winter, we should have those parts done. And then we'll begin developing that urban forest plan. And we intend to bring a public draft around to the max and planning commission to your body in summer of next year with adoption anticipated for fall of next year. Next slide. So just a bit about the things that we are doing right now. So the tree inventory, as I mentioned, is underway currently. This is a screenshot of that from about two weeks ago. And at this point, we were up to about 2,600 trees inventoried. We've now reached about the 4,000 tree mark. So that's really exciting. It's kind of hard to see the outline in purple, but that's the project area. And what we're doing is working from the west in San Lorenzo eastward. So next up will be Hayward Acres, followed by Ashland and Cherryland, and then to Castro Valley and Fairview. Oh, and a note about this inventory. It's an inventory of public trees specifically. So we're looking at right-of-way trees, trees on the streets, and we are working, one of our main partners on this is Hard. So we're also inventorying Hard Park Trees because they're such a large provider of open space in the area. Next slide. We're also working on that existing conditions study that I mentioned. We've conducted a number of interviews with staff from different agencies, including the Public Works Agency and the Community Development Agency their role with regard to trees. We are working on an analysis of programs, budgets, and staffing related to trees in the unincorporated area, and an analysis of county ordinances and regulations related to trees. So we anticipate having the results of that study within the next few months. Next slide. And I mentioned earlier on in this presentation, the Growing Futures Workforce Development Program. So that, as I said, is sort of the other pillar of this project, along with the Unincorporated Urban Forest Plan. So Growing Futures is an urban forestry workforce development program that we're piloting in partnership with HARD. and Merritt College, which is located up in Oakland. They have an arboriculture program. So this program is, as I mentioned, a pilot. It's going to provide five to eight students with fully funded coursework in arboriculture through Merritt College, hands-on field experience with HARD, the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District, educational stipends to recognize completion of milestones in their education, and opportunities to participate as part of that tree advisory group to help shape the unincorporated urban forest plan. And next slide is a flyer about the Growing Futures Workforce Development Program. We are actively recruiting participants. So if you know of anybody who is interested in taking some amazing classes at Merritt College and learning to be an arborist, this is an opportunity to have that work funded. So please check it out, share it with your friends. Next slide. So just a little wrap-up slide about how to get involved. So we have a listserv. There's a link. Link to everything is down there at the bottom. And so you can join our listserv where you'll get updates about workshops, other announcements about where we're at in the program. Apply to participate in the Growing Futures job training program or share it with your friends. And if you happen to be out in San Lorenzo or Hayward Acres or Ashland Cherryland in the next few weeks, next few months, say hi to our tree inventory crew as they are walking around measuring trees. And next slide, please. That's just my contact information and the project website if anybody would like to reach out to me. That's all. Thank you so much. Look forward to your questions.

All right, well, thanks for this informational report. And I'll start with Supervisor Lena Tam.

Thank you for this presentation. It looks very promising. I know that particularly in my district in San Lorenzo, urban forestry, the tree canopies are highly prized in our communities. And so along those lines, the county had a while back, put together a tree advisory committee or commission that was supposed to advise the public works department. But I was told by one of the committee members that they haven't met in a while. Have they been morphed into this program or are they separate?

Yeah, so our tree advisory group and the TAB are two different things, which I realize we maybe should have chosen a different name because they're so similar. So the Tree Advisory Board is a group that was established by the Public Works Agency to, as I understand it, to sort of deal with issues related to the implementation of the right-of-way tree ordinance. Um, that group, uh, we've, you know, in our interviews with the public works agency, they've stated that that group is still active and functional, but there has been no reason for them to meet. Um, so that is, that's what I understand about the, um, about that group at this point, because I think it sounds like their function is very specifically limited to hearing, um, appeals related to, um,

fines that are levied against folks for uh violations of the tree ordinance and there have there's been no need for them to meet um that's very helpful to understand um because there have been violations there's no need for them to meet so maybe we can use some of their enthusiasm and talent and kind of like bring them into this program on the urban forest street

Yeah, we did reach out to the chair of that committee. And I think they haven't met since about 2023 is my understanding. And we interviewed her. And I don't think we've reached out to the other members of that group, but certainly like to. And we did invite the chair to participate in our tree advisory group.

Great. Yeah. Thank you.

So you have a few questions, too. Because I do know historically the Tree Advisory Board with Public Works, since I've been around for a while, there have been some controversies where they've had to weigh in on issues regarding trees on the right-of-way in the past. So I was confused, too, if that body was the same as this body. So there are separate bodies.

Yes, yeah, so that body has a very specific function that's in county code. This is a group of residents and experts in, you know, folks with expertise in arboriculture that are coming along with us in the process of developing this plan. So their role is really about helping with development of the urban forest plan.

This tree advisory body for this urban forestry plan, have they been appointed? Are they seated?

So they are, it's not going to be a Brown Act body. So it's just, it's an advisory group. At this point, advising the planning department is our process. We are in the process of finalizing the appointments and we're planning to have our first meeting at the end of this month.

Okay, so that's a body that the planning department through the Community Development Agency is appointing. Yes, we're on board. It's not a board appointed by it is not a brown acted body. How are you getting people to be considered for that body? And how many people will be on that body?

So we had an application process. We sent out applications in Spanish and English. We did outreach through all of our normal channels. It was in your newsletter as well. Thank you so much, both of your newsletters, for posting that opportunity. And we had criteria that we selected against folks needed to live, work, or go to school in the urban unincorporated areas that are covered by this plan. They needed to demonstrate specific interest in one of the areas, whether it's specifically urban forestry or having specific knowledge of their communities and the issues that their communities are facing. And we received somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 applications, and we've selected 15 folks. So we actually have funding to support participation. We're stipending members for participation in this group, and we have funding to support stipends for 15 members. And so we've admitted 15 members. And we are also inviting some folks to participate as part of their normal jobs. So we have a representative from the fire department who will be participating in more of an ex officio position to help advise as we go. We have representatives from UC Cooperative Extension who are hopefully participating going to participate. We're still sort of getting our final RSVPs together. We've invited the Public Works Agency to participate as well.

Okay. So it's not a Brown Act Committee, but the next time you report, if you could let... this committee know and the public know who has been selected and seated on this tree advisory body and what are their, you know, either affiliations or their categories that they're filling or whatever. Sounds great. But you did say they have to be residents

Live, work or go to school.

Yeah, here. Okay, good. Okay. So that was a question I had about the tree advisory body. And, and they'll meet and they'll they'll advise the planning department on this effort. I'm sorry. They'll meet and advise the planning department on this. Now, are there are there meetings? If somebody wanted to attend? Who's not a member of that body? Would they be able to attend?

We're not going to turn anyone away. We're not actively advertising meetings of that group, but if folks show up, absolutely. Yeah. Okay. All right.

I'm glad you indicated that the inventory is of public trees. So it's not of trees on private property. Correct. Public trees. Okay. And right now you think there might be 16,000 public trees.

That is what, what our consultants are currently scoped to inventory. So we hope there aren't too many more than that because we don't have a budget for it. But yeah, that was through an analysis. We determined that there may be in the neighborhood of 16,000 trees in the urban unincorporated areas. Yeah.

Is that, Do you know if that, let's say that's the number, is that a good number? Is that a healthy number? Is that kind of not a healthy number? Is that a medium-sized number?

It really depends on their density, sort of how they're distributed. So we do have information on our project website about tree canopy coverage in the urban unincorporated areas. And there's a But it's unequal, unequally distributed throughout the urban unincorporated areas. So Fairview, for example, has, I think, in the neighborhood of 30 some percent. I'm actually just looking. It's on our website, so I can pull it up right now. And Ashland and Cherryland both have around 11 to 12%. San Lorenzo as a whole actually has about 12%. And that's compared to like all of the unincorporated areas of the county have about 22% tree canopy coverage. So that's at about the level that your board adopted as a goal. The county, the entire county, not just the unincorporated areas has about 18%. Hayward Acres actually has the lowest at 9% canopy cover. And then Castro Valley. Castro Valley is really interesting because the urbanized areas of Castro Valley as a whole have 20% canopy coverage, which is the goal. But southwestern Castro Valley, so southern and western census tracts along the freeways, have 14%, so significantly lower in those areas. This is part of what we're looking at is the patterns of distribution of trees throughout the county and how we might address some of those inequities.

So when you talk about existing conditions, is that the kind of stuff you're exploring?

Yeah, and how that overlaps with demographics and social vulnerabilities and other things that might make lack of tree canopy cover particularly harmful.

So when the study's completed, we'll have all that information and it'll come back to us?

Yeah, I think that that might be the point at which we come back next is once we have the tree inventory done and the existing conditions study done, I think that would be a good point to come back.

And then, in addition to hard, East Regional Parks, are they part of this too?

They're not part of this in particular. The study area only slightly touches their parks. But I think they're a likely partner in future implementation. And

And at the moment, do we know if most of the trees are located in hard parks or?

I don't know yet. Yeah, as far as distribution goes, I don't.

Okay, okay. Let me see here. The growing futures. Yeah, that sounds really good. So students or folks can apply now. And they can get a full tuition to Merritt College? That's right, yep. Okay. And then it's a paid program, so they'll also get a stipend?

They'll also get a stipend, yeah, at key points throughout the program. So the idea is to help folks earn certificates in arboriculture. So there's a tree care certificate and a tree climbing certificate. And at each point that they've done the coursework to earn those certificates, they'll also get an educational stipend.

And it's limited to five to eight students. Yeah.

Yeah, that's what we have funding for at this point. But it is a pilot program, and HART is really interested in seeing if we can extend it beyond this funding source.

Yeah. So this flyer, can we get this electronically?

Yeah, I think we have it going into your newsletter in August. Yeah.

Because I'd like to get it up on my social media. Yeah. Sounds like a good opportunity for somebody who's interested in being a, what's it called, an arbor culturer. type rear. Okay. And then let's see. Oh, yes. And so we're looking at trees, existing conditions, et cetera, et cetera, that are public. We're not looking at private property.

So Yes and no. So the tree inventory were actually boots on the ground, going tree by tree, counting, measuring, taking photos, etc. That tree inventory is strictly limited to trees in the public right-of-way or in hard parks. The canopy assessment is more of a desktop exercise. So that's looking at existing available community-level data. So we're looking at, for example, existing satellite imagery that shows canopy coverage, and that would include trees both in public spaces and the private space. And that's more looking at distribution of canopy overall and not looking at distribution in any one specific private location, for example.

Now, if you can provide me clarity on this particular point, Are we looking or anticipating any type of regulation of trees on private property?

So at this point, we are sort of looking at this with a fully open mind as to what recommendations may come out at the end. The final product of this project will be that study of existing conditions and a set of recommendations. And that set of recommendations could be a suite of options, potential options for ways that the county could go about taking action to preserve canopy, increase canopy, et cetera. So it's not off the table that there could be a recommendation related to a tree ordinance for private property, but that's not a fait accompli at all.

So just for all disclosure, I would really have to be convinced of supporting establish an ordinance to address trees on private property. That's only because of my experience of having to deal with this when I was on the Oakland City Council dealing with trees on private property. That is a really hairy situation between property owners and then the government regulating that. And then even out here, At times we've had that issue come up trees on private property, I know we've dealt with trees on private property when there's been like a development or something like that in planning has been able to impose conditions to set any other but. i'm not saying I got a total closed mind to it, but. I'm just very, that's like the third rail where we start dealing with trees on private property.

So we heard very similar feedback from the Castro Valley Macs. Yes. Very, very sensitive to that.

Okay. So I'll wait to see what you come back. I don't want to take your, you know, your. group or what you come up with. But that causes me a little consternation if that were to be one of the recommendations. And if it is, I'll need to listen very carefully to be convinced. Okay. All right. So that's a very good report. Let's see if we have any public speakers on this item.

I have no speakers on item two.

No speakers? I'm sorry.

I have one speaker.

Okay.

Caller, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Diane.

Yes, thank you. I expected there to be people there. This is Diane from San Lorenzo. And Ali's probably heard my thoughts on this every time it comes up, but San Lorenzo really tries to keep the trees that are here. And recently, it seems like PG&E's been cutting down a lot more of their own initiative, mostly because of the power lines. But it seems like they're not really coordinating it or communicating it with anyone. So maybe it's just something you could reach out to them and make sure that you know when they're if they're ones that they're planning to cut down so you know ahead of time. The other thing that concerns me is I think some of this is just so much education. People see trees that drop leaves and the sidewalks crack. These are 80-year-old trees with a nice canopy, and so they cut the whole tree down. They don't know how to trim them. It's expensive to trim them, but they could be saving them if they would take better care of them. And we make the HOA, the Homes Association, will make people replace a tree. And the county might also make them replace it. But you can't replace the canopy by putting a 10-foot stick with a few leaves on it. The canopy will take years to come back. So I guess I say the same thing all the time. But if we can try to really work hard to keep the trees that are there by whatever means we need to you know we have grants for helping to fix the sidewalks maybe if we had grants for helping to trim the trees properly so that they didn't get pollarded and you know and then put their the lives and the safety of a tree at risk too but i appreciate the program and i hope that we don't cut them down faster than we can figure out how to keep them and put them back up again thank you ali thank you for letting me speak

No more speakers.

All right. So Diane raised a good point. Will the existing conditions, because I know there have been issues with trees And trees kind of the roots breaking sidewalks will the existing conditions, look at that as well, the type of trees, because I think we've tried to move in a direction where we encourage trees on. The right away that are not going to be you know rooted in break sidewalks because the property owner. is responsible for that sidewalk and that's caused problems in the past. So will the existing conditions take a look at all of that as well as the type of trees that need to be in public right away?

Yeah, so actually part of what your board directed in the EJ element was to revise the Public Works Agency's recommended tree list, which was last revised in 2018. So that is part of what we'll be doing as part of this project. And that includes looking at trees that are, Like suitable to go under power lines, trees that are suitable for small spaces next to sidewalks, etc. So a route for homeowners who are making decisions about what types of trees to plant to sort of have a way to make that choice based on the conditions at their home. And then as far as what the county may plant or may not plant in the future, this project is really more of a, you know, long range sort of high level plan. One possible recommendation that could come out of this plan is to develop an urban forest management plan, which would be like a two, three, five year plan. And that would include very specific recommendations about the types of trees to plant and where in the public right-of-way with exactly those considerations in mind.

Yeah, I think that would be excellent. Because I know for a fact, streets that have trees, it's more aesthetically pleasing. I think property values are enhanced than any other. But I know for a fact, homeowners are reluctant to plant trees or have trees planted right away on the sidewalk. If that tree then damages the sidewalk, then they're responsible. that damage so the reconcile all that it would be good if we had an inventory these are the types of trees that can be planted and you know it's going to produce a win-win for you know the environment the homeowner property values not break the sidewalk this that and the other so um yep so if the existing conditions looks at all that and comes back for recommendations i think that would be marvelous great yeah that is the plan okay right OK. Supervisor Tame, do you have any other questions or comments? No? OK. All right. So we've heard from the speakers. This is our last information item for this evening. Do we have any public comment on non-agendized items?

Sandra Frost?

She left.

She left. She left.

Oh. Miguel, you're on the line. We're on public comment. You have two minutes.

Gracias. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Miguel de Maiden Voice. Y quería opinar acerca del control de los árboles que están en las banquetas, ya que es un dilema muy serio. Se dice que la propiedad is from the bench towards the owner, and then immediately it is mentioned that the owner is responsible for the trees dying or if something happens. I would like more than anything to have a control, I don't know if it's from an agency or from the county, but that there is a pruning control, that they are pruning them, ya que revientan las banquetas, pero en realidad no se repara nada y llega el momento en que crecen demasiado y ya se tiene que cortar en vez de que se tenga que dar mantenimiento. Entonces, mi observación es de que si hay alguna agencia que se dedique a darle mantenimiento a los árboles para que se puedan conservar más tiempo, sería bueno aquí afuera de mi casa Desgraciadamente está fregada la banqueta y es muy feo. Aquí a una cuadra también de la 14, cerca de, para rumbo al edificio de los jóvenes de Rich, también está bien levantada la banqueta, que incluso si hay alguien que tenga alguna discapacidad, se puede caer. Entonces, sí sería tomar conciencia de que los árboles son bonitos. He can as a responsable they that are in my opinion, though, but I can't stand up some of this is our last crisis.

Stephen can you interpret for us. Okay, I think it's all done. Yes, I can hear you. Yes. Thank you. I have more speakers for public comment.

Oh, well, we do have one more non-agenda item for public comment. I think Mila should make that for the Healthy Living Festival. So have Mila give public comment on the Healthy Living Festival. Mila is one of my interns.

Hi everyone, my name is Mila and I would like to share a little bit about Healthy Living Festival. Hi, everyone. My name is Mila, and I would like to share a few details about Healthy Living Festival. It will be at Oakland Zoo on September and on Thursday, September 24th. All seniors are welcome and will have a free lunch and different vendors. They're representative. So, yes. Thank you.

All seniors are welcome who live in Alameda County and you need to register and we'll have a number of exhibitors there with a lot of useful information and a fun time and an informative time will be had by all.

Yes, and also we encourage everyone to carpool there, please, to share cars, and we will have buses from Coliseum, right, Bard Station, that we will all be there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mila. I like to put my interns on the spot, keep them on their toes. All right, we stand adjourned.

Thank you. Thank you, Stephen.