Board of Zoning Adjustments - Regular Meeting

Wednesday County board is open to hear me now. Yes. You want me to start over? Okay. All right, here we go. This is the Wednesday, August 12th, 2026 West County board of zoning adjustments meeting. And the meeting site is open to the public. If attending in person and wish to speak on a matter, please fill out a speaker slip and submit to the admin to your right or raise your electronic hand. Before speaking, please state your name. Members of the public may observe and participate in meetings by following the instructions on the teleconferencing guidelines posted online with the agenda. Can we have a roll call please?

Chair Siebert. Vice Chair Spaulding.

Here.

Member Lewis. Here. Member Santos.

Present.

Member Vobis. Present.

If able, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Do not see anything for the Tobacco Retailer Regulations Administrative Hearings. I missed it already, open forum. If you'd like to speak on any items that are not on the agenda, please fill out a speaker card or raise your electronic hand. Is there any online, Christine? There are no hands raised. We have Chuck Meadows.

We on here? Okay, there we go. Good evening, members of the board. As you know, my name is Chuck Meadows, and I am here regarding abatement order COD 2022-01502, Lucent Uvas Court. On March 26th of 2025, this board announced found the property owners of the property in violation and ordered them to submit within 120 days, a written abatement plan submitted and prepared and signed by licensed professionals. This plan was to address the soil volume, geotechnical stability, method of abatement and environmental testing. On September 24th of the same year, you also found them in violation of the neighborhood preservation ordinance. The property owners appealed both of your decisions. And on March 5th, 2026, the board of supervisors denied both appeals and upheld both of the board's decisions in full. There was no writ of mandamus filed with filing period. That ruling made the 120 day deadline, which was stayed pending the appeal, effective with the compliance date of July 6th. It is now August 12th. So we're over a month past the deadline. And in front of you are a copy of the emails I exchanged with Ed Lebiag, code enforcement manager, regarding the failure and confirming that no abatement plan or any response has been provided by the violators or property owners. This is not the first time we've had issues with this particular property owners. On June 1st, I submitted a complaint regarding, believe it or not, a third non-permitted retaining wall built between the two previous walls that the PWA had forced the removal of. So we have a person or party that just continues to ignore the county and continue with violations despite this enforcement history. Now in front of you, I've also provided a hard copy of a proposed abatement plan that I reviewed with my engineers and attorney, as well as a proposed abatement order. I can't give it to you on USB due to security reasons, but I will email it to you. We'll then forward it to you so that you don't have to retype everything if you choose to use it as a template. I'll point out one major issue that came out of the original ruling. For whatever reason, code enforcement changed the property owners from the parties that were cited to Uves court LLC and changed the parcel number and removed one parcel entirely. Both the county assessor and the county surveyor have confirmed that APN 24 is not a separate legal conveyable partial. It's an administrative parcel only. So I ask that the abatement order and the plan be revised to correct the true liable parties. In this history, I would also like to point out now that we're a month past due that you consider imposing fines. I provided you with the legal. I'm sorry, I didn't see the time. I will wrap it up there, but I ask that you impose fines and schedule this for a hearing and direct staff to come back to you with their findings. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.

I'll go back to my tobacco retailer regulations administrative hearings, which I do not have any here. I'm going to go to the neighborhood preservation and zoning ordinance abatement hearings. These are the administrative hearings for the neighborhood preservation and Alameda County zoning ordinances. Items on today's agenda have been scheduled because the owner has not complied with a notice to abate a nuisance. As the enforcement body, we will hear and consider all relevant evidence, objections, or protest and receive testimony as to the means. of abating the alleged nuisance. For this board to find that a nuisance has been abated, the owner must show proof that the nuisance has been rehabilitated, repaired, removed, or demolished. If you cannot show proof of abatement, then we may find that there is a public nuisance does exist on your property and that there is a sufficient cause to abate the nuisance. This board will then will issue a order specifying the nature of the nuisance and the method of abatement. The abatement work must be commenced and completed in not less than 10 or more than 60 calendar days. The board's order will reference your right to appeal our decision. You will have 10 days from the date of service of the order to appeal to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. A copy of the findings and order will be served on all owners of the property in the same manner that notice of this hearing was given. In addition, a copy of the findings and order will be posted on or near the property. Any fines imposed by this board may be reduced or waived upon determination of hardship or special circumstances. We have the first.

Yes, the first item of the Neighborhood Preservation and Zoning Ordinance abatement hearing is for a vacant lot on Ewing Road in Castro Valley, and we have Code Enforcement Officer Pat here to present the item.

Ask a question real quick before we start? Yes. The Ewing Road and the Allman Road are These are both the same owner, the same, I don't know if it's adjoining or whatever, but can't we just hear them together or do we have to go separately on both of these?

We were directed to take them separately since they have separate parcel numbers.

This is an appeal.

No, it's not an appeal. It's just an NPO hearing.

Okay, good evening. Okay, this is the neighborhood preservation and zoning ordinance hearing. Item number one is to wake a lot on Ewing's Road, Casa Valle. APN number is 85D-1250-015-04. The case number is the COD 2026-00606. The property is in violation of the Alameda County Neighborhood Persuasion Ordinance Section 6.65. The property owner is Ambrosius Investments LLC. The property is in the wildland of Alameda County, neighborhood persuasions, ordinance section 6.65.030 A1 and B6, overgrown weeds and vegetations throughout the property. pretending facts is the courtesy notice mail to the property owner. On May 27 the 2026 Okay. Next is On the 25th, site visits by staff confirmed that violation, okay, still there. For the June 25th, again, staff sending the declaration of public nuisance, notice of abate, mail to the property owner. For June 6th, 2026, site visits, site visits to see that there was no progress observed on the property. July 27th, the notice of re-inspection and notice of abatement and also the administrative hearings mailed certified and local mails to the property owner. Lastly, this on July 31st, 2026 final site, which is a no progress observes at the property as well. There was a previous violation in 2024 of May 29th, an overgrown vegetation case that also had an owner abated. And the second one is last year, July 9th, 2025, also the overgrown vegetation case with the owner abated. We received the emails from the property owner on August 3rd regarding the case and also the hearings. The property is considered as a vacant property. The recommendation staff recommend that the board is declare the property in violation of the Alameda County Neighborhood Persuasion Ordinance, a public nuisance, and require abatement within 10 days. Staff here to answer any question as well. Oh, sorry. Here is the exhibit. So on the top is in yellow, that is the item number one. Just a side note, the blue one is item number two, which is they are budding together. So exhibit one and two, that was taken on June 25. And next is exhibit three and four. Again, it's taking on July 6. There's no change on the property. Exhibit five and six is taking on July 31. And it's still the same conditions. This is a pre-hearing inspection, which is August 10. Nothing changed on the property. Okay. This is concluding my presentation of the item number one.

Thank you, Pat. Vice Chair Spaulding, do you have any questions?

I do. We have a copy of August 12th. It's dated August 3, and it's an appeal. That's why I'm getting on Ewing Road.

So we did receive an email regarding an appeal. They did not include a $50 appeal check. So you'll see the emails before you that they have responded and they will be on tonight in regards to the cleanup appeal. Did not submit the check.

Okay.

Willing to clean up. They're online.

Oh, okay. Because I was going to say, were they notified of that? And also that is a Oh, are there additional charge a reoccurrence fee?

Did not charge a reoccurrence fee on this case.

There was I was that have to look at the date.

I have an answer.

I only got that they didn't secure the appeal with a $50 check.

Right. But that's not the issue. The question is, this is the third. That's what it looks like. Right. So therefore, there's usually additional fees.

since this 12-month period will be charged a subsequent fine of $500. That's right.

It was an oversight. It was very close to the deadline of one year.

Sorry, I can't hear you.

The last case was opened on July 9, 2025, and this case was opened on June 20, 2016. So oversight.

You gave him notice, though.

So we did not include the reoccurrence fees in the notice.

You notified them of the reoccurrence fee in the notice. Because it says June 25. Note, if future violation of this type occurs within a month period, you will be charged a later fine of $500.

I understand, but we did not.

The fine was not added. Okay. Do you have any questions?

Why? Or something?

That is correct.

Thank you.

I just want to verify, so currently the re-inspection fee and the Administrative fee, their total would be 214 and 289 for a total of $503. That's correct. Okay. That's all I have.

Louis, do you have questions? I have none. Member Santos?

None.

I don't have any questions at this point. We can open public comments. Is there anybody online?

If the owner or anybody would like to speak on this first item of the vacant lot on Ewing, please raise your electronic hand. There are not any hands raised.

Okay, I'll close public comment. Do we have any other questions or concerns?

Call in user number two. Can you hit star nine to raise your hand if you're on a telephone?

If you would like to speak. Open public comment again. Thank you.

Hello? Hello?

Yes, can you please state your name?

Yes, this is Abhinash from Ambrosia Investments LLC.

Do you have a comment regarding this?

Yes. Yeah, I did. Yeah, I was in communication with Pat. I've been listening. As I stated in my email appeal, by the time I received the email notifications, I'm actually joining just for everybody's information. I'm out on a family emergency. I'm out in India and made an effort to join this meeting. So thanks for letting me in. And I'm speaking from India right now. So we are aware of the violation. I acknowledge that in the email that was sent. The only request that we had made was that because By the time this notification came, Electronica did not receive the prior notifications, unfortunately. So we requested an extension of time until August 31 to clear the excess growth of grass and shrubs on the property. So we are aware of the situation. We requested an extension for August 31st. And also, we've requested a waiver of the inspection and administrative fees because I'm out here on a family emergency, and this is because of a special circumstance that this has slipped through for us. So that's our position. And I've documented all that in the email that was sent to Pat.

Any questions?

What was your... envelope postmarked 5. 10 days from the date of the postmark.

Sorry, I received the electronic version of the electronic version of the notice and I responded immediately after receiving that. I'll have to go back and check one second. I'll have to check what date.

It's been, what, six weeks?

Yeah.

Yeah. We have verification that this was delivered.

Yeah, I received the email from Pat on 4th, and I replied on the 5th. We replied on the 5th via email.

Replying on the 5th is different than what was the postmark date of the June 25 letter? If you know. So the

I'm sorry, I'm having to look through the records here.

Mr. Pandey, did you hear the earlier part of this?

Yeah, so the letters are dated July 27 and July 31.

But that's not the question, but that's all right. This is your third violation in three years. Okay.

In the previous years, we have corrected, you know, the overgrown grass much earlier than this year. As I said, this year we are out of the country because of the family emergency.

Are you having a family emergency every year or something? So anyway.

We don't need to get personal. Mr. Pandey. Yeah. This has been an ongoing issue for a couple of years. This is the third year. You've had plenty of time to hire somebody to get out there and do the maintenance regularly. I don't see that you're making any effort to do this. Asking us, I'm sorry that you're out on a family emergency, but I don't think that you would be the one out there doing the abatement yourself. I believe you're a realtor, yes? Or am I not correct there?

Yeah, my wife is, yes. And I do have a license. I do it part-time. My wife is also.

Okay. I think I've heard enough on this. Issues should have been taken care of. And you've had plenty of time to do it over multiple years. This has happened again and again. So I don't have any more questions. I don't either. Does anybody else have any more questions?

We do request in the 31st to clear it. I mean, that's, that's the minimal because I just, I'm really calling, I'm not in the country right now.

Thank you. We'll take out that. We'll take that into consideration. I'd like to close public comment.

Is there any other, there are no other hands raised.

Make a motion. Staffs. With it. And, um, property owners can contact an agent to get weed whacked.

Absolutely.

Mode, however.

I'll second that. Thank you. We have a motion by Vice Chair Spaulding and a second by Member Vobis. Can we take the vote, please? Chair Siebert? Aye.

Vice Chair Spaulding? Aye. Member Lewis? Aye. Member Santos? Aye. Member Vobis? Aye. The second item on the Neighborhood Preservation and Zoning Ordinance abatement hearing is for a vacant lot on Almond Road in Castro Valley. And we have Code Enforcement Officer Pat here to present the item.

This is the item to work a lot on almond road. Okay. APN number is 84D-1250-14-2. Case number is COD 2026-00979. The property owner is again, Ambrosius Investments LLC. The violation of the property is, the property is in violation of the Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Section 6.65.030 A1 and B6, overgrown with weeds and vegetation throughout the property. Pertinent facts is, again, June 25th, we have sent the site visitors confirmed that the violation list is on the property. The July 20, 2026, the creation of public nuisance notice of abatement mailed to the property owner by the local mail. July 31st, 2026, another site visit. There is no progress observed on the property. July 31st, 2026, notice of failed re-inspection and notice to abate. And also the notice of administrative hearings, certified and local mail to the property owner. previous violation. There was 11 overgrown vegetation cases from 2011 to 2025. All is unabated. We received a contact again from the property owner in the emails on August 3rd and then August 4th of 2026. The property is a vacant property. Staff recommending that the board declare the property in violation of the Alameda County Neighborhood Persuasion Ordinance a public nuisance and requires abatement within 10 days. This is an aerial view of the parcels. This is in blue. This is a button to the first items. Exhibit one and two was taken on June 25th, 2026. 3 and 4 was taken on July 31st, 2026. Nothing changed on the property. Lastly, the pre-hearing inspection taken on August 10, 2026. The condition is the same on the property. That includes a staff presentation.

Thank you, Pat. Member Santos, do you have any questions?

No.

Mayor Lewis, do you have any questions? Chair Spaulding, do you have any questions?

No, not at this time.

Provost, do you have any questions? Just a question. Is it the same situation as the other one where you didn't receive a check for an appeal?

Correct.

Okay. That's all I have.

We don't have any questions at this time. We go to public comment. Is there anybody online, Christine? Christine?

If somebody would like to speak on this matter, please raise your hand or hit star nine to speak on the second item on the regular calendar of the neighborhood preservation ordinance. Okay, we have one hand raised.

The online speaker, go ahead.

Yeah, hello. Hi, board members. Thanks again. This is Avinash from Ambrosia. So I will not repeat the same reasons. It is the adjoining part of the same. Even though it has a different APN number, I've already stated our deal by email and our reasons. So the same reasons apply here. And we request an extension until at least August 31st to clear this as we are out of the country. Thank you.

Any questions? Are there any other speakers, Christine? Christine, are there any other speakers?

There are no other hands raised.

We're closing public comment.

Eleven overgrown vegetation cases.

I'm just surprised. Fifteen years. It was noticed in the July 20 notice, but I gather it was not noticed for this hearing to include mines, these mandatory? I thought some of these were mandatory. I'm trying to find.

Did any of those violations occur within a 12-month period that would warrant the subsequent fine of $500?

It says right here under the July 20 letter. If future violations occur within 12 months, you will be charged a subsequent fine of $500, 665.2.

Applicable to this?

Did not apply it on this notice, so therefore it does not apply. It did not notice them with a $500 reoccurrence. All right.

Okay.

That's because it was not noticed for the hearing.

It wasn't noticed for the hearing.

it's not added but potentially it could have it could have been correct okay it's just an error okay um i'll make a motion to um follow staff recommendation declare the property in violation of the albany county neighborhood preservation ordinance require abatement within 10 days second of a motion by member bovis and a second by vice chair spalding can we take the vote please

Mayor Siebert?

Aye. Vice Chair Spaulding? Aye. Member Lewis? Aye. Member Santos? Aye. Member Vobis?

Aye. Thank you.

The next item on the agenda, please.

Yes. The next item on the neighborhood preservation and zoning ordinance abatement hearing is number three for one nine five eight four Lake Chabot Road in Castro Valley. And we have code enforcement officer John Kransky here to present the matter.

Oh, members of the board. My name is John Kransky with Alameda County code enforcement. Uh, this is regarding neighborhood preservation, Oregon, never neighborhood preservation and zoning ordinance hearings on August 12, 2026. item number uh one nine five eight four lake chabot road castro valley california nine four five five two apn number zero eight four b dash zero five five five dash zero three four dash zero zero this for the board of zoning adjustments neighborhood preservation ordinance abatement hearing of august 12 2026 with owners wong benson and shui ying i believe i i don't know if i pronounced that correctly Regarding 19584 Lake Chabot Road, Castro Valley, California, 94546, APN 084B-0555-034-00. The violations are as follows from the Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Section 6.65, 030A, 1, 3, 6, and 12, and also B6 and E2. The specific violations are one, the accumulation of abandoned, discarded or dilapidated objects, including but not limited to scrap metal, appliances, furniture, household equipment and furnishings, containers, litter, rubbish and debris or similar materials that contribute to the conditions associated that cause blight and property degradation on the property. Number two, storing inoperable vehicles on the property. Three, fences that are deteriorated on the property. Four, vegetation that blocks the public right of way, the sidewalk area specifically. Five, parking vehicles on unapproved surfaces on the property. The pertinent facts are as follows. On March 17, 2025, a site visit was performed and I confirm the violation. On March 18th, 2025, a declaration of public nuisance and a notice to abate was mailed to the property owner. On April 7th, 2025, a site visit was performed and I found that the violation still remained. The property was not in compliance. On 4-8-2025, a notice of failed reinspection was mailed certified and regular mail to the property owner. On 7-23-2026, a site visit was performed and I found that the violation still remained and the property was not in compliance. On 7-24-2026, a notice of failed reinspection and a final notice to abate and also a notice of administrative hearing was mailed certified and regular to the property and the property owner. Previous violations, no. Have I made contact with the property owner? I did speak with the property owner, the son. I didn't speak to the mother because it's a mother-son owner. I did speak to the son while he was outside cleaning on one occasion and I advised him that case was opened and a notice of violation would be being sent. I then made multiple attempts to call the owner and left voicemails regarding the fines and fees and that we were going to be taking the property to a hearing. And not too long ago, I did make another phone call stating that we would be having a hearing shortly just to make sure that they've gotten the notice. And I did receive a phone call from the son not more than a couple days ago or three days ago. And he said that he didn't understand that that was the final notice and we would be going to hearing. However, I told him that he could follow the instructions on the packet that I sent him and that with the amount of times that I had reached out to him, we would now be taking it to hearing so that we could make sure that what needed to happen on the property would happen depending on your decision. So is the property vacant? No. And staff recommendation is to declare that the property is in violation of the Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and therefore a public nuisance and require abatement to be completed within 10 days. So as you can see, it's a corner property. This is in Castro Valley off Lake Chabot Road, as you know. And the front porch is covered with just all number of items, as well as the side of the house, storing just different items on the exterior of the property that shouldn't be there. You can see that there's cars parked on the side of the house on unapproved surfaces. There's also a fence, as you can see in Exhibit D, that's pretty much fallen over. If it weren't for the vegetation there, it would be on the public right-of-way. And the thing that also worries me is there's also a dog that hops up onto that fence and it could get out at any time that it wanted and go after the public. You can see in exhibit E, failed re-inspection on April 7, 2025. There's more just the same stuff in the front of the property and on the side of the property. Another failed re-inspection on April 7, 2025, showing that there's inoperable vehicles on the property. Most likely, I would ask for those to be proven to be operable if given the chance, and if not, then they would be deemed inoperable. Failed re-inspection on July 23, 2026. You can see the same items, if not more, on the porch or maybe a little less on the porch, but more on the side of the house. So it's the same violation, just it's moving around at the front of the property. And then you can see the same failed re-inspection on July 23, 2026 of the car and the fence becoming more and more deteriorated over time. You can also see on the side of the house, between the garage and the house in exhibit N, that there's starting to be an accumulation of more and more items on the side, plainly visible from the street. And then in exhibit M, the fence continuing to be the same, deteriorated. A failed re-inspection August 10th, obviously very present. You can see that there's still the car on the property. The fence is still damaged in exhibit P. Same item stored on the side of the property and on the porch in Exhibit Q&R. And then that's the end of my presentation. The staff recommendation once again is to declare that the property is in violation of the Alabama County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and therefore a public nuisance and require abatement to be completed within 10 days.

Do you get any more fill out from the son of what's going on there? If there's anything, is she like a hoarding situation or?

He did state that he takes care of his mother. And so it's a circumstance where I don't know the family dynamics. However, there's indicators. However, I'm not one to speculate or give a finite, this is how it is. But I do see a lot of items inside the house also because the door is usually open. And there's a multitude of objects that are in the front entryway blocking access.

I don't know how to get in and out of the house. It's like a first responder nightmare. Fire hazard.

First responder.

So that was really my question. Member Lewis, do you have any questions?

What happened to your color printer?

The county has decided that they want to save money, and so they're having us print in black and white.

Rosandos, do you have any questions?

That was the only question I had. Thank you.

I'm just curious on the timeline, March, April of 2025, and this isn't coming to us until August, 2026, or is that a misprint on the calendar there?

That's not a misprint. In the beginning, I tried to be very accommodating to the gentleman. And if it wasn't spreading, I made the determination that I could kind of see where if he was taking care of his mother. And I tried to be compassionate with that as much as I could. But when we started getting calls from the public again, it got to the point where my department, we had to take action. action and we had to make sure that there was no public safety or health danger for the property.

Any contact with the mother at all or she doesn't speak English or?

I have not gained any access to the mother or contacted her at all, just the son.

Just curious. Do you have any questions?

No, same question that Member Santos had about the timeline, but I have no other questions. Chair Spaulding, any questions?

Not at this time, thanks. We'll go to public comment.

If anybody would like to speak on the third item on the neighborhood preservation zoning ordinance abatement hearing for 19584 Lake Chabot Road, please raise your hand or hit star nine if you're on the telephone. Do not see any hands raised.

I'll close public comment.

I don't know how anybody's going to do this in 10 days.

More time.

They've had a lot of time.

They have had a lot of time, but I think the scope is, as Member Spaulding said, it's pretty huge to be doing it in 10 days.

Right. It's going to be physically impossible to accomplish it in 10 days.

Social services issue. This woman is... a hoarder house it's a it's a danger to her the son is basically incapable of helping i don't know what he's doing but he may be overwhelmed oh but i think the county has gone quite a distance in trying to help and and be compassionate as michael said right

I might add, if we could get in touch with the owners, both of them, we would definitely do a compliance agreement and extend the time from 10 days to 30 to whatever they or we could come up with to be, of course, compassionate with their needs and their physical capability or monetary capability to be able to complete this.

We recommended 30 days. You'd work with the son and try to get that done? Of course. With 30 days. Yeah. That's reasonable.

Yeah. So, so that would be 30 day require abatement to be completed within 30 days. And then you mentioned a compliance agreement.

That's something that we have the option of doing is coming up with a compliance agreement if it does take a little bit longer than that. We're not here to break knees. We're here to try to help the public. So if we can come up with a timeframe that works a little bit more than that, we would be amicable to that, but not too much longer than that.

Right, because I could appreciate the neighbors are no doubt distressed also. Okay, well, I'll make a motion to adopt staff's recommendation with the modification of to require abatement to be completed within 30 days.

I'll second it. We have a motion by Vice Chair Spaulding and a second by Member Lewis. Can we take the vote please? Chair Siebert?

Before we take the vote, do we have to add the compliance agreement to the motion?

It sounds like this is a discretionary item because also the agreement requires both sides.

Chair Siebert.

Aye.

Vice Chair Spaulding.

Aye.

Member Lewis. Aye. Member Santos. Aye. Member Volvis.

Aye.

Item number four, please.

Item number four on the Neighborhood Preservation Zoning Ordinance abatement hearing is for 991 St. James Court. Adjacent to or also identified as 21001 Mission Boulevard in Cherryland. And we have Code Enforcement Officer Alfonso here to present the item.

Yeah, ma'am. Ma'am. Ma'am, not yet. Not yet. Thank you.

fill out a speaker card please ma'am a lot of speaker card okay sorry go ahead thank you Alfonso Flores with Alameda County Code Enforcement here to present the item sorry it says number one it's actually the fourth item for 991 St. James This is an appeal from the property owner. This was with regards to violations of Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance 6.65-030-B5 and 6, lack of adequate eating facilities. Property owner Winnie and me and James Kilroy, address 991 St. James Court. APN 414-0061-057-02, pertinent facts are on February 19th, 2026, site visit was conducted, confirmed a violation, there was no permanent heat source. On March 9th, 2026, declaration of public nuisance, notice to abate was mailed to the owner. On April 20th, 2026, we conducted a site visit and violations were the same, insufficient progress towards installation of a heat source. So on April 20th, 2026, we issued a notice of failed inspection with fines and fees, which was assessed and mailed certified and regular to the property owner. In that notice, we charged $214 for re-inspection fee and a $289 administrative fee. On 4-29-2026, the property owner submitted their appeal. On April 30th, 2026, appeal confirmation and a hearing notice was mailed. And then on 6-8, it was rescheduled to July 8th and we sent an amended confirmation. and hearing notice to the property owner, mail certified and regular mail. On July 8th, 2026, the board heard and decided to continue the hearing for this case until August 12th, 2026, 30 days later. And on July 30th, we sent them a hearing notice certified in regular mail to the property owner. So there have been previous violations too within the last five years, but not due to this particular topic of heat source or occupancy. We have had contact with the property owner. The property is not vacant and our recommendation is that we declare the property in violation of Alameda County Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, therefore a public nuisance, deny the appeal. And require the abatement to be completed within 10 days in order the owner to pay outstanding fines and fees. So just to recap, this is the property here. In red, the arrow indicates where the the dwelling is located. And it is zoned as commercial mixed use, part of the Ashland Cherryland Business District Special Plan. Residential usages are allowed as an accessory use to the commercial usage. And then just to go over the exhibits again. So this is the dwelling. This is how we confirmed that it was being used for habitable purposes. And again, just to reiterate that regardless of the zoning, the staff feels that it is a violation for not having a heat source for the codes that we've included in the code. in the packets. I did inspect today, earlier today, and they have installed, it looks like they've installed it. It has not been signed off by the building department. We haven't got full confirmation from the building department yet, but it looks like on some of the notes that they have a tentatively scheduled to be inspected. on August 17th, 2026. We did want to also add a couple of things. We understand that there's going to be discussions regarding the legality of the tenancy and whatnot. And we just want to reiterate that code enforcement stand is that we're only here to present that it was a violation at the time. based off of the current ordinances and codes, approximately 42 days from the initial notice and the failed inspection notice. And no progress was made towards correcting that violation. So although they have installed something and they're in the process of getting it, our stance is still that at the time of the violation, not enough was done and that that violation should stand. I know that we put in the recommendation 10 days, but we would also be agreeable if the board was to determine the violation, uphold the initial fines and fees, and then give the property owner permission time, additional time before we continue finding again so that they can get the permit signed off on. We would be also agreeable to that possible conclusion. But again, our stance is still that it was a violation at the time. Proper time was allowed to give them an opportunity to make progress. No progress was made, so we feel that it should be upheld. Thank you very much.

The unit is actually working

I have not tested it to whether it's working or not. From my understanding, the tenants want to wait until it's signed off before they touch anything.

It appears to be installed.

It does appear to be installed. Also, I forgot to mention that the property owner also did submit some documentation to us about an hour before the hearing. I did not see it until I was walking over here. So I just want to put that on the record as well.

Thank you. And as a reminder, we're only discussing the heat source today. There's nothing else on this agenda. So if we can stick to that, that would be great. Vice Chair Spaulding, do you have any questions?

I'm only concerned about the staff's call that if there's a violation on a certain day, then over many days violation. Though there's... there have been no hearing yet or they've complied. So I think that that's a questionable type of all in based on my, because otherwise you're not providing the citizen, the resident, any opportunity to really correct it. You're just saying, Oh, you're guilty as found now and forever, even if it's fixed. So, um, Anyway, so that would be my issue. The only question would be is why are we hearing it now other than did staff have any discretion? Because I saw there's the email from Public Works saying they're not going to inspect anything until only after installation upon request. So I gather there's been a request for inspection or do we know?

The comment hasn't opened yet.

I understand that. My question is to staff. If anybody's asked for an inspection by the building department.

So all that we can see is it looks like something was scheduled. So we would assume that there was some sort of contact. But I can't confirm to you if she called or something.

But we know I'm talking about the building inspection. Has anybody contacted the building inspection? because they're not going to inspect anything unless it's requested.

So the owner is generally responsible when they take out a permit and it's issued to make the call after it's been installed to request the finalization inspection.

And do we know if anybody has requested inspection?

Based on the building permit records, it appears someone has scheduled an inspection for August 17th. August 17th, okay.

Do you have any questions?

No, I'm glad there's some progress, even though we don't know if it's operable, but there's progress here. So that's all I have.

Do you have any questions? Oh, I don't remember Santos.

Okay. Questions.

I don't have any other questions. Can we open public comment?

There are two hand raised online.

Okay, and we have... Hi. Can you state your name?

Nhi. Last name is Nhi. Thank you. Mm-hmm. So my only want to mention this issue is, yes, we did receive initial notice. We noticed 10 days. But when we contact the building department, they want us. uh to resolve a garage things first so they do not want to give us issue i ask if the building department can communicate with the code enforcement so they communicate but they both hold on their own position So I explained to code enforcement, I want to get a permit. Even I do not agree, I just want to comply. And I went to the building department. The building department initially, they don't want to give. So I believe only after a few weeks, then they email me, says you can come. I immediately go there and get a permit. After getting a permit, it's so difficult to coordinate with the attendant. The first attempt on July 30, we went to there. and they refuse to let us in. And Jade, you know, the woman came out, says, we ask if we can go start, this is exterior. They have two portion, one is inside, one's exterior. I say, if you're not ready, can we start exterior unit first? We will not make a noise. So when you're ready, we go inside. But she still said she will call police. So we wait, wait until we arrive about 9.30. We left 9.45. you know, this is July 30, that I still have to pay, you know, the installation. Then finally, we asked them, you know, they gave us the date. Even it's so difficult for the installer to make that time. But I told him, so I'm willing to pay more. So I asked him to coordinate, reschedule. So finally, we did. So I went to today in the building department, ask for the, but I would like to tomorrow, but I know Jade is very picky. So I just says Monday. So I scheduled the Monday.

The heater's been installed?

Heater already stored.

Okay, and then now you're...

On the Monday.

You're having an inspection on the 17th?

Yeah, yeah.

To sign it off. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

So my focus is just even 10 days we want to comply, but two different departments say different things. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

I just want to...

Sorry, she has a question.

You're aware that the tenants are requiring their entitlement to have 24-hour notice? Yes.

We did give 24, actually more than 24 hours.

Okay, just so you're confirming you're aware of that. Okay, thank you. You gave them notice of this inspection, I hope, scheduled for The 17th?

Yeah. Last time I talked to them, I said, what day is good for you for inspection? They kind of say Monday to Wednesday. That's why the reason I said Monday.

And have you confirmed that in writing with them?

Yeah, but I will... you know, after that.

Okay. Thank you.

One thing I want to mention it. So this woman, they are constantly bothered code enforcement. So I write something declaration A and B for purpose is to make a code enforcement stand up, you know, because I don't want to be worried. That's why I can submit one to you.

You can do that separate. That'll be separate from what we're talking about.

Yeah, but I already emailed to the code.

Okay, good.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any speakers online, Christine? Yes, there's two hand raids. Jade Hardy, you are allowed to speak.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Jade Hardy. I am also an occupant at, I'm an occupant at 991 St. James Court. I want to speak as to why the installing the heat pump doesn't matter, doesn't mean this matter is resolved. As of this morning, we have three compliance questions in writing to the county that remained unanswered. First, whether the structure's occupancy classification matches how it's actually being used as a family residence rather than commercial, not for habitable living space. designation on the permit. Second, whether a separate electrical permit was pulled for the new circuit and wiring this installation required. And third, whether the required energy code verification was performed. None of those have been answered. So what we actually have is a heat pump physically installed. And after the second attempt, after months of delay, after many communications on our part, which is a property that has not been verified or brought into compliance. And that's why fines matter. If a late partial still unverified installation is treated the same as doing it right the first time, there's no real incentive to comply on schedule. I also want to make a comment regarding Like Ms. Nee's comments about the emails. Officer Flores emailed the property owner directly asking whether she had followed up to schedule and stated that he had not seen a response from her regarding the installation. Separately, the installation took approximately six hours rather than the estimated one to three hours. And also, we are asking the county to confirm exactly what work was performed by whom rather than accepting it as done when it hasn't been verified. Um, I'm asking the board to adopt the staff's recommendation, including the fines and the fees and not try to treat this as re resolved. Thank you.

Thank you. Any of the board have questions?

Uh, you've seen the staff report. I gather. Have you read the staff report on this?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Are there any other speakers?

Yes, there's another hand raised. Alex, you are allowed to speak. Is that mute yourself?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Yes. Um, Good evening, my name's Alex Harry. I'm an occupant at 991 St. James Court. The property under this item, case COD 2026-00167. I'm asking the board to follow the staff's recommendation and impose the fines and fees associated with this violation, not simply accept that the heat pump was eventually installed. Here's the timeline. Cone enforcement confirmed no permanent heat source on February 19, 2026. A declaration of public nuisance and notice to abate went out March 9th. Under the county's own ordinance, that gave the property owner 10 days to correct it. The heat bump wasn't actually installed until August 10th, 2026. Roughly six months, not 10 days. As code enforcement stated in the last hearing, installing it now doesn't change the fact that the property was in violation when the notice was issued and is still in violation at reinspection. And the county's own position, and I'm asking the board to apply it consistently here. Even the installation that did happen came out only after the landlord gave notice at 1130 p.m. the night before for an appointment roughly eight hours later. That was her first attempt. We didn't deny her. We simply asked for 24-hour notice. 1130 at night for the next morning is not 24-hour notice. This is despite us repeatedly offering multiple properly noticed compliant windows in writing throughout this process. I would also like to state that the next inspection from the building department, we have no written confirmation of that at all. This is the first we're actually hearing about it. We have an MFA at home, which you know. We went through the coldest months of the year without permanent heat while this was pending. Late compliance after six months of pressure isn't the same as timely compliance, and the fine schedule exists for this exact situation. I ask the board to adopt the staff recommendation in full, including the fines and fees. Thank you.

Any questions?

Yes, I just want to confirm you understand that there is an inspection scheduled for for the building department on August 17, is that correct?

This is the first we're hearing about it. We have no written confirmation and we don't even know what time. This is the first we are hearing about this.

Does staff have that time in their records or not?

No, that's determined by the building department.

Okay, and we know for those of us who've dealt with the building department is they do tend to be a bit vague on their time. arrival and they will give you a window of usually 8 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon. So whether or not anybody gets a time from the building department is another issue. But you do now know that, and it's more than 24 hours, that there's a schedule.

Monday does actually work perfect for us. Despite that she said she gave us written notice, which I implore her to produce that document, we do still require that written notice. But Monday does work.

I don't think she said that she gave you written notice. She might have implied verbal, but that was why I asked the question.

One of the staff members asked if she had given us written notice, and she said she did.

Well, we'll clear that up with her.

But I'm just confirming with you now that you are clearly aware of the scheduled inspection for August 17. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, and so that assuming it's during regular business hours of eight to five, that the building inspector will have access to inspect. Is that correct?

Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? I don't. No. We'll close public comment.

Is this within the staff discretion to continue this to August 17 after this inspection? We don't have enough time.

Five days away.

Yeah, we're five days away from an inspection. So we have the discretion to continue.

Are we going to continue that it actually gets past the permit? I mean, we're hearing that it actually gets installed.

Yeah, we have heard it's been installed. What we don't know, you know, just to confirm, it is in the middle of summer, theoretically, but very mild, whether or not it works. So I think there, I mean, there's challenges still here. And there has been the request by the property owner to confirm it.

Is there anything that can be done if we make a motion on this and then the thing doesn't work after the inspection? Is there anything that can be brought up or done at that point or is it too late?

It depends on what your motion says. But let's just say you accepted staff's recommendation, which would be, correct me if I'm wrong on this, would be to assess fines and declare a nuisance, assess fines and fees and require abatement within 10 days. If the heat pump or the abatement wasn't completed within 10 days, then staff would proceed as it normally does to abate It'd be the nuisance.

It has been, we've been informed. It has been installed.

It's the verification.

That's kind of really problematic that the, we're being asked to make a determination of finding that there's a violation when in fact we have photos and the representation and the concession from the tenant that it's been installed. So, so I have, I can't make that finding. Um, that there's a violation when I have the evidence that it's installed. So.

Go ahead. Thank you. And again, with all due respect, I think what we're trying to present in before the board is that we determined a violation on a certain date. And what we would wish for to be heard is whether or not that initial determination was accurate because they're appealing that moment. And so coming back to what I was talking to earlier, I think we would be agreeable to a situation where you make that determination, is this a violation on the day that we issued that violation? And then additional time can be given before any further enforcement action is taken, because as you mentioned, there's no there's no guarantee that they're going to sign off on the permit. And as well, the permit, as the tenant did state, does have a stipulation that this building not be used, that it's commercial, not for habitation. So there's a possibility that could present an issue down the road.

OK, but the problem is, is that we have one thing on this agenda, lack of adequate heating period. And in fact, that's how the staff discussion started was we have one issue and now you're raising other issues. And so the one issue that is before us is you're basically saying, oh, well, once we determine there's a violation on a certain date, you're always in violation and you get to be fined even if it's fixed. So that's really problematic. And I think that that be subject to...

a lot of challenge and that would just to be clear the structure of the neighborhood preservation ordinance such that the property owner has provided a notice that a violation has been discovered and has provided a period of time to remedy that notice and if the if the uh violation has not been remedied within that period this is all in all right here i'll just read it to you verbatim If the violations matter, we'll be closed. However, if the violations are not corrected, you will be charged a $214 re-inspection fee per code site plus a $289 administrative fee, and an administrative hearing may be scheduled. So the property owner is afforded an ample time to avoid fines and fees by correcting the violation, which she did not do in this case, and therefore fines and fees were assessed after her period of time to correct it.

Almost every single case that comes before here, you have never, ever made that request before, whereby a lot of times the property owner has or will abate it perhaps after that date and it's in compliance. So we just saw the prior one on the code enforcement where the notice went out in March and there was some accommodation to the circumstances. So there's some inconsistencies.

Fines and fees in that matter were still assessed.

I'm going to agree to disagree at this point in time because we just, as far as the documentation goes...

The way I'm understanding it is that this has not been abated. It's not fully functional. It hasn't been signed off. So it hasn't been done as of this meeting, the way I'm looking at it.

Well, yeah, but that's only because the building department has not inspected it. That's it.

There's been plenty of time to get this done and it hasn't happened. I mean, it at the 11th hour doesn't make it our issue that no you know we oh let it go I mean that you still need to be responsible and I and I think that's part of what's going on here is the responsibility of taking care of an issue in a timely manner and I don't think that that has been done I'm looking at these dates and it just goes on and on and on and even if there are other issues I This one with the heat pump hasn't been resolved. And that's the way I'm looking at it. It's installed, but it hasn't been signed off. Right, right, right. Hopefully that'll happen. Well, it is operative. You can't say it's not operative. It just hasn't been inspected. We don't know. Nobody's confirmed that it's actually operating. Because nobody's gone and looked. That's the problem. And that's not. really for us to decide on that. I just think it hasn't been resolved. And I know the inspections on the 17th, as of today, that is not a functioning unit.

Well, I can't say it's not a functioning unit. It could be a functioning unit. We just don't know whether or not there's been no confirmation is the difference. I think there's just a lack of consistency here. on the treatment of these circumstances. And there's already a lot of issues.

We're only hearing this one.

I understand. That's right. And what we understand, and we've seen the photos and it's scheduled, that it's been installed. So now it's in compliance. That doesn't mean that... And that's only after... there has been that continuation the property owner represented that she didn't have access earlier it's just been a lot of issues here but i remember that she said as soon as she

or that she had ordered the unit as soon as she found out she needed it, but then wasn't able to get it installed. Does she appeal? Yeah.

Amber Lewis, do you have any questions?

Really a question, but I think it's been going on way too long. Perhaps the motion could be sort of contingent on it passing inspection on the 17th.

Could that, what, yeah, but the question is, is right now, what's the recommendation?

Nay.

Not, is to deny the appeal and require abatement. But if she's, we've got abatement already. What we don't know, confirmation.

It meant is 10 days. Is that what it's saying? So it's the 13th.

Now the inspections on the 17th, they could be abated by the 17th. Right. But the point is, is that the representation is, is that it's already abated abated now because it's installed. So there's nothing further for the property owner to do other than to wait for building. So theoretically, you know, and we all know, when you're dealing with the building department, that's a whole other kettle of fish, so to speak. Um, so, I mean, if we, so, so that's the, that's the problem.

Santos, do you have any questions?

Um, I'm just curious, Oh, the motion is for us to deny the appeal. However, if the building department goes out on the 17th and says, yeah, everything and sign us off on the permit, doesn't that mean that they've abated the issue? So aren't we a little premature in this? Or even if the building department signs off on the 17th, do they still owe the fees and fines for this product? Is that what we're voting on? We're voting on to just say, hey, this went on too long, so the fines and inspection fees are legitimate, and hopefully they get signed off on the 17th and there's nothing further to happen.

Necessary for the fines and fees to be assessed have already occurred.

That's what I'm saying. The fees are owed for previous issues, so there's nothing we can do there.

You can waive fines if you find hardship. That's allowed under the code. Fees cannot be waived.

If I could add one thing, sorry. So the way that code enforcement is understanding the appeal is that basically that she's in her appeal stating that the letter we sent on April 20th should not have been sent. And she's appealing the fines associated with that. And so, or the fees associated with that. And so our stance is that that was accurate. And that's how we're asking the board to look at the situation. So possibly a solution where You affirm that it was a violation on April 20 and then a flexible timeline can be given to allow for the permit to be finalized before we continue any additional fines is not uncommon on cases that maybe don't go to a hearing where we assess a fine and fee. and it's in violation and it gets corrected after we send the fine and fee so it that that's a situation where we're citing them for we're not stating that they're going to be perpetually in in violation uh for this what we're just saying is that the letter we sent was correct and and it was uh it was called for and i think what she's saying is not so i think what we're asking for is just a a confirmation of one or the other. Did we, was that letter sent?

I don't think anybody's disputing that your letter was not correct. Question, property owner, Dean Ed, I don't have a copy of her original appeal, but, oh, April 29th. The point is that we... Also, part of her appeal was a good faith effort to provide a temporary heating where she made this offer. There was also the additional issue about... We had that hearing and we continued it the property owner, the heating. Based on the documentation before us, she did. As of today. But we still have to, or there's still, and she's requested and gotten the building department scheduled to visit on the 17th. So the issue is, is there still to date a public nuisance and based on the evidence is we have a photo and the tenants have conceded it's installed. So we're in a difficult situation. That's why I was thinking do we continue it to the next day or do we have a contingency of granting the appeal to contingent on the building department's confirmation that it works. I mean, or just continue it to the very next hearing date for two weeks.

As I understand staff, we're voting on whether the April letter was legitimate, which it was, whether or not it signs off. If it doesn't pass the billing department, it's gonna come back before us as another violation. So we're not, this continuation stuff is neither here nor there in my opinion. What we're voting on is to deny the appeal based on the April inspection. And what are the fees? What are the fines and fees?

It's actually only fees. So it's a reinspection fee of $214 and an administrative fee of $289.

We can't waive fees.

The understanding is if you were to find that it wasn't a violation and that 420 letter should be reversed, then we wouldn't charge those.

But it was a violation.

No, I'm just explaining a scenario on which that we wouldn't apply those fees.

Regardless, there's a little over $400 in fees. And there could be fines going forward if this does not pass inspection. So based on that, I would just frankly make a motion to agree with staff that we deny the appeal and hopefully it gets cleaned up next Monday and it doesn't come before us again.

A second? Second. Second. Motion by Member Santos and a second by Member Lewis. Can we take the vote?

Chair Siebert?

Aye.

Vice Chair Spaulding?

No.

Member Lewis? Aye. Member Santos?

Aye.

Member Voves?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Okay. Moving on to the alcohol... HAB-Masyn Moyer- coverage. HAB-Masyn Moyer- regulations. HAB-Masyn Moyer- straight of hearing, I have none. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Regular calendar, can we have the next item, please.

Yes. The first item on the regular calendar is for PLN 2025-203. It's for a site development review and conditional use permit to allow construction and operation of a drive-in restaurant located at 20200 Hesperian Boulevard in the Hayward Acres area of unincorporated Alameda County. And we have staff planner Michael Fleming here to present the matter.

Just give me a second while I load up the PowerPoint.

trade into it.

hey um this is the first item on the regular calendar pln 2025-00203 site development review and conditional use permit to allow construction and operation of a new drive-in restaurant located at two zero two zero zero hispanic boulevard apn four three two zero zero two zero zero three zero zero four The owner is Ordon Company LLC and Golden Gate Bell LLC and Brandon Stein and the applicant is Ryan Blake. This is exempt from CEQA article 19 section 15303 new construction of small structures. Here's the site. It is on the corner of West Sunset and Hesperian Boulevard. The zoning is C1. Its general plan is general commercial. The C1 zoning permits a restaurant while a drive-in restaurant requires a CUP. In this case, the required parking is... 60 square feet per space and per the customer floor area. And it's a 304 square foot customer floor area requiring five parking spaces, where on this project they're providing nine. The proposed hours by the applicant are 8 a.m. to 1 a.m. seven days a week. Per drive-in policy, the BZA may limit it to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday if located adjacent to residential property in which this is. There's residential property on West Sunset right next door and kind of diagonally across the street. No sign plan has been submitted, but 86 square feet is allowed going forward. That's a condition of approval number 19. Here is the site site plan. Asperian is here on the left side. On the top is West Sunset Boulevard. The customers will enter from Asperian and drive through the parking lot into the drive-in lane. The speaker for the drive in window, um, is where my mouse is right to the upper left side of the building, uh, directly across the street from the speaker is, uh, the Mexican restaurant parking lot. So there is no, um, directly nearby residential to where the speaker will be pointing. On the West Sunset side, about three quarters back from the lot across the street, there is residential. And there's residential next door. The applicant had proposed a six-foot sound wall, and the Eden MAC wanted to change that from six foot to 12 foot. There also is a requirement for there to be a hedge at the property edge that abuzz residential. Measures a minimum of four foot width and six foot in height, except within 20 feet of the street lot line. So the 12-foot tall can be made a conditional of approval if the board sees fit. The council already saw fit to require that. Just a little history on the drive-in policy. The drive-in policy had been amended for this area in 2025, and it essentially allowed the area between Bachman and West A Street to have three new drive-in restaurants. So you may be seeing some more of these in upcoming years and months. The reason why this project took a little while to get to you guys is because there was a joint agreement for parking with the owner of this property and airport appliance next door, which is now called HomeWise Appliance. What it took was the owner of this property for the Taco Bell canceled the lease on the HomeWise's parking situation, and that allowed the applicant to take this to hearing with a recommended approval from us. The other thing that the Eden Mac was asking for is that they would have an approved truck delivery and garbage collection schedule since the planning director. Oh, the SDR part of this is that for a building over 1,000 square foot that's commercial, it requires an SDR. They propose a 1,646 square foot building and therefore requires SDR, which is just kind of folded into the application with the conditional use permit. They're under the height that is required, so they're fine there. You can see here, this is what the Taco Bell posts look like. the traditional purple Taco Bell color they use, and some kind of hardy trim, some pack clad siding matte black with metal frames. As part of this application, the planning department required the applicant to have a traffic and sound study done. The traffic study was completed and determined that there would be enough for six vehicles to be accommodated on the site and that compared to the Taco Bell on Foothill and Hayward, that there would be no additional traffic going on to Hesperian based on the volume of that similar-sized restaurant in a similar area. They had also discovered that for the sound, as far as the drive-in window, that if there was a sound wall, they would mitigate the majority of the noise. As you can see here, and I mentioned earlier, the speaker is right here. So across the street here is a parking lot. I think it goes to about right here, about halfway. There's residential that's kind of set far back on the lot over here. There's residential here. Across the street is a large commercial development. I believe that's the target and outsourced businesses. So there'd be no real reason to worry about it across the street. But for... In this case, the residential across the street here, this kind of setback, and the residential here, that's why they're putting a sound wall right here at this pink line. Applicant, I'm sure, would prefer to do a six-foot wall. Eden suggested a 12-foot wall. It'll be up to you to figure out if you want to do the 12-foot or a different size or the six-foot. This is the property as it stands right now. So the restaurant will go like from where my mouse is here to about here. Whoops. And they'll enter the drive-thru here, wrap around the building, and then pick up their food over in front. They do plan on planting a good amount of trees and shrubs, especially along that sound wall area. There was one public input letter that we received during this whole time that was from the restaurant across the street. they just thought that there was no need for a Taco Bell here. Citing that there's other Taco Bells and they have I mean, it's understandable they're being competition with this restaurant, so they don't want it to go there. Economic and civic development from CDA supported the drive-in restaurant if the noise and traffic was investigated, which it was. Staff recommends approval, both CUP from the West BZA and then the SDR from the planning director based on the draft COA and site plan, which you were sent copies of the staff report. So if you need me to bring that up, I can. That's available for questions.

Is that the presentation for the CUP and the SDS? Yes. What type of arrangement was there with that HomeWise appliance? Because now another business does not have parking.

There was much discussion on this. It took a while for us to figure out what to do. We had talked with county council about how to mitigate the situation. What it was is that there was an SDR from quite a few years ago that granted the lot the taco bell lot to be used by home wise as park or airport appliance at that time as parking um our original stance was to not let we wouldn't we weren't going to recommend approval for the taco bell until the parking situation was figured out um We were informed slightly later on from county council that if Taco Bell eliminated the lease to the appliance store, that there was really nothing we could do to stop them from wanting us to move forward with the project. Because at that point, they had no legal reason to continue allowing them to use the parking space. I personally, as a planner, I'm working with the HomeWise people to fix their parking situation. We've determined their parking needs to be 22 spaces, which they are only short three, which they are going to put behind the property, behind the building, and they're going to probably be used as staff parking spots. It's almost figured out as it stands right now. All they need to do is apply for a modification to a site development review to fix the parking situation. There is a little hiccup in that where their fence in the backyard area of the building is located, it needs to be relocated, and they need to talk with the other owners of the automotive businesses back there to figure kind of come to agreement of how the new parking situation is going to work because they hope to recapture part of their property that's being used by them as a driveway not like a driveway but like a a way out from a parking lot area I mean, if they closed it off, they could just drive around the other way. It wouldn't stop the parking lot from being used. So I'm still in talks with the lady from HomeWise, and she's working on behalf of the owner, Chris. So I don't think there's going to be a problem. It just hasn't been finished yet. And we were under no obligation for, as far as Taco Bell's concerned, not as Taco Bell's concerned, county council's concern to make them wait any longer. They already waited like six months to try to figure out this parking situation. So it's...

The access to the extra parking goes through on A Street by those automotive shops? It doesn't go through the gas station?

No, no, no. To access the Homewise apartment, it goes right to the right side of the building. Between the gas station and Homewise? Yeah, there's a driveway there.

Okay. Yeah, because I saw the picture, and it looked like there's parking available back there, but that would probably be adequate if they could agree to the access for the gas station.

yeah most so they have about home wise has about 13 11 13 can't remember parking spots in front of their business they have about like eight parking spots or nine to the right of the building that they can use and they're gonna just they're gonna figure out the back area so they can have three more spots there albert the planning director, Albert Lopez, and us, we had a meeting with Rodrigo, and we determined based on the square footage of the HomeWise and how much is actually sales area versus storage, that they only should require 22 parking spaces. And so that was determined a couple months ago, and I've been working with the HomeWise people to try to figure it out.

My other question is, Six foot versus 12 foot sound wall. Do we have any documentation that a 12 foot sound wall is going to make any difference? I mean, a car's pulling in a car isn't over six feet usually unless it's like an SUV. So I'm just curious, is there a sound engineer on the Eden Mac that was able to come up with a good reason for going 12 feet over six feet?

There wasn't a sound engineer that spoke at the Eden Mac, but the concerns from the council members was to help mitigate the noise for those adjacent residents located right next door from the proposed drive in use.

I mean, the speakers right there, I can understand that. But I've just, like I said, I've been in, I've worked for a sound abatement company and I'm just not sure if there's any difference in going six feet or 12 feet, whether the sound of that that loudspeaker is going to carry. And then plus, I shouldn't know this, but I do know that when you pull into a Taco Bell, you can actually order on the app and drive through and pick it up. So I don't know how many people do that versus actually ordering on the box anymore.

Louis, you have a question? I was concerned. Why are we being asked to approve the SDR? That's sort of unusual.

No, that wasn't. It was just we're letting you know that we're going to make a recommendation to the planning director about the SDR, which is separate. it's just we it since it's the cup and sdr we we generally tell the west bca that it's the application has two components but um and there was a slight brief mention about what the sdr was about but um the planning director will be approving this year it's just a little different sorry if there's any confusion sorry

I think on the recommendation on the bottom, it says planning staff recommends that the board recommend approval of site development review.

No, it actually, it says SDR to plan director.

But on the staff report, it was more of an explanation, yes. The CUP addresses the use of the drive-in and the SDR addresses the construction of the building.

So is this going to the planning commission?

No.

The SDR is not going to the planning commission?

Correct. The planning director has the action on site development reviews.

We see the screen location of the wall and also the drive-through because looking at this or upper diagram. Ours are on the opposite side, but where are they then?

Well, if you follow my mouse, they... I'm sorry. I made a mistake. There again. Okay. Let me... Okay.

Because it looks like they're exiting, so I thought that's Where is one ordering?

The blue dot.

The blue circle dot near the corner. Right. And aren't the neighbors?

Neighbors are over to the right.

Yeah, right. So the neighbors are not adjacent to the blue dot.

That's correct, yes.

Right. Okay. So that's a good thing. My concern over this 12-foot wall is, well, there's two issues. A, the neighbor is an apartment complex. Am I correct?

Yes.

Okay. And is there a street between property or is the apartment complex building occupants adjacent to the border?

The occupants are adjacent to the border of the property.

My concern would be is if I'm on the first floor, I would lack light because there is a whole big string of case laws from going back from Knob Hill when the Sugar King robber baron would go and put 12-foot, 15-foot walls around their property, and that blocked all the light off the neighbor. So that would be my concern, is that inadvertently, that would be a very adverse impact if you had .

Yeah, because there is approximately a six-foot fence right now. So if it was just left at the six-foot sound wall, it wouldn't make really any difference. If it became eight or 12 feet, then I would say the bottom neighbor would definitely be affected, at least on that side of their unit.

They would lack light. And so that is a concern because we're all entitled... too light um and so 12 feet just is is problematic in that sense um now planting and hedges i'm seeing under page the resolution i've been policy uh conditions of approval 12 17. There's number 12 and there's also number 27 on the landscaping. There's no real drop dead date about when this gets installed that's jumping out. Does it get installed? And also there's this discussion of hedges, but we don't have any requirement on how big these hedges are. you can plant a hedge that could be two feet tall and then say, oh, I'm good with my two foot hedge. And I think the idea or the objective is to have a tall hedge, if I'm correct.

Isn't there a list of the trees and the hedges someplace?

There is.

I think there was a list. I can't find it right now.

It's on the PowerPoint.

Yeah, that's it.

Do you want me to show it again?

Yeah, but this also is the... It has to be submitted and approved by the planning director. So that list is not necessarily bound in anything because the condition 12 is to present a revised landscape plan.

To specifically address the required hedge that's in the zoning ordinance.

Right. And that's why we're talking hedges here.

And I do not see, as Member Spaulding pointed out, let's see, condition of approval number 27 says per the approved revised landscaping plan, which shall include the sound wall, installation of the hedge, irrigation and planting details that the applicant would be subject to maintaining it. think that we did really would be tied to the final issuance of the building permit then staff typically goes out before the inspector signs it off.

Right now we there's present trees or shrubs

The landscaping page 4, number 27, per the approved revised landscaping plan, which will include sound wall details, installation of a hedge along the eastern property line, irrigation and planning details, permit T shall keep the landscaping and sound wall well maintained at all times.

Condition number 30, the board may wish to add the additional language about installing the landscaping plan because only reference.

She'll install in the rear and maybe add all landscaping. We're all landscaping. Be installed.

On the landscaping, can you tell me if there was any effort to save the two large palm trees on the corner? They're really nice trees.

I don't believe so, no.

Are they in the way of a driveway yet, Nancy?

If it's in the drive-through or something, but they're really nice trees. They're pretty mature. Well, I think a 12-foot sound wall is pretty darn high. If you've ever stood in front of a 10-foot wall, it's pretty daunting.

I think 12-foot is out of the question.

I think that the guys downstairs aren't going to get any light. No natural light at all. That's arguably a taking of their property. Yeah.

We open public comment.

I mean, the way, the way is anybody online, the way sound carries, just going from six to 12 will not necessarily. That could just actually affect not the apartment, not the apartment building next door, but it could take the sound up and carry it to the, to the next property over the way it moves. So.

Because a masonry sound wall is not a sound attenuating wall. It's not. You'd have to put baffles or things on it to make it an attenuating.

And then also, do we have anything to protect the current shrubs that are presently under Legend 8?

That's why I was asking about the two big ones on the two mature. They're very, very, very nice trees.

Well, yeah, but there's also a whole line of trees along near the apartment complex and, and conceivably landscape plan, all those down. So I think that those, it seems like since they're existing and growing and, um,

we would want but i think with the existing um shrubbery it'd be kind of tough to um do new cur i see there's a new curb new curbs all the way around it i don't know if they survive this construction that would be that'd be the require could be a requirement is is that they preserve

Do you know if the applicant's online?

I do believe there is an applicant online.

Open the pub. I did want to ask one more question. Do you know if all the lights are shielded for the light spill?

I don't know if it's...

I couldn't find a lighting plan or cut off luminaire or any of that stuff.

We have a condition that it should be...

Condition number 22 is that light should be angled away from nearby residents. There's nothing on our plan, though, that shows me the...

Okay. Can we open public comment, please? Okay.

Okay, Mira, you are allowed to speak.

Can everyone hear me?

Yes.

Okay, well, thank you, first of all, for hearing us here. I'm Mira Ganser. I'm with Core States Group. We are the civil engineer and architect for this project, and I'm representing kind of the whole applicant team. So I did want to touch on a couple of the things that were just discussed. As far as landscaping, so with having to provide the new sand wall, it does make it very difficult to maintain the existing landscaping because once you start constructing, especially a masonry wall, you touch on a lot of those roots of those trees, so you're going to lose most of them. So unfortunately, that is why we have to remove that and We are proposing the new trees and shrubs. So like I said, most of the time it's almost impossible to retain any of that with that new wall. I do agree with the board that we would prefer to do the six foot wall. And again, that was what was recommended in the noise study and they believe it should help with the sound and so we would love to you know help with the sound and also be a good neighbor right and not completely block block out that adjacent neighbor and then as well with those two palms kind of up at the front same there the one on the corner corner we are proposing just that pavement of the drive-through so again that that affects their root zones and they wouldn't really survive unfortunately so we are proposing more plantings there but the trees would not be able to be retained we would not be able to save those with the root zones so that's on the landscaping piece and then as far as photometrics we did have a photometric study done And yes, our intent, of course, is to make sure we are providing down shielding lights, especially away from the property. So everything that we had in the photometric plan, specifically along that eastern boundary of the residential is all at basically zero lumens spilling over. So they will not have any of that light spilling over onto the property. It's a little bit more near the building in the parking lot to obviously keep that safe. But the photometric shows that it won't spill over to the property line. And I'm happy to answer any other questions that the board has.

Does anybody? I guess for Vice Chair Balding.

I guess the real challenge here is these existing trees that are already here that they continue to grow. That's just what to rip the.

I think if you have to do the masonry sound wall, actually I just drew this for you, a footing, plus you have on the other side of the planter, a concrete curb. This is so narrow between them. I don't know how they'd survive.

That's what she's saying. This property, is that fence on now? Is it on the... Fence? Who owns that?

Fence.

Fence.

It's unclear, but it's on the property boundary, so it could be maybe jointly owned.

That makes it even... Or of a challenge. I mean, does the applicant, have you had a, well, you must have had a survey, property survey done, right?

Correct. Yes, we have. But it is, as staff just noted, it is situated almost directly on the property line. So even with the survey, it's hard to tell. And our intent, again, is to keep that. fence to remain to have them have that privacy. But with the addition of the sound wall, block wall that's proposed in the noise study. On top of that, it is very hard to maintain those trees.

There been any comments from the owners of the apartment complex?

I've received no emails or correspondence from them. So they may have attended this meeting. The site was noticed and mailings went out. So maybe we'll hear from someone from them. I don't know.

Okay, because I'm getting confused here. If the survey is showing that the fence is on the property line or the trees are on the property line.

The fence is on the property line. The trees are inside the property. Inside the Taco Bell property.

They're in Taco Bell's property. Yeah. Okay. And the fence is on the property line. That is unfortunate that the property owner is, the apartment complex owner is not could be helpful trying to protect the trees. I guess maybe one way is can we approve this with the condition that the revised landscape plan back to us rather than the planning director?

It wouldn't be approved. If it was approved, then they'd be allowed to start constructing.

Right.

That would be to continue the item.

No, I mean, what's wrong with approving it if the of approval that the land that the revised landscape plan back the wbz a review what happens to the cup if you deny it

That happens to the CUP. The point staff is making is you wouldn't truly be approving a conditional use permit today if a condition requires you to make a further approval for that CUP to be valid.

But you're already there though, because it's requiring a revised landscape plan.

That's a staff level approval. It's almost a ministerial level approval.

Do we have any other speakers online?

If anybody would like to speak on the first item on the regular calendar for 20200 Hesperian Boulevard, please raise your hand. There are not any other hands raised.

A closed public comment.

It seems like we definitely need a dead date. Metaplan.

I don't think I could determine.

It's all a hedge.

Yeah, staff would, so that would be a recommendation to add the number, condition of approval number 30, maybe add that to the sentence hedge and all landscaping. Right.

Actually, what's the timing?

Prior to the final issuance, so before the building inspector signs off that the people can go inside the building, planning staff goes out there and looks at the landscaping, confirms that it matches the approved plan, the water works.

Prior to issuance of final building permits. It'd be the C of O, right? Right now it reads- Before their grand opening, they got to have it done. Well, no, right now it says prior to the issuance of the final building permit.

That's when it has to be installed. So number 12 is requiring that the revised plan be submitted before we even give our stamp on the first set of plans. Right. So prior to issuance of building permit. So they can't get our stamp, planning stamps- before they get us a revised landscaping plan that addresses our concerns. And they can't get to the building department lane until they get our little stamp.

Right, but I'm looking at 30. Goes to the final, prior to the issuance of the final.

It's the install though, install and landscaping, not the plan.

Strictly speaking, if I was just looking at the sentence standing alone 30, it says prior to the issuance of a final building permits, meaning building. Generally, the landscaping is towards the end. The building.

The final inspection, we're basically saying we want the landscaping installed before final inspection.

Let's say final inspection, not the building permit, because otherwise that's too ambiguous.

There could be additional inspections. Landscaping may not be the final inspection. There could be something else.

No, the point would be prior to the final inspection.

work? Prior to issuance of final building permits for occupancy.

That's a certificate of occupancy versus a building permit. The building permit to start.

You route it back to us. There's conditions, there's fees, there's items. There's two stages that it comes back.

Private prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Found 30?

Yeah. T-shell have installed.

Everybody good with that? About 29.

Prior to issuance of the final building permit

I don't want a 12-foot wall.

Right. I think six foot is a bit short. I think that's short. And I think maybe eight. Eight.

The civil engineer already said that they did a sound design and six feet was adequate. So that was my whole point. The Eden Mac comes up and says 12 feet without any scientific evidence leading to that. But the civil engineer has done the calculations and six feet is adequate. So as far as I'm concerned, a six feet wall is more than adequate.

I'm just thinking about aesthetic purposes for the sound design.

Well, I think the fence, current fence right there is six feet.

Which is... Okay, but this is a commercial. You're changing material.

You're getting into your point on the lack of light. So if you go six to eight, you're going to have less light going into those apartments, which was your argument earlier.

That went to 12 feet. That was twice the size of the existing fence. That's a lot.

The existing fence is a chain link, right? It's wood. It's wood, excuse me. And then you're going to a concrete masonry. Right. Yeah, I mean, that's a big difference as far as noise goes. The height, yeah, I agree. That's not going to do much more.

For the sound, I'm just thinking about the visual for the neighbors.

Well, I think I prefer a six rather than eight or a ten in front of my front door.

It's really tall if you stand in front of it.

I think a six is quite adequate for the sound and aesthetics.

And the The existing trees, the other thing I think that just if to try to get in the trees along the property line. And so that if there needs to be a modification of where these curbs are, so that the trees have a better ability to survive.

Two of the four curbs are being removed as part of this project, and the concerns of the board regarding preserving the two palm trees at the corner of Hesperian and West Sunset Boulevard may be difficult for the applicant to meet.

I wasn't talking about those. You were. I'm talking about the ones along the fence by the apartment complex.

It's going to be pretty difficult to install a masonry wall with the plants right there.

Well, not with the footings. You've got spread footing underneath of it, plus you have curbs.

Look at those trees. What's there to save? That's a mess. It's going to be, they're going to replace it with some more trees that are going to look a lot nicer than what's there right now.

I was going to say if trees, it would be those palm trees.

Yeah. Because they're so pretty.

We're doing the neighbors a favor by getting rid of those trees.

Well, right now they're helping protect them from, I mean, we know that helps people. Trees help a lot with sound and visibility. So that's there. So if I was the neighbor and all those trees came down, I probably would. And so then you've got, and you're replacing it with a foot high plant.

Oh, we require larger plants. Maybe we should require larger plants.

They're putting 15 gallon trees in how big. Yeah. That's a, that's a good size tree.

Depending upon, yeah, the kinds of trees and stuff. So that's my point. Is it just, I mean, maybe you think that they're not attractive trees, but at least it is a buffer.

I don't think they can even work on the fence there without severely cutting those trees back.

Trying to protect them are two different issues.

I know. I'm just saying I've built a lot of fences in my life, and you need space to work. And as far as the footing goes, it's going to disturb the whole thing. I mean, because the roots go down. As big as the tree is above the ground, the roots are below the ground. So that footing is going to chop the roots in half, essentially. So I don't know. You can save it.

That's unfortunate.

I don't think they can be saved with a spread footing and the subsurface curb detail that goes adjacent to it. We're back to the wall. Are we going to recommend... 29 would be... I can do 6 or 8, but no more than that. Right.

I'm on the 6 to 8 version, too.

I've... With a recommendation of the...

Six feet in a neighborhood is basically six-foot wall. A six-foot fence is basically 99% of the fence regulations and ordinances in all the cities. So going above six, I think it's a moot point. Six is adequate.

And my only concern is this is a difference between the residents. And we have a recommendation from the Eden MAC also. Higher, 12. And so that's just trying to accommodate both sides. Yeah.

I just don't think that that makes a big difference in the acoustics.

It's more than the acoustics. It's the visibility.

And the natural light that they're entitled to. Right. What else do we know about this wall? Is it a decorative wall? Hopefully not a precision wall, precision block. Yeah, it should be like a split face, integral color, something nice.

If you'd like to put Mira Gansert back on, if that's okay, we can open the public comment. If you want to know more about the wall, we should ask her.

Okay, we'll open public comment. Yeah, if we're going to do a wall, making a nice wall. Right, if the applicant can tell.

Mira, are you allowed to, uh, you're allowed to speak. Can you please address the board's concerns? Sure.

Um, I mean, I think our intent is that it is going to be, um, again, as recommended kind of like a split face CMU wall. So it will be relatively, um, I guess you can say decorative. Um, I mean, we're not going to do any kind of brick or anything like that, but it, We've had some discussion with staff on just some similar projects down Hesperian that have had the same idea. So kind of like a split face CMU, we can have it be painted a nice color. So yes, definitely something that's aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors.

No, no painting it. I said integral color. You know, at least when it's got graffiti on it, you can sandblast it and it's still the same color. Sure. Absolutely.

Absolutely. Yes, absolutely.

Would you be amenable to integral color split face?

Yes, we can do that. Absolutely.

Meaning they're not going to buy the cheap CMU and paint it some color. And then when there's graffiti, or something on it. You can't sandblast it. You have to paint different color paint on it to fix it. We need an integral color.

Okay, so 29 needs to be modified to shell construct and maintain a six foot sound wall of integral color split face.

Any more questions?

Found a place would fall under.

A9. Questions? Closed public comment. I don't have any more.

No. My only thing is on this hours of the strain.

Language comes straight from the drive-in policy.

Dictates it.

Any more questions for the applicant?

Very goofy. I don't have any questions for the applicant.

Okay, I'm going to close public comment. We're basically asking for changes on 29 and 30, correct?

Okay, my only other question is this. 16, the property owner shall be responsible for paying the community development the cost of code enforcement efforts if the operation is not to be encouraged.

Is that you? Condition is not usual, but once again, it is in the drive-in policy, so staff included it.

The drive-in policies?

The one that was just amended at 2025. Yeah, it's part of their... It's taken directly from that. So, yeah, it's... Probably don't see it very often because we don't have too many drive-in restaurants come here.

That's not very business-friendly, though.

I'm sure the board is able to modify or omit.

Good parts of it. That whole thing about the trash and them being responsible for their own trash, I thought that was really good.

Yeah, that's good. I think 16, I don't know. That's good.

is a restaurant across the street also a Mexican restaurant yes not a conflict in any way with well Taco Bell is seen as more American and also drive-thru and also fast food the Mexican restaurant is a sit-down sit-down dining sit-down Mexican restaurant I don't think most people who are looking for sit-down Mexican food from the Mexican restaurant are going to go Taco Bell and vice versa yeah

I think the idea is it's, quote, fast food.

We're not restricting the type. It's just a drive-in.

It's drive-in versus not drive-in is what.

Right.

Yeah.

There's clearly a drive-in, so that's fine. But it's still fast food.

Drive-ins tend to be fast food.

I wouldn't call it more American.

Oh, that's just my personal opinion. I'm sorry.

Otherwise you have to cough. That forgets some of our classic drive-ins.

Any other changes on any of the items? I think we've done pretty good. OK, all right.

I just make one point of information on condition 12. I think, inadvertently, it loops back on itself as worded, because it says, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit, shall be submitted for review and approval by the planning director. So it's not clear that the planning director's approval needs to come before the issuance of the building permit, which I think is the board's intent. And if it is, we probably should just clean that up a little bit. So my recommendation would be that it read, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted for review and be approved by the planning director prior to issuance of building permit.

Prior to. I'll write it for you.

If they're OK with it, if it's in the motion, all that.

Just one other point of information for items 29 and 30. It's my understanding that the county's term of art for certificate of occupancy or authorizing occupancy is a final building permit. That's the term of art that's used by the building department. But my understanding I do understand the potential confusion there about, well, you know, when and a final building permit could be a final building permit application or building permit approval. So we were thinking that maybe we added, so it would say prior to issuance of final building permits and in any event prior to occupancy of the project's building so that it's really tied to occupancy in the way that you expressed it earlier. I don't know if that works for your concern.

I think I understand there's a term of art maybe colloquially for the staff, but it's not a definition that's adopted in the ordinance.

Completely agree.

So therefore, I think a certificate of occupancy just kind of.

That itself I don't think exists either. So it's the same.

I know it has to because you have.

I've asked this question before and I've gotten no satisfaction on the answer because I felt the same way. But if we could say, you know, and in any event prior to any occupancy of the project building, then the intent is clear.

Yeah, prior to any occupancy. That's good.

Because there's two levels of CFO. I mean, there's a TCO and a CFO. Right, right. But saying the word occupancy is the key.

Because otherwise, just saying a building permit, it's like, yeah, well, that's when you start. You get the building permit. Right.

And I don't know, you know, maybe we can seek a little clarification on this for a later hearing. Yeah, right. I don't want to go and change staff's conditions, you know, forever.

But that's just to tweak it because there's always been a continual problem. I'll never forget at a planning commission meeting. The question was, what is a custom home? And I was informed, oh, we don't have a definition for a custom home. So that really opens up a lot of potential problems. So that's my only comment. Okay, so I'm ready. Assuming staff adopting those modifications or tweaks to 2019,

12.

28. All reference for 12-foot wall needs to be revised to six-foot. Six-foot. Integral color split face.

Oh, yeah. 28 needs the fence issue.