Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm gonna go ahead and call this meeting to order for the Alameda County Planning Commission for Monday, 05/04/2026. Can we have the roll call, please?

Commissioner Zeiss? Present. Commissioner Silva?

Present.

Commissioner Rocha? Here. Commissioner Nielsen? Excused. Commissioner Hernandez?

Excused as well.

And vice chair Kelly? I thought I saw vice chair Kelly somewhere on there.

Oh, you're muted.

Can you see me, Mark? I'm here. Little

dark, but we'll we'll we'll manage. Here. Commissioner Zeiss, would you like to lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Flag? Okay.

Item four, announcements by the chair. I have none. Item five is open forum. One speaker card. K. I don't have any speaker cards for open forum. This is an opportunity for anyone to speak on any item that is not on the agenda. Do we have any speakers online?

Oh, we do not. Say yes? I said we do not.

Do not. Okay. I'm sorry. I missed I didn't hear that. K. Item six, field trip report. We have none. Item seven, committee reports. We have none. Item eight, approval of the minutes, 03/16/2026 to be much more thorough. Do we have a motion? Do we have any changes or motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote, please.

Mister Zeiss? Yes. Commissioner Silva? Yes. Commissioner Rocha? Yes. Vice chair Kelly? Yes. And chair Crawford? Aye. Alright. The motion passed.

K. Item nine, consent calendar. We have no items on the consent calendar. Moving on to item 10, regular calendar. A PLN twenty twenty six dash 10. This is a conditional use permit. Can we have the staff report on this item?

Good evening, everyone. This is William with the Alameda County Plan Departments. I do have a brief presentation for the conditional use permit. This conditional use permit is to allow a multiuse rental space within an existing building. This CUP does not propose any expansion of the footprint of the building or the volume itself.

The property owner and applicant is Jeff Quartz, and it's 11853 Main Street in Sunol. The zoning is Sunol Downtown Zoning District and within East County area plan, Sunol Downtown as well. And it's an an existing facility that does not require any additions. So it's categorically exempt for c for CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, section fifteen three zero one class one. The proposal to is to allow a multiuse rental space within an an existing commercial space.

Currently, there exists a barbershop, a web wedding preparation space for the Casa Bella event center, and a vacant retail space that was previously occupied by JJ Land, which was a small retail space. The purpose is to allow the uses on your screen. I will also go over as well as a permitted use without having to go through a new conditional use permit if a new business plans to move in this specific building. For example, JJ Land and Mark Mary's Barbershop each individually had to submit a conditional use permit prior to operation, And this conditional use permit itself would be more of a master conditional use permit for uses that are proposed in the future. For example, if there is a new retail business or office space that wants to go into this building, they would not have to as long as they meet the conditions of approval and does not increase the load for the existing septic system.

The uses under this conditional use permit includes personal services, like clothing rental, tailor, shoe repair shops, cosmetologist, food or nonalcoholic beverage service, not requiring a commercial kitchen, a retail store, micro events venue with no more than two events a month, and limited to 10 per event. So that's, more for the Casabella event center, that currently exists and business offices excluding vehicle oriented business services. The Casabella event center did have some previous improvements to the building, including painting interior walls, furniture, some signage, and decor as well. And then mar Mary's Barbershop also made a few improvements as well. So they included they installed light fixtures and a new front door for the facade.

On the screen is a street level picture of the the building itself. On the left hand side is the currently vacant retail store. The middle is the Galleria event space, and then to the right hand side is Mary's Barbershop with the parking for these uses at the front of the property. So under the Sonora Downtown zoning district, East County area plan allows commercial uses, which typically require a conditional use permit approvable by the planning commission, any retail uses, office spaces, etcetera. The general plan does allow commercial and off space office space use tailored for the neighborhood tailored for the neighborhood.

In addition to the required typical findings for a conditional use permits, the snow Downtown specifically specifically has seven other conditional findings for specific uses. One, will it have no growth inducing impacts to the community, whether it is consistent with the septic tank standards established by the Alameda County Environment and Health Departments, and if there are any impacts to the existing road system. Fourth is if the use is consistent with the policies of the East County County area plan, whether the design of the project is consistent with the historical, architectural, or visual context context of the Downtown Sonoma area plan, and it has to be reviewed by the Sonoma Citizens Advisory Council. So the Sonoma Citizens Advisory Council did review the project and unanimously recommended approval to the board of supervisors in their 04/15/2026 meeting. And lastly, that's of the commercial uses, it would not generate more than 50% of the existing parcels in the district.

This is not creating a new parcel nor creating what already exists, so it's not adding on to the commercial uses that already exist in this downtown district. Staff recommends that the planning commission approve the conditional use permit, PLN2026Dash00010 to allow a multiuse rental space within an existing building. And if the Planning Commission does approve the application, the conditions of approval and the draft resolution should be considered. Staff is available for any questions we have. Thank you.

Do you have any questions for staff on this application?

I may. Silva. Thank you. The give me if it's in here, and I haven't seen it. I did see that the snow CAC approved unanimously. Right. Has the East County BZA considered it?

They have not. So this the planning commission is the decision body for these types of conditional use permits.

Thanks. Thank you.

K. Do we have any speakers on this item?

I see no speakers online.

I have three speaker cards here. They're item. I'll go ahead and close public comment. Commissioners, commissioner Zeiss, would you like to make a motion?

I recommend that we For your people?

I recommend that we approve as is. For a second. Second. Mister Zeiss, made the motion. Commissioner Rocha has a second. Roll call vote. Please hang on a second. Andy Andy, you got your hand up?

Yeah. I just wanted to say, like, I'm fine with this, and this is clearly what they're asking for. I'm just a little and I I think more of our conditional use permit should be like this because I imagine it's quite hard to rent a space if folks then think they're gonna have to go through a process they might lose. I just am wondering why the conditional uses are so prescriptive as to limit an event center to two events per month as opposed to limiting and then, you know, if the applicant isn't asking for more, that's fine. It just, to me, feels like, the conditional use permit feels a little restrictive, versus, like, requiring them to just have sufficient septic.

I mean, if if they have you know, if you bring in a porta potty for a wedding, you could have I just it feels to me like it's a very, very prescriptive conditional use permit. But the folks are fine with it and the applicant's fine with it, I'll support it. I just wanted to flag that I'm not quite sure why why the planning commission would be setting such a strict, guidelines for how someone runs a business. I mean, if they wanna have one twenty person event, like, why are we involved in that level of detail of the business? That's all I was gonna flag.

I don't think we've seen a CUP from Sunol. At least, I don't believe I've seen one as long as I've been here. I don't know if you have. I it it's and I don't know the I don't know the politics of Sunol, but, just the, the findings seem awfully restrictive. No impact on roads. No more than 50%. It's not creating another commercial parcel. So it sounds like there's a real they want it really restrictive for for Downtown Sonol. It sounds like just just the way the findings were reading to me. So that's that may be why the application is structured the way it is.

Yeah. And I'm certainly not gonna make a motion to give a more permissive use permit if the applicant's not appealing it. I just I'm confused why it is so restrictive.

We could end up with a senile CAC in here at the next, public comment if we if we veer too far in one direction on this, not not knowing their politics. Any other council commission comments?

I mean, I agree with you. I missed the c the CINAHL advisory board meeting. I did talk to people, but I achieved in the number of 10. I was like, why don't we go higher? I agree with what you're saying, but this is what they approved. And everyone I talked to in Sunol supported it as is. So that's why I'm

going with the flow with this. Okay. Roll call vote, please. Commissioner Zeiss? Yes. Commissioner Silva? Yes. Commissioner Rocha? Yes. Vice chair Kelly? Yes. And chair Crawford? Aye. The motion passes.

Okay. Moving on to item 10 b, which is mobile home park change of use ordinance. Can we have the staff report on this item when when you're ready?

Sure. Coming right up.

I don't I only have three speaker cards up here. So if you do intend to speak this evening, I need to get all the speaker cards. I don't wanna have the situation where they're all dribbling in one by one at the end. I know how long our public comment's gonna be. Also, you should have your hand raised if you plan to speak online.

Your speaker card to the secretary there. K. No more speaker cards? Speak now or forever hold your peace. We won't accept anymore after this. Okay. Staff report, if you're ready, go ahead.

K. So the next item on the agenda is for the mobile home park change of use. Oh, thanks. So staff was directed by the unincorporated services committee of the board of supervisors to begin working on mobile home related ordinances in mid twenty twenty four. The committee wanted to ensure tenant protections provided by state law were being followed and that the process to convert existing mobile home parks into other uses was fair and transparent.

The draft before you this evening is a third draft, now tiled change in use ordinance different from the earlier versions referred to as closure or conversion ordinance. This item was discussed at the October 20 planning commission. And at that meeting, the planning commissioners directed staff to revise the ordinance to require a planning commission hearing for any park closure that results in a vacancy rate of 25% or more for ninety consecutive days. They also asked for the right of first refusal to be removed from the ordinance and to reinstate the hardship waiver. Days later, planning staff presented at the unincorporated services committee and was directed to add in a process to evaluate vacancy rates of 25% or more when it occurs for ninety consecutive days, to reinstate the right of first refusal provision, to limit the mobile home valuation to permitted structures, and to incorporate the hardship waiver for property owners to request the full or partial waiver obligations.

So the right of first refusal was the difference of opinion or difference of direction from the unincorporated services, asked for it to be reinstated, and the planning commission requested for it to be removed. Current ordinance, is laid out to that we've updated then we've updated and added definitions, restructured the conversion through vacancy section, added in the right of first refusal, clarified within the ordinance that legal permitted structures are eligible for the mobile home valuation, and established the process to allow adjustment of relocation assistance obligations. And there is a prolonged high vacancy that can trigger a formal review. We're calling it conversion through vacancy, and this, could potentially per, require permit unless the property owner demonstrates that there's not a conversion occurring. A rebuttal presumption of change of use is triggered if 25% or more of the mobile home sites remain vacant for over ninety consecutive days.

Owner would need to submit documentation to provide evidence to the planning director that a vacancy is not occurring or it's temporary due to park or due to some form of exception, possibly upgrades to the property. The planning director would make a decision after receiving a recommendation from the housing community development advisory committee, and it would either determine that no change of use and they can continue to operate as a mobile home park or that it would require a conditional use permit application to request the change of use. The right of first refusal is would allow for the residents to elect to purchase the park, provided timely notice and a complete purchase proposal demonstrating financial capacity would be established. The CUP would not be processed by the county for the change of use if the right of first refusal was indicated that that's the wishes of the residents for a hundred and eighty days. Right to a first refusal or right to purchase a property would be waived if residents failed to meet the specified deadlines at which the property owner could move forward with the change of use and sale of the site to other properties.

Section for the adjustment of relocation assistant obligation would, require the property owner to request the adjustment to the county relocation assistance obligations where obligations would impose an unreasonable financial hardship. The application or the documentation would be needed to be submitted at the time of the change of use conditional use permit with the detailed financial and operational documentation. The notice to mobile home park residents would also be required to inform that this waiver is being asked or requested. The planning commission would review the request at the same time as the conditional use change of use application based on the document documentation submitted by the property owner. There are required findings that would need to be made as part of the approval of a conditional use permit.

They include that the that the project would comply with all state and local laws that govern mobile home park conversions and state relocation compensation requirements. The proposed conversion would not result in a shortage of housing, particularly for low and moderate income households based on the relocation impact report, and that would be based on a recommendation from the housing community advisory finding would require that all feasible measures to mitigate displacement impacts, ensuring affected residents can secure comparable housing or adequate replacement housing. And if additional discretionary approvals associated with the change of use were required such as a site development review for the redevelopment of the property, those additional findings would need to be made as well. In the ordinance, it also includes a set of conditions of approval. This requires a moving allowance for all residents, would cover the moving costs, security deposits, and up to a three month temporary housing within a 50 mile radius.

It also distinguish between mobile homes that can be relocated and the ones that are not able to be relocated. Both would need would be required to be compensated. Then the fourth condition would allow the displaced residents to have access to purchase any new replacement housing units if the site's redeveloped with mixed use or, other residential use, if they submitted paperwork requesting to be contacted. E condition of approval also would be subject to a three year approval with option of two extensions. So the condition because the conditional use permit for the change of use could technically be valid for up to nine years.

Staff's recommendation is for the planning commission to discuss the current change of use draft ordinance, take public testimony, and provide recommendations or an action to planning staff to the current draft mobile home park change of use ordinance to be considered by the transportation and planning subcommittee. That's the end of staff's presentation.

Chairs, any questions for staff? If not, we'll just go into I do. Commissioner

go ahead.

Under Dilva.

Yes. Thank you, chair Crawford. Christine, so a hundred and eighty days is the amount of time, correct me if I'm wrong, six months that the tenants have to close the deal. The the property owner can't sell or accept any offers from anybody else for up to a hundred and eighty days?

That's correct. Yes.

The page of your presentation that's starts with adjustment of relocation assistance obligation. Number four, is the planning commission reviews the request at the same time as the CUP change of use based on parks financial conditions, necessary investment costs, relocation impacts, and property values. I'm I'm what does that mean exactly at the same time? It's the same at the same time as the BZA is considering it, or what what does that mean?

Means that if the application was submitted for a conditional use permit for a change of use at that time they submitted the application, there would also need to be the required documentation to ask for the adjustment of the relocation assistance that's required under the draft ordinance. So a part of the planning commission's approval would be to grant let's say, grant the approval of the change of use conditional use permit and also grant a possible waiver to part of the relocation assistance obligations.

And that if that financial information is presented to the BZA when they consider the conditional use permit. Is that not right?

Oh, this change of use conditional use permit would be heard by the planning commission, not the BZA.

K. Thank you. I have one other one. Second here. Oh, yeah. The page of your presentation says conditions of approval relocation plan, and it discusses moving allowance, relocatable mobile homes, non relocatable additional compensation. Now is this a restatement of state law, or does this go farther from than the state law? In other words, are these provisions already covered in state law?

Can you repeat the question, please?

Oh, the the obligations of the property owner towards the tenant are outlined here. Are these any stricter than what is already required under the under state law?

I can attempt to respond to that by stricter. What do you what do you mean by stricter?

State law lists a number of obligations for property owners towards tenants that that have to move under these circumstances. The the ordinance see, state law says that local governments can make them more restrictive, but they can't make them any less restrictive. So my question is, are these more restrictive than state what state law dictates for the obligations of a property owner, a park owner towards the tenants?

The current ordinance provides benefits to the Mumble Home residents in relocation beyond what state law provides, but it is designed to be specific in what those benefits are.

I'm sorry. Say that again, please.

I'm sorry.

So it this ordinance provides relocation benefits beyond what state law provides. We have to follow state law, and part of the findings that the planning commission would make for a conditional use permit is that they are following state law, but we provided more defined relocation benefits to the residents within this ordinance, which very likely surpass state law requirements. Requirements.

Very likely.

Yes. Because state law, as far as relocation benefits go, it's not definitive. It is a very specific wording in state law, but you have to mitigate the adverse impacts to the residents. So you'd be making that finding differently for each conditional use permit that came before you. But here, we have provided a path to what those benefits would entail.

Not to belabor this, but the report in the packet from the public interest law project is is, in fact, very specific about what state requires from property owners. But we can get to that later. We'll get to that later. Thank you.

I had a question on this HCDAC. What is that exactly?

It's a board that exist that is run through housing community development. It's advisory board that in the past had reviewed that impact report or the for the the one that I'm aware of, the mobile home park that changed or converted or closed, they reviewed the report that was submitted that was required by the state, and they weighed in on it and helped advise, I guess, the county to approve or ask for revisions to that original report.

So I'm a little confused. So have they been granted land use authority by the board of supervisors?

Oh, I don't believe they they have been granted land use authority. I believe that they're an advisory council that has more expertise in housing that would like to review the documents before planning department or the planning commission would approve or deny the project.

On the case of a I forget what you guys called it here, but the 25% gets triggered. You know, there's a rebuttal presumption and change of use. The the planning director makes a recommendation makes a determination with the recommendation from HCDAC. So it kinda sounds like they're being given land use authority in that scenario because they're directly affecting the use the current use with that recommend giving this recommendation to the planning director to make his determination. Seems like are outside the scope of a advisory body in housing and community development.

Should be I would think body in

I don't see the difference between that and and the other advisory committee. I mean, they make a recommendation to plan director, just like many of the our other advisory committees do do that as well.

But I think one of the changes that the that the planning commission was asking for at the last hearing was that that 25 determination come to the planning commission for a hearing and you guys remove that. And instead it seems like this this advisory body at housing and community development set gonna have more input on that process than the planning commission. That makes sense.

I think the it's the way that it's supposed to work is that it would on appeal, for example, if we were facing a 25% vacancy, situation and there ended up being a very legitimate reason for that And plan director said, yeah. This is this is completely okay that for them to have this vacancy. That could get appealed to the planning commission, and that would be the the form where it's sort of debated whether or not it's truly the 25% is, a you know, maybe beyond the owner's control or that, you know, there's some other other reason that, that vacancy rate exists. And so that I think that it's it's on the appeal, the appeal process where that would come to planning commission.

The ordinance is written that that appeal goes directly to the board of supervisor.

That's for the action of the conditional use permit change of use. This is for if a vacancy is determined or we say, hey. It looks like you might be trying to close it through vacancy or then planning direct

I might have missed it, but I did not see the appeal language in this. It's changed all the names on this thing, so I don't have I don't have the new lingo down yet. Rebuttal presumption, of change of use. I didn't see. Is is there appeal verbiage in there for that?

That's referencing the zoning ordinance section that says when the planning director makes Determination of the planning director to the your

That's right. That's right. Okay.

It wasn't in words. Yes. I did see that, but

I didn't I didn't go look that

up

to check that.

It's on page page five, the top letter g talks about that appeal.

So this list that you have on page two of your PowerPoint, October 20 planning, PC directed to revise include following. This doesn't seem to be a complete list of what we said in that hearing. I didn't get a chance to go back and watch that hearing. But is this a complete list or is this an abbreviated list? Because I thought that we the planning commission wanted to be the body that determines that it that, you know, approves the impact report. I specifically talking I don't see that here.

I mean, the planning commission is the body, and I don't believe that changed from the previous version. The relocation impact report is part of the conditional use permit approval or denial. I'd yeah. I don't recall that being different.

So alright. So my my question remains, is that a complete list of what we said at October 20, or is it an abbreviated list? And if you don't know, that's okay.

I would say it's abbreviated then.

So there were things that were that were removed that we there are changes that we wanted made that are that you guys removed and are not on this list.

No. I don't remember. I I Okay. I don't believe that's true, though. That's not

If it's not, that's fine. And if you don't know, that's fine.

Okay. I'd rather say I don't know.

I didn't get a chance to go watch that hearing to double check that. So that's why I'm asking. And I I I guess I'd have to ask, what is staff's plan to get this past the planning commission if the changes that we're essentially requiring are not made? Because this has to go through us before it goes to the board of soups. I don't know if we're just gonna keep going in a big circle for a long, long time or because I think the planning commission is gonna want to its concerns not put on some back page on your staff report to the board of soups, which is like the new norm now.

So I I you know, the way it it has worked historically is these types of ordinances and processes have mutated as they've gone through the public hearing process. And when it got to the planning commission, what the planning commission approved is what went to the board of soups. Now the board of soups can certainly change it at that point. Right? But this I'm just saying I don't I'm kinda curious what is staff's plan if the planning commission, you know, is adamant that it wants to approve what it wants to approve.

Because, you know, with the housing element I understand. Several examples with the housing element and other, processes lately where planning commission's ignored, staff does what it wants, staff does what its consultant wants, and the planning commission is ignored. So I'm I'm trying to get out if that's plan here, it's probably not gonna succeed.

I mean, it'd be interesting to know exactly what you're referring to in terms of things that the planning commission wanted to see, and we can certainly talk about the detail there.

The first bullet point. Right?

The yeah. The, you know, the the unincorporated service committee, and there's two members of the board of supervisors on that committee. And so we did you know, I believe that you were you were in attendance at night, and they were very clear about what they wanted to see in the ordinance, what they wanted us to take out. They also told us, you know, you don't have to necessarily go back and meet with the park residents. You don't have to meet with the park owners and try to, you know, to negotiate or mediate any longer. You go back to the planning commission, get their recommendation, and then bring it back to us. And so

But they didn't they the only thing we differed with them on is the first right of refusal. So the the first bullet point, they did not differ with us on that yet. You know, it's not in it's not in there. So so that's a decision you guys are making to not

And and we could we could track your changes and present those to the to the board of supervisors.

I don't know. That's what yeah. I I know that's

what If you wanna if you want us to rewrite it to to be in conflict with the board of supervisors that already directed, that would be an issue. But if you wanna add things that maybe you think that they didn't consider it.

I think we can

disagree with the board of supervisors. I don't think that

But we already got direction from them, though, on certain certain items and we would we would follow that direction.

Right. Before the okay. Well, you I guess you guys can do what you want. But from the planning commission standpoint, we may want to approve the version that we wanna see. And if changes are made to it after that, you know, the supervisors change their positions and have many times on this subject already on some of these items. So I I understand what was said at unincorporated services. I don't know that that's ironclad and is gonna be the case next time it comes to them with all the things that they deal with. They have a limited bandwidth on this around for any amount of time, you know that. I'm just, you know, I'm just bringing it up now, so it's not a surprise later.

Why I think that, you know, we should debate what the I hear from the public, and then whatever issues that you feel like need to be in the plan, we could discuss those. And if you wanted to see another draft that includes all that, we can certainly do that as well. Just as I mean, my only concern is that we take our direction from the board of supervisors. And so if there's a conflict, then we're gonna default there. I mean, that's just, you know, common sense. If you feel like there's certain things that the planning commission wants to see that maybe the board wasn't aware of or didn't fully debate, then I think we can certainly add those in so that they're aware that these things were lingering or or maybe that they didn't get a chance to look at it the last time they saw it in committee.

And I think that's part of the concern. That's why I'm saying that they they changed their you know, what it is they wanna see often and have already on this, you know, this this particular ordinance. You know, in discussions after that unincorporated services when certain things were raised, the supervisor's like, I didn't know that. I didn't realize it was like that. So, you know, that's like they're not getting the full story.

They're not, you know, you know, they're not absorbing the full story on everything because of all the things that they're dealing with all the time. So I'm just saying from the planning commission standpoint, we may want to approve the version of this ordinance that's not a that's that you aren't gonna put on the back. It's gonna be the version that goes to the board of suits. And then if they wanna change it, they certainly have the option to do that.

I mean, that

I'm just saying that may be what the planning commission wants to do based on what we've said prior to this. That's all.

Well, I think, you know, let's have the discussion and see where it goes because, you know, we don't know that's gonna be the case.

K. So let's start on public comment. First is Lindsey Wright.

Good evening. I would like to commend the diligence of the commissioners for their tireless efforts to make sure this ordinance was as fair and equitable as it could be. I am glad to see the right of first refusal still present and by showing their care and concern for struggling parks by having parks with a 25% vacancy rate, trigger a review process by an appropriate advisory committee to better understand why that park is struggling and what steps need to be taken to help it get back to thriving. I thank the planning commission for thinking of a hardship waiver for park owners but hold the opinion that state law has many safeguards in place for park owners already. I would also like to remind everyone that a fair return is not the most money a park owner can extract from their park.

However, this attention to detail does come at a cost, and that cost is time. The ordinance has been here for over a year now, and other agencies will still need to look at and make decisions swell on this ordinance. In a more abstract way of thinking, in the time this ordinance has spent here at the Planning Commission staged the process, I've lost three family members, a pet, and an organ. Last October, you may or may not remember this man. His name was Steve.

So it's him standing where I am standing now with his walker asking you to move this ordinance along. He passed away earlier this year, still hoping the ordinance would move forward. I ask in his name that you please do just that and move the ordinance forward. Thank you for your time tonight.

Alright. Let's go online to Tara Clancy.

Terry, are you there? I guess we'll move on to the next speaker, Saulo.

Are they being sent a notification that they need to speak?

I would agree. There's definitely something going on here. We can maybe you can take some in

in house. Hands up potentially more. What do you wanna do? Do you

have any more in house speakers so we can

I can go through those? You wanna work on that?

Yeah. We'll try

We'll do that. Next is Kristen Hackett.

My name is Kristen Hackett. I'm a community organizer with MyEden Voice. I'm here today with Mobile Home Park residents in Eden asking that you move this ordinance forward. We're not asking for your approval. We're asking for your recommendations today. You all have had the opportunity to review and discuss this conversion ordinance and overlay for mobile home parks for over a year now. The ordinance first came to you last April. We heard it in May. You guys reviewed it again in October. This ordinance would help preserve mobile home parks for current and future generations and protect the money and time that homeowners have invested in purchasing and maintaining their parts.

This is critical because mobile home parks are one of the few deeply affordable housing options for low income families, seniors, and disabled people in Eden, and it costs the public nothing to maintain them. Their mobile homeowners pay an average of $800 a month in rent, and that deep affordability translates into long term decades, multiple decades of stability, which is not something most low income people have access to. Our survey of 25 residents, at at least three of the largest eat parks in the Eden area, also tell us that if parks were closed and residents had to move out, all of them would become homeless tomorrow. I and the 66 other people that signed on to this letter that I'm reading right now, ask that you make decisions that are in the best interest of residents that call the parks home, and more specifically, that you make your recommendations tonight and not drag this on anymore. Thank you very much for your time.

Next is Judy Espinosa.

My name is Judy. Thank you for the work that's been done to get this ordinance finished and help protect our homes. My husband and I purchased our mobile home eight years ago with the intention of having a roof over our heads as we face retirement on a fixed income. Just as a reminder, we are not just renters. We have equity in our home to protect.

We have heard issues in these meetings of objections because of rundown homes possibly creating a reason for redeveloping these parks. I took offense to this as my home is in great condition, and we have invested a lot to purchase and maintain it. I see the same as well with my neighbors. We have regular inspection stents, which could address any issues one may have needing attention, which I feel is sufficient to maintain the park. We cannot afford to just pick up and leave everything we have, work so hard for, and start over.

We need this ordinance to protect our only livelihood from being stripped from us. Losing one's home is also an an an expense that we could not endure. For many, it could end up to being the homeless crisis in our adding to the homeless crisis in our state. We have no idea where we would go if we were kicked out. We need to maintain our affordable housing, not destroy what is already here. We appreciate this step towards gaining protections for all involved. Thank you.

Next is Paulette Lutz. After Paulette is Bill Lutz.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Paulette Lutz, and I'm an attorney and the owner of Paradise Trailer Park. My family has owned and operated our park since 1947. These are not abstract property rights to me. This is my family's life work, and these residents are my neighbors.

In your packet are the written materials I submitted detailing our legal objections to this ordinance. Tonight, I wanna focus on the vacancy and change of use provisions and explain why they will not hold up if challenged. I share the goal of protecting mobile home residents. However, to protect residents, the ordinance must stay within the bounds of the law. An ordinance that exceeds those bounds will only end up in court instead of helping the people it's meant to protect.

State law defines a change of use as using a park for a purpose other than renting or holding out for mobile home spaces. A park with vacant spaces is still holding those spaces out for rent. It has simply not yet found tenants. Vacancy is not a change of use under the legislature's own definition. The state also defines a mobile home park as any property where two or more mobile homes are located.

As long as the owner holds a valid permit to operate from California HCD, that park is legally operating. The county and HCD share an interest in protecting tenants, but this local vacancy rule puts the county in direct conflict with the state. The ordinance also defines mobile homes inconsistently with state law by sweeping in RVs and similar units that the legislature deliberately excluded. Aligning that definition with state law is a simple fix that would strengthen this ordinance. Finally, I must speak about Paradise Trailer Park.

We have been waiting for the county to act on our CUP renewal application for twenty one years. The existing CUP has conditions that actively discourage us from refilling the spaces and the twenty one year delay has driven away buyers and lenders and tenants. The county created the condition that caused our vacancies yet this ordinance would penalize our park for them. My request is simple. Vacancies caused by the county's action or inaction must be exempt from any vacancy rate calculation.

That one step would do more to stabilize our community than anything else in this ordinance. The deep irony here is that this ordinance is designed to protect protect tenants and residents. But if the county deems Paradise Trailer Park closed due to vacancies it created, it's our residents would lose their homes. This ordinance as written would accomplish exactly the opposite of what it is intended. Thank

you.

Paulette's after Bill Ishara Alethian.

Good evening. My name is Bill Lutz. My wife, Paulette, who you just heard, and her siblings own Paradise Trailer Court. Paulette's family built and operated it since 1947. I wanna talk about the part of this ordinance that would let residents block the sale of the of a property. Here here's what it does. The moment a notice of intent is filed, any resident organization can step in and freeze the sale for up to a hundred and eighty days. Yes. Six months. We need to read the fine print on this thing.

There is no requirement that the resident group have any intent to purchase. No deposit, no proof of financing, no signed commitment of any kind. They can just stop the sale and then walk away six months later having spent nothing and risk nothing. Meanwhile, the actual parties are left paying carrying costs, potentially losing buyers, and running up legal fees for half a year. To be clear, this is not a purchase.

It is a veto. The resident group with no ability or even intent to complete a purchase can use this provision to defeat a sale entirely. That is not a right of first refusal. That is a right to obstruct. Now there is actually a state law that gives residents real purchase rights when a park converts a to resident ownership.

That is a sensible protection. That law does not apply here. This ordinance is misapplying that concept to a completely different situation where the legislation never intended. In in fact, the legislation specifically considered creating this kind of provision statewide just two years ago and voted it down. The right to sell your own property is fundamental.

Paulette's family has owned this part for nearly eighty years. Yeah. Eight decades. This provision takes that right, hands it to a a hands a veto to a third party who does not have a risk have to risk a dime and does it with no basis in state law. The commission voted six to one to remove this provision in the past. We're asking you to stand by that vote again. Thank you.

Herra Alikian. After Herra is Sean Alikian.

Good evening, commissioners and county staff. I am a second generation Alameda County park operator and resident. Resident. What we have before us is an ordinance that has unintended consequences and solutions creating more problems for residents and park owners. This process started at the request of supervisor Miley and HCD staff, specifically Jennifer Pierce's April 2025 memo to create a local closure ordinance to help fill the gaps that occurred in the state's mobile home park closure process, specifically in the closure of Trytel.

The first version was a park overlay, the second, a closure and conversion, and now before you is a change of use. When the ask was to create a fair local park closure ordinance for residents, operators, and county staff to follow should an Alameda County mobile home park plan to close. Staff's most recent draft seems to follow reaction from a tenant advocacy group that reaches far into private property rights with the first right of refusal and the vacancy factor to terminate park closure. There is no level of vacancy that defines a park closure under state law. In fact, the mobile home residence allows specifically states that two or more mobile homes on the property create a mobile home park and require the state HCD permit to operate such a facility.

The California permit to operate dictates the use of these properties, not a vacancy factor. In the event the vacancy that affects the park is over a 25% threshold, park owners are presumed to have acted in bad faith, guilty, and must prove innocence. There are circumstances that can cause these issues, family health issues, ability to manage increasing more requirements, natural disasters, insurance matters, infrastructure issues, state building code, and permitting requirements that may be prohibitive or impossible to recover from. The same circumstances exist for residents, their health, age, unit conditions, factors into their ability to have homes that meet health and safety that are acceptable to the state building code and the facility's insurance requirements. This draft recreates homelessness, requiring park operators to close their facilities when these circumstances arise.

Instead, the county should be looking at ways to help secure healthy living conditions for the residents they are causing to be homeless by helping repair their homes, providing funds for repairs and permits to make their homes code compliant, and to help both the mobile home park residents and operators by having safe and healthy code compliant conditions. Alameda County should also seek ways to assist park owners to upgrade infrastructure to allow for new code compliant homes to replace existing old infrastructure and old unhealthy homes and assist in producing qualified residents for the new homes. Many mobile home parks exist on nonconforming uses, grandfathered on property that is zoned for other uses. These decisions were made twenty to thirty years ago to allow for increased density and replacement of aging housing stock. Please review the general plans, make good decisions, and help park operators provide the housing services they provide.

Allow a local park closure ordinance to better serve everyone. Remember, nothing lasts forever. We all expire.

Evening, commissioners and county staff. Thank you guys for your time. I could read from a script, but in all honesty, keep as I keep hearing everybody talk, you know, whether it's residents or park management, know, I like to keep things fluid. And one of the things I realized is when commissioner Silva asked county staff, is this more of a restrictive or stricter ordinance and going above and beyond what the state allows? Yes.

It is. Yes. It is. We started out with a park closure ordinance that was the impetus of it was because of a bad faith operator of a park trying to evict residents and pass through rent control ordinance or rent control raises that were contrary to the ordinance that we already have passed in Alameda County. And now we ended up with this, like, revision number 19 of some document that no one even understands what it is anymore.

And I think you can

tell the fatigue. I can tell the fatigue from the commissioners, commissioner Silva, and chair Crawford when they ask staff, like, how did we get here? How did we get here? We're not serving the public. We're not serving residents, park ownership, or the community at large by making complicated, duplicitous types of rules and regulations. And as people before me spoke, the the underlying zoning of these parks have been changed by commissioners and the planning commission and whoever else in the past. These are nonconforming uses already. So we can sit here and create a document or the county can create a document saying that we wanna preserve this type of housing, preserve the rights. But the reality of this, they've changed the zoning up from underneath these parks already. So it's like, what are we doing here?

No one to date, park management wise or ownership wise, has come to the county at any level and said, we wanna redevelop our parks except for Traytel, which happened seven, eight years ago, which ended up being a net benefit to the community as a whole. So my question to to the county and to the public is what are we doing complicating these things that nobody can even understand anymore? We have these layers upon layers upon layers that are emotionally driven and not driven by common sense. Let's provide a benefit to the community, to the residents by giving and outlining a closure ordinance that defines how they'll be they'll be compensated if a park closes. Let's outline a step by step process how it needs to be done.

Check the boxes if there's if there's gonna be a change of use and go from there. But, you know, go ahead and and 25% vacancy through attrition. If even if you end up with a 100% vacancy in some of these parks, you still have to go through a process. And park management and ownership is penalized by not collecting revenue over the ten, twenty years. It'll get to even get to a 100% revenue or or vacancy.

So the 20 we don't agree. I don't agree with the 25% vacancy factor. And what happens, we have to go now apply for a CUP that we never had before when we hit 25% vacancy because of maybe economic downturn or because obsolescence of some of these homes have to get pulled out of the park. You know, we're we are our businesses are dictated by demand. And if we can't fill spaces, now we have to go get a CUP from the county to keep our park open. It doesn't make any sense. Let's keep it simple and move forward and protect all parties involved. Thank you.

And Williams, our online problem fixed?

Yes.

Okay.

Evening, everyone.

I'm Ken Williams, a mobile home park owner in the county of Alameda. I'm a retired economic professor who has taught over fifty years at various colleges and universities in the Bay Area. I absolutely love my discipline. It provides insights that follow from the study of economics are very often counterintuitive. This is absolutely the case with a government having good intentions has created a disaster that comes from their intruding into the marketplace.

Government intrusion is the same thing as price fixing. President Jimmy Carter was a very humble and deeply religious man who proved over his lifetime how much he cared for his fellow man. He was a very capable intellect as he was a captain of a nuclear submarine in the US Navy and, of course, a 2,002 Nobel Prize priest Prize recipient. However, his good intentions were not enough. When he capped the price of gas, it immediately created shortages and market distortions.

When the government implemented various controls in Detroit, the result was a nasty deterioration of housing quality in those areas. The lesson is always the same and without exception. Government intrusion leads to market distortion and end up hurting the very people the government's trying to help. Similarly, Alameda County is headed for such a disaster. No matter what the planning commission or the board of supervisor rules in the near future, nothing's going to stop the TOCs, the transit oriented communities, and its counterpart, CHIP, the citywide housing city programs which have proved so popular in Los Angeles, will create high density building projects to provide easy access to public transportation.

Think in the future, however problematic the court resolutions will become when your municipalities discover they're on the hook for all the relocation and purchase of mobile homes they have to remove. And the local government will, in addition, have to pay all the increased rent and perpetuity if you look carefully at your proposal. The planning commission needs to refresh their reading of their old economic textbooks. Let me be clear. The hundreds of decisions that must be made to run a successful business does not need government oversight.

Why? Because ample controls are already in place. Landlords, as has been pointed out, must satisfy the buying public. From my over forty years experience, I can tell anyone with absolute certainty that if my rent is 5% above market price, no one calls. If my rent's 5% below market price, the phone rings off the hook. If I don't maintain the park, people leave or sue me for lack of landlord's maintenance.

Hems up.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So let's move let's move to our online speakers.

I'll call the names, and, Yeni will allow them to speak. The first up is Saulo.

Hi. Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Great. Good evening, commissioner. Solo with WMA. At the start of this process, county supervisors asked staff to draft an ordinance that would create a simple to follow framework for park closure so the try tell situation wouldn't happen again.

The supervisors asked county staff to produce a bare minimum ordinance that would meet basic requirements and adhere to state law. The document that has been presented to you tonight is simply not what the supervisors asked for. It's also not what this planning commission asked for either when it voted six to one to remove items like right of first refusal. But you know this. The ordinance before you tonight goes way beyond basic needs, way beyond state protections, which are already really strong, by the way, severely infringes property rights, leaves the county liable both legally and financially while going directly against the spirit of the law.

Frankly, much of this effort over the last two years is just an outright assault on the property rights of park owners, an assault that these housing providers don't need and they don't deserve it. Policies based on the flawed concept of conversion through vacancy, right of first refusal, application triggered rent freezes, These are all unwarranted attacks on affordable housing providers in your community. And if enacted, it will surely dictate future investments decisions. Park owners at every step of the way have proposed a simple and legal pathway for closure. These pathways are based on real world examples, not on untested policy theories designed to make it financially unfeasible for any parks in your community to ever be closed or converted in the future.

Following that path would extremely shortsighted decision given the future housing needs of the county. We work with elected officials and park owners all over the state. And let me tell you, well run jurisdictions are just not passing radical policy like this. Please direct your staff to provide you with a sensible sensible draft that removes all the extremely troubling elements raised by the park owners. Thank you for your time.

Next up is Leo Goldberg.

Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Leo Goldberg. I work with Rock USA, a national nonprofit that supports mobile home residents in forming cooperatives and buying their parks. Data from the state of California shows that 102 parks closed between 2016 and 2025, roughly nine year period.

The closed parks contained about 4,500 manufactured housing lots. That's about five zero six lots closed each year for the last nine years. Those are homeownership opportunities for working families that aren't coming back. And in Bay Area's challenging housing market, mobile homes are particularly critical to preserve. Even if park owners aren't planning on closing, as we've heard today, we need to be ready for what they or their successors will do in years to come.

That means a strong and fair closure ordinance that prepares us for when those owners do decide to close their parks, And that means an ordinance that gives residents the chance to submit an offer and keep their communities in place while also being attentive to high vacancy rates that can amount to closure even when that is not the stated intent of the owners. Rights of first refusal during mobile home park closure or sale exist in states and local laws across the country. Those laws have not damaged the market for parks and when at but at the same time, they have supported the residents in taking ownership of almost 400 parks across the country in the last several years. I thank the staff for their work on developing this ordinance, encourage the planning commission to move this ordinance on in the policy making process. Thank you.

Speaker is Daniel Weisfield.

Hi. Can you hear me?

You're a little low. If you could speak up, please.

Okay. I'll try and speak up. Good evening, commissioners. I think Alameda County is cutting off its nose despite its face by proposing this ordinance. The reality is forever is a long time.

When these parks were hastily built in the nineteen forties, no one thought that these mobile home parks were the holy grail of planning and zoning, which society should preserve in amber in perpetuity. This is an emotional issue, but let's be clear eyed. If society's goal is to create more affordable housing twenty years from now or fifty years from now, then the county should be open to redeveloping mobile home parks to a higher density use. Mobile home parks are a non conforming use, which don't comply with zoning, are moderate density, not high density, are a single story height, and in many cases have failing infrastructure. State law already imposes numerous barriers to redeveloping mobile home parks, which already make it extremely hard to redevelop mobile home parks in California.

Why does Alameda County want to make it even harder? The honest answer is the county is trying to force mobile home park owners, who own these parks as private property, to permanently provide affordable housing for the benefit of the county. As discussed in the landmark US Supreme Court case Armstrong versus United States, that is the definition of an unlawful regulatory taking of private property. To quote from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Amendment of United States constitution was designed to bar the government from forcing some private citizens alone to bear public burdens, which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. This proposal is unnecessary.

It conflicts with state law. It's an extreme violation of park owners' property rights. It will absolutely chill the market, and it disrupts market forces which are healthy because they allow land uses to evolve over time. Again, forever is a long time. Thank you.

Speaker, Teri Ardine.

Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Tahira Dean. I'm an attorney at Public Advocates, and I've been working in coalition with the Public Interest Law Project and other advocacy groups and nonprofits to understand what mobile home park residents in Alameda need to live sustainably. And we believe that this current ordinance is a a great step towards, helping these tenants or these residents rather.

And we have pre sent, in the last few weeks, a letter that provides even more specific recommendations that we have. We're currently particularly concerned about the current hardship hardship exemption given to park owners for the relocation benefits. The current standard set states it should be oh, sorry. The standard should be deprivation of all economically viable use of the property and not unreasonable financial hardship. As drafted, this section could result in relocation assistance lower than the minimum relocation assistance required by state law.

As a PIP, public advocates and central legal explained in the April 2 letter that was sent to you guys, the waiver provision should allow for a full or partial waiver of the ordinance's requirements only in situations where compliance with the ordinance would affect in unconstitutional taking. We ask that you just review again what's currently in this draft ordinance and and make sure that it's in line with state law. But overall, we are really, you know, pleased with with the progress that's been made, and we really hope that you can push this along. Unlike previous speakers that have stated that there's confusion with the ordinance or, that it exceeds, the majority of of what the state has set in line, we disagree with that and we really hope that people can, you know, come to speak to us if they're confused about what the ordinance says or or secure better legal assistance for that because it's it's it's not something that's a very foreign concept. And there are other jurisdictions that have already gone forward with this type of ordinance.

So we applaud your efforts and hope that we can see this continue, and please look to us for any support that you need. Thank you.

Speaker is a a phone number that ends in 8426. 426, are you there? Zoom mute your mic. You have to hit 9 to unmute your, telephone.

It says

You are.

Can you hear me? Yes. Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes. We can hear you. Go ahead.

Yes. Greetings, commissioners. I'm Talman Vibanco Paradise Trailer Court. I would like to start with I want to stay in my home and protect my community. I wanna say that our landlord has told us he doesn't wanna close a park, but make no mistake.

Regardless of what happens with our park, this type of housing is in high demand. I have lived here since 1999, and people have been coming here through here weekly asking if anything is open to rent here. They were not before years past. Now more than ever, they are coming through asking if there's somewhere to rent here. Displacing us is a solution looking for a problem.

We need to move towards resident ownership to preserve our housing. Construction costs are going up with no end in sight, and that makes housing that is already in place a cheaper alternative to building new homes. And I want to have an understanding that also that the ordinance needs to have clear rules that can be enforced for the good of both park owners and residents. So with that, I just wanna say thank you for listening, and that's all.

Next speaker up is Tara Clancy.

Thank you.

Hi. Are you here? Can I hear me? Yes. Perfect. Good evening. My name is Tara Clancy. I am a mobile homeowner in Castro Valley. I wanna thank you for meeting out with us today, and thanks to the planning department for working so hard on this ordinance. I'm pleased to see that there has been positive progress, and this is getting very close to being ready.

But I would like to discuss a few things which we believe still need work. Although our goal is to see the ordinance move through the already delayed process as quickly as possible, we need to make sure that this ordinance is 100% in line with state laws and builds upon the laws which support our how our ongoing housing crisis. One major concern that I have is the overlay component. In 2024, our supervisors committed to developing a mobile home park overlay as part of our cow county's housing element in order to protect and preserve low income housing and comply with the state's housing crisis act. The overlay was originally a major part of this ordinance, but it has since been dropped.

In addition to the housing element, I believe the overlay could help strengthen the section of the ordinance regarding the closure by attrition. Recently, there have been rumors about parks being forced to close if they are found to have too many vacancies. And although that's not the intention, an overlay could help clarify this issue and prevent future misinterpretation. Most importantly, since the state's requirement is

Is clock not working? Why is the clock not working? Okay. Go ahead and finish Tara.

Thank you. Most importantly, since the state's requirement is for counties to maintain housing options for residents at all income levels, an overlay would help prevent our already existing low income housing from being systematically replaced by million dollar developments and clarify how and when a conditional use permit could be approved, including requirements to replace lost units at the same affordability and information about the future planned use of a site. This would prevent approvals which could result in a net loss of low income housing and focus on keeping residents housed, but most importantly, be in compliance with the state's housing crisis act. We also believe that there are a few sections which could directly cite government codes and reference the state laws for clarity. This is important because there have been many previous attempts to purposefully misconstrue ordinance language, which ends up costing time and money to fight legally.

We feel it is much more responsible to clarify the language wherever possible now. Several of these items are described in the assistance letters that were submitted to you from the public interest law group and others, including some definition, details about notices, references regarding the relocation plan, changes to the waiver language, etcetera. These may seem a little bit minor now, but they could be the source of litigation in the future, so we'd like to see them strengthened. You can reference those letters for the exact codes. We still have many more steps to climb through before this is finalized, so I ask you to please make your recommendations and pass this on to the next phase. Thank you.

Speaker up is Heidi Berger.

Hi. Good evening. I just want I'm Heidi from, Chatwood Crest Mobile Home Park. And I just wanted to come on and say that, the original intent was to fill in the gaps in the park closure ordinance process based on the experience from a park closure. What we have morphed into is something far greater than just filling in the holes and closing the loop to make it a more successful process.

So I, you know, I just wanted to say it's it's it's morphed into way more, and it would be great if we could circle back to the original idea and fill in those gaps, which was the original intent of why we were all getting together to meet. I hope everyone has a wonderful evening. Thank you for listening. Thanks.

That's the last speaker on line.

Okay. I'm gonna close public comment. Who wants to start? See Andy's oh, Andy's hands up. You go ahead.

Thanks, mister chair. I just wanted to start by circling back to what was discussed before the beginning of public comment, which was the planning commissions requested changes to the ordinance and what we have before us today. And I just wanna be very clear that that incorporate the unincorporated services committee is a subcommittee of the board of supervisors that cannot direct the planning commission. It could ask the planning commission to do things. It can provide feedback to the planning commission, but the planning commission is not bound by a vote of a subcommittee of the board of supervisors nor, in fact, are we bound by a vote of the full board of supervisors.

If an item is referred to us within our scope, we are allowed to pass a version of the item that the majority of the commissioners support. Given we're appointed by the board of supervisors, it's unlikely to be very different, But that is the purpose of the planning commission is to provide an advisory opinion with our version of a proposal to the board of supervisors. So, you know, if we ask for changes to come before us, then it would be wise for those to be brought to us that we can vote on. And if the board asks for something different, I would not be envious to be in that staff position, but perhaps bringing, you know, what we asked for and what they asked for so it's easier to vote on. Sometimes trying to make these changes on the diocese is just very challenging when the language isn't prepared.

In terms of the substance of the ordinance itself, I am concerned about some of the definitions that were raised in one of the letters that we saw around disability, in particular, that disability is defined, but then not in the protections themselves. And so I just wanted to clarify that that wasn't an omission. The same thing with legal residents. The folks who have status to file claim or have residency is defined elsewhere in statute, and so I'm not sure why a park closure ordinance would create its own definition of tenancy when tenancy is very clear in state law. So I those are two questions for staff, if I could get answers to those before my other questions.

Can you repeat the question, Andy? I'm sorry. I didn't quite pick that up.

Yeah. So there's a definition that the legal resident is referred to in the draft, and it's unclear to me why we would be creating a additional set of, criterion for residency when residency is defined in state law.

Are you referring to the definition for eligible resident?

Mhmm.

Is there a specific, language in there that do you think we shouldn't be def defining that at all or that it's the way that it's defined that you have a concern with?

One of the letters raised concerns over the term legal being used that that could be interpreted to apply to citizenship status or any other host of issues. But my larger concern, although I agree with that concern, is simply residency is defined in state law. I don't know why we need to I don't I don't know why there was a reason that we put that in there if that was just casual language.

Understood. Okay. And which letter do you know where that came from?

Which I think it was from, think it was the letter from perhaps it was my voice. It was the same letter that raised the question about disabled residents was defined, but then there was no specific benefits or or additional or or treatment for disabled residents. And we can circle back to that. That was just a concern that I had. And if that's not right in front of you, Albert, I can find it and reference the letter more specifically.

K.

And then the other question I had was about the issue raised by park owners around the appraised value having to do with permitted versus unpermitted, and we've heard a lot about that today pre prior to today. And I just was curious, Is the language we're using here pretty standard for how we define that elsewhere? And what I mean is, we creating a new are we creating a new specific process for this ordinance that would treat permanent or unpermitted structures differently than anything else we do, or do we we generally consider the permitted status when we come to do appraisals elsewhere in the county? So, you know, taxes or other building permits or other venues ratios?

I don't think we're creating a a a new definition. I mean, I think permitted structure is it's pretty much what it says. If there are building permits for something, then they would be included in the appraised value. And if there was no building permit record, then it they wouldn't be considered part of the permitted structure. And it's not I don't know that we really define that in many other places in the zoning code or anything like that. It is it I mean, in this particular context, it is a a term of art. I mean, it's really meant to capture the only those structures on a mobile home lot that are permitted.

Okay. That makes sense. I was just trying to make sure I was clear on where that came from. And then the I I didn't agree with the comments made by the public about the vacancy, definitions or the inclusion of the RVs or other types of housing beyond just, like, traditional mobile homes, But I did think it was a point that was worth asking if the ordinance is drafted in such a way that should those provisions be found to violate state law or otherwise be unconstitutional if they are drafted in such a way that they're severable from the rest of the ordinance.

I I can respond to that. There's a severability portion in the ordinance, I believe.

Fantastic. And that was the only other substantive thing I wanted to bring up was the right of first refusal. I don't particularly think it matters whether we do it here tonight or not. We've taken it out. It's come back in. It's going out. I think the board of supervisors is pretty clear on how they're gonna end up wanting to do that one way or the other, and it's gonna be their decision. I think we could spend a lot of time trying to relitigate that here, but they're gonna spend a lot of time relitigating whatever our proposal is there. So I'm not asking that we don't discuss it. I'm just saying that I I don't think our, determination is gonna match their determination regardless of what we sort out.

But I do think that there is a balance there. And should should it be put back in or should it come up at the board, I do think that there are ways to do it in such a way that folks can have an opportunity to have one bite at the apple, but not every bite at the apple. And in a lot of ways, the best thing that could happen for us would be that if folks wanted to sell, it would be to the park residents. But that's a very hard thing for us to force, but it is an opportunity that I think we can provide. And I do wanna be cognizant that there are logistical concerns.

I also wanna be cognizant that anyone who decides to sell a very large parcel like this for future development is going to be going through a very long process with developer side financing. It's not gonna be, like, selling a single unit. And so, you know, adding adding timelines in that overlap is not as deleterious since they were separate. Otherwise, I'm curious what other commissioners have flagged. But I do hope that, I do hope that whatever folks wanna do tonight, that we can move something forward because I think that despite this not being ready to pass, know, if it's not ready to go into the statute, I certainly think the planning commission has done our job in having hearings on this and hearing public feedback and giving our feedback.

And, you know, the board of supervisors is ultimately gonna have to decide on some of the the Nuance policy issues, and I think that it's time to give them an opportunity to do so. If they are unable to do so, they can always send it back to us. But I think given the politics of it, it's gonna get bounced back and forth if it I just don't know if we

can hear it

a bit then.

Excuse me, vice chair Kelly. But if I may and so I can tell the entire commission and the public. The agenda does not provide, any, available action to the planning commission tonight to forward this item to the board of supervisors. Simply says it's to review the draft ordinance.

My apologies for that comment then. I do hope that soon when we get changes to this again, that it can be forwarded by us to the board. Thank you.

I I just wanna acknowledge, you know, the folks who have been engaging in good faith. All of us here, both of whether that's commissioners or each other or our staff or the board of supervisors, I think, you know, this is kind of like, you know, what representative democracy looks like. We get the ideas out in a public forum. We we discuss them. We talk about what's best for the community.

So I think everyone here really cares about their community. I do think there's some areas of of of disagreement, but I also think we started down this path because we wanted more clarity here in Alameda County of how both residents and property owners could follow the rules in a way that felt transparent and didn't feel like anyone, didn't understand what would be happening next, right, in a process that let's be real. In many cases, these have been people's homes for a majority of their lives, or, in some cases, property owners have owned these intergenerationally. So I think it means a lot to everyone involved here. So just acknowledging that to start with, that I think everyone has a fair interest and stake at what's going on here.

So even though we all feel passionately and maybe not always exactly the same on maybe each specific outcome, I just wanted to start with that comment. The I'll start with points of agreement I have with my commissioner fellow commissioner Kelly. I am concerned about the definitions that are were raised in in some of the letters, around residency. I think I think the intention is clear that we wanna make sure that we're acknowledging people that are, you know, eligible residents on a lease or, you know, have a have a history of, maybe documented history of paying the the rent or utilities on the site. Like, basically saying, like, they have a right to be there because I think, knowing who's on the lease also helps you figure out how you pay for moving costs.

Like, you're if gonna get into a relocation situation, who are you relocating for? Are you relocating for the four people on the lease, or are you relocating for 10 people who happen to say they're living there now? You know, you you kinda gotta go by what's in the contract. Right? So I I think kinda if if there's a way for staff to maybe address the definitions issue, I don't know, Andy, I don't know if there's one accepted state definition of of tenant.

I mean, maybe Berkeley has a definition we can borrow from. But I think making sure that that definition is something that people are comfortable with, but also it both protects residents and and the property owners because what this is is a legal process that if a park owner was to go through this, they'd have to say, okay. If I'm gonna calculate all these things, I need to know who I'm calculate them for. Right? I do I do appreciate that.

I do appreciate that it lays out a little bit of a road map in this ordinance. I do have, some concerns, though. I do think right of first refusal sounds really attractive as a policy, and I think it gives a lot of hope that that something can get hammered out if if a notice is given that a park will be closed. I think the time to hammer something out was probably yesterday. Right? Start as soon as you can is what I'm offering. Work with a community land trust, get the board of supervisors to appropriate some amount of money to purchase your park. Look at options today. I mean, you should start now and say, I want tell go to your park ownership and say, I've got a petition from every resident here that's interested in buying the park from you. You know?

And I and I think that's a conversation. There's nothing stopping anyone from transacting today, tomorrow, the next day. And I think it has to be in conversation, though. It says, hey. If we can put together some philanthropy, grant money, our own money to form a co op, a land trust, I I think there's a lot of interest about that kind of activity here in the Bay Area. It's happening every it's happening. Again, I think Andy has a land trust in Berkeley. This is happening everywhere. So I think I think it it's it's a real conversation. Saying, well, we're only gonna have the conversation if and when a park owner has already found a willing buyer. It's really kind of late in the conversation. Right? I I I think that's sort of everyone's back's against the wall. They're frustrated. It's not productive.

And to be honest, I don't know that having this in the ordinance makes that possibility more real. It does is maybe just causes more friction between park ownership and residents. So I I wouldn't support it only because I don't actually think it'll deliver the outcomes everyone's hoping it will.

I do

think conversation should start today or in the next day about, hey. If we wanted to own this, like, could we get in conversation with ownership about that? What would that look like? Some of the other provisions I think I was interested in is just making sure that the way we're calculating our obligations, I'd love it if you know, not for us, but if this ordinance now goes to a committee of the board of supes or it comes back to us, just a comparison of what's required under s b three thirty and then, and then what we're proposing on top of that. Because state law does say if you build new housing, the replacement units have to be this type of income level, and and and you have to offer people right of return.

And there there's so much wrapped up into what the state already does require. It's always helpful to have a little bit of a side by side comparison, for us. Not that the and, by the way, I think the county in this instance should be clear and, in some cases, go beyond the state. I'm just saying not understanding the the differences clearly side by side for all of us, whether you're a decision maker on this board or or if you're member of the public, a little bit hard to follow, if you're not in the weeds of this stuff. And honestly, you could you could get stacks of paper and make your own chart, but it it it's a lot of difficulty figuring that out. I I'm just gonna leave my comments there, but, certainly appreciate, like, from my fellow commissioners tonight.

When reviewing all these documents and reading all the paperwork, the one thing I actually made sure I put a star was this paragraph. And it says, consideration of all these issues in in the context of mobile home parks tendencies require fines, the appropriate balance between a calm understanding of our society and our property owners have a right to control who is on their land and public power, powers to provide mobile homeowners and mobile home parks with their security of tenure. These issues are likely to remain in the front forefront in future litigation regarding the validity of closure laws. The whole thing is all we're trying to do is I'm gonna when and they're already saying it themselves. We're just trying to be fair and try to make it balanced for everybody what we're doing.

I actually liked what we did our last meeting on the issues we brought up on the real presumptive of change, which was the 25% we're taught, I actually kinda still agree with that. The right of first refusal, I still personally with our standings, what we made, respectfully, I mean, the the supervisors wanna change it. That's fine. That's my opinion. And I'd like to hear more discussion on our hardship waiver, what we're discuss us.

I'll I agree with other commissioners when we're talking about the definitions. I remember when I was reading the paperwork going and I actually like to say it more come from the staff, not from another source. But I agree with what you're bringing up because there's a lot of questions I had when

I was reading through that.

That's all I have. Mister Silva. Thank you, chair Crawford.

Both Andy and Vince alluded to a problem with definitions. I think I I I def the biggest problem I have actually is in this letter that we've we got two like this. It's from a number of different sources. If I can just read quickly, they're concerned about the definition of eligible residents. We are concerned this is my concern too, and I think it's shared.

We are concerned that the phrase legal resident in the definitions is ambiguous and could lead park owners to demand residents provide information about their immigration status in violation of state law or to attempt to deny relocation assistance to undocumented individuals. So I think that's a concern with that definition that might please be addressed. Also, with reference to the disabled, there there is a reference to disabled in on on page four of the draft ordinance wherein under certain circumstances, a a person over 62 or a disabled person cannot have their rent increased for two years as opposed to one year for others. So that that's the reference to disabled that that I found. To I agree with commissioner Kelly's thought that the the board of Soups is gonna come up is is gonna want a right of first refusal ordinance.

And I'd like to encourage the board to present one that, in my estimation, is reasonable. I'd like to throw it out there that the tenants have a right to first refusal or first refusal, and that decision needs to be made formal within seven days of the product going on the on the market. Now why do I think seven days is enough time? Well, a notice of intent to apply for a conditional use permit is made sixty days in advance of has to be spent sixty days before it'll be heard. And also during that sixty days, the tenants have to speak up and say, yes.

We want to we want we we wanna pursue buying this. Within fifteen days after that, there has to be a meeting. And with sixty day sixty days after that, there has to be a formal proposal, which we'll give on page seven of the ordinance, the proposed purchase price and pricing methodology, identification of the purchasing entity, evidence of financial capacity, and that's a big one, of course, evidence of financial capacity or a plan for securing financing, and proposed timeline for due diligence and closing. So all that, the tenants have sixty days to come up with the plan. Two months.

I think that's adequate. Then the property can go on the market and, yeah. The seller has seven days to agree to it. So I would like to I'd like to just throw that out there. I think I think it it's fair to the owners. It gives the tenants enough time to come up with financing in the organization, and it it would satisfy the need that the supervisors are looking for to come up with something to address this issue. I

think the that's that's my biggest problem is the first right of refusal because I've I've been in the real estate industry for forty years, and I've never seen a situation where the government was able to step in and tell somebody they couldn't sell their property. This would be a first. I mean, obviously, unless, you know, it had, like, toxic waste on it or some some very extreme examples. And normal real estate transaction is usually done in sixty days. So if somebody was gonna if they were just gonna sell this trailer park to somebody else, gonna buy it as a trailer park.

That that whole process is sixty days. Know, when you go in contract, you've got five days, seven days to provide prequalification with lender that you've got the you know, you can get approved for a loan to purchase it. So that you know, I I agree that you're you've got a six month sort of moratorium here on going into contract with another buyer plus two months makes it eight months. And I just I just I just don't think it's legal. I don't think it'll stand up in court.

I don't know what the status is of the county of San Mateo or the city of San Leandro's version of this because they both have ordinances that are similar to this with some similar requirements. But this this whole thing about first right of refusal, if you get if you get past the ridiculous timelines we're talking about here, how do you how do you and I asked this last time, and you guys haven't addressed it in any way. And to me, it's like the biggest problem with this first right of refusal is the the most likely scenario in any of these situations is gonna be redevelopment. And the value of the property with an entitled project approved on it is probably double what it is as a mobile home park, maybe more depending on what the density is. And how do how do you account for that in this first right of refusal?

How do you so, I mean, is the government is the county telling these property owners that they can only sell their property as a mobile home park, that they don't have the right to develop it? Because that's the way this is written, that's basically what it is. You and and you've you know, with all this with all this fraud that you're reading about these days involving the government, state government, $24,000,000,000 in housing funds that nobody seems to know where it went, no one can account for it, setting this whole situation up for some NGO to come in and buy this with government money or whatever wherever the money came from is probably not that difficult. We actually heard from I think we heard from a from an NGO tonight that, you know, it's like a national, NGO that works on this kind of thing. So before we, like, make this an ordinance and make it a law, how how are we dealing with that?

Because of if it's if it's worth $5,000,000 as mobile home park and it's worth $10,000,000 as, you know, a 100 unit multifamily project, what do we how are we bridging that gap? Are we with this ordinance, are we telling these these property owners, no. You can only get the 5,000,000. We're we're taking the other 5,000,000. I'm addressing that. And that's that seems like it needs to be addressed because that's the most likely scenario if if these mobile home parks are gonna close. I have Well yeah. I'd like to before and

And I, you know, I might be paraphrasing or looking at the wrong section, but I I I believe that the way that it was written is that whatever whatever price tag that the owner is offering to the general public is the same price tag that the that the park residents have to compete for. I mean, I agree. You're you're right. I mean, an entitled project is would be more valuable, but I think that's the whole purpose of the the the right of first refusal is that if I wanna sell the park for 10,000,000, then they can and they can give me my 10,000,000, then, you know, that's fine. I mean, I think that's the that's the the way that it's the way it's intended to work.

Any council?

That's accurate from that provision. But I also just wanted to add on that there are some there is at least one state law that provides for a right of first refusal, but it's the Ellis Act. So in the Ellis Act, if a landlord takes a building off the market, that's how you do an Ellis Act eviction. The tenants do have a right of first refusal to come back onto the property. Now I don't know the ins and outs of that law. I'm just saying this is not this is we're not doing something that has not been done potentially by the state. I'd have to take a look at that.

And but I it's kinda apples and oranges because, you know, in in the Ellesack situation, you're talking about more or less already developed property that already has multi families permanent multi family structures on it.

That's correct.

Single family homes.

But you're also saying that you're you're not allowing that that landowner to do what they want with their property necessarily or do certain development with it because these tenants do have that right. So I'm just coloring that in as, you know, that does exist.

Under the Ellis Act? Right. Okay. But in

Go ahead. I think

there might be a point of maybe clarify where the Ellis Act my understanding here is that is a right to return, and to our buyer unit is different than the right of first refusal to purchase the property. So, yeah, maybe clarifying the difference.

That's true. It's a different of timing. I'm just saying, I'm offering this as, hey. This exists out there. This isn't, you know, complete.

Difference, though. Right of return versus you have to sell it to me?

No. What I'm saying is it prohibits the owner from doing what they want with the property before a third party takes action on it, which is what we're contemplating here. I'm sorry. Not a third party. Before an existing resident or tenant who has rights to the property take makes an offer on it or gets involved. There is a if if you're making a takings argument, that is something that was considered by the state when they enacted the Ellis Act.

Right. So is there some timelines on the Ellis Act? Is it six months, nine months? Is there

Could look into that and get back to you.

Okay. So so there's

the time issue, but there's also the value issue. Because the the way I was reading seventeen sixty seven dash o five o a, An issuance of a notice of intent for change of use conditional use permit relating to the sale of the mobile home park pursuit to 176704O. The residence of the mobile home park acting individually or through a designated resident organization shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the mobile home park as either a condominium project. You know? What what do we mean by that?

Are we talk is that a developed multifamily project, or is that converting the mobile home park into airspace condos where each mobile home space is owned by, they own the airspace? So I don't I'm not sure. Is Albert, you're you were saying that the verbiage in here accounts for that. Is that what you're pointing to as it accounting for it? Or

No. I think I think what you just described, it's the latter. I think that is meant to be that you could subdivide a mobile home park into airspace condos, so that each, mobile home park owner, I'm sorry, resident owns, you know, their their portion, but there'll be some common space probably probably not unlike other condo projects that have common open space. So I think that's that's the reference on the one that you just the one that you just

Oh, mentioning.

So that so what I'm saying is this does not account for the development of subdivision

Oh, situation. So And I don't think it's intended to do that. It's intended to for them to buy the mobile home park and keep it as a mobile home park, not to redevelop it into something else.

Okay. Well, that's that's kinda my point. How does the government tells tell somebody that, a, you can't sell it for eight months, and, b, you have to sell it for this use? You and and when it's already zoned for that use, we're not even changing the zoning. It's zoned for many of these parks are zoned for sixty, eighty units per acre.

If it turns out that this is unconstitutional or contrary to state law, I'm sure we won't end up going with it. But I think that in the, you know, in the broad strokes, I think the idea was something that resonated with the board of soups that the the residents should have a opportunity to purchase the park. And so, I mean, there's a lot of detail here. But, again, I mean, we're gonna be we're gonna run it through that that, that filter of of of whether or not it, you know, complies with state law or there's some sort of, you know, takings issue. I'm sure that would be fully vetted before we get to the board of supervisors. I thought it already had. My my sense was that this was something that is is doable, But, you know, maybe I'm wrong about that.

I don't have confidence that it's gonna be fully vetted. This is you know, there's a push.

We have we have two attorneys working on it, so, hopefully, they're they're gonna figure that out.

Well, I I kinda think, like I kinda feel like the recommendation that the planning commission makes should be on solid legal ground and should not be, like, you know, the subject of a lawsuit because it's unconstitutional because it makes no sense whatsoever. We're not a communist country. We're not just people's real estate. I'm in a domain, but it's you know, this this just doesn't make sense to me, and you're not you're not addressing it. And so what you're saying is that's intentional.

You don't wanna address it. You you wanna say through this to the property owner, you're not allowed to use this property for its intended for what it's zoned for. You have to sell it to your tenants for what its current use is.

To give them a chance to buy it is the way I would the way I would characterize it.

Not for its full potential value, but for its existing value.

It so that they can remain living there.

So who who makes up the difference to the property owner?

I don't know.

Okay. Trying to explain this to government officials is probably a waste of time. Andy, go ahead.

Yeah. I I appreciate the chair's line of thinking here, and I think it's just important to highlight that there's two different things going on. One is whether or not the park residents have the right to purchase the property, and the other is whether or not they'll be able to. And I do think that it is very different than trying to purchase, like, a one for one single family home, right, where, like, a single family home has a pretty predictable value in the market. But my understanding operationally of how this has been done elsewhere is not is that it doesn't it's not intended to have an impact on the purchase price.

Operationally, the way this has been done in other municipalities that have done it, it's been the property owner gets to list the property and and can take offers. And if the current residents have the same top offer, then they get it. And if someone else has a higher offer, then they don't. But that all all offers equal, it defaults to the tenants. And I think that's how it's avoided.

I'm not gonna speculate on legal standing, but I think that's how it's avoided takings being the problem there elsewhere. And that's, you know, much more tenable. Right? It's gonna be very hard for folks to figure out how to do this. I I didn't think that commissioner Silva's comments on timeline I wasn't very articulate in this, but there are timelines that can line up, and there are ways in which there are ways in which you can trigger this that create a lot more delays, and there's ways in which you can say, you have to give folks a heads up.

It's going on the market. The regular process happens, and then the offer is considered. And that that's far less disruptive to the process of selling or transferring a property than if, say, you give folks six months to decide if they wanna do something, and then there's the process. I I don't think we're gonna have an answer to that tonight, but I do think that I do think that I think, you know, most of the folks in the room probably would think that, you know probably most of the property I can't speak for the property owners. I think most property owners, if their residents came to them and offered them the same amount of money someone else was selling, would just do that.

I I you know, government trying to create that as a policy is an it's an important component, but, you know, ideally, we'd see those the interest in folks having these conversations now and not have to wait until something else happens. But I do think that there is a way to do it legally, and there is a way to do it that isn't as detrimental because this is not a one to one situation that we you know, I have seen really good strong proposals legally vetted for single family homes, and those did not have nearly the complexity of having to get an aggregate group folks together and all the other processes. So, that's not a very helpful, like, solution oriented comment. It's just to say that I think that in trying to have my own understanding of what's going on here, it's to not lose sight of, like, the common sense part of it, but then also to recognize that, like, there is gonna be a massive value spike on the market. Right?

Like, that that that everything you're talking about, the development pressure on the property. And and then, you know, if if it is if it's 200, 250%, the odds of folks being able to come up with that capital is gonna be very hard to finance.

You don't even get there the way this is written. You don't get that far because you can't consider the increased value. You have to sell it for the discounted value as a mobile home park. Your ability to sell it at the higher price at a at a, you know, at an entitled price doesn't exist unless you go through this process and this process isn't successful. I don't see any any verbiage in here that accounts for the first right of refusal that you just described, Andy, which was sort of everybody puts in an offer.

And if the tenant's offer is the same as the developer's offer and it's the highest price, then it I mean, at at that point, it goes to the tenants. That's fine in that case, but that's a totally different first right of refusal than what's written up and what's in front of us tonight. Because this this only allows for the tenants to keep it as a mobile home park, maybe make it a condo project where they each own their own air spaces where they're you know? Or it's just a resident owned community. It doesn't allow for the development of the site.

And I know not everybody was on the field trip that we went to, but, you know, a lot of these mobile home parks are you know, a lot of these mobile homes just are already falling apart. They're not gonna they're not gonna last. So to institutionalize these, you know, I think that what was the name of the park we went to on Forest And Castro Valley Boulevard? I mean, you know, there wasn't I don't think there was one in there that that you could salvage. That was a couple RVs.

I think that was about it. Anyway, I I can't support the first right of refusal as written here because it just doesn't get I mean And it's like if government gets away with this, when are they coming for our single family homes? Right? You make the same argument to take our homes. Exact same argument. Yeah. You can. Why not? You're you're the have. They're the have not.

You need to take this from you and give it to them. That's that's that's all that is. Oh, moving on to the 25% and that whole it's I guess I'm trying to figure out what is it what is the number that you start with on because some of these parks are already you know, some of these parks are built as trailer parks, and, you can't put a mobile home on them because the sites aren't big enough. Some of them just have a lot of RVs and empty sites where the utilities are no longer functioning. So if you're gonna have 25%, what's what's the starting number?

Is it the number in effect at the date of enactment of the ordinance, or is it what it was approved for in the nineteen fifties for trailers foot wide trailers?

Right now, it's defined as total number of mobile home sites within a mobile home park.

Right. But that's

So

that's, like, super vague. So because some of these were approved as or or historically have been trailer parks, which are you know, you need, like, two of those to put a mobile home on because those are made for eight foot again. At 50 amp service, they have 30 or less. You know, this is that that one on Castro Valley Boulevard in Forest, it's it's a trailer park. You can't put a mobile home in there on any of those sites.

Well, there doesn't seem to be any thought going into what is the starting number. If you're going to put some kind of process on these property owners because they've fallen below this 25%. How are we defining that? We're not defining that in the ordinance.

I think it's meant to be capacity. Like, many mobile home parks, RVs, or trailers can can the land handle or accommodate.

It doesn't say that, though, is what I'm saying. So if we can amend that Location impact report. I guess I'll go back to commissioner Silva's question about how whether this is stricter than the state standard. And I'm I'm looking at this. And what you're asking for, a list of comparable mobile home parks within a 50 mile radius, like, mobile home parks in a 50 mile radius.

How thick a document are we talking here? Because the way you have this thing worded, I mean, we're talking EIR sized document by the time you're done. Think that it eight to a thousand cost because, you know, added to get this massive amount of and that's so far beyond what the state requires. And it's so far beyond what we've ever required. The level of detail in here I mean, just, you know, read seventeen sixty seven zero three o.

I the entire list there. I mean, that's a that's a massive report. I mean, that's gonna be d $75,000 to hire a consultant to do that or more. And then by the time you guys go through your process, kinda like an EIR. You know?

The consultant gives you a price of 50,000 at the time you're you're done. It's like a 125 because the county required all these changes. You know? So I think the mission creep on this is really indescribable because this is how this whole thing started is, you know, the state what the state says you need to do is so poorly written that we needed to fix that. And that's we were kind of the road we were going down initially before, you know, before all the rest of this.

And I think we need to get back to that because, I I mean, I can't approve of this impact report on what it's asking. It's just far too much. I mean, it literally Item j, a a description of proposed measures to minimize any impacts related to missed school days for school aged children of residents. I mean, I don't know how much is your consultant gonna charge you for that. You gotta figure out who's got kids, where they go to school, what are the policies there.

Yeah. You know? I mean, seriously? That's it's it's like, I I don't know. It's like you guys took this thing from the last version and just made it so much more onerous necessarily. Can't I can't support it. I can't even come close to supporting it. And I I don't know if there's four votes on the planning commission to support a lot of this. So that's what I'm saying. I think that you're gonna need to strip some of this stuff out and get real You know?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is four votes for for all this. I don't I don't think so, though. Based on based on the last vote of the planning commission and based on the comments at the last meeting, the last version was too onerous. You guys doubled down with this one and bit much worse, I think.

What was my take on it when I when I read it? The findings, this whole thing with HCDAC, I'm not I'm not into making them a land use body. So 176706O, which should be on page eight, top of page eight, number two. It says the planning commission has obtained and reviewed recommendations from the HCDAC as designated by the community development department. The recommendation from HCDAC shall set forth whether the change of use will result in material contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities and choices for low and moderate income households within the uncorporated Alameda County, taking into consideration both the location impact report as a whole and the overall housing avail availability within the local jurisdiction and whether the options provided in its relocation plan would sufficiently mitigate those shortages.

So we're gonna leave it up to this advisory body to make that determination on the state of the housing in

Well, they make it

as you community. I mean, it's not just they're not just telling me if they like the impact reports. Like, no. The overall, you know, condition of the housing is is what they're making a recommendation based on.

I think the name of the advisory committee, you know, that it's that it's sort of its charge is really what it says. You know, I'm just the plain use of the words. I mean, they're an advisory committee on specific housing related issues, policy, etcetera. And so, you know, Jennifer Pierce is here from HED. She could probably talk about that body a little bit more than we could. But that is that the idea is it's like any other advisory committee, we have an ag advisory committee. We have the max, of course. They're all advisory committees. We have a number of advisory committees in the county. And so I don't see them as being any different. Their expertise is used to to, inform and make a recommendation to a decision making body.

We We don't need it. I mean, the planning commission is far more suitable to make those recommendations and those findings. And considering what we're talking about doing here and the impacts of it on the tenants and the property owners, we don't we don't need it. And in your situation, you wanna get a recommend recommendation from them before you make a decision as to whether the the landlord is, you know, justifiably below that 25% threshold. So they're they're they've got authority there. They've got authority here.

I I I'm not sure why you're

saying that's kinda Authority authority is in our

asking them to make a recommendation not to make a decision. That's a totally different things. I I just Jennifer Jennifer here, she could probably talk about the hCDAC more than we could because it is a it is a body that we don't use, but they have used it for other things.

Go ahead. Happen to answer any questions about the HCDAC. I didn't hear a question in there.

I didn't have a question. Okay. I didn't ask you to come up either. You did that on your own.

I know. So podium in case there are any questions.

Have questions on this? Ready?

Mister Cherry Oh,

Andy, I'll

Steve, go ahead.

I'm I your line of questioning, I want the answer to. I'm trying to understand if it wasn't HCAD, would it be that the planning director would make the decision without consultation or that it would come to us? Or is that the subject of the decision? I'm just

Well, at the last meeting, your the answer to that is at the last meeting in October, the planning commission said that they wanted that to come to the planning commission. That there was gonna be a determination on the 25% whether it was justified or not, that it should come to the planning commission. Staff got rid of that, did not do that. And instead, we've got somebody from HCD that's gonna do that and handle that.

Alright. Thank you.

Which to me is not acceptable, and I doubt is acceptable to planning commission based on what we said at the October meeting. So I don't have any questions on it. I just don't agree with them. I I'm not looking to empower or justify this advisory body into land use decisions. I think we can handle that on our own. That's my point.

I make a clarification, please. I'm taking a look at this ordinance, and it's possible that it's gone late in the evening, and I'm not reading it correctly. But I don't believe the advisory body is in play when the planning director makes its determination about presumption of closure. That's a planning director decision, appealable to the planning commission, and that would be appealable to the board of supervisors. The advisory body comes in when they have filed the application for the conditional use permit, and they're giving specific recommendations to the planning commission to consider. That that that's the way I understand it.

Yeah. But it's not it doesn't actually say that under the, if the 25% rule, whatever we're wherever that is.

No. That's the way that I read it as well.

Says that they're gonna make a recommendation to the planning director before he makes his determination. So that's where I got that. I'm not making that up.

I think it was in the prior draft.

I think the PowerPoint might have said that, but I don't when I read the ordinance, I don't see that either. I'm looking at page five, that process of the 25%. I don't see anywhere in there where it talks about the HCDAC. It almost seems like it would be helpful, though, because you're right, Andy, that plan director would be making that determination all on their own.

Well, and we didn't even agree with that. We felt that the planning commission should make that.

Yeah. That that's fine. I mean, we can make that change. But it's gotta I mean, it's gonna if if you don't want I mean, staff has to do some sort of analysis with it. Right? Yeah. You do a staff report. We do a staff report and make a recommendation.

Through the planning commission.

Through the planning Yeah.

That's that's the that's the norm.

Yeah. Yeah. That's fine.

Well, that gets it one step closer to us being able to vote for it. So

Yeah. Like I said, this section doesn't have the h ACDAC in it.

I I just I saw it in the PowerPoint, I guess. I thought it was in the ordinance as well. I don't know. We don't have time to come the ordinance for it. But if it's in the PowerPoint, it ends up in the ordinance. Yeah. We leave here tonight. Yeah. That's I just wanna be clear on that.

Yeah. I think it's No.

That's my mistake.

I think it's clarified. Yeah.

That's because yeah.

Yeah. And the

behind having it go to the planning director determination was it was directed to staff that that vacancy process should be quick and no cost to the owner. And our only application that is free is the planning director determination. So we just went through that process. It wasn't to eliminate every

I don't know how to I don't know how to fix that, honestly. So if it comes to us, you gotta charge them? Is that

I don't work for free. Sorry.

I don't know. That's a that's a that's a staff level. I'm not sure that we need we need to get involved in that. Jennifer, did you have something else?

Commissioner Rocha Rocha said she he had a question for me, so I'm still here.

You asked her.

Oh, Andy was That's right. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. So I well, I am reading again on page eight, number two.

Planning commission has obtained a review to recommendation from the Housing Community Development Advisory Committee as designated by HDD regarding the relocation impact report. The recommendation from the HDD Advisory Committee shall set forth whether the change of use will result in a or material contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities and choices for low and moderate income households within unincorporated Alameda County, taking in consideration relocation impact group. So it's basically yes. This will go to cc. My question is, would you be providing a staff report to them to make a recommendation on how does that process play out for you?

That's usually what we do. So we bring items that are housing related to the HCDAC. HCDA would write a staff report, and then the HCDAC would then provide a recommendation to this body.

And to me, I'm wondering, that report just based on, like, you know, the total number of housing units in unincorporated Amelia County? That's, like, a factual number. And if a park was closing, how many units would these roughly at what rents these units are rented out at because I think these are all under I I I think, so what would they be advising on? It just seems like a like a one pager to me. Like, it's a factual one pager, so I'm just curious as to what you'd be seeking advice on.

I mean, it would be that, and it would also be the sufficiency of the relocation impact report, you know, which could be fairly

If the consultant prepared a report saying, this is a relocation plan, that this is the property owner's consultant, do you think this impact report is in fact accurate and or sufficient? That, again, I think does get because it it ties in because we're creating a CUP process, it is a land use process. So I I would agree with my fellow commissioner that the chair is advising on a land use process, and we do do that in other places in the county. But the MACs set up to specifically advise on land use processes in their jurisdiction. My understanding of HDD AC is they advise on policy and budget.

So, like, they advise on the probably the formation of this ordinance. That's policy. Right? And on budget, how to spend CDBG dollars in the community, and, like, that's that's a that's a policy and budget expertise that they have. I do think, you know, was gonna be a land review for planning commission. It would probably be at a Mac. That's just my, like, experience in in in here as people just because it is tie we're literally tying a CUP process here. So I just I do have that, like, I just wanted to clarify the process because I thought it was just a factual cover page, but it is an analysis of the relocation.

That's a review and a recommendation with regard to the relocation impact report.

Thank you for that. I appreciate your

Absolutely. Thank you.

I I think the planning commission should approve the impact report as well. I mean, we we said that already, before as well. So and we already have Max to do this other advisory work. So there there is no need for HCD. And, certainly, it does not belong in the findings.

It does not need to be etched in stone in the findings that, you know, we have to get this report from this, agency that's not a land use body, to base, you know, a recommendation. So, anyway, beat that horse enough. So on the, on the getting back to the the last part of that paragraph where it talks about the sufficiency of, you know, affordable housing in your area, We have this situation now that we didn't have the last time one of these mobile home parks, you know, got developed where you have to have a one for one replacement. So if we're gonna take out 30 mobile homes, you know, we're gonna have to have 30 units in there or 30 units somewhere else. Somehow, we gotta find 30 units for these people to live in, whether it's a a mobile home space somewhere else, low a income or or affordable housing unit in a development somewhere, that that's a requirement outside of all this.

Right? So if that's that's gotta be in the impact report, that's gotta be accounted for. I know that in conversations that I've had with supervisors about this over the, you know, year two years, whatever we've been working on this, that, you know, if if any of these are gonna be developed, that there needs to be, like, some percentage of affordable projects. And I know we're talking about doing, you know, zoning, whole thing. But I think this is this is something separate that could be in this because I I that to me, that's the biggest concern that I've had supervisors tell me.

They don't wanna lose this housing. And if we are gonna lose this housing, we need to figure out a way to replace it, sort of etch that in stone. Give people the first right of refusal to relocate into one of these units here or move them somewhere else. You know, that's a much more reasonable approach that we're sort of already we're sort of already bound to. And, you know, if the supervisors are looking for well, they're always looking for more affordable housing.

Right? So if we require a certain percentage because on on some of these, let's just say you have a mobile home park that's got 30 units, but you can put a 120 units on it if you build it, you know, to well, then 30 of those units need to be affordable. I mean, you can you you know, we can think we can address that in here and it makes this better doing that, and it's more compliant with the state law that requires that one zero one replacement. We're not addressing that.

I think there's a finding in here. I don't know exactly. Maybe Christine knows it where it is, but it talks about the hot housing crisis act, which is what you're referring to, s p three thirty. And I think there's it just says something like that, you know, it must comply with the housing crisis act. You you know what that is?

Well, mean you can find that for you, but that that is in there somewhere, I believe, that it's, it's meant to to cover us by not necessarily repeating the housing crisis act, but referring to it.

Some of this could Oh, yeah.

Yeah. It's like Oh, for sure. I'm I'm reading the housing price tag, so these units are rent controlled. You'd have you'd have to replace them with rent controlled units. You'd to offer like, housing price tag, like, pretty clearly lays out everything you just said should be in the ordinance. It's not clear to us because it's not like there's not a cheat sheet for us to just Right. Look at by side.

Well, and every time we get this thing, it is changed so dramatically from the last time. It's like starting over. Because I I tried to look back at what we had before, and I'm kinda like, okay. This is a waste of time. I gotta just look at what they're what they're showing us this time around.

So that that's kind of the that's kind of the gist of my concerns and the changes that I would like to see. And, I mean, to sum that up, it would be There's gonna be it absolutely has to be a first right of refusal. The timelines have to be tightened up. It can't be eight months, six months plus two months, and it needs to take into account market rate, value of the property, a developed market rate so that you're not taking value of this property from these from these property owners. Maybe that's unrealistic for the tenants to buy it in that scenario, but the protections that the tenants are gonna get are lie in other areas like the one to one replacement, you know, the cost of moving there, the total cost of moving because the you're very detailed here about getting into the nitty gritty on what constitutes cost.

I mean, it's literally meals and, you know, all kinds of things. So that that number is gonna, you know, gonna escalate quite a bit when you put all that in there. But I didn't see that to be really any different than San Mateo or City Of San Leandro as far as, you know, all of the moving costs, all the relocation costs have to be accounted for. So that's I mean, I could I could get to a first right of refusal in here if it's if it's worded like that. You know?

If it's just not so restrictive that the property owner has to sacrifice $5,000,000 for your cause or their cause or whatever, somebody else's cause. It just doesn't work that way in this country. So so time timelines hang on. Let me finish this. You can can amend me when I get done. So the timelines and the relocation impact report, I don't know. You guys need to figure out something on that. If you're gonna have a list of comparable mobile home parks, there needs to be a limit on what it is. How many parks do we need? Because I don't know how many parks there are in 50 miles.

Are we talking 200 parks? So we need all this information on 200 parks in this report. And then it would be the same list for every mobile home park in Alameda County. Right? Because they're all they're all gonna be within a 50 mile radius of these parks that are all within a, you know, three mile radius of each other.

Then define the 25%. I I think, Albert, I think you kinda hit on it. You know, like, what is the operational capacity of the park? And maybe, you know, on the date of ordinance and action, you know, pick a date when or give a lot of clarity. That 25% should be.

The other thing too, I just I question the 25% because it seems like you're forcing these owners into closure, and I don't see how that benefits the tenants. This whole premise of this 25% and it it it triggering this closure process or the for the owner to try to justify why it's at that 25%. It's like it's forcing them into closure, and I don't really get that. I don't get that approach. I don't know if other commissioners have a opinion on that or what? The whole the sole 25% approach.

I have an opinion on it, if I may. Go ahead. This is being considered because apparently there are not in this room, I'm sure somewhere in the world, there are operators who wish to get away around their obligation to tenants by slowly atrophying their property, by not renewing leases or running people out or whatever it is. We've heard that in other prior meetings that that's happened, and this is an attempt to address that. And it's not as onerous as it sounds because if if there's a 25% attrition rate over ninety days, there's a hearing.

There's a public hearing, and the the property owners are asked why is this happening. There's lots of reasons why it could be happening, markets or natural disaster or aging out or whatever. Yeah. It it they have an opportunity to prove why to establish why the the tenancy is dropping. And if and if the planning commission doesn't buy that, they're asked to apply for conditional use permit, there's another hearing. So I I we passed this last time. Didn't we pass this last time? No. We didn't pass last time. Oh, we didn't pass last time. But I I don't think it's as onerous as it sounds and addresses a problem that, apparently exists.

Oh, if you go if you if you go to 25% in ninety days, yeah, you got a prop. But if you go from 23 to 25% in ninety days, I don't see a problem. I I don't see a I don't see where the government should step in and Chair? Push this process. What?

I also have a comment on that same subject. Go ahead. So I remember this last time we addressed it, and we were talking about it. Yeah. And the point was the idea is we're just trying

to

ensure that the property owner doesn't start getting rid of people and doesn't hold up to their standards. And I remember them reviewing and compared it to other counties, if I recall, that had a similar ordinance. They were kinda referred to that, if I recall. They had the same thing. And it's just the way the wording is. I remember bringing this up. The wording's awkward. And we just gotta clear up the the the wording and the purpose of it. And I know the intent is good. It's just it's still the wording's awkward, and I'm just gonna bring that up. But that's the was the discussion we had last time when

we brought it up. Depends on the starting number as well. And if the starting number is like a current number at, you know, ordinance enactment, you know, it's probably not an issue. And I'm not I'm not trying to say that, you know, we should have an out for property owners that wanna start emptying out their parks so they don't have to pay for relocation for so many people. But at the same time, you know, if it is coming to the planning commission for a decision on that, if it is if we are gonna change the number that, you know, we're starting at to current conditions instead of what that park was approved for in 1955, then that's that's a different animal than what we have, you know, in front of us today.

So that's, you know, that's kind of the totality. Other commissioners go ahead, Andy.

I just agree that you're not all vacancies are the same. And I I do think that some of this is a very common business practice for folks who aren't in the room and kind of future proofing the ordinance should some of the national players come in and purchase and operate the parks is important. But I do I do share the concern of triggering closures by default when that's not necessarily in anyone's best interest to do so prematurely. And I think that your suggestion, chair, that some kind of point in time analysis be done of the status of the individual parks where they are now and perhaps that there'd be a little bit more ability to accommodate some of those situations where you're gonna have long term vacancies at higher rates in certain parks without substantial investment that might not be possible. There is not they're not apples and apples.

It's apples and oranges. And I think that having, like, a staff analysis or some kind of point in time consideration where the ordinance starts off is helpful.

So does that give you enough information as far as what the planning commission is looking for for changes? Because what you guys brought us I I I think doubling down on the last one was the wrong direction to go in. You needed to go backwards from there. I like what we just described.

I think we have enough direction. I mean, it seemed like there was, you know, four or five major items that you wanna see changed on the first right of refusal, the timeline on the relocation impact report, you know, in terms of the comparable mobile home parks. At 25%, I'm looking at more operational capacity potentially at upon adoption of the ordinance. And more mention of the s p three thirty

and Movable of HCDAC from the findings? Yeah.

You didn't really mention that format. But yeah.

Because we we get plenty of information from the max and just our own and you and our own analysis. Question. Anything else? Share my email. Okay.

If I may.

Yep.

Maybe subcommittee looking at this going line by line?

I don't know. What do you think of that idea?

It's not on the agenda tonight, but it could be something that could considered in the future.

It could be later.

I I would give us a chance to bring back another ordinance, and then if you wanna go on a subcommittee at that point.

K.

Alright. Like to, if I may.

The minor note, I I'm wondering if does the director of HDD or or planning director know when our mobile home parks go up for state license renewal, do they list the number of spaces occupied? Maximum. Do do we have a way at the county of knowing how many are occupied?

We have to do an inventory. I mean, I I I I

think ACV probably has that already.

I I'm I'm wondering because, like, because it it gets your point in time thing. You could say number of spaces occupied as of 01/01/2026. If we had that number, and that way, like, there's no fudging the math. Like, is it on your business license that you submit every year? Is it somewhere?

I see it. It's on the okay. The CDD. CDD.

A registration, ordinance, and the parks report on it every year.

We have a we have a number. Okay. So, actually, I think there's, like, a good faith way to say, you know, if if even if the board of soups doesn't pass a final ordinance till months from now or whenever, you could say, okay. As of 01/01/2026, this was the number of units that were for calculating the vacancy thing. Because I think that gets to a little bit of some of the the fairness issues and then, you know, maybe staff doesn't have to go out and literally count with their fingers because they have the data.

Well, I don't want them doing that. No.

I I just thought there might be a a pure data, thank you, way to look at that.

Is that county registration every year? So every year, we had we get a number is what I'm hearing.

Yeah.

Will that makes

Hey, Crawford.

Sorry. Go ahead. I do.

I'd like to revisit right of first refusal. I'm concerned that if we don't give the supervisor something specific, we're gonna wind up with a hundred and eighty days. And like I'd like to propose, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend that tenants have a right of first refusal on an offer made no later than seven days when the market the property goes on the market. I think that's defensible because if you imagine they got sixty days to come up with an offer, they they they make an offer. The tenant can the owner can determine if it's reasonable or not.

It's and and market market forces would certainly dictate that. Would certainly tell us that. So I would like to make that proposal. I'd like to make that motion that yeah, that motion. Thank you.

Okay. So that's that's assuming that when they give their sixty day notice of the of their intent that they're putting it on the market at exactly that same time, You're it's assuming that that's the way it's gonna go down, and I don't know that that's the way the owners would have it go down. So And what do

they even have? I don't know

the timing of when they're gonna put it on the market in relation to the beginning of the sixty day notice.

No. But they they, we give them sixty days, and they they file an intention to, what's it called?

Why don't we get some input from the owners on that? Involvement. Yeah. You can't testify from there from there. So why don't we let them have input on that before it comes back to us the next time and see what I would kinda like to base it on reality instead of just some number we came up with.

So this is coming back to us again?

Yes. Yeah. We just we just not see it all list of changes. So Okay. It may be back to us a couple times before we're done.

So Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. We're not I

withdraw my motion. We're by okay.

Anything else on this? K. Do staff comments and correspondence?

I did have one thing to correspond. So we have a we have a memo from our county administrator, Susan Miranishi, related to the way that minutes are are presented to boards and commissions, which I will present to you next time. Essentially, what the big county is asking all the boards and commissions to do is to basically provide summary minutes as opposed to the verbatim minutes that you've been receiving. And so I know that you like your minutes to be verbatim and, but the big county seems to be moving in a different direction. I think the the the rationale is that because the video is available on all these hearings that if somebody wanted to know the flavor of the meeting and, you know, what actually was said that they can go back and read those, listen to the video or or hear the video.

So I'll send a copy of that of that memo to you, via email, but I just wanna let you know that that is something that's kinda happening at the, you know, the bigger county level for all boards and commissions.

No. Albert Albert and the administrator have the ability to approve our minutes?

Well, no. But I think that, you know, we're getting direction from the big county about about how they want minutes done, and they want to be consistent throughout the the whole county.

I just don't think that we're bound by that. I'm sorry.

Well, I mean, I'll send you the memo.

On it?

I'll send you the memo.

No. Send me the memo, but I I don't answer the county administrator. I'm she's not signing my check. I mean, you know And may employee. So May I

suggest you the video is available, but so is AI. The minutes we have tonight were produced by AI. It's not it's not a big a big big deal.

I I I don't disagree. I'm just letting you know what the what the county administrator what I mean, she is, at the end of the day, our boss as well. So

Get it. She's not ours, though. Oh, that. Okay. Chair support, I don't have one. Commission announcements, comments, and reports? Hearing any, we are adjourned. Albert, they've been trying to do that for fifteen years. It's nothing new. So years.