County details soil‑import oversight and fines after complaints about illegal dumping

Alameda County code enforcement staff updated the committee on the soil‑importing ordinance, enforcement activity and fee structure, describing both routine permit processes and recent high‑profile enforcement cases where the county used escalating fines and abatement authority.

Ed Labayo, code enforcement manager for the unincorporated areas, said the county charges an administrative deposit of $1.29 per cubic yard for imported soil to recover staff time; staff may refund excess deposit or charge additional amounts depending on actual costs. He presented caseload numbers since the ordinance’s 2019 adoption — a total of 66 cases across unincorporated jurisdictions with higher concentrations in Livermore, Castro Valley and Hayward — and summarized current case statuses (including multiple ongoing enforcement matters, several fines issued and a small number of closed cases).

Labayo described aggressive enforcement in repeat violation cases. “So far, we have charged him $1,000 per truck up to $32,000 so far,” he said, describing one Livermore property owner who continued to bring truckloads of fill after initial notices and was billed per truck as a compliance measure. He also summarized a Fairview case taken to the Board of Zoning Adjustments that required a property owner to perform soil testing, provide a peer review and return for further action.

Residents urged the county to accept photos and videos as evidence and to impose fines that reflect the scale of harm. Speakers from Fairview described visible contaminated fill that washed into Ward Creek during high rains and said county evidence rules and response times made enforcement difficult. “This visibly contaminated fill … contained wire, tile, pipe, bricks, scrap lumber, concrete, asphalt,” said a resident who provided engineering reports to staff.

Labayo said staff do accept photos and videos as part of investigations when they reasonably correspond to the complaint timeframe, but emphasized the need to corroborate community evidence and to preserve chain‑of‑custody and timing information for enforcement. He noted the county’s tools include escalating zoning fines, per‑truck charges, abatement and referral to other agencies (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Wildlife) where appropriate, and that work is ongoing to improve inspection capacity and weekend/after‑hours response.

Supervisors asked staff to provide additional clarity about referrals to state agencies and to consider caps or fee structures that would be fair for compliant applicants while ensuring serious violators face meaningful consequences. Staff said they would follow up on outstanding questions and return with more information.