Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Soil Import Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff reviews soil-import ordinance after enforcement complaints; supervisors consider moratorium
Summary
Alameda County code enforcement briefed the committee on 65 soil-import complaints since 2019, penalties and permit outcomes; supervisors discussed tougher enforcement, fee structure changes and a possible temporary moratorium while staff refines residential rules.
Ed Labayag of Alameda County Code Enforcement updated the committee on the county's soil import ordinance (effective Nov. 16, 2019), describing complaint volumes, enforcement actions and proposed changes to improve compliance and enforcement.
Labayag said the department logged about 65 complaints from 2019 through 2024, with concentrations in Livermore and Castro Valley and many complaints on agricultural parcels in East County and in Fairview. He said 7 cases remain open, 4 have unresolved compliance matters with fines being pursued, and a number of closed cases were found to have no violations or were brought into compliance.
Labayag reviewed the enforcement and fee structure: a reinspection fee of $193, administrative processing fee of $268, escalating zoning fines (initial additional fines of $250 with increases for repeat failures and up to additional fees after prolonged noncompliance), and a specific $1,000 ordinance violation for each offense under the soil-import rules. For large permitted imports, the planning deposit is $2,500 and staff uses a $29-per-cubic-yard administrative fee to track and monitor phases of work.
He described a Cookman Road project operating under a CUP with phased imports (2,500 cubic yards in the first job) and ongoing monitoring. Staff said they are considering revisions to allow practical small residential deliveries (landscaping), require better proof of imported source and volume to aid enforcement, and add special rules for steep slopes and parcels near watercourses.
Public commenter Chuck Meadows praised staff outreach but said enforcement had been insufficient in his case and said he had spent more than $600,000 in legal fees litigating soil-import violations; he urged earlier geotechnical validation and stronger fines. In response, supervisors discussed increasing enforcement and asked staff to prepare options for a moratorium or fee schedule revisions. Supervisor Howard suggested exploring a cap or tiered fee for very large imports and asked staff to notify existing applicants when the ordinance will be discussed.
No formal moratorium or ordinance change was enacted at the informational discussion; supervisors asked staff to return with specific policy options and legal analysis for future agenda consideration.
