On Tuesday, March 10, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors discussed the 17 home Proctor Court development at their Planning Committee meeting.  The project had already passed through and been approved of by the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) and the Alameda County Planning Commission, and it was up for final approval by the Board of Supervisors. In the end, the Board decided to not approve the project, and asked for more fundamental changes and further review.

Albert Lopez, the County planning director, summarized the proposed project, and several community members (many of which have spoken about this project at many MAC and Planning Commission meetings) spoke about their concerns with the project.  The concerns included:

• Needless destruction of trees
• Parking that is insufficient for 17 four and five bedroom homes
• The fact that the development will be on a private road rather than a public street
• Concerns over potential destruction of the wetlands on site
• Concerns about the enforcability of proposed HOA rules mandating the garages be used for parking rather than storage

Parking issues were of particular concern. It was pointed out that in addition to the lack of nearby public transit options, the site is at the top of a hill, on a private street, is in a neighborhood without sidewalks, and that these will be large 4 and 5 bedroom homes with 2 car garages. It is reasonable to assume that the minimum County parking requirements proposed by the developer will be insufficient.  It was suggested that the BOS create some “formula” that considers these other factors to determine what the actual parking needs are for this (and future) projects.

It was pointed out that there used to be a County requirement that private roads could not have more than eight homes on them.  If the project constraints prevented the installation of a public road (as in this development) than the development would be limited to eight homes or fewer.  Public roads are generally safer, wider, have sidewalks and parking on both sides, and are not a burden on the surrounding neighborhoods.  County staff recommends public streets for many good reasons, and private roads with more than eight homes should be avoided as much as possible.

Andy Byde, a representative from Braddock and Logan (the developer) talked about the efforts they had made to improve the project and that they had adjusted the project to include more parking.  He spoke again of the beneficial HOA requirement that would require the garages be used for parking and not storage, which elicited a chuckle from the crowd.

After public comments were closed, Supervisor Nate Miley expressed his concerns with the project.  Miley asked Albert Lopez why the project was a private road.  Mr. Lopez answered that the entrance is too narrow for a public road and it is not feasible for a public road.  Supervisor Miley expressed his disapproval of private roads.  He reminded people about the situation in Fairview with the Jelenic development and he does not want his to happen again. Miley expressed that he is “looking for a little more” if a private road is going to go in.  He asked if the developer could move the houses back eight feet in order to allow for a public street. He also inquired as to if the BOS could ask the developer could remove a house to create parking, and Albert told him that they could.

Mr. Byde said that they had explored these options and chose not to widen the road due to some large trees that they wanted to preserve.  He believes that a parking lot in the middle of the development would be unattractive and they thought it would have a negative impact on the project.  Supervisor Miley also asked why a mitigated negative declaration [Section 21064.5] was used instead of a full Environmental Impact Report [Section 21061].  He had seen other projects need an EIR that did not have this amount of grading, traffic, or wetlands issues, so it seemed unusual.

Supervisor Miley requested that the developer and county staff work on the project to address his concerns about parking and open space.  If a public road could be created, than that would help alleviate his concerns, but concerns remained about the lack of open space and the lack of a full EIR.  Until those issues were addressed, he “could not vote for this.”

The Board sent the project back to County Staff so they could work further with the developers to modify the project somehow in those regards.  The proposal will be heard again by the BOS at a later, unspecified date.

The amount of public commentary at the many MAC, Planning Commission and BOS meetings about this project over the years is a prime example that the community can effect change in developments like this. This project originally was to have over 20 homes, and now its very future may be in doubt.

Here is a direct link to the audio recording of the Proctor Court item at the meeting.