Special Planning Committee Meeting – February 10, 2026

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Planning Committee, held a special meeting on February 10, 2026, at 4:00 PM. Supervisors present: Tam, Marquez, Miley, Fornado Bass, and President Halbert. The meeting addressed two major items: an appeal by Zone 7 Water Agency regarding the Arroyo Lago residential development and a reasonable accommodation request for additional front‑yard paving at a home in Ashland.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes of January 8, 2026 – Approved unanimously.
• Consent Calendar Item 3 – Approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 5 (Arroyo Lago Appeal):
  • Mark Wiley (Truebec Construction) – Expressed full support for the applicant, stating the developer is union‑friendly and a long‑time client.
  • John Dalrymple (East Bay Residents for Responsible Development) – Urged the board to support Zone 7’s appeal, arguing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) failed to adequately analyze water quality and public health impacts.
• Item 4 (Reasonable Accommodation):
  • Pei Yi Shaw (property owner) – Requested the board reverse the Planning Director’s denial. Stated the paved area is used daily for medically necessary physical therapy and wheelchair transfer, and that neighbors had no objection. Emphasized that the denial violated the Fair Housing Act’s requirement for an individualized assessment.

Discussion Items

Item 5 – Arroyo Lago Project Appeal (PLN 2022‑00193, Zone 7 Water Agency)

• Staff Presentation (Rodrigo, Rachel Krusinowski):
  • Project: 190 single‑family homes (48 deed‑restricted ADUs) on 26.6 acres at 3030 Moore Avenue, adjacent to Pleasanton. County staff recommended denying the appeal, certifying the EIR, and approving the vesting tentative tract map.
  • The project is protected by the Housing Accountability Act (HAA); denial requires a finding of a specific, quantifiable, unavoidable adverse impact on public health or safety, which staff argued cannot be made.
  • The EIR found significant unavoidable impacts for transportation (VMT and queuing) and greenhouse gas emissions; all other impacts were reduced to less‑than‑significant with mitigation.
  • The applicant voluntarily added conditions: reducing two‑story homes to one story along the western boundary, relocating the agricultural spray field west of El Charo Road (Condition 71), and requiring notification to buyers about Pleasanton Garbage Service operations.
  • Staff and the environmental consultant emphasized that the membrane bioreactor (MBR) wastewater treatment plant is state‑of‑the‑art, permitted by the State Water Board, and operated by a certified operator. They noted Zone 7 never proposed alternative mitigations or design revisions.
• Appellant (Zone 7 Water Agency – Colleen Winey, Ken Min):
  • Zone 7 is the groundwater sustainability agency for the Livermore Groundwater Basin and manages Lake Eye, Lake H, and Cope Lake adjacent to the project.
  • Concerns: The wastewater treatment plant and spray fields are located too close to these recharge lakes; any failure could contaminate the groundwater basin, threatening the water supply for 250,000 residents.
  • Zone 7 is investing over $60 million to treat PFAS and opposes any additional source of contamination. The MBR technology does not remove PFAS.
  • The speaker noted that the “environmentally superior alternative” is annexation to the City of Pleasanton, which would eliminate their concerns by connecting to municipal sewer and stormwater systems.
• Applicant (Steve, Bert Mahalchik – project owner/consultant):
  • The applicant argued the facility will not contaminate water; treated effluent meets Title 22 standards and is cleaner than surface runoff.
  • They highlighted the project’s inclusion in the County’s 6th‑cycle Housing Element (190 units), consistency with the East County Area Plan, and the Planning Commission’s 6‑1 approval.
  • The City of Pleasanton has begun formal annexation proceedings; the applicant expects city approval by early summer 2026. If annexed, all of Zone 7’s concerns would be moot.
  • Bert Mahalchik (former DSRSD general manager) testified that the MBR technology is “truly state of the art,” with 178 days of lined storage and automatic shut‑off safeguards, and that the Tennessee study cited by Zone 7 involved rural plants with excessive inflow/infiltration not applicable to this project.
• Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Tam asked about the statement of overriding considerations; staff confirmed the HAA sets a very high bar for denial and that annexation would resolve the identified impacts.
  • Supervisor Miley expressed reluctance to grant the appeal, citing litigation risk and the high likelihood that the project would be annexed. He noted the project is needed to meet housing element goals and that the risk of a failure is extremely low.
  • Supervisor Marquez questioned the zoning incompatibility between the residential project and the adjacent Pleasanton Garbage Service (industrial). Staff noted a condition requiring buyer notification; the garbage service did not object after that condition was added.
  • Supervisor Fornado Bass sought assurance that if annexation did not occur, the state‑permitted operation would still protect water quality. Staff confirmed the operator certification and regulatory oversight.

Item 4 – Reasonable Accommodation Request (16815 Los Reyes Avenue)

• Staff Presentation (Rodrigo):
  • The property owner requested permission to exceed the 50% front‑yard paving limit (530 sq ft) to accommodate a paved area for physical therapy and wheelchair transfer. The existing paving covers about 67% of the front yard (approx. 710 sq ft).
  • The Planning Director denied the request, citing alternative locations (rear yard, driveway, interior of home) and potential blighting effect.
  • Staff noted that the pavement was installed before the accommodation was requested and that code enforcement received a complaint.
• Board Discussion and Decision:
  • Supervisor Miley initially questioned whether the accommodation was a “ruse for parking,” but after reading a physician’s letter from Asian Health Services documenting daily physical therapy needs, he became supportive.
  • Supervisor Tam noted the letter confirmed a medical necessity. Supervisor Marquez raised the possibility of language barriers and suggested offering translation services in future code enforcement interactions.
  • Supervisor Miley moved to sustain the appeal and allow the paving to remain at the current size (67% of the front yard). Supervisor Tam seconded.

Key Outcomes

• Item 5 – Arroyo Lago Appeal:
  • Motion to adopt staff recommendation (deny the appeal, certify the EIR, approve the tentative tract map, and adopt findings) passed 4‑0‑1 (Supervisor Fornado Bass abstaining). The appeal is denied; the project may proceed, subject to existing conditions and eventual annexation to Pleasanton.
• Item 4 – Reasonable Accommodation:
  • Motion to sustain the appeal and allow the existing front‑yard paving passed 5‑0. The Board directed staff to contact the applicant about possible ramp‑related resources through the Healthy Homes program.