Thu, Feb 19, 2026·Alameda County, California·Board of Supervisors

Sunol Council Meeting Summary (2026-02-19)

Discussion Breakdown

Water And Wastewater Management32%
Public Safety24%
Engineering And Infrastructure15%
Community Engagement11%
Parks and Recreation4%
Economic Development4%
Active Transportation4%
Procedural3%
Environmental Protection2%
Fiscal Sustainability1%

Summary

Sunol Council Meeting (2026-02-19)

The council convened with a full roll call and heard general public comments, then received law enforcement and fire updates, workgroup progress reports, and several major discussion items. Key actions included a recommendation to advance a countywide social-host fireworks ordinance to the Board of Supervisors, and acceptance of informational updates on downtown wastewater alternatives, the Arroyo de la Laguna bridge replacement schedule, and ongoing community-led flood mitigation coordination.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Bob Frillman (resident, Foothill Rd.): Reported an undermined/failed culvert condition near milepost ~8.0 on Foothill Road and stated concern that heavy vehicles could be at risk; offered video documentation.
    • Council response (staff/council): Stated they would check the site the next day and contact Public Works; requested access coordination.
  • Jim (park/tree volunteer; affiliation not formally stated):
    • Tree/Park update position: Encouraged stronger local participation in volunteer workdays and supported continued partnership with the Resource Conservation District for creek cleanup and water sampling/education.
    • Civic engagement position: Expressed concern about low attendance at prior meetings and said better community communications and feedback mechanisms are needed; opposed rumors/claims that the council is “not functioning” and urged more informed participation.

Discussion Items

Law Enforcement Update

  • Sheriff’s Sergeant Patrini: Reported 28 calls for service since January; no major issues noted. Proactive stops were “down a little.” Announced intent to apply for an off-road highway vehicle enforcement grant (public notice in early March), describing local use in Sunol as targeting illegal dirt bike activity along railroad tracks; grant supports overtime staffing and safety gear.

Fire/EMS Update

  • Fire Chief Terra: Reported 25 calls for service from the Sunol station since last meeting, all EMS-related or canceled en route; no fire incidents. Urged caution due to heavy rain, road water hazards, and slide risks.

Workgroup Reports

  • Fire Safety Workgroup – Rosemary Chang:
    • Reported a CAL FIRE grant modification enabling 7–10 days of tree work along Kilcare Road to remove/mitigate trees impacting emergency access/evacuation routes.
    • Said work is coordinated with Alameda County Fire Department (separate grant) and guided by CAL FIRE walkthroughs plus arborist input.
    • Position on tree removal: Stated trees are removed only when dead/diseased or likely to fall; preference is trimming/limbing and canopy balancing when feasible.
    • Noted rain is delaying work; expected resumption next week.
  • Downtown Revitalization Workgroup (Wayfinding signs):
    • Reported the nonprofit received county funds; awaiting the sign company invoice so fabrication can begin with the Niles Canyon Railway.
    • Emphasized the first sign is a prototype and requested community feedback once installed.

Council/Staff Comments

  • Bulky Waste Day (Sean): Tentative date April 11, 2026; pending confirmation from Pleasanton Garbage. Property and partners (sheriff prescription drug collection; e-waste partner) largely lined up; flyer ready to mail once date confirmed.
  • PG&E Undergrounding (Killcare Road): Staff indicated PG&E plans to attend the May meeting to discuss undergrounding the distribution line; council discussed holding an open house before the meeting and raised questions about whether telecom/fiber would be included and impacts to other planned infrastructure (sirens/micro-cells).

Fireworks Social Host Ordinance (Item 4A)

  • Sheriff’s Captain Sean McMillan presented a draft county administrative “social host” ordinance intended to provide enforcement tools against illegal fireworks (especially aerial/mortar-style). He stated:
    • The ordinance allows administrative citations when deputies can link fireworks activity to a property and responsible parties are not identifiable/cooperative.
    • Proposed fine schedule described as $750 (first), $1,500 (second), $2,500 (third).
    • Public outreach would include PSAs/press releases if adopted.
  • Public testimony and positions:
    • Ken (in-room speaker): Expressed concern that citing property owners for tenants’ actions is “heavy-handed,” and urged modifying language to target uncooperative owners rather than penalizing uninvolved landlords; asked the council to deny support unless “ownership” language is removed.
    • Another in-room speaker (fire/first responder; name unclear in transcript): Supported stronger enforcement as a wildfire risk deterrent; preferred holding the person who lit fireworks responsible, but generally supported the tool and noted the county often has substantial resource impacts on July 4.
    • Brenda (online; Fairview community): Supported the ordinance; stated property owners are typically responsible for code violations countywide and argued the sheriff’s approach adds an extra step by attempting to identify the actual violator first; noted appeals are available.
  • Council discussion:
    • Councilmembers emphasized prioritizing identifying the person on-site first, then occupants, and using owner citations as a last resort, while acknowledging the ordinance text provides the ability to cite owners/occupants when responsible parties can’t be identified.
  • Action/Vote: The council recommended moving the ordinance forward to the Board of Supervisors (motion passed; tally reflected as unanimous approvals in the transcript).

Downtown Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Alternatives (Item 4B)

  • Quest Engineering (Lillia Walsh and Norm Hanshi) presented preliminary alternatives and cost estimates for a downtown/community wastewater solution within a defined study area.
    • Existing conditions described: About 20% of systems are “up to code,” and about 50% have no documented system with Environmental Health (as stated).
    • Alternatives overview:
      • Alt 1 (No project/status quo): Continued individual septic management; costs vary by parcel.
      • Alt 2 (Management district + inspections/repairs): Community district to assess and move systems toward compliance; estimated ~$5 million over 10–20 years across the study area and ~$56,000 per household (average) (as presented).
      • Alt 3 (Public restrooms; minimal leachfield changes): Two public restrooms (Niles Canyon Railway area and Depot Gardens) tied to existing leachfield; estimated ~$909,000 capital and ~$35,000/year O&M.
      • Alt 4 (Public restrooms + rebuild leachfield): Adds restrooms and rebuilds leachfield to expand capacity and allow parking over Depot Gardens leachfield; estimated ~$1.6 million capital and ~$44,000/year O&M.
      • Alt 5–7 (Community-wide systems): Larger collection/treatment/disposal systems with per-household cost ranges (assuming 100% participation) presented roughly as:
        • Alt 5: ~$7.0M capital; $49k–$64k per household over 30 years.
        • Alt 6: ~$8.0M capital; $56k–$73k per household over 30 years; higher O&M due to MBR.
        • Alt 7: ~$7.5M capital; $54k–$70k per household over 30 years.
  • Positions and key concerns raised:
    • Councilmember discussion (Connie/Chair): Expressed strong interest in Alt 4 as a phased, near-term step that supports downtown revitalization (public bathrooms, added parking, and potential limited business support via pump-and-haul capacity).
    • Questions/concerns included: O&M cost breakdown (labor/operator, permitting, testing, replacement reserves), vandalism/security and restroom hours/locking, responsibility for rapid cleanup/maintenance, and permitting/CEQA timelines.
    • Public testimony:
      • Ken Horton (resident): Expressed concern about long-term costs and limited payer base; questioned fairness and funding sources; cited prior Environmental Health statements that a “concrete wall” is a “gold standard” (as stated) for some systems and raised concern about additional required upgrades.
      • Rod (resident): Supported having clearer “menu” options and cost figures; requested a separate forum (e.g., town hall/workgroup) for deeper discussion.
      • Ronnie Advice (resident): Supported the concept more after hearing participation would not be forced; emphasized practical issues of connecting across neighbors’ properties and easements.
      • Bob Frillman (resident): Asked how many properties were assumed to participate and whether hookups would be mandatory; presenter stated no one would be forced to join and costs shown assumed 100% participation, with additional modeling at 50% participation to be included in the final report.
  • Next steps identified: Quest memo/final report to address management and funding avenues; council/participants suggested early engagement with county planning on approvals/CEQA and procurement timelines, especially in relation to anticipated school construction impacts.

Arroyo de la Laguna Bridge Replacement (SR-84) Update (Item 4C)

  • Caltrans project team reported:
    • Project advertised Sept 2025, bids opened Nov 2025, approved Jan 2026; contractor Ghirardelli Construction Company selected.
    • Work expected to begin with pre-activities in April 2026, with in-creek work limited to June 1–Oct 15.
    • Construction planned across three summer seasons (stages in 2026, 2027, 2028) plus plant establishment period.
    • New bridge will reduce in-creek supports (existing 6-span to new 3-span; fewer piers in channel) and include a 17-foot bike/pedestrian facility on the south side, separated by barrier.
    • Traffic handling: generally maintain two lanes; potential weekend long closures up to three 55-hour closures (noted as roughly Friday night to Monday morning) for major work.
    • Coordination noted with an SFPUC waterline relocation project nearby.
  • Public/council questions focused on: closure limits/traffic routing, coordination with school construction, sidewalk/bike facility connections, aesthetic design preferences, and whether final alignment changes.

Flooding Coordination Update (informational)

  • Andrew (presenting as an independent citizen) described the community-led “Journey into Sunol Flood Control” effort, referencing major impacts from New Year’s 2022/2023 flooding (school, Arroyo de la Laguna area, and Kilkare).
  • Reported multi-agency meetings over several years and emphasized current volunteer technical capacity (stated “130 years of agency experience” across three volunteers) and community engagement with Zone 7 outreach.
  • Stated the group’s position that the “cheapest way” to address flooding may require construction changes during bridge construction, and requested a “quickie study” to evaluate feasible options.
  • Rod (resident): Praised District 1/Supervisor support and urged creating a mechanism (e.g., a workgroup-style recurring report-out) to ensure follow-through and prevent loss of institutional knowledge.

Key Outcomes

  • Recommendation approved to advance the fireworks social host administrative ordinance to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors (motion passed unanimously per roll call in transcript).
  • Direction/next steps (informational):
    • Public Works to inspect Foothill Rd. culvert concern near milepost ~8.0 and follow up with resident access.
    • Bulky Waste Day planning continues; tentative April 11, 2026 pending hauler confirmation.
    • PG&E to present on Killcare undergrounding in May, with potential open-house format.
    • Wastewater alternatives: Quest to deliver next memo/final report covering management and funding; council discussed early planning/CEQA engagement for any restroom/leachfield project.
    • Caltrans to provide ongoing communications via a planned project web portal and closure notices as bridge replacement ramps up.

Approval of Minutes

  • Minutes approved for:
    • Nov 19, 2025 (approved; one member abstained due to absence).
    • Jan 15, 2026 (approved; one member abstained).
    • Jan 21, 2026 (approved).

Meeting Transcript

Okay. It looks like it's so let's call the meeting to order. Do you want to do the roll call? Or do you want to read the directions first? Or whatever order you prefer. Oh, please state your name prior to your presentation. Or in-person speakers. Peace ballary speaker card and hand it to the chair. The chair will call your name when it is time for public comment. For online participants, use the raise hand function on the item you would like to speak on. The clerk will call your name when it is your turn to speak. Or dialed in participants, dial star nine to raise your hand on item. The clerk will call your name when it's your turn to speak. With that, let's start roll call. Council member Conan present. Council member Harrison. Present. Councilmember McLean. Council member start. Present. Chair the Grange. That'll be a council. Okay. Okay. Looks like we have a lot of comment cards, and we had a couple stacks that were generated, so we're putting them collating them by topic number. Okay. And I'm sorry if they're not in the same order which you turn them in. Just one public comment. Okay. Jim has a public comment. Okay. Bob Frillman. You're the first one for public comments holding. All right, guys. Thank you. Okay. Good evening. My name's Bob Frillman. I live at uh 10848 Foothill here in Sinnoll. Uh, what I wanted to comment about was that I didn't follow up on this, but back a while back when we had the big flooding up the in the canyon. I caught one of the guys from public works and told him that the culvert, which uh at mile point, I think it's mile post 8.0, which catches water on foothill, runs it under foothill road into a half pipe that runs through my property and out into a meadow. It's done that since Foothill Road was put in. It's it's not going through the culvert that the county put in, it's undermined, it's coming under the culvert. I made a movie of it during the uh the last big storm that I can email to you guys, or I can email it to public works or email it to somebody, but one of these days a fire truck or a cement truck is gonna go through that road. It looks like the under the pipe is is missing about that much earth all the way across foothill. But when they put that, you remember a few years ago they put those concrete catch basins along Foothill. The one next to our house has never worked, never floods in that low spot between us and Gromley all the time. So that's kind of what I wanted to say. Get some direction from you guys. I can get email addresses for you all later if you want to start there.