Board hears neighbors’ concerns and developer’s revisions for 17‑lot Procter Road subdivision in Castro Valley

Planning staff presented a proposed 17‑lot subdivision and planned‑development rezoning on Procter Road in unincorporated Castro Valley, describing a 15.9‑acre project that would rezone for slightly taller homes and reduced side yards to accommodate new single‑family lots.

The board, members of the public and the developer focused the night’s discussion on site access, a sewer easement that would cross neighbors’ yards, a seasonally wetland at the bottom of the ravine and the number of guest parking spaces. “The sewer line is an integral part of the proposed development,” said Kathy Jones, a resident who said an easement would run through her front yard and threatened mature trees and steep slopes. “Since the sewer line is integral … it seems untimely to grant a final stamp of approval until these issues are resolved.”

Developer Andy Blythe of Braddock & Logan said the company reduced density from earlier proposals, hired new engineers and redesigned the project to address concerns, adding a 28‑foot road with one‑side parking and increasing some garage sizes. “We’ve looked in every possible place in this site for additional parking,” Blythe told the board, and noted the design includes a conservation parcel set aside to protect the wetland.

Planning staff said the Castro Valley MAC and the planning commission reviewed the project through a lengthy process and that the project was approved by the planning commission with one dissenting vote. Staff described alternatives considered under CEQA and said the environmental review resulted in a mitigated negative declaration because impacts were judged to be mitigable to less-than‑significant levels.

Supervisors pressed the developer and staff on several points: the feasibility of a public street versus a private street serving the subdivision, the adequacy of guest parking (the project proposes roughly 1.23 guest spaces per unit, about 25% above the minimum), and the proximity of lots to a nearby school. “If you can’t get a public road, I want a little bit more of an amenity for people who live there and their guests so parking doesn’t overflow,” one supervisor said.

After extended questions and public testimony — which included concerns about erosion, wildlife impacts and long‑term maintenance of a private road — the board directed staff to continue discussions with the developer and public works and to return with options, including possible adjustments to parking, open‑space configuration and whether a portion of the roadway could be public. The board did not take a final vote on the rezoning at the meeting.

Next steps: the board asked staff to work with the developer on possible refinements and to bring the project back for further consideration.