Alameda County board upholds appeal, denies Ashland alcohol outlet permit

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on May 14 voted to uphold an appeal and deny a conditional use permit for a proposed alcohol outlet at 16900 East 14th Street in the unincorporated Ashland/Cherryland area.

Planning staff recommended denying the permit after new evidence surfaced during the review process, Deputy Director Rodrigo Dunia told the board. Mundo said the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments had previously approved the permit but staff later identified two planning considerations that supported upholding the appeal: the presence of a church adjacent to the site and the county's environmental justice element, which limits alcohol access near sensitive receptors. "Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant the appeal, overrule the decision of the West BZA, and deny the conditional use permit," Rodrigo Dunia said.

Why it matters: Residents and municipal advisory council (MAC) members told the board that the census tract already exceeds state concentration standards for off-sale alcohol licenses and that adding another outlet would increase public-safety and health risks in a neighborhood targeted for economic revitalization. Appellant Tyler Dragoni argued that the BZA decision relied on inaccurate proximity data and failed to weigh neighborhood arrest patterns and public-health indicators. "The BZA was making a decision on a false assumption," he said, urging supervisors to uphold the Eden MAC's unanimous denial.

The applicant's attorney, Mike Ayaz, told supervisors the license has historical ties to the location and that the operator has agreed to conditions (including a limit on alcohol display area and healthier-food provisions) to mitigate concerns. Ayaz argued the county's alcohol policy is a discretionary policy, not an outright prohibition, and noted the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control could help enforce conditions.

Board deliberations focused on whether the site should be treated as a new establishment following a COVID-era closure and whether mitigation conditions would sufficiently address cumulative impacts. Supervisor Miley emphasized the chronology: a prior operation ceased during the pandemic and the applicant is now seeking to reestablish alcohol sales, which under county rules can be treated as a new use. Citing the environmental justice element and neighborhood input, Supervisor Miley moved to uphold the appeal.

The motion to uphold the appeal and deny the CUP carried on a roll-call vote. Supervisors Marquez, Tam, Miley, Fortunato Bass and President Halbert all voted yes. The board adopted the resolution reflecting the finding that the required conditional-use findings could not be made.

What the board did not decide: The vote concerned the conditional use permit application itself and did not make formal findings on public convenience and necessity under the Business and Professions Code, which staff noted is not required where an existing site license is involved.

Next steps: The denial ends the current application; the applicant may pursue other administrative remedies or future applications consistent with county policy and state licensing rules. The board record includes staff site-visit photos and correspondence from residents and public health that formed the basis for the recommendation.