Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Housing Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants reasonable accommodation to resident, allows existing front‑yard paving
Summary
After reviewing medical documentation and hearing public testimony, the board sustained an appeal allowing a homeowner to keep an expanded paved front‑yard area for medically necessary physical therapy and wheelchair transfers.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted on Feb. 10 to sustain an appeal and allow a resident to keep an expanded paved front‑yard area as a reasonable accommodation under federal fair‑housing obligations.
Staff presented a reasonable‑accommodation appeal for property at 16815 Las Reyes Avenue in unincorporated Alameda County. Planning staff said the owner had already added paving that exceeded the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance’s allowable front‑yard paving limit (50% of the front yard) and had been denied because alternative locations (back yard or interior) appeared available and because of potential neighborhood impacts on stormwater, landscaping and appearance.
The appellant, Pei Yi Shao, told the board the paved area is used daily for medically necessary physical therapy and wheelchair transfers for an elderly household member and that interior space and the backyard are not viable. Shao said the family sometimes used the area for parking when exercises were not occurring but emphasized the space’s primary function is medical therapy. The board also received a letter from Asian Health Services documenting the need for lower‑extremity exercises and mobility work.
Supervisors asked clarifying questions about whether a ramp or other access options were feasible and discussed enforcement and equitable application of neighborhood rules. Several members expressed concern about precedent for other homeowners but acknowledged the medical documentation and the applicant’s constraints.
Supervisor Miley moved — and Supervisor Tam seconded — a motion to sustain the appeal and allow the existing paved area to remain as a reasonable accommodation. The motion passed on a roll call vote (yes 5). The board encouraged staff to follow up with the appellant about potential funding or programs (such as healthy‑homes or aging‑in‑place resources) to explore options like ramp installation and to ensure any conditions (for example, limiting use as routine parking if that was a concern) are feasible and enforceable.
The decision resolves the specific accommodation request but staff said they will work with the appellant on next steps and potential county programs to support home accessibility improvements.
