Supervisors uphold code‑enforcement order for 8950 Crow Canyon Road; abatement and fines ordered

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on July 9 upheld a West County Board of Zoning Adjustments order declaring the 44.3‑acre property at 8950 Crow Canyon Road in Castro Valley to be in violation of county zoning and neighborhood‑preservation ordinances and instructed staff to pursue abatement and collect outstanding fines.

Ed Labaya, code enforcement manager, told the board the property was cited for multiple violations, including unpermitted storage yards and cargo containers, commercial equipment and vehicles stored on an agricultural parcel, unpermitted recreational vehicles being used as dwellings, accumulated debris and evidence of unpermitted electrical and plumbing connections. Labaya summarized inspection dates and enforcement steps, including a warrant inspection and the West County BZA denial of the owner’s appeal on May 13, 2026. He recommended that the board deny the current appeal and sustain the BZA decision, require abatement within 30 days and collect outstanding fines and fees.

Carson Capps, an attorney with the State Water Resources Control Board (representing the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board), told the board the regional board has issued notices of violation alleging unauthorized construction and fill in the creek and that its investigation is ongoing; the regional board said it supports Alameda County staff’s enforcement and the West County BZA decision.

Appellant attorney Peter Prowse disputed the staff record and urged the board to consider historical grazing uses. He also alleged misconduct by county inspectors, including an account that he said was a staff threat and asserted that some photos were the result of unlawful entry; he said his client bought the property about three years ago and intends to pursue permitted agricultural uses. Labaya and county staff disputed those procedural allegations and said evidence was gathered from public right‑of‑way inspections and during a warranted inspection; the county noted the superior court denied a motion to quash the inspection warrant in April 2026.

Board members questioned whether the parcel is under the Williamson Act (staff confirmed it is not), the scope of fines and fees that have accrued, and whether a compliance plan with benchmarks could extend beyond the 30‑day abatement order if the owner cooperates. Staff said the initial fine for a failed reinspection was appealed, which constrained escalation of fines, and that standard fee amounts and warrant costs are set by ordinance; staff also said they are open to negotiating a compliance agreement with incremental benchmarks and monitoring if the owner demonstrates willingness to comply.

Supervisor Miley moved to uphold the West County BZA and deny the appeal; Supervisor Marquez seconded. On roll call Supervisors Marquez, Tam and Miley voted Aye; President Halbert abstained; Supervisor Fortunato Bass was excused. The board instructed staff to impose abatement and to pursue fines and fees as provided by ordinance, and to work with the owner on a compliance plan if the owner agrees to benchmarks and monitored progress.

What happens next: staff will issue or confirm the abatement order and associated fines per the West County BZA decision and may negotiate a compliance agreement that establishes benchmarked progress toward full compliance.