Good evening, welcome to the February Mac meeting.

All meeting to order and start off the first time, which are allegiance.

Thank you.

Councilmember Farmer.

Councilmember Huggins.

Councilmember Philbin.

Yeah.

Council Vice Chair Rhodes.

Yeah.

Chair Angler.

We have a quorum.

Okay.

Start off with public announcements through notes to speak.

So you can do that.

It's not all the nice and general.

We have any speakers.

Officer Paps.

Hi, good evening.

Not yet.

How about now?

How about now?

Oh wow.

We really approved the system.

This is fantastic.

Okay, good.

Okay.

Good evening.

It's nice to see you all.

We've been pretty busy in Fairview.

Officer Barcini is back on patrol.

He does not have training with him, so I'm sure you've seen him throughout the community on a CHP motorcycle, and hopefully it was because he was passing by you and wasn't standing off of his motorcycle chatting with you out of the window.

For January, we were pretty busy.

We issued 53 traffic citations.

There were four non-injury crashes and one injury crash.

I just want to note that those numbers are actually pretty low compared to the previous months.

There were no DOI arrests.

There was, however, one misdemeanor other arrest.

We've been focusing on routine control and oats continues to be an issue with the stop sign there.

We've spoken to public works about the stop sign in that intersection.

The goal right now is just to do enforcement to make sure that people are coming to a complete stop.

We are still patrolling in the school zones.

We know that that's a very important issue, and we mainly focus on the school zones during drop-off and pickups.

And D Street, I know that there's been a great improvement to that roadway.

I think have improved people slowing down out of improved the traffic flow, making sure that people are slowing down.

If you guys have any feedback, obviously I would love to hear it, or you can notify public works on uh what you can see, or telling them what they did well because I know they don't get that very often, and then also any improvements that you might have.

Uh some upcoming events.

Super Bowl is this weekend, uh, so just be on the lookout.

A lot of people like to go to Super Bowl parties or go to the bars or events around Super Bowl, so there may be an increase of DOI drivers out on the road.

Uh, if you happen to see what you believe is a DY driver, please call 911.

Don't try to fall overstop them yourself, but just be careful with that.

Umcoming education, February 10th.

We are very busy.

We'll be back here at the Castro Valley Library at 12 30 for our A12 Drive Smart.

That's for our senior drivers from 12 30 to 2 30 p.m.

If you'd like to register for that class, please contact Castor Valley Library to sign up, and then that evening we'll be at our CHP payward office at six o'clock in the evening for our new drivers between the ages of 15 and 21 for our start smart class.

You can sign up or have you sign up for that class by contacting our office.

Um let's see.

February is speed safety awareness month.

Um we're trying to encourage all residents and community organizations in California to support efforts to reduce speeding and to be aware that it is a big problem across the whole state.

So if you see a reckless driver, you can call 911 or if it's a continuous problem, let me know by emailing me at 345 reckless drivers at CHP.CA.gov or contacting our office during normal business hours at 510 489 1500.

I hope you all have a great meeting, have state time on I have no other speakers for public comment.

I have no other speakers for public comment.

I'll have a couple that it's the December second first.

December second says third states actually two state.

So very doesn't match.

It's not a next day.

It was two state five seconds it was Tuesday.

I move to approve the December 2nd minutes as amended.

Second council member farmer.

Council member filden I council member higgins aye vice chair rose aye.

Chair England.

Minutes approved as amended for 12 to 35.

Staff promoted to chair.

So small April Edits for motion.

I believe we set it for approval of January second as amended council member farmer.

Okay.

Oh, abstain.

Council member Higgins Councilmember Feldman Rhodes Chair Angley.

Minutes approved for January 2nd 2026.

Thank you.

It's our regular calendar item number one for the three process and zone ordinance locates it is an action item of closures.

Yes good evening that is a remote planning point to my way with this top board uh using some of the member is closed on the subject of the studio KDA in our and tonight as a closed one resolution.

So um tonight uh we're asking the very recommendations to update our zone lines and our design standards to uh better implement the already adopted housing element is adopted uh C year.

So as you may remember um the housing the six cycle housing element was bounded uh as part of the mandated state uh legislation to to uh accommodate for increased housing throughout California.

Every jurisdiction in California has to have uh updated and state compliance housing element and the PM County uh adopted our housing element uh last year.

So again, the purpose of tonight's the zoning order subdates to uh some multi-minute resolution development standards is to implemented this six cycle housing element on densities that have already been approved.

The housing element, again, has already been adopted.

Um, dates have already been adopted, uh and so have the objective design standards.

The purpose of tonight is to uh ground truth as a result of the ground treasure of some of these development standards, with again the architecture of our C or KA and with the M group, uh the result was uh minor modifications to those existing development standards, such as setbacks and artificial features to allow for that density to actually be uh developed some of the existing density will remain in place, the existing kinds of already in place floor ratios were working in place, all that's changing our setback rules and artificial features.

Um, the state has mandated that local jurisdictions not only identify potential areas for residential development within their jurisdictions, but also to make policy and regulatory efforts to celebrate that residential development, that's what we're doing.

Includes severe dealing financial consequences, as well as losses of local zoning control, potential lawsuits, and eligibility for state funding, and potentially mandatory rezoning accelerated short planning cycles, and potential uh state state takeover of uh housing permit, such as what we've already experienced in the academy, and other several other jurisdictions have uh term called builders and developer rates to build anywhere, at density that they all goes.

So, in order to avoid that, uh, in order to remain compliant with a state housing element and state mandates, uh, we're uh here for you tonight and on to the the ultimately the board of supervisors to make modifications, minor modifications to uh already existing development standards for already existing densities, and not changing densities, not changing heights, just my modifications to those developments.

And so that will turn it over to Tom Ford, who will go into details.

Then you're running a good evening chair and council members.

Uh, as Recorder said, I'm Tom Ford and the principal at Henberg.

Um, yeah.

So what we're asking tonight is that you uh recommend that the MAP recommend to the Board of Supervisors these amendments that we've made to Chapter 31731 and Chapter 8.2 of the residential design standards dialogues.

Um, as Rodrigo just pointed out, uh Chapter 1731 was already adopted by the board in December of 2024, and chapter 8.2 of the residential design standards was adopted by the board the previous December of 2023.

So tonight I just want to give you a little background of why we're doing this, um, then we'll go over very briefly what high level the amendments that are um detailed and track changes in your staff report packet for tonight, and then also I'll point out a couple of amendments that we made to make uh chapter 8.2 of the design standards better, and then go over the next steps.

So next.

So the background is that uh our firm as the planning consultant was hired to do a project for the landing department to look at a series of processes that are used for reviewing development.

So most of those were handled by putting some of our staff members in county offices, observing some procedures, and uh, linking recommendations for new forms, new standards, and trying to get more transparency about the development review process.

Those parts are already implemented.

They don't need uh board approval.

But the second part that we did is uh Charles's firm really examining what was already adopted in 1731 and trying to understand is are these standards feasible?

Can someone can a developer or an applicant actually come in and develop at the density that's being guaranteed in the housing element?

Next.

So as part of reviewing those standards, it was basically to analyze the feasibility.

So not to try to change any of the densities or height, but to see if the setbacks, open space, and other similar requirements needed to be adjusted again, just to guarantee the density that was guaranteed and make sure that I don't know county doesn't run awful of HCD at future analysis that they might provide.

So with that, I'm just going to go over in a little bit after I show your map some of the some of the elements that we looked at, and then look at the development standards as well.

So this is the MACs.

So these are the sites that were identified in the housing element for all three MACs, and then we'll sort of the next one.

Let's just focus on fair review.

So these are the sites that we're talking about tonight.

They've already been adopted as part of the housing element, they've already been given densities and height limits and such.

And what we're doing is looking at the zoning standards for those specific zoning districts that cover primarily the yellow, the red, and then there's actually three parcels that are green.

We looked at those as well.

In your map, it says that the green can go up to 412 units per acre, but that's county-wide.

As those districts are applied in fair view, the maximum is actually 29 dwelling units per acre.

So again, that number isn't changing.

What we did was look at other ways to make things better.

So again, their housing settlement sites only, as you saw on the previous slide.

No increases to residential density.

We're not recommending any increases to high, any increases to height.

There were minor amendments for against setbacks, open space location and requirement, and such, again, just to make sure the density could meet what was guaranteed without raising the height.

So the proposed changes enable development to meet the densities identified in the housing element.

So that's 1731.

Let me just talk a little bit about chapter 8.2.

And this was adopted in December of 2023 by the board.

Next, again, this is not a development change, but just a clarification.

For this figure, we replaced the figure on the left with the big red X, with the figure on the right to try to add some specificity so that when someone is asked to put to make sure that their setback includes 50% landscaping, we wanted to actually draw that so that you saw that it wasn't just open space setback, it's 50% of the minimum used to be landscaping, and we suggest a couple of places where it might be located in the front setback, and then to buffer between a sidewalk and a surface parking lot.

On the next lot on the next slide, this is the other change we did.

It was basically a typo in our original file, and we just clarified that four feet is actually five feet to correspond to what the text was, the graphic and text were out of alignment.

And then we took that opportunity to make a more realistic sort of facade of that building.

So implementing the private setback in a way that might be more demonstrative of how a developer might actually do that.

So again, what we're recommending, we're asking you to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they approve the amendments that we made to 1731 of the zoning ordinance and the amendments we've made to Chapter 8.2 of the residential design standards and the guidelines.

Just real quickly, next steps, a weekly time.

Chair, can we just uh correct the sound quickly?

Sure.

Um body in my community, and we've had to deal with the state, you know, mandates forcing.

I think they're working on the sound right now, correct?

Okay, hold that thought.

Can the online participants hear?

Raise your hand if you can hear.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Okay, good.

Um I just wanted you guys to understand, you know, where we're coming from here.

Uh we're well aware that that um Fairview's not excited about what the state's uh demanding here.

Um nobody in California is particularly thrilled about it, and communities like Fairview that are wonderful places to live that really don't necessarily benefit from a lot of these intensities and densities.

Okay, we get that.

Uh but what we're trying to defend against is greater densities than were approved last year, which I knew you guys weren't pleased about.

And the HCD, which is the state authority that enforces all this stuff, can force greater heights than the ones that were approved last year.

We are providing here a safety net.

It's a safety valve against HCD doing that.

I want you to understand this.

If you vote tonight, you're voting against further state intervention.

You're not voting for the densities that were approved last year.

I want you to be clear on that.

And you can be clear on that when you pass your vote.

I serve on a similar body in my community, and we sometimes will say we're not voting for the density.

We don't approve the density, and we don't want our vote tonight to indicate that we're approving the density.

We don't want more height, and we approve what this uh what the M group has done in order to avoid further height in our community because that's what we've done for you.

That was my commitment when I joined Tom and Rodrigo in this effort.

I just want to be really clear about that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll start with public comment first.

Do we have anybody, any speakers in the room?

Kathy Langley.

I have one question for you.

Um as the K group or the M group.

Are you part of McKinley?

I'm asking you a question.

I'm asking you a question.

Oh, I know.

I usually I would let him uh no.

You're not part of McKinley.

I don't know what McKinley is.

We're M group, we're we're an employee-owned company.

Okay, I grew up in Fremont when it was all apicot orchards and poppy fields, and it's now an asphalt jungle.

I bought my home to live in a rural community where the local laws, the Fairview Area Specific Plan supported my vision.

But now we have a governor who has demanded eminent domain.

They treat California, they treat California homes and neighborhoods as little more than assets to be developed and traded by the highest bidders.

They could not care less about livability and quality of life or the character of neighborhoods.

Around 10 Fairviewans went to the Board of Supervisors' housing element meeting.

The Board of Supervisors had a closed door meeting with council, who clearly warned them of the state's the state's warning to withhold funds from the county if the housing element was not approved.

Our group was very convincing, but was ignored.

Under the environmental review of the presentation, it says that the project is exempt from CEQA because it would not result in direct or reasonably sort of foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment, and that's ridiculous.

Of course it will.

Right now there's an organization called our neighborhood voices, and they have 41 cities that are working with them to put a measure on the ballot in 2028 to stop this nonsense.

Go to our neighborhoodvoices.com, make a donation because it's very expensive to do this.

Do you want me to read it?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, no further speakers.

Member Higgins, I will close public comment.

Member Higgins, your questions or comments.

Um I've got no questions or comments at the moment.

No questions to the speakers.

Member Philbin.

You mentioned that you are changing the setbacks.

Can you for the record tell us specifically how those are being changed from what to what?

I know I read it in here, but I just wanted it in the record out loud.

Excuse me, I'd have to look up the exact dimension.

Okay, it's fine.

Well, and that's the only one I have.

I do have a question.

Microphone.

How does setback of property to a building affect the height?

That's I mean, that sounds like a kind of a threat kind of a deal.

That's a great question.

Um, so to avoid the HCD interference, the builder's remedy building with builders' remedy, they can go as high as they want.

And what we had to do to make some small adjustments to some of the uh sites to find a way to prove out that we weren't uh sneaking under under the densities that were approved last year, because if we were then we would be subject to the penalty, and the only options we had were to go higher, which we weren't gonna do, or to reduce setbacks, which is what we did.

So the setbacks are the distance from the building to the street.

Uh you'll get those numbers in a minute.

And what we had was building masses, okay, based on the setbacks and the height.

Basically, you've got you know a box, right?

You can only fit so many square feet when you've got setbacks here, right?

On the sides in the back, where you've got a height restriction, that's your envelope.

If that envelope wasn't big enough to meet what the supportive soups passed last year, then we were subject to people coming in and building whatever the heck they wanted, and we don't want that.

So we had a choice of going up, which we knew this community would not like, or you know, certainly my community would not like that, but or uh reducing the setbacks to get the bulk that the HCD will it'll save us from interference by them.

Does that make sense?

I might have missed that because all I saw was a proposal of well, how were you gonna do landscaping?

That was the only changes that I saw.

It may be in Fairview that that is our only change.

The setbacks were in other other communities uh here.

Uh Rodrigo has it.

Right.

So these development regulations affect um multiple properties all over the western unincorporated county, right?

There's only certain uh zoning districts that are affected in Fairview.

Most of what is affected in Fairview are the um the building massing and the landscaping.

But to answer your question directly, so as an example on page eight of the of the modifications for different zoning districts, not in Fairview, for example, we're talking about setbacks where it used to be street side yard setback of 10 feet, which is the standard, now we're at five, and an interior side yard uh that used to be 10% of the lot width, it's at five feet.

Um, and this is for uh a zoning district that's that's uh not in Fairview, um, that is all over the place.

Uh that is that is um uh neighborhood commercial, um, with allowing uh mixed use or residential in Fairview at the lower densities, we're not touching setbacks.

We what we are touching is um uh what was mentioned earlier, open space, and we're making sure that the regulations for open space do clearly identify that it is a 20-foot um setback as shown on page five of the PowerPoint presentation.

You may have a copy if it was printed for you.

If not, I can pull it back up.

Um, with uh with uh designation of minimum 50% of the qualifying areas to be actual landscaping features.

We also require that uh buildings be broken up and they're not just a flat facade in multifamily housing.

That's affecting some of the fairview districts, some of the properties of the lower uh mid-density ranges of uh up to 22 dwelling units of the acre in Fairview.

That's effective affecting Fairview, and that um uh requires buildings stepping back uh by a minimum of five feet um every uh certain width of the building so that there is articulation to the building.

So, so depending on the zoning district that is proposed, um again, most of these are not in Fairview, they're in Castro Valley, Ashland and Cherryland.

Um that's where the mid density uh ranges are.

Uh those those setbacks were modified to go from 10-foot street side yard setbacks to five.

Um, and based on um lot width, it used to be a percentage of the lot width, now it's a uh more defined number of uh starting at five feet uh and and uh depending on the on the specific zoning district, it goes slightly up from there, but not by much.

Again, what's affecting fairview mostly are the landscaping regulations regarding and you were correct in pointing that out are the landscaping regulations requiring 50% minimum uh of the uh areas designated for landscaping to actually be um uh landscaped uh as well as building articulation, breaking up the build of the buildings in the uh dwellings of up to 22 uh dwelling units to the acre.

So um, does this impact single family building at all?

Or is this just multi-unit building?

These are the multifamily uh densities in Fairview.

Okay, so condos and apartments and that kind of thing.

Because they only apply to housing element sites, so housing element sites by their nature are multifamily.

Okay, um, yes, would you the only impacts on peer review tonight is to ask when people uh have a setback that they have some greenscape there, yeah.

And that's good for the community, uh, so that people don't just cement in, you know, their front yards.

Um, it would be great to have your support for the setback reductions countywide, because if those aren't put in place, all the county will be exposed to uh risk from the state.

So we would like your I would really love your support tonight.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Rhodes.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um we didn't get copies of the PowerPoint, and I'd appreciate if we could at least get access to them electronically, that would be helpful.

Um I want to just start out with a couple of comments.

Uh as you all mentioned, this didn't go over well in this community, and it didn't go over well in the other Macs, um, as well because of what our public speaker mentioned, right?

There's a an attempt to preserve our community the way that we um we want it a bit more rural, we're not interested in density.

Um, but I want to say that I appreciate and respect that there's a state mandate.

I it has been very thoroughly explained to us that we um there is money that is on a string that if we don't comply, it'll get pulled out from under us, and um it has felt um very rushed.

Um I think people have felt disrespected in the way in which it has been pushed upon us, and um I'm sure you all know that this issue, this ordinance came in front of this committee as well as the other committees, and um all of the committees voted no.

It went to the planning committee, the planning committee also voted no, and it then went to the board, and for the reasons that the board had they ended up passing it, and um you could all appreciate that us here in the community uh have feelings about that, and I I think just to understand that I I have I feel a little irked by the concept that kind of bringing this back in front of us, um, like for our own good, feels a little doesn't feel great.

It's kind of like rubbing some salt on a wound for us, and um, you're bringing this back in front of us to make these adjustments, and I hear the point being made that presumably we are um you all are looking out for our best interest and attempting to like you know kind of sidestep a potential you know pitfall, which is that the state's gonna come back and make it even worse.

I hear it.

It doesn't make me feel great.

Um, and I'll say, um, you know, I want to restate for the record that the reasons why our community and other communities pushed back on this, uh, is because we had concerns about emergency egress routes.

We have concerns about traffic safety.

Uh we have concerns about wildlife defense because we have some rural spaces.

We have concerns about there being adequate water to put out fires in our community, particularly if the density is higher, right?

That's a legitimate reason why developments have been uh refused in the past, is because there wasn't enough water.

So we have done our due diligence.

The community came out when this ordinance came out in front and I this room was packed of over 100 people.

And in my memory, and people spoke up about this and I think we we don't feel very heard.

So I'm just I want to put that back on the record.

And I want to say that um I did listen to the Castro Valley presentation and I heard what the other council members had said and it was I appreciate going through that process because it was very clear to me based on that is that y'all are not asking our opinion about this but I just you know you're you're opening a can of worms to put this back in front of us because there's feelings about it.

And I understand that you're trying to make some tweaks here.

I one thing and I'll get to my questions now is one concern that I had with the presentation was in putting together um the edits which I appreciate them being black and red the red in here so that we can see where the changes are being made um one of my main concerns when this was ordinance was come in front of us is that um it really takes this ministerial review process takes it out of the hands of the community and doesn't allow us to um overhear weigh in on some of the development projects that we have in the past and have been able to step um you know in the way of some developments that would have been harmful for our communities and in the presentation where there was a description a quick summary of the changes that were made in 17.31 uh I did not see in there the changes that were made to the ministerial review process which if you start on page three um and it continues on page four there aren't any changes but there are again on page five um there are considerable changes to the ministerial process and if in fact you all are coming in front of us to say look we know you're in a hard place this is not a good situation but we're here to kind of help facilitate this so it doesn't impact our community negatively when I read this when I read the ministerial review changes it makes it me feel like we have less say in this process and that wasn't even addressed in the presentation.

So right so if you're looking at for example page three it actually um uh corrects what uh the staff had originally brought to the board but was not um was not in the in the final draft of the board that we're actually giving back a site development review process to developments of nine to 21 dwelling units to the acre so whereas the final adoption said no it's a ministerial review and that's what's being scratched out what's underlined and new is actually we are we are taking out that ministerial for those densities at nine to 21 and giving back the the the site don't review discretionary process and so you'll see uh that that uh for those densities including uh fa which is for every area at 17 units to the acre that uh allows for uh if should this should these changes be adopted that does allow now for a for a discretionary review process the the ministerial review process at the higher densities actually remains the same it's it's it's not changing and right now we're not proposing any new changes where we're uh correcting what was what was a mistake in all the way through the development process and I think for the lower densities what was told to the community is yeah we hear you were gonna at at the density ranges of nine to 921 units to the acre, we're gonna go through a discretionary review process.

Um, what was what was uh adopted by the board um uh did not include that it was a version that did not include that, so we're putting it back now that we're making these changes to make sure that at these at these densities, what the community wanted was a discretionary review process, and we're putting it back.

So on page three, I read um that what's crossed out is compliance with zoning standards and objective design standards checklist, and then it's adding with zoning and objective design standards, right?

So you also see you'll see that how it reads is what's what's checked out is compliance with uh zoning standards and and objective design standards, and that would have been if you go to the column to the right of that, a ministerial review process.

And we took both of those out because what right now what you need is a site development review and compliance with the zoning and objective design standards.

So you need not only compliance with the zoning and objective design standards, but you also need a site dealing review process where where before what you had was a ministerial review process.

So we're putting back the the design sit on.

So that's great.

Thank you for that explanation.

What then can you explain to me if there's a if there's these two hearings for the MAC boards, what actual teeth does that have?

So uh in the discretion again, the the densities are guaranteed, but but the the discretion would be more on the design.

It's not it's not a fixed um articulation of the site.

There's there's there's heightened um decision making or recommendations from the body on the the character of the development.

The the densities are there.

We have to allow the densities, but there's more um uh articulation and and community input on the articulation of the of the design.

Uh I've gone as architect to many of the discretionary reviews with the state imposed densities that couldn't be changed, and the kind of things that a student uh, sorry, that a uh committee of of citizens can do is we can demand that the architect, for example, recognize that there's a single-family home right next to your project, and it's only uh, you know, one and a half stories, say, and you can say we want you to move the map, you've got a you know, a three-story building, a four-story building right up next cheek and jowl with this poor uh single family homeowner.

We want you to move some of that mass to the other side of the site where it's gonna be next to an open field or the railroad tracks or some other thing where it's not doing that, the same kind of damage.

So it does give the community some um ability to recognize local conditions and to enforce good design.

It doesn't mean that if someone comes in and they say, Oh, well, I can do four units here, you can't say you only get to do three, okay, because that's against the state law, but um, but you can say where those four units are gonna go, and you can compel them to recognize local residents' needs uh through that process.

So there is a community uh participation that we put back in here to give what this what is allowed, you know, in community process, we have it in there.

Thank you for the answer.

And I I just want to state, and again, um I want to make sure this is on the record because you brought it in front of us, so I'm gonna take the opportunity, um, which is I recognize that there's two of our board members that have been appointed to a subcommittee, which are ongoing, going to kind of work through some of these issues, and I just um wanna take this moment to express I that I appreciate that there's some effort being made, and there's some um other issues that I want to put on the record that um those subcommittees can consider, namely is to think about emergency access uh to be evaluated, um particularly in ministerial um review process, um, to understand what relationship uh Fairview Fire has in relationship to the ministerial review process.

Namely, is there um, you know, access roads to put out a fire, turnaround sites, it can they access enough water, water pressure.

Um also um interested in the subcommittee working out um in what places um our committees can flag our concerns um with um the ministerial process and any development projects that come about.

Uh let's see.

I recognize that these um setbacks um are kind of a concession so that we can I don't know, hear something shiny over here, so don't ding us for this over here.

Um, but I do want to just point out that Fairview does have a Fairview plan, that this comes in in conflict with kind of our vision for our neighborhoods.

And so want to know whether or not there's a way that we can also weigh in on that, and um finally um I raised this concern last time this came in front of us, but just the fact that CEQA is no longer um a qualifier is a concern and want to have the subcommittee uh pay attention to whether or not we can incorporate that or place similar standards so that we're um we're creating a safe community.

I really appreciate everybody.

Um and thanks again for the explanations.

Thank you.

I think she covered probably a lot of the thoughts.

You know, nobody likes Rena, the numbers that came out, the constant shifting, you know.

Hey, BART's coming in.

No, it's not.

Okay, we'll add 800 homes over here to this little section.

Um, it kind of is what it is, although ironically, tonight's the first gubernatorial update, and I know the reading numbers were run without it looking at fire scores.

We have tons of land in California, and it's not already developed, built on, trying to go back and tear it out and rebuild stuff and make it work on today's infrastructure.

I know what's done is done.

We're really here talking about two small changes here tonight.

Um sounds like a lot of people have the same feelings.

Um question number one is this only going to impact the current sites you showed us, or does this set a precedent?

For example, somebody wants to build a four-story apartment building where there's currently a small church.

Does this open up those doors?

Thank you, sir.

Uh no.

Because as we mentioned, these are these standards are amending 1731, which only apply to those sites that were identified in the sixth-cycle housing element.

So that's why we had the map.

There are various densities for four primarily densities across the county, and these only apply to those.

Thank you.

And then there was an R word that was crossed out a few times.

Was it renovation versus what was that one?

Remodel.

Remodel.

Does that change anything tax-wise, tax base, anything on the homes?

Thank you.

Very similar question last week from Castor Valley Commission.

Um, no, it does not.

The reason we change that word is remodel can be used very loosely to be, for instance, somebody who repaints their bathroom or uh maybe does new wallpaper, pulls out a counter in the kitchen, something like that.

And what we wanted to do was make sure that the bar was such that it was more about renovation, which typically means you're moving a wall, you're moving the structure.

So those word changes are in the part of the ordinance that's talking about what triggers review.

And so we didn't want um a bathroom renovation to trigger a review in front of you know the review body.

But if it's a renovation, such as something that would really substantively change a building or build a new building, it would come in front.

Thank you.

Do anybody have any further questions on the council?

Member Higgins?

Yeah I the again, these are more comments and and these are more comments rather rather than questions.

Um two observations.

One, you know, in Fairview, we just flat out lack the infrastructure I I mean I'm flabbergasted that developers propose to stick stuff in there where there's just no way that we we can handle the the number of cars right um my colleague uh Vanessa uh brought up the point of the you know fire access and and and the like but a thing that really upsets me is the citizens get less access and less say than the developers get they get regular face time with um with the staff and and they uh even in public hearings the our citizens come in and they get maybe two minutes but if you come in and you're a developer and a developer that's not even has anything to do with this particular project and I can bring these examples up to you you get all the time you want I mean this is just um I that it it gets me upset so um we transparency is going out the window any other comments hearing none it is an action item so we really have three choices one we recommend their request two we don't or three we do nothing I move we um endorse the changes I don't I don't think we have a whole lot of choice in that I think uh the only way we get choice on that will will be in in the elections I I just anyway so my motion is uh to accept these changes as specified can I just make um a slight change that can we also enter in there that we uh continue to disagree with the ordinance in general oh yeah I well I think it's become clear that that our body has no effect whatsoever and I would rather make a statement again that we oppose this whole thing it won't the outcome won't matter the board's going to approve it anyway but I would rather make a statement that Fairview just does not does not support any of this so for process I think I heard a motion proposed amendment did you accept the amendment I'll accept the amendment yeah we did not get a second on the motion second I will second it further discussion if there's nothing to add we can do roll call vote to and so so your amendment is to is to reiterate that this board is not in favor of the ordinance okay and okay what member farmer no council member filden no council member higgins.

Yes.

Count vice chair roads yes?

Yes.

Chair anglin.

Yes.

Motion passed three, two.

Thank you for coming tonight.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you for your the the work you put in on that.

Can we recognize the students that came tonight real quick before they take off and say thank you for coming out and checking it out?

Good for two.

Good.

Okay.

Item number two, PLN 2025 00195 site development development review for Linda Temple, Daniel Del Rio.

This will be Michael Fleming presenting.

And while he sets up, I'll just summarize briefly.

This is PLN 2025-00195.

Again, you mentioned the site development review.

And to allow side yard setbacks of five feet where 15 foot is required.

And it's in an R1BE zoning district, meaning it's a single family residence.

10,000 square foot mineral building site area.

And again, Michael Fleming.

Thank you, Rodrigue.

Thank you, Rodrigo.

Yes, hi, I'm Michael Fleming with Al Maya County Planning Department.

This is item number two on the regular calendar.

Again, it's PLN 2025 00195.

It's uh to allow an additional 50% of the existing floor area to existing single-family dwelling and to allow sort yard setbacks of five foot or 15 foot is required.

Um the owner is Linda Temple.

The applicant is Daniel Del Rio.

It's at 24532 Fairview Avenue.

Um, APN is 417 261-1.

Uh, it's uh exempt from CEQA section 1530, class three small structures.

Um here is the site here.

It's on the corner of Fairview Avenue and Jalen Sick.

Um just a little note.

Um, this house right here did a very similar variance uh some time ago for the same reasons.

Um the zone again is R1BE, uh single family residence, 10,000 million building site area, it's in the Eden area general plan is very low density residential.

Um basically with the the lot is 50 feet by 200 feet, and um the side yard setbacks on this fairly narrow lot is 15 foot on both sides, which would only allow 20 feet of building space in the middle of the lot.

And um when originally it wasn't set up this way, and so um we've staff supports the the variants because otherwise they would have hardly any space to build on their property, and um there was a similar uh variance right down the street for um uh very similar.

I think it's providing six foot side yards uh where 15 foot is required, so it's very similar.

Um literally two houses down.

Um, and that was back in 2019.

Um the site development review is um to ensure that the development matches the neighborhood and um this putting this addition on this house will make it very similar to the next door neighbors, which are already two stories.

Um so and this house right now is one story, so I think it's um a very fair justifiable uh reason for this variance and site development review.

Um this is the uh existing set uh situation, um single family home, single story.

Um they're just gonna be adding um onto this side to the back on the first story and a second story uh here.

Can you point at that again?

I didn't see that.

Oh sure.

Um can you see my mouse at all?

I'm trying to.

No, no, not real.

Oh, there it is.

I see it.

So there it is.

So so this is the second the second uh floor edition, this grayed out area, and they're adding a little bit to the back side of the first story.

So on the left over here where mouse is now if you can see it.

Uh the the white boxed building, that's the single story home.

And on the right, um the second story is gonna be on uh the right side of the home and a little bit of a single story addition in the back.

Um again, this is um uh uh second floor plan, first floor plan, uh first floor plan on the right side.

They're basically just adding this um space to the back here to make this uh bedroom bigger, and they are I believe making some changes over here in the in the kitchen area, um, but they're they're not exterior changes.

Uh and then to the second story, um adding a master bathroom uh bedroom and um bathroom upstairs, and um another bedroom as well.

Uh this is the existing situation.

Uh, it's a single-story house, two-car garage.

Um it's fairly typical of the area.

Uh stuckle exterior.

Uh, this is what they uh hope to plan to do is um have the second story here, the little balcony over the garage, and um basically the second story will be most just about most of it on the right side, a little bit past the middle of the house.

Um, and there's a little bit of an addition to the backside of the first level.

Uh, this is a section cut, as you can see, um the second level is mostly on the right side, and um this is one going longitudinally, uh staff recommends that the Fairview Municipal Advisory Council approve to allow an additional over 50% of the existing floor area to an existing single family dwelling and to allow side year setbacks of five foot where 15 foot is required as seen on exhibit a November 13th, 2025 on file at the Galamy County Planning Department.

Um, staff's available for questions, and I do believe that the applicant is here in person, so um you can bring him up when you're ready.

Did we receive any communication sent in electronically regarding this?

Did you get this?

Well, did you get this from today?

Other people, no, this was handed out just before the meeting.

It was just delivered tonight as we were sitting here.

Yeah, we had some but was there in a communication from somebody is what I was asking.

Oh, no problem.

Um, do you guys have questions for the owner?

No, not really for the owner, but um, it it appears to me that this house was built when there was a five-foot setback requirement to begin with.

Yes, and so and and they're not really encroaching any further than that five feet.

No, that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Sure, I think maybe that dovetails into my question because when I'm looking at the picture, the one that's the picture of it, it looks like what you're adding on is not changing the setback as it currently is.

Is that right?

It's not changing what's currently there.

The setback is already at five on both sides, and in order to add on to the home, um, even though you're going straight up.

It's since it's non-conforming, they had to apply for variance to continue at five feet.

Got it.

And do you know if there's any concern by the house in between now having two stories on either side of it?

Has anyone said anything?

No one said anything.

The notices did go out to the area.

I hand posted the notices on the telephone pool right between the two houses, okay.

Uh, and notices were also sent via mail.

Uh there had been no complaints or concerns.

Okay, and it also looks like you're not going back at all.

Is that also true?

They're going back a little bit on the single story on the Jalen Sick side.

Not very much.

Uh maybe uh five, six, seven feet, something like that.

Yeah, but but it's a it's a big long.

Okay, thank you.

That's my questions.

Thank you.

Do we have questions down here?

Just a comment that um I think this is pretty much the same deal we we did a couple of years ago, the two houses down.

And and again, that uh that whole section, you know, the houses were built, and when they were built with a five foot or whatever the setback was, somewhere in history, they changed the setbacks, and now you you've got people they want to add on to their house, and I uh I almost think it's a no brainer, but I I shouldn't say that.

Uh but that's uh that that's all uh I also talked to one of the neighbors, and he um actually he said he he sent something in.

Um I don't think I saw it in the package, uh but I um not aware of any.

I I could be wrong.

I um yeah, sorry.

Yeah, that's that's all for me.

Vice Chair Rhodes.

When the house, you said the house just what is that uh east of the two houses down, had done a similar variance during that permitting process.

Was there any complaints or any issues from neighbors?

Uh I'm to be honest, I'm not sure.

Uh mostly researched the other variants to justify this variance.

I in the staff report that I'd seen, there wasn't any call-outs to neighbors, there was just referrals to agencies, but usually they mark if there's um a neighborhood complaint, and I didn't see any.

Okay, thank you.

I liked Chris's comments.

It had a five foot set back then, they're asking for the same thing now.

I think the expansion looks great from the pictures I've seen.

Um, I think it's a nice upgrade, it's not substantially changing the units.

We're not adding a lot of subdivisions in there, it's making it a nicer, bigger house.

And like you said, we have another property just next door to it.

And if the one in the middle had anything to say, they had their chance.

I'm sure we would have heard from them, but it seems to fit and looks like an easy one to me.

So with that being said, sounds like we're all in agreement.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

I move that we accept the request as submitted.

Do I need do I need to repeat the name the labeling on here?

No, okay.

I second.

Thank you.

Roll call, please.

Councilmember Farmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Higgins, aye.

Council Member Philbin.

Aye.

Vice Chair Rhodes, aye.

Chair Anglin.

Aye.

Motion passed.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, I do want to add a comment and not to change any voting or anything like that, but maybe we should have been clear that any new construction had to go by the um fair view um regulation or comments.

You know, the fair view setbacks and that kind of thing.

It's only it doesn't really can't apply to something that's already in place.

Well, new construction.

Oh, if it's brand new construction, not not just this is a remodel.

Right, okay.

The light is not working on my mic, but sounds like it's working.

Um, okay, chair's report.

I was gonna thank the students for coming, but we already handled that since they were leaving.

Um, I think we've got some exciting updates from Vice Chair Road on our next item, though, as far as uh fireworks ordinance.

No, no, okay.

Uh so exciting.

Uh so of course, um, you know, we have been working for a long time on putting in place a fireworks ordinance.

Of course, there was a fireworks subcommittee established um about a year ago.

Uh, and that subcommittee met with representatives from Alameda County Sheriff's Office and the county staff to review a near final proposed firework and social host ordinance.

So, yay.

Um, the proposed ordinance is intended to eliminate the manufacture, sale, and use of fireworks in unincorporated Alameda County, including safe and sane fireworks.

The ordinance establishes a social host account responsibility framework that holds uh the property owners and responsible parties accountable when fireworks are discharged on their property.

This draft outlines progressive fines, an appeal process, and an expanded enforcement plan that includes increased staffing, training, and public education.

The major change is to train and prep all deputies to the be the primary witness to make sure uh they can um cite on on site.

Um, and they're also looking into drones and choppers.

Uh, they will continue to pursue uh the preventative measures uh such as the investigations on social media.

So the goal is to strengthen enforcement while also improving communications and reporting tools available to the public.

County staff are targeting a mid-June of this year effective date and prepare uh in preparation for the July 4th holiday.

The current timeline for review and action includes a presentation at the Eden MAC on February 10th, the Sennoles Citizen Advisory on uh February 18th, the Castro Valley MAC on February 17th, RMAC on March 3rd, Unincorporated Services Committee on March 25th, and then the Board of Supervisors hearing sometime in April or May.

Uh, the targeted ordinance effective date would be mid-June of this year.

So, community members have an opportunity to review and discuss this draft during those upcoming meetings.

So, we uh encourage you all to go on to the website, read the ordinance for yourself, go to these meetings and give public comment.

Um it's really important.

They I think they did a really great job of taking community input and trying to incorporate that into what um they've drafted.

Um, and they're continuing to look for your uh input.

Uh, and just want to um really thank the community for all of the work that you all did and showing up to these meetings, putting the pressure on.

The subcommittee certainly felt the pressure.

Um, and you know, the sheriff's office did as well, and I think they're responding to a community need.

Um, also want to thank the sheriff's department and the county staff for the work that they did in pushing this through.

Um, I think we can just all agree that this is a win for our community.

Uh, that with this implementation, hopefully we can be a little safer, sleep a little better this summer.

Um, and I really do think that this ordinance is gonna reduce uh fireworks this year.

So that's the report.

Anything to add, Todd?

I would encourage everybody to look at the Eden Max agenda because it's posted there, the entire ordinance, the presentation.

Um, it's got all the details of what will be discussed, and hopefully we'll see an ordinance in place as long as everything's smooth and gets the approvals before the fourth of July this year.

So looking forward to that.

I'm guessing we probably have some public comment on this item.

Fran, Francis Krug.

Good evening.

This is Fran Krug.

Kudos to the subcommittee for volunteering to take on the task of monitoring the progress and providing on uh subcommittee report fireworks ordinance.

Yes, ma'am.

Three minutes.

May I start?

Krug.

We can't hear you.

Her mute just came off on the screen.

I'm I'm unmuted here, I think.

Okay, let's see.

Brenda Clark.

Can you guys hear me?

Can you hear me?

Those of us listening could hear Fran.

We have the sound guide trying to make it so we can hear you for the online callers.

Francis Krug.

Good evening.

Her microphones moving, but we can't hear her.

Can you hear me?

Brenda Clark.

Okay.

Okay.

You'll you were on uh fireworks.

Yes.

Okay.

You have to can we go out to back to Fran because y'all had a problem and couldn't hear her, but we can.

Okay, we'll we'll pick her up after after.

Okay, I just wanted to um thank the subcommittee, the Fairview Map, the Sheriff's Department, and everybody for the getting this draft done, and the county.

Um the draft um I've torn it apart and put it back together.

It allows for so much more than is within the four corners of the ordinance.

E.g., the uh sheriff's department can develop their own process for for meeting the uh requirements of the ordinance for which they are responsible.

So if they want to set up a program to send a warning letter or whatever they want to do, let's let them do it and not nitpick it to death.

My problem is not problem.

We've always been first, we've always done the research, we've always come together as a community on these fireworks.

My first um um uh process was with the unincorporated Alameda County uh board in 2017, so it's gone on a long time.

Um I think we should I want to ask the Fairview Mac to really look at it.

It's good it started with us.

Let's go on to the other Macs first for some reason.

When it gets to Fairview on whatever date that is.

Please look at it carefully.

And if you have questions about it, ask them before that meeting so we can endorse it and get it going.

Because if we have a bunch of questions and ideas at the Fairview Mac, it's it we're gonna put the process back another year.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um for all your passion in regard to this project.

It's better late than never, but I think it's going to work.

And I think it's it it includes everything we've wanted in the ordinance.

We're the last jurisdiction to have one, and I think they've done a really good job on incorporating the ideas and procedures from other jurisdictions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brenda Francis.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Good evening, everybody.

Uh kudos to the subcommittee for volunteering to take on this task, that task of monitoring the progress and providing feedback to the sheriff's department in the development of the fireworks ordinance.

Hopefully, we're beginning the last leg of the project.

As a draft of the ordinance begins to make the rounds to all the MACs before going to the Board of Supervisors.

Thank you, Vanessa.

Thank you, Todd, for your very productive work.

The process of getting an updated and stronger fireworks ordinance has been an ongoing challenge for a long time.

It started with community members over years asking the MAC to recommend that the Board of Supervisors strengthen our fireworks ordinance following the example of other jurisdictions in our area.

I'd be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge the use of work by our former MAC chairs who listened to the community, passed a motion asking our supervisor for an updated ordinance, and all along the way our MAC chairs monitored the progress and asked for updates.

And yes, this process did take years.

So thank you, Dale Silva, Chris Higgins, and Sally Philbin.

Hopefully we're getting into the final stretch, and it took all of us to get this far, and we can't stop paying attention to it now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Fran.

Other speakers on this item.

Thank you for the comments.

I know after seeing the LA fires a little over a year from a go from now, it really puts a whole new perspective here.

So thank you.

We'll close public comment.

Uh staff announcements.

Uh just one quick announcement for me.

Um we are awaiting a memo from the county administrator's office.

You guys will be seeing a change in your minutes.

They will be action-only minutes.

Uh the video is your transcript.

Um, I will have more information, but we're waiting for the official memo, but wanted to give you the heads up.

So more information to come.

Thank you.

And our parliamentarian called me out on skipping the member comments.

So, Ms.

Fulbin.

Yeah, I just want to do my monthly reminder to put the Veterans Day event on your calendar for Sunday, November the 8th at one o'clock at Lone Tree Cemetery.

It has been growing every year and getting more and more.

I want to say professional because it's really just down home backyard people getting together to say thank you.

But um just want to remind you again.

Thank you.

Oh, and thank you, thank you, Vanessa and Todd, for your work on this fireworks ordinance, and thank you, Vanessa, for your expanded comments on the whole uh development thing because you echoed what I wish I had said perfectly.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Any other council comments?

Member Farmer.

Ditto.

So uh I always have to have something to to follow up with.

So uh what's going on with the uh the Office of Unincorporated Services Claudia's uh project.

Uh no update.

Okay.

Well, now that the fireworks is coming in.

I have another thing to bring up every month.

Thanks, guys.

Thanks.

Member Rhodes.

Uh yeah, I just wanted to loop back on uh Amber Lowe's uh presentation from last week on D Street progress.

There has, in fact, been progress in the last couple of weeks.

We've got lines, we've got arrows.

Um, it's very helpful.

Um, I also had um a conversation with her where she explained to me that there's going to be they're going to implement a stop sign westbound on Fairview right before you hit Upper D, where that weird turn is, um, which is amazing for those of us who live up there, that left hand turn is kind of edgy.

So uh just wanted uh to the public to know that that's coming and exciting.

Um and wanted to share that um there was a a member or a community member who came in uh with a concern about the rose bushes uh a year back-ish.

And um she was concerned, obviously her son had fallen into the rosebush and had cut himself and was like, why do we have rose bushes here?

And we brought that issue up with um the public works and they are removing the rose bushes.

So if you're listening, community member who's concerned about the rose bushes, those should be coming out and being replaced with something much softer for any kids falling there.

So those are my updates.

Well, thank you everyone.

It was a good night.

With that, the meeting's adjourned.

Thank you.