Fairview Municipal Advisory Council Meeting - September 2, 2026

Note: The meeting agenda and transcript indicate the meeting was called on Tuesday, September 1, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. However, this summary uses the date provided in the instruction (2026-09-02).

This regular meeting of the Fairview Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) covered three main agenda items: an informational update on affordable housing production policies, and two site development review action items for new housing in the Fairview area. The council also received public comments from community members, a CHP officer, and county staff, and approved the July 2026 minutes with a correction.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jimmy Dang, General Manager of Oro Loma Sanitary District, introduced himself and provided information about sewer and garbage services, ongoing capital projects, and a transition to district-based elections.
• Rita Duncan, a candidate for the Oro Loma Sanitary District Board (representing District Five, which includes Fairview), introduced herself and requested support for her re-election.
• Brenda (remote) commented on the Brown Act, urging the council to always take public comment before and during board deliberation, not after.
• CHP Officer Jen Pabst reported August enforcement statistics in Fairview: 20 traffic citations, 10 non-injury crashes, 1 DUI arrest, no injury crashes, no stolen vehicles. She also announced a car seat checkup event on September 5, Labor Day holiday enforcement (Sept 4-8), a Start Smart class for youth on September 17, and that September is California Pedestrian Safety Month.
• Ally Abbers, Alameda County Planning Department, invited the community to an urban forest planning workshop on September 29, 5:30-7:00 p.m. at the San Lorenzo Library. The workshop is the first of four on developing an unincorporated urban forest plan with CalFire funding.
• Rita Duncan (in-person during Item 1) asked about TOC (Transit-Oriented Communities) and questioned whether building new housing addresses the income gap for unhoused people. She also raised safety concerns about limited egress in Fairview and asked if developers could be required to disclose profit margins.
• Kathy Langley (in-person during Item 1) expressed strong opposition to the affordable housing policies, stating that people who cannot afford to live in California should move elsewhere. She called the housing element a state takeover of local zoning and advocated converting non-residential buildings (e.g., malls) into homes for the unhoused.
• Kathy Langley (during Item 3) raised concerns that 3247 D Street might be an historic property, questioned the owner's intentions, and argued that parking would be insufficient, potentially obstructing ambulances accessing the nearby acute care facility.
• Brenda (during Item 3) reiterated her point about public comment timing, asking the council to circle back to the applicant on questions raised by the public.
• Helen Yang Fung (applicant, remote during Item 3) clarified that she is not the owner, the property is not historically significant, and the owner (Crescendo Sandoval Trust) does not own adjacent land. She noted that the ADU will provide affordable housing and the family has outgrown their home.

Discussion Items

1. Affordable Housing Production Policies Update, Inclusionary Zoning (Informational)

Presenters: Angelica Gonzalez (Assistant Planning Director), Olivia Ortiz (Planner III), Rick Jacobis (Street Level Advisors)

Staff presented an update on two proposed policies: inclusionary zoning (requiring affordable units in market-rate developments of 11+ units) and expanded ministerial approval (streamlined staff-level approval for projects meeting objective standards). A financial feasibility analysis showed that rental housing is currently unfeasible in unincorporated Alameda County, even without affordable requirements, while for-sale housing has some capacity for modest affordable requirements. The presenters suggested a phased implementation, prioritizing 50-60% AMI for rental and 80-100% AMI for ownership, with the option to pay in-lieu fees. Ministerial approval would be offered as a bonus for projects providing deeper affordability.

Council Discussion: Members expressed significant concerns about ministerial review, citing past experiences of developer errors (e.g., traffic studies, soil reports) that were caught by the community. They emphasized that removing local review processes undermines community trust and the purpose of the MAC. Vice Chair Rhodes noted the council did not support the previous housing element (6th cycle) partly due to ministerial review. Chair Filbin questioned the accountability of in-lieu fees, referencing past issues with park fees. Members asked for data on how in-lieu fees have been spent in the county and sought evidence of mobile home parks as an affordable housing option. Councilmember Higgins questioned why Fairview is grouped with the Eden General Plan, which has more urban standards.

2. PLN2026-00045 – Site Development Review for 0 Quercus Ct (Action Item)

Presenter: Aubrey Rose, Alameda County Planning Department

Proposal: Construction of a new 1,698 sq ft one-story, one-bedroom, one-bath home with a 516 sq ft attached two-car garage on a 1.77-acre downslope lot. The lot is conforming (grandfathered from pre-1975 zoning that required 5 acres). The project meets all development standards and requires fire sprinklers. No variances are needed. The staff recommended approval.

Public Comments: Jill Angel and Richmond Von Wave, both neighbors on Arbutus and Quercus Ct, expressed concerns about construction traffic damaging the narrow private roads (already in disrepair), staging of equipment, and future parking overflow. The applicant assured that six off-street parking spaces would be available (two in garage, four on-site) and that any road damage would be repaired by the contractor.

Council Discussion: Councilmember Higgins asked about the conforming lot status and visited the site. Council asked clarifying questions about road access and parking. No other concerns were raised.

Vote: Motion to approve as presented by Councilmember Farmer, seconded by Councilmember Higgins. Roll call: Farmer – yes, Higgins – aye, Rhodes – aye, Philbin – aye. Unanimous approval.

3. PLN2026-00041 – Site Development Review for 3247 D Street (Action Item)

Presenter: Michael Fleming, Alameda County Planning Department

Proposal: Convert the existing first floor into an 813 sq ft ADU (with separate exterior entrance and kitchen), add 1,386 sq ft to the second floor (master suite, two additional bedrooms, office, kitchen/dining/living), 292 sq ft to the first floor (storage/utility), and an 860 sq ft three-car garage. Total building area is 3,265 sq ft plus garage, well under the maximum FAR. The project meets all development standards. Staff recommended approval.

Public Comments: Kathy Langley questioned the property's historical significance (claimed it was owned by the Bruchard family) and expressed suspicion about future development of the adjacent empty lot. She argued parking would be inadequate for a four-bedroom home. Helen Yang Fung (applicant) corrected that the property is not historic, the owner does not own adjacent land, and the family needs more space for their young son.

Council Discussion: Concerns centered on parking in the neighborhood, which is already congested due to nearby assisted living facility and school. Councilmember Higgins noted the large lot allows for ample off-street parking (e.g., 25-foot side setback, rear lot). Council clarified that the ADU is created by keeping the existing kitchen and adding a separate entrance, which is an innovative way to provide additional housing. Fire sprinklers are required; water pressure concerns from a previous development are not relevant here as it's a single home on an existing water line.

Vote: Motion to approve as submitted by Councilmember Farmer, seconded by Vice Chair Rhodes. Roll call: Farmer – yes, Higgins – aye, Rhodes – aye, Philbin – aye. Unanimous approval.

Consent Calendar

• None. The consent calendar was not part of the agenda.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1 (Affordable Housing Policies): No action taken; this was informational. Staff will incorporate feedback and present a draft ordinance later in 2026 or early 2027. Council members voiced strong opposition to ministerial review and requested more accountability for in-lieu fees.
• Item 2 (0 Quercus Ct): Unanimous recommendation for approval to the Alameda County Planning Director.
• Item 3 (3247 D Street): Unanimous recommendation for approval to the Alameda County Planning Director.
• Minutes: The July 7, 2026 minutes were approved as corrected (changing "motioned" to "moved"). The June 4, 2026 minutes were continued to the October 6, 2026 meeting.
• Next Meeting: Tuesday, October 6, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.