Supervisors approve 4‑lot subdivision in Fairview over staff recommendation

Alameda County supervisors voted to uphold an applicant appeal and approve a four‑lot subdivision of a 33,100‑square‑foot property in the Fairview area, reversing a planning‑director denial and staff’s recommendation to reduce the project to three lots.

Planning staff presented the item as a de‑novo appeal of the planning director’s denial of vesting tentative parcel map PM 11222 (PLN‑202100110). Damien Curry, the staff planner, said the proposal would create four residential parcels served by a new private driveway from Maderos Avenue, include on‑site stormwater retention, and comply with minimum zoning parcel sizes but fall below what staff calculated as the prevailing lot size in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff reported a revised prevailing‑lot‑size calculation of roughly 6,400 square feet and recommended approval of a three‑lot subdivision to avoid creating lots “substantially smaller than the prevailing lots.” (Staff: Albert Lopez; Planner on the record: Damien Curry.)

The applicant’s attorney, Brian Winter of Miller Starr Regalia, argued the project is entitled to protections under the Housing Accountability Act and related state housing laws and that the prevailing‑lot‑size standard is subjective. “This project meets every other requirement,” Winter said, asking the board to grant the appeal and approve the full four‑lot subdivision. The applicant’s representative, Mir Chavas Gariasian, and the project engineer also addressed technical points and said the privately maintained road would be the responsibility of a homeowners association for the new lots.

Multiple residents and neighbors opposed the four‑lot plan in public comment, citing a lack of a road maintenance agreement on Maderos Avenue, narrow private‑road conditions that they said would impede emergency access, and existing stormwater drainage problems in the neighborhood. One caller who identified herself as a realtor said the project appears to build within a utility easement and urged denial or remand to resolve easement and turnaround issues. Chris Higgins and other neighbors described repeated flooding and damage from runoff in the area and questioned whether on‑lot retention would be adequate.

Staff responded that many of the detailed engineering issues — exact location of utilities, final stormwater improvements and maintenance agreements — are handled at the final‑map and improvement‑plan stage and that initial referrals from county agencies (including fire) had not flagged unresolvable public‑safety issues. Albert Lopez told the board that the staff had used a conservative method to compute prevailing lot size and explained why certain large parcels were excluded from the calculation because the Fairview specific plan requires excluding parceIs that appear to have development potential.

Board members debated whether the prevailing‑lot‑size calculation and the staff’s interpretation of the specific plan amounted to an objective standard that would withstand legal scrutiny under state law. County counsel warned that a reduction in lot count could be treated as a disapproval under state law and could expose the county to attorney fees and other remedies if the applicant prevailed on appeal.

Supervisor Brown offered a substitute motion to uphold the appeal and approve four lots, directing staff to prepare a resolution consistent with that action; Supervisor Halbert seconded and Supervisor Miley voted in favor. The motion passed on a 3–0 roll call. Mover: Supervisor Brown; second: Supervisor Halbert. Vote: Yes — Brown, Miley, Halbert; Excused — Valle, Carson. (Clerk called roll as part of the record.)

What happens next: County staff said that if the applicants accept the board’s decision, the tentative map will proceed to the final‑map and improvement‑plan stage where engineering, stormwater mitigation, maintenance agreements and other technical conditions will be resolved. County counsel also said that if the board’s reduced‑lot or denial decisions produce fewer than three affirmative votes, state statutory deadlines under the Subdivision Map Act could result in the prior planning‑director denial being the operative action and invite litigation.

Key voices on the record: Albert Lopez, Planning Director (staff); Damien Curry, staff planner; Brian Winter, attorney for applicant; Mir Chavas Gariasian, applicant representative; several residents of Maderos Avenue (public commenters).

The board paused for a closed‑session legal discussion during deliberations before returning to vote. The applicant repeatedly emphasized statutory housing protections while neighbors emphasized local road, emergency access and stormwater concerns. The board’s action grants the appeal and approves the four‑lot tentative map, but several public commenters and staff noted outstanding engineering details that must be resolved during subsequent improvement‑plan review.