SUMMARY MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 05, 2014 (APPROVED FEBRUARY 26, 2014) The Board Members adjourned to the Field Trip at 1:00 p.m. to visit the properties listed on the Regular Calendar under Field Trip Report. The Regular Meeting was held at the hour of 6:00 p.m. in the Alameda County Building, 224 West Winton Avenue, Hayward, California, 94544. REGULAR MEETING: 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Dawn Clark-Montenegro; Vice Chair, Kathy Gil; Members, Hal Gin. MEMBERS EXCUSED: Todd Paradis, and Roxann Lewis. OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Sawrey-Kubicek, Senior Planner; County Counsel, Kathleen Pacheco; Code Enforcement staff; and Yvonne Bea Grundy, Recording Secretary. There were approximately 12 people in the audience. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 6:03 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR: The Chair announced that anyone present to speak on Agenda item(s) should complete a Speaker Card and present it to the Secretary. Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Abatement Hearing: There were no Agenda items scheduled for the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Hearing Calendar. Alcoholic Beverage Sale Regulations Administrative Hearings: There were no Agenda items scheduled for the Alcoholic Beverage Sale Regulations Administrative Hearing Calendar. OPEN FORUM: Open forum is provided for any members of the public wishing to speak on an item not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes. No one requested to be heard under open forum. FIELD TRIP REPORT: Staff presented no information in addition to printed Field Trip Reports. FIELD TRIP: The meeting adjourned to the field and the following properties were visited: 1. PUBLIC STORAGE EQUITIES LORI KIND / T-MOBILE / CROWN CASTLE JON DOHM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN-2011-00010 - Application to increase the height of an existing telecom facility (stealth flag pole) from an existing height of 45 feet to a proposed height of 48 feet, to accommodate new antenna technology, in the southeast corner of an existing storage service site, in a PD (Planned Development, Zoning Unit, ZU-1785) District, located at 15951 Hesperian Boulevard, west side, 191 feet north of Paseo Grande, in the unincorporated San Lorenzo area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: 412-0031-115-00. Staff Planner: Andy Young. 2. PUBLIC STORAGE EQUITIES LORI KIND / AT&T MOBILITY DAVID CHRISTENSON, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN-2011-00213 - Application to allow replacement of an existing telecom facility (stealth
PAGE 2 light pole 43 feet, six inches in height) with a new stealth monopine (redwood) facility 56 feet in height with co-location capability in the southwest corner of an existing storage service site, in a PD (Planned Development, Zoning Unit, ZU- 1785) District, located at 15951 Hesperian Boulevard, west side, 191 feet north of Paseo Grande, in the unincorporated San Lorenzo area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: 412-0031-115-00. Staff Planner: Andy Young. 3. ALAMEDA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION DEBBIE JELINCIC, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN2013-00171 - Application to allow a temporary community facility (educational community garden), in the ACBDSP- TA (Ashland and Cherryland Business District Specific Plan Transit Access) District, located at 20095 Mission Boulevard, west side, southwest corner of Paradise Boulevard and Mission Boulevard, in the unincorporated Ashland area of Alameda County, bearing Assessor s Parcel Number: 414-0021-060-00. Staff Planner: Pat Anekayuwaat. MEMBERS PRESENT: None. The Field Trip was cancelled. Members visited properties on an individual basis. MEMBERS EXCUSED: Chair; Dawn Clark-Montenegro; Vice Chair, Kathy Gil; Members, Todd Paradis, Hal Gin and Roxann Lewis. OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Sawrey-Kubicek, Senior Planner. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4. CROWN CASTLE / AT&T MOBILITY / LEWIS BINGHAM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN-2013-00113 - Application to allow continued operation of an existing rooftop, wireless telecom facility with modifications: three new antennas, six remote receiving units and one equipment cabinet within the Castro Valley Central Business District Specific Plan, Sub Area 1, located at 2419 Castro Valley Boulevard, south side, approximately 175 feet west of Strobridge Avenue, in the unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: APN: 084A-0007-015- 12. Staff Planner: Carole Kajita. (Continued from January 08, 2014; to be continued to March 12, 2014). The Vice Chair motioned to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Member Gin seconded the motion. The motion carried 3/0. REGULAR CALENDAR 5. PUBLIC STORAGE EQUITIES LORI KIND / T-MOBILE / CROWN CASTLE JON DOHM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN-2011-00010 - Application to increase the height of an existing telecom facility (stealth flag pole) from an existing height of 45 feet to a proposed height of 48 feet, to accommodate new antenna technology, in the southeast corner of an existing storage service site, in a PD (Planned Development, Zoning Unit, ZU-1785)
PAGE 3 District, located at 15951 Hesperian Boulevard, west side, 191 feet north of Paseo Grande, in the unincorporated San Lorenzo area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: 412-0031-115-00. Staff Planner: Andy Young. 6. PUBLIC STORAGE EQUITIES LORI KIND / AT&T MOBILITY DAVID CHRISTENSON, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN-2011-00213 - Application to allow replacement of an existing telecom facility (stealth light pole 43 feet, six inches in height) with a new stealth monopine (redwood) facility 56 feet in height with co-location capability in the southwest corner of an existing storage service site, in a PD (Planned Development, Zoning Unit, ZU- 1785) District, located at 15951 Hesperian Boulevard, west side, 191 feet north of Paseo Grande, in the unincorporated San Lorenzo area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: 412-0031-115-00. Staff Planner: Andy Young. Staff announced applications, PLN-2011-0010 and PLN-2011-00213 would be heard concurrently as the facilities are on the same site. Future co-location is under consideration. The replacement for the existing AT&T facility is a 56 foot tall mono-pine. Co-location is a consideration. T-Mobile, requests a 3 year renewal of the permit for their existing flag pole facility. At termination they could co-locate with AT&T or move to another site. Initial Board questions were as follows: Is 56 feet sufficient to accommodate an additional carrier Have AT&T and T-Mobile been in communication regarding co-location Staff explained the facility could be suitable for co-locatable. This depends on the needs of the carrier. A number of sites in the County are co-located. Co-location permits are processed directly at the Permit Center. Although staff has not been a party to conversations, the Applicants have talked. T-Mobile has not expressed their decision as of yet. However since Crown Castle obtained T-Mobile assets they have been proactive about co-location opportunities. Public testimony was opened. Ms. Ginbar Ketema was present on behalf of Crown Castle. Crown respectfully requested the Board allow an increase of pole facility to 48 feet. This will accommodate new future technology. Member Gin said the present facility did not look like a flag pole. The flag is tied down, not flying. The facility does not look complete. He would like a top added to the flag pole. An aluminum ball would be acceptable. Ms. Ketema explained Crown obtained the facility two weeks ago. The flag is now flying. They will also try to improve the appearance. The Board asked the following questions: Has Crown Castle talked with AT&T about co-location Will Crown Castle acquire additional sites Did Crown Castle acquire any AT&T facilities Ms. Ketema explained since acquisition of the facility they have not yet talked with AT&T. There are available funds to acquire more sites. At this time they do not have any AT&T facilities. She will bring the possibility of co-location to Crown Castle. Steven Kirk was present as a member of the San Lorenzo Homes Association. The HOA passed a motion stating their concerns with the prior proposal. The new proposal is even more concerning. They would like the existing T-Mobile facility removed. The AT&T proposal is appealing however the HOA
PAGE 4 would like mitigating factors placed around it. AT&T is considering the placement of live trees around it in the parking area. The new proposal extends the size of the redwood pole from 43 to 60 feet in height. The HOA would like to know how long it will take surrounding trees to reach a height sufficient to mask the cell tower. The facility will be there a long time. It could be a visual blight, a discouraging factor to attraction of businesses. An AT&T pole in the nearby area will also increase in height. In regard to the T-Mobile facility, the Association is concerned with maintenance of the flag. Presentation of the flag at this site does not represent the community or America. The flag is not illuminated at night nor taken down. Member Gin asked if any residents on Paseo Largavista expressed concerns. Mr. Kirk explained they were outside the boundaries of the HOA. The Chair explained the real trees will be installed at 30 feet in height. Mr. Kirk thought the height would be acceptable. However the maintenance of the flag pole is still a concern. This has been the case for a long period of time. The HOA Board would like the flag pole facility to come down. Although concerns remain regarding the tree pole, they are even more concerned about the flag pole. AT&T Representative, Chris Charlton would like to garner feedback from the BZA and Public Storage about adding trees. Public Storage may utilize the surrounding area in a manner incompatible with large trees. Regarding questions posed by the HOA not many carriers want to be in the low position. However AT&T will allow space to accommodate a future carrier. Board questions were as follows: How long is the AT&T lease Have the carriers worked together in the past Is Public Storage receptive to the addition of more trees Would the addition of trees eliminate parking spaces Mr. Charlton, the AT&T lease is for a significant number of years. Once the facility is installed, the use will be on-going. Public Storage is looking to expand in the area the proposed trees are to be placed. However they are receptive to the idea. The trees will grow large over a period of time. Twelve parking spots may be lost in the present vehicle storage area. The past AT&T Representative did not get a return call from the T Mobile representative. Recently he did get a call from a Crown Castle representative. Member Gin stated the apparent consensus of the Board was the existing flag pole facility was unattractive. They would like the carriers to work together. Mr. Kirk of the SLHOA returned to speak with the Board. Throughout communication with the staff the HOA liked the option that highlighted a tower feature. It would look good. It would avoid the look of an unsightly palm tree style tower in Hayward. The Vice Chair pointed out AT&T said the faux tower feature would be cost prohibitive. However she agreed. The carriers need to work together. A specific plan should be established that ensures this. The current process is open ended and lacks control. Public testimony was closed. Member Gin was concerned with maintenance of the pole. He would not support a further extension in height of the flag pole facility. The prior Condition of Approval, #17 has not been in compliance. The facility has not maintained with U.S. Flag Code. The Chair asked staff if the permit could be set for expiration in one (1) year. The Applicant can then report on conversations with other telecom carriers. She understands Crown Castle just obtained the site. However the community has concerns about a higher pole. She does not understand why the carriers cannot co-locate. In the interim, the T-Mobile facility must meet U.S. Flag Code regulations. Lighting and chain and pulley to raise and lower the flag must be added to the site. Counsel confirmed the Board could issue a limited permit given the new ownership. This will allow time to submit proposals for co-
PAGE 5 location. A Condition requiring the carrier report out is also acceptable. Staff believed addition of 4 trees would be good. A Landscape Plan requiring Planning Director approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit can also be an added Condition. The Chair believed the permit should be limited to 12 months on the basis of condition, and appearance of the pole/flag. The facility and conditions are inconsistent with the surrounding area, and the General Plan. The limited permit is also based on the record of maintenance or lack thereof since 2002. Ownership of the pole facility has changed. This will allow opportunities for co-location discussions. Condition #17 should be modified to add language requiring the flag be maintained in compliance with the United States Flag Code(s). The size of the flag shall remain the same. A chain and pulley must be added to the pole. A ball should be added to the top of the facility. Staff recommended the pole remain at the present height of 45 feet. The Chair passed the gavel to the Vice Chair and motioned to approve Conditional Use Permit, PLN-2011-00010, T-Mobile with modifications. The application will be limited to a period of 12 months from the date of approval, as a result of concerns regarding lack of maintenance and consistency with the General Plan of the flag pole, in addition to community concerns about the location. T-Mobile/Crown Castle is required to meet with AT&T and appear before the Board of Zoning Adjustments to report out within six (6) months regarding co-location. Condition #17 shall now add language requiring the flag be maintained in compliance with the Unites Stated Flag Code. The flag must remain at the current size. A chain and pulley must be added to the pole. An aluminum ball top must be added that is in proportion to the size of the pole. The staff recommendation shall be maintained. The pole height must remain at 45 feet. Member Gin seconded the motion. The motion carried 3/0. The Chair motioned to approve Conditional Use Permit, 2011-2013, AT&T/Public Storage Equities with modifications. The permit will terminate in 10 years. A further Condition of Approval will be added requiring a Landscape Plan. The Landscape Plan must be submitted, and granted final approval by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The Landscape Plan must include four (4) live redwood trees, minimum box size of 36 inches. Member Gin seconded the motion. The motion carried 3/0. 7. TARIQ HAMID / CHUCK & JOE S LIQUOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLN-2013-00139 Application to review the continued operation of a liquor store under new ownership (renamed from Valley Liquors to Chuck & Joes Liquors) in the CVCBDSP-SUB7 (Castro Valley Central Business District Specific Plan Subarea 7) District, located at 20451 Redwood Road, west side, 400 feet north of Castro Valley Boulevard, unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, bearing Assessor's Parcel Number: 084A-0080-011-09. Staff Planner: Andrew Young. (Continued from January 08, 2014). Staff reviewed the application. It was continued because the Applicant was not present at the last Hearing. The BZA asked that a floor plan be submitted with the application. It is now included in the staff report. Public testimony was closed. Store Manager, Dhanraj Jairam was present. He and a former military buddy just purchased the store. Store layout and Hours of Operation will remain unchanged. Board questions for the Applicant were as follows:
PAGE 6 What changes will be made to signage How was the name of the establishment determined Have there been any store robberies Mr. Jairam said the excess signage was removed from the window. It is now in compliance with the Specific Plan. The store name was changed back the original name when the establishment first opened. There have been no crimes during his ownership. It is helpful the beverage coolers are located at the rear. Public testimony was closed. The Chair asked staff if the store was in compliance with the Specific Plan regarding Alcohol Outlets. Staff confirmed it was. Floor space coverage for sundry items, and snacks and candy cannot exceed 50%. Once a 50% threshold is exceeded with items non-alcohol related. The use ceases to be a liquor store and becomes a convenience store. The Vice Chair motioned to approve, Conditional Use Permit, 2013-00109, Tariq Hamid / Chuck & Joe s Liquor. Member Gin seconded the motion. The motion carried, 3/0. 8. ALAMEDA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION DEBBIE JELINCIC, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN2013-00171 - Application to allow a temporary community facility (educational community garden), in the ACBDSP- TA (Ashland and Cherryland Business District Specific Plan Transit Access) District, located at 20095 Mission Boulevard, west side, southwest corner of Paradise Boulevard and Mission Boulevard, in the unincorporated Ashland area of Alameda County, bearing Assessor s Parcel Number: 414-0021-060-00. Staff Planner: Pat Anekayuwaat. Staff reviewed the report and recommended approval for a period of 3 years. The Specific Plan lists some approved uses and prohibited uses. This particular use is not listed in the Specific Plan. If that is the case, the Zoning Ordinance is referenced. The C-1 District would apply in this case. The C-1 District does allow a Community Facility as a Conditional Use. There was a similar application in front of the Board in 2011 that was approved. This application is viewed in the same context because educational facilities are considered community facilities. Initial Board questions were as follows: Who owns the property Why is a Conditional Use Permit required Why is parking proposed for Paradise Boulevard Staff explained this site was owned by the former Redevelopment Agency. The property now belongs to the Successor Agency. As they are different entities, a use permit would be required. If the use was run by the County a conditional use permit may not be needed. In this case there is an applicant. Out of a sense of caution a permit was thought to be the likely course. The Applicant proposed there be parking on one single site on the property. The Board can modify conditions of approval if needed. Ms. Debbie Jelincic with the Alameda County Office of Education was present. She involved many members of the community to come and learn more about the project. She invited the BZA to come and visit the proposed garden site. She is also available to discuss the project further after the meeting.
PAGE 7 Community outreach will continue if the project is approved. The proposed unloading area is Paradise Boulevard. There is also parking available on Mission Boulevard. However most people will come to the garden on foot. Initial Board questions were as follows: Does the Board of Education have any similar projects What is the real intent of the use Who would maintain the garden How was the Office of Education made aware the property was available What will happen to the garden in the event the property is sold Has the Office of Education purchased the property What is the parking consideration resulting from using Paradise Boulevard Ms Jelincic told the Board most of the approximately 30 existing garden projects are on school grounds. The projects are the desire of the Public Health, Social Services, and community members. The proposed garden project is designed to be mobile. There are many examples of gardens on pallets, and/or pots that can be relocated. The project is a demonstration site. It is also a beautification project. The hope is that it will inspire other community gardens. Community members will take a leadership role. The primary drop off is slated to be Mission Boulevard. The gate with vehicle and pedestrian access will be on the Paradise Boulevard side. Mission Boulevard is the closest location for parking. Community members brought the idea to Supervisor Miley s discussion group 3 years ago. The land is not owned by the Office of Education. There are no plans to purchase the property. Cherryland, resident, Rick Hatcher is a direct neighbor project. The proposal is an educational center. Blighted properties exist in the area. This project will revolve around food production. Hopefully it will inspire similar projects. He is in support. Mr. Howard Beckman told the Board he was a long time advocate of having kids eat healthy foods. That is not why he is present. The larger issues have been outlined in his letter submitted today. He is here to speak in response to the abuse of power at the County. Regarding the issue of ownership, the Successor Agency is under a mandate to develop projects or get off the pot. Originally the Redevelopment Disillusion Act was to dispose of all property. The Act was then amended to reflect, a project could continue as long as it was in the works. There is a lot wrong with the way this particular project is being handled within the Planning Department. He believes the application should be continued until the succession process is clear. He became a lawyer because he was interested in the Rule of Law. He has been to public hearings over and over again to convey. It is not about the law, but maintaining stability of the process. The Applicant could be a home owner or rich developer. The community interest is what is more important in the long run. In this case the County has detoured around the Law. The BZA is sitting as judges as they are a quasi judicial body. Those doing so should get it right. This use is only addressed in the Ordinance as an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. There is no other provision for on-going temporary uses. He is very involved in Land Use issues, and knows how the process works. If a use permit is granted. It will not terminate in 3 years. The use would have a right to continue unless it is in violation. Supervisor Miley has been moving the idea of a community garden around for a long time. He believes the BZA has a vested interest in making staff re-do and submit a more accurate staff report. The current report contains made up language that does not exist in the Eden Plan. He hopes the BZA will continue the matter if for no other reason to determine under what auspices the Successor Agency is operating under. The Vice Chair asked how Mr. Beckman would fix it so the garden could be installed. Mr. Beckman said he could not speak to the garden. He is present to speak to the process. He is a strong supporter of gardens in schools. During the ELAI process he made a strong argument for an Agricultural Policy.
PAGE 8 Member Gin said he had not yet considered the issue of the Successor Agency. In his opinion it would take a long time to resolve the questions (get their act together). Mr. Beckman could not say either. It is a shame Ms. Dalton from the Successor Agency was not present to speak with the issue. The Successor Agencies are being monitored like never before. It is not known how long this process will take. Public testimony was closed. Counsel explained a Conditional use Permit can be indefinite or for a specific term. The BZA can limit a permit to a specific time frame and institute specific limitations the Board determines appropriate. There is a lack of clarity regarding Successor Agencies. It does not mean the property must necessarily remain vacant until resolved. It does not prevent the BZA from taking action. In this case staff has recommended a permit limit of 3 years. The Chair asked staff the following: Does the County have rights to use the property Does the property have a value Has value been reduced by the property passing from Redevelopment to its Successor Agency Is this project a means to prevent the land from being sold Does language exist that designates a garden as a community facility Does the Board have the ability to limit the term of the permit Counsel explained it appears the Successor agency in working with the County has determined with the Planning Department the use in conjunction with the community, the use is appropriate. The garden can be moved if required or in the event of a change of use and/or ownership. Staff cannot speak to motivations with all of the parties, as they are unfamiliar with all of them. These are issues all counties and cities are trying to address. The issue before the BZA is if the use is appropriate also if concerns regarding the use be addressed with Conditions. If it is determined the property is to be sold. The use would not prohibit the property from being sold. Planning staff again told the Board that the Specific Plan is silent regarding community facilities. The educational component does classify the use as a community facility. The Zoning Ordinance does give the Board the ability to set a time limit. The Board can assign a Condition stating, the granting of the use does not limit future development and/or the consideration of the sale of the property, in any manner. Member Gin noted the current state of the neighborhood. The area has changed since many of the car dealerships and Banchero s has closed. Further Board questions were as follows: Are there future development plans for the area If transferred from Successor Agency back to the County considered a change in ownership Is a Farmers Market considered a retail use Is a store front required for a Farmers Market Staff told the Board there have been a few inquires about the old Banchero s property for restaurant and/or nightclub use. However no applications have been filed at this time. A Farmers Market could be a retail use if there is a product for sale. The Specific Plan must be consulted to determine if a retail use must take place indoors or outdoors. For example at another location, a portion of the green house was used to sell the goods produced from the use. Counsel confirmed the property could be sold. Mr. Beckman interjected from the audience. If the property were sold, the amount must be for good price as opposed to exchange for one dollar. Public testimony was reopened to speak with the Applicant. Ms. Jelincic returned to the rostrum. The Board asked the following additional questions:
PAGE 9 Will produce be sold from the site Do any partners organizations sell produce Ms. Jelinic explained the purpose of the garden is to inspire young people. They will also learn how to grow food. Hopefully they can take these skills and employ them in their own back yards. There are partner organizations in the Bay Area such as Dig Deep Farms, and the Mandela Farmer s Market that do sell produce. Their overall concept is food justice. Everyone should have access to healthy food. Member Gin offered commentary to address some of the points raised. Supervisor Miley is using this project as a rhetorical political statement. When the Ashland Youth Center was constructed it was said the use would draw retail uses around it. Regarding this particular use, the purpose is not to train young people for jobs to grow food but to teach skills. If there is to be a retail component it is incumbent on Planning Staff to explain how retail uses be activated as a result of this community facility (educational garden) use. Public testimony was closed. Further questions for staff were as follows: Does the Successor Agency know a garden will be placed at this site If this site were still owned by Redevelopment would a Conditional Use Permit be necessary Is the Office of Education the Applicant Staff explained they had been in attendance with meetings with the former Redevelopment, and the Successor agency. All were in support. To employ this use (community facility) all Applicants are required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for this use. The BZA heard an application in the past regarding a community facility in a Transit Access zone. In this case, the Office of Education is the applicant. Counsel further explained the Successor Agency is the land owner. The Vice Chair thought the project of growing food is good, although it seemed the CUP seems unnecessary. The Chair noted the BZA approved an application for a community center in a Transit Zone. She agreed with staff. A community center at this location was appropriate. The use should have an expiration date. It should not prevent the future sale or development of the site. It could take some time for time for lingering questions posed about the Successor Agency to be answered. It would not be fair to the Applicant to wait for the outcome. The Chair passed the gavel to the Vice Chair then placed a motion on the floor to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a period of 3 years. A Landscaping Plan is required and must now indicate Mission Boulevard as opposed to Paradise Boulevard as the main parking area. General Condition #1 shall add the following language: The granting of this use shall not limit or prohibit future development and/or sale of the property. Any change of ownership of the property will terminate the use permit. Member Gin, seconded the motion. The motion to approve, Conditional Use Permit, PLN-2013-00171, carried 3/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Member Gin motioned to accept the Minuets of January 22, 2014 as submitted. The Vice Chair seconded the motion. The motion carried 3/0. STAFF COMMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE: Staff announced the appeal of the Board of Zoning Adjustments 3/2 decision to uphold the Zoning Enforcement staff recommendation to declare storage of a utility trailer in a front yard of a property on Stanton Avenue a violation was heard at the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors upheld the BZA decision.
PAGE 10 The appeal of West County Board of Zoning Adjustments decision regarding, Variance, PLN-2012-00071, Kashikar, heard at the February 04, 2014 Board of Supervisor s Hearing was continued to a future date. Staff announced the next BZA meeting would be on February 19, 2014. BOARD S ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMENTS AND REPORTS: The Chair repeated comments made during a conversation after the last meeting. Member Lewis noted many Zoning Enforcement violations are often repeated such as fence height and excess paving. She thought further public education and information would be helpful. The Chair would like to place the topic of common violations on a future Agenda. The Vice Chair added the topic on how get information about common violations was raised at a past EALI meeting. Staff responded Code Enforcement staff does attend monthly community meetings to discuss the topic. The discussion will be placed on a future Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:17 p.m. ALBERT LOPEZ - SECRETARY