Residential Appeals Committee Meeting: Appeal of Minor Change Determination at 1901 Asylomar Drive (April 15, 2026)
Residential Appeals Committee Meeting – April 15, 2026
The Residential Appeals Committee (RAC) of the Oakland Planning Commission met on April 15, 2026, at 3:00 PM to hear a single appeal. The appeal challenged the zoning manager's determination that revisions to an approved project at 1901 Asylomar Drive (case file PLN 23090) constituted a minor change. The revisions involved retaining walls (2–3 feet high) and grading adjustments to qualify the lower level as a basement for floor area ratio (FAR) compliance. The committee voted unanimously to uphold the staff determination and deny the appeal.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Whit Turner (Housing Action Coalition) opposed the appeal, arguing that delaying an ADU project well into construction undermines administrative finality and the housing crisis response. He urged the committee to uphold the determination.
- Joshua Sanchez (resident at 6506 Colton Boulevard) supported the appeal, citing concerns about fire safety, neighborhood compatibility, the three-story massing, and the classification of the lower level as a basement. He requested a major design review.
Discussion Items
- Appeal of Determination DET 26003 (1901 Asylomar Drive) – The appellant (Robert Martinez, representing the Sarony Montclair Coalition) argued that the original permit was based on an incorrect lot size and that the revisions were part of a pattern of manipulation. They claimed the lower level did not meet the definition of a basement, the FAR exceeded the limit, and the grading created safety risks in the S9 fire zone. They requested revocation of the permit and a stop-work order.
- Staff Presentation – Planner Kubulai Inanla explained that the revisions were minor grading changes, that the lower level qualifies as a basement under the code (more than 50% of perimeter ≤6 feet above grade, no point >12 feet), and that the FAR is 0.43 (within the 0.50 limit). The determination was based on objective standards.
- Applicant's Response – Bobby Saklicha (co-owner) and architect Cindy Stay described the project as a multi-generational home with an ADU, noted the lot size error was inadvertent, and argued the revisions were substantially consistent with the approved plans. They emphasized vested rights and the Housing Accountability Act.
- Commissioner Questions – Commissioners Lee and Randolph questioned both parties on the FAR calculation, the definition of basement, the S9 zone standards, and alternative approaches. The city attorney (Brian Mulrie) advised that the underlying project was vested, and that counting ADU floor area toward FAR would violate state law. Staff confirmed that even if the appeal were upheld, the project could be approved ministerially under objective design standards.
Key Outcomes
- Motion: Commissioner Lee moved to affirm staff's determination that the revised project constitutes a minor change, which can be approved administratively. Chair Randolph seconded.
- Vote: 2–0 in favor (Commissioner Ahrens absent).
- Result: The appeal was denied. The zoning manager's determination stands. The decision is not appealable.
- Meeting Adjourned: 4:05 PM.
Meeting Transcript
I see a few additional people have entered the room, and this will be the residential appeals committee meeting starting at thr uh a little after I stop speaking now that it's three o'clock. Meanwhile, if you'd like to uh if you're not the appellant or the applicant are on their team and you would like to speak on at open forum or on the agendized item, you can grab a speaker card here and fill it out and turn it into Steph. And if you parked at the garage under two fifty Franco Gawa Plaza, I believe it's called the Dalsille Garage, we do have promoted parking. If you scan the park mobile sheet up here next to Steph, you'll get promoted parking as long as you haven't started your parking session yet. Thank you, Catherine. And with that, I would like to call the residential appeals committee of the Oakland Planning Commission for April fifteenth, twenty twenty-six uh to order. Appreciate everybody coming. There might be I know some confusion. Usually we have our regular planning commission meeting on these days, but we have a very special appeal today, so we we swapped in that one in lieu. And uh with that, um, can we do the roll call? Uh Lee. Here. Commissioner Ahrens is absent. Chair Randolph? Here. You have a quorum. Excellent. Um, I don't think there's any committee matters. Anything we need to raise. No. Nope. So um we are gonna go, I think the we don't need an agenda discussion, so we're gonna go into open forum. Are there any speaker cards for open forum? There are no there are no speakers for open forum. All right, open forum is closed. Uh and with that, we're gonna go to um new business, the uh appeal in front of us. And the way it's gonna work is we're gonna have a ten minute staff re uh presentation. We have ten minutes for the appellants and then ten minutes for the applicants, followed by if there's any public comment. Is that correct? Yes, and before we go into the details, do you want me to outline what the item is? Yes, please. So the item is nineteen oh one SLMR drive. The proposal is an appeal of a determination that a change to the approved plans for case file PLN 23090 is considered minor per condition of approval number six. The revisions include refinements to site grading, such as retaining wall with a maximum height of three feet on the side of the house and a planter and an elevated path on a retaining wall at the rear of the home with a maximum height of two feet. And the case planner for the city of Oakland is Kubalai Anonley, who will be making a presentation uh before the appellant and the applicant at your pleasure. Sounds good. If you want to have staff coming up to start the presentation, thank you. And just for the record state default name and then my name is Kubulai Inanla. I'm planner one with the city of Oakland. Um you guys hear me? All right, perfect. Okay, so um, as was previously mentioned, this is an appeal of DET 2600 3 at 1901 Asylomar Drive. So I'll talk a little bit about the permit history of this site. Um this uh there was a uh application for a renovation uh which included a creation of the ADU and expansion of the home uh with an upper story addition, which was approved in December 2023 under PLN 23090. Construction for this project began in August 2024. Um later on it was discovered that um there was uh an incorrect um lot area submitted on the original planning drawings. Um so the applicant submitted revisions to bring the project into compliance with FAR requirements in January 2026. Uh on February 13th, 2026, uh planning staff issued a determination that the revisions constituted a minor change, and then um seven days later, an appeal for that determination was filed. Um the project itself um is situated on a downsloped lot in the RH4 and S9 zones. Um and then our determination letter determined that uh the revisions submitted um to an approved and under construction project were a minor change according to the original approvals conditions where minor and major changes are defined.
openpublica.com