My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3B Public Hearing 2012 0416
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2012
>
Packet 2012 0416
>
3B Public Hearing 2012 0416
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2012 4:41:18 PM
Creation date
4/10/2012 4:40:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
4/16/2012
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2012 0416 CS+RG
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2012\Packet 2012 0416
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Excerpt of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 1 S, 2012 Page 2 of 4 <br />monetary value, but only the size of the landscaping project, whether newly installed or <br />rehabilitated. <br />Commissioner Fitzsimons asked about the reasons for striking items from Section 4- 1908 -E. <br />Senior Planner Barros explained that 42 and #I I are being removed because they are repetitious, <br />and 46 was moved to Section 4- 1910(B) as a required standard. <br />Commissioner Rennie said that he was distracted by the ordinance as a whole as opposed to the <br />modest proposals for changes. While he has no issue with the changes proposed, the ordinance <br />itself could make it much clearer how the requirements apply. As a matter of principle, he said <br />it's better to make requirements understandable by a lay person, so it would at least be <br />appropriate to clarify the trigger. <br />Planner Barros explained that the trigger is on the first page of the existing Article 19, under <br />General Requirement in Section 4 -1902. Specified by WELO, the existing requirements are <br />effectively targeted to professional landscapers. The City has no licensed landscape architect on <br />staff, and instead of having to contract with one to review projects in consultation with the <br />developer's landscaper and thus burdening a developer with the cost of hiring two licensed <br />landscapers, the practice has been to require applicable projects to engage licensed landscape <br />architects. These professionals must sign letters indicating their compliance with the ordinance. <br />Planner Barros acknowledged that the ordinance is very technical and highly detailed. In the case <br />of the San Leandro landscape ordinance, she said that it's actually a simplified version of the <br />WELO, incorporating the longer State document by reference. <br />Commissioner Hernandez asked whether the proposed changes would have any significant <br />impact on developers. Planner Barros said the changes are minor, making native plantings a <br />requirement. Most large projects probably already comply with the C &D changes. Tipping <br />(disposal) fees are such that developers prefer recycling C &D materials rather than taking them to <br />the dump. Chair Collier pointed out that tipping fees have increased from $13 to $39 per <br />truckload. <br />Commissioner Rennie said he appreciates the explanation so that he knows who's expected to <br />understand the ordinance's technical content. In terms of Section 4- 1904(A), though, he said the <br />City should make it understandable to staff and the public as to when the trigger hits. As an <br />example, he said, if he lived in a home that had a developer - installed landscape 10 years ago and <br />he wants to rehabilitate it does he have to comply with this ordinance? <br />Planner Barros said no, the trigger is spelled out in Section 4 -1902 General Requirements. She <br />pointed out, too, that in the two years this ordinance has been on the books there have been no <br />issues related to homeowners being confused by it. Further, she said, developers who have to <br />comply with the ordinance have landscape architects who are well- acquainted with WELO, partly <br />because it is in effect in one form or another throughout the State. <br />In response to Commissioner Fitzsimons's asking for confirmation that this ordinance applies <br />only to projects that require Site Plan Approval, she said no, the ordinance applies to "applicable <br />large landscape projects and projects for which Site Plan Approval is required." Large landscape <br />projects, she continued, would exceed 2,500 square feet if commercial, industrial or developer - <br />installed residential, or 5,000 square feet in other residential landscaping. <br />Commissioner Fitzsimons then asked whether this article would apply if he had a 5,100- square- <br />foot back yard that he wanted to change. She confirmed it would if the entire back yard is <br />landscaped. Planner Barros also confirmed Commissioner Fitzsimons's understanding that the <br />Zoning Enforcement Official (ZEO) could waive these provisions if Commissioner Fitzsimons <br />wanted to rehabilitate only 500 square feet of his 5,100- square -foot back yard. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.