4A Public Hearing 2014 0602 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Exhibit C: Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2014 Page 4 of 10  Treating temporary political signs differently from other non-commercial signs is problematic. Planner Barros recalled that comments from Commissioner Rennie at the January 30, 2014 Work Session and a separate public comment prompted a review by City Attorney Rich Pio Roda, and the language now proposed resulted from that review. Planner Barros said that the City does have size restrictions on other types of signs but they differ from those that apply to temporary political signs. Noting that language regarding removal of temporary political signs after a period of time has been stricken in the revision, Commissioner Rennie said he is not clear about what makes them temporary. Commissioner Rennie questioned whether the language captures what the City is trying to accomplish. Planner Barros said she thought the City Attorney felt that requiring removal of these signs after an election was a violation of free speech. Commissioner Rennie said he wouldn’t want this particular issue to delay moving forward with the package of Zoning Code amendments, but he did want to express his basic concern that we seem to be addressing Temporary Political Signs differently than other non-commercial signs without a supporting rationale.  As for the dance hall definition, Commissioner Rennie said he was willing to wait for the deferred discussion on Entertainment, but is concerned about the recommended inclusion of a dance hall use in the C-RM District (Bayfair Center), and the potential for it to be a sizeable scale of use. If the dance hall definition would allow a nightclub in its traditional form, he said he can foresee problems developing quickly. Planner Barros pointed out that the dance hall use would require a CUP, which staff considers a good way to review and enforce issues related to size, noise and other impacts. She said before the BZA considers CUP applications, staff sends proposals to the San Leandro Police Department for thorough review and would feel confid ent in handling that, even at Bayfair Center. Commissioner Rennie said he remains uncomfortable with the idea. In his experience, he explained, law enforcement doesn’t always make the connection between land-use planning and operational impacts, and once a profitable nightclub gets in place it can be difficult to dislodge. Commissioner Rennie said he thinks primarily of retail uses when he thinks of Bayfair Center, and doesn’t see how a dance hall adds synergy to the economic activity. Dance halls don’t typically generate revenue sufficient to cover the costs of services they require, he contended, so they become loss-leaders if used to attract people to particular locations. He said it might make good economic sense for the landlord , but particularly in light of the fact that Bayfair and BART already have security and patron - conduct issues, for the City to allow a nighttime use right next to the BART station doesn’t seem to be the direction we’re trying to take with Bayfair. He said we want it to be a safer place, not encourage more problems that need more policing. Secretary Liao said that Bayfair Center, BART and Alameda County have been partnering with the City over the past several months in an effort to secure a planning grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for funding to explore creating a vibrant transit-oriented district (TOD) in the Bayfair/BART area. In the meantime, Bayfair was working toward maximizing flexibility of uses. If the grant money is forthcoming, he said the [planning] process would be very similar to that for the Downtown TOD Strategy development, which he described as a comprehensive process than spanned two and one-half years.