4A Public Hearing 2014 0602 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Exhibit C: Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2014 Page 9 of 10 With no further comments from staff or Commissioners, Acting Chair Hernandez opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Motion to close public hearing Fitzsimons/Collier: 5 Ayes, 0 No Acting Chair Hernandez questioned the use of “recurrently needed services of a personal nature” in the retail services definition. He recommended deleting “recurrently needed,” which may apply to haircuts but not so much tattoos. Planner Barros concurred. Noting that a number of changes that pertain to recycling, Acting Chair Hernandez asked whether they warrant further discussion. Planner Barros said the main change is that recycling operations that take place entirely indoors can be permitted with Administrative Review, but any outdoor operations at all would continue to require CUPs. In terms of temporary political signs, in response to Acting Chair Hernandez, Ms. Faught said the 10-day window for removal such signs is being stricken because it potentially violates Constitutional rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. In regard to Acting Chair Hernandez’s question about amending Zoning Code Article 17 to increase leniency on parking deficiencies before parking exceptions are required, Planner Barros said staff recommends that applicants be able to have 20 percent fewer parking spaces than required, rather than 15 percent, before they must request a parking exception. She said it’s a minor change that won’t affect many projects, but it would avoid the angst experienced in the past over one or two parking spaces. Planner Barros said she did not check for comparable standards in other communities for this particular recommendation but rather Planning staff based its recommendation on observations in San Leandro. Commissioner Rennie asked whether the category “prohibited signs,” which includes “mobile, A-frame or portable,” applies on both private and public property. Planner Barros said it does, but she said the prohibition wouldn’t apply to carrying picket signs, which she believes are exempted in another part of the Zoning Code. In response to Acting Chair Hernandez, Planner Barros said that additional study and research will be devoted to live-work uses before any relevant Zoning Code amendments would be recommended. Commissioner Rennie, noting the considerable volume of material related to the proposed Zoning Code amendments, said the “show-stoppers” for him were the dance hall use in the C-RM District and the environmental impact review he thought it would have required. He described the approach he took was to identify specifics that could be improved or areas he found particularly problematic. Otherwise, Commissioner Rennie explained, he’s fine with making a recommendation even in cases where he isn’t completely comfortable with the underlying scope of regulation (e.g., signs). In other words, in endorsing a proposed amendment , he’s not necessarily endorsing the regulation being amended.