Laserfiche WebLink
Excerpts from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 15, 2014 <br /> Page 9 of 9 <br />aesthetics, she said. Planner Penaranda said this finding could address the use of tubular metal and <br />decorative wrought iron as adequate urban design. The Commissioners concurred with Chair Abero’s <br />suggestion to remove references to the Neighborhood Watch and focus on design of the fencing and gate. <br />Finding #6 <br />Chair Abero quoted the current finding, that the project “includes adequate provision for utilities, <br />services and emergency vehicle access; and that public service demands will not exceed the capacity of <br />the existing and planned systems.” Instead of the reference to expected “increased and stacking of <br />vehicles entering and exiting the site,” she suggested incorporating “more-than-adequate setback to <br />reduce the stacking” and the size of other developments that have no problems with stacking. <br />Commissioner Hernandez said the reference to the size of the development is important. He suggested <br />that reference to cameras also be included, but Chair Abero didn’t agree. Planner Penaranda said staff <br />could discuss this with the applicant because it is within the Planning Commission’s purview to explore <br />the possibility of security measures in addition to the gate. He suggested, too, that the camera installation <br />the HOA is considering to monitor activity around the mailboxes could have a wider angle to take in a <br />larger area. Commissioner Hernandez said a condition of approval could include asking the applicant to <br />explore additional measures to provide public safety, such as cameras, to deter violence and reduce crime, <br />and possibly register those cameras and/or surveillance program with the San Leandro Police Department <br />through WiFi or other means. <br />Planner Penaranda asked if the conditions of approval might include supplementing the security gate, <br />fencing and telephone entry pad with cameras. Chair Abero said she’s concerned about making cameras, <br />security guards and other deterrents a requirement due to the expense. Commissioner Leichner agreed <br />that it shouldn’t be a condition of approval, but would like to see whether after a trial period the gate <br />alone works and then leave it to the HOA’s discretion to take further security measures. <br />Planner Penaranda suggested that the Commission direct staff to develop some standard conditions to <br />reflect the desire to improve the aesthetics of the gate (i.e., soften the appearance of the spikes), as well as <br />to refurbish any landscaping that’s destroyed, select paving materials of an appropriate standa rd, obtain <br />the required encroachment and building permits and other necessary approvals. Primarily, he said the <br />conditions would be appropriate to ensuring compliance with the exhibits and abiding by various codes. <br />Motion to: <br />1) Adopt categorical exemption for this project, to construct new gates/fencing, <br />under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, <br />Article 19, Section 15303(e), new construction of small structures <br />2) Make the required Finding of Fact for approval of the project <br />as discussed by the Planning Commission for revision by staff <br />3) Recommend approval of PLN2014-00006,modification of an existing Planned <br />Development, PD 77-11 to the City Council <br />Collier/Hernandez: 5 Aye, 0 No, 2 Absent <br />Secretary Liao stated that decisions of the Planning Commission under public hearings may be appealed <br />to the City Council by filing a form with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the action. The form <br />shall specifically state the reason for the appeal, and an appeal fee will be required. <br /> <br />END OF EXCERPTS <br />