Title
Staff Report for the Matter of PLN2014-00007; Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Proposed Modification to Planned Development PD-91-3. Appellant proposes to construct new gates and fencing for the Heron Bay Homeowners Association residential development. A Planning Commission denial is final but can be appealed to the City Council. RS(PD) Residential Single-Family, Planned Development Overlay District. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 80G-1325-5-1, 80G-1406-26, and 80G-1406-29. Heron Bay Homeowners Association c/o A. A. Berger, General Counsel (appellant).
Staffreport
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Heron Bay Homeowners Association (Association) proposes to install vehicular and pedestrian gates and fencing across Bayfront Drive, Anchorage Drive, and the open space at the north side of the Lewelling Boulevard circle, which would effectively gate the residential community. The purpose would be to control vehicular traffic into the Heron Bay residential development and permit bicycle and pedestrian traffic via a swinging gate along the Bayfront Drive sidewalk.
The Heron Bay Planned Development was approved by the City Council in the 1990s as an open and non-gated residential community. Staff determined that the proposal is a major modification of the Planned Development. Just as the Planned Development to establish an open and non-gated Heron Bay neighborhood was subject to discretionary review by the Planning Commission and the City Council, so too is the proposal to modify it by gating and fencing the neighborhood. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed modification to the Planned Development and denied it.
This matter was originally noticed for the May 15, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Prior to that meeting, the applicant requested a postponement to the next Planning Commission meeting date. Staff recommended continuance of the matter and the Planning Commission agreed to continue it to the June 19, 2014 meeting.
At its June 19, 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission heard the Heron Bay Homeowners Association proposal to modify the Planned Development approval by installing vehicular and pedestrian gates and fencing. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal, received staff's report, received the applicant's presentation, heard public comments, and, after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission made the necessary findings of fact and denied the proposed modifications to the PD. The motion passed 6-0 (1 absent). The excerpts of the June 19th Planning Commission meeting minutes are attached to this report.
The Planning Commission's denial of a proposal to modify a PD is final unless the decision is appealed to the City Council within 15 days of the Planning Commission's decision. On July 3, 2014 the appellant filed a timely appeal.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed modification of Heron Bay's Planned Development, PD-91-3.
BACKGROUND
Per the Planned Development, PD-91-3, and various subdivision maps, Heron Bay (formerly known as Robert's Landing by Citation Homes) was constructed as an open and non-gated neighborhood at the west terminus of Lewelling Boulevard. The neighborhood comprises 629 residential units (451 detached single-family units and 178 motor court units) on approximately 70 acres.
The development of Heron Bay included the restoration and public dedication of the 400-plus acres of marshlands between the Planned Development neighborhood and the Bay. The San Francisco Bay Trail in San Leandro extends from the San Lorenzo Creek to Marina Park, which runs through the restored marsh next to Heron Bay, follows along the edge of the Bay, crosses a flood control channel to Marina Park, and continues north to Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline.
The proposal to construct gates and fences is considered a major modification to the approved PD-91-3. Therefore, in accordance with the Zoning Code, the request to modify PD-91-3 was treated as a new application for a Planned Development approval.
The stated purpose of the proposal as submitted by the applicant is to address security, including unwanted solicitors, package thefts, vandalism and other public safety and nuisance issues. According to the applicant, the Association passed a measure to assess members for construction of security gates and fencing to reduce unauthorized access by nonresidents into the neighborhood.
Site Plan, Fence and Gate Design and Operations
The proposal includes gates at three locations: the Park Entrance, Anchorage Drive and Bayfront Drive. The proposed gates and fencing would be tubular metal fences, vehicle gates and pedestrian gates, and flagstone veneered columns/pilasters (see Exhibits B-D). Other related features would include motorized openers for the vehicle gates, cameras on the stone columns that record vehicle and pedestrian traffic, tire spikes on the exit only side of the vehicle gates, and appropriate signage and lights.
The Park Entrance gates and fencing are located at the northern entrance to the development, set back approximately 25 feet from the face of the curb of the Lewelling Boulevard circle. The proposed fence line across the frontage of the park would include a manual vehicle gate for emergency vehicle access (with a Knox Box) and a pedestrian gate (see Exhibit D). The fence would span approximately 200 lineal feet across the frontage of the park. The park fencing would be six feet tall; the vehicle gates would be up to seven feet tall, and the pedestrian gate would be six feet, nine inches tall. In front of the proposed fence, on the left side of the emergency vehicle gate driveway would be a LED sign on a stone monument greeting drivers and pedestrians to Heron Bay.
The proposed Park Entrance gates would operate as follows:
1. The entire frontage would be fenced with the exception of the following two gates described below.
2. The vehicle gate would be locked, but accessible to emergency vehicles via the Knox Box. It would replace the three existing bollards.
3. The pedestrian gate access to the park would be set on a timer to allow pedestrian access to the Bay Trail during daylight hours only.
On Anchorage Drive, the proposed gates and fencing would be constructed approximately 80 feet from the southern edge of the Lewelling Boulevard circle. They would span approximately 75 feet in width from the existing utility building on the north end to a new fence on the south side of Anchorage Drive (see Exhibit C). At each end of the gates there would be eight-foot tall stone veneered columns. The north segment spanning the 26-foot wide Anchorage Drive roadway would be composed of an automated double gate, 13 feet each in length, with a height that gradually increases from approximately 6.5 feet at the ends to an eight-foot height at the center where the gates meet. The remaining fence segment terminating at the utility building would be six-feet tall. The gates and fencing include security cameras, a license plate reader, motorized gate openers, lighting, a card reader to allow access with authorized identification cards, a Knox Box for Fire Department access, tire spikes on the egress side of the gate, and signage warning of the tire spikes. The southern segment would include a pedestrian gate, a card key reader to allow for access, fencing, and a column.
The proposed Anchorage Drive gates would operate as follows:
1. The vehicle gates would be for visitors, residents with a remote opener, and emergency vehicles.
2. Visitors would have to drive up to and stop at the pedestal which would be equipped with a phone entry system. Visitors would call their host, who would open the vehicle gate remotely to allow entry by the visitor. Regular package delivery services (i.e., U.S. Postal, UPS, FedEx) would be provided a punch-in key code at the pedestal.
3. The pedestrian gate would be locked, equipped with a key card reader, and would be accessible only to residents with key cards.
4. A second phone entry system would be mounted on the side of the column near the pedestrian gate for pedestrian visitors to call their host.
5. The cameras on the columns would record entering and exiting vehicles, license plates and pedestrians.
On Bayfront Drive, the proposed gates and fencing would be constructed approximately 65 feet from the Lewelling Boulevard circle. They would span the 53.5-foot width from the north soundwall to the south soundwall (see Exhibit B). The 12-foot northern segment would include a four-foot wide pedestrian gate with a height of six feet, nine inches tall. Spanning the 36-foot wide street for vehicular access would be an automated double gate, 18 feet in length each, with a height that gradually increases from approximately six feet, six inches at the ends to eight feet tall to the center where the gates meet. At each end of the gates will be the eight-foot tall columns. The remaining 5.5 feet at the southern end includes the column and tubular metal fencing. These proposed improvements would also be supplemented by security cameras, a license plate reader, motorized gate openers, lighting, a card reader to allow access with authorized identification cards, a Knox Box for Fire Department access, tire spikes on the egress side of the gate, and signage warning of the tire spikes. The pedestrian gate would remain closed but unlocked at all times for use by pedestrians and bicyclists to access the Bay Trail via Bayfront Drive from the Lewelling Boulevard circle.
The proposed Bayfront Drive gates would operate as follows:
1. The vehicle gates would be for residents with a remote opener and emergency vehicles only.
2. The pedestrian gate would be closed but unlocked at all times.
3. The egress vehicle gate and the pedestrian gate would allow exit from within Heron Bay at all times via detection loops in the ground for vehicles and exit hardware on the inside of the pedestrian gate.
4. Cameras on the columns would record entering and exiting vehicles, license plates and pedestrians.
Summary of Access
1. The proposal provides that residents would have Vehicle ID tags on their vehicles that would be read by the automated gate systems on Bayfront and Anchorage Drives. Residents would also have key fobs to open the two limited access pedestrian gates.
2. Visitors in motorized vehicles would not be able to enter through the Bayfront Drive vehicle gate; that gate would be reserved for residents only. Visitors would be required to use the Anchorage Drive gate and entry phone system to call the resident host, who would authorize entrance by remotely opening the visitor gate. All visitor traffic would be rerouted through the south portion of the development to get to a residence.
3. Frequent and authorized visitors (delivery services, landscapers, Police Department, Public Works), would be given an access code or key fob to access the Anchorage Drive entry system.
4. Emergency vehicles would use the Fire Department Knox Key in the Knox Box at either of the vehicle gates to access the inside of the development. The Knox switch would open both the entrance and exit gates until the Knox switch is turned back to the closed position.
5. Pedestrians and bicyclists wishing to use the Bay Trail would be able to open the pedestrian gate on Bayfront Drive at all times and the park pedestrian gate during daylight hours. Bay Trail visitors and users would not be permitted into the neighborhood with motorized vehicles unless they are a guest of a resident.
Analysis
After a review of Heron Bay's entitlement records, it is apparent that the site plan for the neighborhood was intended for it to be open and integrated with the southern part of the City. At the Planning Commission's November 9, 1995 meeting, the developer's consultant stated that the development would not be gated (see attached Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, specifically page 7 of 11). In addition, Tract Map 6810 specifies a Public Access Easement on Bayfront Drive from the Lewelling Boulevard circle to the western terminus of Bayfront Drive (see attached),to permit access to the Bay Trail west of the Heron Bay development (see attached excerpt of San Francisco Bay Trail Map). The intent of the Public Access Easement was to provide vehicle and pedestrian access on Bayfront Drive to the Bay Trail. In addition, City Engineer's Report and Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Map Tract 6665 (an earlier Map to Tract 6810) requires that a public access easement shall be provided over Bayfront Drive to allow for public pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress and parking for access to the Shoreline Trail and the Interpretive Center (see attached).
Sometime between the completion of the Heron Bay development and present day, the Heron Bay Homeowners' Association posted the interior streets with 'No Parking' unless a visitor pass is obtained from the Association. The interior streets of the neighborhood are private and maintained by the Association. The Association vigorously enforces its No Parking signs and the policy.
It is the City's practice to consider residential planned developments as part of the existing neighborhoods in which they are located, not as separate communities isolated from the immediate neighborhood and separated by gates. The proposal would establish an undesirable precedent in the City's efforts to plan residential neighborhoods.
General Plan Policy 2.10 discourages the development of "gated" communities or the gating of already developed subdivisions, unless overriding public safety considerations exist. General Plan Policy 2.10 has no objective standards for public safety considerations; therefore it is left to the discretion of the hearing body. Although public testimony and application material cited violent and property crimes, staff and the Planning Commission used the available Police Department statistics that report violent and top property crimes by Council Districts; these are actual statistics reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Heron Bay is located in District 4. The data shows that District 4 has a low occurrence of violent and top property crimes. From January to July 2014, there were 2,699 violent and top property crimes City-wide; District 4's share of that total was 8 percent, compared to Districts 5 (13%), 1 (16%), 3 (16%), 2 (18%), and 6 (21%). In 2013 and 2012 there were 4,724 and 4,397 such crimes, respectively. In each of those years there were no changes in any of the districts except in District 5. District 4 had 9 percent, compared to Districts 3 (14%), 1 (17%), 2 (18%), and 6 (20%). The crime rate in District 5 declined from 15% in 2012 to 14% in 2013. In light of the crime data, Heron Bay, located in District 4, does not experience more crime than any other Council District in the City and therefore there are not "overriding public safety incidents" that support constructing gates and fences at the development's entry.
The Planning Commission also cited the importance of neighborhood interconnectivity and public Bay Trail access in the context of the General Plan. There is more discussion later in this report about General Plan Goal 14 to promote and accommodate alternative, environmentally-friendly methods of transportation, such as walking and bicycling and General Plan Policy 14.01 to develop and maintain a Citywide bikeway system which effectively serves residential areas, employment centers, schools, parks, and multi-modal terminals.
In addition, General Plan Chapter 5 addresses Open Space, Parks and Conservation. The marshland adjacent to and to the west of the Heron Bay neighborhood is identified as a Conservation Area, with the Bay Trail traversing through it (Figure 5-1). It also identifies the San Francisco Bay as the most important water resource in the region. It provides habitat for marine and terrestrial life, and offers scenic and recreational value. General Plan Policy 21.02 provides for the regular and systematic maintenance of San Leandro's parks and recreational facilities to prevent deterioration, ensure public safety, and permit continued public use and enjoyment.
The Planning Commission stated, and staff concurs, that the effect of the proposed gates and fencing to deter perpetrators of crime would give the same message to persons wishing to use the public access to the Bay Trail outside the western edge of the Heron Bay neighborhood. Although the pedestrian gate would remain unlocked, just the presence of the gates and fencing across Bayfront Drive could be seen as an impermissible impediment to the public use and enjoyment of the Bay Trail. The Planning Commission recommended that the Association consider other effective and less exclusive safety measures to address security, such as
· security cameras;
· improved lighting;
· a more active neighborhood watch program; and,
· encouraging use of an online community social network.
The proponents feel the proposal is an attractive design and an enhancement to the appearance of the entrance to the Heron Bay neighborhood. However, the proposal can also be seen as one that detracts from and diminishes the look of the Heron Bay neighborhood entrance, which is currently unobstructed at Bayfront Drive, Anchorage Drive and the open space at the northern edge of the Lewelling Boulevard circle. Although the proposal is to have the pedestrian gate open for free access to the Bay Trail at all times, the Planning Commission and staff consider it a barrier to pedestrians and bicyclists who intend to access the Bay Trail. The Bay Trail is a valued local and regional public resource.
Staff and the Planning Commission also expressed operational concerns with the proposed gates and fencing at the Bayfront Drive sidewalk, which, again, is expected to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists intending to access the Bay Trail or the Heron Bay neighborhood. The current condition allows bicyclists ingress and egress on the Bayfront Drive roadway without the proposed impediment. The proposed design requires that bicyclists ride on the approximately six foot wide sidewalk, which would thereby create hazardous situations for both pedestrians and bicyclists to share the narrow sidewalk from the pedestrian gate to the Bay Trail.
Applicable General Plan Policies
· General Plan Policy 2.10 Gated Communities. Unless overriding public safety considerations exist, discourage the development of "gated" communities or the gating of already developed neighborhoods or subdivisions.
· General Plan Policy 14.01 Citywide Bikeway System. Develop and maintain a Citywide bikeway system which effectively serves residential areas, employment centers, schools, parks, and multi-modal terminals.
· General Plan Policy 21.02 Park Maintenance. Provide for the regular, systematic maintenance of San Leandro's parks and recreational facilities to prevent deterioration, ensure public safety, and permit continued public use and enjoyment.
Staff researched current information on security gates and a summary of the findings follows.
· Installation of the requested gates and associated fencing would result in the establishment of a gated community. The gating of Heron Bay at the terminus of Lewelling Boulevard would make the neighborhood appear separate and isolated from its surrounding environs.
· According to Census Data, approximately 10 million housing units in the United States live in secured communities (American Housing Survey, 2009). These secured or gated communities restrict public access with walls, fences, gates with codes and alarms, and private security. In general, residents choose to live in gated communities for the sense of safety, privacy, community, and to keep out unwanted individuals such as strangers and criminals.
· Studies and data indicate that besides car theft, gated communities do not have less crime than un-gated communities (Blakely, 2012). This is because gates do not make communities safer and provide little in the way of extra protection by creating an artificial or false sense of security, which can lead to complacency (e.g., leaving garage doors open). Also, the apparent affluence of a gated community can also make the community a more attractive target for a thief (Bell & Lang, 1998). Further, the effects of gating decline over time, since gate codes eventually get shared with friends of residents, delivery people, vendors, and tradespeople (Snyder, 1997).
· One important issue that faces gated communities is that the restricted gate access can hamper emergency personnel efforts of police, ambulances, and fire trucks through slower response times, which can lead to public safety issues. Although a Knox Box approved by the Alameda County Fire Department would satisfy emergency access requirements, emergency personnel must stop the vehicle, get out and manually turn the Knox Box key. In addition, the tire spikes on the egress side of the street can delay emergency vehicle access in the event cars were queued on the ingress side of the street. The emergency vehicle could not go around the queued vehicles or it would have to back up and use one of the other entry gates.
· Gated communities can fragment neighborhoods and erode a sense of community, social stability, and social structure within a community, as residents located in gated communities are disconnected from their larger communities and studies show become less likely to be civically engaged. The lack of social cohesion and lower social interaction may result in socioeconomic polarization, which can lead to segregation, isolation, and exclusion (Blakely & Snyder, 1997). Studies show that a Neighborhood Watch Program is the most effective way to reduce crime, because neighbors keep an eye out for each other and on the streets, as a basic defense against crime and a means to build community (Drew & McGuigan, 2014).
In addition, the Planning Commission cited other General Plan provisions such as neighborhood interconnectivity and public Bay Trail access. Further review of the General Plan, after the Planning Commission meeting, yielded to General Plan Policy 14.01 (develop and maintain a Citywide bikeway system) and General Plan Action 14.01-A (maintain and implement a Citywide Bicycle Plan and update that Plan regularly) as applicable to the analysis of this PD modification.
In September 2010, the City updated its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Regional and Adjacent Communities Bikeways Map, Figure 9 of the Master Plan (see attached), and in Appendix B of the Plan all identify Bayfront Drive as a proposed Class III Bicycle Route. Class III bike routes are located on the roadway and shared with motor vehicles. Bike routes are designated by signage (CA MUTCD D11-1) or shared roadway bicycle markings (sharrows). In its current condition, Bayfront Drive serves as a Class III bike route without the signs or ground markings. Thus, the proposed gate and fence system would conflict with and violate the Class III designation defined in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Moreover, because the gates and fences will be a barrier to potential pedestrians and bicyclists intending to access the Conservation Area, the Bay Trail (see attached map) traversing through it and the San Francisco Bay, the proposal would be in conflict with General Plan Policy 21.02. Even though the gate would be unlocked, the proposal is for it to be closed at all times, which would cut off pedestrians and bicyclists and destroy unimpeded access to the Bay Trail.
Permits and/or Variances Granted
The Planned Development proposed to be modified, PD-91-3 received City Council approvals for the general and precise plans in a series of meetings in the mid-1990s for the development of Robert's Landing by Citation Homes, which is known today as Heron Bay.
Environmental Review
The project, to construct new gates and fences, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15303 (e), New Construction of Small Structures.
Board/Commission Review and Actions
The Planning Commission denied the proposed modification of the Planned Development, PD-91-3, thereby prohibiting the construction of new gates and fencing to the Heron Bay neighborhood.
Summary of Public Outreach Efforts
For the City Council meeting, notices of the public hearing were mailed to all Heron Bay homeowners; property owners and business owners within 500 feet of the Heron Bay neighborhood; the Washington Manor Homeowners Association and the Golden State Mobilehome Owners League (Mission Bay). Placards were posted on utility boxes and poles at the entrance to Heron Bay and at the corner of Lewelling and Wicks Boulevards. A legal advertisement was published in the Daily Review newspaper. This is similar to the notification for the May 15, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The continuance of that meeting to a date certain, June 19, 2014, did not require any further notification.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachments to Staff Report
· Appeal Application with Supporting Statements
· Excerpts from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2014
· Excerpts from the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of June 19, 2014 (Unapproved)
· Letter from BCDC Coastal Program Analyst Ande Bennett to Attorney Alan Berger, dated June 19, 2014
· Email from Jeff Tepper on behalf of the Heron Bay HOA to Planning Commission Secretary Liao, dated June 17, 2014
· Letter from Lee Chien Huo, Bay Trail Planner ABAG, dated June 11, 2014
· Letter from Ande R. Bennett, Coastal Program Analyst BCDC, dated June 12, 2014
· General Plan Figure 5-1, San Leandro Park System
· Bicycle Master Plan, Figure 9
· Crime by Council Districts 2012, 2013, 2014 (through July)
· Applicant's Supporting Statement
· Vicinity Map
· Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 19, 2014
· Planning Commission Resolution and Recommended Findings of Fact For Denial
· Tract Map 6810
· City Engineer's Report and Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Map Tract 6665
· Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9, 1995
· Exhibit A - Site Map, Vicinity Map (Sheet BCAG-1)
· Exhibit B - Resident's Entrance Gate Plan (Sheet BCAG-2)
· Exhibit C - Visitor's Gate Plan (Sheet BCAG-3)
· Exhibit D - Park Entrance Gate and Fencing Plan (Sheet BCAG-4)
· For Information Only - Gated Communities References and Websites
· For Information Only - Photographs of Existing Site Conditions
· Email from Stephanie Smith, dated June 17, 2014
· Email from Joseph Licari, dated June 17, 2014
· Email from George Jahad and Gay Leonard, dated June 10, 2014
· Email from Kevin Zhang, dated May 14, 2014
· Email from Kevin Zhang, dated May 27, 2014
· Email from William Young, in support, dated May 7, 2014
· Email Correspondence from Henry Lai, dated July 18, 2013
Attachment to Resolution
· Exhibit 1 - Findings of Fact for Denial of the Appeal
PREPARED BY: Elmer Penaranda, Senior Planner, Community Development Department