Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.07.28MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 7:00 P.M. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on July 28, 1997 at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Lary Anderson; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang MINUTES - The minutes of the July 14, 1997, Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A VETERINARY CLINIC AT 1802 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1, MICHAEL BERUBE, APPLICANT AND DAVID R. & C. M. PEDERSEN. PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: Requests: plans are unclear about which portions of the building fronting on Magnolia will be occupied by the veterinary clinic when this project is complete, applicant should clarify; staff should check to see if there have been any complaints regarding noise, odor etc., caused by this business. Hearing was set for August 11, 1997. ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR THE ADDITION OF A PATIO ENCLOSURE AT 1656 LASSEN WAY, ZONED R-1, (WES RANKIN, PACIFIC COAST SUNROOMS, APPLICANT AND GERALD & LANA SCOTT, PROPERTY OWNERS.. Reference staff report, 7.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for -1- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 7:00 P.M. A regu m ting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on July 1 , 997 at 7:02 p.m. Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Mink, 'Wellford and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang MINUTES - The minutes of the July 14, 1997, Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. 'ROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND A VETERINARY CLINIC AT 1802 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1, MICHAEL BERUBE, APPLICANT AND DAVID R. & C. M. PEDERSEN, PROPERTY OWNERS). Requests: Requests: plans are unclear about which portions of the building fronting on Magnolia will be occupied by the veterinary clinic when this project is complete, applicant should clarify; staff should check to see if there have been any complaints regarding noise, odor etc., caused by this business. Hearing was set for August 11, 1997. ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR THE ADDITION OF A PATIO ENCLOSURE AT 1656 LASSEN WAY, ZONED R-1, (WES RANKIN, PACIFIC COAST SUNROOMS, APPLICANT AND GERALD & LANA SCOTT. PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 7.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for -1- Buranaame Pzwudna COMInI&Sk" Aikures July 28, 1997 consideration. Commissioners asked staff how the Building Department defines "patio", noting that this Proposed structure might be regulated by other sections of the CBC because it is an enclosed area. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Wes Rankin, Pacific Coast Sunrooms, representing the property owner spoke noting that the addition was unconditioned space (not heated) and falls under Chapter 49 of the UBC; drainage from the patio would flow into a natural drain around the house and into the street; the property owners needs the spa for therapeutic purposes, the pool table is for recreation; the applicant was asked if these rooms are prefabricated, therefore come in a variety of sizes and shapes, the applicant responded yes and all have ICBO rating; then a smaller room just to accommodate the spa could be installed, it was noted that the property owner wanted both the spa and pool table. The roof of the structure will be solid so there will be no problem with heat gain that might be experienced if it were all glass. The applicants representative was asked what the exceptional circumstances pertaining to the property might be, he did not know; it was noted that the applicant had indicated a number of reasons for granting the exception, but had not documented them: the house is large 2,000 SF, but throughout town other houses in the area are as large or larger; property developed before there was a lot coverage requirement, house 40-50 years old, have had lot coverage since before then; noted pattern of development in area is for houses over 40 % lot coverage, but no data provided, looking at the aerial is not helpful; a variance is a request based on hardship on the property, adding a recreational use is not a hardship; need something unique to property. Applicant noted that the site is heavily vegetated and addition will not be seen by neighbors; the house is "L" shaped and proposed addition will fill in "L" and extend house 5 feet, squaring it off. Gerald Scott, 1656 Lassen Avenue, the property owner, then spoke noting you cannot see into the back yard, the proposed patio is two ply glass with an exit door into the rear yard and two openings for ventilation; need a larger spa because of the massage feature included in that model, 8.5' x 9'. Asked what he felt was exceptional about the property. He noted that the rooms in the house are small, the upper floor is used as an office area, the lot is small, 5,500 SF. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ellis noted that he was searching for exceptional circumstances and could find none, things could be done to provide spa within 40 % lot coverage on this lot, therefore he moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan. In discussion on the motion it was noted that the proposed room was 364 SF, 225 SF over the 40%; the applicant could still make a 139 SF addition within the code, this would not leave a very functional space for the spa because of the specialized use of the addition; not concerned about the precedent since the proposed area is not conditioned habitable space but added for a special use, not the same as a family room; the pool table is a non -issue, real issue is the configuration of the room to make it useable. It was noted that a minor modification would allow 41 % lot coverage, increasing the 139 SF by 55 SF or a roughly 12' x 12' area for the spa. Do not want to design for the applicant, it is clear in applicant's mind this is a package of pool table and spa; commission seems to feel that room is inappropriate as proposed. The chair called for the vote. The motion to deny was approved 5-2 (Cers. 'Deal and Wellford dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. M Bwrfingame Planning Gor m slan Mb wres MY 28, 1997 APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO A RESIDENCE AT 9 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1, (NELYA SRULOVICH, APPLICANT AND MARK AND NELYA SRULOVICH, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 7.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed The request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. Was there a demolition permit issued for removal of the garage, staff responded no. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Nelya Srulovich, the applicant and property owner, commented that they would like a 2 car garage but only have 15' at the side of the house which, with the 4' setback, leaves only enough room for a one car garage; if a garage is replaced in the rear yard then the addition to the house would have to be on the second floor and the existing foundation is not good enough to support a second floor; the driveway will be long enough to accommodate two cars and there: is a space on the street; they took down the two car garage at the rear of the lot when they bought the house two years ago because it was falling down and was a hazard to their child; the house has two small bedrooms and they need another bedroom for the baby due any day now. Commissioner asked if they could .pet put a garage at the rear as their neighbors have, applicant noted that there would be no place to put the rooms on the first floor; it was noted that the new addition would have to have a new foundation, couldn't the foyer be removed and a two car garage placed at the front without extending into the front setback. Commissioner inquired what was in the basement, applicant noted that they had fixed the area up, it had a pool table, storage, commercial carpet, wet bar and bath room as well as a laundry room; there is no direct access from the house to the basement; the applicant noted that she thought the basement area was a little less than half the area of the first floor; Commissioner noted that on inspection there were a family room, laundry, bathroom, hallway to an office with hardwood floors, none of this is shown on the plans submitted; if this space is used for living, even with substandard height ceilings, then the house with the addition is closer to 3000 SF with a one car garage. Applicant noted that the downstairs area is not used every day, they are unable to take the pool table out, it is too big. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Galligan noted that the problem was that there was enough width to access to the rear for a garage at that location; there was also the possibility for two cars at the front with some additional expense which would be spent anyway; want to encourage upgrade but this house is, 1000 SF with 500-800 SF in basement and an 800 SF addition, it would not serve the occupants with a one car garage; cannot find exceptional circumstances, if need to alter could put on an upstairs and :address parking problem; the structure is located next to Peninsula Avenue where there is lots of traffic and parked cars. He then moved for denial. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis. The motion passed 7-0 on a roll call 7-0 vote with no further discussion. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 4 KAREN COURT, ZONED R-1, (VERNE FREER, APPLICANT AND MYLA PUYAT & DAVID GUO, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 7.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed The request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for ,onsideration. Commissioners asked if the amended conditions included review of landscaping by the Senior -3- Rwfiresm"e Pwmins C "ndsSim Minutes July 28, 1997 ".andscape Inspector; it was noted that the pictures taken from the inside of the; neighboring house at 6 Karen Court given to a Commissioner by the neighbor during today's site visit, were taken from a rotated sitting position on a sofa parallel to the window; a pine tree on the applicant's property blocks view, is this considered an obstruction to distant view; CA noted that it depends upon how long the tree might be expected to stay. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Verne Freer, architect, noted that they had considered the previous concerns of the neighbor and removed the retaining wall at the rear property ;line, there was still a retaining wall along the side property line, but the rear grade had been reoriented toward the house; they also plan to install a concrete patio with drain to collect water and sump pump it to the street, in this way all water should be kept off the neighbor's property; a proper soils report has been done and from it drainage was added behind the retaining walls, this too would flow into the sump system; there would be no loss of sun to the Murphy property below beyond the shade already cast by the 7 big trees on her property because of the orientation of the properties, this is clear in the shadows shown on the aerial and by recent site observation. David Guo, 1115 Kelly Drive, San Jose, property owner, spoke noting that they will not have direct views into the Murphy property to the rear; most of the trees are on her property; they will move into the house as soon as the remodel is complete, the tenants moved out because; of a plumbing problem. Gary Lyons, 6 Castro Court, spoke, on behalf of Mrs. Murphy who is concerned about the integrity of the hillside; he asked who would be responsible if the slope slips; and for any erosion on his or Mrs. Murphy's properties. He noted that Mrs. Murphy's light would be affected in December not in July. Frank Pacillo, 6 Karen Court, spoke noting that they were concerned with one deck area next to his rear yard, the issue vas privacy because they only have a low fence and no shrubs in that area, people sitting there would be .ess than 10 to 20 feet from them; it was noted that the deck would be 4 feet lower than their property; vegetative screening and its affect on the view were discussed. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Deal noted that no one complained that the structure proposed would block views; the view at 6 Karen Court is limited by a tree on the adjacent property; slippage of the hillside is an engineering and building issue and will be addressed subsequently. Based on this he moved approval, by resolution, with the conditions of the staff report as amended requiring that the area from the rear property line to the new patio area on 4 Karen Court be landscaped and maintained with plants suitable to eliminate erosion; such landscape plans shall be approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit can be issued. The amended conditions are as follows:1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 10, 1997, sheets 0 through 4); 2) that the project shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer's memo dated July 14, 1997; 3) that the new overall roof ridge height of the house shall not exceed 4'-0" above the existing roof ridge height and shall be surveyed for conformance with a survey accepted by the City Engineer before the final framing inspection is called for; 4) that the area from the rear property line to the new patio area on 4 Karen Court shall be landscaped and maintained with plants suitable to eliminate erosion; such landscape plans shall be approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit can be issued; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. —he motion was seconded by C. Coffey. :2 BarUngame Planning Commission Mbtuw hd! 28, 1997 On the motion commissioners noted that the soils report would be reviewed by the city engineer to insure that it was adequate and that his input would be addressed by the Building Department. It was suggested that the neighbors talk, if privacy is a concern. The Chair then called for the vote. The motion to grant the Hillside Area Construction Permit was approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A 3-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1705 MURCHISON DRIVE AND 1845 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-3, (PETER LIPSON, STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND CALIFORNIA TEACHER'S ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 7.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Fourteen conditions were recommended for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Charles Dillworth and Peter Lipson, architects and Andy Cochrane, the landscape architect, 99 Green Street, San Francisco were present representing the California Teachers Association. The applicants explained the larger current building has been there about 40 years and is in need of seismic retrofitting. Bringing the existing building up to code would be difficult and so decided to build a new building. The design was explained, could not set a 3-story building in with any landscaping, so went taller, now there will be an amphitheater area, increased landscaping and the addition if almost 100 new trees. They propose to lower the grade on -site so the parapet of the new structure will be lower than the existing structure. A photo montage, placing the building in context, and landscape design plan were submitted to the Commission for their review. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that there is nothing detrimental and the negative declaration adequately addresses the height variance, and mitigates any problems on -site. Less lot coverage with a 3-story building, good trade off due to the exceptional circumstances. Would get 3 stories if the mechanical were housed in less space (5%). This request is for less than the existing building and the 3-story building allows an increase in landscaping area. He then moved approval of the negative declaration and height variance application, by resolution, subject to conditions in the staff report and including the condition for landscaping approval by the Beautification Commission before issuance of building permits, with the conditions as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 2, 1997, sheets T-1, A-0, A-0.1, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 (Title Sheet, Site Plan, Existing Site Plan, Floor Plans, Floor Plans/Roof Plan, Sections, and Exterior Elevations) with a maximum roof height of 44.79' as measured from the average top of curb on Murchison Drive (37.7l') to the top of the mechanical unit on the roof; 2) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Parks Director's memos dated June 18, 1997 and June 25, 1997 which require that the plans be reviewed by the Beautification Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit and that a permit to remove protected trees on the site be granted prior to the removal of trees, and that a water management plan, landscape plans and irrigation plan shall be submitted as part of the Beautification Commission review; 3) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal's -nemo dated June 23, 1997 which requires that the openings through floors must be enclosed according to -5- Burlingame Pl Vd" Canvnisafaa ll/inuu July 28, 1997 Section 711 of the California Building Code; 4) that the project shall not excA 44.79' in height (measured from the average top of curb, 37.71', to the top of the mechanical unit); 5) that the project shall meet an the requirements, including engineering for seismic stability, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) that the project shall be subject to the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application and approved by the city prior to the issuance of a building permit; 7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, adopted by the City of Burlingame on June 20, 1994; 8) that the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for demolition of the existing structure prior to receiving a demolition permit from the city; 9) that this proposal shall meet all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; the applicant shall be required to get approval of his tree removal and landscape plans, including tree replacement, from the Beautification Commission or the City Council on appeal prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit and that the redesign of the project to meet the requirements of the Beautification Commission and/or City Council may require subsequent review and action of the Planning Commission before a building permit may be issued; 10) that the following conditions shall be observed along with all recommendations of an arborist for tree protection during and after construction; a) Protected trees are to be protected by a fence which is to be maintained at all times; b) Protected trees that have been damaged or destroyed by construction shall be replaced or the city shall be reimbursed, as provided in City Code Section 11.06.090; c) Chemicals or other construction material shall not be stored within the drip line of protected trees; d) Drains shall be provided as required by the director whenever soil fill is placed around protected trees; and e) Signs, wires, or similar devices shall not be attached to protected trees; 11) that the building materials selected for construction shall have capability of reducing noise levels from exterior sources to an interior noise level of a maximum of 45 ..BA; all construction shall abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code; 12) that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary, and abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 13) that all on -site illumination in the parking areas shall be shielded and directed only on to the site and shall be turned off daily no later than 10:00 p.m.; and 14) should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the city and his/her recommendations have been executed to the satisfaction of the city. The motion to approve was seconded by C. Ellis and passed on a voice vote of 7-0. Issuance of Building Permits is subject to approval of the landscape plan by the Beautification Commission. The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4, (AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORP., APPLICANT AND WILLIAM WILSON & ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 7.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. aurUnamne P mmdna C"mnUskn MkW= Ady 28, 1997 ,'hairman Key opened the public hearing. John Masterson, 5 Thomas Melon Circle, San Francisco, and Rich Carlgard, Forbes Magazine, Redwood City, were present to explain the application. A digitized photograph showing the reverse channel signage and halo lighting was passed out to the commission. Three temporary Forbes locations will merge into this site in May, 1998. The applicant noted that the building was difficult to find and they get a lot of out of town traffic so the signage was important to them, the project is viewed as a major statement for Forbes who picked the Bay Area over LA for their major regional presence; need a location close to the airport for travel. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wellford noted he has a fiduciary relationship with the applicant and will abstain from any discussion or vote. C. Coffey noted that this is not a granting of exceptional circumstances, cannot be seen from the street address, identifies the building, will reduce traffic and is essentially directional. He then moved approval of the sign exception application, by resolution, subject to conditions in the staff report as follows; 1) that the wall signs (Sign A, Section A & Sign A, Section B) shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 12, 1997, three sheets (site; plan, building elevations, & sign elevations); 2) that the maximum height of the proposed wall signs (Sign A, Section A, and Sign A, Section B), shall be installed no higher than 64'-6" on the building; 3) that the copy of the signs shall read "Forbes," and the maximum height of the uppercase "F" and lowercase "b" shall be 4'-6", and the maximum height of the remaining lowercase letters shall be no greater than :3'-6"; and 4) that the project hall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire ,odes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Wellford abstaining). The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR VEHICLE STORAGE AT 1860 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1, (ART MICHAEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS). Reference staff report, 7.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Twenty conditions, including the mitigation of the negative declaration, were recommended for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Art Michael, 30 Fawn Court, Hillsborough presented the application. There is no provision in the lease to increase the number of carts stored with the increase in use at the area; E1 Rancho does not need to store more cars; commissioner noted issue is paving this area which was part of landscaping and not putting any landscaping back, a negative impact; need to do something to reduce heat from all that paving; as shown could put in 2,000 SF landscaping without affecting parking capacities; could 2 foot strip outside of fence planted with ivy be put in front of all fencing; then landscaping within the parking area is less of an issue; applicant agreed that a 2' strip of ivy outside of all fencing in areas which are visible to the public would be appropriate, he noted one area on the southeast side • here a building backs up almost to the property line, ivy in this location does not seem necessary; -7- Burlingame Pla rnk g CmWn&slan Mkutes July 28, Z 997 commissioner felt that cars parked should only be those of patrons of El Rancho and should be in operable condition. This project will enclose the last open portion of this drain; they have met with all regulatory agencies and they endorse project with off -site mitigation suggested. The culverting of the open drain will lend itself to a clean, paved, lighted area, the flow will be uninterrupted, a benefit to the city (reducing the city expense for dredging and repair). The lease with El Rancho Hotel goes beyond the year 2000. The site will be enclosed with an 8' wire mesh with redwood slats fence. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that the negative declaration and amendment to the special permit and variances for expansion of vehicle storage will not be detrimental to the area. He then moved approval of the negative declaration, amendment to the special permit and variances for vehicle storage application, by resolution, subject to conditions in the staff report and with the addition of two conditions: a) that parking shall be for the exclusive use of the clients of the El Rancho Hotel and those employees necessary to maintain the parking area; and b) that landscaping shall be installed in a 2' strip exterior to the fence in all areas visible to the public. The amended conditions are as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 16, 1997, Site Plan and date stamped July 21, 1997, Section and culvert details, Sheet C2; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineers' November 14, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos shall be met; 3) that parking shall be; for the exclusive use of the patrons of the El Rancho Hotel and those employees necessary to maintain the. parking area and all vehicles stored shall be in operable condition; 4) that the fence shall be placed with a two foot planter strip in front and planted and maintained with ivy or other hardy vine which will cover the fence along all portions of the fence enclosing the property visible to the public; 5) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by ne City of Burlingame; 6) that the project shall be required to obtain necessary permits and to meet all requirements and conditions of approval of the City of Burlingame Public Works Department, the Fish and Game Department, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Land Use and Planning); 7) that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Engineer and. approved by the City Engineer (Geologic); 8) that all grading of the site should occur only between May and September (Geologic); 9) that stockpiles of debris, construction materials and trucks hauling materials shall be covered and the street shall be swept of any debris during construction (geologic); 10) that the project shall comply with the mitigation plan and conditions of approval imposed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board; the applicant shall provide documentation of compliance from the RWQB prior to issuance of grading permits (Water, Biological Resources); 11) that demolition and construction activities shall comply with the construction hours of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Water); 12) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from this site shall be required to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Runoff shall be collected and filtered into the storm water drainage system through a collection system whose size shall be approved by the City Engineer before it is discharged into the channel; the property owner shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the system (Water); 13) that the; maximum elevation of the improvements over the drainage channel shall not exceed elevation 4.0' mean sea level (MSL) to insure the holding capacity of the drainage easement during flooding (Water, Utility and Service Systems); 14) that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the responsibility of the property owner (Water, Utility and Service Systems); 15) that the site shall be sprayed with reclaimed water to control dust during grading and construction (Air Quality); 16) that construction equipment emissions shall ' , in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air Quality); 17) Burling— Ph-dng Carnr Wi- Minutes July 28, 1997 that the property owner shall provide access easement rights to the City of Burlingame for maintenance of the drainage easement (Public Services); 18) that the City of Burlingame shall be held harmless for any property damage which might occur as a result of flooding within the drainage easement and adjacent spur track right-of-way (Public Services); 19) that no fencing shall obstruct existing drainage into and through the easement from the adjacent parcels (Utility and Service Systems); 20) that all fencing which is visible from the street shall require landscaping outside the fence which is visible from the public right-of-way (Aesthetics); 21) that all introduced landscaping shall require irrigation with ongoing maintenance (Aesthetics); and 22) that if any prehistoric or archaeological relics are discovered during the preparation of the parking lot, equipment staging area or drainage work, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented (Cultural Resources). Commission discussion: the 2' strip on the outside of the surrounding fence should have exterior landscaping/screening material such as ivy on all areas visible to the public, except where blocked by an adjacent building; and parking should be provided to El Rancho Inn only, and those employees necessary for operation at the facility. All vehicles stored shall be in operable condition. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and passed on a 5-2 (C. Deal and Wellford dissenting) roll call vote. The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. REVIEW OF REVISIONS TO "RULES OF PROCEDURE" AND ACTION ON A RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION/RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL. hair Key opened the public hearing. There were no comments on the issue and she closed the hearing. Commissioner Galligan moved to recommend to City Council that they adopt an ordinance amending the municipal code to state that the commission may take action by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the members present (minimum 3 affirmative votes), he also noted that Chairman should be referred to as Chair. C. Mink seconded the motion, and it passed on a 7-0 affirmative voice vote. The Commission then discussed the lengthier Rules of Procedure draft. They noted that they were in agreement on what the document said but thought that it should be rewritten into more easily understood English. C. Galligan moved that the "Rules" document be rewritten, keeping the content the same, and resubmitted to the commission at a later meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. AMENDMENT TO THE C-4 DISTRICT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PERMIT AN APARTMENT UNIT IN HOTELS FOR USE BY THE MANAGER OR OWNER. Reference staff report, 7.28.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the amendment. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission Discussion: commission noted that having a dwelling unit with a kitchen in a hotel for the manager/owner's use is a common practice in the industry. 91 Burung— Pk-dns Conn W i- M&W- lrty 29, 1997 Galligan noted that there is no harm to the zone in allowing this use. He: then moved recommendation of this amendment to City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and passed on a voice 7-0 vote. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. NCNUTH87.28 -10- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary