AgdaPkt 2005-11-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

m- ¿¿J Commissioner Claire asked is everything in here something that has been required by the Regional Board or something that staff has dreamed up. City Engineer Lynch replied that the Regional Board required each City in the County to respond to sixty questions about whether they have adequate stormwater regulations. As a result of this questionnaire, each of the nineteen cities in San Mateo County is involved with code revisions, procedure changes, and adopting new policy to address the new regulations on Stormwater Pollution Prevention. M/S (Cronin/Paulson) move to recommend the zoning text amendments associated with stormwater control, creek setbacks, buffers, and parking rates in grandfathered facilities including revisions that were mentioned in the memo given at meeting regarding: Supplementary Information Related to Ordinance Adopting Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Related to Stormwater Control. 1. Revise Section 26 of the Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance Section 32.12E (On/Site Treatment of Runoff) to add a new last sentence to read: "Special treatment measures may be required to assure protection of Sensitive Areas, éonsistent with the Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP)." 2. Revise Section 26 of the ordinance, Zoning Ordinance Section 32.128 (Applicability and Compliance with Article 27 A) to replace the 5,000 square foot threshold with a 10,000 square foot threshold. Motion Passed 6-0; 1 absent Codding Commissioner Gee asked City Attorney Yamamoto if he was comfortable with the title and content and that it is sufficient to stand any criticism. City Attorney Yamamoto replied that this goes to the motion of the Brown Act. The sufficiency of the description is not necessarily to describe the entirety of the subject matter of the agenda item; it is sufficient information so that someone who is interested could inquire as to what is behind the description of the item. The fact that there wasn't the parking ratio issue identified in the title of the agenda item is not a major deficiency and that is particularly true here at the Planning Commission level, where the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Yamamoto believes that the comments that were made tonight were well taken and that is at the City Council level where Planning Commission is more than likely recommending the introduction of the ordinance that it be spelled out in the agenda title. 6. MATTERS OF COMMISSION INTEREST . Reminder: Forum on October 5, 2005. The subject manner is Boulevards and what makes boulevards great and examples of what can be done for the EI Camino as a boulevard. The speaker is Allan Jacobs, a professor from Berkeley, at 6PM in the Little Fox Theater. 7. ADJOURNMENT M/S: (Paulson/Radcliff) to adjourn the meeting Motion Passed The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to reconvene at the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for October 18, 2005 in the City Hall Council Chamber, 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, California. Page 9 of 9