The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 10/14/1975i . h DAVID WOOLF `VARIANCE V4 - ... , SITE DESIGN �REV,IEW: Mr. Boehlje briefly explained the proposal; which consisted of site design review fora second single- family dwelling to be moved to . a lot with an existing dwelling in the R -C District at 205/207 parking p re uest',to allow.two 9 -foot wide Upham Street,. a variance; q p g s aces and a l9 -foot wide carport. Comm. Water 's questioned .if ', the- removal of the house from Bassett Street was to allow further - ,expansion of the Police Station. Mr. Boehlj e ''replied that the property was 'owned by the City and was intended t o, 1 be used for parking for the Police Station. Comm. Head. made' • �p a'. motion to ado t the' variance and site design . subject to the conditions as�'stated.'by the staff and Architectural &Site Design ° Review Committee. He wa s :advised by Chairman n Horciza'`that the items must ''Be' taken individually. comet. Bond s „tated,,, that ,it had been suggested at the time of the Arc hitectura ' l�& Site D'e"sign'Review Commit -tee that the project would lie more expensive' than first an't "cpated, and therefore % ,asked . the applicant f'or, comments :.,`` Mr.' Woolf replied that P.G. &E. had- lowered''their .rate, considerably and Pacific Telephone had also slightly 'loW"ered' their rate,' therefo"red', °the pr'oj;eet might be feasible. Comm.. ":Head made a motion to g -rant the variance as requested. Comm H' illigoss ''s:ecoind'ed the mot ion :,' AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Mr. Woolf clarified that the structure to the rear of the house would be removed. He also informed the Commission that he was in agreement with ithe conditions of,,approval related'to the site design. Comm. • •Head moved . recommended "to approve he .site design with conditions as ommended by the staff and .Arch- itec`turti & Site Design Review Committee. The mott io ri ,was. seconded fiy "Comm. •Waters. 1 AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 11 I N U' T E S; i.:. TALUMA CITY PRLANNING COMMISSION r OCTOBER 14, 1975 CIAL'MEETING P . , t, •7.30 P.M. CITY,COUNCII CHAMBERS., ; CITY! HALL'_PET9LUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT Comm. Bo'n'd, Head, Hilligoss ' Hor`ciz a, d " g' Ht Waters, Wright , Comm. Popp STAFF': Dennis 'Boehlje Planning 'Direetbr ' Leo P. Rachal, Associate Planner '. i . h DAVID WOOLF `VARIANCE V4 - ... , SITE DESIGN �REV,IEW: Mr. Boehlje briefly explained the proposal; which consisted of site design review fora second single- family dwelling to be moved to . a lot with an existing dwelling in the R -C District at 205/207 parking p re uest',to allow.two 9 -foot wide Upham Street,. a variance; q p g s aces and a l9 -foot wide carport. Comm. Water 's questioned .if ', the- removal of the house from Bassett Street was to allow further - ,expansion of the Police Station. Mr. Boehlj e ''replied that the property was 'owned by the City and was intended t o, 1 be used for parking for the Police Station. Comm. Head. made' • �p a'. motion to ado t the' variance and site design . subject to the conditions as�'stated.'by the staff and Architectural &Site Design ° Review Committee. He wa s :advised by Chairman n Horciza'`that the items must ''Be' taken individually. comet. Bond s „tated,,, that ,it had been suggested at the time of the Arc hitectura ' l�& Site D'e"sign'Review Commit -tee that the project would lie more expensive' than first an't "cpated, and therefore % ,asked . the applicant f'or, comments :.,`` Mr.' Woolf replied that P.G. &E. had- lowered''their .rate, considerably and Pacific Telephone had also slightly 'loW"ered' their rate,' therefo"red', °the pr'oj;eet might be feasible. Comm.. ":Head made a motion to g -rant the variance as requested. Comm H' illigoss ''s:ecoind'ed the mot ion :,' AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Mr. Woolf clarified that the structure to the rear of the house would be removed. He also informed the Commission that he was in agreement with ithe conditions of,,approval related'to the site design. Comm. • •Head moved . recommended "to approve he .site design with conditions as ommended by the staff and .Arch- itec`turti & Site Design Review Committee. The mott io ri ,was. seconded fiy "Comm. •Waters. 1 AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 11 Petaluma City :Planning Commission Minutes; October 1.4 „•.1975 JAMES` ANDERSON - Mr,. Boehlje briefly reviewed the request for a Use Perm and re USE PERMIT U10-75 la.ted site design review for a proposed Penny Arcade commercial • & SITE DESIGN amusement establishment a€ 36 Petaluma'Boulevard North, and read REVIEW:: the recommended ,condit ons,,,of approval of the .,Planni:ng.Dire:ctor for the - site design. Comm Wright .questioned what the Penny,Arcade'wo.uld .consist :of,. Mr: Anderson replied that, there .would be. 20 coin - operated machines,.. He then explained the hypes , of'. machines;, that would be in the Penny Arcade and clarified that there would.be no machines of a por nog-raphic natur'e's Mr_. 'An'derson further clarified that' money wou -1'd not be 'paid ,for high points, but free. . games would be .awarded, instead;. ' The parking aspect was ques ; boned, and Mr.'Boehlje clarified that . : parking was not required. because the project was in the Parking Assessment District: The ,pu_blic , hearing wasp open'ed•. No cgmment_s were offered f =rom the audience and the, public, hearing.was,cl.osed. -Mr. Wright ques.tioned"if there would be magazines, in the Penny Arcade of,the "P'lay,Boy type, ,to.wh ch.Mr.,Anderson,responded in the negative_, Comm: Bond questioned . if there'would be a limit in terms of oc- cupancy for 'the Penny Arcade - Mr Boehljae. replied that he felt there.may be,, based on fire codes, but he .would have: - t:o -cheek into it furth'er,. Comm.. Bond stated 'he felt ' the .;applicant. should. look a,t,the interior circulation, inasmuch.as'onlygone exit onto Petaluma Bob- evar;d ,existed, and.he felt,emergencies should. be ' anticipated.• He* also asked . the applicant how he' intended to monr_tor the business. Mr.. Anderson replied that he would monitor • �- the business "personally, and, a °ls_o clarified :•that• there was a `back entrance: Comm: ' Wright made a to ,g -rant , the .Use Permit subj ec -t to c;on- ditions of site design review. The, motion was seconded by Comm. Head,. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT ; ; 1 Mr., B6ekje .advised the, Commission that..th'e ,site design had been reviewed administratively,, since no structural changes were in- volved He 'further advised that thel site design was , -.a part, of the Use-Permit and should•'therefore. considered aat this time. Comm Head moved "to 'adopt, t'he site ; design with conditions as recommended by the Planning Director. The motion was s'econ,ded by Comm.. Wright Comm..B'ond stated the :concern.expressed in a letter from the Chamber of Commerce that there not be po,rnogr.aph.ic material -2- r Petaluma City Planning Commission Mindtes, October i9,7°5 ailab;le yin -. the !Penny �Arca'de, and questioned if there was, any Y i could be. a condition ;of approval It was noted that t I � city r, esently has no ordinances against ahe sale of porno,g- p y P diI 'I. �ma Mr . ,Boehl'e� advised that the - Commission could restrict _ a 'Us. elP1. o that use would n o f t d if the determ ned�l a , ermit i that.'; Y",p,, YJ t rtion - m ed ° e Commission that the not be acce to e. omm Wright- re ind h P g l ' . _ . . applicant had,s.tated 'e dial nn't ntend,,to display pornographic materia'1 -and the ;Use :Permit•l',would' come up f'or annual review. , Mr. 1. d he a' licant's ,stdtbments that porno- PP a ,BO , g rap materialtwouldanot be off erect were 'a ar't of th record p assum.;bonsHof a l, th.eree a ^lsb aft of ';the p - °'� pprova� foie the Use Permit ; could be ,reyoked on .that basis at ' a,, future time. r , ' �. NOES 0 �... STOKE S & ASSOCIATES = y � p Mr. Boehl ''e `brief.l r.,eviewed the ,staf :f're',o,rt `f;or the'' neighborhood 'USE, - .,7 °5 & ,,;;,. ,. shopping, c,ent'er .proposed' to 'be located at the southeast corner of SITE DESI �REUIESouth '' GN W� �• McDowell Boulevard Sou anP Grande :Road. He then read the „ � ,Y recommended,eondtions" of a' rov A o °f''' 'tlie Istaff for, the Use Permit d ciati ashopping center requ a ., eg any `a Permi d be reviewed annually:. Mr. Use n dstrict and it would 4 u Boehlje 'explained- ehe change to Cori.Jtiori. #10' as, recommended' at th_e time.of.'the,A'rchitectural &,.Site Design Review Committee relatin g to the mansard ' roof.. ,•, .. ''�Comm.a'� :Bond'asked��'for an eXplana�tion .o, f .Condition A. Mr. Gary i St okes; Civil Eng neergfor ;project, clariff ed 'that it was only I , 1 the an- error on the". drawin g s He also advises. _ � � the were' in com 'l'ete..a reement with d o'n_s as- recommended, at the time of; the, : _meetn with the Arc '& Site Design Review Commi- t g g ,w of ht asked i hitectural, , Comm. g f_ the cent'er- would be expanded in the I future. Mr• IStokes' replied that. he''wou1 ..like to add a, " n y, d•sufficient land and parking, bank or„ say e g for n a M was availabl small "buildin of I g this type Comm i i oss , uesti s had be _ g q._ be en leased. T n leased and numerous Stos replied that themarket had been Mrx ke I , o sS a p 15116 ten_.nts for the satell te. spaces,, had been lrn,ed',up ° _ clarified that the 'sat,ellite tenants , consist o'f t.YPes of rliquorasto•reseaetc;'stat'e' bafber shop`s, '. gho ; off`ic:es, . Comm. Head questioned ;if t • rl .I the Elann•ing;; Commssiori could give ten - tative approval' •of' tli'e' ,future .expansion at this °';time to' save tl'e , pli C ,at, a , • repli.edntghatfthi`s.twasCno s''sible, since. I. ew; wh " . , '" : the- Commission could' o'nl revs ie and at !had' been a l � Y ' PP on s there is no ,detailed irifillLon on I"e I possible additions, The publilil 'l earin was' o `ened. ; Mr. 'Bra'rid J.ohns'on 's oke too the u question 'of °Ia he desiraliili y of fihe ,location, of this „rneigliborho od center- and, du ,t o the shopping � stated it did not seem logica e, ,, ' 3 -Petaluma City :Planning Commission ;Minutes October, _14, 1 vacancies in, the Petaluma , Plaza'... Mr., George Lackey ;a downtown -q:,ari...�,, al s6 que ., h d t d6slYabili-ify of this :sh 'me shopping center the vacancie bcaus' o - 'hi ' Plaza � and Wa - s' in -th e P e t �ilkii -a Sequare,,e Shopping'Centers. Mr., Gdr I y _Etakds s �a consider- edte(l that ab'l'e - amount 'of' time 'arid disdussidn had taken.,placle".wh,en the Plan- fie-rd" rezoning And # QOmmi irid. City gqqqi cons idb .re , t- zon E .,1,. R. fot'th ' en ti 5.0 -acre - R: e e ntire pdrc':dl 'arid he 'therefore felt the matter 'had been a He 'also advised '. that a �e ,is not Prds�enjflyw located within a nei�ghbqphi d� �s_ o.p.p,.iqgl c.-rik t, short, distance,, of the residen:c in, the southeast part-of the co 8ity, and the center would" on ns'ist, of, :di .1 x t seven tehants. , ,y Com 1 ond s tated that the problems mentioned 'had been considered. when Highway Commercial zoning had been proposed and disapproved f or that area.. - Both he and Mt%. " Boehli 6 * ciatified 'that the pro- y-was committed, 'to neighborhood commercial' d,ev&lopmerit -t--- thi pe�rt_ time., 'the . public hearing- Was closed,i Comm � 'Hea, m to " he, Use Pgrmit,, 'I'§ub ect toi the dond'i- 'd' olp t Lions of approval recommended 'by 'the staff.7 ' Comm., Wa't'ers secofided. the motion,. mm.'Bon 'f spec ific ' . - findings ad, t; 'Cb d 4UIE�,s, t ione d " i o be 1. made.,, Mr.-. Boehij e then- read the conditions ditions ", necessary fora Use Permit a's 'stated ''in the p,rsposed resolution; AYE 6; NOES, 0 ABSENT., 1. It was, rioted. that Comm. Popp was,. the only repres- entative of e t �h, • ssion 11 4ea Commi Commission 4, t, the T of the A Site Design, Review . 1 . Bo nd' i , _ 66mmktte�e meetin '. Comm Bondmoved to accept the site design, • ; . 9 Kevie with conditions : as stated in _ - of " the agreement of the staf , -Pbpp, a nd the the'" , 5 - , ti me of Archi- tectural'& 'Site, Design Revvi,ew C6mmitteP. ' AYES 6 ^ NOES 0` ASSENT 1 PHILIP 'L. JOERGER Mr':. Boehlfo briefly reviewed, the st f 'report- relating to the 'EIQ, EVALUATION/ on reques prezoning from County E - 1. 0, dValua_ul ';A "- to Highway PREZO.NIN,G Z15-75/ Commerd1a 'District d 'jan site" design review for a service station SITE, 1 1j4S,T614" `REVIEW;, oh. 4 *. P o rt ion, of � thd -si . td to b-e . 'converted to"ea delicatessen. He ,p advised 'that the free-standing sign, as � shown on - would require a variance. 'The r6c o x irb , itrid ed condit i of approval o the staff and the. Architectural" & Site Design ReView Com I mittee, were then read. C Ra i "the" conversion would take place. questioned how, Mr.. Dick Lieb cf 'rep en 'res tin Steel 't(�8�t., carit's, expl 1 a 4 ad�n�d'the procedure `and that the e! applicant was illing'to 'go 'along with the extra 'landscapiri - �,qqui g 'red.. 8e- further stated-that' a Variance may'b&' reqqes - ed for * the f ree= sign, at a later date.. Comm Head questioned' if the free- standing *sign would help the bu's"' irfess.. Mt. Lieb replied that the: tli&nts wou-id, prefer the free standing sign for the, first year of . .,ii,.Y. Petaluma C y i uti '. Ob,tober, 15 1975 Planning Commissi�on Mi„ 0 til t ` operation un lie business: was established. However, h`e 1 advi�s_ed F -• �'° .-` ,, he did :•not -wish to ,pursue thy s t _ - e issue at,thi. ime, since the staff gs ad indicated ceedin° s on'-,nonconformin signs p .7:6 would be init iated ; in- January 19 an'd he wished to see ,how t action would proceed. Comm:, Head,apoke to the matter of equality,;and .liberty ,and. justice for all as_- stated in the .Pledge of Allegiance, and said that the {` Commission, was,; askin they a lcant�• to d "o without somethin " ": "' that ' g PP g I . his op He felt the ;applicant should be allowed to have the free - standing sign, ;for t <he same amount of time a's . his competition ; does, :a and.itherefore' made'',ra= oration't'a' °amend t'he a'ppli - -• to gra za advised.Mr. Head thatot, , on was not, in i hisr t me Mr." Boehlje clari - fi.e..d that NComriiiss '6n did hot; ''Have: ;an- application for a vari' - the only, reaso been n it had ,, d1 cussed' was bef and flans be ce _- be . p p g ll q e :var:iance .. a„vartiiance.e Mr. Lieb reiter ,ated bearequested later 'if; it was ' f'e`lt to tbLe necessary° _ P The public o' "ened heariii`g' relat= ing'to the E.,I;.Q•. evaluation was comments r. g elatin to' this ro' ;ect'�we P j re - offer=ed' and the_�public .hearing, wash closed. 'Comm. Wti ht moved to direct the �Plap Director �, prepare and, to'ion: •:::, post a Ne tve Declaration for the • g d ec .' The mot was •I: - _ seconded b. mm.: Water:s.' y Co AYES 6 NOES" .0 ABSENI .1 . Comm.,,Head:,questioned If City"services were available to this area. J P e r ._ lied'that swe - ` ,. , ,, _° available tg site ' He, further advisedwthat re i tract I was, currently�sery cing.'this area -,," ut'.'the Petaluma Fire „ District would t= take i over if annexed': The'. public. bearing; vela tive to the prezon ng application wa's „ - C ow man acres were i nvolved Y ned h n , _ . in theprezon ng an r. B66hljie�repl e were a off,eredcand u' '• d un er `consideration No :other cowmen s the t , ubhc hear,i PO ng 'was . then. closed. .: Comm. ;',Bond , moved. to�, forward pa recommendation for ��approval, of the " request to the City. Council •Comm. Water seconded. g, y 'e mot'onln l " th ,,. w:,: ,L. ,' � i ._ _ _. � F . ,. ��': . IA �. .,. • • , AYES 6 NOES 0 .ABSENT; • 1 Comm. o;Bo nd ,advisdd%the:,,Commi ssion that thel,'Architecturall, Site Design Review'Committee had reviewed the pr9ject and. were In' sub stantial'` a reemen�t with ' -t -he ro ' ected' fans of, the app li�cant,. He g P J P PP '„ hat• `he ho ed the_; sin a a emen progra m would prove be g � c P. , `VI effetive Mr. Boehl ,e , d that t,tizat;ion: dor y � he amor I' I 'ate, for ... It .state ., N ,� •. 1, I , noncon£o "rmng signs would expire on January 17, 1976. 'He further : IT Petaluma 'City Planning Commission Minutes, October 14•;`1-975` informed the' Cgmm ss on that the ';staff;' was;' doing 'a sign survey of the City iii an effort t, ,d'eterm ne which ':signs were nonconf °,Comm. Bond-'questioned applicant'if the two empty sign stand- ar;ds along the. freeway had`.been; part. of ;the' ^'original ARCO station. development.- •Mr. Lieb, replied that he thought th' is, was true. Comm, 'Hilligos's 'made a emotion to approve the ' siite design. with conditions as ree.ommended by the ` ataff' and the Architectura -1 '& Site :Design 'Review '•CommitLee. The motion was seconded by Comme Bond. `AYES. 6 NQES ' 0: "-ABSEN,T ,1. L . Mr. d4ead stated :that before th'e next order bf'business was intro duced he felt the'Commission should consider 'the amended rec-ommen- dation with 'regard to: -the hospl al'E.I.R. as submitted by the 'Planning Director: He alsb stated that =h& felt that ,t he. rules 'of business of the City'should allow a "5' °1minute break every hour during "meetings., A °recess was `called at 9.: p -m. and the' ; meeting, .resumed at 9:30. p.m. T PROPOSED, RELOCATION, Mr Boehlje v ad-ised that Troudy 'Lane had bot ' chosen by the Hospi- 01 HILLCREST HOSPITAL tal Board for the new hospital' site:, and the E.,I,.',R. was therefore - EIR.EVALUATI'ON: addressed to that location,.• .He.stated that .Comm-. Head had queried the City Attorney why the City-of Petaluma`' s the appropriate lead', for the E.�I.:R., for the hospital,. Mr. Boehlje then "read the 'letter of response - fiom'''.the`'Ci;ty Attorney, which 'had. been furnished - to - members. of the Commission.' The Commission, was advised that the proper procedur,& would.�be 'to review the staff. report, .question. the Consultant-, and then,,make 'a determination whether to certify the Draft E:.I.R. or'continue the public hearing to .a specific date in ,the, :fu.tu'r'ei. ' Mr, Leo -Rachal briefly ewed the staf and advised of comments received - too late. to lie. included' into the staff° rep'ort.. H6 .'stated ` tha't the State Office';of'lanning an'd: Research had been furni "stied ;five copies -of the Dr.af't 'E.,I. "R -, -which they in turn 'had Isent;.out for review. As a result;, the Department of. Conservation had forwarded a ',letter wfiicl "stated that t1i geological data and " conclusions as pr,es,ented, in the 'Draft E.I -.R. were not adequate 'The `Police Chief had also :advised that ,shrubs would not be desired between 'the hospital, and 'the parking' areas;, since It would make theft anal, malicious' mischief. harder. to deter. '' He also ,advised that the, number of beat's was in error and' should - actually be. 'three: The 'Police Chief -also did' ,not agree' that. the ,hospit'al site would- not compound the Police Department problemsy, since i t would call for additional `service's and, would also include_ other property which would generate a greater'. amount' of City :services . . • The comments of ,the ,s,taff' - relative.. to. the .E.I.R. 'were then read. etalu Minutes Oc ma y tannin ' g `Commission Mnut, `fober' 14 City P Rac hat i formed the Commission that the' -City Engineer had not r-espond'ed to the draft E.I,.,R. ,, but was present to furnish his comment's . Mr David -A.' Youn `� Cit En ineer' • � g, y g ,- ad'dr'essed" the Commission, and informed them' of: - the''follow' ngx riac'curacies in the E.I.R. ' , ge No'. 139 relating g to sewage: Cali fornia Reg ' � pp revousy Contr of Board Order No. 74 - 1)� Cal' i tonal Wat er ualit 19'5 is 'a licabl'e since `p . -Orders 'No. 71 -29 and No. 72- 54, "'had' been -kes'c'in.ded i.,ell Order I No . 74 -195 should-be included';in. the Appendix and no; t'the:rescinded Order No. 71- . _ 2) The statement "the, type of ,arid extent of sewer service avail- able to °areas iri "`Petaluma 1s'�deter'mine_d by Sewer Assessment Districts," (Fgur,e -in error and somewhat mis P. y trl leading; since"'areas involved with sewer assessment dis- _'cts1 i;e., the : existing H1111 est at Hayes Lane is not within a ^, Assessment .district. " 3) `'With: 'regard` +t''o •the capacity'' pf ttie'Treatment Plant, the second , paragraph .�sho'uld' -read - "as f ollow,s :. ' ,. December let P ' Ion of expansion of-the facilities (tentatively •' y ill be approximately 3 -.6 MGD i I Dec treated ef fluent w ary P ant c p acct • and w a -future addition of up to , a of second 1.6 MGD of a reat'ed waste, or about 5.2 MGD total treated capacity,,; The minimum • dai.ly dry:'weather discharge is estimated to lie 4•..'7 MGD 'at `the 'end of the year -1985 design period; an in ' eteas'e' "of :approximately IL l' "MGD over capacity at the be- g nn' ng 'of :gp.eratibns !!• "• .. MrI g I Y.oun clarified tha e °Treatment Plant would have the capacity to 'handle the liospftail: Page No 140 t A „! Para "ra h gelatin h g to t ld �`def o ell 'Boulevard site is in error Do since: sewer service "wou -a Mc it y 'be-'•Tcontingent upon., a fee and the i9dibbwell Bod.levard'si -te is riot within an assessment district. Young explained` how the Denman which the McDowell s "te is;. within,; `was .establi'shed,,. and�:;adv'sed that the property wo assessment p y,. "to A ssessment Dist ' would . ,. rict #6,, but would p a y a Denman SewerZone.fee. He''' - suggested that the Denman Sewer Zone'��R'esolu'ti °on'To ` 4126 N.,C �5.��I�, could be ,:affixed to the report Appendix and' ref'erre'd I to i . � , ,.. the a n Page No,. 141 - 142 �. Th a the r s terelatingbe oDowell Boulevard site - in error, since • connected to,an existing adjacent trunk P fl l u -7:- KI Petaluma City Planning. 'Commission Minutesy Qctober.14,,, 1975 line at Madison and�Washl n g ton Streets as stated;. Since- the site,• - lies �to the north it would,, have. to. be ..4s,eryed by the existing 21" sewer near- the present end of Transport. Way ,adj acent to the NWP.RR'. The - ,second sentence.relating t:o parallel lines in the .future should. ,read " W Driv_ e Pumping. 'Station," rather than the. Madison Street Pumping- Station. f .. Page No. 135, relating to water facilities':' a) The second ,paragraph relating to.. the Tr,oudy'Lane site carries the inference .that water., is available: because of Assessment •D strict #6, 'This; is incorrect,. :because Assessment D stricf #6 dealt with the construction of sewer facili'tes; and water fa- cilities are covered by Assessment District . # -.9. Suggested r eword ing would be " The Trolldy a Iane` s te- has 'sewer. capacity available in Assessment. D�s;trict '�6:,, and water is available in reasonably close proximity, -by. the ,future construction 'of water main extensions f;r.om an exrsting, water main originally con- ,structed as part of the Assessment District 0 improvements. 1P Comm. Head 44est.ioned how- -Mr, Young could say that water was available when the City currently.: has rationingtdurin& the summer Mr., Young, adv sed:that addit,ional,S'onoma County Water Agency aqueduct water would, be available by the summet of 1977 a`s:a result of aqueduct improyementsa °presently under construc- tion.. The increased water supply, ,sh`oul'd be available before the new hospital is comp,leted,.. 2); The, ,paragraph on Page 135,--,relating, to the Denman, FlatjNcDowell Boulevard sites: is ;in error, since, tle. McDo%ell site is no,t within limits;, and.. although neither site is totally within an established :,ass,,e`ssmen:t - district, a portion of the Denman Flat site is within Assessment District � #9'. Mr. Young suggested that the Assessmena pis t #,9, map_ could be added as. an appendage to - the .report.., Page 'No 135. :1). The first sentence regarding, - water- - user charges, is .mis - - lead-ing although Water. Assessment District #9 construc ted- the water f`acilifies in -the Denman : Flat area, it no longer "has any., beari?.ng on . the =water user charges,. Maintenance and operation of 'the. City, wader utility is not related to the fact that the Denman area water main was constructed by Water Assess- sment Dist-rict, #9. 2) Under Section '''C'''',. MODIFICATION$.,,.water service - extensions, T.roudy 'Lane, in the .first line the words''pumping, station" should be ,eliminated and the sentence%'reworded as, follows: "Water . lines would be extended from the "existing water main: at Corona • • -Road . �� : ... ... M M it , ' 6 •,;1.. ^ '.. d ` } i i Petaluma City Plann'i'ng i Gommiss "ion Minutes. ;October 41'4, 19.,75.; ;• :.; o dIN, iiil.r , icy IV Regarding S'ecltion "'C" MODIF�ICAT „ ,, water :service extensions,, As nman .Flat, .;'since: a portion, ,of' the Denman Flat site is within De s'essmerit District. #9,'"it •wo,uld , -.bel up <to, the City aCouricil as l p, to "whether or ; not annexation (bef ore, ,the,,p,•rovis ^ ion of service -) °1 ' - : , p m' outside, , ' of Assessment Dis- n y, ri' would tie required f:or the ortio 'ct It9,, Page No. j. he se � C-”' ODIFICIONS sere AT T , water- ce extensions sec ons ;, + s f in' error. ' , •since the side fronts on an eXis:t'i'ng ,water..main and could be serviced. - Since there;. °is an d' strict mater. main. j ., would be no need, for water assessmen=t existing waate , . ' 1 a 1 _ , _ onnec•tion 'c be "iequirred. Since this site 'is within .then service .area :of •,the orgmah.''wa district, and p y 7 . Y • III ' ,,. " "• Councih this area, present City axn.exat1on would; therefore no,t.riecess'arily be, required. �Mr,' 'Yours "g advised that so afar as�'' "'traff c data in the report was Generator , ofntraf f I ons were „that, the p ; ro3 'e t be a heavy !i I i ',�� oncer �t •would no g ites and he dial not see any real problems with any the�,sT�th'at coul'di .not 'be,m ti aaed.: He..sta�ted that hey. agreed -' 1 Y . m . "t-or .regarding, the .Trou'dy Lane traffic problems -: ks Di rep with the Sonoma , ount. Pu is Wor• :and the methods,..'of ,mitigation. Chairman izal guestoned.; le ,Hor.c if the associated .industries, : such as ' ,•� t > uatoniton a podntet'oadwherell�r;ea, would• increase the traffic �„ ;would +4,become problem. Mr. Young tlai - tfaci.lityf (assum tigat on -imeasures taken, ,! z.such a." �turn;�duck"' t- inane;• s 'rfals.at ;Troudy Lane, and n „r.�lower,ng the limit if,- necessary.;) • .... 1 i .. .r �i • ". J ?_ .. li. .f w . ! ? .. «1 t 6: r . , . :� .. .r • 1 °� i ,. � w Comm �.H'ead z 'fy., �t � ,customary =toiact on, an E.I.R. agen�ies�thatomi ghtn ,po'ssiblyierepor4t;f;rom•,the nf.l.uential reviewing , w a , minor,i y �ha�ii a 5bearingl they E.I.R. Mr. 1 _ ; hat . ,30, day "review .�p,eri.od- had been allowed for �W �BhehreVewingeage. f y° period in which t:orreact and:th.s review x r ••1 w y� ,,' i :had ex fired D ov er'-" . ,week��a o ,.��:He addedthat.'�.i�ftnocomments'� were" p g # �rr2cexyed, it.:,was' they +d1d znot�,di•sagr2e.. T h 4i A { ` airman Hor R P Ch' ci�za refer•_red °,to ,the ortirons,of� uathe _ort that had " T �� i �statingnthatthe nwould�p "referto' know more abou th , gg g g a McDowe'1'1 'Boule�ar.d area' bef;or;e .ari, further exuansionhisaconsid`er'ed of t � d _..,5— -- .. i._ _ y _.... _. y. .___ _.P - by, Planning .iCommissaong that area Mr_a, Boehlje agreed,,, stating rthat� the �hospit,aI had ,undergone geologic studies for the "Ilk �` ., y; ; r McDowell 4 �site, +and ,mor,&Zof Rthis12 nformation from the, studies should „have ,,beenrincluded iin - the E�,.I iR t,t Hes'also stated that the Troudy ,^ i 1ChairmaneHoroizaagreed and tsty� with regard,pto seismic safety. ry 4have„ mo ction re stud ated�ahat,.constru cost's pro, w ' ;.tg . q �� istt . ..:sr y.i, .•� ° e uate seismic afet r,should.be furnished for each site vidin 4 r i, �V. Petaluma City, - Planning, Commission Mi'nut'es October. - Comm. ,Head'stdt'4d- `.t!ha't', since it.'was almost 10;3 0 p:.m';., he wished to'make�a "mo'tionahat `the meeting. li "e 5continued until after the public= 'hearing • is; over and .then adjourned'-until 'the, .next 'regular - meetin Mr: Boehl e, stated that ttie .. ub is hearing had not et g <. J P_ g y ,r been- opened. ; H'e ad'ded there, might -,V& peopae present who wished to: be heard ,`since the meeting had beeri,publlshed;, and the ' Consultant may also wish to respond. Discussion of the,ap;propriateiiess of the 'mot'ion followed „,.the motion, died for tlack of a econd. Mr'. B 6-h' stated, that the 'Commission : could r-eques,t that the meeting. extend :,past -the'' regular sche'du'led hour of I :-30 p.m., and. °th'e Commission . agreed to ''do so;, Comm Waters stated th'at'�when_.the E.'D had been initiated„ the growth had beent"limi'ted west of :the. City. to th'e ridge line;, because of 'the�I culty, 'of extending •sewers, to that area, behind, the, ridge .;He further stated that at that time. -it had been 'recommended to extend'. t'lie, sewer back of the ridge Ito • Petaluma Bou- leva -rd 'North - and then bit down. Petaluma • - Comm. Waters questioned if this proj -ect° was a. step in the accomplishment ;of that plan, and if so, -if. some mention ,of it should not be, made in - the R.L.R. The City° Engineer 'replied that it would. ,not' lie'..a step in the 1965 master= sewer plan, 'b,ecause the Tioudy:Lane site lies to the west of the t `t he -, master,. sewer •pl'ari trunk - ;Mr. 'YOUhg', ” explained, tk e location o'f the. master 'plan : ewage trunk system,...,,and advised that' -the Troudy Lane's-ite wou consist more or 'less of a localized sewer main extension. Comm. 'Bond referred to the'many discrepancies, that :had been so 'far • In the' E : ;I,.R. „ tand stated that nonet-.of t>he other I.I.R,.'s that had been before the Planning Commission had this type of " detailed criticism attached them,. `He" therefore - asked, if this p;rd ect' "had been given.'-a.;more critical analysis; than other projects because it is a hospital; or' if. the ,extreme. amount of; criticism reflected a p;i:as.:on. the _ part of, the City and the staff. of the Planning' and '- Engineer,ing Departments . ° Comm': "Head declared Comm. Bond but -of order,, since' he °had ' implied "that' the various depart- ments'had a negative.�attit�ud& regard iag the•hospital. Chairman Horcza replied that he: felt it, was. :a,, :valid question,. Mr. Boehlje explained that the staff repor -t was , ; undoubtedly more` detailed and more critical than prior's 'aff'` repor -ts on MEx. h; R. 's. He adVi sed . , that this was largely due' to • the • . of the-person who had' re- viewed it., since ;Mr.. 'RachAl is 'very familiar with State law and, erivr, law,., and evaluatedl. and•= .wrote ;his report accordin`g'Ty,,.- Mr: Boe'hlje ` :sta_ :ted that h e felt Mr RachaT'Fhad 'gone into the E ;I..R. at the `proper ; level -.and - the. FComm s§i6n. should be expecting similar consideration, on o her :E. I;: R' '.`s in `the future'z He .added that Mr. R :chat, had no outside arif luence . in writing," •his report„ 'but was metely doing it :with regard - to . S "tate;' guidelines and. other ,agency comment .• Comm, : -Waters stated, that %§ince'this; item was going before the �voteks. he °felt -it Va's "owed - t.o the m to uncover anything pgssi =ble arid' answer any legtima e question7 Comm. Bond stated he was willing to ac�ept`the answer :,�bf•the Planning'Director • that `the d`etailed.'cr t ci.smJ Wqs due,tto - expertise and not to, 'bias and added that he had no wish to iinpune the intentions of 'the -10- nutes, Oct'ober P66. qma C `'14, 1 t Plann Commission M y g 9Z5 - staff. 'He stated t at it- was the eneral feeling of those people " who wi ' sh to 1 locate th`e �hos aall,;on ` La" p gg g p y g ne that there is afoot dra in on the art of the Cit withrre a rd to this, project, . because it is not'`basically something -that "''the City wants, and this fact must be recognized'. ' the :author ' of the E.I.R. Mr..' Chairman Horcza th "e' I '' " " ' `" n c "alle' , 'upon r Edgar Hill" adressed <the Cominiss oh' - ;- informing them that the project being discussed is at a'very early'stage..in terms of planning, and the report attempts•`t'o reflect 'this -fact In : terms of the way it is discussed '' ` °He' tated' °�tha't the E.'.I': R•: was not reacting to a parti- cular building or group of buildings, but to a program for a build - ,. . in.g 'or'' a group of buildings. He "adv'ise'd' that if a specific building „ was under consid , woul been much different. ad'equatetave Mr.. Hill stated headidnnothhavel me to answer the dis- c „. , repanc'es` noted by tle staff, but had contacted his archaeologist „ d 'the Hos tal Council. He st at'ed, he f p' elt ; of the items al to' be inaccurate in the .E•:I.R'.` we're; • in fact, valid, but advised” that' y corre'ctonslnecess °ary would be made. With regard'-to °geology, Mr'. Hill state'd'that•a registered geologist and civil e`ngine'er h ''d :looked oueri the. existing reports and visited the sites; and it' „was' his own opinion that', tie geologic section was. adequ "ate' fo.r "the "purpose at this 'dine. •' However, he stated that ' e -c has ital' is co nstructed there'wouSd be a very intensive geologic stu" y 'Comm. Head ° s'tat•ed' that the 'repor,t did not ,address the effect that the structure' on 'site iwould= have on the -water runoff. : Lr u John "E verin h g air ` Project Co`or- dinator; stated''that the E.I.R.. spoke to the,,;pont, of increased" impervious :surface° in'the - Troudy Lane area• and the effects it' would have on'•run -off by stating that the ” run- ofn'would'in increase: but ~ "the`I:improvements "would handle it satis- factor' ly. He added that tfiere was` 'a generalized unit hydrograph ' w "� g ' natural•'run =off situation as opposed which- chap e•.in the - = to,, tha=t which` eX sts in imperviqus' conditions .I Head' "questioned .what effect' the addi't'ional growth that would Comm: resultkftom �t'he placement of the ,•'hosp,ital- would have on, waver run- g p p ;, sh ould . 'e . entire area. - He` added' that the appen- be separ`at'ed from th r "i dix included a study done by the `Planning Department regarding 'that residential 'area- and how many - residents could occur in that area, "V etc.' H'e stated further that" he 'shad been •unable "to ' uncover any statistics, which��wou the'mere presence of the Hospital ld'shoesidential additions in the aril. ad d to residential surrounding would•necess' y "' ''`'' '•�' �,:r: °9 . area. !Mt F Hill' ed it was obvious that some medical buildings stat I, w.ould,j, occur, and that some of the people ° working in the hospital 'wo'u'ld ble on' call' an d would' 't$` ere fore ` ti:a' 6 to live in a direct proximi,ty •with ri 20 minutes' of the hospital'. - He added, that he had " been unable to uncover any rea•l'inchor on which to discuss the growth inducement1*'relat1ng`'to• the "hosplial,' but attempts had been 4. made' to find " "I out. the' 'effects that' other" similar hospitals have bad „ on t sur -a eas: ' Petaluma City Planning Commission Mnutes,.October . 14,, 19.75. Comm.. Waters questioned_ if Mr. Hill felt the inducing factor' would be fairly consistent for, any of 'the, locations, with the exception of' ,.the.- existing hospital i Mr'., Hill replied that he had no way:ao quantifw what•the' growth inducement,woul:d be relating to any one,'of the three sites: _Comm , Wright, asked- if `Mr Hk 11 . had: any• questions regarding the . , ' g � replied _ comments from the State Geolo ist: s Off " Mr. Hill hat t he would have to, in touch with, his. archaeologist regarding 'the adequacy, of the report, and: stated that all' information was taken ; directly from a.person as- sumably.knowledgable. The, public - hearing was ,opened, and the audience was asked, for any comments regarding, the comp of the E.I. „R. co and its com- p`lance 'with "St ate:, guidelines,. , Mr:. Brand Johnson" stated. that the E...I.R,. did not eontai:n an 'analysis. of the economic impact. on the Hayes Lane and 1 ° -B” Street areas, and he considered this a serious. _. ommis.sion from .the.xeport. He ,therefore ._requested that the Com mission consider. adjourning the public hearing until more time. could be spent in discussing the matter. Mr,. El gar Hill replied that in his 'discussion with .the.economist who had assisted with the -E.I it , was felt. there undoubtedly, were -a -lot of economic r impact's. relating to the Troudy:Lane and alternate sites, but they wete,pret straight- forward. He advised that the; economist was _ interested.. in a somewhat more subtle .impact._ that ha'd to do with the relationship of constructing the, hospital and to, whether the contractor and his employees would reside within the City., and also d'ealt,� with the relation between the hospital and the City of Peta- luma. He 'added that it- it was not the intent, to, provide an entire 1. economic evaluation in the.,,'E I. R.;_ Comm.. Head stated that if the • C�t hospital did'relocate it could affect, the since the y. mi g ht.have a blight area where " the 'hospital once stood., Mr. k Hill, stated that he, thought this type of, study had 'be'en taken up by the, ,hospital larch tect, and - ..had: been dis in meetings in .,,comparison of ,telocating to, , a 'n'ew: site 'and, remaining and building on., the present: site. He added" that, he did not -know how extensive this, was referred to In.the E.I.R. Mr. Johnson interjected that he did note;, remember this: type.,,of dis.cussion.at. any Hospital Board meetings Comm Head stated he .felt the t. E ,, .' I, R. •gave a lot of positive impacts and:no`negative,comments, to which Mr. Hill replied ; that.: it was an..unbiased, report. Comm, .'Bond' quest ioned 'the time ;element involved in making the cor.,rections,. o the E I R. • A discussion ,followed, after which Comm. Bond moved that the public .hearing -•be continued until the third, Tuesday;.. in November.., Mr. Ernie Curti"s:st'at;ed. shared Mr. John son's concern. about the • economic- impac=t. of relocating the hospital.' He stated that if the Plana for_the Troudy Lane, >site.wo,uld go.forward and adequate ';di,spos#ion was not made of "the Present 'Hillcrest , Hospital b,roken_.�windows and, buildings would result. Mr. Curtis stated that quite a bit of emphasis had been pint on seismic safety, and questioned how much. money had been;, spent. to prove that the McDowell Boulevard' site ,, t suitable 'and the Troudy Lane. .. .,, Y 4 was suitable. Mr. Johnson. replied,..that;$5 -,000 had been spent for -12,- if -13- 1 1 'I p. r 1 .i• ! , uma C E Petal , C y laiining �0 Commiss=ion Minutes, - „14, 1'9,7,5 1 that, stud � aowen�l,l, OO.Q; had been spent- $, p �• dy N 11, ,� ist Charle C ; Hosp' Admin r-a -tor advised�that tal s: , . � pital Board, in its deliberations on choosing the site, .had done a on the McDowel y 'and the s;esmie 1 site existin site. He advised t mic safety costs are much ' . seater,, ;whn const'ructri hosaitalss g e i de'termned that at tthe McDowell Boulevard , , I close to, the" Tola Fault and would' cost an extra T00. 000 to .. y $ , h bui ut ' .Mr,. ,Cowen stated that ^ � t from, e n uil.d that (site ° had been ruled o ite in cat a ears :be a good io ns•the Troudy Lane s pp "" g site, as does the 'p'r:'esent.'ste. Mr. Head made a motion that the public hearing be adjourned and continued' for "four weeksd, arid^ if the `bond issue' i•s no't passed, that t 'e on isco o te I . R. Comm. nt nue w .the stud u y hs E . Bond � ,�° d not `f eel this amendud .' statedmhesdi ment to h°, motion was in line a-t !!' III this` t m& slince'' it Iwo,uid be; UjJ to the app'''licant to ' withdraw the - on be fore,the.Commssion. Comm Bond •sta yed thatRhYsrmot°ions�derat inall made to continue public ood as or.g y r Comm, W the hearing ", unt yl .the ahird; Tuesday ,in .November'. right seconded the,. motion,: AYES `6 ' NOES;: -0 ABSENT 1. OURNMENT: There bein , N no further 1 g , er business °; ,the, ^meeting adj gat 11:,30 11 p .m. if -13- 1 1 'I p. r 1