Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/20/1976n � ' AGENDA . 7 PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 1976 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY,HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The Planning Commission encourages applicants or their .representatives to be availz�ble at the meetings to answer questions, so that no agenda items need he deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. FLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG r ROLL CALL: ?' Comm. Bond I Head Hilligoss Horciza Popp „ Waters Wright STAFF: Dennis Boehlje, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE 11 .I, SONON?E1 COUN'fY R[;1?EKRAL: Rol erg 'Berto7ucri - Site design review regtaest for property' located at 2480 Bodega Avenue: in a C -2P y District for a meat cutting and wrapping operation with a long- range projection for .retail service. PROPOSED RELOCATION OF Continuation of Public Hearing to consider the HILLCREST HOSPITAL - adequacy of the EIR submitted by'Elgar Hill & EIR EVALUATION Associates, as its completion in compliance CONTINUANCE: with State guidelines, for the proposed relocation p' of Hillcrest Hospital. OTHER BUSINESS: Review of proposed 'flood plain zoning designations for the City of Petaluma.. 1D.:; OURNMENT I ds " M I N U T E S PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 1976 GULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. ITY 'COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 'PRESENT: Co ., Ho P mm. Bond Head* Hill.'g *, rciza, Popp'., Waters', 'Wright* Comm. Hilligoss arrived` at 7:40 p.m.; Comm., Wright departed at 8:35 p.m.; Comm. Head departed at' p.m. ABSENT: None STAFF: Dennis Boehlje, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of January 6, 1976, were as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE:S, Mr. Boeh'lje asked for an indication of which Commissioners plan - ned to go t'o the 1976 Planning C'ommissioner's Institute in San Francisco to be held February 4 -6, 1976. It was determined that Comm iss "ioners Bond, Hilligoss and'Head would attend. Mr. Boehlje informed the Commission that another institute en- titled "On'''Shaky" 'Ground "'was being presented by ABAG on February llt:h and 12th_. He advised that the session on Thursday was aimed primarily at people who make plans and implementation measures for seismic safety. Mr. Boehlje stated he felt it was a timely conference for 'those who could attend, since the Commission would " • �' be reviewing the Seismic Safety,Element for the City of Petaluma within the next few weeks. He also advised that money was in the budget for those who wished to att'end'. Comm. Head ,stated that he wished to attend both conferences, but would prefer to pay for them himself,, since he would be deriving benefits over and above what would be - required to serve as a Planning Commissioner. He stated he realized that funds were available, but a'ls'o realized that the funds would come out of the taxpayers'' pocket, and it was not his intention to cause the taxpayers any expense.. SONOMA COUNTY . Rdbert „,Bertolucci - 'Site design review request for property REFERRAL: loca`-ted at 2480 Bodega Avenue in a C -2P District for a meat cutting and wrapping operation: The proposal was briefly reviewed. Mr. Boehlje advised that the Commission would have to deal with whether they wished to support the Sonoma County ' "designation for C -2P zoning, or the City's General Plan and` Environmental Design Plan, which show rural and agricultural open space u'ses,.respectively. Comm. Head stated.that the General 30 acres of commercial usage in the Lohrman Lane area, and asked if this amount actually exists. Mr. Boehlje replied that the commercial zoning'''iri this area was in excess of 30 acres. Comm, Head went 14 1 Petaluma City Planning Commissi.on•Minutes, January 20,1976 on to say he did not know how the staff could say the usage was contrary to the plans of the,Cty of Petaluma, since the General Plan design,'ated the area as 'terminal, and, the. Ecologic Plan designated it as being in „a. study area Mr. Boehljp informed Mr. Head' that the subjIect, .property is two . lots : removed*, from the area indicated on the City General' Plan' as Transitional, and also outside the Special Study Area indicated on the E.D.P. Comm. Head inquired if,it was the County's intent to rezone this, property; since two weeks ago,the staff had. asked the, Comm ssion,- to certify the Sonoma. County'.Genera11 Plan as being is agreement with the City''s p:lans,, •and the subject property already indicated a conflict... Mr. Boehlje, informed him that ', he was not aware of any conflict in 'the proposed County' `General Plan designation for this area but was concerned, only with the °commerc al• zoning designation, which :is an entirely different matter than a General Plan designation. Comm. Bond stated he felt the'staff had reacted properly. He went on to say that he felt the Study Area, and the Transitional area designations should run.pa at the same distance on both sides of Bodega Avenue, and he therefore re- commended that "the Envirbnmental*Design-Plan and General .Plan be changed 'accordiiigly. 'Mr. Boehl J e:stated that the addendum report_,liad been prepared on - the possibility that the Commission might, disagree with the General Plan,desilgfiati6n; therefore,, the staff had recommended conditions for a iq-p rai. • Comm. Wright questioned-if ' ,the General Plan would have to be changed before the, Commission c'ould:approve, the subject site design:. Mr. Boeh -lie replied that it would not have to be changed first If it was. the ', nten,t of the .'Commission to change it at the earliest possible date•. . ,Comm. Popp expressed concern about addin g more commerczal'usa�e into this area of the County. g. , Comm. Head moved to recommend to the County Planning Department that the City has no - .obj ection to the proj'ect:” Chairman "Horc'iza informed him that the. site plans should be discussed first,. Comm. Head resp,onded the',p'lans had, been drawn up by a li= eensed 'architect who is an autho" riay; : on` th&.su.b.j:ect; and he therefore felt they sriould'be adequate to meet the needs of the community Chairman .Horc_za asked: Mr.. B _ erto.lucci if the conditions as spe- cified in the staff report were acceptable to him.. Mr. Berto- 1ucci' replied 'that lie. was in . with: the conditions. Comm.. Popp. questioned what, was planned •for. the nest of the, site. Mr, Bertolucci replied that he would be living in the a'dj'acent house and ,there were no ,plans - for the remainder of the f ive -acre parcel.. A discussion •followed regarding the :zoning of the property -2- I Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 20, 1976 It was clarified that 'the property consisted of only one parcel, but the; zoning °d'es `-g na`tion^',bf8 it, with the property to the west 'zon'ed- fbt agricultural- use,.. Comm. Wright questioned if li,fie'commercial. activity would be expanded later. °Mi Bert'o?lucci replied they would not have a retail counter, 'but would °� b`e str ictly a cut ',and wrap operation. Comm.' Bond'moved to`forward a- letter to the °Sonoma County Plan - g. p ''n ,support 'of+ the applicant's desire to use this nin Department, property 'for' the commercial, interest d'esi'gnated, and also suggest to them adoption of the side'design conditions #1 through #4 as ind :cat,edp by' the .staff . He added , the` recommendation that, in the process of reviewing the E:D,.P..'and General Plan, the Com- mi.ssion amend - .thes.e documents to wref,lect an extension of the Special" Study' Area and.' the Transitional ar.ea.along Bodega Avenue. The motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. NOES 1 'ABSENT 0, ji , Comm. .Popp qualified his • "No" Vote :by stating that, although he was in agreement wi.th the change - to the C'i'ty plans as recommended, he not - 'feel that additional commercial ventures in this area shouldl "'be, al--lowed simply 'because other commercial activities existed. ` TION OPOSED ''RELOCA OF Chairman Horciza�mformed ahe and 'fence that the public hearing to HILLCREST HOSPITAL - consider t'he adequacy of the E.I.R. submitted by Elgar Hill and 'EIR EVALUATION 9 . 11 Associates'*!for the proposed relocation' of H'llcrest Hospital was CONTINUANCE: "' now continued. Mr.-Boehlj:e ztated'that he:felt the consultant - bad addressed all areas ­ind cat,e,d'by the,reviewing agencies and the sta''ff , u and although -they- had not: answered in every case with a great - deal of° information., when they had not, they had stated the appropriate limiting cl:ause.- He advised that he felt the Ii E. i z6bpIked with State ,and :loca1 guide`l:ines, and therefore recommended certification of the.E�.'I..R. as presented. Mr. Boehl' advised that "the consul'trant, Mr.. El:gar Hill, was present to answer any! questions. Chai man'Horc za asked the audirencelcif•they had any. comments the E.I..:R. .addendum. 'No,-resp•onse was given. Comm'. Bond stated he.:wished to` hear •from Mr. Cowen:, the Hllcrest Ho 'spit'al :Admin.istrator as to , th'e hos'p'ital''s •purpose in pursuing the E.1.'R6 and what use they would. make of it:. Mr. Cowen n- formed the Commission that even though' the .'tax override election in PN6 ember was defeated -,. "a Citizens' "Advi'!s'ory Council -had been formed to .examine' alternatives. He stated that although it was ely that the .Hospital District could "come ,up with the neces- ` s p �� �. y ,�,� ary money;,° there was the ossb'lit tha't� pan investor' -owned hospital chain might choose to build in Petaluma instead of the ® District. Mr. Cowen added that all of''.the firms the Council. had -3 Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 20, 1976 talked to- ha,d-.t:h .5ame concerns about.the existing site that the - Hospital Board had,', 'and-, it therefore might ,,come to pass that someone: would be asking for approval to build on the Troudy Lane site.:., Mr. Cowen referred ..to, the E,..I,.,R.- which stated that the growth- inducing 'impact for-- the proposed hospital would be nil, and questioned how -ths diff-grence.bf opinion would be ironed out. Mr. Boehlj.e replied that there would always be disagreement. on -the part of; iqdIvI duals i both in and out of the. Cit as to whether there is actua -lly a growth - inducing. impact-, but in'the best judgement..of the consultant; there would be,aminimum, impact; -based on the experience in other com-munit'I' He, went onto say that the City would, do evorythl-Ing.possib, le. to. zone * Areas around. the hospita. site properly to limit any Adverse effects on the area as- a whole;.. 'Mr. Cowen asked•�if an :E.I..R. wpuld be necessary if Hillcrest would have to be enlarged on.its :present site. 'Mr. Boehlje replied that it was a -possibility., He 'further explained that the procedure would ,be f or a ,;staf analysis to determine what was necessary for the, environmental review of theisit&, and the Planning- Commission would . then determine whether a Negative Dec I laration or an E.I.R. was in order., Chairman Horci q Mr. Elg HAl,xega' tfi'e' i stat e went in the that there would, be no ,potential, significant increase in growth - due to : - construction of! the. •hospItAI. Elg4r Hill stated that..the E.L.R. did not say. def initely•,that there would be' a minimal.-growth, Or that the growth 'would. be :nil, it only said there was.n.o Anflormat•on available concerning. hos- pitals, of thi type and -size, •n '.this size of a city to pin down the amount of gto.wPh. ;jnduc involved., H 'e - went, on to say that., as noted : the -.addendum, after looking at other hospi,'tals of, a similar isize-, there seems be no definite statistical information that c�ould ti a hospital to a 'great deal of growth inducement.- Mr.- 111 :advi'sed that' . it would- be related somewhat to the office use that, woujd, along with a hospital, and with the method in which services would be extended for"that th than. area. Comm,. �Po 'p 1 . , questioned 'if there would be. - more' -grow presently, exists, ­ a - ` HI 11 replied that it' would havej some growth inducement effects but there was no way of qualifying exactly how muth - woVU occur., He added that the increase in doctors and employees. ,was not consldere.d a significant growth increase, ' aqd,that there, was no evidence that. residential growth -occurs inAoi3,pital- areas Mr., Rill reiterated' that the method in which services. Are extended would have an . f ect on growth iftd'uc.ement-,_; �since to!,�extend services along a large, stretch of unimproved land would-- be a :potential-, for development He added that-.was not,! the :ca A e in this ; situation,• since there were. only a limited amount of - extensions that could be' made it • . ., .... Petaluma i City Planning Commission Minutes.;. January 20,•1976; GG �k Comm. Bond asked Mre ^ .Hll-f, there was: any significant infor- mation in.11the addendum report'. that, .was, not a. part of the draft E.I.R. Mr. Hill „replied.t'here were no significant changes. Comm. Hilli.goss' asked if the'traffic problems noted by the Sonoma County'Public Works Department had.been.d'ealt with. Mr. Hill 0 stated . h'e had called,-on the- who had made the negative comment_, azi'd” although it" had ''appeared' in the letter that the' individual was calling .for. an -addi,tiona:l •traffic study, :he had. stated this was not his intent and he:did not think it was necessary. Mr.- `Boehlje stated that a traffic study might be necessary at some.future- date. Comm. Bond questioned if a future traffic study would be based on a more precise design, and if it would _make a,� di'ff erence as to :how the °t raffic was brought out onto the.Boulevard.. Mr. Hill.- replied in the affirmative, stating that the more specific the information, the more valid a traffic study _•wou.l'd,,,ijb e . The Publi.c,,Hearing was closed.. Comm. Wright stated he thought the, questions, raised in the E,.I.'R., had been sufficiently an- swered. Comm. 'Popp agreed,.but stated he was in favor of ex- pansion at the.existing site. It.was.his opinion that the site was originally,,. built for expansion and the situation must be approached realistically in terms of cost. Comm. Bond stated he realized the economic problems- associated with the Troudy Lane site, but from strictly trictly planning standpoint, he felt the hos- piital should .be ,constructed there. Comm. Wright, ,asked Mr. Cowen if,,,,;the . Board was considering al- lowing, outside investors to . come into Petaluma. Mr. Cowen advised.' the Advisory Council.had interviewed seven or eight " firms , who :would,.,be, putting,.their•,.proposals in writing next week. The Advisory. Council would then.I.make a recommendation to the Board of Di.recto-rs.in early February with the intent to fund a hospital tax funds.. Comm .Wright questioned if the hospital district, would then, go.,,outl, of business. Mr. Cowen replied that.there.could not 'be two hospitals in Petaluma. Comm. -Bond questioned if an investor -owned company could come in I. without the vote of the people of,the City. Mr. Cowen. stated it 'Icould �'�be�. done., but he did not feel it would. be handled that way, but would be taken to•the voters for consideration. Comm Bond asked how the.. .Council came into being.. Mr. Cowen reelied, that after the, bond election there were a number of irate taxpayers who asked to be recognized 'and the:Hospital Board did so. He.expla.ined that the Council consisted of approximately 35 .members, chaired by Mr. Alexander, who'looked at alternate solutions. Comm. Wright made,a motion to recommend..to the City Council that the E.I.R. and addendum material certified as being in com- pliance with State and local guidelines'. Bond seconded the � .Comm. motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 -5- Petaluma 'City Planning Commission Minutes,-January-20, 1976 Comm. Bond stated ^that Santa Rosa ,is completing an E.I.R. for reference material Aftd asked if Petaluma was doing anything of that nature, and if it was fea'sib'le. Mr. Boehlj`e replied, that in a sense the,Environmental Resources •System which.COMARC Design Systems has designed provides a.great deal'of this type of information, but it is not an-E.I.R. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Boehlje informed the; I Commission that .he had recently learned that the' City' of•'.P,etaluma would .not have to act on its proposed flood plain -'zoning{ designation. until after a• rate study' has been carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers., Therefore, the deadline for ^ estab'li'shing flood plain zones ha'd been changed until siX. months'after the. results of the rate study are pub - lished, which•would, mean that the zoning need' not. be established for at least "another year. Mr. .Boehlj'e.advised, the item could be removed from the agenda by the consensus of the,Commission. Comm. Head moved 'that- the Commission drop this item from the agenda.. Chairman Horciza questioned if anyone,was present with regard to this item, aid no response was given. Mr. Boehlje stated that °th;e - matter had `not been noticed for -;publc hearing at this time. The Commis:sioi determined by genera.l.conce.nsus to remove the flood plain zoning'desighdtion consideration from the agenda. Mr. Boehlje- • stated he had further bus'iness'to discuss. Comm. • Head moved for adjournment, but the motion died ,for lack of •a. second. Mr. Boehlje informed the`'Commission that the City Council, had discu'sse'd the Bod`ega .Aveftu'ey /P'aiila. Lane rezoning at their last meeting and had come up'w t'h*a recommendation that they wished the to consider. "He then explained the proposal for R- 1- 10,000:zoning in the'southern portion of the area and R -1- 20,:000 zoning' in the' orth'ern portion.. Mr.'Boehlje clarified ' that'd specific area ' han would have to be adopted at a later time for the placemen't ®f' streets. Comm. Bond staged he felt the Commission was losing'sight °of the original incentive, since part of the effec,tiveness'' of : the. proposed rezoning was the road system, and the Commi "ssion had alreadly informed, the Council of their recommendation - Mr. Boehlje advised since the Council's determination was different than that of the Commis- _. � _ _._._ of, the it had to be, referred, back to the Commission for tonsi- deration. 'He - further clarified that if the Commission turns down the suggested rezonings:, could be appealed to the City Council. -Mr. B'o.ehlje. advised the Commission that at the next meeting they would,be once again looking'at the Qantas Planned Community District zoning since a revised site plan had, been submitted. He explained that' ' th i s revised 'site 'Plan extended Maria 'Drive across the applicanC s propert y and moved, multi- family area -6- Petaluma,City Planning Commission Minutes, January 20, 1976 adjacent to the creek. He clarified that since the location, of :,• the multi - family and ,single - family units had been changed, it Id would have to go back to the Commission for consideration. Comm. Bond questioned what act -ion was being taken on. the ex- tens.i.on of the 5 -year Environmental Design Plan. Comm. Hilligoss flf stated the Council, would consider what approach to take at the next .Council meeting. Mr. Boehlje _added that the Council would review the specific policies indicated in the Environmental Design,Plan and would then determine, what approach the Commission shou.ld't'ake. Comm.. Waters voiced hiis objection, stating that the Environmental Design Plan had started.with the Planning Commis - sion. He felt it was up to the Planning Commission to have a study session to evaluate the E.D..P. and to determine whether it should be extended, and then make' & recommendation according to the City Council. y i Comm„ Bond ,questioned if there was to be a new Police Station. Comm. Hilligoss clarified that Federal funds may be available for a public safety building, and it was the intent to use these funds fora new Police Station. It was also clarified that the I'" + parking lot•under construction was 'pant of the site design re- viewed by the Commission for the temporary Police building. II, I I �III d� ,. WDJ'OURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. a' Attest: I• Ihb q... All Chairman -7-