HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions 86-189 N.C.S. 07/07/1986
Resolution No. 86-189 N C.s.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN/EDP
LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR LANDS OF PACCIORINI,
SONOMA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 19-203-12
WHEREAS, application was filed by Henry Pacciorini to amend the General
Plan/Environmental Design Plan land use map designation from "Suburban
Low and Development Constraint Area" to "Suburban Low and Suburban
Medium and Development Constraint Area" for the' purpose of increasing
maximum allowable development potential of the site from 9 units to 13 units
in conjunction with a concurrent application for a rezoning from "R-1 20, 000
and R-1 40,000" to "Planned Unit District (P.U.D.)" fora 5.34 acre hillside
site located at the terminus of Pacciorini Drive, Sonoma County Assessor's
Parcel No. 19-203-12; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on this matter on
November 13, 1984 and May 27, 1986 during which the staff reports both
written and verbal, environmental review, and public testimony both written
and verbal were received and considered. by the Commission for purposes of
making a recommendation to the City Council; and.
WHEREAS, residents and. property owners of nearby or affected properties
presented testimony of probable adverse effects inherent in the proposed
13-unit plan including loss of privacy, development on poor or unstable
soils, exacerbation of off-site drainage, potential loss of pristine ridgelines,
traffic, and noise which could not be satisfactorily mitigated without
substantially reducing the number of units; and
WHEREAS, the neighbors and Planning Commission indicated support of a
P.U.D. plan at current General Plan densities; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended denial of a negative
declaration for the proposed General Plan/EDP amendment and 13 lot PUD
plan. as noted below, based on four findings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the General
Plan/EDP Land Use amendment; and
WHEREAS, the applicant's request for a 13-unit P.U.D, must be denied
without prior approval of the General Plan/EDP amendment unless the
P.U.D. plan is revised to reflect current allowable densities and be further
reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the Planning Commission public hearings, the
applicant has requested the opportunity to modify the P.U.D. plan to
reflect current densities for further .review by the Planning Commission;
an d
H~~s. N~..........86-189... ~.cs. 1 of 2
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this matter during
which all previously submitted information and testimony, the Planning
Commission recommendation, as well as all new information and verbal
testimony was considered prior to rendering a decision on this matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that it
cannot approve a Negative Declaration for a General Plan/EDP amendment
and PUD rezone to permit a 13 unit subdivision based on the following
findings as recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. The proposed GP/EDP amendment and rezoning may have the potential
to cause significant adverse effects on human beings either directly or
indirectly .
2. The proposed GP/EDP amendment and rezoning may have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals .
3. The project may have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment.
4. The project may have adverse effects on the surrounding uses and
development patterns .
NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby denies the
requested General Plan/EDP land. use amendment:
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the request for P.U.D. zone designation is
referred back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation,
provided that the application and development plan are amended to reflect
current General Plan/EDP density (ie. maximum 9 parcel yield).
reso . pacciorini
reso5
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approve a
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) )meeting f°
on the ....-.7th ............. day of ..... JAY............................................, 1~~...., by the
following vote: ~•--•--------- • ...... ........•--------•
C' y orney
AYES: Davis, Sobel, Woolsey, Cavanagh, Balshaw, Vice Mayor Tencer, Mayor Mattei
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST : ................ . .~:~ .-............_........-.. .............
Ci y Clerk Mayor
Council Fila ...................................
CA IO-85 ~ Res. No........88-18.9..... N.C.S.
~/iYCCyZ~ti
2of2