HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions 86-067 N.C.S. 04/07/1986~°
f~
Res®ll.1t101"1 N®. 86-67 N.C.s.
of the City of Petaluma, California
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR A
GENERAL PLAN / EDP LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENT AND A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE FOR AP NO. 007-082-15
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the issuance of a
Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for the following project:
1. Amendment to the General Plan/Environmental Design Plan Land
Use Designation from "Service Commercial" to "Urban High
Residential" for one 10,800 square foot parcel at 154 Wilson
Street, Sonoma County .Assessor's Parcel No. 007-082-15; and
2. Amend the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance to institute a Planned Unit
Development Zone designation for the same parcel (formerly
designated C-N Neighborhood Commercial) to allow six units
low-moderate cost housing for senior citizens.
.NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the issuance of said Negative
Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act is hereby
approved, based on the following findings
1. The City Council has considered any comments and. proposed
mitigating measures received pertaining to issuance of said
Negative Declaration, and finds the responses thereto to be
adequate .
2. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
tees. N~_...8.6.-67........ v.cs.
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
3. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
4. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable.
5. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or
indirectly, if the mitigation measures for noise are incorporated
into the project design.
6. The County of Sonoma has adopted a Finding of No Significant
Impact on the project after their environmental review.
7. The development plan, as conditioned, contains adequate measures
to mitigate potential adverse effects of noise, traffic and security.
reso. zoning .ordinance
reso4
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 Ap ov
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (~~~~k~t~adad) meeting °~
on the .....7th....-..._.. day of ..April---------------------•----------...---..., 19.86., by the
following vote: .......---- - -•-----•--• ------••----
f ~ ly Attorney
AYES: Cavanagh, Davis, Woolsey, V.M. Balshaw, Mayor Mattei
NOES: None ~
i
~" ~+„ ~,
~~~ • '~ '/
ABSENT: n e seat acant ~ `i`
ATTEST . -•---- --• .............. ..... .. .......... .....---...............-.........
i y Clerk Mayor
Council Fil~.~._ ~-? .................
CA ]0-85 ~ Res. No . .............................. N.C.S.