HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 91-297 10/07/1991~es®Illtl®rl No. 91-297 N.C.S.
1 of the City of Petaluma, California
2
3 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE.
4 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
5 QUALITY ACT FOR A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
6 AMENDMENT FOR A.P. NO.'S 008-294-5, 7, 13, 15, 16 AND
7 A PORTION OF 14, AND A REZONING FOR A.P. NO.'S
8 008-294-5, 7, 13 AND A PORTION OF 14
9
10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the issuance of a Negative
11 Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the
12 following project:
13
14 1. Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Designation from Public Institutional to
15 Urban Diversified (5.1 to 10 du/ac), a portion of 426 8th Street (AP No. 008-294-
16 14), and from Urban Standard (2.1 to 5.0 du/ac) to Urban Diversified, properties
17 located at 410, 414, 416, and 418 8th Street and 801 and 803 "F" Street (AP No.'s
18 008-294-5, 7, 13, 1.5, 16).
19
20 2. Amend the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance to rezone from R-1 6500 (One Family
21 Residential) to RC (Compact Single Family Residential) properties located at 414,
22 416, and 418 8th Street, and a portion of 426 8th Street (AP No.'s 008-294-05, 7, 13,
23 and a portion of 14).
24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the issuance of said Negative Declaration
26 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act is hereby approved, based on the
27 following findings:
28
29 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, ~
30 substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
31 population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
32 animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
33 plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
34 history or prehistory because the project site is located in an already urbanized area.
35
36 2. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of
37 long-term, environmental goals.
38
Nes. Nv... ~!. ~.-.A.9.!........... N.C.S.
1 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively
2 considerable.
3
4 4. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial
5 adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
6
7 5. The project is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and
8 policies of the General Plan, Land Use and Housing elements to encourage "infill"
9 development.
10
11 6. An initial study has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the
12 potential for this project to cause an adverse effect -- either individually or
13 cumulatively -- on wildlife resources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild
14 animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities,
15 including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability."
16 (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
17
18 There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse
19 effect on wildlife resources.
20
21
22 negdecGP /council-7
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 Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (at~ax~ei$k~f~t) meeting "'"' ~ r - `"`~-`~^
on the ..7.th--••-•--•-•---... day of .......Q~znber .................................... 19..9.1., by,`the -
following vote: ..-•••--- --=--,-
City Attor ,ey
AYES: Read, Davis, Cavanagh, Sobel
NpES: Nelson, Vice Mayor Woolsey
ABSENT: Mayo illigoss !~,?
~~--~~~.~r
ATTEST: .... .......................•---.......-_.......-........ ``~...1':.`.~'.?.:.?:.Y~...... \::<~~-!~.._....-. c'.`'`3...-~~.~_'t'~..
City C1er~EpIJT~ ~~ ~~,~ ~ ~ -~~~ -o s Mayor vice Mayor
_..., _
until Filepp.-.yy....-......-• ...... ........
CA 10-85 ~ Res. No........J.J,.-~7...... N.C.S.