HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 2128 N.C.S. 02/25/2002 ~a~„~,,,,„ -,m,,,,~.....
- ~ ~ q ~(c~ ter
~ R, 2 5 20
2 ~ ®I~INANCE N®. 2128 N.C.S.
3
4
5
~ Introduced by Councilmember Seconded by Councilmember
8
~ Pamela Torliatt Matt Maguire
io
i~
iz
13 PREZONING A 5-ACRE PARCEL, APN 137-070-09, TO R1-6500, TO ALLOW
14 >F'OR 11 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND DEVELOPMENT OF 10 NEW
l; RESIDENCES KNOWN AS BAKER RANCH, LOCATED AT CORONA ROAD
~ AND ELY ROAD
17
18
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS
zo FOLLOWS:
21
z2 Section 1. The City Council finds that the Planning Commission filed with the City
23 Council its report set forth in its minutes of November 13, 2001, recommending the
z4 adoption of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 1072 N.C.S., as amended, by
zs classifying and prezoning certain lands being more particularly described as the 5-acre
a~ Assessor's Parcel No. 137-070-09.
z~
z8 Section 2. The City Council further finds that said Planning Commission held a public
z~ hearing on said proposed amendment on November 13, 2001, after giving notice of said
3o hearing, in the manner, for the period, and in the form required by said Ordinance No.
31 1072 N.C.S., as amended.
32
33 Section 3. The City Council held a public hearing on the Baker Ranch proposal on
34 February 4, 2002, after giving notice of said hearing in the manner for the period and in
3s the form required by said Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended, and considered all
36 written and verbal communications. Pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No.
37 1072 N.C.S., as amended, the City Council finds as follows:
38
39 1. The proposed Prezoning of the Baker Ranch property to R1-6500 is consistent
4o with both the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (adopted 1989) and the Petaluma General
41 Plan, and is in general conformity with the zoriing regulations of the City of
4z Petaluma as described in the project staff report. Additionally, the Fire Marshal,
43 Police Department, and the Engineering Division have prepared conditions of
44 approval to address safety issues and design criteria for grading, site
45 improvements and construction of the residences.
1
z 2. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit the adoption
3 of the Prezoning in that the zoning designation will result in residential uses that
4 are appropriate and compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The proposed
s density would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the Petaluma
~ General Plan, and the CoronaBly Specific Plan. The project plans present a
~ unified and organized arrangement of residential lots and public streets,
s appropriate to adjacent and nearby properties. Proposed landscaping would
9 further insure compatibility. The proposed project would also require review and
to approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
~i
~z 3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
13 satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated
l4 Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential
~s impacts generated by the proposed project. In compliance with the requirements
i6 of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study was prepared for
prezoning of the property to R1-6500. Based upon the Initial Study, a
to determination was made that no significant environmental impacts would result.
19 A copy of this notice was published in the Arius Courier and provided to
zo residents and occupants within 300 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA
z~ requirements.
zz
z3 Section 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., and based
z4 upon the evidence it has received and in accordance with the findings made, the City
zs Council hereby adopts an amendment to said Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., so as to
z~ prezone said property herein referred to, in accordance with the recommendation of the
z~ Planning Commission.
zs
z9 Section 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post this Ordinance for the period and in
3o the manner required by the City Charter.
s~
3z IF ANY SECTION, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or word of this Ordinance is
33 for any reason held to be unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid by a court of
34 competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
3s of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would
have passed and adopted this Ordinance and each and all provisions thereof irrespective of
37 the fact that any one or more of said provisions be declared unconstitutional, unlawful or
3s otherwise invalid.
39
4o INTRODUCED and ordered Posted/Published this 4`'' day of February, 2002.
41
4z ADOPTED this 25`h day of February, 2002, by the following vote:
43
a4 AYES: Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Moynihan, Torliatt, Mayor Thompson
4s
46 NOES: None
1
z ABSENT: Vice Mayor Healy
3
a ABSTAIN: None
5
6
~ E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
8
to
Ll
12 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
13
14
15
16
1~ ichard udnansky, Cit ey
is
19
20
21
22 ATTEST:
23
24
25
26
z~ Paulette Lyon, Interim i Clerk
zs
z~
30
31