HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 2091 N.C.S. 05/03/1999
~1
~~~~TIV ®T
2 JUN 2 1999
4
J
6
7
8 ORDINANCE NO. 2091 N.C.S.
9
~o
11 Introduced by Councilmember Seconded by Councilmember
12 Matt Maguire Vice Mayor Keller
13
14
l5 TO REZONE FIVE PARCELS LOCATED AT
l6 359 WEST PAYRAN STREET, APN 006-051-048, 50, 51, 52, AND 53,
t~ FROM C-N, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, C-H., HIGHWAY
1 s COMMERCIAL, AND M-L, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, TO PUD,
l9 PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT, FOR OLD ELM VILLAGE, AN 88 UNIT
20 RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF AN APPROXIMATELY
21 3,200 SQ. FT. CHILD CARE CENTER AND 1,300 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE
22
23
24 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
25
26
27 Section 1. The City Council finds that the Planning Commission filed with the City Council on
28 April 19, 1999, its report set forth in its minutes of October 27, November 10, and December 8,
29 1998, forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a rezoning of five parcels, APN
30 006-051-048, 50, 51, 52, and 53, located at 359 West Payran Street, from C-N, Neighborhood
31 Commercial, C-H, Highway Commercial, and M-L, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit
32 District, and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and PUD Development Standards for the
33 project.
34
35 Section 2. The City Council further finds that the Planning Commission held public hearings on
36 the proposed rezoning on October 27, November 10, and December 8, 1998 after giving notice
37 of said hearings, in the manner, for the period, and in the form required by said Ordinance No.
38 1072 N.C.S., as amended, and that the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend that the
39 City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Rezoning.
Ord. 2091 NCS Page 1 of 4
1 Section 3. The City Council further finds that pursuant to Article 6, Negative Declaration
2 Process, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the requirements of
3 CEQA have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study, and that a Mitigated
4 Negative Declaration is appropriate to the project, based on the following findings:
5
6 A. Based upon the Initial Study prepared for the project, there is no substantial evidence that
7 the project, as conditioned and with mitigation measures incorporated, would have a
8 significant effect on the environment. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that
9 supports. a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the
10 environment.
11
l2 B. A previous environmental assessment was conducted for the project in 1995 under the
13 provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The project has not
14 changed substantially since that previous review. The environmental assessment
15 determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the human environment
16 and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was prepared.
17
l8 C. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fish
19 and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game
20 filing fees because it is proposed on an existing developed site surrounded by urban
21 development with none of the resources as defined in the Code.
22
23 D. The Planning Commission reviewed information on the hydrology of the project, took
24 public testimony, and found that the mitigation measures incorporated into the project,
25 including the condition that the applicant provide for either on-site or off-site detention
26 which will reduce any increase in water surface runoff to zero, will reduce the potential
27 effects of flooding, runoff, and drainage, to less than significant.
28
29 E. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and
3o considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project.
31
Ord. 2091 NCS Page 2 of 4
a
~ F. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at
2 the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma,
California.
4
5 Section 4. The City Council has reviewed the proposed rezoning for the subject parcel from C-
6 N, Neighborhood Commercial, C-H, Highway Commercial, and M-L, Light Industrial, to PUD,
7 Planned Unit District, and in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
8 does hereby find:
9
~ 0 A. That the Planned Unit District will result in a more desirable use of land and a better
~ l physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or
12 combination of zoning districts.
13
14 B. That the proposed rezoning to PUD is consistent with the provisions of Article 19A,
15 Planned Unit District, of the Zoning Ordinance.
16
17 C. That the project is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one or more
l s thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic
~ 9 generated by the development.
20
2l D. That the proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public welfare,
22 will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and
23 spirit of the zoning regulations of the City and with the General Plan.
24
25 Section 5. Pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., and based upon the
26 evidence it has received and in accordance with the findings made, the City Council hereby
27 adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Rezoning.
28
29 Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post this Ordinance for the period and in the
30 manner required by the City Charter.
31
32 IF ANY SECTION, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or word of this ordinance is for any
33 reason held to be unconstitutional, unlawful, or otherwise invalid by a court of competent
34 jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ord. 2091 NCS Page 3 of 4
'e
1 ordinance. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would have passed
2 and adopted this ordinance and each and all provisions thereof irrespective of the fact that any
3 one or more of said provisions be declared unconstitutional, unlawful, or otherwise invalid.
4
5 INTRODUCED and ordered Posted/Pl~ti~Y~d this 19th day of April , 1999.
6
7 ADOPTED this 3rd day of NIay 1999, by the following vote:
8
9 AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire, Vice Mayor Keller
10
11 NOES: None
12
13 ABSENT: Mayor Thompson
14
15 .ABSTAIN: Hamilton
16
17 Mayor ?YGL..
is
19 ATTE APPROVED AS TO FORM:
20
21 ~"°lv'°"~.'k~,
22 City Clerk City Attorney
23
24
25
Ord. 2091 NCS Page 4 of 4