HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 2065 N.C.S. 12/15/1997
`
1
2
3 J'p N 1 41997
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0 ORDINANCE NO. 2065 N.C.S.
11
12 Introduced by Councilmember Seconded by Councilmember
13
14 Matt Maguire Pamela Torliatt
IS
16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OR PETALUMA AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO.
17 1072 N.C.S. AS AMENDED, BY RECLASSIFYING AND REZONING A 6.10 ACRE
18 PARCEL LOCATED AT 100 EAST "D" STREET TO RIVERFRONT WAREHOUSE APN's
19 007-700-003, 004 AND 005
20
21 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
22
23 Section 1: The City Council finds that the Planning Commission filed with the City Council on
24 December 1, 1997, its report set forth in its minutes of October 21, 1997 (File #GPA97001)
25 recommending the adoption of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 1072, as amended,
26 by reclassifying and rezoning certain lands being more particularly described as Assessor's
27 Parcel Numbers 007-700-003, 004, and 005, a 6.1 acre site located at 100 East "D" .Street.
28
29 Section 2: The City Council further finds that said Planning Commission held public hearings
30 on said proposed amendment on October 21, 1997 after giving notice of said hearings, in the
31 manner, for the period and in the form required by said Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended.
32
33 Section 3: The City Council further finds that the requirements of the California Environmental
34 Quality Act have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study which indicates that
35 the proposed amendment will not result in a significant impact on the environment.
36
37 Section 4: the public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be
38 furthered by the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and rezoning the
39 Jerico Products site to RW, Riverfront Warehouse.
40
41 Section 5: Pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended, the
42 City Council finds the following:
43
44 Environmental Findings
45
46 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and properly noticed for the General Plan Amendments
47 and Rezoning in accordance with CEQA and local guidelines.
48
49
Ord. 2065 NCS Page 1 of 3
1 2. No substantial evidence has been presented to staff that the project would have a significant
2 effect on the environment. Therefore, the Initial Study concludes that no significant impacts
3 will result.
4
5 3. Mitigation Measures are unnecessary because no potentially significant impacts have been
6 identified that require mitigation; therefore, a monitoring program is also unnecessary.
7
8 4. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fisli and
9 Game code, either individually or cumulatively, and therefore is exempt from Fish and Game
10 filing fees. Amending the land use designations in no way affects plant life, animal life, or
11 the habitat in which wildlife resources are found.
12
13 5. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the
14 State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
15
16 6. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and considered
17 the comments before making a decision on the project.
18
19 7. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the
20 City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California.
21 8. The Planning Commission finds that reducing the amount of land on McNear Peninsula
22 designated by the General Plan for future park is not a significant environmental impact.
23 The underlying concept contained in the River Access and Enhancement Plan is not
24 significantly altered by the reduction of land because the bulk of the desired park
25 improvements were to be on the balance of the site that is currently vacant and that access to
26 the peninsula will not be impacted.
27
28 DE MINIMIS IMPACT FINDING:
29
30 1. The Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed
31 project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon
32 which the wildlife depends; on the basis of substantial evidence, the presumption of adverse
33 effect is rebutted. A Certificate of Fee Exemption will be completed and filed with the Notice
34 of Determination for the project.
35
36 Rezoning_Finding_s
37
38 1. The proposed amendment is in the public interest because it does not hinder the development
39 and future acquisition of additional land for the McNear Peninsula Park. The proposed
40 General Plan and Zoning Amendments will also continue to allow along-term/historic river
41 oriented use in a location with a proper land use designation and Zoned to reflect the river
42 related use.
43
44 2. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the
45 General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. The Planning
46 Commission finds that the proposed amendments support General Plan Objectives and
47 policies which encourage river oriented uses and continued work on acquiring the McNear
48 Peninsula for parkland.
49
50
51
52
Ord. 2065 NCS Page 2 of 3
1 3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been
2 determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Specifically, the
3 Planning Commission finds that there will be no adverse environmental impacts resulting
4 from changing the land use designations or Rezoning the property as recommended by staff.
5 4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions
6 of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
7 All noticing and review periods required by CEQA and the City of Petaluma's
8 Environmental Review Guidelines have been satisfied.
9
10
11 IF ANY SECTION, subsection., sentence, clause or phrase or word of this ordinance is for any
12 reason held to be unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
13 affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of
l4 Petaluma hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this ordinance and each and all
15 provisions thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions be declared
16 unconstitutional.
17
18 INTRODUCED and ordered Posted/Published this 1st day of December, ] 997.
19
20 ADOPTED this 15th day of December , 1997, by the following vote:
21
22 AYES: Read, Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss
23
24 NOES: None
25
26 ABSENT: Stompe
27
28 ABSTAIN: None ~i~ . ~ ~
30 ~
31 Mayor
32
33 ATTEST: PRO D AS TO FORM:.
34
35 t _ d
36 City Clerk City Att
37
38
39
40 a:Avcs3\jercoord
Ord. 2065 NCS Page 3 of 3