HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7.A 02/07/2005CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL
Agenda Title: Paula Lane Subdivision. Discussion and possible
action regarding: A) A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Paula
Lane Subdivision (APN 019-080-009 & 010) to be located on two
parcels at 431 Paula Lane and totaling 11.22 -acres on the corner of
Paula Lane and Sunset Drive; B) Resolution denying a General Plan
Amendment to amend the Land Use Designation from Rural (0.0-
0.5 du/ac) to Suburban (0.6-2.0 du/ac); C) Prezonirlg the subject
parcels R-1 20,000; D) Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the
11.22 -acres into 21 residential lots including with 3 -acres of the site
being retained as open space. E) Annexation.
Q
Meeting Time: 7:00 P.M.
Category: Public Hearing X Old Business
X Presentation
Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number:
Community Milce MoQ Irene T. Borba
( (707} 778-4341
Development
Cost of Proposal: NIA Account Number: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A Name of Fund: NIA
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
1. Draft Resolution of Denial.
2. City Council Minute Excerpts of May 17, 2004.
3. Memorandum from Irene Borba dated June 21, 2004 including the following attachments:
Development Impact Fee Calculations and Community Development Fee Sheet.
Letters dated March 11, 2002 and May 10, 2004 from the Department of Fish and Game.
Report from Dr. Kucera dated May 5, 2004.
Letter from Marti Buxton of Mission Valley Properties dated June 4, 2004, including
information from Allan Tilton of W -Trans.
E-mail from Steven J. LaFranchi dated May 29, 2004.
Letter from Margo N. Bradish of Cox, Castle, Nicholson dated June 11, 2004.
Letter from Maria Cipriani of the Open Space District dated June 10, 2004.
Letter from JRP Historical Consultants dated June 11, 2004.
4. Plans -Tentative Subdivision Map (Reduced 11x17)
Recommended Citv Council Action/Sugeested Motion:
The Planning Commission recommends denying the General Plan Amendment and therefore by extension,
the associated applications for the project.
A)t(eviewed by Finance Director:
ate:
JAN 2
TodAy's Date:
January 20, 2005
Reviewed by City Attornev:
( 2005 Date:
Revision # and Date Revised:
Aup�� rov v Citv Manager:
Date:
File Code:
s:/cc-city council/reports/paula lane
agenda bill feb 7
CITY OF PETALUMA. CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION
Subdivision of two contiguous parcels totaling 11.22 -acres into 21 residential units with
approximately 3 -acres of the site being set aside as open space. General Plan
Amendment, Prezoning, Tentative Parcel Map and Annexation, at 431 Paul Lane, APN
APN 019-080-009 & 010
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Project Description
Mission Valley Properties has .submitted an application for 1) Approval of a
General Plan Land Use Map Amendment to redesignate two contiguous parcels
(totaling 11.22 -acres) from Rural (0.0-0.5 du/ac) to Suburban (0.6-2.0 du/ac); 2)
Approval to Prezone the subject parcels to R1-10, 000, and 3) Approval of a
Tentative Parcel Map for a 21 -lot subdivision.
The project proposes to develop a total of 11.22 -acres located at the comer of
Paula Lane and Sunset Drive. The subject property is not within the city limits of
Petaluma but is within the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB). The proposal
includes the subdivision (Tentative Subdivision Map) of the subject property for
the development of 21 single-family residences on lots ranging from 10,000
square feet to 30,000 square feet in area. The homes sizes would range from
2,800 to 3,500 square feet with a maximum height of 25'. Approximately 3 acres
of the subject property would be contiguous private open space for the
development.
2. BACKGROUND:
The City Council heard this agenda item on May 17`h, 2004. At that meeting, the
applicant presented the project proposal and the Council tools public testimony.
The Public Hearing was closed and the Council began the initial stages of their
discussion and questions. Due to the late hour, Council continued the project
proposal to June 21st. Council raised some issues/questions to be addressed when
the item returned. Attached, are minute excerpts from the May 17, 2004 City
Council meeting (see Attachment, 2).
Prior to the June 21, 2004 Council meeting, the applicant, Mission Valley
Properties requested to postpone the June 21" hearing to an unspecified date. The
staff report intended for the June 21, 2004 meeting was not provided to Council
due to the fact that the item was continued. Attached is the June 21" staff report
and attachments which address the issues/questions that were raised at that time
(see Attachment 3).
At the writing of this report, the applicant has not provided staff with any new or
supplemental information.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
a. The City Council may accept the recommendation from the Planning
Commission to deny the request for a General Plan Amendment from Rural
(0.0-0.5 du/ac) to Suburban (0.6-2.0 du/ac). In denying the request for a
General Plan Amendment, it therefore makes the request for adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Prezoninye, Tentative Parcel Map and the
request for Annexation moot.
b. The City Council may choose to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and approve the General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, Prezoning to,Rl-
10, 000 and the Tentative Subdivision Map, which would allow the applicant
to apply to LAFCO for annexation.
4. FINANCIALIMPACTS:
This is a private development subject to any applicable City Special Development
Fees. The Paula Lane site is under private ownership. The project was submitted
prior to the establishment of the cost recovery fee system. The City has collected
$6,195.00 in revenues (application fees) to cover the cost of processing this
application. Approximately 150 hours of staff time at a cost of $9,000.00 has
been expended.
5. CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the project request for a
General Plan Amendment from Rural (0.0-0.5 du/ac) to Suburban (0.6-2.0 dulac),
stating that the proposed density of the project is not appropriate for the site and
surrounding area. The Commission recommended denying the request for a
General Plan and, by extension, the Pre -zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map and
Annexation requests due to the proposed increase in density, inconsistency with
the feathering/urban separator polices in the existing General Plan, coordination
with the General Plan update and impacts and issues related to increased traffic,
insufficient infrastructure, drainage, and potential impacts to an existing wildlife
corridor.
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAI' WILL IDENTIFY
SUCCESS OR COMPLETION:
N/A
7. RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends denying the General Plan Amendment
and, by extension, the Pre -zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map and Annexation
requests due to the proposed increase in density, inconsistency with the
feathering/urban separator polices in the existing General Plan, coordination with
the General Plan update and impacts and issues related to increased traffic,
insufficient infrastructure, drainage, and potential impacts to an existing wildlife
corridor.
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S.
DENYING A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP FOR THE PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 431
PAULA LANE, AT THE CORNER OF PAULA LANE AND SUNSET DRIVE,
APN 019-080-009 & 010
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Mission Valley Properties for an amendment to
the General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate two contiguous parcels, approximately
11.22 acres from Rural (0.0-0.5 du/ac) to Suburban (0.6-2.0 du/ac) to allow the
development of 21 single-family residential units; and
WHEREAS, by extension, denying the request for a General Plan Amendment, therefore
malting moot the application requests for prezoning, tentative subdivision map, and
annexation.
WITGREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed published hearing on
November 12`h, 2003, January IP, 2004 and February 24"', 2004, and considered all
written and verbal communications before rendering its decision for denial to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, all reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission were
forwarded to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this
amendment on May 17, 2004, and February 7, 2005, considered all written and verbal
communications before rendering its decision; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council hereby
denies the requested amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to change the
designations as outlined above based upon the following findings:
1. That the proposed amendment is not deemed to be in the public interest to provide
for orderly development of appropriate residential uses. The proposed density of
the project is not in peeping with the surrounding land use designations.
2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is not consistent and compatible with
the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be
affected.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment to Suburban is not appropriate due to the
proposed increase in density, inconsistency with the feathering/urban separator
polices in the existing General Plan, coordination with the General PIan update
and impacts and issues related to increased traffic, insufficient infrastructure,
drainage, and potential impacts to an existing wildlife corridor.
ATTACHMFNT 1
ADOPTED this day of , 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Cleric City Attorney
s:\cc-city council\reolutions\paula lane gen plan amend reso
Excerpt from Petaluma City Council Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2004
6.
B. Paula Lane Subdivision: discussion and Possible Action Regarding a
Recommendation from the Planning Commission to Deny a Request for General
Pian Amendment, Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Mitigated Negative
Declaration for a 21 -Unit Residential Subdivision Located at 431 Paula Lane, at
the Corner of Paula Lane and Sunset Drive. APN 019-080-009 & 010, Project Files
ANX01002, GPA01002, PRZ01003, SPC01048, TSM01003 (Moore/Borba)
Vice Mayor Moynihan recused himself from this matter as the party related to the
applicant has been a source of income to his firm, Nexus Realty Group and
indicated he would be stepping down on this matter.
Council Member Toriiatt reported that she did trade phone calls with the
developer but was never able to contact him. So she has not met with the
developer, but she did meet with the neighborhood group.
Mayor Glass noted he had met with the neighborhood and added he did have
a lengthy conversation with the applicant.
Council Members Harris and Healy indicated they had done the some.
Council Member Thompson indicated he had spoken briefly with the developer.
Chris Hawke and Marti Buxton, Mission Valley Properties, gave an overall
presentation of the proposed development. They read into the record a letter
from Alice Vesterfeit, properly owner, urging the Council to give favorable review
and approval to their proposed development.
Mayor Glass opened the Public Hearing,
Public snout:
Bill Edwards, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in support of the applicant. He
read his letter, dated May 17, 2004 into the record. He noted he and his wife own
245 Paul Lane, six acres contiguous to and on the southern line of Alice
Vesterfeit's 11.22 -acre parcel. He indicated they purchased the property 30 years
ago and it is currently rented to Susan Kirks. He urged Council to approve the
proposed development.
Dr. Stephen Carle, Petaluma, addressed the City Council urging the Council to
oppose the project and stated concerns with groundwater that he believes is
inadequate for municipal supplies.
Bill Bennett, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed
development citing water drainage issues, traffic concerns, and indicating the
impact from Rockpointe Ridge is yet to be felt in their neighborhood.
Norma Billing, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development, urging the Council to leave this beautiful, pristine land
alone.
Council took a recess from 8:38 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
Julian Podbereski and Susan Kirks, PLAN, Petaluma, addressed the City Council
and gave a presentation in opposition to the development. They supported the
property owner's right to sell the property, but cited concerns with bird habitat,
traffic, badger habitat, deer habitat, and sewage disposal. They commented on
the opportunity for a matching grants application for open space and noted that
would generate revenue for Petaluma. They stressed the need of the owner and
developer to work with the City and County on the best use for this property.
Sherby Sanborn, Consulting Arborist for PLAN, addressed the City Council in
opposition to the development and reported that the trees, as they exist on the
site at this time, offer a better wildlife habitat as they exist rather than trying to
replace them with newer trees. _
Carrissa Bishop -Sage, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development and stressed Petaluma is cherished for its heritage.
Kim Fitts, Mammal Biologist for PLAN, addressed the City Council in opposition to
the proposed development and provided a report on the badger habitat that
exists on the property.
Rollin Bruce, Petaluma, addressed the City Council indicating he is not opposed
to developing the sight at the current AR -2 zoning. He further cited negative
impacts regarding the current proposal, which included additional water runoff
and sewer pumping station issues. He added he is opposed to this development
because his property is most affected by the proposed water runoff.
Charles Carie, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development and urged the Council to deny the application.
Paige Schwartley, Broudt-Hawley Law Group, addressed the City Council urging
them to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the
project. She went on to cite the significant environmental impacts and stressed if
the Council did not deny the project, they must require an EIR.
Art Melling, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed
development and indicating with the way things are going people will just build
and build until they get to the ocean.
Betsy Ginkel, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed
development and cited concerns with the effect on habitat.
Steve Rubardt, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development. He cited negative traffic conditions on Paul lane, water
runoff issues, as well as water pressure concerns. He concluded by stating the
zoning change is not in the best interests of the City.
Ken Miller, Petaluma, addressed the City Council stating his opposition to the
proposed project and stressed there is no way to quantify the importance of the
beauty of the area.
P11
Hannah Jern Miller, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development citing traffic, noise, sewage, and wildlife as concerns.
She cautioned the City Council that if they approve this there would be
irreparable damage to the spirit of the neighborhood.
Tom Pfaff, Petaluma, addressed the City Council noting the urban growth
boundary should be adhered to. He indicated he lives in the County and does
not have a say in this vote, but urged the Council to deny the project.
Dirk Atkinson, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development.
Caroline McCall, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development.
Joyce Williams, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development, citing quality of life issues.
Patrick Schafer, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development.
Katie O'Connor, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development stating annexation, rezoning, density, open space, water
runoff, and water pressure as concerns. She indicated this development would
be out -of -character with the surrounding neighborhood and perhaps the open
space could be used as an educational tool for teaching about habitat and
ecology for students.
Steve Kay, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed
development and noted the number of people who had signed petitions in
opposition that have come to the meeting this evening.
Melissa Wilson, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the
proposed development and in support of open space and preserving the wildlife
habitat.
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, addressed the City Council regarding concerns with
water runoff, water re -charge concerns and in opposition to the proposed
development.
Dru West, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and noted, although not a
resident of Petaluma, she is familiar with Paula Lane. He noted PLAN had done a
great job in researching the issues and stated concerns with traffic on the west
side of town. She indicated development here would only increase the traffic
and congestion. She urged denial of the project.
Hearing no further requests to speak, the Mayor Glass closed the Public Hearing.
Council recessed at 10:1 S p.m. to 10:20 p.m.
Marti Buxton, Developer, attempted to address some of the issues expressed.
Edie Robbins, Stuber-Stroh, responded to the issues and concerns raised relating
to water and indicated there is adequate flow for fire pressure and cited a report
using the City's water model that says the water pressure is fine. She further noted
that is enough water supply for the project and cited the Zone 2 Water System,
which would be used. She indicated there are no supply or capacity problems
existing.
AI Cornwell, addressed concerns raised regarding the recharge area, peak flows
- which would be less than what exists today, and the location of the sewer
pump station which would be similar to the one on Sunset Lane.
Meda Bunzie, addressed the issues stated with the historic resources of the
property. She noted the property has been referred to as an historic rural
landscape, but the integrity has not been maintained.
Marti Buxton, readdressed the County zoning of the property, commented on
feathering, indicated the sight was not suitable for a park, and indicated the
proposed homes were preliminarily reviewed by SPARC.
Margo Bradish, Attorney, commented on the CEQA issue and indicated a
negative declaration will be prepared. She noted there are is no substantial
evidence that the development impacts would have a significant impact on the
area and concluded by stating the disputing opinions are unsubstantiated lay
opinions.
It was noted, lastly, that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the
General Plan Amendment.
Council Member Harris noted he would like more information on the traffic
concerns, badger habitat and would like to know the exact development fees to
be gained by this project.
Council Member Healy commented he would like more clarification on whether
an EIR would be required or not, questioned what the implications would be or
what would happen if the project were denied, and requested staff to get a
clear answer from the County regarding the potential of purchase of this site for
open space.
Council Member Thompson indicated he is satisfied with the response given
regarding the water pressure, acknowledged there may be badgers on the site
and indicated the proposed project is too dense.
Council Member Torliatt noted a General Plan Policy discussion needed to take
place before she would be able to make a decision regarding the proposal.
Council Member O'Brien indicated his questions had been answered.
Given the lateness of the hour, the City Council indicated no action would be
taken this evening and the item would be continued to their June 21, 2004
Regular City Council Meeting for Council discussion and action.
4
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Conrnumio, Development Department,11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4301 Fax(707)778-4498 E-mail. cdd@cLpe1a1uma.ca.us
petaluma.ca.us
DATE: Junc 21, 2004
TO: Petaluma City Council
FROM: Irene T. Borba, Senior PIanner
SUBJECT: Paula Lane Subdivision -Subdivision of two contiguous parcels totaling 11.22 -
acres into 21 residential units with approximately 3 -acres of the site being set
aside as open space. General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Tentative Parcel Map,
and Annexation, at 431 Paula Lane, APN 019-080-009 & 010
The City Council heard this agenda item at the May 17, 2004 Council meeting. At that meeting,
the applicant presented the project proposal and the Council took public testimony. The Public
Hearing was closed and the Council began the initial stages of their discussion and questions.
Due to the late hour, Council continued the project proposal to June 21st. Attached, are minute
excerpts from the May 17, 2004 City Council meeting (see Attachment 2).
Numerous issues have been raised throughout the public hearing process however the main issue
continues to be the proposed density of the project. This issue ultimately led the Planning
Commission to unanimously recommend denying the General Plan Amendment (and, by
extension, the other requested entitlements) that would allow the increased density.
The subject property currently has a General Plan designation of Rural (0.0-0.5 dulac). Under the
current General Plan land use designation, the applicant would be potentially allowed to build a
total of five (5) single-family residences. The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment
from Rural Residential (0.0-0.5 dulac) to Suburban (0.6-2.0 du/ac). The Suburban land use
designation would potentially allow the development of twenty-two (22) single-family residences
(the proposal is for 21 single-family dwellings). Under the current County zoning, (AR -B6-2),
which has a two -acre density, staff was informed that that the subject property has the potential
to be developed with 5 single-family units and 5 secondary dwelling units (secondary dwelling
units are not counted as density).
If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the General Pian
Amendment all other issues and requested entitlements become moot. Staff has provided the
Council a draft Resolution of Denial (Attachment 1) if this is the desired action.
Conversely, if there is support for the General Plan Amendment as proposed (21units), the
Council would need to assess the draft review environmental document (Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration) for adequacy and evaluate the proposed project on its merits. Council
should then continue the item in order for staff to prepare the appropriate approval legislation.
If the Council is supportive of a project on this site with reduced density, direction should be
provided to the applicant as to an acceptable total number of housing units. Please remember that
ATTACHMENT 3
any increase of the number of housing units over the five currently allowed by the General Plan
still requires the Council to approve a General Plan Amendment and to make the required
findings to support such an amendment. If Council chooses to take this option, the applicant and
staff should be directed to revise the project, recirculate a modified environmental document and
return to the Council on a date to be determined. The Council should also consider whether or
not it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the revised project before it
comes back to Council. Also, if the Council chooses to take this option, it potentially may
require the requested prezoning application to change. The applicant is currently seeking to
prezone to RI 10,000.
At the Council meeting of May 17, 2004, Council requested additional information on several
specific some issues and or questions. Responses to these issues follow:
• Development fees to be gained by this project
Staff calculated an estimate of the Development Impact fees for the proposed project.
Since the exact size of the homes is unknown at this time, an average home size was
used. The estimated total impact fees per home, using an average home size of 3,150
square feet, would be $31,844.00. With 21 homes, the estimated total would be
$668,724.00.
In addition to Development Impact Fees, there would be Final Subdivision Map fees
($2,550.00), Public Improvement/Public Construction & Inspection fees (<=$5000,000: 6
% of engineers estimate or $1,890; whichever is greater + staff time and materials; or,
>$5000,000 but <=$1,000,000: 4% of engineers estimate + staff time and materials; or,
$1,000,000: 2% of engineers estimate + staff time and materials). See Attachment 4 for
the Development Impact and Community Development Department fee sheet.
• Traffic
Please refer to Attachment 6, a letter from Marti Buxton of Mission Valley Properties
dated June 4, 2004. Ms. Buxton's letter includes additional information from Allan
Tilton of W -Trans, the project traffic engineer.
• Badger Habitat
Attached are two letters from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), (dated March 11,
2002 and May 10, 2004). The first letter from the Department of Fish and Game states
that the project, as proposed, will impact on-site badger dens and that because of the
impacted habitat loss, DFG recommends mitigation utilizing the remaining undeveloped
portions of the project for long-term badger habitat and protection as a conservation
easement. DFG also recommended that footing walls be used adjacent to badger habitat
which extend some.depth into the soil to prevent badger access to the lots under fences
and walls. DFG recommended that any trail designed be with minimal impact and that
the use of porous material such as blue shale be utilized.
The May 10, 2004 letter from DFG notes a meeting on-site by city staff, the developer
and DFG on March 25, 2004. The purpose of the meeting was to reach agreement on the
biological resource issues associated with the proposed project. This letter notes that the
applicant has retained Dr. Tom Kucera to perform a badger burrow exclusion study.
DFG notes previous works of Dr. Kucera and several discussions regarding the project
1
site. Dr. Kucera intends to exclude all badgers from the impact area well after any
juveniles have dispersed following breeding season. This action is being proposed to
reduce impact to any on-site badgers. DFG requested that Dr. Kucera's work be
summarized in a report to review and comment before badger exclusion project
commences. Attachment 5 is the report prepared by Dr. Kucera. With regards to the
open space easement, DFG is aware that there will be an emergency vehicle access
(EVA), pedestrian path and tree planting as well as the detention pond. Given that the
applicant is proposing that the future Homeowner's Association would maintain the open
space, DFG will work with the applicant and the City to finalize the Homeowner's open
space easement agreement.
Department of Fish and Game is identified as a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is responsible for the conservation, protection
and management of the State's biological resources. Staff and the applicant will be
required to work with DFG to appropriately address the issue of the badgers.
In a letter from Marti Buxton of Mission Valley Properties dated June 4, 2004
-(Attachment 6), Ms. Buxton also responds to the Councils questions/concerns badgers and
their habitat.
• Drainage/Hydrology
In a letter from Marti Buxton of Mission Valley Properties dated June 4, 2004
(Attachment 6), Ms. Buxton responds to the Councils questions/concerns regarding
drainage and hydrology. The City Engineer has reviewed the information from Ms.
Buxton, and finds it to be acceptable. Attached is an e-mail from Steven LaFranchi
regarding comments that were made by the public during the hearing process with
regards to drainage (Attachment 6). Mr. LaFranchi's e-mail states that it was implied that
he had reviewed the drainage calculations prepared by CSW Stuber-Stroeh and was in
disagreement with their findings. Mr. LaFranchi wanted to clarify that to this date he has
not been asked to review any work related to this project.
a Potential of purchase of the property for open space.
A letter from the Open Space District is attached (see Attachment 9). OSD has stated
that they have been non -committal with the members of P.L.A.N. regarding the subject
property. OSD stated that they explained the process to P.L.A.N., and informed P.L.A.N.
that funding sources for the purchase of open space is limited and that there were other
properties that had a higher priority that OSD was pursuing.
Attachments:
I. "Draft" Resolution of Denial.
2. City Council Minute Excerpts of May 17, 2004.
3. Development Impact Fee Calculations and Community Development Fee Sheet.
4. Letters dated March 11, 2002 and May 10, 2004 from the Department of Fish and
Game.
5. Report from Dr. Kucera dated May 5, 2004.
6. Letter from Marti Buxton of Mission Valley Properties dated June 4,'2004, including
information from Allan Tilton of W -Trans.
7. E-mail from Steven J. LaFranchi dated May 29, 2004.
3
8. Letter from Margo N. Bradish of Cox, Castle, Nicholson dated June 11, 2004.
9. Letter from Maria Cipriani of the Open Space District dated June 10, 2004.
10. Letter from JRP Historical Consultants dated June 11, 2004.
SACC -City Council\Memos\paula lane subdivision 6-21-04 34th draft by IB.doc
Project Name/Permit #:
Project Address/Location
Applicant's Name:
Applicant's Address:
Principal Contact Person:
Contact's Daytime Phone:
Water Connection:
Sewer Connection:
School Facilities:
Aouatic Facilities:
CITY OF PETALUMA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION S14EET
Enter Applicable Information in the Shaded Areas
Estimate for Paula Lane'; ` f
Single -Family (enter total number of units):
j'"'' f, ' 1
$349.00
Multi -Family (3+ units; enter total number of units):
r
$0 00
L
,
Senior Housing (enter total number of units):
.
$0.00
Please Contact Department of Water Resources & Conservation - 778-4584
Please Contact Department of Water Resources & Conservation - 778-4584
Please Contact the Appropriate School District Directly
Single Family - Detached (enter total number of units):
Single -Family - Attached (enter total number of units):
Multiple Family (enter total number of units):
Manufactured Home (enter total number of units):
Single Occupancy (enter total number of units):
Communitv Facilities:
Single Family - Detached (enter total number of units):
Single -Family - Attached (enter total number of units):
Multiple Family (enter total number of units):
Manufactured Home (enter total number of units):
Single Occupancy (enter total number of units):
Fire Sllnnression Facilities:
Account # AQUAFAC/225241410
MAccountT# COMMFAC/2210-41410
10 j1S.i1
Account #FIREFAC/2220-41410
$154.00
$154.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$653.00
$653.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$349.00
Residential Uses:
Single -Family (enter total number of units):
j'"'' f, ' 1
$349.00
Multi -Family (3+ units; enter total number of units):
$0 00
Manufactured Housing (enter total number of units):
_ {;t; ;•,: ,'
$0.00
Senior Housing (enter total number of units):
.
$0.00
Assisted Living Units
::aw!m:.:;..,,h, :.. ...
.
;,;.; •-
$0.00
Non -Residential Uses:
Hotel or Motel (enter total number of units):
$0.00
Other Retail Uses (enter total square feet of building):
,f"G'±'»:r`- -•"'
$0.00
All Office Uses (enter total square feet of building):"
$0.00
All Industrial Users (enter total square feet of building):
f,`a''"_ _`;';t,`` _' -
$0.00
In -Lieu Housine: (Extent Accessory Dwellina)
Account # INLIEUHS12240-41410
516,238.00
Total Square Footage (increments of ten):
J',',' '`.`='. _ ,3150
16,238
Library Facilities:
Account # LIBFAC/2220-41410
$254.00
Single Family - Detached (enter total number of units):
;, I
$254.00
Single -Family - Attached (enter total number of units):
;'','::'
50.00
Multiple Family (enter total number of units):
_!
so .00
Manufactured Home (enter total number of units):rr,
50.00
Single Occupancy (enter total number of units):
$0.00
Park Land Acauisition and Develooment:
Account # PARKAQ/2251-41410
57,133.00
Residential Uses:
Single Family - Detached (enter total number of units):
1
$7,133.00
Single Family - Attached (enter total number of units):=^
`' "'• _ "
$0.00
Multiple Family enter total number of units
P Y( : )
;?;>'-
g,.r.
$0.00
Manufactured Home (enter total number of units):
j,;'_"S;.%,:
$0.00
Single Occupancy (enter total number of units):
$0.00
Non -Residential Uses:
Commercial Lodging (enter total number of rental units)
All Commercial Uses (enter total square feet of building)
50.00
Three (3) copies to applicant at time of permit issuance. _
One (1) copy for Building files 5/26/2004
All Office Uses (enter total square feet of building):
_
$0.00
All Industrial Users (enter total square feet of building):
50.00
Police Facilities:
Account # POLFAC/2260-41410
$296.00
Residential Uses:
Single -Family (enter total number of units):
$296.00
Multi -Family (3+ units; enter total number of units):
$0.00
Manufactured Housing (enter total number of units):
$0.00
Senior Housing (enter total number of units):
-.;t';(; ,.:, ;,:: t.+.? °:::.
$0.00
Assisted Living Units,
Non -Residential Uses:
Hotel or Motel (enter number of rooms):
$0.00
Other Retail Uses (enter total square feet of building):
$0.00
All Office Uses (enter total square feet of building):
$0.00
All Industrial Users (enter total square feet of building):
'''xyy:,"-k3'-' t ; >ti
$0.00
Public Facilities:
Account # PUBFAC/221241410
$543.00
Residential Uses (enter total number of units):
$543.00
Commercial Lodging (enter total number of units)
$0.00
Business Uses (enter total square feet of building):„
(,,,,�,,y.,,,-.1 tr.`;:
Storm Drainaee:
_:-..
Account # STRMDRN/223041410
$800.00
(Refer to Storm Drain Fee Worksheet to determine calculations. extent for additions,:
New Residential (Standard):
$800.00
New Residential (Calculated):
$0.00
Commercial/Industrial (enter from Storm Drain Fee Worksheet):
$0.00
Residential Addition (enter square feet of impervious surface):
$0.00
Cornm.Qnd. Addition (enter square feet of impervious surface):
$0.00
Traffic Mitieation (enter all annlicable me iect information):
Account # TRAFMIT/227041410
$5,424.00
Residential Uses:
Single -Family (enter total number of units):
$5,424.00
Multi -Family (3+ units; enter total number of units):
r^'-;{ ;;; i4'; •!";,;{'i „"'
$0.00
Manufactured Housing (enter total number of units):
$0.00
Senior Housing (enter iota] number of units):
Assisted Living Units (enter total number of units):
$0.00
Non -Residential Uses:
Hotel or Motel (enter number of roams):
�,<,".,IG =(+i li fj%hi:'eS,�JyyF;
� ,.. u;
$0.00
Other Retail Uses (enter total square feet of building):
$0.00
All Office Uses (enter total square feet of building):
$0.00
All Industrial Users (enter total square feet of building):
$0.00
Administrative Fees (Total Admin Fees for all Dev. Impact Fees)
Account # DEVIMPAD/1000-45111
$740.30
This is not an additional fee and it has not been added to the total;
it has been itemized so it maybe deposited in the correct account.
TOTAL IMPACT FEES DUE:
$31,844.00
Three (3) copies to applicant at time of permit issuance.
firm /11 nnnv fnr Ruilrlino filpc 5/26/2004
?858
Application Type
Community Development Department
11 English Street
Code Enforcement Petaluma, CA 94952 Planning
Phone: (707) 778-4469 Phone: (707) 7784301
Fax. (707) 7784498 Email: edd@ci.petaluma.ca.us Fax: (707) 778-4498
Engineering Permits
Phone: (707) 7784301 inspection services Phone: (707) 778-4301
Fax: (707)778.4498 Phone: (707) 7784301 Fax; C707) 7784498
Fax: (707) 778-4498
To schedule inspections: (707) 7784479
ree senenule
All Fees Subiect to I% Records Mananement Fee & 5% Technoloev Fee
Addition/Remodel in City -Approved Historic District
Address Change
Annexation
Appeal
Building Permit
Categorical Exemption
E Certificate of Compliance _
Conditional Use Permit — Major
Conditional Use Permit — Minor
Determination of Public Convenience & Necessity
Encroachment Permit — Trees/Dumpster/Scaffolding
Encroachment Permit— Public Utility (Other)
Encroachment Permit—Sewer/Water Lateral
( Encroachment Permit — Sidewalk/Driveway — Comm./Indust.
Encroachment Permit — Sidewalk/Driveway — Residential
Environmental Impact Report
Exception
Extension of Time
Fence Permit
Final Map Amendment
Final Parcel Man
Final Subdivision Map
Flood Determination
General Plan Map Amendment
General Pian Text Amendment
Heritagell-andmark Tree Designation
Home Occupation Permit
Initial Study
Lot Line Adjustment/Merger
Mitigation Monitoring (Post Approval)
I Outside Sewer/Water
Preliminary Review —Staff
Public Improvement/Public Construction & Inspection
Public Notice
;APlan Dcpt\forms\Planning Pees revised 050304.doc
Adopted Fee
$100'
$150
$5,200 Deposit + Staff Time & Materials'
$170 It
See Building Permit Fee Schedule
$250
$3,000 Deposit + Staff Time & Materials _
$3,750 Deposit + Staff Time & Materials
$1,0001
$2,5001 — —
$40
$1,000 Denosit + Staff Time & Materials
$450
$300
$225
Consultant Fee + Staff Time & Materials
$9501
$295 ...
$85
$5,0001
$1,950
$2,550
$100
$4,400 Deposit + Staff Time & Materials`
$4,300 Deposit + Staff Time & Materials
$0
1 $150
$2,500 IV
$2,200
See Note Below v
$500 Denosit+ Staff Time & Materials
$2,300
<=$500,000: 6% of engineers estimate or $1,890; whichever
is greater+ Staff Time & Materials.
>$500,000 but <_ $1,000,000: 4% of engineers estimate +
Staff Time & Materials.
> $1,000,000: 2% of engineers estimate + Staff Time &
Materials
$250.00 Deposit
State of California - The Resources, Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http://www.dfg.ca.gov
POUT OFFICE Al
YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIALI 94599
(?07)944-5500 " J
�Rd3
�E�'E1t��'�fNlpfp,�Hl�fHNi
March 11, 2002
Ms. Irene T. Barba
City of Petaluma Planning Department
11 English Street
Post Office Box 61
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear Ms. Borba:
Paula Lane Subdivision (ANX01002, GPA01002)
431 Paula Lane, Petaluma, Sonoma County
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the
above proposed subdivision. Our comments are as follows.
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
Fix
POWY�
It appears the project, as proposed, will impact on-site
badger dens. Because of this impacted habitat loss, we recommend
mitigation utilizing the remaining undeveloped portions of the
project for long-term badger habitat and protection as a
conservation easement. Also, it is recommended that footing
walls be used adjacent to badger habitat which extend some depth
into the soil to prevent badger access to the lots under fences
and walls; otherwise this could become problematic for future
owners. Please contact Mr. Allan Buckmann, Associate Wildlife
Biologist, at (707) 944-5537 for clarification on badger
avoidance for this project.
The Department supports the proposed planting scheme. We
recommend there be a majority of valley oak and black oak and
less California bay or coast live oak. This tree composition
would be a better representation of the local forest composition.
The Department would recommend any trail design with minimal
impact. Use of a porous material such as blue shale will provide
a firm surface while allowing for both grassy cover (short and
mowable) and water percolation. Blue shale would also prevent
erosion.
Ms. Irene T. Borba
March 11, 2002
Page Two
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Mr. Buckmann; or Mr. Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation
Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584.
Sincerely,
/ J WL--
Robert W. Floerke
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
cc: Mr. Marti Buxton
Mission Valley Properties
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Ms. Susan E. Kirks
245 Paula Lane
Petaluma, CA 94952
May 10, 2004
Ms. Irene Borba
City of Petaluma
Planning Department
Post Office Box 61
Petaluma, CA 94952
Via fax (707) 778-4498
Dear Ms. Borba:
Paula Lane Subdivision, 431 Paula Lane,
Petaluma, Sonoma County
On March 25, 2004, a site visit was conducted on the
subject proposed Paula Lane Subdivision project. Attending
were you, representing the City of Petaluma Planning
Department; Liam Davis, Department of Fish and Game (DFG);
and Marti Buxton, Mission Valley Properties. The purpose
of the meeting was to reach final agreement on the
biological resource issues associated with the proposed
project. DFG is identified as a Trustee Agency pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section
15386, and is responsible for the conservation, protection
and management of the State's biological resources.
The Paula Lane Subdivision Project is a 21 -home
residential subdivision on 11.22 acres of which 3 acres
will be dedicated as open space. The project site's
wildlife habitat is ruderal grassland with some scattered
oak trees. The project site is within a suburban
neighborhood west of the City of Petaluma (City). The site
is documented with the presence of the American badger
(Fitts, K., January 2004, American Badger Habitat Survey,
Taxidea taxes, Paula Lane Proposed Subdivision). The
project site is bordered by housing development east across
Paula Lane and north across Sunset Drive. South of the
site are empty lots and houses which traverse southward on
Paula Lane to the Bodega Avenue intersection located less
than one-quarter mile away. Bodega Avenue is a busy
Ms. Irene Borba
June 14, 2004
Page 2
western thoroughfare to the City. West of the project site
are predominately open fields with some houses and further
west are larger open pastures with scattered oaks and
eucalyptus trees.
Avoidance of Impacts to On-site Badgers
The applicant has retained Dr. Tom Kucera to perform
a badger burrow exclusion study. DFG has previous
knowledge of Dr. Kucera's work with mesopredators in
California, and we have had several discussions with
Dr. Kucera concerning this project. Dr. Kucera intends to
exclude all badgers from the impact area well after any
juveniles have dispersed following breeding season. This
action is being proposed to reduce impact to any on-site
badgers. DFG requests that Dr. Kucera's work proposal be
summarized in a report submitted to us for our review and
comment before the badger exclusion project commences.
Open Space Easement
The applicant has agreed to maintain an open space
easement held by the project's future Homeowners
Association (HA). The open space easement will have an
emergency vehicle access path and one pedestrian path. The
mitigated oak tree plantings will be planted -in the open
space easement. A retention pond will also be placed in
the easement area near the western border. Per the City's
request, DFG is available to work both with the applicant
and the City to finalize the HA's open space easement
agreement.
Oak Trees
The applicant has agreed to cause a no -net -loss of
native oak trees on the project site. The applicant will
replace native oak trees at a 1:1 ratio minimum within the
on-site three -acre open space easement area. The replanted
oak trees would be monitored for five years by the
applicant. Any unsuccessful oak tree plantings would be
replaced within the five-year monitoring period. DFG also
recommends that the housing development site itself utilize
native plant landscaping as much as possible.
Ms. Irene Borba
June 14, 2004
Page 3
If you have any comments or questions regarding this
letter, please contact Liam Davis, Environmental Scientist,
at (707) 944-5529; or Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation
Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584.
Sincerely,
Copy, orig. signed by
Cindy Catalano
Robert W. Floerke
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
CC: Ms. Susan Kirks
Paula Lane Action Network
Post Office Box 2903
Petaluma, CA 94953
Marti Buxton
Mission Valley Properties
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Tom Kucera, Ph.D.
22 Reservoir Road
San Rafael, CA 94901
e:: Wilson, Davis, Buckmann
LD/kg
Thomas E. Kucera, Ph.D.
22 Reservoir Road
San Rafael CA 94901
5 May 2004
Mission Valley Properties
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton CA 94588
Dear Ms Buxton:
This letter is in reference to the property at the southwest corner of Paula
Lane and Sunset, in the city of Petaluma, California. At the beginning, I would
like to state that I am not taking a position of advocacy for the project and I do not
want my remarks to be interpreted as such. I would like to contribute some
scientific awareness of badgers and rare carnivores in general to the discussion.
At your request, I visited the site with you on 13 April 2004 to look at and
assess wildlife sign, particularly that reportedly made by American badgers. I
have also reviewed documents regarding badgers and the project that you
provided me, including those written by: Robert W. Floerke, dated March 11,
2002; Anne Flannery, May 16, 2002; Kimberly Fitts and Derek Marshall, January
2004; William F. Gogin and Bradley G. Erskine, February 11, 2004; K Shawn
Smallwood, February 23, 2004; and Liam Davis, email, February 23, 2004.
1 am a wildlife biologist with more than 25 years of experience. I received
a Master's degree in Resource Ecology (Wildlife Management) from the
University of Michigan in 1976, and earned a Ph.D. in Wildland Resource
Science (Wildlife Biology) from the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), in
1988. 1 am a Certified Wildlife Biologist, as designated by The Wildlife Society,
the professional organization of wildlife biologists. Currently I am employed as a
Research Wildlife Biologist in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy,
and Management at UCB, and as a Project Manager with the Endangered
Species Recovery Program, California State University, Stanislaus. I also
conduct numerous independent wildlife studies. For more than 10 years I have
been involved in research on the distribution and ecology of rare mammalian
carnivores in California, including the fisher, marten, wolverine, which are
cousins to the badgers, all members of the family Mustelidae.
The American badger is a medium-sized (7-20 lbs) member of the
mustelid family, related to sea otters, weasels, and skunks. They have a large
native distribution in North America, mainly on unforested lands from the northern
Great Plains in Canada into Mexico. They are specialized for digging, and prey
on burrowing rodents such as pocket gophers, ground squirrels, and kangaroo
rats. Although related to economically important furbearers (e.g., mink, fishers,
marten, sea otters, etc.), badgers have fur of relatively poor quality and low
economic value. They are incidentally caught in traps set for other species, but
have never been a major component of a fur harvest. Badgers are poorly known
ecologically in California; most research on them has occurred elsewhere,
notably Idaho (Messick and Hornocker 1981) and Wyoming (Minta 1993), mostly
on undeveloped land. Most of the following information is from those studies and
from Grinnell et al. (1937) and a recent species review by Lindzey (2003).
Although occasionally active during the day, badgers are primarily
nocturnal, when they forage, and typically spend daytime underground. Dens
are common, as many as 4 per acre, and are used for daytime resting, food
storage, and parturition, which occurs in February through April. Dens are
typically open, but may be plugged from below during cold weather, and may be
reused frequently. Badgers are typically solitary. Researchers have estimated
badger densities on open, undeveloped lands of between 0.5 and 2 animals per
square mile (640 acres). Sizes of home ranges reported in the scientific
literature have varied by sex, age, season, and geographic location from 300 to
more than 3,600 acres (0.5=6 square miles). The home ranges of different
individuals may overlap. Again, these data are from rangelands in Idaho,
Wyoming, and Utah; no such data from California exist.
The property at Paula Lane, at the western edge of the city of Petaluma,
comprises approximately 11 undeveloped acres in a suburban landscape
fragmented with residential developments. The density of development is
apparently higher to the east (toward central Petaluma) than to the west. The
property immediately adjoining to the west appears to have been developed in
the last few years; others nearby are up to approximately 40 years old, and no
doubt others are older still. Examination of aerial photos confirms the visual
impression of fragmentation due to residential sprawl. The site itself is flat to
moderately sloping and vegetated mostly with annual grasses and native and
non-native forbs, with a few Baccharis shrubs and several trees along the edge.
At the time of my visit, the grasses were 1-3 feet high and quite dense.
Although dense vegetation covered most of the ground, several animal burrows,
which were relatively fresh (i.e., with loose dirt with no vegetation, open
entrance), were evident. Others were less fresh, as evidenced by cobwebs
covering the opening. The uneven nature of the ground on much of the site
supports the contention that such animal excavations have occurred for some
years. I am aware that in addition to badgers, other mammals that excavate
burrows of the size and type found on the site, such as coyotes and red foxes,
have been reported at the site. I also saw mounds made by pocket gophers, and
found one freshly killed gopher, with only the head and intestines present. There
2
was no way to determine what killed it, but I doubt that a badger would have left
the head and intestines. A predatory bird or domestic cat are possibilities.
I am sensitive to the need for verifiable documentation of the distribution of
animals that are poorly known and difficult to study, having spent several years
developing reliable, empirical, non -lethal detection methodologies for fishers and
martens (Zielinski and Kucera 1995) that are presently widely used in rare
carnivore surveys in California. In the documents that I read and during my site
visit, I saw no direct evidence that establishes the presence of badgers at the
site. The existence of burrows means that burrowing mammals are present, but I
do not know how one can confidently discriminate burrows made by badgers
from those made by coyotes or foxes. "Dens [of badgers] are variable in
characteristics, with most having only a single, often elliptical entrance" (Lindzey
2003:686). 1 saw no scats at or near the burrows. (In contrast to the assertion of
Kimberly Fitts in her document of February 24, 2004, that "the badger buries its
scat," Lindzey (2003:686) writes "Scats frequently occur in the mound of soil at
the entrance and in the den itself.") I saw no tracks at or near the burrows clear
enough to identify. No expert has reported seeing a badger at the site, and i am
unaware of the existence of any carcass (for example, from a road kill),
photograph, or other solid evidence of badgers at the site. The existence of
burrows by itself in my mind is insufficient to conclude the presence of badgers.
To my knowledge, there has been no published ecological research on
badgers in California. As a wildlife research biologist, I regret the fact that the
status, distribution, and ecology of badgers in California are essentially unknown.
Badgers have been of conservation concern in California since at least 1937,
when Grinnell et al. (1937:374) stated "The badger has been reduced in numbers
over almost all its range in California." It was and likely still is subject to
poisoning and shooting, and continues to experience habitat loss from
agricultural and urban development. Williams (1986) listed it as a "species of
special concern in California," and stated (p. 66) "No current data exist on the
status of Badger populations in California..." According to the California .
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG;
hftp://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/ssc/ssc.shtmi), Species of Special Concern
(SSC) is a designation for "animals not listed under the federal Endangered
Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, but which nonetheless 1)
are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or 2) historically occurred in low
numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist." It is essentially
an early warning regarding species that could qualify for listing as threatened or
endangered, with the expectation that such a warning combined with
management attention could make such listings unnecessary.
According to the CDFG, "This designation is intended to result in special
consideration for these animals by the Department, land managers, consulting
biologists, and others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help
avert the need for costly listing under federal and State endangered species laws
3
and cumbersome recovery efforts that might ultimately be required. This
designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on
the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at -risk species, and focus
research and management attention on them.
"Department staff should consider SSCs during 1) the environmental
review process, 2) conservation planning process, 3) the preparation of
management plans for Department lands, and 4) inventories, surveys, and
monitoring (conducted either by the Department or others with whom we are
cooperating)." (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/ssc/ssc.shtm])
Direction to CDFG staff, taken from their website and presented in the
previous paragraph, is to "consider SSCs" during environmental reviews. It is my
understanding that CDFG's consideration of the badger with respect to the Paula
Lane project is outlined in a letter dated March 11, 2002 from Robert W. Floerke,
Regional Manager, Central Coast Region, to Ms. Irene T. Borba of the City of
Petaluma Planning Department. In this letter, Mr. Floerke recommends using the
undeveloped portion of the project for long-term badger habitat, and separating
this from the developed portions with a barrier extending some depth into the
ground to prevent badger access under fences and walls to prevent problems for
future owners. This recommendation was repeated in an email dated February
23, 2004, from Mr. Liam Davis of CDFG to Ms. Borba. This exclusion concept
appears to me a reasonable approach in an abundance of caution to discourage
badgers from accessing the developed areas, assuming that badgers do indeed
occur there. Developing some 8-10 acres of habitat in an already fragmented
landscape is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on an animal that is of
low density by nature and has a home range of hundreds or thousands of acres.
You and I also discussed methods to reduce the likelihood of injury to
badgers (or other species) if present in dens during any grading activities, and I
presented some ideas. I would anticipate that any badger exclusion or removal
plans would be developed in more detail with input from CDFG and other wildlife
experts. Overall, however, the concept of identifying occupied dens so as to
allow their occupants to escape before construction and physically excluding
badgers from the developed portion of the property seems feasible to me.
I hope these remarks are helpful. Please contact me if I can provide any
additional information or clarification.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Kucera, Ph.D.
22 Reservoir Road
San Rafael CA 94901
0
Literature Cited
Grinnell, J. J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur -bearing mammals of
California. University of California Press, Berkeley,
Lindzey, F. G. Badger. 2003. Badger. Pp. 683-691 in G. A. Feldhammer, B. C.
Thompson, and J. A Chapman (eds.). Wild mammals of North America:
ecology, management, and conservation. Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore.
Messick, J. P., and M. G. Homocker. 1981. Ecology of the badger in
southwestern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs 76:1-53.
Minta, S. C. 1993. Sexual differences in spatio-temporal interactions among
badgers. Oecologia 96:402-409.
Zielinski, W. L. and T. E. Kucera (eds.). 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and
wolverine: survey methods for their detection. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW-GTR-157.
Cc: M. Bradish
I. Borba
22 Reservoir Road 415-482-9325
San Rafael, CA 94901 415-298-9326 cell
Education tom_kucera@hotmail.com
Ph.D., Wildland Resource Science, University of California, Berkeley, 1988. Area of
Specialization: Wildlife ecology, population dynamics, and management. Major
Professor: Dr. Dale R. McCullough, Dissertation Title: Ecology and Population
Dynamics of Mule Deer in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, California.
M.S., Resource Ecology (Wildlife Management), 1976. The University of Michigan. Thesis
Title: Social Behavior During Rut and Breeding System of the Desert Mule Deer.
B.A., Psychology and Zoology, 1969. Western Michigan University,
Professional Emolovment
Research Wildlife Biologist, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management,
University of California, Berkeley. July 2003 -present. I lead the operational component
of the California Cooperative Wild Turkey Project, including collecting and field
necropsies of wild turkeys in state parks, agency coordination, etc.
Project Manager and Wildlife Biologist, Endangered Species Recovery Program, California State
University, Stanislaus. January 2001 -present. I manage and conduct projects for ESRP
that include endangered species issues. Projects include documenting the potential
impact of a new highway in the Mojave desert on threatened and endangered plant and
animal species and other natural resources, and assessing a dry stretch of the San
Joaquin River bed for a variety of listed species including the San Joaquin kit fox, Fresno
kangaroo rat, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
Wildlife Biologist, URS Corporation, Oakland, CA. August 2001 -present. I lead field efforts on
surveys for endangered species, particularly small mammals and kit foxes, in the San
Joaquin Valley.
Wildlife Biologist, National Park Service, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes Station,
CA. March 1998 -March 2000. 1 managed the ungulate program at the Seashore, which
includes elk, native deer, and two species of exotic deer. Responsibilities included
planning, organizing, supervising, and conducting management and monitoring activities
such as animal capture and translocation, collections and necropsies, radiotelemetry,
disease monitoring, and censuses. I supervised two GS -7 technicians and volunteers.
Lecturer and Specialist, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management,
University of California, Berkeley, 1992-1998. Courses taught: Advanced Wildlife
Management (ESPM 187); North American Wildlife - Conservation and Identification
(ESPM 106); graduate seminars on Metapopulation Biology and Conservation Genetics.
I was Principal Investigator on a study of the ecology of American martens in the Sierra
Nevada funded by the Inyo National Forest. I directed an effort to detect wolverines,
Sierra Nevada red fox, and other rare carnivores in mountainous areas of California. and
co-authored a U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report on detection methods for
rare carnivores. I led a project to assess the effects of biomass harvest on wildlife in
forests of northern California. I was part of a team writing an updated version of
Mammals of Special Concern in California for the California Department of Fish and
Game. I prepared the "Sportsman's Guide to Mule Deer Habitat Improvements in
California," funded by The Mule Deer Foundation.
Project Leader, Tahoe Pilot Project, University of California, Berkeley, May -September, 1992.
supervised a team of six biologists in gathering data on vertebrate distribution across
several watersheds in the Sierra Nevada as part of a project combining California's
Wildlife -Habitat Relationships models with models of forest growth and yield to predict
future wildlife distribution under different management scenarios.
Wildlife Biologist, September 1990 -January 1992, Wildland Resources Center, University of
California, Berkeley, working with the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan for the northern spotted owl.
Senior Associate (March 1989 -Sept. 1990) and Consulting Biologist (1990-1997), Environmental
Science Associates, Inc., San Francisco. t designed, supervised, managed, and
conducted studies related to the impact of various projects and land -use changes on
terrestrial wildlife. Projects included salt marsh harvest mouse trapping studies in
Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties, California clapper rail surveys, telemetry
studies of deer for highway planning, bio -reserve planning for The Nature Conservancy,
shorebird and waterfowl censuses, and Mojave Desert field surveys on the Nevada Test
Site.
Wildlife Biologist, July -August 1981, E. Linwood Smith Associates, Tucson, AZ. I conducted
radiotelemetry studies of desert bighorn sheep in southwestern Arizona.
Raptor Research Biologist, February 1979 -June 1981, Snake River Birds of Prey Project, U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, Boise, ID. I collected, compiled, and analyzed data on
raptor ecology, nesting density, reproductive performance and diets, prey densities, and
habitat distribution in the Snake River Birds of Prey Area in southwestern Idaho.
Wildlife Biologist, May -September 1978, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, OR. € worked on the
Resources Planning Act assessment of fish and wildlife for Region 8 (Oregon and
Washington), and compiled a publication containing distribution and habitat matrices for
all vertebrate species in the region.
Range Aide, April 1978 Inyo National Forest, Bishop, CA. I conducted censuses of bighorn
sheep on the winter range at the base of the eastern escarpment of the Sierra Nevada.
Academic Emolovment
Research Assistant, 1982-1983, Black -tailed deer project, Hopland Field Station, Mendocino
County, CA. I captured, marked and released deer, conducted daylight and spotlight
censuses, supervised processing and data collection from hunter -killed deer on the
Station, and conducted habitat surveys and vegetation analyses.
Teaching Assistant, 1981-2, 1987, Department of Forestry and Resource Management,
University of California, Berkeley. I taught sections of North American Game Birds and
Mammals, and Wildlife Biology and Management.
Selected Consulting Experience
Consulting Biologist, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area and Intra -West Corp., Mammoth Lakes CA,
May 2001 -present. At the request of Mammoth Mountain, I am conducting an ecological
study of American martens on the alpine ski areas of Mammoth and June Mountains,
and the nordic ski area of Tamarack, on the Inyo National Forest, Mono County, CA.
Member, San Francisco Bay Area Regional Team, California Rapid Assessment Method
(CRAM) for wetlands. San Francisco Estuary Institute, May 2003 -present. I assist in the
EPA -sponsored program to develop and test rapid methods to assess wetlands around
San Francisco_Bay.
Consulting Biologist, Montezuma Wetlands LLC, Emeryville CA. August 2000 -present. I trap for
the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse in the Montezuma wetlands of Suisun Bay as
part -of the project for upland disposal of dredge spoils from the Oakland estuary.
Consulting Biologist, California Department of Parks and Recreation, November 1999 -present.
Conducted detection surveys to detect red fox Vul es vulpes) and other carnivores at
China Camp State Park; assessed the black -tailed deer management program on Angel
Island State park.
Consulting Biologist, GANDA Co., San Anselmo, CA 1997-2002. Set up forest carnivore
detection stations in Plumas County; conducted small -mammal trapping for salt -marsh
harvest mice, and collected house mice as surrogates for toxics analyses; burrowing owl
monitoring in eastern Alameda County.
Consulting Biologist, Ibis Co., San Rafael CA. 1998-2000. 1 conducted trapping for salt marsh
harvest mice in Menlo Park, at Mare Island, Solaro Co., the Concord Naval Weapons
Center, Contra Costa County, and at the Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda Co.
Consulting Biologist, Monk and Associates, Walnut Creek CA, May -June 2000. Conducting live
trapping and removal of salt marsh harvest mice at Sonoma Creek and Highway 37,
Sonoma County, preparatory to seismic retrofit of the Hwy. 37 bridge.
Consultant to the World Bank, 1998. At the request of the World Bank, I made a mission to
Georgia to consult on the status of and make management recommendations for several
large mammals of conservation concern, including designing monitoring and inventory
programs.
Consulting Biologist, Planning Concepts, Nevada City, CA, 1996, to assess effects of operations
of a gravel mine on wintering mule deer and pronghorn in Lassen County.
Consulting Biologist, EBASCO Environmental, Sacramento, CA, September -November 1992. 1
designed, supervised, and conducted field surveys to quantify fall mule deer migration in
a proposed reservoir area, North Fork Stanislaus River, California.
Consulting Biologist, McClenahan and Hopkins Associates, Redwood City, CA, April-July 1992.
I identified wildlife issues and impacts to bald eagles and deer from a proposed 3000-
acre residential development near Lake Almanor, Plumes County.
Consulting Biologist, EIP Associates, Sacramento, CA, December 1991-March 1992. 1 designed
and supervised a study to detect martens, fishers, and wolverines in an area of proposed
ski expansion at Alpine Meadows, Lake Tahoe Basin, California, using photographic bait
stations and sooted track plates.
Consulting Biologist, Environmental Management Associates, Brea, CA, 1986-1988. 1 designed,
conducted, and supervised field studies in an area of several proposed geothermal
plants in the eastern Sierra Nevada to quantify the importance of the area for migratory
and summering deer.
Consulting Biologist, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., Lafayette, CA, 1986-88. 1
designed and conducted field studies in the area of s proposed reservoir in the western
Sierra Nevada to evaluate its importance for deer, spotted owls, and other wildlife.
Consulting Biologist, Bonneville-Pacific Corp., Salt Lake City, UT, 1986-87. 1 designed,
conducted, and supervised field studies in an area of a proposed geothermal plant to
quantify the value of the area to migratory and summering deer in Mono Co., CA.
Consulting Biologist, Jordan Glazov, Ltd., Mammoth Lakes, CA, 1985-86. 1 quantified migratory
and summering deer use and other wildlife values of an area on which a golf course
development was proposed near the town of Mammoth Lakes, Mono Co., CA,
Consulting Biologist, O'Connor Design Group, Mammoth Lakes, CA, 1984-85. 1 determined the
wildlife values of an area proposed for alpine ski development at Mammoth Lakes,CA,
Consulting Biologist, Biosystems Analysis, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, 1984-85. 1 advised in the
design and implementation of field studies to assess the impacts of PG&E's Crane Valley
hydro project on mule deer in the Western Sierra Nevada.
Consulting Biologist, Terry Clapham, Bishop, CA, 1985. 1 advised on impacts of small hydro
developments on mule deer in the White Mountains, Mono Co., CA.
Consulting Biologist, Phil Leitner of ESA/Madrone, Novato, CA, 1984-85, for advice regarding
ecology of deer in the upper San Joaquin River drainage for an environmental analysis of
cumulative effects of hydro development in the basin.
Consulting Biologist, Holton Associates, Berkeley, CA, 1983-84. 1 evaluated the impacts of the
proposed Tuolumne River Ponderosa hydro project on mule deer, and conducted winter
surveys for bald eagles along the river.
Consultant on the Conservation of the Camelidae in Bolivia, February 1981, UNESCO, Paris. I
made a mission to Bolivia for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization to advise on.field ecological studies for the conservation of the vicuna, and
to evaluate environmental impacts of human activities and the use of conservation areas
for the protection of camelids.
Fellowships and Awards
Bidwell Research Fellowship in Forestry and Howard William Siggins Fellowship, University of
California, Berkeley, 1984-1985; Charles Lathrop Pack Prize in Forestry, University of California,
Berkeley, 1984; Hilgard Fellowship, University of California, Berkeley, 1983-1984; Regent's
Fellowship, University of California, Berkeley, 1982-1983.
Center for Latin American Studies Travel Grant, University of California, Berkeley, 1982, for
travel to Bolivia to study occurrence of endangered large mammals and vicuna/alpaca dietary
interactions.
Danforth Fellow, Department of Psychology, The University of Michigan, 1970-1971.
Cum Laude graduate, Western Michigan University, with Departmental (Psychology)_ Honors,
Dean's List, Honor College; member of Omicron Delta Kappa, Phi Eta Sigma, Beta Beta Beta,
and Psi Chi academic honorary societies.
Research Grants
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Canon, Inc. Expeditions Into the Parks, Bosack and
Kruger Foundation, USDA Forest Service, The Mule Deer Foundation, University of California
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California Energy Research Institute,
California Department of Fish and Game, American Museum of Natural History, Sacramento
Safari Club, Inyo and Mono County Fish and Game Fund, Mzuri Wildlife Foundation, Boone and
Crockett Club, National Rifle Association, Center for Latin American Studies
Publications
Manning, E. J. B., T. E. Kucera, N. B. Gates, L. M. Woods, and M. Fallon -McKnight. 2003.
Testing for Mvcobacterium avium ss. paratuberculosis infection in asymptomatic free -
ranging tule elk from an infected herd. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39:323-328.
Gogan, P. J. P., R. H. Barrett, W. W. Shook, and T. E. Kucera. 2001. Control of ungulate
numbers in a protected area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29 (4): 1075-1088.
Kucera, T. 1999. Endemic tule elk to range freely at Point Reyes National Seashore. Pages
41-42 in J. Selleck (ed.). Natural Resource Year in Review. National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Lakewood, Colorado.
Kucera, T. E., and K. E. Mayer. 1998. A sportsman's guide to improving deer habitat in
California. California Department of Fish and Game and the Mule Deer Foundation,
Sacramento.
Kucera, T. E. 1997. Fecal indicators, diet, and population parameters in mule deer. Journal of
Wildlife Management 61:550-560.
Kucera, T. E., W. L. Zielinski, and R. H. Barrett. 1995. The current distribution of American
martens (Martes americana) in California. California Fish and Game 81:96-103.
Zielinski, W. L., T. E. Kucera, and R. H. Barrett. 1995. The current distribution of fishers
(Martes pennanti) in California. California Fish and Game 81: 104-112.
Zielinski, W. L. and T. E. Kucera (ads.). 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine:
survey methods for their detection. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-157.
Kucera, T. E., A. Soukkala, and W. L. Zielinski. 1995. Remote photographic bait stations. In
W. L. Zielinski and T. E. Kucera (eds.). 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and
5
wolverine: survey methods for their detection. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-
GTR-157.
Kucera, T. E. 1995. Recent photograph of a Sierra Nevada red fox. California Fish and Game
81:43-44.
Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1995. California wildlife faces an uncertain future. California
Agriculture 49(6):23-27.
Kucera, T. E. and W. L. Zielinski. 1995. The case of forest carnivores: small packages, big
worries. Endangered Species Update 12(3):1-7.
Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1995. The Trailmaster camera system for detecting wildlife:
response. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:110-113,
Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1993. The use of the Trailmaster camera system to detect
wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:505-508.
Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1993. The California Cooperative Wolverine Survey.
Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 29:49-53,
Kucera, T. E. 1993. Seldom -seen carnivores of the Sierra Nevada. Outdoor California 54(6): 1-
3.
Kucera, T. E. 1993. The Sierra Nevada red fox. Outdoor California 54(6):4-5.
Kucera, T. E. 1992. Influences of sex and weather on migration of mule deer in California.
Great Basin Naturalist 52:122-130.
Kucera, T. E. 1991. Genetic variability in tule elk. California Fish and Game 77:70-78.
Kucera, T. E. 1991. Adaptive variation in sex ratios of offspring in nutritionally stressed mule
deer. Journal of Mammalogy 72:745-749.
Kucera, T. E. 1991. Effects of an antlerless hunt on reproductive output of migratory mule deer.
Applied Animal Behavior Science 29:508 (abstract only).
Kucera, T. E. and C. McCarthy. 1988. Habitat fragmentation and mule deer migration corridors
- a need for evaluation. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society
24:61-67.
Jessup, D.A., K. Jones, R. Mohr and T. Kucera. 1985. Yohimbine antagonism to xylazine in
free -ranging mule deer and desert bighorn sheep. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association 187:1251-1253.
Kucera, T. E. 1982. How mule deer mate in Texas. Natural History 91:650-57.
Kucera, T. E. 1978. Social behavior and breeding system of the desert mule deer. Journal of
Mammalogy 59:463-476,
Guenther, K. and T. E. Kucera. 1978. Wildlife of the Pacific Northwest: Occurrence and
Distribution by Habitat, BLM District and National Forest. USDA Forest Service Region 6
Special Publication No. 6. Portland OR.
Presentations at scientific meetings
The Wildlife Society, September 2001. Organized and moderated a special symposium Remote
Photography in Wildlife Research and Management at the national meeting in Reno, NV.
Kucera, T. E., N. Gates, and M. Fallon-McNight. 1999. Tule elk at Point Reyes National
Seashore: Return of a native. Society for Ecological Restoration, San Francisco, CA,
September, 1999.
Kucera, T, E. 1997. Structural characteristics of rest sites of American martens in managed
east -side forests. Western Section )f The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, San Diego,
CA, 8 February.
Falion -McKnight, M. and T. E. Kucera. Habitat similarities between American martens and
northern goshawks in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Western Section of The Wildlife
G
Society Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, & February 1997.
Kucera, T. E. 1996. Relationships between fecal chemicals and population parameters in mule
deer. Presented at the Western Section of The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting,
Sparks, NV, 3 February.
Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Effects of biomass thinning on wildlife habitat in forests
of northern California. Paper presented at The Wildlife Society 2nd Annual Conference,
Portland, OR, 13 September.
Kucera, T. E. and W. L. Zielinski. 1995. Survey methods for the detection of lynx, wolverine,
fisher, and marten. Paper presented at the Western Section of The Wildlife Society
Annual Conference, Santa Rosa, CA, 24 January.
Kucera, T. E. and W. L. Zielinski. 1995. The current distribution of American martens in
California. Paper presented at the Western Section of The Wildlife Society Annual
Conference, Santa Rosa, CA, 24 January
Zielinski, W. L. and T. E. Kucera. 1995. The current distribution of fishers in California. Paper
presented at the Western Section of The Wildlife Society Annual Conference, Santa
Rosa, CA, 24 January.
Memberships
The Wildlife Society, The American Society of Mammalogists, The Society for Conservation
Biology, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Certification Certified Wildlife Biologist
Foreign languages Spanish
Other activities
Have federal Endangered Species Permit and state Memorandum of Understanding for
livetrapping the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomvs raviventris), San
Joaquin kangaroo rats (Dioodomvs nitratoides), and State MOU to live trap Mohave ground
squirrels (Soermoohilus moiavensis) and American martens, Conducted workshops on
detection of forest carnivores for the USDA Forest Service Region 1 (Kalispell MT) and Region 6
(Portland OR), and for the University of California Cooperative Extension (Riverside CA);
member of the Monitoring Committee of the Interagency Forest Carnivore Working Group;
served on expert panels evaluating consequences of forest -management options on wildlife in
the Pacific Northwest and the Sierra Nevada for the USDA Forest Service; reviewed
manuscripts for The Journal of Wildlife Management, Ecological Monographs, Conservation
Biology, Mammalian Species, and the Wildlife Society Bulletin; consulted to the California
Academy of Sciences on their permanent exhibit "Wild California"; provided photographs and
reviewed text for Life on the Edge. A Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources:
Wildlife published by Biosystems Books.
References
Prof. Reginald H. Barrett (510-642-7261) Dr. Peter Gogan (406-994-6989)
ESPM, 151 Hilgard Hall USGS-BRD
University of California Montana State University
7
Berkeley CA 94720-3110
Prof. Dale McCullough (510-642-8462)
ESPM, 151 Hilgard Hall
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720-3110
9
Bozeman MT 59715-5065
Dr. Patrick Kelly (559-453-1103)
Endangered Species Recovery Program
1900 N. Gateway Ave.
Fresno CA 93727
1. t_
MISSION VALLEY
P R P P I. It T I L S
Date: June 4, 2004
To: Irene Borba, Senior Planner
From: Marti Buxton
Mission Valley Properties
RE: Information requested by City Council
Attached please find information on the topics requested by some of the City
Councilmembers at the May 17 council meeting. The topics include the following:
• Traffic
• Badgers
• Drainage and Hydrology
• Maintenance
If you require any further information, please let me know.
5000 Hopyard Road - Suite 170 • Pleasanton • C illomia 94588
Tel 925.254-1020 Fax 925.254-7954
mbuxton@us-buxton.com
Traffic"
In response to comments made during the May 17 City Council public hearing, Alan
Tilton of W -Trans has prepared responses that are summarized below. His Ietter and the
proposed County of Sonoma Guidelines for Traffic Studies are attached.
Evaluating the Paula Lane Traff c Impacts under County of Sonoma Significance
Criteria.
• The County of Sonoma has drafted new criteria thresholds for traffic impacts.
The criteria used by the County have higher thresholds than those used by the
City of Petaluma and therefore the more conservative City significance criteria
was used. Subsequent to the May 17 meeting, the impacts of the Paula Lane
project were evaluated using the County's new criteria and determined that the
increase in traffic volumes will not result in a finding of significant impacts.
A'hat is the projected traffic volume from the City Traffic Model for Paula Lane between
Bodega Avenue and West Street and how does this compare to City Significance
Criteria?
• The average daily traffic (ADT) volume including current volumes between and
those projected at project buildout on Paula Lane between West Street and
Bodega Avenue is 1,450 vehicle trips per day. This projected volume is below
the City's accepted threshold of 2,000 ADT for local streets and 6,000 ADT for
collector streets under Existing plus Project and Future plus Project Conditions.
Paula Lane is designated as a collector street in the current City General Plan.
Safety Concerns
• A review of traffic collision records for the years 2000 through 2003 revealed no
reported traffic collisions on Paula Lane suggesting that motorists are driving
responsibly. Speeding was raised as a safety concern. The 25 miles per hours
posted speed on Paula Lane is consistent with a residential setting.
Other studies were conducted by W -Trans including a Traffic Impact Study, dated
November 2001 and a second study dated May 2002 because some of the traffic counts in
the first study were conducted on September 11, 2001. Additional information was
provided in response to questions from the DKS peer review. The key findings were that:
• The project will result in a slight incremental increase in site -generated traffic
• The project impacts together with street improvements that have been made on
Bodega Avenue result in acceptable service levels at the studied intersections.
• The additional project related trips would not lower service levels at any of the
study intersections below thresholds established in the City of Petaluma General
Plan
• Residential capacity on adjacent streets will not be exceeded with completion of
the project as proposed
• There have been no reported collisions on Paula Lane in the past 4 years
• Recommendations to improve safety included pedestrian advisory signs, striping
the pedestrian shoulders, stop signs at project streets A and B, painting curbs red
where parking is prohibited.
Badgers
• The American Badger is a California Species of Special Concern and although it
is not listed under the California Endangered Species Act or the Federal
Endangered Species Act, it is given special attention by California Department of
Fish and Game (DFG).
• DFG is identified as a Trustee Agency with regard to wildlife species pursuant to
CEQA and is responsible for the conservation, protection and management of the
State's biological resources. DFG is satisfied with the 3 -acre open space provided
in the project for badger habitat. No studies have been published in California but
in states where studies have been conducted researchers found that the typical
home range area for a badger is between 300 and 3600 acres (0.5-6 square miles.)
with between 0.5 to 2 animals per square mile (640 acres). As noted in the May
10 letter from DFG, Liam Davis, DFG Environmental Scientist, his opinion of the
project site is that it is in an existing suburban neighborhood. He stated during the
site visit that based on the current development of the neighborhood, with or
without the proposed project, badgers would not be present in the area withinl0 to
20 years due to their range requirements and the density of the existing
neighborhood.
• Letters from DFG in March 2002 and May 2004 express support of the amount of
open space for badger habitat and the other uses within the open space including
the detention basin, EVA road and the pedestrian path, and the oak tree planting
scheme. DFG proposes a 1 to 1 replacement for oak trees that are removed from
the site. However, the project proposes a greater replacement ratio of 4 oaks for
every oak tree removed. (March 13, 2002 and May 10, 2004 letters attached)
• The project will implement all of the requirements listed in both of the above
referenced letters. For purposes of protective measures, we have never focused
on whether badgers are present on the site or not, but have always agreed to
implement everything that DFG requested as if badgers are present.
• Wildlife biologist, Dr. Tom Kucera will develop a badger exclusion plan that will
protect any badgers that might be present during construction. Dr. Kucera is an
expert on mammalian carnivores, and his work is highly regarded by DFG.
Drainage and Hydrology
• Al Cornwell of CSW Stuber-Stroeh provided a Preliminary Drainage Study in
order to compare the existing and proposed drainage conditions.
• Results of the hydrology study show that the proposed development will have
virtually no impact on the peak flows through the drainage systems downstream
from the project site.
• The proposed detention pond at the westerly end of the property mitigates
increases in flow due to impervious surfaces.
• During the Planning Commission meetings and at the May 17 City Council
meeting, the neighbor to the west, Mr. Rollin Bruce, expressed concerns about the
detention basin and the amount of water that currently runs onto his property.
• Mr. Bruce presented a video to both the Commission and Council, showing water
running on to his property during a storm. It should be noted that the vast
majority of the water was runoff from the paved road surface and the driveway
directly across from his driveway.
• In addition, at the Council meeting be presented a_calculation package that
implied that the CSW/Stuber-Stroeh calculations were reviewed by the office of
Steven Lafranchi. The attached memo from Mr. Lafranchi that was sent to
Council and staff clarifies that that was not the case.
• In a January 15, 2004 email to Craig Spaulding and Irene Borba Mr. Bruce stated
that Craig Spaulding's "idea to intercept the last drain inlet and send it to the
retention basin would slow the water to a trickle." (January 15, 2004 email
attached)
• As part of the project improvements, the Paula Lane development will intercept
the last drain on Sunset Drive and connect it to the project storm drain system and
direct the runoff to the project detention basin. This solution is outlined in item
#2 in Craig Spaulding's February 11, 2004 memorandum to the Planning
Commission. (February 11, 2004 memo attached)
Maintenance
Maintenance Requirement
Open Space, including EVA, fencing,
landscaping, paths and detention
basin
Sewer pump station, sanitary sewer
system in Sunset Drive, Streets "A"
and "B" and 4 inch force main
Sewer pipe in Paula Lane
Air gap system for water pressure
Water tank and water pipes ,
Public Streets
Landscaping strip within the public
right of way
Street Lights
Electrical and gas lines
Entity to Perform
Entity to Fund
Maintenance
Maintenance
Home Owners Association
HOA
(HOA) will contract for
(
services
To be determined
HOA
Contractor or City
City of Petaluma
City of Petaluma_
Individual homeowner
Homeowner
City of Petaluma for tank/
City of Petaluma
pipes in the public ROW
City of Petaluma
City of Petaluma
HOA or adjacent lot owner
HOA or adjacent f
lot owner j
City of Petaluma
City of Petaluma
PG&E
PG&E f
i
June 4, 2004
w-tra n3'
Whltl«ka VJeivberga
Tnmp°rvvi°n.Inc
599 5evc"tn Sveet
5•m°
Sarna K. P°sa. CA 55591
Ms. Marti Buxton was 7015529560
W )0159].9599
Mission Valley Properties
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 44588
Response to Comments — Traffic impact Analysis for the Paula Lane Subdivision
Dear Ms. Buxton;
As requested, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W -Trans) has reviewed the .comments
presented at the hearing in front of the City of Petaluma City Council regarding the Paula Lane
Subdivision. We have paraphrased the concerns raised (shown in italics), and followed each with our
response.
1. Was Paula Lane evaluated under County of Sonoma Significance Criteria?
The County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department has established new criteria
thresholds for traffic impacts and a copy of the criteria is attached. The criteria used by the County of
Sonoma has higher thresholds than those of the City of Petaluma and therefore the more conservative
City significance criteria was used. The potential impacts of the Paula Lane Subdivision were
subsequently evaluated under the County's new criteria and the increase in traffic volumes associated
with the Paula Lane Subdivision to streets and intersections will not result in a finding of significant
impacts under either criteria as the level of service on roadways and intersections will continue to
operate at service levels better than LOS D.
2. What is the projected traffic volume from the City Traffic Model for Paula Lane between Bodego Avenue and
West Street and how does this compare to City Significance Criteria?
Paula Lane is designated as a 'Collector Street' in the City of Petaluma General Plan and is included in
the City Traffic Model, The Traffic Model outputs were reviewed to determine the projected future
traffic volume on Paula Lane at General Plan buildout (Year 2025). Using the ratio of base year model
volumes to General Plan buildout volumes multiplied by current volumes, the average daily traffic (ADT)
volume projected on Paula Lane between Bodega Avenue and West Street is 1,450 vehicle trips per day.
This projected traffic volume is below the accepted threshold of 2,000 ADT for local streets and 6,000
ADT for collector streets under Existing plus Project and Future plus Project Conditions. Paula Lane is
designated as a collector street in the current City General Plan.
3. Safety Concerns
A review of traffic collision records for the years 2000 through 2003 revealed no repotted traffic
collisions on Paula Lane. The lack of a traffic collision history suggests that motorists using Paula Lane
are driving responsibly. Speeding was also raised as a safety concern. The posted speed on Paula Lane
is 25 miles per hour and is consistent with a residential setting.
Ms. Marti Buxton Page 2 June 4, 2004
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
G.
TR001215
Allan G. Tilton, P.E.\\ *\ Exp. 9/30/04 /*
Senior Associate \ „ ,_ ,/ /
AGT/agr/PET047.RtoC2.wpd
Enclosures
June 2, 2004
Ms. Marti Buxton
Mission Valley Properties
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
w -t ra n s
WbW.,[ 8 W..b.,,r
Tramporurwrt.lnc
Response to Comments — Traffic impact Analysis for the Paula Lane Subdivision
Dear Ms. Buxton;
As requested, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W -Trans) has reviewed the comments
presented at the hearing in front of the City of Petaluma City Council regarding the Paula Lane Subdivision.
We have paraphrased the concerns raised (shown in italics), and followed each with our response.
1. Was Paula Lane evaluated under County of Sonoma Significance Criteria.?
The County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department has established new criteria
thresholds for traffic impacts and a copy of the criteria is attached. The criteria used by the County of
Sonoma has higher thresholds than those of the City of Petaluma and therefore the more conservative City
significance criteria was used. The potential impacts of the Paula Lane Subdivision were subsequently
evaluated under the County's new criteria and the increase in traffic volumes associated with the Paula Lane
Subdivision to streets and intersections will not result in a finding of significant impacts under either criteria
as the level of service on roadways and intersections will continue to operate at service levels better than
LCIS D.
2. What is the projected traffic volume from the City Traffic Model for Paula Lane between Bodego Avenue and
Sunset Drive and how does this compare to City Significance Criteria?
Paula Lane is designated as a 'Collector Street' in the City of Petaluma General Plan and is included in the
City Traffic Model. The Traffic Model outputs were reviewed to determine the projected future traffic
volume on Paula Lane at General Plan buildout (Year 2025). Using the ratio of base year model volumes
to General Pian buildout volumes multiplied by current volumes, the average daily traffic (ADT) volume
projected on Paula Lane between Bodega Avenue and West Street is 1,450 vehicle trips per day. This
projected traffic volume is below the accepted threshold of 2,000 ADT for local streets and 6,000 ADT
for collector streets under Existing plus Project and Future plus Project Conditions.
3. Safety Concerns
A review of traffic collision records for the years 2000 through 2003 revealed no reported traffic collisions
on Paula Lane. The lack of a traffic collision history suggests that motorists using Paula Lane are driving
responsibly. Speeding was also raised as a safety concern. The posted speed on Paula Lane is 25 miles per
hour and is consistent with a residential setting.
Ms. Marti Buxton Page 2
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
QROFESS/pe,,_
Allan G. Tilton, P.E. TR001215
Senior Associate ,r &p. 9J3D/04
AGT1agz/FE(047. R W C2.wpd
Enclosures
June 2, 2004
TRAFFIC IMPACT THRESHOLDS
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR PROJECT -LEVEL AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The project would have a significant traffic impact if it results in any of the following conditions:
On-site roads and frontage Imarovements: Proposed on-site circulation and street
frontage would not meet the County's minimum standards for roadway or driveway
design, or potentially result in safety hazards, as determined by the County in
consultation with a registered traffic engineer.
2. Parking: Proposed on-site parking supply would not be adequate to accommodate
parking demand.
3. Emeraencv Access: The project site would have inadequate emergency access.
4. Alternative Transportation: The project provides inadequate facilities for alternative
transportation modes (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks, pedestrian pathways) and/or the
project creates potential conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation,
5. Road Hazards: Hazards are increased due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment, heavy pedestrian
or truck traffic),
6. Vehicle Queues: The addition of project traffic causes the 951" percentile queue length
to exceed roadway turn lane storage capacity'.
7. Signal Warrants: The addition of the project's vehicle or pedestrian traffic causes an
intersection to meet or exceed Caltrans signal warrant criteria.
8. Turn Lanes: The addition of project traffic causes an intersection to meet or exceed
criteria for provision of a right or left turn lane on an intersection approach 2.
S. Siaht Lines: The project constructs an unsignalized intersection (including driveways)
or adds traffic to an existing unsignalized intersection approach that does not have
adequate sight lines based upon Caltrans criteria for state highway intersections and
County criteria for County roadway intersections.
10. Countv Intersections: The County Level of Service standard for intersections is Level
of Service D. The project would have a significant traffic impact if the project's traffic
would cause an intersection currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D
or better) to operate below the standard (LOS E or F).
If the intersection currently operates or is projected to operate below the County
standard (at LOS E or F), the project's impact Is significant and cumulatively
considerable if it causes the delay' for any critical movement to increase by five seconds
or more. The delay will be determined by comparing intersection operations with and
without the project's traffic for both the existing baseline and projected future conditions,
The above criteria apply to all controlled or uncontrolled intersections with projected
traffic volumes over 30 vehicles per hour per approach or per exclusive left tum
movement.
11. County Roadwav Operations: The County Level of Service Standard for County
roadway operations is to maintain a Level of Service C, or for specific roadway
segments, the level of service standard adopted in the General Pian Figures CT2c -
CT2d. The project would have a significant traffic impact if the project's traffic would
cause a road currently operating at an acceptable level of service to operate at an
unacceptable level (i.e. LOS D, E or F).
If a road segment currently operates or is projected to operate below the adopted
standard referenced above, the project's impact would be significant and cumulatively
considerable if it causes the average speed to decrease by the amounts shown in Table
1 below. The change will be determined by comparing roadway conditions with and
without the project's traffic for both the existing baseline and projected future conditions.
TABLE 1
TRAFFIC IMPACT THRESHOLDS FOR
2 -LANE COUNTY HIGHWAYS AND RURAL CLASS I ROADWAYS
WITH LEVEL OF SERVICE BELOW LOS C
If the Baseline or Then the existing The project's impact is
Projected LOS average travel speed considered significant if the
without project is: is (miles per hour decrease in average travel
[mph]):' speed associated with the
project is:
D 40-45 mph 2 mph
E 40 mph or less 1 mph
F' 0.5 mph
These criteria apply to Rural Class I roadways. Other roadways will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. .
12. State Hinhways:5 Caltrans' level of service standard on State highways is to maintain
the level of service at the transition between LOS C and LOS D. A project would have a
significant impact if the project traffic would cause the operation of a State highway to
operate below LOS C. If a State hiahwav currentiv ooerates or is oroiected to operate
below the standard, the oroiect's impact would be sioniftcant and cumulatively
considerable if it does not maintain the existino "measures of effectiveness". Measures
of effectiveness are: (a) control delay per vehicle for signalized intersections; (b) average
control delay per vehicle for unsignalized intersections; (c) average speed for two lane
highways, and (d) density for multi -lane highways S.
Footnotes:
1. Based upon HCS analysis methodology for signalized intersections and formula contained in
November 2001 ITE Article (Estimation of Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections) for side
street stop sign controlled intersections.
2. Based upon Caltrans criteria for state highways and Intersection Channeliztion Design Guide
(NCHRP Report 279, Transportation Research Board, 1985) for county roadways.
3. As defined in the year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Note: The year. 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual refers to average control delay for side street stop sign controlled intersections.
4. The year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual does not provide an average travel speed breakpoint
between LOS E and LOS F operation.
5. State Highway thresholds are based on Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies, State of California Department of Transportation, June 2001. The most recent version of
this handbook may be found on the internet.
(h ttp://www.dot. ca. gov/h q/traffops/developserv/ope rati ona lsyste ms/)
6. Measures of effectiveness are defined in the most recent version of the Highway Capacity
Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
County of Sonoma
Guidelines for Traffic Studies
May 11, 2004
N:\AAA\SOX\PET1047P E11PET047Enclosure.wpd
Aitachutent C
Traffic Impact Thresholds
Borba, Irene
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Steven J. Lafranchi [steve@sjla.com]
Saturday, May 29, 2004 10:19 AM
Mayor; mike4pet@aol.com; redhawks@sonic.net; bryant@bryantmoynihan.com;
petalumamike@aol.com; ptorliatt@aol.com; CityCouncil
Borba, Irene; Spaulding, Craig; Moore, Mike
Paula Lane Subdivision
I would like to take this opportunity to correct information that was given at the last
City Council Meeting concerning the subject project. Rollin Bruce presented drainage
calculations to Craig Spaulding and Al Cornwell just prior to the meeting on work that we
performed for him three plus years
ago in conjunction with the development of his property. The calculation
package along with his subsequent presentation implied that we had also reviewed the
drainage calculations by CSW Stuber-Stroeh and were in disagreement with their findings.
Mr. Bruce took the position that an oversight by CSW Stuber-Stroeh had occurred because
they had different runoff quantities at one culvert compared to our report while making it
appear that we were somehow in agreement with this assessment. To this date we have not
been asked by Mr. Bruce or any other party to review any work related to this project.
Hydrology and hydraulic calculations can be complicated at many levels from evaluating
drainage areas, runoff coefficients, times of concentration, etc. and Mr. Bruce does not
have the professional expertise to make a qualified judgment in this area. Z support Mr.
Bruce's right to say what he wants but not when he attempts to validate his position based
on our professional experience and reputation when neither was sought.
Sincerely
Steven J. Lafranchi, P.E., P.L.S.
Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc.
civil Engineers - Land Surveyors
775 Haywood Drive, Suite 312
Petaluma, California 94954
707-762-3122 Voice
707-762-3239
jun -11-411a 11:I4en From-COLCASTLEBNICNOLSON LLP
1
—COXCASTLE NICHOLSON W--
Sun.: 11, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL
Ciry Council Members
Cin= of Petaluma
P.O. Box 61
Pet;duma, CA 94953
Amt: Ms. Irene Borba
Re: Paula Lane Subdivision Proiect
Honorable City Council Members:
+415 3824250 T-146 P 002/005 F-601
Cox, Casdc & Nichabon LLP
555 Montgomery Street. Suite 1500
San Francisco, California 9411I
1`415392.4200 F 415.392.4250
Margo N. andish
415.262.5100
mbndish@coxendo,com
Filc No. 45367
Pursuant to the request of Council Member Healy at the May 17, 2004, Council
hearing on the Mission Valley Properties' (the "Applicant") proposed Paula Lane subdivision
protect (the "Project" }, this letter responds to the testimony of Ms. Paige Swartley, attorney for
PLr1N.
As a preliminary matter, there appears to be agreement among the attorneys on
sevr;ral applicable legal principles. First, there is agreement that the "substantial evidence"
standard governs the City's decision to prepare a Negative Declaration rather than an
Em ironmemal Impact Report ("EIR"). CEQA Guidelines f1506409. As indicated in my prior
concspondence to you, CEQA provides that the City "shall" prepare a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than an FIR if there is no "substantial evidence" that the
Prosect, as revised and mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA
Guidelines § 1306469(2), (3). Second, there is agreement that "substantial evidence" must
include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts and expert opinion supported by facts,
and does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is
clearly inaccurate or erroneous or evidence that it not credible. CEQA Guidelines §1306409(5).
Id. Finally, Ms. Swartley's citation to Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th
1307, 1316-18, for the proposition that CEQA establishes a low threshold requirement for initial
preparation of an EIR, requiring an EIR if there is substantial evidence of an impact even if there
is evidence to the contrary, is accurate.
Where the attorneys disagree is in the application of these legal principles to the
Project, In her testimony, Ms. Swartley alleged that there is substantial evidence that the Project
will have a significant impact on the environment. As detailed in my prior correspondence to
you, there is not. Without repeating that correspondence here, the balance of this letter addresses
Ms Swanley's specific testimony.
1►-- www Lvxcasde.com Los Mgdu j Orange County j San Francisco
Jun -11-2004 11:14am from-CO%.CASTLE&NICHOLSON LLP +415 3024250 T-146 P 003/005 F-501
Hotlorable City Council
June 11, 2004
Page 2
Neighbors' Opinions; Ms, Swartley's citation to the recent decision in Ocean
View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc, v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth
396, for the proposition that the neighbors' opinions constitute substantial evidence is inapposite.
In Ocean View, the court found that "die overall aesthetic impact of an aluminum cover [on a
water reservoir] is by its very nature subjective ... (and) not the special purview of experts." In
such cases, the Ocean View court suggested that personal observations of nontechical issues can
constitute substantial evidence. Id. at 402, Similarly, in Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County
afl-t Dorado ( 1990) 225, Cal.App.3d 872, the court found that a requirement of compliance with
noi!:c standards carried less weight where neighbors testified regarding the county's failure to
enf irce its noise ordinance. Because the neighbors' testimony concerned the nontechnical issue
of enforcement and not the technical noise analysis, the court concluded that these personal
observations could constitute substantial evidence. See id. In contrast to Ocean View and Oro
Fino, the areas of impact identified by Ms. Swartley as the subject of neighbors' opinions (e.g.,
wildlife corridors, biology, historic resources, traffic, hydrology and water quality, drainage and
flooding) involve technical issues where experts do have special purview. While the City "may
not refuse to consider uncontradicted testimony based upon objective data" (Citizens Association
for 3ensihle Development of Bishop Area v, County oflnyo (1985) 172 Ca1.App.3d 151, 173), the
City is entitled to determine that the neighbors' subjective opinions on technical matters do not
constitute substantial evidence in the face of objective, expert evidence to the contrary.
Planning Commission Decision: leis. Swartely's emphasis (without supporting
citations) on her characterization of the Planning Commissioners as experts for CEQA purposes
is misplaced for several reasons. First, -die Planning Commission took no action with respect to
the [`legative Declaration, choosing instead to recommend disapproval of the Project as a policy
matter. (CEQA does not apply to projects which are disapproved. CEQA Guidelines §15270.)
Although the Planning Commissioners discussed various environmental issues, the Commission
did not reach a conclusion (expert or otherwise) regarding the adequacy of the Negative
Declaration. Second, even if it had done so, "the comrnission's conclusions from the evidence
presented to it do not themselves constitutes [sic] evidence of such effects." Perley v. Board of
Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App3d 424, 435. As noted in Perley, any contrary result would be
unsupportable because it would remove from the City Council (and cede to the Planning
Commission) the authority to issue a Negative Declaration. Id. In contrast to Planning
Commissions, CEQA case law does establish that "planning department officers do qualify as
experts since this type of analysis is their business." Greenebaum v. City ofLos Angeles (1984)
153 Ca1.App3d 391, 413. As you know, the Community Development Department
recommended approval of the Negative Declaration for the Project. See November 12, 2003
statfreport to Planning Commission.
Specific Projecr Impacts
In her testimony, Ms. Swartley alleged the existence of expert disagreement with
respect to Project impacts on the American Badger and historic resources and claimed that this
disagreement requires preparation of an EIR. In making this argument, Ms. Swanley claimed
Ju4-11-2004 11:15an From-COX.CASTLE&NICNOLSON LLP
Honorable City Council
Jun,: 11, 2004
Paga 3
+415 3024250 T-146 P BOOM F-601
that CEQA Guideline Section 15064(g) requires an EIR whenever there is expert disagreement
over the significance of an effect. in fact, as indicated in my prior correspondence to you,
disagreement among experts requires an EIR only if it is unclear whether there is substantial
evidence that the Project may have a significant effect, and even then only when the expert
opinions are rendered by qualified experts and are supported by facts. See CEQA Guidelines
§15064(g). With respect to the Project, those prerequisites are missing. Again without repeating
my prior correspondence here, following is a response to the specific issues raised in Ms.
Sw;utley's testimony.
American Badger
In her testimony, Ms. Swanley argued that (i) the opinions of Ms. Fitts and Dr.
Smallwood constitute expert evidence of the presence of American Badger habitat on the
Project size, and (ii) that this evidence requires a mandatory finding of significance under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a). Neither of these arguments can he substantiated.
First, the opinions of Ms. Fitts and Tar. Srnallwod regarding the presence of
American Badger habitat on the Project site do not constitute qualified expert opinions
supported by facts. See CEQA Guidelines §15064(g). In the case of Ms. Fitts, she is not an
expert in American Badgers or even rare mammalian carnivores. In the case of Dr.
Smallwood, his letter opinion is nothing more than speculation based upon review of
photographs of alleged American Badger dens and prints. In contrast, the record contains
expert evidence from Dr. Kucern, an expert in rare mammalian carnivores who has visited the
Project site, that these signs could be evidence of fox, coyote or other species. Based on the
foregoing, the City is entitled to conclude that the opinions of Ms. Fitts (a non -expert) and Dr.
Smallwood (without supporting facts) do not constitute opinions rendered by qualified experts
and supported by facts. As such, there exists no disagreement among experts that would
trigger an ETR under CEQA Guideline Section 15064(8).
Second, the evidence does not require a mandatory finding of significance under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a). That Guideline requires the preparation of an EIR where
"the project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife species to
drop below self -sustention levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, [or]
reduce the number or restrict: the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species .... " The
record does not contain substantial evidence to support these findings. Ms. Fitts alleges that
the Project will cause the loss of 9 acres of American Badger habitat and asserts without
evidentiary support that the Project therefore will interfere with the ability of the American
Badger to move within its home range. Ms. Fitts, however, does not address the relative
insignificance of this habitat loss (even assuming that this is habitat) in the context of a species
that, as Dr. Kucera notes, ranges over from 300 to more than 3,600 acres. Further, Dr.
Smallwood's letter does not address the impact of the Project on the American Badger at all,
bur instead simply alleges that the availability of suitable habitat requires preparation of an
Jun -11-2004 It:15an From-COLCASTLEANICHOLSON LLP
Honorable City Council
Juno 11, 2004
Paga 4
+415 3024250 T-146 P 005/005 F-601
EIR, a position that finds no support in CEQA. In any case, the Applicant voluntarily
incorporated all of the recommendations of the California Department of Fish & Game with
respect to measures to avoid impacts to badgers. Based on the foregoing, the City is entitled to
conclude that the record does not require a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA
Guideline Section 15065(a).
Historic Resources
Ms. Swartley's argument that an EIR is required under CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(b)(2) because Painter Preservation Planning opined that the Project site might qualify as
a rural historic landscape lacks merit. As indicated in my prior correspondence to you, Painter's
letters suggest additional analysis, but do not contain any substantial evidence that the Project
site would in fact qualify as a rural historic landscape, such that the Project might have a
sigtu8cant impact on historic resources. Moreover, as detailed in Carey & Co.'s response to the
Painter letter, even "[i]f the rural historic landscape approach were to be applied in this case, it is
Carey & Co.'s opinion that the property would be found to lack sufficient integrity for eligibility
to the California Register." Painter's speculation regarding the possible outcome of additional
study does not constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact on historic resources,
particularly in light of Carey & Co.'s expert opinion that additional study would not yield a
different conclusion than contained in the Negative Declaration. See San Joaquin
Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Or. Y. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Ca1.AppAth 608, 625 (holding
that request for additional study, absent evidence countering a conclusion of no significant
impact, does not require an EIR).
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Ms. Swartley's testimony. Please do
not hesitate to have City staff contact me should you have any questions with regard to this
matter.
Very truly yours,
Margo NVBradish
4536IW9161vl
cc: Ms. Martha Buxton
Ms. Irene Borba
Richard Rudnansky, Esq.
AGitici_ILTU Rt L.
FPi ESE R ��"ATI l7ly
6 OFENt SPACE
,u-.ao�ino� UPEN SPACE DISTRICT PAGE 02/12
June 10, 2004
David Glass, Mayor
City of Petaluma
Council Chambers, City Hall
I I English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
.Dear Mayer Glass and Councilrnembers:
It has recently come to our attention that representations are being made that the
W7 Mendocino Avenue District is interested in acquiring property located at the western edge of Petaluma
Suite IN, an Paula Lane. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the District's position.
Santo Ross. CA.
93At rise
01 At the request of a neighborhoodgroup,District staff visited the property and has
.
=s.; t707? 564-7.!;i4 had subsequent discussions with their representatives. Since the District was first
approached, the property has been under option with a developer who we
understand is pursuing a development plan with the City of Petaluma and intends
to purchase the property,
As you are aware, the District's conservation program requires a witting seller.
Further, staff evaluated the project and determined that it is not a priority under
Acquisition Plan 200D criteria. We are currently involved in nogotations on
numerous priority projects throughout Sonoma County. Unfortunately, not all
open space projects can be considered under the District's program
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Should you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me at 565-7360.
Sincerely,
Maria J. Cipriani
Assiastne GereralMaraw
c: Director MlkeKerns, SemlDisrnd
Andrea Mackenzie, Gerrnul Mmn.I¢r
Irene. Borba, seniarpz,Giyg'PaaGara
Partners
Hand E Herbert
Stephen R. Wee
Meta sense
June 11, 2004
Marti Buxton
Mission Valley Properties
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Dear Ms. Buxton:
At your direction and request, I have prepared this letter to clarify our findings and to
address subsequent correspondence related to the evaluation of historic significance of
the property at 431-435 Paula Lane (APN: 019-080-010 and 019-080-009).
The original evaluation and subsequent correspondence include:
• Anril 10, 2002. JRP inventory and evaluation. DPR523 form submitted with a
summary letter report.
■ March 4. 2003. Carey & Co., Inc. Peer review of JRP April 2002 evaluation.
• January 12. 2004, Diana Painter letter regarding JRP evaluation and Carey & Co.
peer review.
■ February 3. 2004. Carey & Co., Inc. response to Painter letter of January 12.
• Mav 12.2004. Diana Painter Carey & Co., letter of February 3.
Both of the Carey & Co. letters concur with our April 2002 finding that the property
consists of the remains of a small farm complex that does not meet either the significance
criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the significance
criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).
Both of Ms. Painter's letters present her opinion that the property in question may be a
"rural historic landscape," as defined by the National Park Service, and that it should be
evaluated as such.
The following sections outline the process that we followed in the identification of the
property type, as well as the preparation of our inventory and evaluation, and will show
that we have used the appropriate identification and evaluation methodology and
standards in our review.
1490 Drew Avenue, Suite 110 • Davis, California 95616 - (530) 767.2521 • (5301757-2566 Fax • www.lrphistorical.nom
water eesourcelAand Us^ Kslory - Culanan nescum manage nant • 106 Gsmpkance • Eacen semces
y
All historic inventory and evaluation projects begin with two basic tasks: 1)
identification of property type; and 2) identification of the appropriate historic
context/theme.[ Property types are defined by the National Register (and recognized in
the California Register) as buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts, or landscapes.
Possible historic themes are much more numerous, but include agriculture, architecture,
commerce, education, industry, and transportation, for example.
1. Pronertv Tvne
In the case of the Patch Lane property, our initial research and site visit suggested that the
most accurate description was that of a former farm complex, with potential significance
in the themes of agriculture and architecture. Both the National Register and California
Register consider "a historically and functionally related unit," such as a house and
ancillary buildings, to be a "building" property type, not a district or landscape.''
Our conclusion that the Paula Lane property was a "building" property type was based on
consideration of all other property types. The Paula Lane property clearly does not meet
the definition of a structure (bridges, tunnels, dames, railways, etc.), or object (sculpture,
boundary markers, fountains, etc.). The one object identified in the farm complex, an
outdoor oven, is a modern feature that does not date to the same period as the main
house. The property could arguably be defined as a site, but this type is usually reserved
for sites of prehistoric habitation or activity, or specific significant events, such as battles,
sites of treaty signings, or shipwrecks. In fact, National Register guidelines note that
"landscapes small in size and having no buildings or structures, such as an experimental
orchard, are classified as sites." s The Paula Lane property does include buildings, and
therefore "site" is not the correct classification in this case.
The Paula Lane property does not meet the definition of a district or landscape, two
property types that share a very similar definition. The National Register and California
Register recognize that a group of buildings, structures, objects, or sites (such as a cental
business area, residential area, canal system, large farm, or transportation network), that
contains a significant cnncenpniion of resources, is a "district" property type, These
Our original evalualiun mid this letter use the California Register and National Register guidelines as tile
hasis for the identification, inventory, and evaluation of file suhiccl property. This methodology follows
[he reconmlendation or the City of Pelaunut's Zoning Ordinance No. 1072, Article 17, Suction 506 (Ord
2097 N.C.S., 9/99). which specifically references the historic signiliennee criteria of the Culil'ornin Regislor
(Criteria I. 2. 3, and 4). As noted in 0111• evutua[ion, the California Register is closely modeled on the
National Register, but tines not include the sante level ordetailud guidunce is the National Register (which
employs significance Criteria A, B, C. and D). It is common practice in conducting historic evaluations fur
the California Register In refer to the extensive guidance offered by the national program. Tills practice is
established in vnrinus publicmions of the Calil'arniu Orrice of Historic Preservation Iha[ specifically
reference the guidance of the National Regisler. Please refer to [he Pub]icalions list at the end otitis letter
['or Specilic cilatinnS.'rile [hree levels a1' guidance that we used for this project, thereftire, included tile City
orPctalunla ordinance. the California Rceisier. and the National Regisier.
' USDI. NPS. "How al Complete the National Register Rcgisu'ntion Fenn.- Nurional Rcgi.rrer lJullerin MA
(Washington. D.C.: United States Department of the Interior. 1997). 15.
USDI. NPS. "Guidelines fur Evaluation and Documenting Rural historic Landscapes." Na ionol Register
Bufferin 30 (Washington. D.C.: United Slates Department or [he Interior. 1989: revised 1999). 2.
1)
resources must be "united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development."4
The National Register also delines a historic landscape (in this case a rural historic
landscape) in a similar way: "a geographic area that historically has been used by people,
... and that possesses a Sigrtificcml Concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas of land
use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natural features"
[emphasis added]."
Whether considered a district or a landscape, therefore, the property must contain a
"Significant concentration, linkage, or contitntity" of resources in order to receive one of
these classifications. This significant grouping of resources includes those features that
convey the historical importance this type and can include buildings, structures, objects,
and landscape elements such as circulation networks, boundary demarcations, vegetation
related to land use, internal clusters of resources, archeological sites, small-scale
elements, and natural features (such as human responses to topography or water courses).
A landscape is defined by the relationship of these components to the landscape and to
each other, as Ms. Painter noted in both her letters.
The Paula Lane property does not contain this significant concentration, and it is not
appropriate or correct to identify it as such. The eleven acres included in the two legal
parcels of the current Paula Lane property are only a fraction of the original Paula family
property, which was thirty-three acres in size. None of the interior fence lines, fields,
corrals, faun yard, animal pens, barns, outbuildings, tank house, or windmill remain.
Two modern cra (1960s) buildings have also been added to the farm complex, it small
dwelling and an open -sided garage, as well as an outdoor oven, and these additions
constitute an intrusion that further deteriorates the integrity of the property. The National
Register guidelines are quite specific about this type of change in a landscape: "recent
changes that have erased historic characteristics, and do not have exceptional importance,
make a property ineligible, even if scenic qualities are still present."(' It was clear upon
first inspection of the property that it should be evaluated for what it is: the remnants of a
complex of farm buildings, not it,, it district or landscape.
In addition to the guit elines of the National Register and California Register programs
discussed above, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has also
developed guidelines for identification and evaluation of historic landscapes. These
guidelines do not directly govern the historic evaluation of the Paula Lane property, but
tire useful in considering the identification of landscapes as it property type. These
guidelines specifically caution that:
Not all possible landscapes will be found eligible or even require a hall
landscape study, however. Any geographic areas which possesses a notable
human relationship with the )and and tangible physical features might be
considered a cultural landscape of some sort, but many hack qualities which
could possess the potential for historical significaucc. Landscapes with virtually
` USDI, NPS. Nttioual Register Unfletin 10At 15.
`USD], NPS. National Register Milled" 30-3.
USDL NPS. NeWonad Register 6atletin 30. 2.
3
no potential for eligibility because of age, hack of any significant associations, or
substantial loss of integrity can usually be dismissed from consideration in a
brief statement without conducting it Formal evaluation."'
The guidance provided by both the federal and state registration programs, therefore,
indicates that it is not appropriate to categorize the Paula Lane property as a "landscape"
type.
2. Historic Context / Theme
IRP conducted context research before and after field recording the Paula Lane property,
both to establish the historical themes with which the property is associated, and to
prepare it history of the property itself. This research included review of published
histories, city and county government records, historic manuscript collections, University
of California library and special collections holdings, federal population census data,
historic maps, and historic aerial photography. The identification of the property as a
"building" type would have been immediately revisited if this research revealed
information indicating that a different property type categorization was appropriate.
The original period of construction for the complex was the early 1890s and its original
function was that of a small general farm. The dairy house dates to ca. 1910-1920. The
appropriate historic context, therefore, includes the themes of agriculture and rural
architecture from about 1890 through 1920. The research showed that small farm
operations, particularly poultry farms, but also dairy and general farms, proliferated in the
vicinity of Petatuma during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The pattern
of land use, development of local road systems, and the development of rural residential
architecture are all related to these themes as well. Our evaluation of the property,
therefore, proceeded within this historic context and time period.
3. Evahiation of Sienificance
This property does not meet National Register or California Register, criteria for
significances Our evaluation was conducted in accordance with Section 15064.5(.1)(2)-
{3) of the CEQA Guidelines, using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the
California Public Resources Code and is adequate under CEQA. The evaluation
presented on the DPR523 form we submitted in April 2002 is appropriate to the resource
and stilt stands. Furthermore, our conclusion would be the same whether this property
wits categorized as a "building" property type, a "district" property type, or as it
"9andscapc" property type.
° CuRrans Cnviroamental Pro runt. General Guideliuee.rar lderrt l injq and Eraharriug Histarir Landwapes
(February 1999), uvailahle online w: Irapa/hviviv.Qul.ca.@uv/ser/guid;mce.him#Landscapes.
x Please refer to footnote I fora description o1'111c evaluation guiduncc used Cor this evaluntion.
The ]'arm complex does not meet the criteria for significance under the National Register
or California Register programs because it does not appear to be significant within the
context of agricultural or rural architectural development in the area. Our research and
analysis show that the property (whether considered ars a building, district, or landscape)
is not important within this context. All resources tine associated with some historic
context, but to be eligible under Criterion A or Criterion i, a property must have a
specific important association. This property does not appear to have specific importance
within the context of agricultural or rural residential development in this area during the
period from 1890 through the 1920s.1)
The Paula Lane property is not associated with a historically significant person (Criterion
B and Criterion 2), does not embody distinctive architectural or design characteristics
Within its type, period, or method of construction (Criterion C and Criterion 3), nor is it
likely to yield information important to history (C•ietrion D and Criterion 4)."1
Even if it did have significance under one of these criteria, the property does not retain
integrity. This lack of integrity is apparent whether it is considered a building, a small
complex of buildings, a district, or a landscape. It was clear from the onsite inspection
and from subsequent research that what little did remain of (lie farm complex had
suffered a substantial loss of integrity:
• The main house (ca. 1890) and the milk shed (ca. 1910-1920) have lost integrity
throu,h modifications and additions.
• No other buildings, structures, or objects dated to the historic period of the
complex (or 1890 through the 1920s).
• The original Paula farm property is only about one-third its original size.
• Most of the other landscape elements of the farm have been removed, such as
interior fence lines, fields, corrals, farm yard, animal pens, barns, outbuildings,
tank house, and windmill.
• The modern buildings and outdoor oven on the property constitute intrusions that
substantially impair the integrity of the property and certainly reduce its potential
to be categorized as a historic rural landscape. t t
• The setting of the property has also been diminished because two modern
subdivisions 1711 the area to the cast and north of the property, an area that was
comprised of other farmsteads during the potential period of significance.
The Paula Lane property, therefore, floes not retain integrity of design, materials,
workmanship, setting, feeling, or association.
° This analysis uppe.irs in inure detail on die uriginat DPR523 roan.
to 7'Itis analysis appears in inure detail on tis original DPR523 forin.
rt The non-hisinric era clenients (tits secnndury residence and garage and outdoor oven) are less than filly
years old and ori: 1101 cnnsidcrt!d historic resources under CEQA, nor du they appear to meet the exacting
standards necessary fur properties Icas than filly years old to lie considered historic resources in spite of
their agc.
I hope that this description of our methodology for the identification, inventory, and
evaluation of this property clarifies how we conducted the work and how we arrived at
our conclusions. If we can provide additional information or answer any questions
regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact LIS.
Sincerely,
Met�s�c!'�"__"''_
Partner
cc: Irene Borba, Senior Planner, City of Petaluma
Marti Buxton, Mission Valley Properties
M,u-go Bradish, Mission Valley Properties
encl: J
6
PUBLICATIONS LIST:
Caltrans Environmental Program. Cenerarl Guidelines,farlalentif}ing rrna! Esaluatting
Historic Landscapes. [Sacramento: n.pj, February 1999. Available online at:
httn:lhvww.dot.ca.Qov/serleuidance.ht m#Landscapes.
[The following California Register program publications are also available on the
internet: htip://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=10691
California Office of Historic Preservation. brstr•uctions,for Recoraling Historical
Resources. Sacramento, CA: OHP, 1995.
. "California Environmental Aqulity Act (CEQA) and Historical
Resources." Technical Assistance Series #L May 2001.
"How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register." Includes
"Instructions for Preparing Documentation for Nomination." Technical Assistance Series
#7. September 2001.
[The following National Register program publications are also available on the internet:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins.Iltrml
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Guidelines for Applying the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation." National Register Bulletin 15.
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing, 1990; revised 1991, 1995, 1997;
revised for Internet 1995, 2001, 2002.
"How to Complete the National Register Registration Form" National
Register Bulletin 16A. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the trnerior
National Parks Service Press, 1997.
"Guidelines for Evaluation and Documenting Rural historic Landscapes."
National Register Bulletin 30. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the
Interior, 1989; revised 1999.
HI
A
8:8�II ♦ Y
" , "m tOT,2.S : 3..1 HOCSSLLH r W/HPPLB
PowHxz � wrt+:+waaa-oax nPt+:iw�asa�aH : wrrr. >.saasaaos wrx; uoawaac: wPn: >_w-asoala � wm:>.w�aw-ou
scar.
GR"MC SCALL
A
m
SUNSET DRIVE
u
.F
u 4
rm v w. rtm) �uw
,PAULA LANE SECTION
¢F- tlmFn+wm,
1,1
������II � �I .II
STREET A& 8 SEcnoN
rs
vn
l.
�GYr�s�i�ir lfTl ,••sw
NOM
d �tl awv, rmr•+�.d wrrx d wee v, q otmve
2 Sw Aw.' G b fnM�/ 0•iy !Iw
i S.e Sl�.t b RJni�y IA» lba
l 5i 9�nt b PMdr.y L.Id�[ M1.
S EM 9�.t Iv pbUt fmYv. Mrn
6 Ymb ewe. a.i Evq. Pvet.. dlaM {+� �tl £u�
I �T mrgT:ry Y yawl m NAVII m .arb tivrm
TEN'T'ATIVE MAP
PAULA LANE
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PHEPA8 V FOB: YIDSION VALLEY PHOPERT SCALE: 1--40'-0'
PH£PAHEB 8Y: C /S Hm-S Om BATE: }UY, 2002
Hh..L No: c2
— -r- .—
y�
1u.s un
2V DRIVEWAY
SECTION
vn
l.
�GYr�s�i�ir lfTl ,••sw
NOM
d �tl awv, rmr•+�.d wrrx d wee v, q otmve
2 Sw Aw.' G b fnM�/ 0•iy !Iw
i S.e Sl�.t b RJni�y IA» lba
l 5i 9�nt b PMdr.y L.Id�[ M1.
S EM 9�.t Iv pbUt fmYv. Mrn
6 Ymb ewe. a.i Evq. Pvet.. dlaM {+� �tl £u�
I �T mrgT:ry Y yawl m NAVII m .arb tivrm
TEN'T'ATIVE MAP
PAULA LANE
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PHEPA8 V FOB: YIDSION VALLEY PHOPERT SCALE: 1--40'-0'
PH£PAHEB 8Y: C /S Hm-S Om BATE: }UY, 2002
Hh..L No: c2
— -r- .—
POWELL
DPN:
PARCI
PUMP 57
DOD 5
RRUCS
APR: 0734
III! R.RDM 8ffiLY I HILL P=I LA ROCIHILLR I VamflLR
AM 00-050-ODz
i DPN: I1SF050�00 I DPN: 00-056-005 DPN: 5040-009 I APN:06050-0t0 1 APN:lSaA56471
MOV
GRAPHIC SCALE
(IXY@)
fill„ it
Z r I II
FlY y R
�� lwlftfiD+i nNn WC I
%IIIIID I( t
I � ..=JIB MM wltl m rtli9 Mt
I U E:mie n �m �"P mu .anon
f>r%t m.0
qa •! rue Pm) Pn � "�
SUNSET DRIVE
415
o Oto
F tY
�� GS Ir IY i iT
tMXliAi' IGVEt uC
Goes
145 _g,. �-rL Mini amy m ns4q Nrnl
R
Rrah 1M Tam (Tm1 an v m mw "° O1I
IP Ap>.pm e>. pP m/
PAULA LANEEC710N
Nu
D70 -M
# RN
I IP � IR I
1
RNIIS S A6 AAe@
1 I
rPu'r me rtml id pPgt. a..
STRM A & B SECTION
N6
PA /�35l unxf PA
-67P036 � n
2 1 IP
I
I
Iro.'f M A
calm! zam! mPr
20' DRIVEWAY nW)
SECTION NfS
Il' A^2" t V1111r
fY F2
a
IS 1 0
I
a,In . sa..oN Pml
NY DRPAWAY CTYPJ
SECT ON
NOM
t sNR sae.t o ra v�tlty ASs NN+w .uam nd �+ IRell(!
d vNvd vAte' vote, 4�, n.mntA oaf twr w.oq,Rnmra
Ef av+biav /Pf swaps iNi ePA�I fy:...
L s« 9set CA fm nehisy Oae M
x See Shm fa fah,k yVIIIm Nn
4 Sve SMRrc Iaf ft*rk ly um v. Vh
S 5'm Slrt b b*ft CaM1aN MRP
6 levla sra sd fia, Wft of Psh i .1d Suver
4As w8 be dslosJ.
T. bbft wpvwiy k Wd m NAVD Sa ww" dm.
TENTATIVE MAP
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PREPARED FOR: MISSION VALLEY PROPERTIES SCALE: I' -40'—D'
PREPARED BY. CSR/57CHER—STROEH DATE: MAY. 2002
FRITTING PIPE�--
70 RFAMINS6NSET 1R.
`
l = I
WEIR FOR OVERFLOW E
CONDITIONS —
B
(9
GRAPHIC SCALE
I a ewer I
1 Im6 � fb M1
RI
_ nOdD VM
( 1f (�Itaom uw9t
I Ini/
i i ••2` 2a9 t1
—17
I R Tom/'—Imoaowawatxaat
�wtn
!>iOliHIM9YA
1�YW
wifllr
NOTES'.
I TENTATIVE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE
CUT: 40,084 CY.
FILL 40,000 CY.
2 DBSLINC TOPCXXAPHY 15 BASED ON
NAVO'88 VERTICAL DATUM (JUNE,
2800. AERIAL. PHOTOC RAPHY)
ROPOSED WALLS
AC BERM TO DIRECT FLOW
AT TRANSDION FROM GUTTER
TO EXISRNG SWALE
PRELIMINARY GRADING/DRAINAGE
PAULA LANE
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PRE.PARD POR: MISSION VALLEY PROPERTIES SCALE: 1'•40'-0"
PREPARED BY: CBR/S'=ER—STROEB DATE: MAY, 2002
Shc.L N. C4
.Per ,..BP,.o-e a.asi
12' RCP
a
P.E. tQJ.B x.1G 201.
n�
;
7 j� \,\8
} i °
LEGEND
PROPOSED
ExEnma
t II
I ! I
Stam Draft Ung 8
t 1 IB
RCP~ 1% 11
W
Catch ba*
�— — .may — —
t
_ I -
—140 Comm
-140
in
AH
II
I PE� 3
P.E 1 9.9
e IIIP£. M2
(
,
-- _ _ Piope" ur1
_ - Ret", Wap
1
I
0
'
i
I
/
O
LwT totvdi for catdRrntO
—
— — — — — _ arra M Gradilg�BM
Sloped Berle
t
.
PL 209 Pad S{W9clal (PJ)
—•\
//
Tree canopy
i i ••2` 2a9 t1
—17
I R Tom/'—Imoaowawatxaat
�wtn
!>iOliHIM9YA
1�YW
wifllr
NOTES'.
I TENTATIVE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE
CUT: 40,084 CY.
FILL 40,000 CY.
2 DBSLINC TOPCXXAPHY 15 BASED ON
NAVO'88 VERTICAL DATUM (JUNE,
2800. AERIAL. PHOTOC RAPHY)
ROPOSED WALLS
AC BERM TO DIRECT FLOW
AT TRANSDION FROM GUTTER
TO EXISRNG SWALE
PRELIMINARY GRADING/DRAINAGE
PAULA LANE
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PRE.PARD POR: MISSION VALLEY PROPERTIES SCALE: 1'•40'-0"
PREPARED BY: CBR/S'=ER—STROEB DATE: MAY, 2002
Shc.L N. C4
.Per ,..BP,.o-e a.asi