HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B-Attch05 05/17/2004.. r
MAY I Z u 4
RECEIVED
C O X C A S T L E N I C H O' L S` O N D- MAY Cox; Castle & Nicholson LLP
204 555: Montgomery Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, California 94111
P 415.392.4200 F 415.392.4250
Maxgo,N.
415.262.5100
rribradish@coxcastle.com
File No. 45367
May 5, 2004
VIA FACSIMMI)<,E AND `MAIL,
City Council Members
City of Petaluma
P.O. Box 0'1
Petaluma, CA 94953
Re: Paula Laue
Honorable Council Members:
On behalf 'of 'Mission Valley Properties (the "Applicant ") the applicant for the
proposed. Paula Lane subdivision .(the "Project'.'), we offer this ietter in support of the decision of
the Planning Department ofthe City of Petaluma (the `Cite - ) to prepare a Mitigated Negative
Declaration rather than an Environmental Impact Report.(" EIR") for the ;Project.
As you know, CEQA. provides that: the City "shall" prepai e a Negative
Declaration rather than an.EIR if there is no "substantial evidence" that the Project may'have a
significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(3). Further, CEQA provides
that the City "shall" prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration if the City determines that the
Applicant has made or agreed to changes in the Protect that would avoid potential effects, such
that there is no "substantial evidence " 'that the Project as revised may have a significant effect on
the environment. CEQA Guidelines §1506469(2).
"Snhstantia:l evidence" must include facts reLisonabl assumptions predicated on
facts and expert op'in'ion supported by facts. CEQA Guidelines §15064&)(5). Argument,
speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous
or evidence that it not credible does riot. constitute substantial evidence. Id. Absent substantial
evidence of 'a significant effect on the environment, the existence of public controversy over the
environmental effects of the Project does not require the preparation of an EIR. CEOA
Guidelines §15064(f).(4). Moreover; disagreement aiilong r; pert opinions overthe =significance
an enviromhental .effect will .require preparation of an EIR, only if it i s uric l ear, after the
application of the foregoing pr inciples,,whether there is subst.draial evidence tha rthe'Prej ect may
have a significant effect onthe en.vifoni - nent; and evenibeii «then the expert opinions
rendered by qualified experts and are supported by fact;. 5'ee C 'Q.I Guia'e11nes'§l5064(9)_
it— www.coxcasde.com Los Angeles I Orange County I San Francisco
Hoborable City Council Members
May 5, 20,04
Page 2
Application of the foregoing principles to the, Project demonstrates that an EIR is
not required. The, record contains no "substantial .evidIence ", as that term is used in.CEQA, that
the Project as revised 'and mitigated will have a significant impact on the environment.
In a February 24, 2004, letter from the Brandt - Hawley Law Group to the Planning.
Commission,, the Paula Lane Action Network alleges that there is evidence that "the project may
have significant environmental .impacts in the areas of historic resources, biology and wildlife
habitat and traffic. These allegations are not supported by the facts, With respect to historic
resources,, the record. does not. contain "substantial evidence" that the Project would have a
significant 'impact historic resources, nor that additional study would yield a,different conclusion.
See San Joaquin Raptor /Wildlife, Rescue Ctrs V County ofStanislaus (1996) . 42 Cal App.4th 608.
625. With.respect`to the American badger, the record does, not contain "substantial ;evidence"
that the Project: °would have a sigriificant`impact on the American Badger or its Habitat. The -
speculation of neighbors'or.. biologists,; that, badgers might be. present does -not constitute
substantial evidence: With respect to traffic, the - record doe's not contain. "substantial evidence"
that the Projectwould have a significant impact on traffic. The neighbors' unsubstantiated
opinions to the contrary'do not rise to the level of substantial evidence. In summary, there is no
substantial evidence in the, record. that the Projectwill have, a significant.effect,on the
environment, and the preparation of a `1Vlitigated Negative Declaration for the Project therefore is
appropriate.
Mission Valley Properties understands that the neighbors Have +concerns regarding
the Project an has made (and will continue to make) good faith efforts to address those concerns.
Nonetheless, the neighbors' concerns do not constitute substantial evidence of a significant
impact on the 'environment and are not sufficient to require the, preparation of an EIR.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Very truly yours,
Margo Bradish
45367 \48659v1
cc: s . Martha W Buxton, Mission Valley Properties
Richard Rudnansky, Esq., City Attorney
Mike'Bierman, City Manager.
Mike Moore, Community Development Director
George White, .Community Development — Planning Manager
Ireen Borba, Planning Division