The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 5 02/04/200220 fl j CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Discussion and Possible Action ' Regarding a Meeting Date: Recommendation from the Planning Commission to Approve a February 4, 2002 Request for Prezoning to R1 -6500, a Request to Annex to the City of Petaluma and a Request for a Tentative Subdivision Map for 11 residential lots on a 5 -Acre Site at Ely Road and Corona Road APN 137- 070 -09. File ANX 01001, TSM 01001, PRZ 0002, SPC 01023. (Moore /Lafler) Department: Director: Contact Pe rs Phone Number: Community Mike Moor Laura Lafle 778 -4341 Development Project Planner Cost of Proposal: NA Account Number: N/A Amount Budgeted: NA Name of Fund: N/A Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. Location Map 2. Staff Report from the November 13, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 3. Minutes Excerpt from the November 13, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 4. Public Notice 5. Draft Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 6. Draft Ordinance Authorizing a Prezoning to R1 -6500 7. Draft Resolution Adopting the Tentative Subdivision Map 8. Draft Resolution Annexation Baker Ranch to the City of Petaluma 9. Plans (City Council members only) Summary Statement: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on November 13, 2001. After deliberating and taking public testimony, the Commission forwarded a unanimous recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, to approve the requested prezoning to R1 -6500 and to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for 11 residential lots on a 5 -acre parcel at Ely Road and Corona Road. Council Priority: THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY TO, ONE OR MORE OF THE 1999 -2000 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 30, 1999 AND MARCH 18, 2000. Priority(s): N/A Recommended City Council Action /Suggested Motion: The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council 1) adopt a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2) introduce an ordinance prezoning the subject to R1 -6500, and 3) adopt a resolution approving Tentative Subdivision Map subject to the applicant finalizing the annexation though the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process. Reviewed by Finance Director: Revie $iii v j -pk�rney: date: -41 1 A e ,-CAty Mana er: Date: Date: Today's ate: Revision # and Date evised: IMe Co e: 1/09/02 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 4, 2002 AGENDA REPORT FOR BAKER RANCH PREZONING AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant, Waterford Associates Baker LLC, is requesting approval to prezone the 5 -acre parcel at Ely Road and Corona Road to R1 -6500, to annex the property to the City of Petaluma and to subdivide the property into 11 residential lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on November 13, 2001 and unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve the requested Prezoning, and approve the requested Tentative Subdivision Map. 2. BACKGROUND: Project Description The project site is not currently within Petaluma's incorporated limits, but is within the Corona Ely Specific Plan area, and within the Urban Limit Line. The proposed project involves prezoning, annexation, a tentative subdivision map, and environmental review to construct the Baker Ranch Subdivision. Prezoning is the process by which the city prezones an unincorporated territory that it expects to annex in the future. The proposed zones must be consistent with the City General Plan. Upon annexation into the City of Petaluma, the City's zoning ordinance would regulate development on the property. The function of the zoning ordinance is to establish specific standards for land uses, minimum lot size, building setbacks and height, and parking. The proposed project would prezone the property to R1 -6500 consistent with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (3.22 acres.zoned as Rural and 1.78 acres zoned as Urban Standard) and then annex the property into the City of Petaluma. The City of Petaluma serves as the lead agency for the proposed project and is responsible for approval of the environmental documentation of the project. The applicant, Waterford Associates Baker LLC, proposes to subdivide the property into eleven lots for residential use. The development would involve construction of ten new homes, and related improvements such as a new cul -de -sac, parking areas and sidewalks, on an approximate 5 -acre site in a single phase. The lots would range in size from 6,920 square feet to 56,705 square feet (Lot 1) with an average lot size of 8,464 square feet (without Lots 1 and 2). The existing residence would remain in place on Lot 2 in the northwestern portion of the project site. The existing farm outbuildings would remain The proposed plan calls for clustering the new homes on Lots 3 through 11, on approximately 2.39 - acres in the eastern portion of the site. Lot 1 would comprise 1.30 acres, Lot 2 would comprise 1.25 acres, and Lots 3 through 11 would comprise the remaining 2.45 acres. Two of four mature oak trees 1 on -site would remain and two would be removed based on the recommendation of the applicant's consultant arborist. The existing oak at the corner of Corona and Ely Roads would be preserved and pruned to highlight the branching structure and to promote healthy growth. Parking would include two covered spaces per house, two driveway spaces per house, and one street parking space per house. Lots 7 through 11 would front Hartman Lane, while Lots 1 through 6 would access from a proposed public street, Baker Ranch Court. The street would end in a cul -de -sac. The minimum building setbacks for primary residential structures would be a 25 -foot front yard setback, a 5 -foot interior side yard setback with an aggregate setback of 15 feet between structures, and a 20 -foot rear yard setback. Proposed garages would be not less than 22 feet from the edge of the public sidewalk. Proposed homes would conform with the General Plan and the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and would be reviewed and approved by the Site Planning and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC). Per General Plan Policy, at least ten percent of the house designs would be significantly different from the remaining units in architectural style. Variation in building mass, setbacks, and heights would be emphasized. Architectural features that might be varied would include entrance and garage locations, roof designs, siding materials, colors and architectural details. The proposed project would incorporate traditional residential designs such as large front porches. Site History The project site is within the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (May 1, 1989), a 675 acre specific plan area, within the City of Petaluma General Plan urban limit line and the adopted Sphere of Influence, long recognized as a future urban expansion area. The proposed density complies with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and with numerous policies that apply to the project site. The project entails processing the City applications in advance of making the necessary applications to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Thus, the Prezoning and Tentative Map will be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in advance of the annexation. The Planning Commission and City Council approvals of the Tentative Map will be conditioned on LAFCO's approval of the annexation. In conjunction with these applications, the city is required to initiate environmental review of the possible environmental impacts related to the prezoning, annexation, and development of the property. General Plan Consistency The project site is not currently within Petaluma's incorporated limits, but is within the Urban Limit Line. The General Plan designates the project site as Rural 0.0 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would be consistent with both the General Plan and the Corona/Ely Specific Plan as discussed below. Specific Plan Consistency The project site is within the boundaries of the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (adopted May 1, 1989), a 675 - acre specific plan area. Most of East Petaluma developed in the last 12 years has been controlled by the Corona/Ely Specific Plan. Consistent with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan the proposed project would prezone the property to R1 -6500 (3.22 acres zoned as Rural and 1.78 acres zoned as Urban Standard) and then annex into the City of Petaluma. 0) The proposed project is consistent with the all of the goals stated in the Specific Plan, including Goal 6 that recommends implementing the "feathering" policies of the General Plan. As described in the General Plan, "feathering" refers to the boundaries of urban development and an intent to maintain well- defined boundaries at the edge of the City. In the General Plan, Policy 7, Chapter 4 Land Use, outlines an intent for properties adjoining the urban limit line to be of limited density, to preserve the visual and physical openness and to preserve the aesthetic and natural features of that portion of the property proximate to the rural areas outside the urban limit line. The proposed project would implement this "feathering" policy following the Corona Ely Specific Plan land use designation of Urban Standard (up to 5.0 dwelling units per acre) adjacent to Hartman Lane and the Rural (up to 0.5 dwelling units per acre) land use designation adjacent to Corona Road. The proposed project would be compatible with a number of other major goals outlined in the Corona Ely Specific Plan (see Attachment 2). The Initial Study found that infrastructure, services, and facilities would be available to serve the project. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee would review the project to ensure that the development utilizes superior design and materials. Planning Commission Review On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project (Please see Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes, Attachments 2 and 3). Early in the meeting, a representative from the Bicycle Committee reiterated concerns for the provision of bicycle paths in conjunction with the proposed project as follows: 1. Off -road Class 1 path on perimeter of project on Corona Road 2. Pedestrian access with a meandering sidewalk connecting Baker Ranch Court to Corona Road path. 3. Providing a path from the end of Baker Ranch Court (cul de sac) connecting to the school property. 4. Connecting the path to the school across the back of the proposed project to Hartman Lane. The above recommendations from the Bicycle Committee are addressed in the attached Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 2). The issues were further discussed by the Planning Commission and resolved as follows: (1) Corona Road would not be included in the annexation therefore no offsite path would be possible. In addition, sufficient room to provide a Class 1 path along Corona Road would not exist because of the existing drainage ditch, landscaping and residential structures. (2) The Planning Commission included an additional condition of approval that would require that curb and gutter extend from Baker Ranch Court to the existing driveway on Ely Road with proposed landscaping to extend to the intersection of Corona and Ely Road. (3) The Commission considered the letter from the District Superintendent of the Waugh School District, Dr. Scott Mahoney that firmly discouraged a through connection from the project to the school because it would jeopardize campus security (see Attachment 2, sub - attachment 17) and concurred with the staff recommendation not to require said connection. (4) The Commission also concurred that with no through connection to the school, the connection to Hartman Lane did not appear reasonable. The Commission also heard testimony from one neighbor regarding historic drainage problems related to the subject property and concern about the location of project streetlights in relation to his house. In reference to concerns regarding drainage, the applicant clarified that no additional runoff would leave the site. Regarding the second concern, SPARC would review the location of proposed 3 street improvements including landscaping and streetlights. With these clarifications, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the project be approved by the City Council with several added conditions. These conditions have been added as Conditions of Approval and read as follows: 1. Street improvements on Ely Road shall include curb and gutter from Baker Ranch Court to the driveway for the existing house on Lot 2. 2. Project landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by SPARC and include landscaping along Ely Road to the intersection with Corona Road. 3. A second arborist shall inspect the existing on -site oaks and confirm whether identified oaks are diseased and should be removed. The arborist shall include evaluation of sudden oak disease and submit the report to the Community Development Department. 4. The existing residence shall remain at its current location. The outside of the building shall not be altered except for maintenance and repair, without review and approval by the Petaluma Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee. Maintenance, repair and any other modifications or additions shall be in conformance with the architectural style, period, and materials of the existing residence and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 5. The proposed project shall result in zero net increase in peak storm water runoff. 6. Street improvements shall include a bench along the proposed meandering path fronting Ely Road. The Planning Commission Minutes are included as Attachment 3. 3. ALTERNATIVES: a. The City Council may approve the proposed project with modifications to the conditions of approval and/or to the conditions previously modified by the Planning Commission. b. The City Council may deny the request for the Prezoning and the Tentative Subdivision Map. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This is a private development project subject to standard processing permit fees and any applicable City Special Development Fees. 5. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission found that the proposed Prezoning to R1 -6500, annexation of the property and the Tentative Subdivision Map would not create any new significant environmental impacts and that the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, the Corona Ely Specific Plan, El the Zoning Ordinance, and the Municipal Code, and recommended that the City Council approve the project. 6. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, introduce an Ordinance Prezoning the property to Rl- 6500, and adopt a Resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for 11 residential lots, in order to allow the construction of 10 residential units. 5 II U II II ►I II II I( II II II II I) II I II I� u II I� oRW.� AW:NL==Z7 II �� I II I I J) I II II {I II it II . 1 II II II II II .. II ATTACHMENT 1 ® LOCATION MAP 1851 19J9 y Ib PROJECT SITE 1598 1 498 I ( 1702 470 N 468 27 _ 757 1 476 751 S2 1509 10 1 428 15 .. 6 400 15 1 502 SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY _ 784 227 0 r V � LL r Q is Z Q ATTACHMENT 2 1 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2 MEMORANDUM 3 4 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 5 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -mail. planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us 6 7 DATE: October 9, 2001 AGENDA ITEM NO.III 8 9 TO: Planning Commission 10 11 FROM: Laura Lafler, Project Planner 12 13 SUBJECT: AN APPLICATION TO PREZONE THE PROPERTY TO R1 -6500, TO ANNEX 14 TO THE CITY OF PETALUMA, AND TO SUBDIVIDE A 5 -ACRE PARCEL AT 15 ELY ROAD AND CORONA ROAD INTO 11 RESIDENTIAL LOTS (APN 137- 16 070 -09) ANX 01001, TSM 01001, PRZ 0002, SPC 01023 17 18 RECOMMENDATIONS 19 20 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council 21 to: 22 1. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project subject to the attached Findings. 23 24 2. Approve the Prezoning for the project subject to the attached Findings. 25 26 3. Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to the attached Findings and 27 Conditions of Approval. 28 29 30 PROJECT SUMMARY 31 32 Project: Baker Ranch 33 619 Ely Road 34 APN 137 - 070 -09 35 Project File No(s). ANX 0 100 1, TSM 01001, PRZ 0002, SPC 01023 36 37 Project Planner: Laura Lafler 38 39 Project Applicant: Waterford Associates 40 945 Front Street 41 Novato, CA 94945 -3207 42 43 Property_ Owner: Waterford Associates 44 Page 1 I Nearest Cross Street to Project Site: Ely Road and Corona Road 2 3 Property Size: 5 acres 4 5 Site Characteristics: The project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope gradient to the south. 6 Overall relief is approximately three feet. Vegetation on the site includes four mature coast live 7 oaks, ornamental vegetation, annual grasses and intensively grazed pastureland. 8 9 Existing Use: The property was used as a chicken ranch until 1959 when they converted to 10 sheep ranching. Until recently the residence was occupied. A residence, two barns, and chicken 11 coops exist in the western portion of the site. 12 13. Proposed Use: Eleven residential units on individual lots 14 15 Current Zoning: The project site is currently within the unincorporated area of Sonoma 16 County with a zoning designation of DA -B6. 17 18 Proposed Zoning: The proposed project would prezone the property to R1 -6500 19 20 Current General Plan Land Use: The project site, although not within Petaluma's city limits, 21 is within the Urban Limit Line and within the Corona/Ely Specific Plan area. The General Plan 22 land use designation is Rural 0.0 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre. The land use designation for this 23 property as shown in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan is Rural (3.22 acres) and (Urban Standard 24 (1.78 acres). See the Petaluma General Plan Land Use Map (Attachment 25) and the Corona/Ely 25 Specific Plan Land Use Plan (Attachment 26). 26 27 Subsequent Actions Required: 28 • City Council review and approval 29 • Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) review and approval 30 • Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval 31 • Final Map approval 32 • Building Permit approval 33 34 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 35 36 The applicant, Waterford Associates Baker LLC is requesting that the Planning Commission 37 recommend to the City Council the approval of the Prezoning and the approval of the Tentative 38 Subdivision Map. 39 40 The project site is not currently within Petaluma's incorporated limits, but is within the Corona 41 Ely Specific Plan area, and within the Urban Limit Line. The proposed project involves 42 prezoning, annexation, application for a tentative map, and environmental review to construct the 43 Baker Ranch Subdivision. Prezoning is the process by which the city prezones an unincorporated 44 territory that it expects to annex in the future. The proposed zones must be consistent with the 45 City General Plan. Upon annexation into the City of Petaluma, the City's zoning ordinance 46 would regulate development on the property. The function of the zoning ordinance is to Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 establish specific standards for land uses, minimum lot size, building setbacks and height, and parking. The proposed project would prezone the property to R1 -6500 consistent with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (3.22 acres zoned as Rural and 1.78 acres 'zoned as Urban Standard) and then annex the property into the City of Petaluma. The City of Petaluma serves as the lead agency for the proposed project and is responsible for approval of the environmental documentation of the proj ect. The applicant, Waterford Associates Baker LLC, proposes to subdivide the property into eleven lots for residential use. The development would involve construction of ten new homes, and related improvements such as a new cul -de -sac, parking areas and sidewalks, on an approximate 5 -acre site in a single phase. The lots would range in size from 6,920 square feet to 56,705 square feet (Lot 1) with an average lot size of 8,464 square feet (without Lots 1 and 2). The existing residence would remain in place on Lot 2 in the northwestern portion of the project site. The existing farm outbuildings would remain The proposed plan calls for clustering the new homes on Lots 3 through 11, on approximately 2.39 -acres in the eastern portion of the site. Lot 1 would comprise 1.30 acres, Lot 2 would comprise 1.25 acres, and Lots 3 through 11 would comprise the remaining 2.45 acres. Two of four mature oak trees on -site would remain and two would be removed based on the recommendation of the applicant's consultant arborist. The existing oak at the corner of Corona and Ely Roads would be preserved and pruned to highlight the branching structure and to promote healthy growth. Parking would include two covered spaces per house, two driveway spaces per house, and one street parking space per house. Lots 7 through 1 lwould front Hartman Lane, while Lots 1 through 6 would access from a proposed public street, Baker Ranch Court. The street would end in a cul -de -sac. The minimum building setbacks for primary residential structures would be a 25 -foot front yard setback, a 5 -foot interior side yard setback with an aggregate setback of 15 feet between structures, and a 20 -foot rear yard setback. Proposed garages would be not less than 22 feet from the edge of the public sidewalk. Proposed homes would be in full conformance with the General Plan and the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and would be reviewed and approved by the Site Planning and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC). Per General Plan Policy, at least ten percent of the house designs would be significantly different from the remaining units in architectural style. Variation in building mass, setbacks, and heights would be emphasized. Architectural features that might be varied would include entrance and garage locations, roof designs, siding materials, colors and architectural details. The proposed project would incorporate traditional residential designs such as large front porches. SETTING The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope gradient to the south. Overall relief is approximately three feet. A residence, two barns, and chicken coops exist in the western portion of the site. Vegetation on the site includes four mature coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), ornamental Page 3 1 vegetation, annual grasses and intensively grazed pastureland, with a distinctive specimen oak at 2 the corner of Corona and Ely Roads. 4 The project site is bound by Waugh School District property and recently constructed single family 5 homes to the north and east; Hartman Lane and Ely Road to the south; and Corona and Ely Roads 6 to the west. Other surrounding land uses are rural and residential. The site is bordered on the 7 southeast by Hartman Lane and a residential subdivision and on the northeast by undeveloped land. 8 (See Contextual Site Photo Attachment 23). 9 to BACKGROUND 11 12 The project site is within the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (May .1, 1989), a 675 acre specific plan 13 area, within the City of Petaluma General Plan urban limit line and the adopted Sphere of 14 Influence, long recognized as a future urban expansion area. The proposed density complies 15 with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and with numerous policies that apply to the project site. 16 17 The project entails processing the City applications in advance of making the necessary 18 applications to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Thus, the Prezoning and 19 Tentative Map will be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in 20 advance of the annexation. The Planning Commission and City Council approvals of the 21 Tentative Map will be conditioned on LAFCO's approval of the annexation. In conjunction with 22 these applications, the city is required to initiate environmental review of the possible 23 environmental impacts related to the prezoning, annexation, and development of the property. 24 25 Waterford Associates held one meeting with adjacent neighbors on September 18, 2001 to elicit 26 comments, to answer questions, and to provide information. Twelve home owners participated 27 either by attending the meeting or calling the applicants. Generally their concerns addressed the 28 existing oaks, lights, screening from adjacent residences and school fees. 29 30 STAFF ANALYSIS 31 32 General Plan Consistency: 33 34 The project site is not currently within Petaluma's incorporated limits, but is within the Urban 35 Limit Line. The General Plan designates the project site as Rural 0.0 to 0.5 dwelling units per 36 acre. The proposed project would be consistent with both the General Plan and the Corona/Ely 37 Specific Plan as discussed below. 38 39 Specific Plan Consistency 40 41 The project site is within the boundaries of the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (adopted May 1, 1989), a 42 675 acre specific plan area. Most of East Petaluma developed in the last 12 years has been 43 controlled by the Corona/Ely Specific Plan. Consistent with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan the 44 proposed project would prezone the property to R1 -6500 (3.22 acres zoned as Rural and 1.78 acres 45 zoned as Urban Standard) and then annex into the City of Petaluma. 46 Page 4 1 The proposed project is consistent with the all of the goals stated in the Specific Plan, including 2 Goal 6 which recommends implementing the "feathering" policies of the General Plan. As 3 described in the General Plan, "feathering" refers to the boundaries of urban development and an 4 intent to maintain well - defined boundaries at the edge of the City. In the General Plan, Policy 7, 5 Chapter 4 Land Use, outlines an intent for properties adjoining the urban limit line to be of 6 limited density, to preserve the visual and physical openness and to preserve the aesthetic and 7 natural features of that portion of the property proximate to the rural areas outside the urban limit 8 line. 9 10 • The proposed project would implement this "feathering" policy following the Corona Ely 11 Specific Plan land use designation of Urban Standard (up to 5.0 dwelling units per acre) 12 adjacent to Hartman Lane and the Rural (up to 0.5. dwelling units per acre) land use 13 designation adjacent to Corona Road. 14 15 The proposed project is consistent with the major Design Policies outlined in the Specific Plan 16 beginning on page 45 and including: 17 18 Policy 4 The design and construction of future development in the Corona/Ely area shall 19 incorporate and capitalize upon the area's special existing landscape features, visual attributes, 20 and historic values whenever possible. 21 22 • The proposed project is consistent with the land use map designation from the Specific Plan 23 and complies with the stated intent to preserve the existing trees and the overall rural feeling 24 of the Corona Road. The proposed project would retain the original farm house and out 25 buildings and the historic oak at the corner of Corona and Ely. 26 27 Policy 24. Gateways shall receive special attention in the parkway design specifications so that 28 they will create a formal sense of entry. 29 30 Page 54, cites the intersection of Ely and Corona as a minor gateway. The Specific Plan includes 31 a suggested design for typical gateways to identify the community and create a strong initial 32 sense of arrival and place. 33 34 • The proposed project includes a choker entry to Baker Ranch Court. Corona Road will not 35 be annexed and improvements would remain a rural design standard with no curb and gutter, 36 no streetlights, and open drainage along the roadside. 37 38 Beginning on page 58, the Specific Plan outlines guidelines for maintaining the rural character of 39 Corona Road including replacing trees, retaining rural features such as open fences, and 40 discouraging paved driveways: 41 42 Policy 30 The country road feeling of the route shall be preserved by maintaining the current 43 two -lane rural design standard of the roadway... and by retaining existing open drainage ditches 44 along the roadside. 45 Page 5 1 • The proposed project would not include the annexation of Corona Road. Improvements 2 along Corona Road would include cleaning and maintaining the open drainage ditch, and 3 installing open fences. 4 5 Policy 31. The existing tree canopy of specimen California live oaks and other mature roadside 6 trees on both sides of the route shall be protected against future removal or disturbance. 7 8 Policy 32. Aged or diseased trees shall be replaced as necessary and in kind to preserve and 9 enhance the character of the route over the long term. 10 11 • The proposed project would retain the existing specimen oak at the corner of Ely and Corona 12 Roads, along with two of the four oaks within the interior of the project site. 13 14 Policy 33 To the degree feasible, typical rural features along Corona Road shall be retained, and 15 future development along the route should repeat those features. 16 17 • Open fencing would be installed along the northwest side of lots 1 and 2 along Corona Road 18 and the Southwest side of lot 2 along Ely Road. 19 20 A series of policies in the Specific Plan apply to residential neighborhoods, including street 21 profiles and street planting: 22 23 Policy 92 requires that local streets shall emphasize curvilinear alignments, short loop streets, 24 and cul -de -sacs to create neighborhood unity and visual interest, reduce traffic speeds, and 25 discourage through traffic. 26 27 Policy 95 requires that residential streets have 4 to 5 -foot planting strips within the right of way 28 on both sides of the street between the curb and sidewalk. 29 30 Policy 96 requires that Street Landscape Plan include design details, construction specifications 31 and maintenance responsibilities for common landscaping. 32 33 • The proposed project includes a cul -de -sac, Baker Ranch Court, additional homes facing the 34 existing residential neighborhood along Hartman Lane. The proposed project includes an 35 intersection choker at the entry to Baker Ranch Court, in conformance with 36 recommendations to include intersection "chokers" that create a sense of entry to smaller 37 subdivisions. The proposed project includes an Illustrative Landscape Plan, dated August 17, 38 2001, showing proposed street improvements with fences, street trees and streetlights. 39 40 Policy 100 recommends that residential development plans emphasize variations in building 41 massing, setbacks, and height to avoid repetition. 42 43 • Proposed residences would conform to the Specific Plan and be subject to review by the Site 44 Planning and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC). At least ten percent of the house 45 designs would be different from the remaining in architectural style. 46 Page 6 I Zoning Ordinance Consistency: 2 3 The proposed project would prezone the property to R1 -6500 consistent with the Corona/Ely 4 Specific Plan with 3.22 acres zoned as Rural and 1.78 acres zoned as Urban Standard, and then 5 annex the property into the City of Petaluma. Proposed setbacks would be consistent with this 6 zoning designation. 7 8 Parking 9 The Zoning Ordinance (Section 20 -300) requires that new single - family dwelling units include 10 one covered parking space and two additional spaces that may be open and located in the 11 driveway. The site plan depicts two -car garages as well as two driveway parking spaces for each 12 of the residences. As detailed in the attached conditions of approval, the Engineering Division 13 would require a cul -de -sac parking island at the end of Baker Ranch Court. 14 15 Traffic Analysis: 16 17 As part of the project submittal, the applicant provided a traffic impact study prepared by 18 Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc. (W- Trans) dated May 1, 2001 (see Attachment 12). 19 The study evaluated the compatibility in terms of traffic impacts of the proposed project with 20 previous assumptions of site development analyzed in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan. 21 22 The proposed project would construct a cul -de -sac street with access from Ely Road to serve six 23 of the eleven lots. The new cul -de -sac would access Ely Road at a point approximately 290 feet 24 northerly of Hartman Lane. The remaining five parcels would have access directly onto 25 Hartman Lane. The proposed project would generate an average of 98 new daily vehicle trips, 26 which includes 7 new a.m. peak hour trips and 9 new p.m. peak hour trips. 27 28 The Corona/Ely Specific Plan envisioned that this traffic zone would include 110 single - family 29 homes and a 300 - student elementary school. To date 82 single family homes and the Corona 30 Elementary School have been constructed within this traffic zone. With 11 single family 31 dwelling units, the proposed project would bring the total residential component to 93 single 32 family dwelling units, corresponding to 85 percent of the total envisioned within this zone. The 33 report concludes that the project is consistent with the goals and anticipated development density 34 in the Specific Plan EIR. 35 36 Transit 37 _ Petaluma Transit Route 3 operates along Sonoma Mountain Parkway/Ely, but does not extend 38 service to Ely Road and Corona Road. 39 40 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Recommendations: 41 42 In March 2000, the City Council adopted the City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan and Map as an 43 amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states that the City shall 44 route development plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee ( PPBAC) 45 in a timely fashion, allowing consideration of bicycle /pedestrian issues. The PPBAC reviewed Page 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42. 43 44 45 46 the proposed project and had specific recommendations. The full text of the PPBAC recommendations is included (Attachment 20). PPBAC Recommendations Included as Conditions of Approval: PPBAC recommends against the use of pesticide/herbicides without appropriate signs warning of the use of chemicals for the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Staff has included a condition to address the request that any pesticide/herbicide use in areas used by pedestriansibicyclists should be posted, a policy currently employed by the Petaluma Parks Department, and that the project shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticides/herbicide use and shall fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for the protection of pedestrianibicyclists. PPBAC Recommendations Modified or Not Included as Conditions of Approval: PPBAC recommends a multi -use off -road Class I path on the perimeter of the project along Corona Road. Staff does not support this recommendation. Corona Road would not be included in the annexation and would remain within unincorporated area of Sonoma County. In addition, improvements to Corona Road, such as those recommended by PPBAC would conflict with policies adopted in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan to retain the rural character of this area. PPBAC recommends a non - meandering sidewalk connecting Baker Ranch Court to the Corona Road Class I path (as discussed above). The Engineering Division has included a condition of approval that the proposed project frontage improvements include a meandering sidewalk within the existing City limits with a separated pedestrian pathway for that portion of Ely Road to be annexed to the City. PPBAC recommends benches along the multi -use path on Corona Road (discussed above). Staff does not support this recommendation because Corona Road would not be included in the annexation, and neither the multi -use path, nor benches would be in keeping with retaining the rural character. PPBAC recommends a pedestrian and bicycle access route connecting the Baker Ranch Court cul -de -sac to Corona Creek Elementary School. Staff does not support this recommendation based on conversations with the Waugh School District Superintendent. Dr. Scott Mahoney, Superintendent with the Waugh School District, does not support this proposed connection because it would jeopardize campus security (see Attachment 17). PPBAC recommends a 12 foot path connecting from the above recommended open area at the end of the cul de sac between the adjacent subdivision and lots 3 and 7 connecting to Hartman Lane. Staff does not support this recommendation. Without the proposed connection to the adjacent elementary school, this proposed connection does not enhance access that cannot otherwise be achieved by using Hartman Lane. Page 8 I Police Department Recommendations: 2 3 Planning staff received a memorandum from Community Service Officer Jan Morrow (see 4 Attachment 16) outlining the department's concerns. The Police Department recommends that 5 Baker Ranch Court be at least 28 feet wide, with a turning radius of at least 51 feet, a sidewalk 6 extending from Baker Ranch Court to Hartman Lane and the driveway leading to Parcel 1 access 7 from Baker Ranch Court. The proposed project shows Baker Ranch Court with a width of 32 8 feet and a sidewalk between Baker Ranch Court and Hartman Lane. Staff does not support the 9 request for the suggested 51 feet; but does support the Fire Departments standard of 47 feet. 10 This standard will accommodate all City fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. As required 11 by the Fire Department to enable new fire trucks to access properties, and consistent with City 12 standards, the proposed turning radius for the cul -de -sac would be 47 feet. Staff has included 13 conditions of approval for street lighting and illuminated addresses. 14 15 Primary Concerns of Planning Staff: 16 17 Many of staff's original concerns have been resolved in continuing conversations with the 18 applicants. The following discussion summarizes resolution of some of these issues. 19 20 Oak Trees 21 22 Four mature coast live oaks are situated in the middle of the project site. Surrounding residents 23 have enjoyed the presence of these older trees for many years. The project arborist recommends 24 that two of the oaks be preserved and that the other two be removed due to declining health and 25 potential safety hazards (see Attachment 10). A subsequent letter from the project arborist 26 provides tree protection guidelines for the remaining trees to be implemented during site grading 27 and construction. The measures include a tree protection zone, construction inspection and 28 supervision, tree protection fencing, demolition/site clearing, site grading, site drainage, and 29 pruning. These protection measures have been included as mitigation measures and would be 30 incorporated as conditions of approval to the project. 31 32 Existing Residence and Outbuildings 33 34 The proposed site is located in an area that has been historically used as ranch land. The property 35 contains one house built in the 1920's, two barns, and a row of chicken coops. The house is in 36 very good condition with many of its original features. The two barns and the chicken coops are 37 in very poor condition. The proposed development would preserve the house, the barns and 38 coops. 39 40 The Cultural Resources Evaluation (April 18, 2001, Attachment 8), states that the strictures on 41 the site are 50 years or older. In accordance with the State of California Office of Historic 42 Preservation's Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (1995), Archaeological Resource 43 Service recorded the entire farm complex on Department of Parks and Recreation forms 523 44 (recorded July 24, 2001). 45 Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 In a letter dated September 14, 2001, Cassandra Chattan with Archaeological Resource Service outlines her findings. She determined that the ranch as a whole was not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, because the outbuildings have been significantly altered or have fallen down. However, the house individually appears to be eligible for the California Register in Criteria 3: "It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction." She concludes that the house retains most of the physical features that constitute Craftsman Style. Three windows have been replaced, but overall the house retains the majority of the features that illustrate this style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, window and door patterns, texture of materials and ornamentation. The proposed project would retain this existing house. The attached Initial Study (Attachment 3) includes a mitigation measure requiring that the existing house remain in the current location and that any modifications beyond maintenance and repair be reviewed by the Petaluma Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee. "Maintenance, repair and any other modifications or additions shall be in conformance with the architectural style, period, and materials of the existing residence and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation." School Services The project site is within the Petaluma School District and served by the Penngrove School, although the site is immediately adjacent to the Corona Creek Elementary School within the Waugh School District. City staff routed project plans to the Petaluma School District and received no comments, as of the writing of this report. Staff received a phone call from Dr. Mahoney, Superintendent with the Waugh School District indicating that property owners in the immediate area have contacted him with concerns about possible impacts to the Waugh School District. Given that the project is within the Petaluma School District boundaries, staff expects no impacts to the Waugh School District. School impact fees would be collected by the Petaluma School District. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee: Consistent with the directives of the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (page 89), SPARC will review the project only after the project receives City Council and LAFCO approval and prior to building permit issuance. SPARC will review site plan design, building and accessory structure design, colors and materials, landscaping, and lighting. PUBLIC COMMENTS The proposed project was noticed in the local newspaper and notices were mailed on September 19, 2001 to properties within 300 feet of the subject property. Thus far, the Planning Division has received one letter expressing concern with the proposal (see Attachment 21). The neighbor expresses concerns for the existing oaks on the project site. Page 10 1 I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 2 3 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial 4 Study of potential environmental impacts was prepared (Attachment 3). The following 5 potentially significant impacts were identified: geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, 6 and biological resources. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by the 7 applicant that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In addition, there is no 8 substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as mitigated, would have a 9 significant effect on the environment. It is therefore recommended that a Mitigated Negative 10 Declaration be adopted (Attachment 3). A Mitigation Monitoring Report has also been prepared 11 (Attachment 3). 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 DECISION TIMELINE This application was received by the Community Development Department on May 4, 2001. The application was deemed complete on September 11, 2001. Pursuant to the terms of the Permit Streamlining Act, a decision must be made within 180 days of the project being deemed complete. Therefore, the Planning Commission should make a final decision on the project by February 7, 2002. NOTICE OF ESTIMATED FEES, DEDICATIONS, AND OTHER EXACTIONS Pursuant to Section 66020 of the California Government Code, the applicant /developer has the statutory right to protest development fees, dedication and reservation requirements, and other exactions included in this project approval. The following fees shall be collected at time of building permit issuance: Sewer: $3,129.00 per dwelling unit Water: To be determined by the Water Field Office at 778 -4392 Community Facilities: $919.62 per unit Storm Drain Impact: $7,500 Park and Recreation: $3,974.00 per unit School Facilities: To be determined by the Petaluma School District at 778 -4621 In -Lieu Housing: $2,400.00 per unit Traffic Mitigation: $3,007 per unit Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ATTACHMENTS (Project referrals are included if comments were received) Attachment 1: Findings for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings for approval of the Prezoning Findings for approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map Attachment 2: Conditions of Approval Attachment 3: Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Report Attachment 4: Location Map Attachment 5: Waterford Associates, project applicant, letter dated August 22, 2001 Attachment 6: Carlenzoli and Associates, project engineer, letter dated August 17, 2001 Attachment 7: Preliminary Environmental Analysis, .prepared by Diane L. Renshaw, Consulting Ecologist, dated February 27, 2001, and letter dated August 3, 2001 Attachment 8: Cultural Resources Evaluation prepared by Archaeological Resource Services dated April 18, 2001, and letter dated September 14, 2001. Attachment 9: Geotechnical Investigation Report, Corona -Ely Subdivision, prepared by Kleinfelder, dated April 27, 2001. Attachment 10: Tree Evaluation prepared by MacNair and Associates dated February 18, 2001, and letter dated August 6, 2001. Attachment 11: Phase I Environmental site Assessment for 619 Ely Road, prepared by Hanover Environmental Services, Inc., dated March 28, 2001 Attachment 12: Traffic Impact Impact Review prepared by Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc. (W -Trans) dated May 1, 2001 Attachment 13: Letter from Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated June 2, 1997 Attachment 14: Letter from the City Engineer dated October 2, 2001 Attachment 15: Memorandum from the Fire Marshal dated May 17, 2001 Attachment 16: Memorandum from the Police Department dated May 29, 2001 Attachment 17: Letter from Waugh School District, Scott Mahoney, Superintendent, dated August 31, 2001 Attachment 18: Memorandum from Anne Windsor, C.D.D. dated June 11, 2001, regarding estimated fees Attachment 19: Memorandum from Water Resources dated May 21, 2001 Attachment 20: Letter from Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee dated June 13, 2001 Attachment 21: Letter (1) from neighbor dated July 30, 2001, in advance of the public notice Attachment 22: Letter from Sonoma County Water Agency, dated June 13, 2001 Attachment 23: Contextual Site Photo Attachment 24: Corona/Ely Specific Plan Land Use Map Attachment 25: Petaluma General Plan Attachment 26: Full Size Plans (Planning Commission only) Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS Baker Ranch Corona and Ely Roads APN 137 - 070 -09 Project File No(s). ANX 01001, TSM 01001, PRZ 0002, SPC 01023 Findings for Approval of "a Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees. 3. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project. 5. That a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California. Mitigation Measures All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study for the Baker Ranch proposal, are herein incorporated by reference (see Attachment 3, Initial Study). Findings of Approval for Prezoning: 1. The proposed Prezoning of the Baker Ranch property to R1 -6500 is consistent with both the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (adopted 1989) and the Petaluma General Plan, and is in general conformity with the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma as described in the project staff report. Additionally, the Fire Marshal, Police Department, and the Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Engineering Division have prepared conditions of approval to address safety issues and design criteria for grading, site improvements and construction of the residences. 2. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit the adoption of the Prezoning in that the zoning designation will result in residential uses that are appropriate and compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The proposed density would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the Petaluma General Plan, and the Corona/Ely Specific Plan. The project plans present a unified and organized arrangement of residential lots and public streets, appropriate to adjacent and nearby properties. Proposed landscaping would further insure compatibility. The proposed project would also require review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Findings of Approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map: 1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act. 2. That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will be installed, including roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development proposed. 4. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating that there would be no significant, environmental impacts that could not be mitigated. Page 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ATTACHMENT 2 Baker Ranch Corona and Ely Roads APN 137 - 070 -09 Project File No(s). ANX 01001, TSM 01001, PRZ 0002, SPC 01023 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL From the Planning Division: 1. The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with the Development Plan dated July 31, 2001 and the Tentative Map dated August 15, 2001. 2. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Baker Ranch project are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 3. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval.. 4. Individual residences shall be reviewed by SPARC to assure compliance with all applicable standards and regulations of the Specific Plan, including building location, entries, compatibility with surrounding residences, architectural design and landscaping. 5. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be required to post signs when pesticide/herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and bicyclists. 6. The applicant shall make every effort to preserve the remaining healthy oak trees so that the neighborhood can have a visual reminder of the land's previous use and history. The applicant shall implement recommendations in the Arborist Report (see Attachment 10). The oak at the corner of Ely and Corona Road may be trimmed under the supervision of a certified arborist. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, temporary protective fencing shall be erected 5 feet outside the drip line of the remaining oaks. The fencing shall be a minimum of 5 feet in height and shall be secured with in- ground posts subject to staff inspection. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading permit issuance and any grading/construction activity. Proof that the temporary fencing has been installed shall be made to the Planning Division by photographs. Page 15 1 8. All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through 2 Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on 3 Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first 4 secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for additional hours. There will be 5 no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no 6 delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m. nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday 7 through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plans 8 submitted for City permits shall include the language above. 10 9. Construction and demolition debris shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible in 11 order to minimize impacts on the landfill. 12 13 From the Engineering Division: 14 15 Frontage Improvements 16 17 10. Frontage improvements for the Ely Road project frontage located within existing City 18 Limits shall include but not be limited to, meandering sidewalk, handicap ramps, striping, 19 channelization, signing and landscaping. 20 11. Frontage improvements for the Ely Road project frontage currently located within the 21 County of Sonoma shall consist of a 5 -foot wide striped on- street bike lane and separated 22 pedestrian pathway. These improvements shall be installed for the entire half street 23 portion of Ely Road to be annexed into the City of Petaluma. The construction materials 24 (i.e. Concrete, Asphalt Concrete, Decomposed Granite, etc.) used for the separated 25 pathway area shall be subject to the review and approval of the Site Plan and 26 Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) and City staff prior to final map approval. 27 12. The City requires a traffic index of 8 (T.I. = 8) for Ely Road. A geotechnical report 28 addendum is required and shall identify the existing pavement section and traffic index 29 for the County portion of Ely Road. In the event that the existing Ely Road pavement 30 section does not meet T.I. = 8 standards, the developer shall be responsible for 31 reconstructing the existing portions of Ely Road, from centerline, along the current 32 County of Sonoma project frontage. An asphalt overlay conform shall be required as 33 necessary to provide a smooth street crown and insure positive cross sectional drainage of 34 2% minimum. 35 13. A slurry seal shall be applied to the entire Hartman Lane half street project frontage. 36 City standard street and utility improvements shall be installed to serve the proposed 37 parcels located on Baker Ranch Street. 38 14. The pavement sections for the proposed interior streets shall be designed for a traffic 39 index of 5 (T.I. = 5) and shall contain a minimum of four inches of asphalt concrete. 40 15. The proposed 47 -foot radius cul -de -sac shall be designed to include interior parking per 41 City Standard 217 (3 of 4). 42 16. The proposed property line for parcels one and three shall be realigned to provide a 43 circular right of way along the cul -de -sac with a portion of the shared property line 44 designed to be radial to the cul -de -sac. 45 17. Parking shall be prohibited along the Ely Road project frontage. No parking street signs 46 shall be installed. Page 16 1 18. Driveway approaches and utility services for proposed lots one and two shall be installed 2 with the proposed Baker Ranch Street improvements. 3 4 Sanitary Sewer Collection and Water Supply Utilities 6 19. A 10 -inch diameter sanitary sewer main is to be installed to serve the project as 7 prescribed in the Sewer System Capacity Study dated 1985 by Brown and Caldwell 8 Consulting Engineers. Alternatively, the proposed 8 -inch sewer main or other alternative 9 could be used provided the applicant's engineer submits calculations indicating the pipe 10 has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project and remaining Corona / Ely Specific 11 Plan area within the Urban Growth Boundary. 12 20. The Zone IV City water supply system shall serve the project. 13 21. Fire flow calculations indicating sufficient fire flow and pressure per the Fire Marshal's 14 office shall be submitted with the final map /improvement plan application. 15 22. Each lot shall have separate sanitary sewer laterals and water services. 16 17 Grading and Drainage 18 19 23. Hydrology calculations for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma 20 County Water Agency (SCWA) prior to final map and improvement plan approval. If the 21 hydraulic capacity of any downstream drainage facilities are exceeded per SCWA and 22 City of Petaluma criteria/standards /etc. as a result of this project, the developer is 23 responsible for upgrade improvements subject to the review and approval by the SCWA 24 and City Engineer. 25 24. Lot to lot drainage shall not be allowed without drainage /storm drain easements. 26 25. Grading conforms to adjacent developments shall be subject to the review and approval 27 of the City Engineer. 28 26. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan is required as a part of the improvement 29 plans and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 30 27. The applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the California State Water 31 Resources Control Board and provide a copy of the filed notice to the City of Petaluma 32 prior to final map approval. 33 28. The applicant shall submit a detailed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) in 34 accordance with latest state standards for review and approval by the City Engineer prior 35 to final map approval. The SWPPP shall be available on -site in the job trailer at all times 36 throughout the construction process. The SWPPP and NOI copy shall be submitted with 37 the improvement plan application package. The developer and/or contractor shall update 38 the SWPPP throughout the construction process per the latest state standards. 39 29. The applicant shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the California State Water 40 Resources Control Board and a copy to the City of Petaluma upon completion of the 41 project. 42 30. A maintenance declaration shall be provided for perpetual maintenance of the proposed 43 private storm drain line prior to final map approval. 44 45 46 Page 17 1 Easements 2 3 31. Documentation that a ten -foot wide public utility easement exists along the Hartman 4 Lane project frontage shall be provided prior to final map approval. If the easement does 5 not exist, it shall be provided. 6 32. A 1 -foot wide non - access easement is required along the Ely Road project frontage up to 7 the 10 -12 feet currently used to access proposed parcel number two subject to the review 8 and approval by the City Engineer. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Miscellaneous 33. The developer is responsible for paying assessments to the Corona / Ely Assessment Benefit District subject to the terms of the Benefit District. 34. Any existing septic systems located on the site shall be abandoned per County of Sonoma Environmental Health Department standards. Existing wells may be retained for landscaping irrigation purposes. All retained wells are required to meet City standards. 35. All new public utilities shall be underground. 36. The applicant shall submit either a digitized data fee in the amount of ten dollars per lot or provide electronic base map information for updating the City's base map system prior to final map and improvement plan approval. 37. The final map and improvement plans shall be prepared in accordance with latest City standards, codes, policies and ordinances. From Water Resources and Conservation: 38. Developer shall submit water G.P.M. requirements for domestic and fire sprinkler systems for all new lots to determine size water services and meter size for all lots. 39. Install water valves within 8 to 20 feet before flow -off at end of water main. From the Fire Marshal: 40. Pursuant to Ordinance 2084 any residence submitted after July 1, 2000, shall be sprinklered. Sprinklers shall be installed at overhangs and concealed spaces per NFPA 13, Chapter 4. 41. All contractors performing work on fire sprinkler systems, either overhead systems or underground fire service mains, shall have a C -16 contractor's License. 42. All contractors shall have a city business license and a workers compensation certificate on file with the Fire Marshal's office. 43. Contractors shall submit to the Fire Marshal's office evidence that the required fire flow of gpms is available at the proposed structure. Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 44. Activation of the fire sprinkler system shall sound an interior alarm that will notify all occupied spaces. 45. Install fire hydrants every 300 lineal feet. No structure or fire department sprinkler connection shall be in excess of 150 feet from a fire hydrant. 46. Provide "No Parking" signs for the court and paint curb red with "Fire Lane No Parking ". 47. Post address numbers on or near main entry door. Numbers to be a minimum of four inches high with contrasting background. Must be legible and visible from street. 48. Provisions for Annual Weed/Brush Abatement of the urban interface and the developed area shall be the responsibility of the developer /property owner. Develop a plan that outlines the criteria for provisions of weed abatement. Submit this plan to the Fire Marshal's office for review and approval, prior to approval of final map of the project. Include conditions for fire safe landscaping, firebreaks, in accordance with "Fire Safe Standards" developed by the State of California. 49. Proposed streets, cul -de -sac shall meet the City of Petaluma turn radius and street width for parking on both sides of street. Cul -de -sac turn radius for the City of Petaluma is R =47' with no parking. 50. This plan has been reviewed with the information supplied; subsequent plan submittal for review may be subject to additional requirements as plans are revised. SAK- Planning Commission\Reports\BakerRanchsr100901 .doc Page 19 City of Petaluma Community Development Department Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 7071778 -4301a , ATTACHMENT 3 Initial Study of Environmental Significance ■ Introduction: This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq) and the CEQA Guidelines. Additional information incorporated by reference herein includes: the project application, environmental information questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals, staff report, General Plan, EIR and Technical Appendices, and other. applicable planning documents (i.e. , Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan, specific plans, etc.) on file at the City of Petaluma Planning Division. Project Name: Baker Ranch Site Address: 619 Ely Road Posting Date: September 19, 2001 File No: ANX 01001, TSM 01001, PRZ 0002, SPC 01023 APN: 137 - 070 -009 Comments Due: October 9, 2001 Lead Agency Contact: City of Petaluma, Laura Lafler, Contract Planner Phone: 707- 778 -4301 Applicant: Waterford Associates - Baker LLC Phone: 415- 898 -6550 Property Owner: Waterford Associates — Baker LLC Project Description: The applicant, Waterford Associates Baker LLC, proposes to subdivide the property into eleven lots for residential use. The development would involve construction of ten new homes, and related appurtenances such as parking areas and sidewalks, on an approximate 5 -acre site in a single phase. The existing residence would remain in place on Lot 2 in the northwestern portion of the project site. The barn and existing chicken coops would remain. The development would include a proposed public street within the subdivision. The proposed plan calls for clustering the new homes on Lots 3 through 11, on approximately 2.39 -acres in the eastern portion of the site. Lot 1 would comprise 1.30 acres, Lot 2 would comprise 1.25 acres, and Lots 3 through 11 would comprise the remaining 2.45 acres. Two of four mature oak trees on -site would be removed based on the recommendation of the applicant's consultant arborist. Parking would include two covered spaces per house, two driveway spaces per house, and one street parking space per house. The project site is not currently within Petaluma's incorporated limits, but is within the Corona Ely Specific Plan area, and within the Urban Limit Line. The proposed project involves prezoning, annexation, application for a tentative map, and environmental review to construct the Baker Ranch Subdivision. The proposed project would prezone the property to R1 -6500 consistent with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (3.22 acres zoned as Rural and 1.78 acres zoned as Urban Standard) and then annex the property into the City of Petaluma. The City of Petaluma would serve as the lead agency for the proposed project and would also be responsible for approval of the environmental documentation of the project. Environmental Setting: The Baker family owned the property since 1915. The property was used for a chicken ranch until 1959 when they converted to sheep. The site has historically been used as a ranch and until recently the residence was occupied. The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope gradient to the south. Overall relief is approximately three feet. A residence, two barns, and chicken coops exist in the western portion of the site. Vegetation on the site includes four mature coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), ornamental vegetation, annual grasses and intensively grazed pastureland. Page 1 Name: File No. Page 2 Potentially Less than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Measures The project site is bound by Waugh School District property and recently constructed single family homes to the north and east; Hartman Lane and Ely Road to the south; and Corona and Ely Roads to the west. Other surrounding land uses are rural and residential. The site is bordered on the southeast by Hartman Lane and a residential subdivision and on the northeast by undeveloped land. Responsible /Trustee Agencies: (Discuss other permits, financing or participation required): City of Petaluma Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee, Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 1. Land Use & Planning — 7. Noise 13. Utilities Infrastructure 2. Population, Employment & Housing _ 8. Visual Quality & Aesthetics x 3. Geology & Soils 4. Air x 5. Hydrology & Water Quality x 6. Biological Resources 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials — 10. Transportation/Traffic 11. Public Services 12. Recreation Page 2 14. Mineral Resources 15. Cultural Resources 16. Agricultural Resources 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance Project Name: File No. ■ Determination Paae 3 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration will be prepared, distributed and posted for the public comment period of through , 2001. Prepared by: Laura Lafler, Contract Planner Name CITY OF PETALUMA Title r Si ature 411, *D1 Page 3 Project Name: File No. ■ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Paae 4 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question: A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A no impact answer should be explained where it is based in project- specific factors as well as general standards, i.e., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis. 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including: off -site as well as on -site cumulative, project - level indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses" may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration pursuant to Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Page 4 ct Name: File No. ■ Environmental Analysis Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Page 5 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated X 0 0 Discussion: The project site and the proposed project does not conflict with any land use plans or policies, it does not involve any open space, does not affect low- income housing, or any recreational or religious uses. The project site is within the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (May 1, 1989), a 675 acre specific plan area, within the City of Petaluma General Plan urban limit line and the adopted Sphere of Influence, long recogniQed as a future urban expansion area. The proposed density complies with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and with numerous policies that apply to the project site. Page 44 cites a goal to preserve the existing trees and the overall rural feeling of the Corona Road, while recognizing that aged or diseased trees shall be replaced to preserve and enhance the character of the route ... (page 58 Policy 32). The proposed project would retain the original farm house and out buildings and the historic oak at the corner of Corona and Ely. Page 54, cites the intersection of Ely and Corona as a minor gateway. Corona Road will not be annexed and improvements would remain a rural design standard with no curb and gutter, no streetlights, and open drainage along the roadside. Page 58, outlines guidelines for maintaining the rural character of Corona Road including replacing trees, retaining rural features such as open fences, and discouraging paved driveways. Open fencing is proposed for the northwest side of lots 1 and 2 along Corona Road and the Southwest side of lot 2 along Ely Road. Page 68, outlines policies for residential areas, including street profiles and street planting. "All subdivision applications are required to include a landscaping plan for these planting strips and adjacent landscaping easements... include specific construction, planting, and irrigation details as well as long term maintenance... ". Each subdivision should have an approved "Street Landscape Plan ", establishing design details, construction specifications and maintenance responsibilities for common landscaping. Policy 90 (page 71) requires that residential streets have 4 to 5 -foot planting strips within the right of way on both sides of the street between the curb and sidewalk. Page 73, recommends intersection "chokers" to create a sense of entry to smaller subdivisions. The proposed project includes an intersection choker at the entry to Baker Ranch Court. House Design. Page 74, outlines a General Plan policy that is repeated in the Specific Plan: 10 percent of proposed housing units should be significantly different than the remaining homes in the new subdivision. Varied building masses may require a different lot configuration. Front setbacks shall be varied. Driveways and garage locations shall be varied to increase visual interest and avoid monotonous repetition. Compliance with the adopted Corona Ely Specific Plan requires text or plans showing conformance: parking, setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, grading, and landscaping. The submitted application includes this required Page 5 Project Name: File No. ' e . Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated information. Proposed residences would conform to the specific plan and be subject to review by the Site Planning and Architectural Review Committee. Ten percent of the house designs would be different from the remaining in architectural style. a) No Impact. The proposed project would be located on a site that is bounded by rural residential uses on the western portion of the project site and existing residential communities on the eastern portions of the project site. All of the surrounding uses are distinct neighborhoods, therefore the project would not physically divide an existing community. The percent of the house designs would be different from the remaining in architectural style. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not currently within Petaluma's incorporated limits. The site is included in the City of Petaluma's Corona /Ely Specific Plan and is within the City's Planning Referral Area, The Corona/Ely Specific Plan designation for the site is rural and urban standard. The existing Sonoma County zoning classification is DA -B6. The project applicant is seeking to prezone the property to R -1 6500 and annex into the City. The Corona/Ely Specific Plan designates the site for a maximum allowed density of 0.5 units per acre in the rural zoned land and 5 units per acre in the urban standard zoned land. The proposed project would be consistent with this density designation. c) No Impact. The site would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitieation Measures/Monitorin2: 1. The Applicant shall contribute to the City's affordable housing program pursuant to the Policy 10 and Program 11 of the Housing Element of the Petaluma General Plan. The Applicant shall participate through one of the following ways: (a) payment of an in -lieu housing fee for each residential lot payable at the close of escrow for each lot or residential unit; (b) dedication of land to the City for development of affordable housing; or, (c) provision of between 10 to 15 percent of the units at below - market rents or prices (rental units shall have rents affordable to very low- and low - income households; ownership units shall be affordable to low an moderate income households). 2. For residential developments abutting an arterial street, the applicant shall prepare a' deed notice which shall run with the deed of the properties adjacent to arterial streets advising those property owners, and successors, that property adjoins an arterial street subject to high levels of vehicle traffic and associated noise, vibrations and fumes that may be considered a disruption. Prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit the deed notice in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, along with a check for the recording fees made payable to the Sonoma County Recorder 2. Population, Employment and Housing. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? F.7 X 91 Discussion: The uses in this area are residential and community (elementary school). The General Plan and the adopted Corona Ely Specific Plan designate this area for residential use. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of new homes that would result in a small increase in the population of the area. The project site is included in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and the population growth Page 6 ct Name: File No. Paae 7 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated X associated with the project is included in growth projections made for the area. Therefore, the related impacts would be less than significant. b -c) No bnpact. The proposed development would be constructed on a vacant site. The existing residence would continue to be used for housing. No existing housing or any persons would be displaced by the project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 1. For projects adjoining the Urban Limit Line, the extension of access and utilities to the site shall be limited in size to the minimum necessary to serve the proposed development to prevent growth inducement beyond the City's boundaries. Roadways and access shall be designed to serve the development and prevent extension into areas designated as urban separators or open space. Geology and Soils. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial. risks to life or property? e. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? f. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? g. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? h. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? i. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on Page 7 X X X X X X X X X X X Name: File No. or off site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? k. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? NESS i Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated X X Discussion: Kleinfelder, Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Corona -Ely Subdivision (Baker Ranch) dated April 27, 2001. The purpose of the study was to provide the applicant and design team with findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of project development on the project site. Recommendations address site preparation and grading; foundation types; subgrade preparation for concrete slab -on -grade floors; flexible asphalt- concrete pavement; and surface and subsurface drainage improvements. The report concluded that the subject property is suitable for construction provided specific recommendations for construction are incorporated into the planning and design of the proposed project. The following discusses the proposed project, identifies potential adverse impacts and includes recommendations to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. a) i) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed site is located in a region where earthquakes occur frequently. Several faults have been mapped in the region, including the Healdsburg- Rodgers Creek, the Macama, and the San Andreas, although the site is not within an active Earthquake Fault Zone. In order to minimize the risk to people or structures associated with potential rupture of nearby faults, a site - specific geotechnical study was conducted (Kleinfelder, 2001) as required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. All recommendations regarding the level of risk related to the rupture of faults, appropriate design features, and construction measures necessary to minimize potential adverse effects associated with fault rupture and secondary effects, have been incorporated as elements of the project. Implementation of these recommendations would reduce the risks from potential fault rupture to a less- than - significant level. ii) Less Than Significant Impact. A major seismic event on the San Andreas Fault or Healdsburg— Rodgers Creek Fault could cause severe groundshaking at the proposed project site. All recommendations from the site - specific geotechnical study aimed at minimizing the level of risk related to ground shaking have been incorporated as elements of the project. Implementation of these recommendations would reduce the impacts to a less -than- significant level. iii) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Corona /Ely Specific Plan, the project site is located in an area classified as having low to moderate liquefaction potential. The site - specific geotechnical investigation included analysis of potential ground - failure, including liquefaction. The site was found to have low potential for liquefaction. All recommendations from the site specific geotechnical study regarding mitigation measures necessary to minimize the level of risk related to liquefaction would be incorporated as elements of the project. With implementation of these recommendations related impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The soil composition of the site is representative of the Petaluma Formation, with three to five feet of moist to wet, loose, fluvial soils underlain by highly weathered Petaluma Formation. The site is relatively level and the hazard of erosion would be low. Landscaping and replanting of ground cover and native grasses in areas disturbed by grading would reduce impacts associated with erosion. In addition, the city would require submittal of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. c) Less Than Significant Impact. New structures underlain by non - engineered fills may be prone to sufficient settlement to result in minor structural distress. A subsurface investigation has been performed to determine the presence and limits of Page 8 Proiect Name: File No. Pacle 9 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated fill within the proposed building areas. The site is underlain by weak, porous soils that are not strong enough to support foundation loads (Kleinfelder, 2001). In addition, surface soils on the site are considered expansive, which could cause foundation distress. Because of weak and expansive soils, Kleinfelder (2001) recommends mitigation measures for site preparation and foundation construction. Implementation of these mitigation measures would decrease impacts to less - than- significant levels. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Uniform Building Code defines the combination of soils underlying the site as expansive. The upper topsoils are porous and have a low to potentially moderate expansion potential and would tend to undergo low to possibly moderate strength and volume changes with seasonal variation in moisture content. Expansive soils are prone to shrinkage and swelling when moisture content changes and can heave and distress lightly loaded footings and slabs (Kleinfelder, 2001). Because of the limitations of the soils, special design considerations, per recommendations in the site - specific geotechnical study, would be implemented to reduce potential impacts associated with expansive soils to less- than - significant levels. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the grading and earthwork as depicted on Sheet 2 of the Tentative Map, prepared by Calenzoli and Associates (August 20, 2001). The project would entail 500 cubic yards of cut and 2300 cubic yards of fill, with approximately 1800 cubic yards to be imported. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would entail 500 cubic yards of cut and 2300 cubic yards of fill, with approximately 1800 cubic yards to be imported. In accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical study, mitigation measures would be implemented to lessen potential impacts associated with soil disruption. Compliance with the geotechnical study and the City required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would lessen impacts to less than significant levels. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is flat and relatively level; grading would consist of minor cuts and fills of less than three feet to accommodate proposed improvements. h) No Impact. According to the 2001 geotechnical investigation conducted by Kleinfelder, no unique geologic features and structures are located on the project site. i) Less Than Significant Impact. Given that the site is relatively level and that the amount of earth disturbance would be minimal, it is not likely that there would be an increase in wind or water erosion of soils. See also Sections 3.b., c., d., and f. j) No Impact. The project site is not located near an ocean or any creeks. k) Less Than Significant Impact. The recommendations in the site - specific geotechnical study would be implemented to lessen potential impacts associated with exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. See also Sections 3.a., c., d., and e. Impacts would be less - than - significant. Mitigation Measures/MonitorinE: 1) All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance ( #1046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance ( #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code). 2) The Applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineering and Planning Departments, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the drainage system The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include the following measures as applicable: Page 9 Project Name: File No. Page 10 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be minimized and the existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent possible to reduce soil erosion. All construction and grading activities, including short term needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and field office locations) shall minimize the amount of land area disturbed. Whenever possible, existing disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes. b. All drainageways, wetland areas and creek channels shall be protected from silt and sediment in storm runoff through the use of silt fences, diversion berms, and check dams. All exposed surface areas shall be mulched and reseeded and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected with hay mulch and/or erosion control blankets as appropriate. c. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures shall be on -site by September 15 and installed by October 1, 3) All construction activities shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). 4) The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations and structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the geotechnical specifications by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building permits and/or advertising for bids on public improvement projects. Additional soils information may be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of building plans in accordance with Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code. 5) Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as well as state and local laws /ordinances. Construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All work shall be subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform with all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6) Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the Applicant shall submit a detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to ensure that all applicable codes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented through construction of the project. 4. Air. Where available, the significance of criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number Page 10 0 0 X a 1� Proiect Name: File No. of people? me Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Sigcant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated Discussion: Temporary degradation of air quality may occur during construction phase of this project. However, with the application of the City's standard mitigation measures (e.g., watering graded surfaces to reduce dust, shutting down vehicles when not in use), these impacts would be short term and less than significant. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the air quality plan for the region. Emissions associated with the project are included as part of the growth projections made for the area and the air quality plan in the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. Any associated impacts are-expected to be less- than - significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project would result in short-term emission of particulates from site preparation and construction along with a small quantity of pollutants from construction equipment. To minimize the local impacts from construction activities, measures for dust suppression and combustion engine emissions control have been incorporated as part of the proposed project. Specifically, project construction would incorporate Basic Control Measures (BCMs) recommended by the BAAQMD as a list of feasible construction emissions and dust control measures that can reduce construction impacts to a less- than - significant level. Implementation of these control measures to be incorporated during construction of the proposed project would reduce related impacts to a less- than - significant level. The proposed project would not promulgate a significant increase in vehicular traffic; therefore, emissions associated with traffic related to the project would be less- than - significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the scale of the project, it is anticipated that the development would not create a substantial net increase in the cumulative level of any criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would not subject nearby residents to substantial pollution concentrations. The proposed project is residential in nature and is not expected to generate any Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). Development of the project would generate short-term construction emissions. Measures incorporated into the project to control construction emissions would reduce potential air quality impacts from construction to less -than- significant levels. There would be no significant air quality impacts during future operation of the proposed site. e) Less Than Significant Impact. There may be relatively minor objectionable odors from the operation of diesel - powered equipment during construction of the proposed new buildings. However, these odors would be short-term and intermittent, and would not result in a significant impact. Mitigation Measures/Monitorin : 1) The Applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction. a. Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities shall be properly mufflered and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. b. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of twice daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Only purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this purpose. Responsibility for watering to include weekends and holidays when work is not in progress. C. Construction sites involving earthwork shall provide for a gravel pad area consisting of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street surfaces in the vicinity of the project shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles. Page 11 Project Name: File No. Page 12 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated X d. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions. e. Post - construction revegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of certificate of occupancy. f. Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permits. 2) All residential units designed with fireplaces shall meet the requirements of Ordinance 1881 N.C.S. for clean- burning fuels. 5. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Page 12 X X X X X X X X X Project Name: File No. Page 13 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? X Discussion: The project site is located approximately 2,500 feet west of Corona Creek. The project site is outside of the 100 - year flood hazard area. The project would result in changing the absorption rates and rate or amount of surface water runoff due to site grading, and the addition of impervious surfaces with building construction and street improvements (e.g. curb, gutters and sidewalks). The project site is not subject to inundation. Required storm drainage improvements were identified in the Corona /Ely Specific Plan and have been installed as a part of the Corona /Ely Assessment district. The storm drainage improvements were designed for future build out in the specific plan area. This project is within the specific plan area, therefore, the project should not adversely impact existing downstream storm drainage facilities. Hydrology calculations would be required indicating that new on -site project specific storm drain facilities meet Sonoma County Water Agency design criteria and standards. The project site is tributary to Corona Creek, but not subject to inundation. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) dated June 2, 1997, revises the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) to show the effects of a channelization project (1992) and culverts along Corona Creek from just upstream of North McDowell Boulevard to approximately 2,200 feet upstream of Ely Road. The LOMR revises the FIRM to modify the elevations and floodplain boundary delineation of the flood having a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) along Corona Creek. As a result the Special Flood Hazard Area (area that would be inundated by the base flood) has been removed from just upstream of north McDowell Boulevard to approximately 2,150 feet upstream of Ely Road. This area is now in a "Type X" zone (areas determined to be outside the 100 year Flood Plain). Drainage from the proposed project would flow into two proposed storm drains into an existing drain along Ely Road. One drain would run roughly north to south along the proposed street (Baker Ranch Court), while the other would run roughly north to south in the middle of the proposed housing development. Storm drains and grading improvements would be designed to be in compliance with criteria set forth by the Sonoma County Water Agency's Flood Control Design Criteria. Existing septic systems and existing wells would be abandoned in accordance with Sonoma County Health Department Standards. a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The applicant would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in conformance with Section 3 Geology and Soils, Mitigation Measure 2. This plan would include temporary erosion control measures to be used during construction, excavation and other grading operations to prevent discharge of sediment and other contaminants into the drainage system. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would not substantially deplete any sources of groundwater. Operation of the development would involve water use on site; however, water for the project would not be drawn from groundwater supplies and would be provided by the City of Petaluma. Existing on -site wells would be abandoned in accordance with Sonoma County Health Department Standards. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the proposed project would involve grading and an increase in impervious surfaces with buildings and streets, and would therefore alter drainage patterns on site. Proposed storm drains would accommodate the anticipated amount of runoff. As discussed below, recommended mitigation measures include a requirement that the applicant develop and implement a comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to identify storm water pollutants; and to specify and incorporate appropriate control measures in the improvement plans. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Development on the project site would involve an increase in impermeable surfaces on -site that would reduce the level of stormwater percolation to subsurface soils. Impermeable surfaces would change absorption rates and surface runoff. Drainage would flow into two proposed storm drains into an existing drain on Ely Road. The proposed project would comply with the Sonoma County Water Agency's flood control criteria. e) Page 13 Name: File No. Page 14 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated e -f) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project shall comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements for maintaining water quality in order to avoid significant impacts associated with stormwater runoff, erosion, or siltation on- or off -site. See also the response to Section 8.c. above. g -h) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 2,500 feet west of Corona Creek. According to a revised FIRM flood insurance rate map (1997) that considers changes in the newly constructed Corona Creek channel, the project site is outside of the 100 -year flood hazard area. i) No Impact. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Maps, the project site is not located in an area that would be impacted by potential dam failures upstream. Therefore, there would be no impact. j) No Impact. The project site is not located near the coast and there are no large water bodies nearby. Therefore, the incidence of tsunamis and inundation by a seiche, or seiche flooding, would not occur. Mitigation Measures/Monitorine: 1. All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment and/or pollutants entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water. The Applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the construction plans and specifications, to be verified by the Planning Department, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. a. The applicant shall designate construction staging areas and areas for storage of any hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints) used during construction on the improvement plans. All construction staging areas shall be located away from any stream and adjacent drainage areas to prevent runoff from construction areas from entering into the drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall include proper containment features to prevent contaminants from entering drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak. b. No debris, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete or washings thereof, or other construction related materials or wastes, oil or petroleum products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All discarded material including washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal site. The Applicant shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction plans or in the specifications. The Applicant shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan for review and approval by the City Engineering and Planning Departments prior to approval of a final map, improvement plan, grading or building permit. The project grading and all site drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the City of Petaluma Engineering Department's "Standard Specifications" and the Sonoma County Water Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria ". The drainage plans shall include supporting calculations of storm drain and culvert size using acceptable engineering methods. No lot -to -lot drainage shall be permitted. Surface runoff shall be addressed within each individual lot, then conveyed to an appropriate storm drain system. All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain system design shall be subject to review and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and the City Engineer. 3. The Applicant shall be subject to the payment of the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee. Drainage Impact Fees shall be calculated at the time of Final Map approval and a fair share portion shall be paid for each residential unit prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The Applicant shall develop and implement a comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to approval of improvement plans, final map or issuance of grading or building permits. At a minimum, the plan shall: (1) identify specific types and sources of storm water pollutants; (2) determine the location and nature of potential impacts; and, (3) specify and incorporate appropriate control measures into the project design and improvement plans. Construction plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Division for conformance with the Urban Runoff Control Plan prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading or Page 14 Project Name: File No. Page 15 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact X Incorporated building permits. City inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Erosion and Sediment Control Programs shall include the following as appropriate: a. Pesticides and fertilizers shall not be applied to public landscape areas, or any maintenance access -way during the rainy season (October 1 th -April 15th). b. All drainage improvement plans shall include installation of permanent signs (concrete stamps or equivalent) at each storm drain inlet. The sign at each inlet shall read "No Dumping, Flows To The Petaluma River" or equivalent, and shall be installed at the time of construction and verified prior to acceptance of public improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5. Recommendations as noted in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. dated March 28, 2001, shall be incorporated into the proposed project and shall be submitted at the time of grading permit submittal for review and approval by the City Engineer. 6. Biological Resources. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: Based on the letter written by the consulting ecologist (Renshaw, 2001), no seasonal wetlands, streams, and riparian zones are located on site. Four mature coast live oaks are situated in the middle of a pasture consisting of heavily grazed mixed annual Mediterranean grasses and ruderal vegetation. The consulting arborist (MacNair and Associates, 2001) Page 15 X X X X X X Discussion: Based on the letter written by the consulting ecologist (Renshaw, 2001), no seasonal wetlands, streams, and riparian zones are located on site. Four mature coast live oaks are situated in the middle of a pasture consisting of heavily grazed mixed annual Mediterranean grasses and ruderal vegetation. The consulting arborist (MacNair and Associates, 2001) Page 15 Project Name: File No. Page 16 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated recommends that two of the oak trees be preserved and the other two be removed. Tree protection measures would be included as recommended mitigation measures. Wildlife habitat use is limited and is primarily associated with the oak trees. Birds of prey likely use the trees as perching sites and ample prey (i.e., pocket gophers) are located in the surrounding pastureland. The abandoned shed could provide habitat for passerines (perching birds) and bats. Bats and raptors were not identified on site, however there are listed and otherwise unique species that occur in the area. Therefore, more thorough pre - construction raptor nest and bat surveys should be conducted before the removal of any buildings and trees. Because the pastureland is intensively grazed, it holds limited value as habitat to other small mammals, insects, reptiles, and amphibians. a) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the ecological resources letter by consulting ecologist, Diane L. Renshaw (February 2001 and August 2001), no candidate, sensitive, or special status species were observed on the project site although listed and otherwise unique species occur in the region. Because the pasture land has been intensively grazed, habitat value for candidate, sensitive, or special status species is extremely limited. Additionally, the on -site poultry shed and barns could provide potential habitat for special status bat species such as pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) and Townsend's western big - eared bats (Plecotus townsendii). No bats were observed during the ecologist's site visit. The August 2001, letter concludes that there is no suitable habitat for daytime roosts, hibernation roosts, or maternity roosts for pallid bats or Townsends big - eared bats. Although it is possible that the empty buildings on -site might occasionally be used as nighttime roosts. Mitigation measures include a requirement for preconstruction surveys for migrating and raptorial birds and bats. The site contains four mature coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) in the middle of the pasture and intensively grazed pastureland of mixed annual Mediterranian grassland and ruderal vegetation. A total of 69 listed or otherwise sensitive species are known to occur in Sonoma County. Of those 17 plant species have been reported within approximately 15 miles of the site. The four oak trees have the highest wildlife habitat value and are mostly likely used by birds of prey. The proposed project would remove two of the oaks based on the consulting arborist's (MacNair and Associates, 2001) recommendation due to the fact that they are not healthy and could be potentially hazardous. The August 6, 2001, letter from MacNair Associates provides tree protection guidelines for the remaining trees to be implemented during site grading and construction. Mitigation measures included in the arborist's evaluation would be implemented to avoid impacts to remaining trees. b) No Impact. The site is not located within or near any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) No Impact. The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Existing investigations indicate that the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. However, preconstruction surveys would address migrating and raptorial birds and bats. e) No Impact. The project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) No Impact. The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 1. Tree removal shall be scheduled for fall and winter months (late September — December) to avoid disturbing any nesting migratory or raptorial birds. Migratory birds are absent from the project site and there is no active nesting during this time period. If tree removal cannot be scheduled during this time period, then a preconstruction nest survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If active nests are located, then no activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove those active nests until the young birds are able to leave the nest and forage on their own. Page 16 Name: File No. Page 17 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated 2.* A preconstruction survey shall be conducted of any deserted, open buildings scheduled for removal. This survey shall be conducted by a qualified bat specialist, ideally one with a permit or CDFG MOU for handling bats. Preconstruction survey for bats may include a variety of sampling methods, including mist- netting, acoustic monitoring, and systematic roost survey. The biologist conducting the survey shall be experienced in operating sampling equipment, interpreting acoustic signatures, and capable of using hand -held spotlights to identify bats at night. 3. The two oak trees to be preserved on -site shall be protected in accordance with the tree protection guidelines provided by MacNair Associates (letter dated August 6, 2001). These guidelines shall be used to establish appropriate clearances and procedures for protecting the retained trees during site planning and construction. The measures include a tree protection zone, construction inspection and supervision, tree protection fencing, demolition/site clearing, site grading, site drainage, pruning. 4. All turf areas shall be graded to drain away from valley oaks and creek corridors to avoid long -term impacts of irrigation and chemical use of pesticides and herbicides. The grading and drainage plans shall maintain the root -zone areas of the large valley oaks and riparian areas in a natural state, such that turf areas, irrigation and drainage shall be avoided in these areas. The landscape and drainage plans shall be submitted for SPARC approval and reviewed for conformance with this requirement by the Planning Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 7. . Noise. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? M X M X F19 Discussion: The two main considerations relevant to generating increases in existing noise levels are short-term construction noise and long -term operational noise. Measures to minimize short-term noise impacts have been incorporated into the proposed project in accordance with measures outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report For the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and would be specified in the construction contract. These measures include: 1) Limiting construction activities, including truck traffic, to weekday hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; 2) Requiring proper muffling, maintenance, and enclosure when appropriate, of all internal combustion engines for construction equipment used on the site; Page 17 Proiect Name: File No. SO*, Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated 3) Prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; 4) Locating all stationary noise - generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from residences; 5) Selecting quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible; and 6) Designating a `disturbance coordinator' who would be responsible for responding to complaints about construction noise. a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the project would add short-term noise from operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Measures to minimize short-term noise impacts have been incorporated into the proposed project in accordance with measures outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report For the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. These measures would be specified in the construction contract. See the mitigation measures listed below. The project development would result in minimal noise increases from additional vehicular traffic on Ely Road and Hartman Lane. The project would generate 88 additional daily trips (Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, 2001). This increase in traffic and associated noise would be consistent with the projections for the site included in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and is not anticipated to increase noise beyond acceptable levels for the area. Therefore the related impacts are considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. During the construction phase, excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels could occur. However, these impacts would be short-term and intermittent. With the implementation of mitigation measures impacts would be minimized to less than significant levels. See list of mitigation measures at the end of this section. c) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Traffic Impact Study by Whitlock and Weinberger, traffic volume would increase along several roads and intersections near or within the project site. This increased traffic would likely raise noise levels but would not be substantial. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project would result in temporary increase in ambient noise due to construction activities. Mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize short-term impacts. Post - construction ambient noise levels would be not anticipated to be substantially higher, therefore any related impacts would be expected to be less than significant. e -f) No Impact. The proposed project site is not within the vicinity of any known private airstrip. No impact. Mitigation Measures/Monitorin2: 1) All construction activities shall comply with applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. 1) Construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, unless a permit is first secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for additional hours. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or City of Petaluma recognized legal holidays. There will be: no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m. nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. 2) All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained to minimize noise. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. 3) Construction maintenance, storage, and staging areas for construction equipment shall avoid proximity to residential areas to the maximum extent practicable. Stationary construction equipment, such as compressors, mixers, etc., shall be placed away from residential areas and/or provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction equipment shall be used when possible. Page 18 Project Name: File No. Page 19 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated 4) The Applicant shall designate a Project Manager with authority to implement the mitigation measures who will be responsible for responding to any complaints from the neighborhood, prior to issuance of a building/grading permit. The Project Manager's telephone number shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The Project Manager shall determine the cause of noise complaints (e.g. starting too early, faulty muffler, etc.) and shall take prompt action to correct the problem. 5) Single family residences located adjacent to an arterial street or within a .projected 65 dBA noise contour shall be constructed using appropriate construction techniques and materials to achieve compliance with the noise standard for interior living area (45 dBA maximum noise level) and the General Plan- standard for exterior yards (60 dBA). Placement of buildings to shield roadway noise from exterior yards and/or installation of a sound wall shall be required to meet General Plan Noise Standards. The Applicant shall provide an acoustical report prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer which demonstrates that the proposed building construction will meet both interior and exterior noise standards. The report shall be submitted by the Applicant for review and approval of the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Visual Quality and Aesthetics. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X X X X Discussion: The Corona/Ely Specific Plan (May 1989) cites the Corona Road Corridor as locally values for picturesque, country qualities, providing a scenic transition between "country and town' ' with "distinctive oaks and country homes ". The plan outlines a goal to preserve existing trees and the overall rural feeling of Corona Road. Page 44 cites a goal to preserve the existing trees and the overall rural feeling of the Corona Road, while recognizing that aged or diseased trees shall be replaced to preserve and enhance the character of the route ... (page 58 Policy 32). The proposed project would retain the original farm house and out buildings and the historic oak at the corner of Corona and Ely. The proposed project would retain two of the four oaks within the project site and would adhere to a series of tree protection measures to ensure the health of the remaining trees. Page 54, cites the intersection of Ely and Corona as a minor gateway. Corona Road will not be annexed and improvements would remain a rural design standard with no curb and gutter, no streetlights, and open drainage along the roadside. Page 58, outlines guidelines to maintain the rural character of Corona Road including replacing trees, retaining rural features such as open fences, and discouraging paved driveways. Open fencing is proposed for the northwest side of lots 1 and 2 along Corona Road and the Southwest side of lot 2 along Ely Road. Page 68, outlines policies for residential areas, including street profiles and street planting. "All subdivision applications are required to inctude a landscaping plan for these planting strips and adjacent landscaping easements... include specific construction, planting, and irrigation details as well as long term maintenance..." Each subdivision should have an approved "Street Landscape Plan ", establishing design details, construction specifications and maintenance responsibilities for common landscaping. Page 19 Project Name: File No. e 20 Potential Less Than I Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated Policy 90 (page 71) requires that residential streets have 4 to 4 46ot planting strips within the right of way on both sides of the street between the curb and sidewalk. Page 73, recommends intersection "chokers" to create a sense of entry to smaller subdivisions. The proposed project includes an intersection choker at the entry to Baker Ranch Court. Page 74, outlines a General Plan policy that is repeated in the Specific Plan: 10 percent of proposed housing units should be significantly different than the remaining homes in the new subdivision. Varied building masses may require a different lot configuration. Front setbacks shall be varied. Driveways and garage locations shall be varied to increase visual interest and avoid monotonous repetition. '. Compliance with the adopted Corona Ely Specific Plan requires text or plans showing conformance: parking, setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, grading, and landscaping. The proposed project also includes an illustrative landscape plan dated August 17, 2001, with proposed street trees, streetlights and other improvements along Ely Road and Hartman Lane. Proposed residences would conform to the specific plan and be subject to review by the Site Planning and Architectural Review Committee. Ten percent of the house designs would be different from the remaining in architectural style. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Corona/Ely Plan designates the project site as a "distinctive country home and farmstead ". The proposed project would retain the original farmhouse and outbuildings. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project development would be consistent with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan. The proposed subdivision would build the new residences away from Corona Road, which according to the Corona/Ely Specific Plan, is a scenic country corridor. Lot 2 would retain the existing residence and outbuildings and the historic oak at the comer of Corona and Ely. Landscaping along the western boundary of the proposed development would enhance views from Corona Road. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would change the existing visual character or quality of the site from a small sheep pasture to a residential development. Views from adjacent residents and public roads (i.e., Corona Road, Ely Road, Hartman Lane) would be affected, however the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Corona Ely Specific Plan which long recognized that this site would accommodate residential development. Landscaping would be consistent with policies in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan (Policies 56 through 64, Pages 63 -64). d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would create a new source of light and glare but would not adversely affect day or nightime views in the area. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 1) All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties. Plans submitted for SPARC review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans, which reflect the location and design of all proposed street lights, and any other exterior lighting proposed. 2) Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom areas and other light- sensitive living areas of any nearby residential lot, home or facility. Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections or in other potentially light- sensitive locations shall incorporate architectural or landscape design features to screen interior living space from the headlight glare. 3) Shade trees shall be incorporated into building and improvement plans along the public streets in conformance with the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review Guidelines to reduce glare and provide shade. Hazards & Hazardous Materials. Would the project: Page 20 Project Name: File No. a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intennixed with wildlands? e21 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated X X KI X X 1:9 Discussion: Hanover Environmental Services prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated March 28, 2001. At the time of the study, the site contained a 550 gallon above ground diesel tank (empty) several drums containing oil, solvent or empty. The report identified a small area of staining in the vicinity of a 55- gallon drum stored in the larger bam, and concludes that this "incident" has not "environmentally impacted the property ". The report recommends that all hazardous materials stored in site be relocated and disposed of in an appropriate manner. Existing septic systems and existing wells would be abandoned in accordance with Sonoma County Health Department Standards. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development would construct buildings for residential purposes. The applicant would comply with all existing Federal and State safety regulations related to the transport, use, handling, storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous substances on the site, and therefore hazards to the public would be minimized during construction. Residential use would not include the manufacturing, storage, or utilization of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development would construct nine new residential units. The manufacture or storage of hazardous material would not occur on site. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Page 21 Project Name: File No. Page 22 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact In( c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Corona Creek School is located northeast of the project site. The proposed project does not include the manufacture or storage of hazardous materials. d) No Impact. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (March 2001), the proposed site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e -f) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an adopted airport use plan nor is it within the vicinity of a public or private airport or a private airstrip. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include design features that would allow emergency access to the site. The radius of the cul de sac bulb would be 47 feet as requested by the Fire Department to accommodate new trucks. These features would conform to City of Petaluma fire protection codes. The project site is located within the City's four - minute emergency response time. h) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not adjacent to wildlands. The project site is located next to rural areas that contain grassland. Fire protection measures would be incorporated into the building design to lessen potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 1. For uses, including construction activities, involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on -site, the Applicant shall file a declaration form with Fire Marshal's office and shall obtain a hazardous materials storage permit. 2. If hazardous materials are used or stored on -site, the Applicant shall prepare a Risk Management Plan and submit for review and approval by the Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or grading or building permit for construction activities. The RMP shall include the following as appropriate: a) The Applicant shall provide for proper containment within storage areas for hazardous materials and shall maintain emergency equipment and supplies, as specified by the Fire Marshall, to address any spills or leaks from the facilities. b) The applicant shall identify any potentially hazardous substances or contamination existing on -site and shall provide for proper treatment, removal and disposal during construction. 3. If any vapors or other signs of contamination are detected during project construction, all local, state, and federal requirements for remediation and disposal of contaminated materials shall be followed. 10. Transportation /Traffic. Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Page 22 0 M X Proiect Name: File No. d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f Result in inadequate parking capacity? g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation, i.e., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Paae 23 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Inco orated X X X X Discussion: Whitlock and Weinberger prepared a traffic impact review for the Baker Ranch Subdivision, summarized in a letter report dated May 1, 2001. The study evaluated the compatibility in terms of traffic impacts of the proposed project with previous assumptions of site development analyzed in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan. The proposed project would construct a cul de sac street with access from Ely Road to serve six of the eleven lots. The new cul de sac would access Ely Road at a point approximately 290 feet northerly of Hartman Lane. The remaining five parcels would have access directly onto Hartman Lane. The proposed project would generate an average of 98 new daily vehicle trips, which includes 7 new a.m. peak hour trips and 9 new p.m. peak hour trips. The Corona /Ely Specific Plan envisioned that this traffic zone would include 110 single family homes and a 300 student elementary school. To date 82 single family homes and the Corona Elementary School have been constructed within this traffic zone. With 11 single family dwelling units, the proposed project would bring the total residential component to 93 single family dwelling units, corresponding to 85 percent of the total envisioned within this zone. The report concludes that the project is consistent with the goals and anticipated development density in the Specific Plan. a) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the findings of the traffic impact review by Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (2001), the proposed project would generate an average of 88 additional daily trips. The addition of 9 p.m., peak hour trips is expected to have a less than significant impact on the area's circulating network. b) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the traffic impact review, development of the project would not contribute to a change in level of service at any of the nearby intersections, therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns. d-e) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the traffic impact review by Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation the proposed project would not alter any roadways that would adversely affect emergency access. The project would include a new cul -de- sac street (i.e., Baker Ranch Court) with access from Ely Road that will serve six of the eleven lots. The new street would access Ely Road at a point approximately 290 feet northerly of Hartman Lane, which would be beyond the threshold of 200 feet stated in the current street guidelines. The new street would be constructed with a curb -to -curb width of 47 feet and would be in accordance with City of Petaluma Street design standards. All construction activity (including staging of supplies and equipment) would take place on the proposed project site and would not require road closures. Therefore, the project would not include design features that would increase hazards. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would provide adequate parking complying with Petaluma Zoning RI -6500. Parking would include two covered spaces per house, two driveway spaces per house and one street parking space per house. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not be in conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative Page 23 Project Name: File No, Page 24 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated transportation. The Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed plans and recommended bikeways and pedestrian access. The proposed project does not include annexation of Corona Road, therefore no bikeway improvements are proposed. The Corona/Ely Specific Plan discourages sidewalks to reinforce the desired rural image, therefore no sidewalk is proposed from Baker Ranch Court to Corona Road. The Waugh School District (letter dated August 31; 2001), would not support pedestrian entry points connecting the proposed project to Corona Creek Elementary School because it would jeopardize campus security. Mitigation Measures/Monitorinin 1) For projects involving improvements on existing streets or substantial construction traffic, and heavy equipment, the applicant shall provide a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval of the City's Traffic Engineer, prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. At least one -lane of traffic in each direction shall be maintained at all times through the construction period, unless a temporary detour plan is submitted and approved the City Traffic Engineer. Heavy construction traffic and haul trucks shall avoid school zones between school arrival and departures times. During non- working hours, open trenches and construction hazards shall be provided with signage, flashers, and barricades approved by the Street Superintendent to warn oncoming motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of potential safety hazards. 2) All road surfaces shall be restored to pre - project conditions after completion of any project - related utility installation activities. All trench pavement restoration within existing asphalt streets shall receive a slurry seal. If the trench cut is within the parking strip, then only the parking strip needs a slurry seal. Otherwise, half the street shall receive a slurry seal. 3) Any pedestrian access through and/or adjacent to the project site shall remain unobstructed during project construction or an alternate route established as approved by the Police Chief and City Engineer. 4) Frontage improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City's Street Standards to provide for safe access to and from the site. Turning lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, curb cuts, median islands, signing and striping shall be incorporated into the design plans as required by the City Engineer. Pedestrian and bicycle access connecting the City's bikeways and pedestrian circulation through the site shall be incorporated into the development plan. Improvement or construction plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. All street frontage improvements shall be constructed to City standards and inspected by City Inspectors prior to final inspections or acceptance of improvements. 5) The Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of the City's Traffic Mitigation Fee. Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be calculated at the time of issuance of a building permit and shall be due and payable before final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy 11. Public Services. a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Page 24 M F0 X Project Name: File No. Page 25 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Parks? X Other public facilities? X Discussion: a) Less Than Significant Impact, The City of Petaluma Fire District would provide fire protection services to the proposed project site. The closest fire station to the project site is located on North McDowell Boulevard near Corona Road. According to the Corona/Ely Specific Plan, the emergency response time to the project site falls well within the City's adopted four - minute standard. The Petaluma General Plan includes policies that address impacts to fire protection services as a result of citywide employment and population growth (see General Plan, p. 120, sec. 11.7). Adherence to these policies would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Petaluma Police Department would respond to the proposed project site. Although the project site is currently located outside of the City's jurisdiction, the response time for emergency vehicles to the site is within the City's four - minute limit. The Petaluma Police Department currently serves this the City from one police station located at 969 Petaluma Boulevard North. According to the Corona/Ely Specific Plan, no additional police facilities are expected to be needed in the future. The City of Petaluma General Plan includes policies that address impacts to police protection services as a result of citywide employment and population growth (see General Plan, p. 120, sec. 11.7). Adherence to these policies would reduce the impacts to a less- than - significant level. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase of residents to the project site and could therefore create an indirect demand for additional school facilities. In order to mitigate the costs of providing school facilities, in accordance with Title 17, Chapter 17.14 of the Municipal Code, the City of Petaluma requires new development to pay Community Facilities Fees prior to building permit issuance and these fees are used to maintain school performance standards. The Petaluma General Plan includes policies that address, impacts to school services as a result of population growth (see General Plan, p. 62, sec. 7.4). Adherence to these policies would reduce the impacts to a less -than- significant level. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase of residents and could therefore create an indirect demand for additional park facilities. In order to mitigate the costs of providing park facilities, the City of Petaluma requires that new development pay Park Fees prior to building permit issuance and these fees are used for the acquisition, development, and improvement of neighborhood and community park and recreation facilities. According to the City of Petaluma (Windsor and Tolbert, 2001), park development fees for the site would be an estimated $3,974 per unit. The City of Petaluma General Plan includes policies that address impacts to park services as a result of population growth (see General Plan, p. 58, sec. 7.2). Adherence to these policies would reduce the impacts to a less - than - significant level. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The scale of the proposed project and estimated number of residents is not so large that any other public facilities (e.g., public library or general municipal facilities) would be significantly affected. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for payment of Community Facilities Development fees to offset the impacts to public facilities. Fees shall be calculated by the City at the time of building permit issuance and are due and payable by the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 2. The Applicant shall be responsible for payment of Park and Recreation Land Improvements fees. These fees provide for acquisition, development and improvement of neighborhood and community park and recreation facilities. Fees shall be calculated by the City at the time of building permit issuance and are due and payable by the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Page 25 Project Name: File No. Page 26 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated 3. The Applicant shall be responsible for payment of School Facilities fees. Fees shall be calculated by the City at the time of building permit issuance and are due and payable directly to the school district by the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Applicant shall provide a receipt or proof of payment of school facilities fees to the City Building Division prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4. Landscape plans for the right -of -way areas shall reflect use of water conserving and native plant materials (including native oaks and other species with high habitat value) and compatible irrigation system design. Landscape Plans shall be included in the submittal for SPARC review of a tentative map, development plan, or building plan and shall conform to City standards for street tree installation. All public area landscaping shall be installed prior to acceptance of the public improvements for each phase of construction or bonded for 100% of the cost of materials and installation, with implementation to occur on a lot by lot basis. A 10% maintenance bond shall be retained by the City for a minimum of one year following installation of the required landscape improvements, as maintenance security during the establishment period. 5. The Applicant shall incorporate into the project design all applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Petaluma Fire and Public Works Standard Specifications. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the Fire Marshal and Building Division prior to approval of improvement plans, final map or issuance of a building permit. Improvement plans shall include the following specifications for emergency access, hydrant location, fire flow pressure, and unit construction a) All new development shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles meeting City Standard Specifications, including minimum street widths, all weather surface, and sufficient turn around areas, as required by the Fire Chief. b) No combustible construction is permitted above the foundation unless an approved all weather hard surface road is provided to within one hundred fifty feet of the farthest point of a building or structure. c) All required fire lanes in which no parking is allowed shall be designated by painting curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall be installed. This applies to any private drive or roadway 20 feet or less in width. d) To prevent confusion for access in event of emergency, street names shall be submitted to the Planning Department and referred to the Street Name Committee for review and approval, prior to approval of a final map. e) All buildings shall have addresses clearly posted at or near the main entry door with a minimum of four (4) inch letters on contrasting background and an address locator posted at or near the driveway entrance. Reflectorized numbers are acceptable. f) Fire hydrants shall be spaced a maximum of 300 feet apart. The specific location and type of fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Marshal's Office. No house should be further than 150 feet from a fire hydrant. Fire flows shall be provided to meet a minimum of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 PSI or as approved by the Fire Marshall. All fire hydrants for the project must be tested, flushed, and in service prior to the commencement of combustible construction on the site. g) All buildings and new construction shall provide smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code and City Standard Specifications. h) All roofing material shall meet standards of City of Petaluma Ordinance 1744 and shall have a fire rating of Class "B" or better, treated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7. i) As of July 1, 200, Ordinance 2084 became effective. Any residence submitted after July 1, 2000 shall be sprinklered. Sprinklers shall be installed at overhangs and concealed spaces per NFPA 13, Chapter 4. j) Provisions for Annual Weed/Brush Abatement of the urban interface and the developed area shall be the responsibility of the developer /property owner. A plan that outlines the criteria for provisions of weed abatement shall be developed and approved by the Fire Marshal's office prior to approval of the final map. This plan shall Page 26 Proiect Name: File No. Page 27 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated include conditions for fire safe landscaping, firebreaks and shall be in accordance with "Fire Safe Standards" developed by the State of California. 6) Landscape plans submitted for SPARC review shall incorporate the use of plant materials and/or design strategies to minimize maintenance requirements and fire risk for all right -of -way landscape areas. Language encouraging use of fire resistant landscaping for private lot development shall be encouraged wherever possible. 12. Recreation. a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion on recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X X Discussion: Development of the project would result in an increase in residents to the area, which would indirectly increase demand for recreation facilities in the area. a) Less Than Significant Impact. To mitigate increased demand, the City of Petaluma would require the applicant to pay park development fees for the acquisition, development, and improvement of park and recreation facilities. The City of Petaluma has identified policies and programs to address this projected need and therefore adherence to these policies would reduce the related impacts to a less- than - significant level. (See General Plan, p. 58, sec. 7.2) (See also Section l Ld above). b) No Impact. The proposed project would not include recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures/Monitorin : None 13. Utilities Infrastructure. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has Page 27 9 X M X M t Name: File No. adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Page 28 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Inco orated X M Discussion: The proposed project would have an incremental effect upon existing utility services. The proposed project would be consistent with the land use designations and development standards discussed in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan. The proposed project would be required to pay City impact development fees as specified in the Municipal Code. New extensions of service lines would be required to provide water, sewer, electric, natural gas, and storm drain utilities. These extensions would be consistent with the expected service needs anticipated in the General Plan and the Corona/Ely Specific Plan. For these reasons, it is expected that no significant impacts to the utility infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposed project. a) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements established by the RWQCB, The project site would be served by existing sewer lines located on Ely Road and Hartman Lane, U.S. Filters operates the wastewater treatment plant, which is currently undergoing plans for expansion within the next few years. The treatment plant has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flow anticipated from the proposed development. Therefore, the impacts on water treatment requirements would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would not require construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Existing utilities would be extended to serve the project. A 10 -inch diameter sewer main runs along Ely Road with an 8 -inch line on Hartman Lane and connects to the existing wastewater treatment plant, which expects to be expanded within the next few years. The Corona/Ely Specific Plan Sanitary Sewer System Capacity Study (1985) requires a 10 -inch sewer line for this property. The City Engineer would either require the 10 -inch line or require the applicant to provide calculations that show that the proposed sewer line has sufficient capacity to serve the build out area per the specific plan. Water for the site would be provided from the City's Zone 4 water supply system. Potential increases in water usage resulting from development of the general area would be slight in relation to overall supply of the City of Petaluma's water allocations and treatment capacity. Development of the project would not result in significant impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of two storm drains flowing in a roughly north- south direction (one along the proposed new street and one running along the middle of Lots 3 through 11). These storm drains would connect to existing lines on Ely Road. According to City of Petaluma storm drain calculations for the site (City of Petaluma, 2001), runoff caused by the development, would require a $7,500 impact fee to mitigate increased runoff flows and resulting operation costs for the City's stormwater system d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include eleven homes that would connect to the existing water mains along Ely Road and Hartman Lane. Water would be provided from the City's Zone 4 water supply system. According to the Corona/Ely Specific Plan, water supply capacity would be adequate until at least the year 2010. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Petaluma would provide wastewater treatment services for the proposed project. Upgrades to the City's wastewater treatment plant and sewer collection system have increased capacity to meet future needs. Development of the project would not result in a significant impact. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Empire Waste Management would provide solid waste disposal services to the proposed project site. Solid waste from the general area is transported to the Central Disposal Site Landfill in the City of Petaluma, which has sufficient capacity to adequately handle all solid waste generation projections in the City of Petaluma until the year 2014 (personal communication, Susan Klassen, Manager, July 13, 2001). Therefore, the level of impact of the proposed project would be less than significant. Page 28 Project Name: File No. Page 29 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development project would comply with all federal, state and local requirements for solid waste reduction and recycling. Mitigation Measures/Monitorin : 1. All new development approved within the City shall connect to the City's sewer and water system. The Applicant or subsequent owneribuilder shall be responsible for the payment of Sewer -and Water Connection fees to offset impacts on City utilities. Water and sewer connections fees are calculated at time of building permit issuance, and are due and payable prior to final inspection, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or connection to the City's utility system. 2. After connection to the City's sewer system, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Sonoma County Department of Environmental Health to abandon the existing septic system and shall provide copies of the permit to the City's Building Division prior to obtaining a plumbing permit for connection to the City's system. 3. Any existing well must be properly protected from potential contamination. If an existing well is to be destroyed, the Applicant shall obtain a well - destruction permit from the Sonoma County Department of Environmental Health and the work shall be completed by a licensed well driller. 4. The Applicant's design engineer shall verify the horizontal and vertical location of all existing utilities in the area and shall design any proposed subsurface work or utility extensions to avoid disruption of services. All high risk utilities (i.e. high - pressure gas lines) shall be potholed prior to construction. 5. Water and energy conservation measures shall be incorporated into project design and construction in accordance with applicable codes and ordinances. 6. Irrigation systems for turf areas shall be designed to connect with the City's long -term wastewater irrigation program in accordance with the State Department of Health Services guidelines. 7. To minimize impacts on landfill capacity, the project should follow the following measures: recycle construction and demolition debris to the maximum extent feasible; and provide adequate space for the storage and collection of recyclable materials at the proposed development. 14. Mineral Resources. Would the project: a. Result in the loss or availability of a known mineral resource that would be or value to the region and the residents or the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery size delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: a -b) No Impact. The project site has no known significant minerals and the proposed development would have no impacts related to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None 15. Cultural Resources. Would the project: Page 29 M X Name: File No. a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Paae 30 Potential Less Than fLess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact In( orated X X X X Discussion: The proposed site is located in an area that has been historically used as ranch land. The property contains one house built in the 1920's, two barns, and a row of chicken coops. The house is in very good condition with many of its original features. The two barns and the chicken coops are in very poor condition. The proposed development would preserve the house, the hams and coops. A cultural resources evaluation conducted by Archaeological Resource Service (April 2001) included a records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, a search of appropriate historic references on the area, and a surface reconnaissance. Based on the cultural resources evaluation, there are no previously recorded cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the study area, although there are known sites within a one -mile distance. These other resources are located at a significant distance from the project area and would not be affected by the proposed project. The former property owner, Larry Bakery, stated that the house was built in the 1920s. A 1916 historic map shows no structures on the 5 acre lot, but a 1954 map shows the house, two barns and the row of chicken coops. On March 24, 2001, the entire property was walked and inspected for artifactual materials such as flaked stone, shell, midden soil or other remnants of historic or prehistoric use of the area. Buildings were viewed to assess their possibilities as historic structures. No prehistoric artifactual materials or soils were encountered. The Cultural Resources Evaluation (April 18, 2001), states that the structures on the site are 50 years or older. In accordance with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation's Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (1995), Archaeological Resource Service recorded the entire farm complex on Department of Parks and Recreation forms 523 (recorded July 24, 2001). In a letter dated September 14, 2001, Cassandra Chattan with Archaeological Resource Service outlines her findings. She determined that the ranch as a whole was not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, because the outbuildings have been significantly altered or have fallen down. The house individually appears to be eligible for the California Register in Criteria 3: "It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction." She concludes that the house retains most of the physical features that constitute Craftsman Style. Three windows have been replaced, but overall the house retains the majority of the features that illustrate this style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, window and door patterns, texture of materials and ornamentation. It is possible that subsurface historical, archaeological, or paleontological materials may be discovered on site. If historical, archaeological, or paleontological materials are encountered during construction, work in the immediate vicinity of the find would halt until the materials can be evaluated for historic significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures would be implemented to reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level consistent with CEQA Guidelines. These measures include providing setbacks and avoiding potentially sensitive areas until the extent of the impact and any subsequent procedures can be determined and implemented, preserving and recovering artifacts, recording the location of archaeological sites and resources, and preparing a report of findings. Page 30 Project Name: File No. Page 31 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Less Than Significant Impact. According to field surveys (Archaeological Resource Service, September, 2001), the existing house appears to appears to be eligible for the California Register in Criteria 3: "It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction." She concludes that the house retains most of the physical features that constitute Craftsman Style. The proposed project would retain this existing house. b) LessThan Significant Impact. According to archival research and 2001 surface field surveys (Archaeological Resource Service April, 2001), the project site contains no significant archaeological resources. Should such resources be encountered during construction of the project, all work in the vicinity of the resources would Halt until the resources could be assessed for their significance. Should significant resources be encountered, impacts would be avoided through a monitoring program to be implemented during subsurface disturbance associated with project construction and carried out by a qualified archaeologist. Implementation of these measures, should they be necessary, would reduce the level of impact to less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. It is not known if significant subsurface paleontological resources exist in the area. Should such resources be encountered during construction of the project, all work in the vicinity of the resources would halt until the resources can be assessed for their significance. Should significant resources be encountered, impacts would be avoided through a monitoring program to be implemented during subsurface disturbance associated with project construction and carried out by a qualified geologist, archaeologist, or paleontologist. Implementation of these measures, should they be necessary, would reduce the level of impact to less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known human remains on the site. If remains should be discovered during construction, all construction activity in the area would be halted and the County Coroner notified immediately. Measures consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), Public Resources Code 5097.98, and Health and Safety Code 7050.5 would be implemented. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 1. For all construction activities, potential to uncover unknown archeological resources exist. Should any artifacts, cultural remains or potential resources be encountered during construction activities, work in the area of the find shall cease and the construction contractor shall notify the Director of Planning. Archaeological features include artifacts of stone, shell, bone, or other natural materials. Associations of artifacts such as hearths, house floors and dumps. Historic artifacts potentially include all by products of human land use greater than 50 years of age. Human burials, if encountered, require the notification of the County Coroner in addition to the monitoring archaeologist. The City shall consult with a qualified cultural resource specialist to evaluate the find. If the suspected remains are determined to be potentially significant, all work in the vicinity shall be halted until mitigation measures are incorporated into the design, or removal of the resource has been accomplished in accordance with recommendations by the archaeologist. The Applicant shall comply with all mitigation recommendations of the archeologist prior to commencing work in the vicinity of the archeological finds. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with consulting cultural resource specialist. 2. The existing residence shall remain at its current location. The outside of the building shall not be altered except for maintenance and repair, without review and approval by the Petaluma Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee. Maintenance, repair and any other modifications or additions shall be in conformance with the architectural style, period, and materials of the existing residence and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 16. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, Page 31 Name: File No. to non - agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? Discussion: Pacae 32 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated X M a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Historically, the site has been used as grazing land for goats and sheep. In recent years, both the Petaluma General Plan and the Corona/Ely Specific Plan have designated this property for residential use. The site has not been used for farming or crop production. b) No Impact. The project site is not currently under a Williamson Act contract. Current County zoning for the site is Rural Residential. The project would not conflict with the zoning of the site, therefore there would be no impact. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would not affect any agricultural areas currently in crop production. However, the site has been used for non - commercial goat and sheep grazing. The grazing value of the site is not considered significant. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Yes No a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X M Discussion: The project, as conditioned with mitigation measures, would not have a significant effect on the environment, achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals, have cumulative adverse impacts, or cause substantial adverse impacts on humans. Mitigation Measures/Monitorine: IMPLEMENTATION 1. The Applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible agencies and provide proof of compliance to the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits or approval of improvement plans. Page 32 Project Name: File No. Page 33 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated 2. The Applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvement plans and specifications for the project. 3. The Applicant shall notify all employees, contractors and agents involved in the project implementation of the mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. Applicant shall also notify all assigns and transfers of the same. 4. The Applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation measure that involves on -going operations at the site or long -range improvements, such as archaeological resources. MONITORING 1. The Building Division, Planning Division, Engineering Division and Fire Department shall review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, final map, improvement plan, grading or building permit. 2. The Planning Division shall insure that any applicable permits have been obtained from all responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform with the permit requirements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved project description, permit conditions and approved development or improvement plans. CONSTRUCTION 1. The Applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading, building or construction permit. 2. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. 4. If deemed appropriate by the City, the Applicant shall arrange a pre - construction conference with the construction contractor, city staff and responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to issuance of grading and bu71drIZ, ' g m .ts.� S -C� , the project applicant, have reviewed this Initial Study and hereby agree to incorporate the mitig on mepyAies and monitoring programs identified herein into the project. 55a�` Page 33 ate aw�AL� City of Petaluma, California Community Development Department Planning Division X85$ 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Project Name: Baker Ranch File Number: ANX 01001, TSM 01001, PRZ 0002, SPC 01023 Address /Location: 619 Ely Road Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures This document has been developed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.081.6 to ensure proper and adequate monitoring or reporting in conjunction with project(s) approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures The Applicant shall contribute to the City's affordable housing program pursuant to the Policy 10 and Program 11 of the Housing Element of the Petaluma General Plan. The Applicant shall participate through one of the following ways: (a) payment of an in -lieu housing fee for each residential lot payable at the close of escrow for each lot or residential unit; (b) dedication of land to the City for development of affordable housing; or, (c) provision of between 10 to 15 percent of the units at below - market rents or prices (rental units shall have rents affordable to very low- and low- income households; ownership units shall be affordable to low an moderate income households). 2. For residential developments abutting an arterial street, the applicant shall prepare a deed notice which shall run with the deed of the properties adjacent to arterial streets advising those property owners, and successors, that property adjoins an arterial street subject to high levels of vehicle traffic and associated noise, vibrations and fumes that may be considered a disruption. Prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit the deed notice in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, along with a check for the recording fees made payable to the Sonoma County Recorder Population, Employment and Housing Mitigation Measures 1. For projects adjoining the Urban Limit Line, the extension of access and utilities to the site shall be limited in size to the minimum necessary to serve the proposed development to prevent growth inducement beyond the City's boundaries. Roadways and access shall be designed to serve the development and prevent extension into areas designated as urban separators or open space. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 1 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 1T%1 Long -Term Monitorin Baker Ranch City of Petaluma, California Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval REQ.BY DATE DEPT. OR DUE FINISHED STAFF DATE I I INITIALS Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance ( #1046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance ( #1576, Titl_- 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code). The Applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineering and Planning Departments, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the drainage system. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include the following measures as applicable: a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be minimized and the existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent possible to reduce soil erosion. All construction and grading activities, including short term needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and field office locations) shall minimize the amount of land area disturbed. Whenever possible, existing disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes. b. All drainageways, wetland areas and creek channels shall be protected from silt and sediment in storm runoff through the use of silt fences, diversion berms, and check dams. All exposed surface areas shall be mulched and reseeded and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected with hay mulch and/or erosion control blankets as appropriate. C. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures shall be on- site by September 15 and installed by October 1. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 2 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Baker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval DATE DEPT. FINISHED STAFF INITIAIS City of Petaluma, California 3. All construction activities shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). 4. The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations and structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the geotechnical specifications by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building permits and/or advertising for bids on public improvement projects. Additional soils information may be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of building plans in accordance with Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code. f 5. Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as well as state and local laws /ordinances. Construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All work shall be subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform with all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the Applicant shall submit a detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to ensure that all applicable codes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented through construction of the project. Air Mitigation Measures The Applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction. a. Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities shall be properly mufflered and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 3 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Lone -Term Monitorine Baker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval City of Petaluma, California b. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of twice daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Only purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this purpose. Responsibility for watering to include weekends and holidays when work is not in progress. Construction sites involving earthwork shall provide for a gravel pad area consisting of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street surfaces in the vicinity of the project shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles. d. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions. e. Post - construction revegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of certificate of occupancy. f. Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permits. 2. All residential units designed with fireplaces shall meet the requirements of Ordinance 1881 N.C.S. for clean - burning fuels. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measures All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment and/or pollutants entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water. The Applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the construction plans and specifications, to be verified by the Planning Department, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. a. The applicant shall designate construction staging areas and areas for storage of any hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints) used during construction on the improvement plans. All construction staging areas shall be located away from any stream and adjacent drainage areas to prevent runoff from construction areas from entering into the drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall include proper containment features to prevent contaminants from entering drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 4 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Lone -Term Monitoring Baker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval DATE FEYISIiE City of Petaluma, California No debris, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete or washings thereof, or other construction related materials or wastes, oil or petroleum products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All discarded material including washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal site. The Applicant shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction plans or in the specifications. 2. The Applicant shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan for review and approval by the City Engineering and Planning Departments prior to approval of a final map, improvement plan, grading or building permit. The project grading and all site drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the City of Petaluma Engineering Department's "Standard Specifications" and the Sonoma County Water Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria ". The drainage plans shall include supporting calculations of storm drain and culvert size using acceptable engineering methods. No lot- to -lot drainage shall be permitted. Surface runoff shall be addressed within each individual lot, then conveyed to an appropriate storm drain system. All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain system design shall be subject to review and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and the City Engineer. 3. The Applicant shall be subject to the payment of the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee. Drainage Impact Fees shall be calculated at the time of Final Map approval and a fair share portion shall be paid for each residential unit prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4, The Applicant shall develop and implement a comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to approval of improvement plans, final map or issuance of grading or building permits. At a minimum, the plan shall: (1) identify specific types and sources of storm water pollutants; (2) determine the location and nature of potential impacts; and, (3) specify and incorporate appropriate control measures into the project design and improvement plans. Construction plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Division for conformance with the Urban Runoff Control Plan prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading or building permits. City inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Erosion and Sediment Control Programs shall include the following as appropriate: a. Pesticides and fertilizers shall not be applied to public landscape areas, or any maintenance access -way during the rainy season (October lth - April 15th). b. All drainage improvement plans shall include installation of permanent signs (concrete stamps or equivalent) at each storm drain inlet. The sign at each inlet shall read "No Dumping, Flows To The Petaluma River" or equivalent, and shall be installed at the time of construction and verified prior to acceptance of public improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 5 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Baker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval oaTE FINISHES City of Petaluma, California 5. Recommendations as noted in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. dated March 28, 2001, shall be incorporated into the proposed project and shall be submitted at the time of grading permit submittal for review and approval by the City Engineer. Biological Resources Mitigation Measures Tree removal shall be scheduled for fall and winter months (late September — December) to avoid disturbing any nesting migratory or raptorial birds. Migratory birds are absent from the project site and there is no active nesting during this time period. If tree removal cannot be scheduled during this time period, then a preconstruction nest survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If active nests are located, then no activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove those active nests until the young birds are able to leave the nest and forage on their own. 2. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted of any deserted, open buildings scheduled for removal. This survey shall be conducted by a qualified bat specialist, ideally one with a permit or CDFG MOU for handling bats. Preconstruction survey for bats may include a variety of sampling methods, including mist- netting, acoustic monitoring, and systematic roost survey. The biologist conducting the survey shall be experienced in operating sampling equipment, interpreting acoustic signatures, and capable of using hand -held spotlights to identify bats at night. 3. The two oak trees to be preserved on -site shall be protected in accordance with the tree protection guidelines provided by MacNair Associates (letter dated August 6, 2001). These guidelines shall be used to establish appropriate clearances and procedures for protecting the retained trees during site planning and construction. The measures include a tree protection zone, construction inspection and supervision, tree protection fencing, demolition/site clearing, site grading, site drainage, pruning. 4. All turf areas shall be graded to drain away from valley oaks and creek corridors to avoid long -term impacts of irrigation and chemical use of pesticides and herbicides. The grading and drainage plans shall maintain the root -zone areas of the large valley oaks and riparian areas in a natural state, such that turf areas, irrigation and drainage shall be avoided in these areas. The landscape and drainage plans shall be submitted for SPARC approval and reviewed for conformance with this requirement by the Planning Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Noise Mitigation Measures All construction activities shall comply with applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 6 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee I TNI Lonu -Term Monitorine Baker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval REQ. BY DATE DEPT. OR DUE FINISHED STAFF DATE INITIALS City of Petaluma, California 2. Construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, unless a permit is first secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for additional hours. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or City of Petaluma recognized legal holidays. There will be: no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m. nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained to minimize noise. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. 4. Construction maintenance, storage, and staging areas for construction equipment shall avoid proximity to residential areas to the maximum extent practicable. Stationary construction equipment, such as compressors, mixers, etc., shall be placed away from residential areas and/or provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction equipment shall be used when possible. 5. The Applicant shall designate a Project Manager with authority to implement the mitigation measures who will be responsible for responding to any complaints from the neighborhood, prior to issuance of a building/grading permit. The Project Manager's telephone number shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The Project Manager shall determine the cause of noise complaints (e.g. starting too early, faulty muffler, etc.) and shall take prompt action to correct the problem. 6. Single family residences located adjacent to an arterial street or within a projected 65 dBA noise contour shall be constructed using appropriate construction techniques and materials to achieve compliance with the noise standard for interior living area (45 dBA maximum noise level) and the General Plan standard for exterior yards (60 dBA). Placement of buildings to shield roadway noise from exterior yards and/or installation of a sound wall shall be required to meet General Plan Noise Standards. The Applicant shall provide an acoustical report prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer which demonstrates that the proposed building construction will meet both interior and exterior noise standards. The report shall be submitted by the Applicant for review and approval of the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Visual Quality and Aesthetics Mitigation Measures All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties. Plans submitted for SPARC review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans, which reflect the location and design of all proposed street lights, and any other exterior lighting proposed. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 7 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Raker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval City of Petaluma, California Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom areas and other light- sensitive living areas of any nearby residential lot, home or facility. Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections or in other potentially light - sensitive locations shall incorporate architectural or landscape design features to screen interior living space from the headlight glare. Shade trees shall be incorporated into building and improvement plans along the public streets in conformance with the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review Guidelines to reduce glare and provide shade. Hazards & Hazardous Materials. Mitigation Measures For uses, including construction activities, involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on -site, the Applicant shall file a declaration form with Fire Marshal's office and shall obtain a hazardous materials storage permit. If hazardous materials are used or stored on -site, the Applicant shall prepare a Risk Management Plan and submit for review and approval by the Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or grading or building permit for construction activities. The RMP shall include the following as appropriate: a. The Applicant shall provide for proper containment within storage areas for hazardous materials and shall maintain emergency equipment and supplies, as specified by the Fire Marshall, to address any spills or leaks from the facilities. b. The applicant shall identify any potentially hazardous substances or contamination existing on -site and shall provide for proper treatment, removal and disposal during construction. If any vapors or other signs of contamination are detected during project construction, all local, state, and federal requirements for remediation and disposal of contaminated materials shall be followed. Transportation /Traffic Mitigation Measures For projects involving improvements on existing streets or substantial construction traffic and heavy equipment, the applicant shall provide a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval of the City's Traffic Engineer, prior to issuance of a building or grading pen-nit. At least one -lane of traffic in each direction shall be maintained at all times through the construction period, unless a temporary detour plan is submitted and approved the City Traffic Engineer. Heavy construction traffic and haul trucks shall avoid school zones between school arrival and departures times. During non - working hours, open trenches and construction hazards shall be provided with signage, flashers, and barricades approved by the Street Superintendent to warn oncoming motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of potential safety hazards. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 8 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Baker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval REQ. DY OR DUE DATE City of Petaluma, California 2. All road surfaces shall be restored to pre - project conditions after completion of any project - related utility installation activities. All trench pavement restoration within existing asphalt streets shall receive a slurry seal. If the trench cut is within the parking strip, then only the parking strip needs a slurry seal. Otherwise, half the street shall receive a slurry seal. 3. Any pedestrian access through and/or adjacent to the project site shall remain unobstructed during project construction or an alternate route established as approved by the Police Chief and City Engineer. 4. Frontage improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City's Street Standards to provide for safe access to and from the site. Turning lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, curb cuts, median islands, signing and striping shall be incorporated into the design plans as required by the City Engineer. Pedestrian and bicycle access connecting the City's bikeways and pedestrian circulation through the site shall be incorporated into the development plan. Improvement or construction plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. All street frontage improvements shall be constructed to City standards and inspected by City Inspectors prior to final inspections or acceptance of improvements. 5. The Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of the City's Traffic Mitigation Fee. Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be calculated at the time of issuance of a building permit and shall be due and payable before final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Public Services Mitigation Measures The Applicant shall be responsible for payment of Community Facilities Development fees to offset the impacts to public facilities. Fees shall be calculated by the City at the time of building permit issuance and are due and payable by the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Applicant shall be responsible for payment of Park and Recreation Land Improvements fees. These fees provide for acquisition, development and improvement of neighborhood and community park and recreation facilities. Fees shall be calculated by the City at the time of building permit issuance and are due and payable by the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. The Applicant shall be responsible for payment of School Facilities fees. Fees shall be calculated by the City at the time of building permit issuance and are due and payable directly to the school district by the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Applicant shall provide a receipt or proof of payment of school facilities fees to the City Building Division prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 9 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee I TM Long -Term Monitoring Baker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval DEPT.''' STAFF INITIALS City of Petaluma, California Landscape plans for the right -of -way areas shall reflect use of water conserving and native plant materials (including native oaks and other species with high habitat value) and compatible irrigation system design. Landscape Plans shall be included in the submittal for SPARC review of a tentative map, development plan, or building plan and shall conform to City standards for street tree installation. All public area landscaping shall be installed prior to acceptance of the public improvements for each phase of construction or bonded for 100% of the cost of materials and installation, with implementation to occur on a lot by lot basis. A 10% maintenance bond shall be retained by the City for a minimum of one year following installation of the required landscape improvements, as maintenance security during the establishment period. 5. The Applicant shall incorporate into the project design all applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Petaluma Fire and Public Works Standard Specifications. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the Fire Marshal and Building Division prior to approval of improvement plans, final map or issuance of a building permit. Improvement plans shall include the following specifications for emergency access, hydrant location, fire flow pressure, and unit construction. a. All new development shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles meeting City Standard Specifications, including minimum street widths, all weather surface, and sufficient turn around areas, as required by the Fire Chief. b. No combustible construction is permitted above the foundation unless an approved all weather hard surface road is provided to within one hundred fifty feet of the farthest point of a building or structure. c. All required fire lanes in which no parking is allowed shall be designated by painting curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall be installed. This applies to any private drive or roadway 20 feet or less in width. d. To prevent confusion for access in event of emergency, street names shall be submitted to the Planning Department and referred to the Street Name Committee for review and approval, prior to approval of a final map. e. All buildings shall have addresses clearly posted at or near the main entry door with a minimum of four (4) inch letters on contrasting background and an address locator posted at or near the driveway entrance. Reflectorized numbers are acceptable. f. Fire hydrants shall be spaced a maximum of 300 feet apart. The specific location and type of fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Marshal's Office. No house should be further than 150 feet from a fire hydrant. Fire flows shall be provided to meet a minimum of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 PSI or as approved by the Fire Marshall. All fire hydrants for the project must be tested, flushed, and in service prior to the commencement of combustible construction on the site. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 10 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Lone -Term Monitoring Baker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval City of Petaluma, California g. All buildings and new construction shall provide smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code and City Standard Specifications. h. All roofing material shall meet standards of City of Petaluma Ordinance 1744 and .shall have a fire rating of Class `B" or better, treated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7. i. As of July 1, 2000, Ordinance 2084 became effective. Any residence submitted after July 1, 2000 shall be sprinklered. Sprinklers shall be installed at overhangs and concealed spaces per NFPA 13, Chapter 4. Provisions for Annual Weed/Brush Abatement of the urban interface and the developed area shall be the responsibility of the developer /property owner. A plan that outlines the criteria for provisions of weed abatement shall be developed and approved by the Fire Marshal's office prior to approval of the final map. This plan shall include conditions for fire safe landscaping, firebreaks and shall be in accordance with "Fire Safe Standards" developed by the State of California. Utilities Infrastructure Mitigation Measures 1. All new development approved within the City shall connect to the City's sewer and water system. The Applicant or subsequent owner/builder shall be responsible for the payment of Sewer and Water Connection fees to offset impacts on City utilities. Water and sewer connections fees are calculated at time of building permit issuance, and are due and payable prior to final inspection, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or connection to the City's utility system. 2. After connection to the City's sewer system, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Sonoma County Department of Environmental Health to abandon the existing septic system and shall provide copies of the permit to the City's Building Division prior to obtaining a plumbing permit for connection to the City's system. 3. Any existing well must be properly protected from potential contamination. If an existing well is to be destroyed, the Applicant shall obtain a well - destruction permit from the Sonoma County Department of Environmental Health and the work shall be completed by a licensed well driller. 4. The Applicant's design engineer shall verify the horizontal and vertical location of all existing utilities in the area and shall design any proposed subsurface work or utility extensions to avoid disruption of services. All high risk utilities (i.e. high- pressure gas lines) shall be potholed prior to construction. 5. Water and energy conservation measures shall be incorporated into project design and construction in accordance with applicable codes and ordinances. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 11 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Raker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval DATE DEPT. FINISHED STAFF INITIALS City of Petaluma, California 6. Irrigation systems for turf areas shall be designed to connect with the City's long -term wastewater irrigation program in accordance with the State Department of Health Services guidelines. To minimize impacts on landfill capacity, the project should follow the following measures: recycle construction and demolition debris to the maximum extent feasible; and provide adequate space for the storage and collection of recyclable materials at the proposed development. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures 1. For all construction activities, potential to uncover unknown archeological resources exist. Should any artifacts, cultural remains or potential resources be encountered during construction activities, work in the area of the find shall cease and the construction contractor shall notify the Director of Planning. Archaeological features include artifacts of stone, shell, bone, or other natural materials. Associations of artifacts such as hearths, house floors and dumps. Historic artifacts potentially include all by products of human land use greater than 50 years of age. Human burials, if encountered, require the notification of the County Coroner in addition to the monitoring archaeologist. The City shall consult with a qualified cultural resource specialist to evaluate the find. If the suspected remains are determined to be potentially significant, all work in the vicinity shall be halted until mitigation measures are incorporated into the design, or removal of the resource has been accomplished in accordance with recommendations by the archaeologist. The Applicant shall comply with all mitigation recommendations of the archeologist prior to commencing work in the vicinity of the archeological finds. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with consulting cultural resource specialist. 2. The existing residence shall remain at its current location. The outside of the building shall not be altered except for maintenance and repair, without review and approval by the Petaluma Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee. Maintenance, repair and any other modifications or additions shall be in conformance with the architectural style, period, and materials of the existing residence and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Mitigation Measures IMPLEMENTATION 1. The Applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible agencies and provide proof of compliance to the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits or approval of improvement plans. 2. The Applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvement plans and specifications for the project. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 12 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Lone -Term Monitoring Baker Ranch Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval S :\monitoring \bakerranch.doc\ City of Petaluma, California 3. The Applicant shall notify all employees, contractors and agents involved in the project implementation of the mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. Applicant shall also notify all assigns and transfers of the same. 4. The Applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation measure that involves on -going operations at the site or long -range improvements, such as archaeological resources. MONITORING 1. The Building Division, Planning Division, Engineering Division and Fire Department shall review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, final map, improvement plan, grading or building permit. 2. The Planning Division shall insure that any applicable permits have been obtained from all responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform with the permit requirements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved project description, permit conditions and approved development or improvement plans. CONSTRUCTION 1. The Applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading, building or construction permit. 2. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. 4. If deemed appropriate by the City, the Applicant shall arrange a pre - construction conference with the construction contractor, city staff and responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 13 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Comrnittee LTM Long -Term Monitoring ORUSB= AVZNUt -- II II I) I�I II I/ II 11 II II II II � II II II II II II II II I 1 r) II I� "re0` ATTACHMENT 4 LOCATION MAP 1851 IN PROJECT SITE 1702 1706 Fll— _ 1710 1714 498 470 468 s2 i tslj , 75,3 'p, Vt N of D 436 �O 1509 10 1037 0 428 y co V ,w IS 1 502 � 400 � N SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY Ll� Z Q 384 1111 • ASSOCIATES, LLC August 22, 2001 George White Laura Lafler City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 0 ATTACHMENT 5 Subject: Baker Ranch, 619 Ely Road, APN 137 - 070 -69 File Nos. ANX 01001, TSM 0 100 1, PRZ 0002, SPC 01023 Pre - zoning, Annexation, Tentative Map Dear Mr. White and Ms. Lafler: We are in receipt of the comments for the above referenced project. The following information and clarifications should address these remarks: 1. Please see attached letter from the project engineer, Carlenzoli & Associates. 2. Please see attached letter from the project engineer, Carlenzoli & Associates. After review of the items needed to continue processing the application, the following information should clarify and complete the application: A. Pre - zoning. The following information articulates the proposed zoning and outlines it's consistency with the goals and policies adopted in the Specific Plan. 1. Streets. Please see attached Street Landscape Pan for design details and comprehensive description. i. Minor Gateway / Rural Character. Two areas of the Specific Plan govern this area. Page 54 cites the intersection of Corona and Ely as a minor gateway. However, Page 58 outlines guidelines for maintaining rural features of Corona Road. In order to be consistent with both policies, Corona Road will not be annexed and improvements shall remain a rural design standard with no curb and gutter, no streetlights, and open drainage along the roadside. Open fencing is proposed for the northwest side of lots 1 &2 along Corona Road and the southwest side of lot 2 along Ely 945 Front Street • Novato CA 94945 -3207 • Main Office: 415/898 -6550 • Facsimile: 415/898 -8124 0 0 Boulevard. Landscaping at the corner of Ely and Corona by removal of overgrown shrubs and grasses and trimming of the specimen oak and will serve as the minor gateway treatment and preserve the rural character of this important intersection. ii. Choker. Per page 73 of the Specific Plan, an intersection "choker" and landscaping is proposed at the entrance to Baker Ranch Court to create a sense of entry and reduce traffic speeds. 2. House Design. All units will b:, in full conformance with the General and Specific Plans and will be reviewed and approved by the Site Planning and Architectural Review Committee (SPARQ -' Farrel — Faber Associates, the project architect, is preparing a conceptual streetscape that will be submitted prior to public hearings. Per General Plan Policy, ten percent of the house design will be significantly different from the remaining units in architectural style. Per policy 100, page 75, variation in building masses, setbacks, and heights shall be emphasized. Architectural features to be varied include entrance and garage locations, roof designs, siding materials, colors and architectural details. An effort will be made to incorporate historic West Side residential designs such as large front porches. The applicant encourages interested parties to visit subdivisions in neighboring communities that incorporate many of the general policies and intent of the General Plan. These subdivisions include Bantam Terrace in the city of Petaluma, Piedmont Terrace in the city of Healdsburg, and Waterstone in the city of Sonoma. Further information regarding these subdivisions can be made upon request. 3. The project complies with Petaluma Zoning R1 -6500. This zoning is in accordance with the General and Specific Plans and consists of the following: Parking: Parking will include two covered spaces per house, two driveway spaces per house, and one street parking space per house. Final street parking totals will be determined during development of final map after placement of street furniture. Setbacks: The minimum requirements are: Lots Yards Aggregate Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Front One Side Both Sides Rear 6,500 50 70 25 5 15 20 Building Heights: 25' Lot Coverage: Lot coverage will be in accordance with established city criteria for the proposed zoning. Grading: Please see attached letter and Tentative Map from the project engineer Carlenzoli & Associates. Landscaping: See attached Street Landscape Plan prepared by Abey / Arnold Associates. B. Tentative Map 1. Per the arborist report prepared by the project arborist James MacNair, dated February 18, 2001. Trees #3 & #4 are in poor to marginal condition due to extensive lower trunk decay and symptoms of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. These trees are hazardous and are to be removed. Trees #1 & #2, although showing signs of decay, will be retained. Mitigation for removal of significant trees will be accomplished by the planting of replacement trees at the ratio of 3: 1. The total number of replacement trees is estimated to be six. All arboricultural and related soil work will be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist, or qualified landscape architect. Applicant will adhere to the Tree Construction Protection Specifications as outlined in the attached letter from the project arborist dated August 6, 2001. 2. Please see attached letter from the project engineer Carlenzoli & Associates. 3. See Tentative Map. C. Environmental Impact Questionnaire 1. The project requires LAFCO approval. 2. Please see section A. Pre - zoning above. 3. Please see attached letter from the project engineer Carlenzoli & Associates. 4. The project is consistent with the Specific Plan and General Plan policies of maintaining Corona Road as scenic country corridor through the following: a low density consistent with surrounding country properties is proposed for the area fronting Corona Road, open fencing allowing scenic views of the open agricultural areas located on lots 1&2, retention of the original farmhouse and outbuildings on the corner of Corona and Ely, s retention of the historic oak tree on the corner of Corona and Ely, retention of trees 1 &2, Corona Road is to maintain the country road feeling by maintaining the current two -lane rural design (no curb and gutter, no street lights, open drainage ditches), a traditional architectural style will be implemented on lot one including an open�front porch and veranda. 5. Please see Paragraph B, Item #1. 6. Please see the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment dated March 28, 2001, prepared by Hanover Environmental Services. The existing well and septic system will be removed in accordance with all city and state regulations. Please note that it is now proposed that the existing barn and shop buildings are to remain. The debris left over from the fallen down chicken house is to be removed. ✓ 7. Please see attached letter from the project engineer Carlenzoli & Associates and note on Tentative Map. 'i- 8. Please see attached letter prepared by the project biologist. 9. Please see attached evaluation and California Department of Parks and Recreation form 523 prepared by Archeological Resources Inc., the projects architectural historian. Comments from PBAC Bikeways, Class 1: In order to maintain the rural character Corona Road as outlined in the Specific Plan, the annexation to the City of Petaluma does not include Corona Road, therefore no improvements are proposed. Pedestrian Access: Page 73 of the Specific Plan states: "Unless otherwise warranted for safety or operational purposes, sidewalks should be discouraged in residential developments with average lot sizes in excess of 10,000 square feet, to reinforce the desired rural or country estate image." Therefore, no sidewalk is proposed from Baker Ranch Court to Corona Road. Benches: In order to maintain the rural character Corona Road as outlined in the Specific Plan, the annexation to the City of Petaluma does not include Corona Road, therefore no improvements are proposed. Through Travel: 1. Planning, police, and the school district have indicated that the proposed area connecting Baker Ranch Court to the school is problematic. Please see specific agencies for comments concerning this issue. 2 2. Pedestrians have access to Hartman Lane along a new sidewalk connecting Baker Ranch Court to Hartman Lane. No street crossings are required by pedestrians seeking access to the school and Hartman Lane. Existing neighbors to the northeast have indicated that a path located in the rear yards of the houses is undesireable. Pesticide /Herbicide Use: The project will be in full compliance with all city and state laws as well as Music, Recreation and Parks Departments policy regarding pesticide and herbicide use. Please call with any questions or if more detailed information is required. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, Beni amin A. Smith Waterford Associates — Baker, LLC o • m CARLENZOLI A N D ASSOCIATES Civil Engineers — Land Surveyors — Planners August 17, 2001 Waterford Associates 945 Front Street Novato CA 94945 -3207 Attn: Ben Smith Subject: Baker Ranch Subdivision Ben: ATTACHMENT 6 - ;i Gb Cft : 21 - _ QQ 0 i Carlenzoli and Associates has reviewed the City of Petaluma's letter dated, July 24, 2001, pertaining to the Baker Ranch Subdivision Tentative Map'. As you are aware we also met with them to discuss their comments. As a result of their letter, meeting and various conversations with the Engineering and Planning staff, we have modified our Tentative Map to reflect their concerns. Enclosed are fifteen copies for you review and resubmittal. Additionally, we are providing you with an attachment responding to each one of their concerns for inclusion with you resubmittal package to the City of Petaluma. Please feel free to call, should you have any questions regarding to the revisions or anything further. Sincerely, CARLENZOLI AND ASSOCIATES #GG F.E. C . Kevin Farrell Abey - Arnold Associates — Plans only McNair & Associates — Plans only e b p: D /Letters/ 1851 I tr, d o c 325 TESCONI CIRCLE LEROY CARLENZOLI (707) 542 -6465 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 R.C.E. No. 17913 FAX (707) 542 -1645 • Baker Ranch 619 Ely Road Response to Conditions Stated in July 24, 2001 Letter Comments from Curt Bates (6/22/01) Current Title Reports are to be provided by owner. Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA is included with the resubmittal and is also referred to on the Tentative Map • Tentative Map has been revised to show that the proposed water main service is to be connected to the 12" Zone IV system. • A cross section between Graystone Creek Subdivision and Lot 7 of Baker Ranch has been added to the Tentative Map. • Private storm drain easements are shown, Nora Lane entrance is shown, • Corona Creek Elementary School site is shown, • Baker Ranch Court typical section is shown, Baker Ranch Court right -of -way is shown, • Ely Road existing typical section is shown. 2. Comments from Gary Blackledge (5/21/01) These comments are intended to be conditions of approval for the subdivision. They will be addressed and/or information provided during the Improvement Plan level. Planning Comments A -1 A Street Landscape Plan has been prepared and is now included (Refer to Abey - Arnold Associates Plan). A "choker" intersection between Ely Road and Baker Ranch Court has been designed into the project to create a sense of entry. B -1 Tree protection notes have been added to the Tentative Map. A report by MacNair and Associates specifically addressing recommended tree protection has been prepared dated August 6, 2001. This report has been referenced and will be repeated during the Final Improvement Plan stage. Trees to remain and be removed have been identified. B -2 The subject site is tributary to Corona Creek and does not appear to be subject to inundation. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) has been prepared for this area indicating that it is in a,h "Type X" Zone. (Areas determined to be outside the 500 -year Flood Plain). The FEMA LOMR also indicates that there is no base flood elevation for this area, as a result of the improvements to Corona Creek and its tributary in 1992. B -3 The Tentative Map indicated street, pad and storm drain utility grades. These grades represent the anticipated elevation of the proposed improvements with respect to the existing ground. Amount of cut and fill are shown on the Tentative Map in an Earthwork Table. e bp: D/L e tt e rs/ 1851 I tr. d o c C -3 The Tentative Map indicates that the propose drainage improvements shall be designed in accordance with the Sonoma County Water Agency's flood control criteria and shall be shown on the Improvement Plans. The Improvement Plans will also include a final site grading and erosion control plan. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, a Hydrology Report demonstrating that the design conforms to said criteria will be provided to Sonoma County Water Agency for ultimate approval. C -7 A note regarding the hours of construction has been added to the Tentative Map. This note also addresses the start-up of heavy equipment and properly muffled exhaust systems in efforts to control and address potential noise impacts to neighboring residential properties. This note may change as a result of this project going through the public review process. Additional Comments The,radius of the cul -de -sac bulb has been changed to accommodate new fire trucks. The radius is now 47 -feet as requested by the Fire Department. ebpOlLetters/1861 itr.doc Diane L. Renshaw 1 ATTACHMENT 7 Consulting Ecologist 607 Paco Drive Los Altos, CA 94024 (650) 948 -3537 voice • (650) 948 -7895 fax dlr @ecosystem.com Mr. Benjamin Smith Waterford Associates 945 Front Street Novato, CA 94945 -3207 Dear Mr. Smith: February 27, 2001 �fi Ft`f p 2 "j On Friday, February 16, 20011 visited your proposed project site at the intersection of Ely and Corona Roads in County of Sonoma near the City of Petaluma. The purpose of the visit was to evaluate existing environmental conditions at the site, and provide you with a preliminary analysis of potential environmental constraints. The proposed project site, at present owned by the Baker family, is a 5 -acre parcel situated on the southeast corner of the Ely- Corona Road intersection. This site is on the northern edge of the City of Petaluma, roughly two miles from the downtown area, and seems to be at or near the limit of current urban expansion. To the northeast and northwest across Corona Road and to the west across Ely Road is long - established rural development and pastureland. To the east and south the lands immediately adjacent to the Baker parcel have been recently built out with high - density single family residential development. The corner of the subject parcel closest to the Ely- Corona intersection is occupied by a residence, ornamental and garden plantings, a barn, and outbuildings. A former poultry house situated in the center of the site has fallen into disrepair and is no longer used for livestock. The remainder of the site is intensively grazed pastureland. The entire piece of land is flat and level, and there are no streams, riparian habitats, or wetlands at the site. A roadside drainage ditch along Corona Road appears to be in the public right -of -way. i Vegetation at the site includes the ornamental plantings around the homesite, four mature coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) in the middle of the pasture, and heavily grazed mixed annual Mediterranean grassland and ruderal vegetation in the pastures and around the outbuildings. At the time of the site visit there was a herd of roughly two dozen sheep and two dozen lambs in the pasture; grass in the pasture was grazed to a height of less than one inch. A smaller enclosed pasture adjacent to the barn and outbuildings is occupied by an estimated half -dozen goats and also is closely grazed. CORONA & ELY, PETALUMA : WATERFORD • DIANE L. RENSHAW, CONSULTING ECOLOGIST • 2 -27 -01 • PAGE 1 Except for the four oaks are no native plants at the site, and*I Asitive habitat types (e.g., seasonal wetland, riparian abitat, or serpentine grassland) were identified on or near the site. Although there are listed or otherwise unique plant and animal species known to occur in the general vicinity of this project, there is no specialized habitat at the site itself for any of these species. Existing wildlife habitat values at the site are limited, and it is used primarily as a secondary, extended foraging habitat by birds from the relatively open rural lands and grasslands to the north and east. The mature oaks on site are almost certainly used by birds of prey as hunting perches, and pocket gophers that are present in the pasture are potential prey. Because the grassland is so completely grazed, the value of it for other small mammals, insects, reptiles, and amphibians is extremely limited. The abandoned poultry shed provides some nesting opportunity for swallows and other small passerines, and is potential habitat for bats. No obvious sign of bat use (guano, piles of insect parts, etc.) was observed on the site visit, and the abandoned shed is too open, unprotected, and too close to human activity to provide the sheltered, undisturbed environment required by the more sensitive bat species (e.g.; pallid bat, Townsend's big -eared bat). The four oaks are the most significant natural feature at the site, and homes, driveways, and associated structures should be placed to avoid these trees as much as possible. Tree protection measures recommended by the project arborist should be followed to avoid damage during construction, and project landscaping should avoid any supplemental summertime irrigation near the root crowns of these trees. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any comments or questions. It has been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to doing so again. Sincerely, Diane L. Renshaw Consulting Ecologist CORONA & ELY, PETALUMA : WATERFORD • DIANE L. RENSHAW, CONSULTING ECOLOGIST • 2 -27 -01 • PAGE 2 Diane L. Renshaw Consulting Ecologist 607 Paco Drive Los Altos, CA 94024 (650) 948 -3537 voice - (650) 948 -7895 fax dlr @ecosystem.com Mr. Benjamin Smith Waterford Associates 945 Front Street Novato, CA 94945 -3207 Dear Ben: August 3, 2001 This letter should more than satisfy Sonoma County regarding the potential occurrence of sensitive species at the Corona and Ely Roads site. The list of sensitive plants and animals in the county is rather lengthy, so I pared it down to discuss just species that are reported from the project site area and /or the adjacent topographic quadrangles. I did recommend a bat preconstruction survey, but didn't go into much detail in specifying exactly what should be done, because I haven't been able to reach the bat specialist I turn to in these matters. The county will ask for more detail if they think it's needed and we will respond as needed at that time. Please call if you have questions or need anything else. Si ere1y, Diane L. Renshaw Consulting Ecologist r�. ® Diane L. Renshaw Consulting Ecologist 607 Paco Drive:", Los Altos, CA 94024 (650) 948 -3537 voice • (650) 948 -7895 fax dlr @ecosystem.com July 31, 2001 Mr. Benjamin Smith Waterford Associates 945 Front Street Novato, CA 94945 -3207 Dear Mr. Smith: Sonoma County has requested additional information regarding listed or otherwise unique plant and animal species and their potential for occurrence at your proposed project site at Ely and Corona Road in Petaluma (L. Lafler, letter of 7/24/01). The purpose of this letter is to provide that information, and to recommend mitigation measures that can be implemented to avoid potential impacts to sensitive birds or bats. California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base ( CNDDB) maintains records of reported occurrences of plant and animal species of concern throughout the state, along with information of sensitive natural community types. A copy of the CNDDB listing of special status plants, animals, and natural communities reported in Sonoma County is attached to this letter, and discussed below. Listing status of each taxon is shown on the attached list. PLANTS A total of 69 listed or otherwise sensitive plants are known to occur in Sonoma County. Of these, 17 plant species have been reported within approximately 15 miles of the site, from the topographic quadrangles adjacent to the project site (Cotati 75 USGS topographic quadrangle). These species, marked with an asterisk on the accompanying list, are listed below with a very brief description of preferred habitat. Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Arctostaphylos canescens ssp. sonomensis A. stanfordiana ssp. decumbens Ceanothus confusus C. divergens Delphinium bakeri Fritillaria lileaceae Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Penstemon newberryi var. sonomensis Plagiobothrys mollis car. vestitus Sonoma alopecurus Sonoma manzanita Rincon manzanita Rincon Ridge ceanothus Calistoga ceanothus Baker's larkspur fragrant fritillary Baker's navarretia Sonoma beardtongue Petaluma popcorn flower freshwater wetland chaparral h~ chaparral volcanic or serpentinitic soils serpentine; near The Geysers coastal scrub valley foothill grassland vernal pools, mesic sites rocky chaparral areas vernal pools, wet grassland CORONA & ELY, PETALUMA : WATERFORD • DIANE L. RENSHAW, CONSULTING ECOLOGIST • 7 -31 -01 • PAGE 1 0 Birds Most of the listed bird species are sensitive only as nesting or breeding populations. Suitable nesting habitat types include willow thickets, ponds, burrows in berms in open grassland, coastal islands and headlands, riparian woodland, tall trees or snags near water, and steep dirt banks. Saltmarsh common yellowthroat live in dense willow thickets, and California clapper rail and California black rail inhabit coastal salt marsh. There is no suitable habitat at the proposed project site. All migratory birds and their nests are protected from take by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 -711), and hawks and owls and their nests and eggs are protected from unregulated take by California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5. The oak trees and the ornamental trees planted around the existing residence on the site are potential nesting habitat for songbirds and birds of prey, and the barns and sheds are potential nesting habitat for songbirds such as swallows, sparrows, and finches. Mammals There is no suitable habitat at the site for red tree vole (fir forests), salt -marsh harvest mouse (tidal saltmarsh and adjacent Salicornia), or Suisun shrew (Salicornia in tidal wetlands). At present there are seven species or subspecies of bat that are classified as Species of Concern by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG, 2001). Of these seven, three have geographic distribution ranges that include the vicinity of the proposed project: the pallid bat (Antrozus pallidus), and two subspecies of Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Antrozus pallidus, pallid bat, occupies a wide range of habitats but is most common in dry, open areas where there are suitable rocky crevices, old mines, or caves for daytime roosting. Daytime roosts must provide protection from high temperatures. Nighttime roosts can include a greater diversity of structures, including barns, old buildings, and open porches. Foraging distances between daytime and nighttime roosts are believed to be 1 to 3 miles. Pallid bats are reported to be very sensitive to disturbance at their roost sites (information summarized from Zeiner, et al., 1990). Townsend's big -eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii, includes two subspecies: the Pacific Townsend's (western) big -eared bat (C. t. townsendii,), which occupies the humid coastal regions of northern and central California, and the pale Townsend's (western) big- eged.baL(C. t pallescens), which is found in the more interior regions throughout the state. Both subspecies occur in a variety of habitat types and have similar behavior patterns. Townsend's big -eared bat most commonly day roosts and hibernates in old mines, caves, and in old buildings with cavernous interior spaces. Night roosts may include a wider variety of places. Maternity roosts are colonial, and extremely susceptible to disturbance (information summarized from Williams, 1986, and Zeiner, et al., 1990). CORONA & ELY, PETALUMA : WATERFORD • DIANE L. RENSHAW, CONSULTING ECOLOGIST • 7 -31 -01 • PAGE 3 • e There is no suitable habitat at the proposed project site for daytime roosts, hibernation roosts, or maternity roosts for pallid bats or Townsend's big -eared bats. However, it is possible that the empty buildings on site might be used occasionally and temporarily as a nighttime roost by any of these sensitive bats. NATURAL COMMUNITIES None of the natural communities on the attached list are present at the proposed project site. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS To avoid impacts to special status bats or to nesting birds, surveys should be done immediately preceding site preparation or construction to determine if individuals are nesting or roosting in the trees or buildings that will be removed or disturbed. Birds To avoid disturbing any nesting migratory or raptorial birds, tree removal should be scheduled for fall and winter months (late September - December). Migratory birds are absent from the project site and there is no active nesting during this time period. If tree removal cannot be scheduled during this time period, then a preconstruction nest survey must be conducted by a qualified biologist. If active nests are located, then no activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove those active nests until the young birds are able to leave the nest and forage on their own. Bats A preconstruction survey should be conducted of any deserted, open buildings scheduled for removal. This survey should be done by a qualified bat specialist, ideally one with a permit or CDFG M.O.U. for handling bats. Preconstruction survey for bats may include a variety of sampling methods, including mist - netting, acoustic monitoring, and systematic roost survey. The biologist conducting the survey should be experienced in operating sampling equipment, interpreting acoustic signatures, and capable of using hand -held spotlights to identify bats at night. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. ..f . J% Sincerely yours, Diane L. Renshaw Consulting Ecologist T n, ,arF i nG�cuew rnvet!LTING ECOLOGIST • 7 -31 -01 • PAGE 4 REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHY Best, Catherine, John Thomas Howell, Walter and Irja Knight, and Mary Wells. 1990. A flora of Sonoma County. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1999. Special status plants, animals, and natural communities of Sonoma County. CDFG Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). April 5, 1.999 version. 2001. Special animals list. Unpublished ms, January 2001. Skinner, Mark, and Bruce Pavlik. 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1, 5th edition. Sacramento, CA. Williams, Daniel F. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. Wildlf. Mgmt. Div. Spec. Rept. 86 -1 (June 1986), Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer, and Marshall White. 1990. California's wildlife, Volume I: amphibians and reptiles; Volume II: birds; and Volume III: mammals. California Statewide Habitat Relationships Program, CDFG, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. CORONA & ELY, PETALUMA : WATERFORD • DIANE L. RENSHAW, CONSULTING ECOLOGIST - 7 -31 -01 • PAGE 5 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database For information about these species or natural communities, or other species or natural communities, or for staff contacts, please see the NDDB website at http:! /www.dfg.ca.govAvhdab/cnddb.htm IMPORTANT NOTICE: This list of species was produced from data presently included in the California Natural Diversity Database ( CNDDB). The CNDDB is a positive sighting data base, and our data sets can not be considered to be complete for every species in every county,- Therefore, this list must not be considered to be a comprehensive list of all special status species in the county. Special Status Plants, Animals and Natural Communities of SONOMA COUNTY Scientific Name Common Name STATUS *: tsee footnoted_ Federal California CDFG CNPS Vascular Plants PINK SAND-VERBENA Species of concern None 1B Abronia umbellata ssp brevillora BLASDALE'S BENT GRASS Species of concern None 16 Agrostis blasdatei PT REYES BENT GRASS Species of concern None Agrostis clivicola var punia- reyesensis SONOMA Endangered None 1B Abpecuius aegualis var sonomensis BAKER'S MANZANITA Species of concern Rare 1g Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp baked None Rare 1B Arctostaphyos bakes ssp sublaevis THE CEDARS MANZANITA 1 g Arctostaphylos canescens ssp sonomensis SONOMA MANZANITA None Species of concern None Endangered 1B Arctostaphylos densillora VINE HILL MANZANITA None 1B Arctostaphylos stanlordiana ssp decumbens RINCON MANZANITA None Threatened 1B Astra g alus clananus CLARA HUNT'S MILK -VETCH Endangered 16 Astragalus tener var tener ALKALI MILK -VETCH None Endangered None Endangered 1B Blennosperma baked SONOMA SUNSHINE SS THURBER'S REED GRASS Species of concern None 2 Calamagrostis a assiglumis THE CEDARS FAIRY - LANTERN Species of concern None 1g Calochortus raichei Calystegia coGina ssp oxyphylla MT. SAINT HELENA MORNING -GLORY Species of concern None 4 1B Campanula calilomica SWAMP HAREBELL Species of concern None Endangered 1B Carex alt>ida WHITE SEDGE Endangered 2 Carex comosa BRISTLY SEDGE MENDOCINO COAST INDIAN PAINTBRUSH None Species of concern None None 1B Castdleja mendocinensis PITKIN MARSH INDIAN PAINTBRUSH Species of concern Endangered 1 A Castilleja ulginosa Ceanothus con(usus RINCON RIDGE CEANOTHUS Species of concern None 1 6 1 g Ceanothus diver 9 ens CALISTOGA CEANOTHUS Species of concern None 18 . Ceanothus foliosus var vineatus VINE HILL CEANOTHUS Species of concern None 1B Ceanothus sonomensis SONOMA CEANOTHUS Species of concern None 1 g Chlorogalum pomendianum var minus DWARF SOAPROOT None None None 1B zanthe cuspidata var cuspidata SAN FRANCISCO BAY SPINEFLOWER NEFLOWER Species of concern 1 g Chonzanthe cuspidata var villosa WOOLLY - HEADED SPINEFLOWER None None Endangered 1 B Chonzanthe valida SONOMA SPINEFLOWER Endangered Endangered Endangered 1B Clarkia imbricata VINE HILL CLARKIA POINT REYES BIRD'S -BEAK Species of concern None 113 Cordylanthus maMimus ssp pakrstns Endangered Rare 1B Cordylanthus moltis ssp moles SOFT BIRD'S -BEAK Rare 1 g Cordylanthus tenuis ssp capillaris PENNELL'S BIRD'S -BEAK Endangered ` ;�.: 16 Cupressus goveniana ssp pigmaea PYGMY CYPRESS Species of concern None Proposed Endangered Rare 1B Delphinium bakeri BAKER'S LARKSPUR Proposed Endangered Rare 1B Delphinium luteum YELLOW LARKSPUR GEYSERS DICHANTHELIUM Species of concern d Endangered 1 g Dichanthelium lanuginosum var lhermale None None 1 g Dirca occidentals WESTERN LEATHERWOOD None 2 Downingia pusipa DWARF DOWNINGIA None None 1 g Erigeron angustatus NARROW-LEAVED DAISY None None 1B Erigefon serpentinus SERPENTINE DAISY None Species of concern None 1 g Erigemn supplex SUPPLE DAISY Page 1 of 3 revised Monday, April 05, 1999 0 Special Status Plants, Animals and Natural Communities of SONOMA COUNTY Scientific Name Common Name STATUS *: -fsee footnofesl Federal Califomia CDFG CNPS Vascular Plants Eriogonum nervulosum Eryngurm constancei Fnirillaria liliacea Fritillaria rodericka' Hesperolinon bicarpellatum Horkeia tenudoba Lasthenia burkei Layia septentrionais Legenere Amosa Lessingia arachnoidea Lilium maritimum Lilium pardalmum ssp ptkinense Limnanthes vinculans Linanthus jepsotii Lupinus seticatus Lupinus tidestromd Monardella villosa ssp globosa Navarretia leucocephata ssp baked Navarrelia leucocephala ssp pieantha Penstemon newbenyi var sonomensis Plagiobothrys mollis var vestitus Pleuropogon hooverianus Potygonum marinense Potentilla Nckmanii Rhynchospora caMomica Rhynchospora globulam varglobulans Sidalcea catycosa ssp rhizomala Sldalcea hfckmanfr ssp Mdis Sidalcea malachmides Sidalcea oregana ssp hydrophtla Sidalcea oregana ssp valida Strepiarrthus brachiatus ssp bractiatus StreplarKhus brachiatus ssp hoffmanu Streptanthus glanoulosus var hoffmann Streptanthus morrisordi Tracyrna rostrata Trifolium amoenum Trifolium buckwestiorum Snails and Slu4s Tryonia imitator Crustaceans Caecidotea tomalensis Linderieia occidentalis Syncaris pacifrca Beetles Hydrochara ricksecked Lichnanlihe ursina Butterflies and Moths Danaus plexus SNOW MOUNTAIN BUCKWHEAT Species of concern None 1B LOCH LOMOND BUTTON- CELERY Endangered Endangered 1B FRAGRANT FRITILLARY Species of concern None 1B RODERICK'S FRITILLARY None Endangered 1B TWO- CARPELLATE WESTERN FLAX Species of concern None 1B THIN -LOBED HORKELIA None None 16 BURKE'S GOLDFIELDS Endangered Endangered 1B COLUSA LAYIA None None 1B LEGENERE Species of concern None 1B CRYSTAL SPRINGS LESSINGIA Species of concern None 1B COAST LILY Species of concern None 1B PITKIN MARSH LILY Endangered Endangered 1B SEBASTOPOLMEADOWFOAM Endangered Endangered 1B JEPSON'S LINANTHUS None None . COBB MOUNTAIN LUPINE None None 1B TIDESTROM'S LUPINE Endangered Endangered ?B ROBUST MONARDELLA None None 113 BAKER'S NAVARRETIA None None 1B MANY- FLOWERED NAVARRETIA Endangered Endangered 1B SONOMA BEARDTONGUE None None 1B PETALUMA POPCORN - FLOWER Species of concern None 1A NORTH COAST SEMAPHORE GRASS Species of concern Rare 1B MARIN KNOTWEED Species of concern None 3 HICKMAN'SCINQUEFOIL Endangered Endangered 1B CALIFORNIA BEAKED -RUSH Species of concern None 113 ROUND- HEADED BEAKED -RUSH None None 2 POINT REYES CHECKERBLOOM None None 113 MARIN CHECKERBLOOM Species of concern None 1B MAPLE - LEAVED CHECKERBLOOM None None 1B MARSH CHECKERBLOOM None None 1B KENWOOD MARSH CHECKERBLOOM Endangered Endangered 1B SOCRATES MINE JEWEL - FLOWER Species of concern None 1B FREED'S JEWEL - FLOWER Species of concern None 113 SECUND JEWEL - FLOWER Species of concern None 1B SEE INDIVIDUAL SUBSPECIES! None None BEAKED TRACYINA None None 1B SHOWY INDIAN CLOVER Endangered None 1B SANTA CRUZ CLOVER None None 1B MIMIC TRYONIA (= CALIFORNIA BRACKISHWATER SNAIL) Species of concern None TOMALESISOPOD CALIFORNIA LINDERIELLA CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP RICKSECKER'S WATER SCAVENGER BEETLE BUMBLEBEE SCARAB BEETLE MONARCH BUTTERFLY Species of concern None i None None Endangered Endangered Species of concern None Species of concern None None None Page 2of3 revised Monday, April 05, 1999 Special Status Plants, Animals and Natural Communities of SONOMA COUNTY Scientific Name Common Name STATUS *' •tsee footnIltesL- Federai Califomia CDFG CNPS Fish TIDEWATER GOBY Endangered None SC Eucyclogobius newbenyi RUSSIAN RIVER TULE PERCH Species of concern None SC Hysterocarpus traski porno Threatened Endangered SC Oncorhynchus kisutch COHO SALMON Amphibians CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER Candidate None SC Amhibiaa ca6forniense CALIFORNIA RED - LEGGED FROG Threatened None SC Rana aurora &aytonii FOOTHILL YELLOW- LEGGED FROG Species of concern None SC Rana boyfi Reptiles NORTHWESTERN POND TURTLE Species of concern None SC Clemmys marmorata marmorata Birds Agelaius tricolor (nesting colorry) TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD species of concern None SC Ardea heodias (rookery) GREAT BLUE HERON None None SC Athene cunicu laria (burrow riles) OWL BURROWING O Species of concern None SC Cerorhinca monocerata (nesting colony) RHINOCEROS AUKLET None None SC Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (nesting) WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER Threatened None Endangered Coccyzus amedcanus occidentalis (nesting) WESTERN YELLOW - BILLED CUCKOO None SC Cypsebides rdger (nesting) BLACK SWIFT None None None Elanus leucurus (nesting) WHITE - TAILED KITE SALTMARSH COMMON YELLOWTHROAT None Species of concern None SC Geothlypis trichas sinuosa Laterallus jamaicensis columiculus BLACK RAIL CALIFORNIA BL Species of concern Threatened SC Pandlonhataetus(nesting) OSPREY None None None SC Phalacrocorax auntus (rookery sire) DOUBLE- CRESTED CORMORANT None Endangered Rallus longirosMs obsoletus CALIFORNIA CLAPPER RAIL Endangered n9 Threatened Riparia riparia (nesting) BANK SWALLOW None Threatened None SC Slrix occidernalis caurina NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL Mammals None None SC Anlrozous palidus PALLID BAT RED TREE VOLE Species of concern None SC Arbaimus porno SALT -MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Endangered Endangered Reittrodontomys raviventris SUISUN SHREW Species of concern None SC Sorex omatus sinuosus Natural Communities Coastal and valley freshwater marsh N.A. None None None Coastal brackish marsh N.A. None None None Coastal terrace praise N.A. None None Mendocino pygmy cypress forest N.A. None None Northern coastal salt marsh N.A. None None Northern hardpan vemal pool N.A. None None Northem vemalpool N.A. None None Valley needlegrass grassland N.A. 1*r. Page 3 of 3 revised Monday, April 05, 1999 ATTACHMENT 8 v4hekaeoQogicaQ �Resourcee Serl�i.ce A CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 619 ELY - ROAD, PETALUMA, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA L • ,r F:y SUBMITTED BY R Cassandra Chattan, ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE SERVICE SUBMITTED FORc Waterford Associates April 18, 2001 A.R.S. Project 01 -026 INTRODUCTION As requested and authorized by Waterford Associates, Archaeological Resource Service has conducted an archaeological evaluation of the parcel described below. The evaluation consisted of three separate aspects: 1. A check of the information on file with our office and the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University, to determine the presence or absence of previously recorded historic or prehistoric cultural resources, 2. A check of appropriate historic references to determine the potential for historic era archaeological deposits, and; 3. A surface reconnaissance of all accessible parts of the project area to locate any visible signs of potentially significant historic or prehistoric cultural deposits. PROJECT ..� — o ` h ;0 ; DESCRIPTION �,.Q ,© The applicant proposes to PIrL GRAYSTONE CREEK PH. N0.1 ' yy . +� •• "� /,• +... t ' subdivide the approximately pr°• • -• •' IN YK. OII, MAP6, P67'a• -+4 five -acre lot, APN 137 -070- "°' RI[yLJNi •"" ROAD 09, and build eleven homes. 3� '•' ` ";� ' The property contains one I i house, two barns and a row • A I t of deteriorating chicken hl. p �•„� 1 `• '� J W coops. It is proposed to leave the residence in HIS 1vw was PREPAID r� �= ' � ,•A""� !� place. The deteriorating u� Lrts asPoRYtTFE , 1CCURACY 7 TI-E DATA DELINEATED o 175-AOI� , 9 F LIM barns and coops will be NfREON, removed. ,�.•,� .aA , L[V Af _ K• -• ELY ROAD T— - -- PROJECT —' LOCATION The project area is located FIGURE 1. PROJECT AREA SHOWN ON A PORTION OF THE ASSSESSOR'S PARCEL at the east corner of Corona MAP. Road and Ely Road with a street address of 619 Ely Road. It is within an unincorporated area of Sonoma County outside of the city of Petaluma. The parcel consists of 5 acres of grazing land and structures 122 American Alley, Suite A Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 762 - 2573 ^m FAX (707) 762 -1791 • bounded by a school to the northeast, single family homes as part of a recent subdivision to the southeast, Ely Road followed by a single family home and a City of Petaluma Pump Station to the southwest, and followed by a single family house with associated farm outbuildings to the northwest across Corona Road. The project area lies in the Mexican Era Land Grant of Rancho Petaluma within unsectioned land of Township 5 North, Range 7 West extended, Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian. The Universal Transverse Mercator Grid coordinates to the approximate center of the project area, as determined by measurement from the Cotati California USGS 7.5' Quadrangle Map 1954 (photorevised 1973) are: 4236820 Meters North, 530820 Meters East, Zone 10 RESULTS OF LITERATURE CHECK Prior to undertaking a field survey, the archaeological base maps, reports and historical documents located at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historic Resources f t' I S stem and on file with A cultural resources evaluation of Property Located at 619 Ely F6, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California April , 2001 'J! °- '1! �� ^�" --W� a €€� � �x r rr .ir r t � � y }"" � ve, ��-• ,E,..,.... ?t�* FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION SWOWN ON A PORTION OF THE COTATI CALIFORNIA USGS 7.5' QUADRANGLE MAP (1954, PHOTOREVISED 1996 HORIZON TECHNOLOGIES). .is In orma on y Archaeological Resource Service pertaining to this area of Petaluma were consulted. It was determined that the property has not been previously studied for archaeological deposits or assessed for its archaeological sensitivity. While no archaeological resources have been identified within any of the parcels that border the current project area, there are known sites within a one -mile distance. Sites in the vicinity include both historic and prehistoric resources. The top of Ely Hill, located three quarters of a mile to the northwest, was plotted as an archaeological site by Tom King in the early 1970's. Information of this site was never filed with the Northwest Information Center and no further descriptions or evaluations are known. Prehistoric habitation sites in the vicinity such as Son -1803, Son -1152 and Son - 377, are located near streams or springs and are marked by a build -up of dark colored midden soil with shell and artifacts. The closest recorded prehistoric site to the current project is* recorded as Son -1803. The site is located just over a half of a mile to the northeast near the bank of a seasonal creek. The site was recorded by Susan Alvarez, Suzanne Stewart and William Stillman in 1989 during a survey of 45 acres (Stewart 1989a). Son -1803 was described as a "midden site with sparse to moderate frequency of obsidian and chert flakes. Some flaking debris found outside midden soil" ( Alverez et a/. 1989). CA- Son -1152 is located in Penngrove, two miles away from he current project. It is described as a "partially buried midden, with shell fragments and obsidian flakes showing up in gopher back dirt piles" (Stewart 1989). A spring within the site boundaries feeds into Lichau Creek. ® A cultural resources evaluation of Property Located at 619 Ely &, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California April , 2001 Ca- Son -377 is located one and a quarter miles to the south on the top of a ridge, which overlooks the Petaluma River (Willow Brook Creek) flood plain. This site was recorded as dark sandy midden with rare scattered oyster shell and common obsidian flakes. Chert nodules occasional, very rare mammal bone" (Bennyhoff et al. 1953). This site has been the subject of many field surveys and test excavations to mitigate the impacts from planned commercial and residential developments. During the test excavation obsidian flakes, projectile points and grinding stones were recovered (ACRS 1978; Hayes 1986; Origer 1990). The Graff Ranch, located several hundred feet to the southwest of the current project atr 464 Corona Road, was recorded as a historic ranch by Katherine Johnson of the City of Petaluma. The resource was assigned the numerical designation of P -49- 001832 by the NWIC, HRIS. The main residence of the ranch was constructed around 1895. Several associated outbuildings are located on the property including a cottage, chicken coops, a barn, sheds and a tank house with an attached bunkhouse. The Corona Club building was moved to the property in 1991 from 390 Corona Road. Johnson determined that the ranch had undergone enough alteration that it did not appear likely to be eligible for either the National Register of Historic Places or listed as a local landmark. However individually the Corona Club building and a tank house with attached bunkhouse may be worthy of further evaluation for their local significance (Johnson 1996). The Zueger Property, located one mile to the northeast, was evaluated for cultural resources and a historic complex was identified (Sriro 1997). The complex was recorded as "a residential and ranching complex consisting of an early twentieth century pyramid roofed residence, a horse barn, a dairy parlor" and several other associated farm buildings (Newland et al 1997:1). The study recommended that if any of the structures greater than 50 years of age were to be demolished, that "they should be evaluated for importance by a qualified architectural historian" (Sriro 1997:3). A survey encompassing 35.5 acres along Willow Brook Creek was conducted in 1981 by Brian Wickstrom. This survey was located approximately one mile to the west of the current project area. Although though the survey did not encounter any cultural material, Wickstrom assessed that since the soil in the area was composed of alluvium, it was highly possible that buried artifacts could be present in the soils (Wickstrom 1981). Because of Wickstom's observations, the channeling of Willow Brook Creek in 1997 was monitored at the request of the City of Petaluma. Monitoring was conducted by the author of a 3.88 -acre section of the creek improvements. Artifacts recovered during the monitoring process included stone flakes, flake tools and historic glass and ceramic fragments. The artifacts recovered were found in highly disturbed contexts that did not constitute a recordable site (Chattan 1997). Other surveys in the area have encountered isolated prehistoric artifacts such as chert and obsidian flakes and tools (Eisenman 1980). Additionally many surveys have been conducted within a mile of the property that did not encounter any indications of prehistoric cultural resources (Baldrics 1980; Bryne 1992; Chattan 1998a, 1998b; Chavez 1980, 1986; Collins 1979; Flaherty 1980; Hayes 1979; Keitzer 1978; Roscoe 1981; Strother 1999; White 1982). These evaluations were primarily focused on prehistoric cultural resources and consequently existing buildings were not evaluated for their historic integrity or importance. The Corona Reach project that included 360 acres along the Petaluma River, identified three historic archaeological sites, one prehistoric archaeological site and thirty -two potential historic structures (Jones and Stokes 1997a). The potential historic structures included all buildings likely to be greater than 50 years of age. The historic sites included collapsed buildings, concrete foundations and domestic debris. The prehistoric site consisted of a scatter of shell, flaked stone tools and chipping waste and historic ceramic fragments possibly associated with midden soil (Jones and Stokes 1997e). A few other surveys that have been conducted over long linear distances and pass in the vicinity of the current project, have encountered archaeological sites (French and Fredrickson 1974; Origer 1991; Flynn and Roop 1990). However, the portions of the evaluations that came within a mile of the project area yielded no indications of cultural activities. The resources encountered are located at a significant distance from the project area and will not be affected by the current project. A cultural resources evaluation of Property Located at 619 Ely &, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California April , 2001 A check of historic maps show that the property was a portion of a 100 -acre lot belonging to G.W. Frike in 1867 until sometime before 1877 when it was in the holdings of J. Long. In 1877 the current property was a portion of 120 acres, which belonged to J. Long, whose property contained one structure located to the northeast of the current project area. By 1897 the 120 acres belonged to Mary Long who is noted on maps through 1908 as being the owner. The 1916 map of the area shows no structures on the 5 -acre lot, but the 1954 map shows the house, two barns and the row of coops. The property owner, Larry Baker, stated that the house was built in the 1920's (personal communication). RESULTS OF SURFACE EXAMINATION On March 24, 2001, Cassandra Chattan of Archaeological Resource Service went to the property and performed a surface reconnaissance. The property contains one house, two barns and row of decaying chicken coops on very flat terrain. The house was built in the 1920's (Larry Baker, personal communication). The majority of the property consists of a -large open field used for sheep to graze. Grasses and clover were present however they were well spaced and very low due to grazing. Gopher activity in several areas allowed for viewing of the underlying soil. The area around the house had very high grasses and plants, making soil visibility in this area very difficult. The soil on the parcel was a light gray colored sand with occasional rocks. Most other parcels in the vicinity have the characteristic Petaluma adobe soil. The entire property was walked and inspected for artifactual materials such as flaked stone, shell, midden soil or other remnants of historic or prehistoric use of the area. Buildings were viewed to assess their possibilities as historic structures. The house is in very good condition, maintaining most of the original windows and doors and has no additions. The front door knob was made of manganese glass, and had turned a very deep amethyst color. The barns are in poor condition, the original roofs have decayed and they have been covered with corrugated sheet metal. The chicken coops are in very poor condition with most of the shingles fallen from the roof and the wallboards mostly missing. The coops appear as though they may fall over at any time. No prehistoric artifactual materials or soils were encountered, nor were any of the structures unique. The house is not intended to be demolished, but may be moved. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS No prehistoric or historic artifacts or soil changes were encountered during the surface inspection. The house is greater than fifty years of age and while some of the windows have been replaced, it is in relatively good condition. However, the house is not unique in this area. The barns and coops are in very poor condition and are likely to collapse if they are left in their current state. Archaeological monitoring is not warranted at this time. However, in the event that archaeological features, such as concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping or excavation within the property, all work should be halted in the vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist should be contacted immediately to make an evaluation. If warranted by the discovery of a concentration of artifacts or soil deposits, further work in the discovery area should be monitored by an archaeologist. If it is not possible to leave the house or to move it and it is to be destroyed, an architectural historian should evaluate it. Artifacts that are typically found associated with prehistoric sites include humanly modified stone, shell, bone or other cultural materials such as charcoal, ash and burned rock indicative of food procurement or processing activities. Prehistoric domestic features include hearths, firepits, or house floor depressions whereas typical mortuary features are represented by human skeletal remains. Historic artifacts potentially include all by- products of human land use greater than 50 years of age. If human remains are encountered, all work must stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist must be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted by the Coroner so that a "Most Likely Descendant" can be designated. 4 ' A cultural resources evaluation of Property Located at 619 Ely 6, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California April , 2001 REFERENCES CONSULTED Alvarez, Susan, Suzanne Stewart and William Stillman 1989 Site record for CA- Son -1803. On file at Northwest Information Center, Historic Resources information System (HRIS, NWIC. Barrett, S.A. 1908 The Ethno- Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 6 (2). Bennyhoff, Elasasser and Elasasser 1953 Site record for CA- Son -377. On file at HRIS, NWIC. Bryne, Stephen 1992 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Proposed California Mountain View Development, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. ARS 92 -53. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 14654. Chattan, Cassandra 1997 Results of archaeological Monitoring of the Willow Brook Channel Improvements. On file at ARS as 97 -58 and on file at HRIS, NWIC (unnumbered). 1998a A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Property Located at 85 Ely Road, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. ARS 99 -77. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 21243. 1998b A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Property Located at 267 Ely Road, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 20731. Chavez, Davjd 1980 Archaeological Resources Evaluation of the North Petaluma Assessment District Location. (letter report). On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 02227. 1986 Petaluma Center Project, Santa Rosa Junior College (85.174) (letter report). On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 07904. Collins, Gloria 1979 Report on the Archaeological Reconaissance of a 13.14 Acre Pracel known as `Creekview Commons', Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. On file at NWIC, HRIS as S- 01747. 1981 Archaeological sensitivity study for the City of Petaluma Master Environmental Impact Report. (letter report). On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 02589. Eisenman, Lynn 1980 An Archaeological Investigation of the Mc Bail Company Property, A 41.5 Acre Parcel Located on Ely Road, Petaluma, California (AP 136- 110 -01; 137 - 060 -2). On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 02309. Flaherty, 1980; A Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Bill Drew Property Proposed Lot Split MS 7126, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. On file at NWIC, HRIS as S- 01915. Fredrickson, David A. and Nancy French 1974 An Archaeological Survey of the Penngrove Wastewater Management Project Area, Sonoma County, California. On file at NWIC, HRIS as S- 00100. Flynn, Katherine and William Roop 1990 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Proposed Zone IV Water Delivery System, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California (ARS 90 -18). On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 12721. Haney, Jefferson 1990 Site record for CA- Son -1802, On file at HRIS, NWIC. Hayes, John 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the Gatti Nursery Property, AP #137- 07 -16, Petaluma, California. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S -01531 1986 Data Recovery Excavation of CA- SON -377, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 08233. 1985 Test Excavation of CA- SON -377 (letter report). On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 07445. A cultural resources evaluation of Property Located at 619 Ely *'Petaluma, Sonoma County,, California 1985 An Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Boulevard Heights Subdivision, Petaluma Boulevard North, Petaluma, California. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 07247. Johnson, Katherine 1996 Request for an evaluation of the Karen Colbianchi Ranch -464 Corona Road, Petaluma, APN 137- 061 -015, to determine its historic and /or archaeological significance. On file at NWIC, HRIS as S- 18883. 1996b primary record for The Anna and Henry Graff Ranch, on file at NWIC, HRIS as P -49- 001832. Jones and Stokes Associates Inc. 1998a Archaeological Survey Report for the Corona Reach Project, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. JSA 96 -120. On file at NWIC, HRIS as S- 20029. 1998b Site record for Corona - JSA -1. On file at NWIC, HRIS, site number to be assigned. 1998c Site record for Corona - JSA -2. On file at NWIC, HRIS, site number to be assigned. 1998d Site record for Corona - JSA -3. On file at NWIC, HRIS, site number to be assigned. 1998e Site record for Corona - JSA -4. On file at NWIC, HRIS, site number to be assigned. Keitzer, Suzanne 1978 An Archaeological Investigation of the Abertoni Property Proposed Subdivision, 901 Ely Road North, Sonoma County, California. County File 160.98. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 01347. Newland, Michael, Adam Sriro and Noelle Storey 1997 Primary record for the Zueger Ranch Complex. On file at the NWIC, HRIS. Origer, Thomas 1991 Archaeological study of AT &T revised fiber cable routes. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 13401. Roscoe, Kathleen Stanton 1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Mc Dowell Medical Park, Petaluma, CA. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 02573. Sriro, Adam 1997 A Cultural Resources Study of the Zueger Property, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. On file at NWIC, HRIS as S- 19808. Strother , Eric 1999 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Proposed Redwood Crossroads Development, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. ARS 99 -80. On file at NWIC, HRIS. Stewart, Suzanne B. 1989a An Archaeological Study of the Lands of Cittadini, 804 Corona Road, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. On file at NWIC, HRIS as S- 11343. 1989b Site record for CA- Son -1152, On file at HRIS, NWIC. Terhorst, B., V. Beard, M. Jablonowski 1990 Site record for CA- Son -1781 H, On file at HRIS, NWIC. White, Greg 1982 An Archaeological Survey of the 20 -Acre Lindsay Property, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S -3005 Wickstrom, Brian 1981 An Archaeological reconnaissance of the Willow Creek Properties, Petaluma, California. On file at HRIS, NWIC as S- 02464. Sep 18 01 10:19a I�l TERFORD 09/14/001 15:49 1 *21791 September 14, 2001 Bela Smith Waterford Associates, LLC 945 Front Street Novato CA 94945 4158988124 p.2 ARS 46 PAGE 01/01 vAhchaeovopok Tnouhee ChUtCe Re: letter dated September 11, 2001 from Laura Lafler, Contract Planner, City of Petaluma. Dean Bea, As per the forms filled out for the Baker Ranch, located at 619 Ely Road, it was determined that the ranch as a whole was not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register. However, the house individually does appear to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places due to the Criterion C; the house is an example of Craftsman style architecture, distinctive in type and period. The house does not meet the other three criteria, A, B or D, but this does not negate its eligibility. It appears eligible for the California Register under Criteria 3 in that "It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction." If the structure is listed in the National Register of Historic Places it will automatically be listed on the California Register. ' Since the outbuildings, which would be the portion of the ranch most identified with the cWcken ranching era of Petaluma, have been significantly altered or have fallen dorm., the ranch as a complex is uo longer distinctive of type and period. The house iiaadividuatly, however, does "embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for a study of period, style or method of construction" (Criterion Q. The house retains most of the physical features that constitute the Craftsman Style. Although tlu'ee windows have been replaced, the house retains the nu iwity of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, patterns of windows and doors, texture of materials and ornamentation. Original cbanges to the structure were performed not long after the original construction and were caned out with the same style and workmanship. If you have any flu-ther questions please contact me at 762 -2573. Sincerely, Cassandra Chattan Archaeological Resource Service 122 American Alley, Suite A Petaluma, CA 94952 Phone (7070 762 -2573 Fax (707) 762 -1791 ARS version of State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Supplemental: ❑ Primary #: HRI #: Trinomial: NRHP Status Code: Other Listings: AIRS 01- 026 -01 Review Code: Reviewer: Date: Resource Name or #: AIRS 01- 026 -01 P1. Other Identifier: AIRS 01- 026 -01 P2. Location: ❑ Not for Publication W Unrestricted a. County: Sonoma and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) b. USGS Quad: Cotati 7.5' Date: 1996 T R 1/4 of 1/4 of Section: un Mt, Diablo B.M. c. Address: 619 Ely Road .City: Petaluma Zip: 94954 d. UTM: Zone: 10 , 530820 mE / 4236820 mN e. Other Locational Data: Located at the eastern corner of the intersection of Corona Road and Ely Road. Land Grant: Rancho Petaluma P3. Description: The complex is representative a chicken ranches in the Petaluma area. The craftsman style house was built in 1922 for T. H. and Dora Baker. A large barn and three rows of chicken houses were constructed between 1922 and 1924. The ranch supported five to seven thousand chickens at a time. According to Larry Baker there were always chickens coming and going. Eggs were stored in the large barn until they could be brought to the Poultry Producers of Central California. In 1954 the Bakers' grandson Larry Baker, who was raised on the property, began raising sheep as well as chickens. By 1959 the family got out of the chicken business and went to raising sheep. In 1962 a row of chicken houses was removed to make room for the sheep to graze. Around 1966 Dora Baker moved into town and the sheep ranch was run by Larry Baker and his wife. Between 1959 and 1966 the chicken houses at the northwest portion of the ranch were converted into a workshop and sheep barn. The property now consists of a single story Craftsman style house, a workshop /stable and a large barn with an attached and elevated row of chicken houses that have recently fallen down. A covered BBQ area is located near the main house but is not of historic significance. Several trees are located near the house including a magnolia, palm, olive, crape myrtle, redwood, oak and several apple trees. The former owner collected prehistoric artifacts on Sonoma Mountain. One large piece of vesicular basalt with a mortar depression remains on the property. Recently the property has been encroached by subdivisions and the Baker Family has moved their sheep raising to Yorkville. P31b. Resource Attributes - Historic: HP.33 Farm / ranch P3c. Resource Attributes - Prehistoric: P4. Resources Present: 0 Building ❑ Structure ❑ Object ❑ Site ❑ District ❑ Element of District ❑ Other (isolates, etc) Description of Photo: :ront of house facing Ely Road. Date Constructed /Age: -listoric Owner and Address: Naterford Associates, 945 Front Street, Novato Recorded by: 'assandra Chattan, Archaeological Resource Service, 122 American Alley Suite A, Petaluma, CA 94952 Date Recorded: 24- Jul -01 , Type of Survey: Reconnaissance Describe Survey: Evaluation of 5 acres P11. Report Citation: Chattan, 2001, A Cultural Resources Evaluation or the vroperty Locatea at b-iv by moad, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California Attachments: ❑ None © Location Map OV Sketch Map Continuation Sheet W Building, Structure, and Object Record ❑ Archaeological Record ❑ District Record ❑ Linear Feature Record ❑ Milling Stone Record ❑ Rock Art Record ❑ Artifact Record ARS version of State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Primary #: HRI #: BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD NRHP Status Code: Resource Name or #: ARS 01- 026 -01 B1. Historic Name: Baker Ranch, main house B2. Common Name: 63. Original Use: residential B4. Present Ilse: vacant, proposed subdivision B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman house with associated barns for raising chickens and sheep. B6. Construction History: Past owner said that the house was built in 1922 by his grandparents T. H. Baker and Dora Baker. House is in very good condition, most windows and doors appear to be original or at least of the same style as the original elements. Two windows in the bathroom and one window in the . breakfast nook area have been replaced. (see continuation sheet) B7. Moved ?: no Date: 1922 Original Location: B8. Related Features: A large barn, a workshop / stable and a long row of attached chicken houses. An additional chicken house was located between the existing barn and the axisting workshop / stable, but this was taken down in 1962. B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Architecture Area: Petaluma Chicken Ranches Period of Significance: 1920's Property Type: farm complex Applicable Criteria: C Discuss importance: The house is in the best condition of all structures on the property. It has not been severely altered and maintains the original style and feel of a Craftsman style house of the 1920's. The enclosure of the sun porch at the north corner does not detract from the historic nature of the building and was completed over fifty years ago. Under Criteria A., the ranch is not associated with broad patterns of our history but is associated with the local pattern of Petaluma chicken ranches. The house itself is an excellent example of the Craftsman house style. Windows, doors and roof lines are typical of the craftsman style. Under Criteria B., the ranch is not associated with the lives of a significant individual. Under Criteria C., the ranch as a whole is characteristic of the chicken ranches of Petaluma, being distinctive in type and period. The house is an excellent example of a small Craftsman style house. Under Criteria D., the ranch is unlikely to yield further information important to history. An interview has been conducted with the former owner /operator of the ranch and the buildings have been mapped and photographed. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: HP33. Farm / ranch *B12. References: McAlester and McAlester, 1984, A Field Guide to American Houses. B13. Remarks: The general area has changed from small family farms into subdivisions over the past decade. The lot is currently being proposed for subdivision. The main house is to remain, however the outbuildings are planned to be demolished. B14. Evaluator: Cassandra Chattan Date of Evaluation: (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B (1/95) 23- Jul -01 Sketch Map: lue d 1— — workshop / stab] 1 ston Main Imo 1 House 1 ` large IBBQ 1 shed bar 1 } 1 E. J TP rJ V 7 I ARS version of Primary # State of California - The Resources Agen HRI # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CONTINUATION RECORD Resource Name or# ARS 01- 026 -01 Recorded by: Cassandra Chattan V Continuation ❑ Update Baker Ranch, main house B6. (continued)- The only significantly change is that the sun porch at the north corner was enclosed prior to the 1940's, however this was done in the same construction style as the rest of the house and does not visually- detract from the structure as a whole. The main entry on the southwest side (facing Ely Road) has a door knob made of manganese glass. The house has a side gabled roof, with separate, extended roofs on both sides over secondary entrances, and a center gabled main entry. The roof has exposed rafter tails and roof beams. The house exterior is off -white stucco with wood panels around the windows and doors that are painted light blue. Windows are double hung, some with a 50/50 split and some 33/66 split. An ornate ribbon of three windows with a long thin window across the top is located on the northwest side. The center pane is three times the size of the side two and a long thin panel of 11 small panes separated by muntins across the top. The windows and door on this enclosed area all have muntins. The windows consist of twelve square panes and the door consists of fifteen rectangular panes. The trim and muntins are painted the same light blue color as the rest of the doors and windows. Additional comments- While the complex was part of the Petaluma chicken ranches that once characterized the area, the complex as a whole has been significantly compromised. Out of the three chicken houses that once stood on the property, only one remains standing, and this structure has been significantly altered into a workshop and stable. It no longer resembles a chicken house and through the alterations, now appears to be two separate buildings, with different styles (neither of which is significant). The large barn is the only ancillary structure that does not appear to have been severely altered. However, this building looses much of its significance without the associated chicken houses for which it provided storage of feed and eggs. The Craftsman style house, being relatively unaltered, appears to be the only remaining structure that can remain significant alone, without the associated farm buildings. The house can be considered of local importance and indicative of the craftsman style prominent from 1905 through the 1920's. ARS version of Primary # State of California -The Resources Agen HRI # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AN D RECREATION Trinomial 00NM NUAT ON REMRD Resource Name or # ARS 01- 026 -01 Recorded by: Cassandra Chattan [./J Continuation ❑ Update Xg / A s Ak 43 1 i a • • • • • • • • • - • • • - • - • • • • • a • . • ARS version of State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Primary #: BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD HRI #: NRHP Status Code: Resource Name or #: ARS 01- 026 -01 B1. Historic Name: Baker Ranch, barn 132. Common Name: 133. Original Use: Storage of feed, hay and eggs. B4. Present Use: vacant, proposed subdivision B5. Architectural Style: farm outbuilding B6. Construction History: Outbuildings on the property were constructed between 1922 and 1924, after the construction of the main house. Original structure is 44 feet long across the front and back (SW to NW), and 30 feet wide (se to NW). It is a one and a half story front gabled structure with a slight overhang of the roof. The roof originally had wood shingles but these have been covered by sheets of corrugated metal. (see continuation sheet) B7. Moved ?: no Date: 1922 -1924 Original Location: B8. Related Features: Craftsman house, chicken house, and a workshop /stable building B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: 1310. Significance: Theme: Petaluma Chicken Ranches Area: Petaluma, Corona Period of Significance: 1920's Property Type: Farm outbuilding Applicable Criteria: Discuss importance: The structure is in relatively poor condition, the past owner believes is is dangerous and could fall at anytime. Under Criteria A., the ranch is not associated with broad patterns of our history but is associated with the local pattern of Petaluma chicken ranches. Under Criteria B., the ranch is not associated with the lives of a significant individual. Under Criteria C., the ranch as a whole is characteristic of the chicken ranches of Petaluma, being distictive in type and period. Under Criteria D., the ranch is unlikely to yield further information important to history. An interview has been conducted with the former owner /operater of the ranch and the buildings have been mapped and photographed. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: *B12. References: McAlester and McAlester, 1984, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf. New York. Larry Baker, personal communication 2001. Sketch Map: B13. Remarks: The general area has changed from small family farms into subdivisions over the past decade. The lot is currently being proposed for subdivision. The main house is to remain, however the outbuildings are planned to be demolished. 814. Evaluator: Cassandra Chattan Date of Evaluation: (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B (1/95) 23- Jul -01 1 �e d — workshop ! stabl 1 slon Main I House Imo 1 1 large I BBQ shed bB11, C I0 1 1 � � ARS version of Primary # State of California - The Resources Agen HRI # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CONTINUATION RECORD Resource Name or # ARS 01- 026 -01 Recorded by: Cassandra Chattan F%.*] Continuation ❑ Update Baker Ranch, barn B6. (continued)- There are two large sliding doors on rollers, one regular size hinged door in the center with a door for the hay loft near the peak of the gable and two small four pane windows on the front. The boards on the front of the structure run vertically and are flush with irregular widths around 9 112 and 10 inches. The side walls have board and batten cladding. A secondary portion to the barn connects the structure to the chicken house to the east. This secondary portion is ten feet wide and the same length (44 feet) as the barn. It has a dual pitched gabled roof and is not as tall as the large barn. There is no external entry to this portion. The chicken house abuts the back side of this structure. The roof of the chicken house is the same elevation as the center pitch of the secondary barn. The portion with the secondary pitch extends 11 feet from the end of the chicken house. The Bakers used the barn to store feed for the chickens and sheep and to store eggs before they were brought to market. ARS version of State of California -The Resources Age n DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CON71 NUATI ON RECORD Primary # HRI # Trinomial Resource Name or # ARS 01- 026 -01 Recorded by: Cassandra Chattan Continuation ❑ Update z � Northwestern end of the tern. ARS version of State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #: BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD NRHP Status Code: Resource Name or #: AIRS 01- 026 -01 B1. Historic Name: Baker Ranch, chicken house B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: poultry raising and egg production B4. Present Use: used for storage, recently toppled B5. Architectural Style: chicken ranching B6. Construction History: Outbuildings on the property were constructed between 1922 and 1924, after the construction of the main house. The structure consisted of a long row of attached chicken houses elevated on wooden piers on top of concrete blocks. It was still standing when the preliminary survey was conducted in early 2001. (see continuation sheet) B7. Moved ?: no Date: 1922 -1924 Original Location: B8. Related Features: Single story craftsman house, barn, and a workshop /stable building 69a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown B10. Significance: Theme: Petaluma Chicken Ranches Area: Petaluma , Corona Period of Significance: 1920's Property Type: Farm outbuilding Applicable Criteria: Discuss importance: The structure has already fallen and and in such condition does not appear to be eligble under any critera. Under Criteria A., the ranch is not associated with broad patterns of our history but is associated with the local pattern of Petaluma chicken ranches. Under Criteria B., the ranch is not associated with the lives of a significant individual. Under Criteria C., the ranch as a whole is characteristic of the chicken ranches of Petaluma, being distictive in type and period. Under Criteria D., the ranch is unlikely to yield further information important to history. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: *1312. References: McAlester and McAlester, 1984, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf. New York. Larry Baker, personal communication, 2001. Sketch Map: B13. Remarks: The general area has changed from small family farms into subdivisions over the past decade. The lot is currently being proposed for subdivision. The main house is to remain however the outbuildings are planned to be demolished. B14. Evaluator: Cassandra Chattan Date of Evaluation: (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B (1/95) 23- Jul -01 I Fo d workshop / staid 1 ston N Main 1 House Imort I large I I BBQ shed ham„ 1 1W 'a 1 1 1 c:_— pd C to �� J ARS version of Primary # State of California - The Resources Agen HRI # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CONTINUATION RECORD Resource Name or# ARS 01- 026 -01 Recorded by: Cassandra Chattan [.-/] Continuation ❑ Update Baker Ranch Chicken House B6. (continued)- By August of 2001, the structure had fallen down. The structure was approximately 200 feet long (E to W) and 22 feet wide IN to S). It had a gabled roof with a secondary roof on the southwestern side. The roof had originally been covered with wood shingles, however most of these had fallen off of the north side and the south side had been covered with corrugated metal sheets. The sides had horizontal boards and the southwest end had vertical board and batten within the gabled portion and vertical boards without the battens on the western extent. The few remaining boards on the north side are placed vertically. In the last several years the structure was used for storage and was filled with some debris. The western end of the chicken house abutted up to an addition on the rear of the large barn. The roof line of the chicken house is the same as the barn addition roof line. Until 1959 when the Baker Family left the chicken business, the ranch housed five to seven thousand chickens at a time. ARS version of State of California -The Resources Agen DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CON-n NUATI ON RECORD Primary # HRI # Trinomial Resource Name or # ARS 01- 026 -01 Recorded by: Cassandra Chattan Chicken house as viewed from the north. Farm complex observed from the east. Southeastern end of chicken house. C Continuation ❑ Update ARS version of State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Primary #: BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD HRI #: NRHP Status Code: Resource Name or #: ARS 01- 026 -01 B1. Historic Name: Baker Ranch, workshop /stable 62. Common Name: 63. Original Use: chicken house, then converted to workshop 134. Present Use: vacant, proposed subdivision B5. Architectural Style: farm outbuilding 136. Construction History: Outbuildings on the property were constructed between 1922 and 1924, after the construction of the main house. The structure is 24.5 feet wide (S to SW) and 85 feet long (S to NE). The building was first served as a chicken house. In 1959 the Baker Family got out of the chicken business and went to solely raising sheep. Between 1959 and 1966 the structure was converted into two separate uses. (see continuation sheet) 67. Moved ?: no Date: Original Location: 68. Related Features: Craftsman house, chicken house, barn B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: B10. Significance: Theme: farm complex Area: Period of Significance: 1920's Property Type: Applicable Criteria: Discuss importance: The structure has been significantly altered since its original construction. It is no longer representative of the poultry industry. Alterations include a concrete floor, new wiring, a new doorway, the addition of stalls and corrugated metal sheets on the roof. Under Criteria A., the ranch is not associated with broad patterns of our history but is associated with the local pattern of Petaluma chicken ranches. This building however, no longer represents the chicken industry. Under Criteria B., the ranch is not associated with the lives of a significant individual. Under Criteria C., the ranch as a whole is characteristic of the chicken ranches of Petaluma, being distinctive in type and period, however this building in particular has been altered significantly and is no longer representative of a Petaluma chicken ranch. Under Criteria D., the ranch is unlikely to yield further information important to history. An interview has been conducted with the former owner /operator of the ranch and the buildings have been mapped and photographed. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: *1312. References: McAlester and McAlester, 1984, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf. New York. Larry Baker, personal communication, 2001. B13. Remarks: The general area has changed from small family farms into subdivisions over the past decade. The lot is currently being proposed for subdivision. The main house is to remain, however the outbuildings are planned to be demolished. B14. Evaluator: Cassandra Chattan Date of Evaluation: (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B (1/95) 23- Jul -01 anelcn iviap: gro workshop stabi 1 slon Main 1 House IMori 1 �J 11 1 large BBQ shed bam C I � Y 1 � i' 'P" c i r' \� ARS version of Primary # State of California - The Resources Agen HRI # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial CONTINUATION RECORD Resource Name or# ARS 01- 026 -01 Recorded by: Cassandra Chattan F--/] Continuation ❑ Update Baker Ranch, workshop /stable B6. (continued)- The structure is one continuous building but is internally separated into two sections. The southern part has been modified into a workshop and has a concrete floor; there are three small windows on the eastern side. Vertical board and batten cladding covers the southern portion of the building. The northern portion was modified into a sheep barn with stalls and feeding bins. This section has horizontally placed boards covering the exterior. The boards do not extend to the roof in this section and a 1 foot gap is left open between the siding and the roof. Most recently this area was used for sheep and goats. The structure appears to have been built in two phases. The main structure was only 16 feet wide with a gabled roof with an extended, lesser pitched, secondary roof on the east side with a wider overhang than that on the west side. Although it is one structure, it consists of two separate styles. X � S 1 a , VII ` J � � u ms � � ,� �� __ 111 � � Al •�i t 1y '�• � � r4 � 8) IOC' ia��r..'� �".,�+ . s e e - AN ARS version of State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SKETCH MAP Resource Name or #: ARS Q1- 026 -01 Primary #: HRI #: Trinomial: Drawn by: Modified from drawing for Waterford Associates LLC. Sketch Date: 23- Jul -01 Project area, approximate location of chicken house removed in 1962 is shown in dashed lines. The rest of the existing structures are shown in soild lines. ARS version of Primary #: State of California - The Resources Agency HRI #: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial: SKETCH MAP Resource Name or #: ARS 01- 026 -01 Drawn by: Modified from drawing for Waterford Associates LLC. Sketch Date: 23- Jul -01 o--� -- ■, ■ workshop / stabl stone Main Mortir House large BBQ shed barn CD 0 c::::0 ARS version of State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION LOCATION MAP Map Name: Portion of the USGS 7.5' Cotati Quadrangle Map Primary #: HRI #: Trinomial: Resource Name or #: ARS 01- 026 -01 Scale: 1:24,000 Map Date 41f (+ ♦J ga r, ¢' },tp -. Sr 146 - t18 Yt! !� \/' �•" ♦ ' ',.` V` �., ny r ,ilk S :lt .oI fiy j )` ` .. .r r 1 � °. ♦-. •, } t ��'.r � i ., }V � �. ; � -r Ft'.7 � 7 - 4 � � ... ♦♦ r tYx� � °- x �rtiti _ �7r. �� a-a.KM'��S♦ - .,'i �� `�,`t, byl i 6 90A� j ., •'+:� y� 4.. t. t : t �, % E } .G- /� �� G>\ s ° .�G ��i{ � JJf � =y.� `'{'• � q .Y� . �'C ft'd'ty t t r/' a��f,/ ✓ W+ r 4n 4 AA 1.. toy °.•l� v� �, �� i"' a �( t Jr . t ,� i f Z (\ � ♦4�0� , f f � r t ♦� t �;=-:c_, �y'= �c^it1,.:J�" .� ti uap � t 3 � "� ,5: t .,, � } l � -�� t /)jj1 -� '� .'',cam itt,t. � �',y 4�� .� "'!ll�,� �.� `�5• .� �S �.. /y� '' e�l •� , a.I` ��OUA 4 r }i S \•.... %�i 'i i�i 3 F1 "�.` ♦`Ve -.� A�" �. �: t � �l - Q r 1 i ✓L .. s ,t . ✓ r ;= � � 04� t i • - ,t�__�._,�.. o o t ♦ . t'gh..�L'�} �i� f f f i, 3i r`Vr {. /i GG jjj/%aL:. d.j F-.✓ r( -K "•11 ♦ �qd, f ` %r�}S `i ♦� ! f (�i 1 jy,� f •! j l r la0b`: well, YNIL , _ �(.,✓ ,i f ('�� 6�4or� i f•� ° �.•N �\ C `iY ' G�% `♦-`�, ♦\ � \ t,�5' � v ..1 eft t \o,�...:p `5' � ♦ �� \i � � �. 3'd Sy � l � tto „S7 A, �'i� �M`1.i..�F^� \' / 4 aa.� ' � VU��,�y \�� ., t Q' � � ♦"''. pt�f t } S 1 hu4�(•�a t /��'� '� ♦ §¢ � �! - . �♦� +� d��f4o a�. r��{(f� O � °�st�- t r+t I �/f b s E } \ .. j!/ , j 7' ,� � .J�.;�isb ',y�, ♦+140,��, � f , , � (tj} t � } J f . ,. r r "✓ q C7 �.r1 m a n a'' �_' " " ♦t t a t'w� t t ` `'r t'$�� Sri 6'}'. , !e__ a I � � �• f ♦ • i y.r. 's F i a t ♦ /.. S �tcP Sa... "bo ! s ✓ :t ti r r, p` `♦✓ U��'�`` ' Oct Area -. ' �•.�` Crown..: ¢ �' f� i • \ ` If at� {jS ♦k� ;+ � �4/ ",..� o �� err - urr f3hl 3l � t �['.,, F , Totter -t 'l1•;'�� rC ° q Y \'''tr. �"� Ga 'n9 St, F ork sg ` X 4Q .eft. ;iE1 V �• D�. 'iJ91 °O� :r'.. \ II J.; \ ,�J -'6M 29 A I bur Sch NT Vi'�_�16A { 1116 � Ems. •.. Y • . f� i ` n / f \../p ,.'' G.. ♦. e� ; , . /J� � ,`* `�_ , / „ � _/� ;r p. .. .,�•.,� err � "p._ r\V 1 ♦, .i \ L��l Zr .swr'.vx :4 y. vj�`i�r j %%_,� fi �j� ��: too ' a`♦.. �1. , % {�,, i`' : ❑•(k� U �'_._ �(+ ' i`C (t . "ijy '; �.t'. h rf r , t ,}q f/. l � t l �C "\ � ~ ♦ t "i 17A��t � ' ° �� j r y' • ~ �°'� ` `t. �� W>vIls , IF ..4i --"♦ Q'e ; • �0? �_:,�_ .t �/� r ` �p ° I � O �\`:� ��< -+:..� /' .''Ii� � atef Tank' ♦ .I� ptL3.'�`� --� \ �l , r� Q `in�r r � i. r+, � � ♦ !n� �� ♦ o `•.'O._.�'� � %��ir��..i�.i 1'�t��; a 1f. � .rt /,�I , {� / X71 �'B� , �i-w. V• � arli �' • / ��t. ` � tt 1954 (1973) A Report Prepared for: Waterford Construction Co., Inc. 945 Front Street Novato, CA 94945 kTJ KLEIN FELDER ATTACHMENT 9 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT CORONA -ELY SUBDIVISION PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Kleinfelder Job No.: 41- 4890 -01 by /f a� Jl 1oLni D. Rice, G.E. 2470 William V. McCormick, C.E.G. 1673 nior Project Manager Senior Engineering Geologist Kleinfelder, Inc. 2240 Northpoint Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95407 (707) 571 -1883 April 27, 2001 O NN D. No m UP.of f �d'�9r�oECHN,�OQa�P \\ F CAl Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. All Rights Reserved WIL [A.S V MCCORMICK III w tr No 1673 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING 4 �� GEOLOGIST � c� OF C A� -�F�� This document was prepared for use only by the Client, only for the purposes stated and within a reasonable time from its issuance. Please read the "Limitations" section of this report. 41-489001\41 11 R039 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. April 27, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS K L E I kn N F E L D ER Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION . .............. ....................... ............................... Location And Site Description ............................................... ....... ... ............................... l 1.2 Project Description ................. l ..................... 1.3 Purpose And Scope Of Services .......................... 1.4 Authorization ................ ............................... 2.0 RESEARCH AND REVIEW .............. 2.1 Regional Geology ............. ............................... ........................ ..............................3 .......... ............................... 2.2 Faults " """"""' And Seismicity ................................................................ ..............................3 2.3 Flooding ..................................................................................... ..............................4 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ............... ............................... 5 3.1 Geologic Recomiaissance 5 .................. ............................... 3.2 Subsurface Exploration .............................................................. ..............................5 3.2.1 Exploratory Borings ....................................................... ..............................5 3.3 Laboratory Testing .................. ............................... ........ 6 .......... 3.4 Subsurface Conditions ............... ............................... 6 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............. 4.1 General............ ..................................................................... ..............................8 4.2 Seismic Design Criteria ............................................................. ..............................8 ............................ .............................10 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 5.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................... .............................11 5.2 Subexcavation Of Porous Soils .................•,•.•• �...,••• ��• ��• ��. �•••• •��•�••�•��•�•�•�•••• " " " ".••.11 ............... ............................... 5.3 General Grading .................. ........... ...................... .........12 ......... 5.4 Temporary Excavation And Trench Backfill ............................ .............................14 5.5 Surface Drainage .............. ............................... 5.6 Foundations......... .......... ........15 ............. ............................... 5.6.1 Spread Footings .................. ............................... 15 5.6.2 Drilled Piers ................ ......................... 5.7 Concrete Slabs -On- Grade ................. ...... ...... ........................................ .............................17 5.8 Asphalt Pavement Sections ..............: ........... 19 ............. ............................... 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .............. 6.1 Project Bid Documents .............................................................. ............................ ?l 6.2 Plan And Specifications Review ............................................... .............................21 6.3 Construction Observation And Testing .............. 21 6.4 Additional Copies Of Report .. ............................... - 22 ............... ............................... 7.0 LIMITATIONS ............ 41- 489001 \4111R039 Page ii of iii April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. kn K L E 1 N F E L D E R APPENDIX A PLATES Plate 1 Site Location Plate 2 Site Plan Plates 3 through 10 Logs of Exploration Borings K -1 through K -8 .Plate 11 Boring Log Legend Plate 12 Rock Description Criteria Plate 13 Strength Test Data Plate 14 Resistance Value Test Data APPENDIX B Preliminary Corrosivity Test Results BROCHURE Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE 41- 489001 \4111R039 Page iii of iii Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc, April 27, 2001 KLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT CORONA -ELY SUBDIVISION PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of Kleinfelder's geotechnical investigation for the proposed Corona - Ely subdivision project in Petaluma, California. The objective of this report is to provide Waterford Construction Co., Inc. (Client) and their design team with findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of project development. 1.1 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located east of the intersection of North Ely Road and Corona Road, in County lands adjacent to the city limits of Petaluma, California. The location of the site is shown on the Plate 1, Site Location, in Appendix A. The site is bordered on the southeast by Hartman Lane and a residential subdivision and on the northeast by.undeveloped land. The site is relatively flat with a very gentle slope gradient towards the south. Overall relief across the site is approximately three feet. No significant slopes are present on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Residence, barn, and livestock structures presently exist in the western portion of the site. Vegetation consists of oak trees and annual grasses. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based on the project Tentative Map, dated February 2001, prepared by Carlenzoli and Associates at a scale of 1 " =30', it is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of eleven single - family residential lots and appurtenant new cul -de -sac street construction. It is our understanding that grading for site development will be minimal. We assume grading will consist of minor cuts or fills less than three feet to accommodate the proposed improvements. We 41- 489001 \41 11 R03 9 Page 1 of 24 Copyright2001 Kleinielder, Inc. April 27, 2001 kn K L E I N F E L D E R anticipate that the single - family residences will be relatively lightly loaded, one- and two -story structures with raised -wood interior floors and concrete slabs -on -grade for garages. Additional details of the planned project are not known at this time. If actual loads or project requirements differ significantly from those indicated herein, we should be contacted to review and, if necessary, revise our recommendations. 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the proposed project development with respect to site geotechnical characteristics and to provide opinions and recommendations concerning the following: • Regional and site - specific geologic and seismic conditions; • Site preparation and grading including special treatment of porous soils, fill quality and compaction specifications; • Foundation types, including soil engineering design parameters and estimates of settlement; • Subgrade preparation for concrete slab -on -grade floors and flexible asphalt pavements; • Flexible asphalt- concrete pavement section design criteria, • Surface and subsurface drainage improvements. Our scope of services, as outlined in our March 15, 2001 Professional Services Agreement, consisted of field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analyses and preparation of this report. 1.4 AUTHORIZATION This investigation was authorized by our March 15, 2001 Engineering Services Agreement, signed by Mr. Ben Smith of Waterford Construction Co, Inc. and Mr. Gale Paddock of Kleinfelder, Inc. 41- 489001 \41 11 R039 Page 2 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 2.0 RESEARCH AND REVIEW 2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of Northern California. This province is dominated by northwest - trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys that have been folded and faulted into their present position. Bedrock in the region is the Franciscan Complex; a diverse group of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of Upper Jurassic to Cretaceous age (140 to 65 million years old). These rocks are part of a northwest - trending belt of materials that lies along the eastern side of the San Andreas fault system, the main trace of which is located approximately 15.6 miles southwest of the site. The regional geology has been mapped by Huffman and Armstrong (1980, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 120). They show the site as being underlain by fluvial /alluvial deposits consisting mainly of fine sand, silt and silty clay. Huffinan and Annstrong (1980) do not show landslides on or immediately adjacent to the site, and have mapped the site as being within Relative Slope Stability Category A, which is described as areas of greatest stability due to low slope inclination. 2.2 FAULTS AND SEISMICITY The site is located within the seismically active North Bay/North Coast Area of California. Several faults have been snapped in the general site vicinity. The San Andreas fault zone, located approximately 15,6 miles southwest of the site, is the boundary between two tectonic plates, the Pacific Plate (west of the fault) and the North American Plate (east of the fault), At this boundary, the Pacific Plate is moving north relative to the North American Plate. In the North Coast region of California, this movement is distributed across a complex system of predominantly strike -slip, 41- 489001 \41 11 R039 Page 3 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright2001 Kleinlelder, Inc. KLEINFEI_DER right - lateral parallel and subparallel faults which include the San Andreas, Healdsburg- Rodgers Creels and the Maacama, among others. Faults have not been mapped across the site and the site is not located within an active Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). The nearest fault that is zoned as active by the CDMG, in accordance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1972, is the Healdsburg- Rodgers Creek fault, located approximately 4 miles northeast of the site. This fault is thought to be a southern extension and step -over fault associated with the Maacama, fault, located approximately 21.7 miles northwest of the site. The project site and vicinity are located in an area traditionally characterized by high seismic activity. A number of large earthquakes have occurred within this region in the historic past. Some of the significant nearby events include two 1969 (M5.6 and 5.7) Santa Rosa earthquakes and the 1906 (M8 +) San Francisco earthquake. Numerous smaller earthquakes occur frequently in the region, most of which are related to The Geysers. More recently, swarms of relatively low magnitude earthquake have occurred in the Cloverdale area in the late 1990's. Future earthquakes in this region can be expected to result in strong seismic ground shaking at this site. 2.3 FLOODING According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel Number 060375 0870 B (April 2, 1991, Federal Emergency Management Agency), the majority of the site lies within Zone AH, described as an area prone to ponding, with flood depths of one to three feet, and a base flood elevation of 46 feet above mean sea level. In contrast, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1971, Flood Prone Areas in the Petaluma River Drainage Basin and Cotati Vicinity, Basic Data Contribution 17) indicates the project site lies outside of any flood prone area. 41- 489001 \41 11 R039 Page 4 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. kTj KLEINI=ELDER 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3.1 GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE Geologic reconnaissance and mapping was performed by our Certified Engineering Geologist and Staff Geologist during site visits in March and April of 2001. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to identify surficial geologic and geomorphic conditions at the site to aid in evaluating the site characteristics and identifying areas for subsurface exploration. Results of the reconnaissance and subsurface explorations are summarized on the site plan, Plate 2, in Appendix A. Bedrock outcrops were not observed on the site during our reconnaissance. The site is very gently sloping and is mantled by silty sand fluvial soils. 3.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Subsurface exploration was conducted at the site on April 4, 2001, and consisted of eight exploratory borings. The subsurface explorations were located, logged and sampled under full - time observation by our Staff Geologist, and under the direction of our Certified Engineering Geologist. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plate 2, Appendix A. 3.2.1 Exploratory Borings Eight test borings were drilled for this investigation at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2, Appendix A. Surface elevations at the test boring locations were recorded on the boring logs based on topographic mapping made available to us. The borings were drilled with a track- mounted drill rig equipped with 4 -inch- diameter, continuous flight augers. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 10 to 16.5 feet below existing grades. Materials encountered in each test boring were visually classified in the field and a log was recorded. The 41- 489001 \41 11 R039 Page 5 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleintelder, Ina KLEINFELDER Logs of Exploration Borings K -1 through K -8 showing soil classification, sample depths and depth to groundwater are presented on Plates 3 through 10, in Appendix A. Visual classifications were made in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System presented on the Boring Log Legend, Plate 11 and Rock Description Criteria, Plate 12, in Appendix A. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained within each major soil type encountered by driving a 2.5 -inch (inside diameter) Sprague & Henwood sampler containing thin brass liners into the bottom of each boring as it was drilled. The sampler was advanced by dropping a 140 -pound hammer 30 inches per blow. The number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches of an 18 -inch drive were converted and recorded as standard penetration resistance in blows per foot (Blows /ft.) on the boring logs. When the sampler was withdrawn from each boring, the brass liners containing the samples were removed, examined, logged, labeled and sealed to preserve the natural moisture content for possible laboratory testing. A loose bulk sample (combined) of the near- surface soil was also obtained from the borings for subsequent testing as anticipated pavement subgrade material. At the conclusion of the logging and sampling, the borings were loosely backfilled with the soil cuttings. 3.3 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on selected disturbed bulk and relatively undisturbed (drive samples from borings) soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The testing program consisted of measurements of unit weight, moisture content, particle (grain) size, shear strength and resistance (R -) value. A summary of most laboratory test results is posted on the Log of Exploration Borings K -1 through K -8, Plates 3 through 10. Graphic presentation of the test results for strength and R -value are shown on Plates 13 and 14, in Appendix A. 3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS In general, the subsurface soils on the site consist primarily of fluvial silty sand, clayey sand, and sandy clay overlying claystone, sandstone, clayey gravel, and sandy claystone interpreted to be 41-489001\41 1 I R039 Page 6 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleintelder, Inc. kn K L E I N F E L D E R representative of the Petaluma Formation. A detailed description of the soils encountered in each boring is presented in Plates 3 through 10, in Appendix A. The thickness of fluvial soils encountered in the borings varied from three to five feet and were typically moist to wet, very loose to loose at the time of this study. The underlying Petaluma Formation materials are generally moist and dense. The contact between the fluvial deposits and the underlying, highly weathered Petaluma Formation was gradational in the borings. Groundwater seepage was encountered in most of the borings, at depths of approximately three to seven feet below the ground surface. This shallow groundwater condition appears to represent perched surface water from recent rains on top of the weathered Petaluma Formation bedrock. 41- 489001 \4111R039 Page 7 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinlelder, Lie. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 GENERAL k'q K LEI NFELDER Based on the results of our field work, and office studies, we judge that the proposed project development is feasible from a geologic and geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated. into the planning and design of the development at this site. The main geotechnical engineering considerations affecting design and construction of structures for the plarmed project development are the presence of the wet and weak (soft) surface soils, high seasonal perched groundwater, and the potential for strong seismic ground shaking at the site. In addition, portions of the near- surface (within 3 feet of the surface) soil /weathered bedrock materials are expansive and are subject to shrink and swell volume changes with changes in moisture content. These expansive soils/bedrock are denoted with the United Soil Classification System (USCS) symbol CH on the boring logs. Foundations, slabs and pavements placed directly on these weak or expansive soils in their present condition without proper subgrade treatment could undergo detrimental and erratic movement. During severe ground shaking from earthquakes, liquefaction can occur in loose, cohesionless silts and sands below a shallow groundwater surface. Based upon our knowledge of the site subsurface conditions and the existence of shallow Petaluma Formation bedrock, the potential for liquefaction to occur at this site is considered to be low. In addition, no known active faults cross the site. Therefore, the potential for seismically induced ground rupture to occur at this site is considered to be low to nonexistent. The weak, porous, silty /sandy surface soils are not expected to have sufficient strength to support foundation loads. Foundations bearing on these soils may experience significant differential settlement, In addition, where the surface or near- surface soils are expansive, lightly- loaded foundations and slabs' could experience unacceptable distress (heave and cracking) as the 41- 489001 \41 11 R039 Page 8 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleintelder, Inc. . KLEINFELDER expansive materials shrink and swell with changes in moisture content. Therefore, we judge that the weals or expansive materials are not suitable for support of foundations or concrete floor slabs unless mitigating measures to reduce the potential for settlement, or shrink and swell, are considered in project design and construction. In order to mitigate the adverse effects associated with the weals surface soils, it will be necessary to remove, replace, and/or re -work these soils as compacted fill for support of slabs and foundations. The adverse effects of expansive soils can be mitigated by extending foundations below the depth of significant seasonal moisture change in these soils and/or by blanketing the expansive soils with select (low expansion potential) fill. Provided the site is graded, and foundations are designed and constructed, in accordance with the recommendations presented herein, we estimate that maximum post - construction settlement resulting from foundation loads will be less than approximately 1/2 -inch. We judge that post - construction differential settlement along, or between adjacent, foundation elements will be less than approximately 1/4 -inch. Perched groundwater was observed as close as 3 feet below existing ground surface during our field exploration, and will fluctuate depending on factors such as seasonal rainfall, groundwater withdrawal and construction activities on this or adjacent properties. In general, winter to early summer construction can experience extra costs related to the presence of groundwater or seepage. The amount of shallow groundwater and/or seepage encountered may be dependent on the magnitude of prior seasonal rainfall. Related construction of underground utilities, including off -site work to extend existing utilities to the project site, also appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The main geotechnical- related construction difficulties for this work will most likely consist of controlling groundwater seepage and controlling caving of granular soils with low silt and/or clay content. Based on our field exploration, the zone of low density granular soils and shallow perched groundwater appears to be confined to the upper approximately 3 to 5 feet, as measured below existing ground surfaces. Groundwater will likely be encountered during construction of utilities, except possibly_ in late summer to fall when perched water in the soils will have had time to dissipate. Control of 41-489001\411 1 R039 Page 9 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. " K L E I N F E L D E R groundwater and shoring of caving granular soils should be included as requirements of the bid documents for underground construction. 4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA Field and laboratory test data and our experience with the Petaluma Formation materials indicate that the site can be assigned a soil profile type Sc based on average soil properties in the top 100 feet and Table 16 -J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). SC is defined as a profile consisting of very dense soil and soft rock with a shear wave velocity between 1200 and 2500 feet per second (ft/s); a Standard Penetration Test, N (blows /foot), greater than 50; or an undrained shear strength (Su) value of greater than 2000 pounds per square foot (psf). According to Figure 16 -2 of the 1997 UBC, the site is within Seismic Zone 4; therefore, a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.4 should be used. According to Sheet D -15 of the Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada (ICBO, 1998), the site is located approximately 6.0 kilometers from the Rodgers Creel: fault which is classified as a Seismic Source Type A. Using the above information, the near - source factors Na and N,, are 1.16 and 1.52, respectively, based on interpolation between the values shown in Tables 16 -S and 16 -T of the 1997 UBC. The 1997 UBC seismic coefficients Ca and C,, are both used to determine the total design lateral force or shear at the base of a building or structure. The seismic coefficients Ca and C,, can be obtained from Tables 16 -Q and 16 -R of 1997 UBC, respectively, based on the soil profile type, Seismic Zone Factor and near - source factors presented herein. For this site, the following relationships apply: Ca= 0.40Na and C,, = 0.56Nv. 41- 489001 \4111R039 Page 10 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleintelder, Inc. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 SITE PREPARATION KLEINFELDER Preliminary grading plans were not made available to us at the time this report was prepared. We anticipate that required grading will consist typically of minor cuts and fills of approximately 2 to 3 feet in vertical height to provide relatively level building pads and roadways at desired grades and having positive surface drainage. Finished construction areas should generally be sloped and drainage gradients maintained to carry surface water off of the site. Ponding of water or concentrated seepage should not be allowed under structures or adjacent to foundation systems. Final grading plans should be reviewed by our firm for conformance to our design recommendations prior to construction bidding. Areas proposed for grading should be cleared and stripped of vegetation, roots and organic debris before grading commences. We anticipate that the stripping operation will require the removal of approximately 3 to 4 inches of topsoil in most areas. Deeper stripping or grubbing will likely be required where concentrations or pockets of organic soil and tree roots are encountered. The stripped, organic -rich material may be stockpiled and used for landscaping purposes; this material should not be used as engineered fill. Any non - engineered fills exposed during grading, should be removed for their full depth and replaced with approved, compacted engineered fill, if needed to achieve final grade. Although not encountered during our field exploration, it is possible that underground facilities such as abandoned septic tanks, cesspools or wells may exist on the site. If encountered, these items should be plugged and abandoned according to the regulations set forth by the County of Sonoma Health and /or City of Petaluma Building Departments. Excavations for the removal.of abandoned underground facilities should be cleaned of all loose materials and widened as necessary to permit compaction equipment access. The excavations should be subsequently backfilled with properly compacted fill as specified in the following sections of this report. 41- 489001 \4111R039 Page 11 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder. Inc. `- KLEINFELUER 5.2 SUBEXCAVATION OF POROUS SOILS The existing weals surface soils should be removed ( subexcavated) and recompacted for their full depth, in order to achieve the final planned grades desired within pavement areas and building pads (if buildings consist of shallow foundations and/or concrete slabs -on- grade). Based on-conditions encountered in our exploratory borings, the estimated depths of subexcavation throughout the site are anticipated to range between 3 and 5 feet from existing grade elevation. If soft and /or wet soils are encountered during stripping and required subexcavation, additional excavation may be required to expose firm, competent material. The recommended subexcavation should be completed prior to placement of any additional planned fills to achieve proposed grades. To allow for possible variation in the actual subexcavation and/or excavation quantities required, we recommend that the contract documents provide for add unit prices for subexcavation (or excavation) of existing weak or otherwise unsuitable soils. In addition, we recommend that a unit price be provided for additional imported select or on -site compacted fill. 5.3 GENERAL GRADING The soils exposed by stripping and required (sub)excavation should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned to near - optimum moisture content and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction . On -site surface soils that are free of organic matter and do not contain rocks over 4 inches in largest dimension will generally be satisfactory for reuse as compacted fill. Isolated plastic, near- surface soils (denoted by the symbol CH on the boring logs) should not generally be used as compacted -fill within 12 and 30 inches of finished grade within pavement and building areas, respectively. 1 Relative compaction refers to the in -place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same soil, as determined by the ASTM D1557 test procedure. Optimum moisture content is the water content (percentage by dry weight) corresponding to the maximum dry density. 41- 489001 \4l 11 R03 9 Page 12 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder. Inc. ' KLEINFELDER Imported fill, if needed, should be of low expansion potential and free of organic matter, and should confor n, in general, to the following requirements: Plasticity Index Liquid Limit Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Maximum Aggregate Size Less than 15% Less than 40% Between 15% and 60% 4 inches (largest dimension) Fill should be spread in thin (8 inches, uncompacted thickness) lifts, moisture conditioned to near- optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Fill (or cut) subgrades should be finished to present smooth, unyielding surfaces. Subgrade soils should be maintained at their moist or above optimum moisture contents and be free of shrinkage cracks until covered by permanent construction. A summary of our compaction recommendations is presented in Table 1 below SUMMARY OF COMPACTION RECOMMENDATIONS Area Compaction Recommendations General and In lifts, a maximum of 8 inches loose thickness, Engineered Fill compact to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction at or within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. On -site plastic soil should be additionally moisture conditioned to, and maintained at, 4 percent or more above optimum moisture content. Trenches Compact to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction at or within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. On -site plastic soil, if used, should be moisture conditioned to, and maintained at, 4 percent or more above optimum moisture content. Parking and Access Driveway Compact the top 18 inches of subgrade soil to at least 95 percent relative compaction at or within 2 percent above optimum moisture content. Soils should be maintained at their above optimum moisture content until covered by permanent construction. Concrete Slabs -On -Grade Compact the top 18 inches of subgrade soil to at least 90 percent relative compaction at or within 2 percent of the Optimum moisture content. Exterior Flatwork Compact the top 12 inches of subgrade soil to at least 90 percent relative compaction at or within 2 percent of the Optimum moisture content. *Depths are below finished subgrade elevation. 41- 489001 \4111R039 Page 13 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. kn KLEINFELDER Grading operations during or shortly following the wet season, or in areas where the soils are saturated, will likely require provisions for drying of the soil prior to achieving suitable compaction. If the project necessitates fill placement and compaction in wet conditions, we could provide alternatives to conventional drying of the soils, if needed. Conversely, additional moisture will likely be required during the dry months. Water trucks should be available in sufficient number to provide water to achieve the specified moisture conditioning during compaction. In general, site preparation and fill placement/compaction operations should be observed by a representative of Kleinfelder. This will allow us to check whether unforeseen or detrimental materials are encountered in the construction areas, and to modify our recommendations, if necessary. 5.4 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION AND TRENCH BACKFILL Shallow excavations for footings and utility trenches can be readily made with either a backhoe or trencher. With the exception of areas where perched groundwater is present, and provided equipment or excavated spoil surcharges are not located near the top of the excavation, we expect the walls of trenches less than 5 feet deep to remain in a near - vertical configuration during utility construction; however, localized sloughing of the upper portions of the trench walls should be anticipated by the contractor. Excavations will likely encounter seepage if performed during and shortly following the rainy season and dewatering may be needed. If dewatering is necessary, it can probably be accomplished by conventional pumping from dewatering pits or sumps. However, installation of gravel drain blankets and sumps or other dewatering methods, at the contractor's option, will facilitate dewatering and may provide less adverse construction conditions. Where trenches are extended deeper than 5 feet, the excavation can become unstable. Trenches, regardless of depth, should be evaluated for stability prior to personnel entering them. Shoring or sloping of the deeper trench walls will be necessary to protect personnel and to provide stability. Trenches should conform to the current CAL -OSHA requirements for worker safety. 41- 489001 \41 11 R039 Page 14 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. K L E I N F E L D E R We recommend a minimum compaction of trench backfill as previously presented in Table 1, Section 5.3 of this report. Care should be taken to adequately compact utility trench backfill in the pavement areas. Poor compaction will likely cause subsequent settlement of the trench resulting in possible distress cracking to the overlying pavement structural section. If deep trenches (greater than 5 feet deep) are required, the contractor will have to provide shored access, at selected and frequent intervals, for geotechnical personnel to perform compaction testing. 5.5 SURFACE DRAINAGE As previously discussed, the project site may be prone to ponding of surface water during periods of heavy seasonal rains, due to its low elevation, flat surface topography and shallow bedrock. Site improvements to be designed by the project civil engineer should include the necessary grading and storm drain system to mitigate such ponding, maintain positive drainage and .allow for the transport of surface runoff to the storm drain system during periods of heavy rain. 5.6 FOUNDATIONS Based on the data collected, building loads may be adequately supported by conventional spread footings provided the recommendations for subexcavation and recompaction of the porous surface soils in building pad areas are adhered to. Alternatively, a drilled pier - and -grade -beam foundation system may be substituted for the above noted reworking process. Design criteria for both foundation types are presented herein. 5.6.1 Spread Footings Recommended bearing pressures, depth of embedment and footing widths are presented in Table 2 below. The recommended pressures in pounds per square foot (psf) assume that footings will bear on compacted (engineered) fill of low plasticity prepared as recommended in Section 5.1 and 5.3. 41-489001\411 1 R039 Page 15 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, hic. Spread Footing Type Continuous Wall Isolated Column :..FOUNDATI Allowable Bearing Pressure* (psf) M 2,500 KLEINFELDER ESIGN,CRITERIA Minimum Minimum Embedment Width (inches) * * (inches) 12 12 12 18 *Dead plus live load. * *Below lowest adjacent grade. Where lowest adjacent grade consists of expansive soil, the footing excavation should extend at least 30 inches deep. The allowable soil bearing pressures are net values. The weight of the foundation and the backfill weight over the foundation may be neglected when computing dead loads. Allowable soil bearing pressures may be increased by one -third for transient forces, such as wind or seismic loads. Resistance to lateral forces may be computed using friction along the base of foundations or passive pressure against the face of foundations. A friction factor of 0.35 is considered appropriate between the undersurface of concrete structures and the supporting soils. A passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid weighing 400 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) is recommended against the face of foundations. If friction and passive pressure resistances are combined, the lesser value should be reduced by 50 percent. Also, neglect passive pressure in the top 1 foot (2 feet for sites with expansive soils at the ground surface) of soil subgrade unless foundations are confined by slabs or pavements. Footing concrete should be placed neat against undisturbed soil, if possible. The soils exposed in footing excavations should not be allowed to dry before placing concrete. If shrinkage cracks appear in the footing excavation soils, these soils should be thoroughly moistened to close all 41- 489001 \41 11 R039 Page 16 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. K LE I N F E L D ER cracks prior to concrete placement. We should observe all footing excavations prior to placement of concrete to check that the conditions exposed are as anticipated, or to modify our recommendations, if necessary. 5.6.2 Drilled Piers Drilled piers should have a minimum diameter of 12 inches and should be embedded at least 8 feet below grade and have a length to diameter ratio less than 15. Drilled piers may be designed using an allowable skin friction of 650 psf. This value may be increased by a factor 50 percent for total load design including seismic or wind forces. Skin friction should be neglected in the top 2 -1/2 feet of un- reworked, loose, porous surface soils and expansive soils. In areas where the loose, porous surface soils have been reworked, the top 12 inches of surface soil should be neglected for skin friction support. The weight of foundation concrete below grade may be disregarded in sizing computations. In addition, the spacing between piers should be at least 3 pier diameters, center to center. Drilled pier shafts should be cleaned of loose soils'and be free of standing water immediately prior to placement of foundation concrete. Any free- standing water within the pier excavations should be removed by pumping prior to concrete placement, or foundation concrete should be placed with an "elephant trunk" or tremmie pipe to displace the water. Where loose, cohesionless (relatively free of silt or clay fines) sands or gravels are encountered near surface or below the groundwater level, caving of the pier shaft should be expected; caving soils will need to be supported by casing until concrete is placed. Pier excavations should be observed by a representative of Kleinfelder to detennine the adequacy and uniformity of bearing conditions prior to concrete placement. Resistance to lateral forces can be computed using passive pressure against the face of piers. A passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid weighing 400 pounds per cubic foot is recommended. The passive pressure can be applied over twice the pier diameters. The top 12 inches of pier embedment should be disregarded in lateral resistance design calculations. 41-489001\41 1 1 R039 Page 17 of 24 April 27, 2.001 Copyright 2001 Kleintelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 5.7 CONCRETE SLABS -ON -GRADE We anticipate that concrete slabs -on -grade for this project will consist mainly of garage floor slabs for the residences and related exterior concrete flatwork at driveways and walkways. The near - surface soils across the majority of the site have a low expansion potential, and should generally provide a stable slab subgrade when prepared and compacted as described in Section 5.3 of this report; this will require subexeavation and recompaction of subgrade areas to the depths specified in Section 5.3 unless the entire pad has previously been re- worked. Due to the presence of very shallow perched groundwater, we do not recommend concrete slabs - on -grade be used for the interior living spaces of homes. However, if interior slabs are designed, a subdrainage and moisture - proofing system should be designed for each pad to mitigate the potential for moisture propagation through the slab. Interior garage floor slabs should typically be supported on at least 4 inches of slab baserock to provide a capillary moisture break from the underlying soil. This baserock should be graded such that 100 percent passes the 1 -inch sieve and no more than 5 percent passes the No. 4 (one - quarter inch) sieve. If the subgrade soil is allowed to dry out prior to slab -on -grade construction, these soils should be further moisture conditioned by sprinkling or soaking them to obtain a wet of optimum soil, free of shrinkage cracks. Slab subgrade soils should also be maintained smooth, unyielding and free of loose materials until slab baserock and concrete are placed. Exterior concrete slabs can be placed directly on the properly prepared subgrade soils. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4- inches thick and reinforced according to the recommendations set forth by the project structural engineer. Care should be taken to install reinforcement at mid - height within the slabs, particularly when using welded -wire fabric. Floor slabs should either be separated from footings, or provisions made to account for possible differential movement at their interface. In addition, slabs should be scored for crack control as reconunended by the project structural engineer and architect. Slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean, free - draining gravel or crushed rock. The slab base rock should typically conform to the following gradation: 41-48900 1 \41 11 R039 Page 18 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc, k4 K L E I N F E L D E R Sieve Size Percent Passing (By Dry Weight) 1 -1/2 inch 100 1 inch 90- 100 No. 4 0 - 5 Moisture vapor is likely to condense on the underside of slab -on -grade floors. Therefore, installation of a vapor barrier (such as heavy plastic sheeting) should be considered where movement of vapor through the slab would de detrimental to floor coverings or to the intended use of the slab. Two inches of clean sand is commonly placed on top of the vapor barrier to promote a more unifonn curing of the slab and to reduce the risk of puncture to the barrier; specific details should be approved by the project Architect and/or Structural Engineer, 5.8 ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTIONS A resistance (R -) value test was performed on a sample of the anticipated subgrade soil. A laboratory R -value of 10 was obtained on a combined sample of the near - surface soils obtained from the borings; this value is based on a exudation pressure of.300 pounds per square inch. Pavement design sections presented in the. table below are based on the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) flexible pavement design method using a design R -value of 10. Traffic Indices (T.I.) of 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 6.0 were used for design of the proposed interior residential streets. Actual T.I. design specifications should be determined by the project civil engineer. 41-489001\41 1 1 R039 Page 19 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, [nc. kn KLEINFELDER RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT: SECTIONS R Value 10 Assumed Asphalt Aggregate Traffic Concrete Base Index (Inches) (Inches) 4 2.5 8.0 4.5 2.5. 8.5 5 2.5 10 6 3 12.5 The reconuinended pavement sections provided above assume the following conditions: 1. Soil subgrades are compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at a moisture content at or within 2 percent of optimum for the top 12 inches. Subgrade soils should be maintained at this moisture content until covered by permanent construction. 2. Aggregate baserock materials meet with Caltrans Standard Specifications for Class 2 materials. 3. All aggregate baserock materials are compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. 4. Pavement areas are sloped to drain so that subgrade soils will not become saturated. 5. Subgrades are stable and unyielding before baserock materials are placed. 6. Asphalt concrete surfacing materials meet with Caltrans Standard Specifications. 41-489001\411 I R039 Page 20 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleintelder, Inc. kn KLEINFELDER 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 6.1 PROJECT BID DOCUMENTS It has been our experience that contractors bidding on projects often contact us to discuss the geotechnical- related aspects. Informal contacts between Kleinfelder and an individual contractor could result in incomplete or misinterpreted information being provided to the contractor. Therefore, we recommend a pre -bid meeting be held to answer questions about this report prior to submittal of bids. If this is not possible, questions or clarifications regarding this report should be directed to Waterford Construction Company, Inc. (Client) or their designated representative. After consultation with Kleinfelder, Waterford Construction Company, Inc. (or their representative) should provide clarifications or additional information to all contractors bidding the job. 6.2 PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW Continued coordination between the design team and Kleinfelder is recommended to check that the project design is compatible with the soil and groundwater conditions determined by this investigation. We recommend that our firm conduct a general review of final improvement plans and project building plans (and specifications) to evaluate that earthwork and foundation recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented. In the event we are not retained to perform this recommended review, we cannot assume responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. 41- 489001 \41 11 R039 Page 21 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 6.3 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that earthwork - related construction be monitored by a Kleinfelder representative including, but possibly not limited to: • site preparation and (sub)excavation of weak surface soils, as appropriate; • placement and compaction of engineered fill, trench backfill and aggregate base; • subgrade preparation for concrete slabs and asphalt pavements; and • excavation for foundations (spread footings and/or cast -in -place piers). The purpose of these services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to check the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the soil and groundwater conditions actually encountered during construction. If necessary, we can recommend appropriate changes in design or construction procedures where the actual conditions differ from those described herein. 6.4 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF REPORT We have provided Waterford Construction Company, Inc. (Client) with six bound copies of this report. If additional copies are required, we can provide them at an additional fee (in accordance with our current fee schedule) after receipt of a written request from our Client. Under no circumstances will we provide a copy of the report to other design consultants or contractors without written permission from our Client. The above services are not included as part of our agreement for this investigation but can be "provided by our fine when requested. 41-489001\411 1 R039 Page 22 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyri .ght2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. K L E I N F E L D E R 7.0 LIMITATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are subject to the limitations presented herein. In addition, a brochure prepared by ASFE (Association of Firms Practicing in the Geosciences) has been appended to this report. We recommend that all individuals reading this report also read this attached brochure. Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations, data from eight exploratory borings and laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that subsurface conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil and groundwater conditions are encountered during construction which differ from those described herein, our firm should be notified in order that a review may be made and supplemental recommendations provided, if necessary. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the anticipated or proposed loads, grades, or structure locations, changes from that described in this report, our recommendations should also be reviewed and modified, if necessary. Our firm has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Waterford Construction Co., Inc. (Client) and their representatives on this project in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our investigation. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by our firm during the subsequent construction phase of the project in order to evaluate compliance with our recomunendations. If we are not retained for these services, our Client must assume Kleinfelder's responsibility for potential claims that may arise during or after construction. This report is issued with the understanding that our Client chooses the risk they wish to bear by their chosen design approach, construction expenditures and scheduling. It is our Client's 41- 489001 \411 1 R039 Page 2' ) of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyri, -M2001 Kleintelder, Inc. k" K L E I N F E L D E R responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety including the Additional Services and Limitations sections. 41- 4890011411 I R039 Page 24 of 24 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleintelder, Inc. APPENDIX A RD T RFC o I& 1;r, P� ngrove ,D ij of 0; 16 R `0 " SITE LOCATION 90 d/ CJ SITE LOCATION PLATE k"KLE1 N FELDER CORONA—ELY SUBDIVISION PROJECT NO. 41-4890-01/001 DATE APR 2001 Petaluma, California O� E'pgTTO FID 101 Q of wj J St DtLN ALOHA S_UOIYAMA LN '§! 2� r— W zi 011 Great tall a ill MAGNOLIA _gNOLIA — — -------- _�SEPH 01 ------ �ATH�E_EN WAY AC 0 gv 0 1998 DeLorme. Street Atlas 1z i LN J6.s USA Ji� Mag 14.00 Thu Apr 26 16:17 2001 Scale 1:31,250 (at center) 2000 Feet 90 d/ CJ SITE LOCATION PLATE k"KLE1 N FELDER CORONA—ELY SUBDIVISION PROJECT NO. 41-4890-01/001 DATE APR 2001 Petaluma, California LABORATORY FIELD m o SOIL DESCRIPTION * T = V) aCi �? L ^ N 3 a t ° n° U a� ° ° no ° C� o ° 2 U°_ a) 2 cn tntnY = n .� a> O I- o m E M U) a° a) 0 E -cn a3 n SILTY SAND - gray- brown, moist, very loose, fine to medium grained sands, rootlets to 8" - 1 J. sm deep (Qof) - grades to gray, wet, loose (Perched water) 119 14 ......................... ................. .............................o. o..............n" e..........................._ CLAYEY SAND gray loose, fine to _ 3 .; Sc SZmedium grained sand (Qof) . ...................................................................................................... .............................._ SILTY SAND - gray -olive with trace yellow -red 19 4- :: S mottling, wet, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand and occasional gravel (Qof) - 5 ;.: .................................................................................................... ............................... _ SAND(STONE) WITH CLAY AND OCCASIONAL GRAVEL - gray - olive, moist, dense, fine to - 42 6 medium grained sand, subrounded gravels to 1/2" diameter (partially cemented) (Tp) - 7 - firmer drilling - 8 - SC 9 - 10 =. same, trace yellow -red mottling, medium dense, - 14 MnO mineralization - 11 - - 12 ..................................................................................................... ............................... CLAY(STONE) WITH SAND - gray - olive, moist, stiff, fine to medium grained sand, moderately plastic to plastic (Tp) 13 14 CUCH 15 16 13 ' BOTTOM OF BORING K -1 @ 16.5 FEET 17 18 * Converted to equivalen standard pen ration blow count . 1 9 * * Exis ing grou d surface. 20 LOGGED BY: JCR SURFACE ELEVATION: feet ** TOTAL DEPTH: 16.5 feet EQUIPMENT: Flight Auger GROUND WATER DEPTH:Y 3.0 feet at time of drilling DIAMETER of BORING: 4 inches Y. feet DATE DRILLED: 4 -4 -01 LOG OF EXPLORATION PLATE KLEINFELDER BORING K -1 3 CORONA -ELY SUBDIVISION Petaluma, California 1 of 1 PROJECT NUMBER 41- 4890 - 01/001 DATE APR 2001 LABORATORY FIELD .0 SOIL DESCRIPTION * 15 ?' Y , ice- (� 4 i OU 00: �#- 3 O @ a 0 E ++ LM N 5- pp ° 2U0 co (n O I— m (n 6 33 SILTY SAND - brown, moist to wet, loose, fine to medium grained sand, rootlets to -6" deep 7 (Qof) . k4 KLEIN FELDER PROJECT NUMBER 41- 4890 - 01/001 DATE APR 2001 pose to medium dense, light gray- brown, wet liquefied) SANDfSTONEIWITH TFiACECLAYAND GRAVEL - light olive- brown, moist to wet, medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand, subrounded gravels to 1/4" diameter (Tp) .............................. ..........................111.1 .... ................11.......11.... minimum cutting return, loss of sample, dense SAND(STONE) WITH CLAY - olive- brown, wet, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand (Tp) -3 LOGGED BY: JCR EQUIPMENT: Flight Auger DIAMETER of BORING: 4 inches DATE DRILLED: 4 -4 -01 LOG OF EXPLORATION PLATE BORING K -3 5 CORONA -ELY SUBDIVISION Petaluma, California 1 of 1 3 15 4 5- 6 33 7 8 9 10 32 12 0, SC 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 * Converted to equivalen standard pen ration blow count 3. _19- * * Exisl ing grou id surf ace. 20 SURFACE ELEVATION: feet * * TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0 feet GROUNDWATER DEPTH:Lz 3.0 feet at time of drilling = feet k4 KLEIN FELDER PROJECT NUMBER 41- 4890 - 01/001 DATE APR 2001 pose to medium dense, light gray- brown, wet liquefied) SANDfSTONEIWITH TFiACECLAYAND GRAVEL - light olive- brown, moist to wet, medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand, subrounded gravels to 1/4" diameter (Tp) .............................. ..........................111.1 .... ................11.......11.... minimum cutting return, loss of sample, dense SAND(STONE) WITH CLAY - olive- brown, wet, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand (Tp) -3 LOGGED BY: JCR EQUIPMENT: Flight Auger DIAMETER of BORING: 4 inches DATE DRILLED: 4 -4 -01 LOG OF EXPLORATION PLATE BORING K -3 5 CORONA -ELY SUBDIVISION Petaluma, California 1 of 1 LABORATORY FIELD .0 SOIL DESCRIPTION ILTY SAND - brown, moist to wet, very loose, fine to medium grained sand (Qof) SM 3 grades to gray-brown with yellow-red mottling, 2 wet, loose 3- SANDY CLAY - gray-olive, moist, very stiff, fine - CL/CH to medium grained sand, slightly plastic (Qof) Plate 13 - ye ow-olive-brown, 5 - moist,-medium dense, fine to medium grained SC sand, MnO mineralization (Tp) 7 Pnoist, very stiff, fine to medium grained sand, subrounded gravels to 1/2" diameter, plastic CH MnO mineralization (Tp) 8 CLAYEY SAND(STONE) WITH GRAVEL - yellow-olive, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand, subrounded gravels to 1/2" diameter, poorly sorted (Tp) SC SANDY CLAYSTONE - blue-olive, very stiff, completely weathered, friable, trace 15 yellow-brown mottling, small polished pressure facets (Tp) 16 17 BOTTOM OF BORING K-5 @ 16.5 FEET 17- penEtratiorl blow coun _19- _�URFACE ELEVATION: feet LOGGED BY: JCR TOTAL DEPTH: 1G.5feet EQUIPMENT: Flight Auger GROUND WATER osPTn:U 6.8 feat at time of drilling DIAMETER of BORING: 4 inches 7 feet DATE DRILLED: 4-4-01 LOG OF EXPLORATION PLATE kpq KLEIN FELDER BORING K-5 7 CORONA-ELY SUBDIVISION Petaluma, California 1 of 1 PROJECTNUMBER 41-4890-01/001 DATE APR 2001 LABORATORY FIELD CD 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND - brown, moist to wet, very loose, w >, . "r, U3 M C -C V) E 0.0 U U) 12 N CL on — 0 0:0 07 2u — (n V) W 0 l__ 2 M U) 0 (In Z) 0 PROJECT NUMBER 41-4890-01/001 DATE APR 2001 CORONA-ELY SUBDIVISION Petaluma, California 1 of 1 SILTY SAND - brown, moist to wet, very loose, fine to medium grained sand, porous, rootlets to " 6 (Qof) 115 12 3 SM trace subrounded gravels to 1/2" diameter 2 3- 4• ... I., ................... ........................... .1.1 ......... I ........................... ... ................. ......... SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND - yellow-brown-olive, moist, very stiff/medium 17 - CH/SC dense, fine to medium grained sand, visible clay 4- films (very slightly porous), slightly plastic (Qof) - - X.. .......... ... . ...... ... ... .. . . .... .. .. ..... . . I ........... .1-CLAYEY ... SAN.D.(.ST.O-N.E.) ... -I.ol.i.v.el.lwi-t-h ... y-e-1.1-o-w-41ed 5 - mottling, moist, dense, fine to medium grained sand, MnO mineralization (Tp) 41 -7-/ SC 31 . . ............................................................................................................ ................. ...... SAND(STONE) WITH SILT AND CLAY - light olive-gray, moist to wet, medium dense to dense, fine to medium grained sand (Tp) MISC 12- 13— o'1*i*ve','.......................... ............................... stiff, completely weathered, friable, polished pressure 14- facets, MnO mineralization (Tp) 24 _15- BOTTOM OF BORING K-7 @ 15 FEET -16- -17- 18- Conyerted to equivalen: standard - - pen ration blow count 3. _19- "Exisling grow id surface. -__ 20 LOGGED BY: JCR SURFACE ELEVATION: feet TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0 feet EQUIPMENT: Flight Auger GROUND WATER DEPTH:Lz 6.2 feet at time of drilling DIAMETER of BORING: 4 inches 1 feet DATE DRILLED: 4-4-01 LOG OF EXPLORATION PLATE kpq K L E I N F E L D E R BORING K-7 PROJECT NUMBER 41-4890-01/001 DATE APR 2001 CORONA-ELY SUBDIVISION Petaluma, California 1 of 1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS FIELD SAMPLING DESCRIPTIVE NAMES LABORATORY TESTS ® CLEAN GRAVELS GW ° 0. Do, WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES DISTURBED, BAG OR BULK SAMPLE GRAVELS WITH LITTLE OR ° SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ° SHELBY TUBE SAMPLE #200 PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE NO FINES GP ° °° POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES MORE THAN HALF El EXPANSION INDEX o 0 WATER LEVEL OBSERVED IN BORING m COARSE FRACTION (at given post - drilling time) ° 'o Tx /CU GM 0 SILTY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL - SAND -SILT N O5 IS LARGER THAN GRAVELS WITH (at time of drilling) o MIXTURES o NO. 4 SIEVE CT GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL - SAND -CLAY p Nk POCKET PENETROMETER SHEAR STRENGTH (tsf) OVER 12% FINES Z n o MIXTURES co C7 2 CLEAN SANDS SW <�,�. . ,... WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS LU (n 'c° SANDS WITH LITTLE '• +'�'' SP POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS cc s Q O OR NO FINES U o MORE THAN HALF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN SM SILTY SANDS, POORLY GRADED SAND -SILT MIXTURES SANDS WITH NO, 4 SIEVE OVER 12% FINES SC I CLAYEY SANDS, POORLY GRADED SAND -CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, ML SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SILTS AND CLAYS SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, (n CL GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, _ o LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LEAN CLAYS 00 OL ' ORGANIC CLAYS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW V) N Uj V Z PLASTICITY — = MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACIOUS FINE C7 o SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS Uj Z y SILTS AND CLAYS u m CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS 0 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOTES: Blow counts represent the number of blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30- inches required to drive a sampler the last 1 2- inches of an 18 -inch penetration. The blow counts have been converted to standard N -value blow counts. The lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only, The actual transition may be gradual. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil strata between borings. Logs represent the soil strata and groundwater observed at the boring location on the date of drilling only. kNj K LEIN FE L D E R BORING LOG LEGEND PLATE CORONA -ELY SUBDIVISION 11 PROJECT NUMBER 41- 4890 - 01/001 DATE APR 2001 Petaluma, California FIELD SAMPLING LABORATORY TESTS ® MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE LL LIQUID LIMIT ® DISTURBED, BAG OR BULK SAMPLE PI PLASTICITY INDEX STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SHELBY TUBE SAMPLE #200 PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE ® 3 -1/2" I.D. CONTINUOUS CORE SAMPLE RV RESISTANCE VALUE UNRETAINED PORTION OF SAMPLE El EXPANSION INDEX WATER LEVEL OBSERVED IN BORING DS DIRECT SHEAR (at given post - drilling time) Tx /CU TRIAXIAL SHEAR - CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED WATER LEVEL OBSERVED IN BORING (at time of drilling) UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSION CT COMPACTION TEST PP POCKET PENETROMETER SHEAR STRENGTH (tsf) NOTES: Blow counts represent the number of blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30- inches required to drive a sampler the last 1 2- inches of an 18 -inch penetration. The blow counts have been converted to standard N -value blow counts. The lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only, The actual transition may be gradual. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil strata between borings. Logs represent the soil strata and groundwater observed at the boring location on the date of drilling only. kNj K LEIN FE L D E R BORING LOG LEGEND PLATE CORONA -ELY SUBDIVISION 11 PROJECT NUMBER 41- 4890 - 01/001 DATE APR 2001 Petaluma, California 4000 35C Wers Q-25C Z LLJ 20C F_ CA) LU 15C Cn 100 50 OF- ........ I ............... ................. ........ 01 ............................ 01 .................................. 01 ............................... STRAIN (%) Sample Source ..................... .............. ....................... .............. ................................................ ................... ....... ........................... D . ........................... .................................. .................................. TX/UU .............. ............................. ............................. ........................... 122 13.7 El K-6 @ 5.0' BROWN SANDY CLAY TX/UU 800 3593 5 4 6 8 10 12 11 STRAIN (%) Sample Source Classification Type of Test Confinemeni Pressure (psf) Ultimate Strength (p, Strain ( %) Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) (D K-5 @ 4.0' LIGHT BROWN SANDY CLAY TX/UU 800 3362 10 122 13.7 El K-6 @ 5.0' BROWN SANDY CLAY TX/UU 800 3593 5 118 14.4 LIC = Unconfined Compression TX/UU = Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial kpKLEINFELDER PROJECT NUMBER 41-4890-01/001 DATE APR 2001 STRENGTH TEST DATA PLATE CORONA-ELY SUBDIVISION 13 Petaluma, California APPENDIX B E1 Soil, Water, Air, Plant Environmental Tissue and Other 1343 Redwood Way Technical Testing & Monitoring Petaluma, CA 94954 Services Analytical Labs Technical Support (707) 795 - 9605 /FAX 795 -9384 Serving people and the environment so that both benefit. COMPANY: Kleinfelder Engineering, 2240 Northpoint Parkway, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 ANALYST(S) SUPERVISOR ATTN: Bill McCormick & Gale Paddock DATE DATE of S. Banwait D. Jacobson JOB SITE: Corona -Ely, Petaluma, California. RECEIVED COMPLETION LAB DIRECTOR JOB #: 41- 4890 -01 4/17/01 4/25/01 G.S. Conrad PhD LAB SAMPLE DESCRIPTION of ; SOIL pH SINGLE POINT ELECTRICAL SULFATE CHLORIDE SAMPLE SOIL and /or ; RESISTIVITY CONDUCTIVITY SO4 CI NUMBER ID SEDIMENT ; - log[H +] ohm -cm ,amhos /cm ppm ppm 01 -04 -0211 CE1 /P K -7 -2 @ 3' i 5.31 1890 [530] 66 125 Method Detection ----- L 1 mits - -> - -- 1 0.1 1 1 LAB SAMPLE DESCRIPTION of SALINITY SOLUBLE SOLUBLE REDOX PERCENT SAMPLE SOIL and /or i ECe SULFIDES (S =) CYANIDES (CN =). MOISTURE NUMBER ID SEDIMENT mmhos /cm ` ppm ppm mV % i i 01 -04 -0135 VM1 /C K -3 -4 @ 9' +725.0 - ------------------- L------------ ------------------ ---- --- ------ Method De-tection ---- ----- L-imits - - - -> - -- 0.1 0.1 ---- - ---- COMMENTS The resistivity approaches 2,000 ohm -cm range which is decent, but soil reaction (i.e., pH) is near five which is not helpful; both chloride and sulfate are low in this sample. The CalTrans times to perforation for this sample is as follows: the time to perf for 18 ga steel is a mediocre 10.0 yrs, and for 12 ga it is 22.0 yrs. Neither chlorides nor sulfates are much of a concern. Therefore, this soil rates borderline mediocre -poor based on times to perforation. The 18 ga time to perforation could be improved dramatically by alkaline treatment of the soil to pH 7.3+ raising this perf time to >30 yrs. Based on sulfate and chloride results neither soil should have any significant negative impact on concrete, mortars, grouts or cements; or on contained steel reinforcement. Finally, the redox number is not just good but excellent (i.e., the practical maximum is +800 mV for this test). \ \\ \NOTES: Methods are from following sources: extractions by Cal Trans protocols as per Cal Test 417 (SO4), 422 (CI), and 532/643 (pH & resistivity); & /or by ASTM Vol. 4.08 & ASTM Vol. 11.01 ( =EPA Meth Chem Anal, or Standard Methods); pH - ASTM G 51; Spec. Cond. - ASTM D 1125; resistivity - ASTM G 57; redox - Pt probe /ISE; sulfate - extraction Title 22, detection ASTM D 516 ( =EPA 375.4); chloride - extraction Title 22, detection ASTM D 512 ( =EPA 325.3); sulfides - extrac. Title 22, detection EPA 376.2 ( =SMEWW 4500 -S D); cyanides - extraction Title 22, detection ASTM D 4374 ( =EPA 335.2). BROCHURES Geotechnical Seruices Ape Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the spe- cific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study con- ducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construc- tion contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geot- echnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engi- neering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who pre- pared it. And no one —not even you— should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the full report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. R Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project - Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -spe- cific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management pref- erences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates other- wise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: e not prepared for you, e not prepared for your project, ® not prepared for the specific site explored, or e completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: e the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, e elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, e composition of the design team, or e project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man -made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before apply- ing the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sub- surface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly —from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engi- neer who developed your report to provide construction obser- vation is the most effective method of managing the risks asso- ciated with unanticipated conditions. K L E I N F E L D E R APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE Corona -Ely Subdivision Petaluma, California Report originally prepared for Waterford Constniction Co., Inc. File Number: 41- 4890 -01 Report Date: April 27, 2001 KLEINFELDER, INC. 2240 Northpoint Parkway Santa Rosa California 95407 707 -571 -1883 707 -571 -7813 (Fax) To Whom It May Concern: Applicant understands and agrees that the above - referenced report for the subject site is a copyrighted document, that Kleinfelder, Inc. is the copyright owner and that unauthorized use or copying of the report for the subject site is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of Kleinfelder, Inc. Applicant understands that Kleinfelder, Inc. may withhold such permission at its sole discretion, or grant permission upon such terms and conditions as it deems acceptable. By signing below, the Relying Parties agree to the same terms and conditions as Kleinfelder Inc. Is original client, including any limitations of liability or indemnity obligations. The on inal services agreement may be obtained from the original client identified above or from Kleinfelder, Inc. upon request. To be Comp7efed bvsApphcant r, A NA �p�rtnttt2e) (Company rname) a�� W art -D I t t _ i�yL -`` ,� -s r - '.t RK 1 n ,t { F�rr7 q + ..d.l.� z G f= n e (Address) ,�t E� m - 1 tle. L.� (City State Zap)psh Ir' u ' _ r� iknh�� - 1 �.._{- -f�. "� A. :(Telephone) ^ (FAX) ' . r � To lie Completedby'Kle><nfelder, Inc T'frdr,� AA�� og Approved.--f or;reu`se with applicantagreeingl}- to�aboye terms and1concurrence by original Client Additional fees are'estimaaed at $ - L aJ Disapproved, report needs to be updated; x , 0° xs�F`L .., �. +ju {�i 3.r,�, s11 I i {aG 11�E�'r" t _ .xrc { 1 �"`�fE.arw tail 1 { a'°L wa t l L ME F v _ 1'�.Yt}H - Br� }t r �.r�pu i c ,�� 7 1 J t- s +.Irr Ffilti€��dF'_6p TI. Kleinfelder, bzc.. a�ir�,... RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO KLEINFELDER 41- 489001 \411IR039 April 27, 2001 Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. i MAC%AIR,, � ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ARBORISTS AND HORTICULTURISTS RE: Tree Evaluation- Ely and Corona Road, Petaluma Dear Mr. Smith: ATTACHMENT 10 ti11f ?0`i. ANN- Pursuant to your request, I have evaluated four coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) growing in the pasture area of the property located on the southeast corner of Ely and Corona Roads in Petaluma. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the genera health and structural condition of the trees for purposes of site planning. The trees are growing in two areas of the pasture and are generally in an east to west alignment. The trees have been assigned a number with the eastern most tree designated #1, the next tree to the west, tree #2, and trees #3 and #4, in order, on the west side of the pasture. The coast live oaks on the east side of the pasture are in variable condition. Tree #1 has a significant internal cavity with a fungal conk (fungal fruiting body) growing on the trunk at soil grade. The tree has normal canopy vigor, but may have serious structural defects resulting from the internal decay. Tree #2 is growing next to tree #1 and is in moderate health and structural condition. The canopy is asymmetrical from growing next to tree #1. Trees #3 and #4 are in poor to marginal structural condition due to extensive lower trunk decay. Both trees have insect bark beetle activity and trunk bleeding symptomatic of Sudden Oak Death (SOD), the fungal disease affecting coast live oak in coastal counties. Tree #4 has low vigor and canopy density with twig dieback occurring. Tree #4 is likely in initial stages of decline. These trees should be considered potentially hazardous if located near structures or high use areas. Trees #3 and #4 are not recommended to be retained due to the extensive trunk decay and SOD symptoms. Detailed individuai tree evaluations are included as part of this report. Individual Tree Evaluations: The individual tree evaluations include the following information: Tree number Botanical and common name Number of trunks and diameter measurement Height and canopy spread Health and structural ratings and descriptions Comments /Observations Construction impact Recommendations Health and Structural Ratings and Descriptions: nrl Q nrrICV Rnx 11 S . (,1 FN F1 r FTC' (- Ar IFnp NTtA OS44? • FAX 7 n7.9i 8 •19'�7 . PHnNF 7 n 7 .9' 9 .1 9 ?? February 18, 2001 Mr. Ben Smith Waterford Development 945 Front Street Novato, CA 94945 -3207 RE: Tree Evaluation- Ely and Corona Road, Petaluma Dear Mr. Smith: ATTACHMENT 10 ti11f ?0`i. ANN- Pursuant to your request, I have evaluated four coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) growing in the pasture area of the property located on the southeast corner of Ely and Corona Roads in Petaluma. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the genera health and structural condition of the trees for purposes of site planning. The trees are growing in two areas of the pasture and are generally in an east to west alignment. The trees have been assigned a number with the eastern most tree designated #1, the next tree to the west, tree #2, and trees #3 and #4, in order, on the west side of the pasture. The coast live oaks on the east side of the pasture are in variable condition. Tree #1 has a significant internal cavity with a fungal conk (fungal fruiting body) growing on the trunk at soil grade. The tree has normal canopy vigor, but may have serious structural defects resulting from the internal decay. Tree #2 is growing next to tree #1 and is in moderate health and structural condition. The canopy is asymmetrical from growing next to tree #1. Trees #3 and #4 are in poor to marginal structural condition due to extensive lower trunk decay. Both trees have insect bark beetle activity and trunk bleeding symptomatic of Sudden Oak Death (SOD), the fungal disease affecting coast live oak in coastal counties. Tree #4 has low vigor and canopy density with twig dieback occurring. Tree #4 is likely in initial stages of decline. These trees should be considered potentially hazardous if located near structures or high use areas. Trees #3 and #4 are not recommended to be retained due to the extensive trunk decay and SOD symptoms. Detailed individuai tree evaluations are included as part of this report. Individual Tree Evaluations: The individual tree evaluations include the following information: Tree number Botanical and common name Number of trunks and diameter measurement Height and canopy spread Health and structural ratings and descriptions Comments /Observations Construction impact Recommendations Health and Structural Ratings and Descriptions: nrl Q nrrICV Rnx 11 S . (,1 FN F1 r FTC' (- Ar IFnp NTtA OS44? • FAX 7 n7.9i 8 •19'�7 . PHnNF 7 n 7 .9' 9 .1 9 ?? Tree Evaluation- Ely Aorona Road, Petaluma Page 2 2/18/01 The following chart describes the health and structural rating system used in the evaluation, It is a rating of relative conditions such as vigor, extent of decay, structure, and insect or disease problems. Good and moderate ratings indicate limited structural problems, acceptable vigor, and an absence of significant pest or disease problems. Poor and marginal ratings indicate serious health or structural problems especially if the tree is situated near structures or public areas. Trees rated as poor or marginal are often hazardous. Rating Chart: 4 Good condition Moderate condition Marginal condition Poor condition Relatively minor structural concerns and no serious insect or disease problems. Normal and correctable problems of structure or pests and diseases. Indicates serious problems with structure, decay, or significant insect or disease problems. Indicates very poor health, vigor, or hazardous structural condition Trees may be rated between two conditions, such as 2.5 or 3.5. This indicates the tree does not precisely meet the criteria for either of the two categories and allows the rating system to be used as a continuum. The health defect descriptions describe the basis for the health and structural rating. The specific pests, disease, and structural defects observed are described and identified if possible. This evaluation is of above ground structure only and additional defects may exist at the root collar. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely. /j \\ ie acNair rnational Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist WC -0603 nber American Society of Arboricultural Consultants MacNair and Associates Tree Evaluation- Ely aWorona Road, Petaluma S Page 3 2/18/01 Individual Tree Evaluations Tree Number: Species: Trunk DBH: Number of Trunks: Height: Canopy Diameter: Health Rating: Structural Ratina: Comments /Observations: Construction Impact: Recommendations: Tree Number: Species: Trunk DBH: Number of Trunks: Height: Canopy. Diameter: Health Rating: Structural Rating: Comments /Observations: Construction Impact: Recommendations: MacNair and Associates #1 Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) 19 "; 22 "; 24 3 35' -40't 35'± 3 (moderate) 2.5 (marginal to moderate) Multiple trunk structure with 19 "/24" trunk union partially included. Internal cavity apparent with pockets of dead bark and bark beetle activity. Fungal conk is growing at base of trunk. Limited limb decay observed. Vigor and canopy density are moderate with limited foliar Anthracnose infection occurring. Undetermined. Tree should have detailed trunk diagnostic evaluation if retained. Tree protection and cultural recommendations to be determined at later date. #2 Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) 22" 30' -35't 20' -25'± 3 (moderate) 2.5 (marginal to moderate) Asymmetrical canopy growing from under canopy of tree #1. Lower trunk is angled due to old secondary trunk removal. Limited limb wounds observed. Lower trunk appears in acceptable condition. Vigor and canopy density are moderate. Undetermined. Tree protection and cultural recommendations to be determined at later date. Tree Evaluation- Ely A orona Road, Petaluma Page 4 2/18/01 Tree Number: Species: Trunk DBH: Number of Trunks: Height: Canopy Diameter: Health Ratina: Structural Rating: Comments /Observations: Construction Impact: Recommendations: Tree Number: Species: Trunk DBH: Number of Trunks: Height: Canopy Diameter: Health Rating: Structural Rating: Comments /Observations: Construction Impact: Recommendations: MacNair and Associates #3 Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) 36" 45'± 35' -40'± 3 (moderate) 1.5 (poor to marginal) Co- dominant trunk structure originating at 7'. Extensive cavity and trunk decay with significarif trunk strength loss. Trunk bleeding occurring. Possible SOD infection. Undetermined. Tree is recommende=d for removal due to potentially hazardous condition. #4 Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) 42" 40't 50'± 2 (marginal) 1.5 (poor to marginal) Symmetrical canopy with extensive internal decay apparent. Numerous points of trunk bleeding and bark beetle activity. Possible SOD infection. Significant limb decay present. Low vigor and canopy density. Tree is probably in initial stages of decline. Undetermined. Tree is recommended for removal due to potentially hazardous condition. MAC �l 0 ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ARBORISTS AND HORTICULTURISTS August 6, 2001 Mr. Ben Smith Waterford Development 945 Front Street Novato, CA 94945 -3207 RE: Tree Protection Recommendations - Ely and Corona Road, Petaluma Dear Mr. Smith: Attached for your reference are tree protection guidelines for implementation at the Ely and Corona Road project site in Petaluma. These guidelines should be used to establish appropriate clearances and procedures for protecting the retained trees during site planning and construction. Please contact me with any questions or f additional information is required. SincereLv. rie� MacNair arnational Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist WC -0603 mber American Society of Arboricultural Consultants POST OFFf( -F R(-IV i icn . r,r , I'll , .- MAC AI ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ARBORISTS AND HORTICULTURISTS Tree Protection Procedures Development of the project infrastructure, including roads, utilities, drainage facilities, etc. will alter the natural terrain and affect existing trees growing close to the construction areas. Impacts will primarily occur as a result of the site grading requirements—The following guidelines are intended to minimize grading impacts and maximize tree survivability. 1.0 Tree Protection Zone 1.1) All construction activity (grading, filling, paving, landscaping) will respect a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) around trees to be protected. The TPZ will be a distance of one foot radial distance from the trunk for each one inch of trunk diameter. Exceptions to this standard may occur depending upon the age and condition of individual trees. 2.0 Construction Inspection and Supervision 2.1. All arboricultural and related soil work should be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist, or City designated representative. 2.2. All specified arboricultural work should be completed prior to site grading (root pruning, canopy pruning, fencing, etc.) 2.3. The contractor is required to meet with the Supervising Arborist or City designated representative to review all the tree protection requirements. 3.0 Tree Protection Fencing 3.1 Fencing at a minimum of four feet in height and clearly marked to prevent inadvertent encroachment by heavy machinery should be installed either at the edge of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ), or at the edge of the construction zone if the construction zone protrudes into the TPZ. Location of fencing should be approved by the Supervising Arborist or City designated representative. All fencing should be in place prior to any site grading. 3.2. Contractor should maintain the protection fencing and prohibit all access to fenced areas by construction personnel or equipment until all site work is completed. 3.3. All structures including construction trailers, equipment storage areas and any other construction traffic are prohibited within fenced areas. Burning or debris piles are prohibited within fenced areas. No materials, equipment, spoil, waste, or washout water should be deposited or stored within fenced areas. Fences may not be moved without written permission of the Supervising Arborist or City designated representative. MacNair and Associates POST OFFICE BOX 1150 • GLEN cT t Pm (-1 „_ , Tree Protection Procures Page 2 8/6/01 3.4 If temporary access within a fenced area is determined to be necessary, then a six inch layer of redwood bark fiber should be placed in all areas requiring access. This requirement for mulching should apply to all areas within the fenced area. If equipment access is required, then the mulch should be overlaid with interlocking metal plates of sufficient thickness to adequately distribute bearing load. 4.0 Demolition /Site Clearing 4.1 Any tree removal work within 50 feet of a TPZ should be reviewed by a qualified arborist. Trees requiring removal should be felled away -from- protected trees. Roots of trees to be removed may be required to be pruned with approved root cutting equipment prior to felling if intermingled with roots of retained trees. 4.2 Excavation equipment should operate from outside the TPZ. Brush and wood chips generated from tree and brush removal should be placed in the TPZ To a uniform depth of six inches. 4.3 All required pruning should conform to the pruning section of these guidelines. 4.4 All brush removal should be performed with hand equipment when within the TPZ. 5.0 Site -Grading, Trenching and Root Pruning 5.1 Keep site grading within designated construction zones. Grading cuts or trenching within the TPZ of a retained tree trunk require special trenching procedures. Trenches should be dug manually or with the use of a root cutting machine, rock cutter, or other approved root - pruning equipment. This root - pruning trench should be placed one foot.inside the edge of the grading cut. The depth of the trench should equal the depth of the grading cut to a maximum depth of 40 inches. 5.2 A trench may be mechanically dug toward a tree until the edge of the TPZ is reached. From the edge of the TPZ, the special trenching procedures should apply. 5.3 Underground utilities, drain, and irrigation lines should be routed outside the TPZ. When lines must cross the TPZ, the lines should be bored or tunneled through the area at a depth approved by the supervising arborist. In these instances, a single shared utility conduit should be used to reduce impacts to trees. 5.4. Any roots one inch in diameter or larger requiring removal should be cut cleanly in sound tissue. The roots and surrounding soil should be moistened and covered with a thick mulch (4 ") to prevent desiccation. No pruning seals or paints should be used on wounds"*`. Cut and exposed roots should be protected from drying. A water absorbent material (i.e. burlap) should be secured at the top of the trench and should be draped over the exposed roots. This material should be kept moistened and soil should be replaced as soon as practicable. 5.5 Use of retaining walls will be encouraged to protect retained trees. 5.5. Fill placement areas covering 30% or more of the TPZ of trees larger than 24 inches dbh and over one foot in depth should be mitigated with a retaining wall or well. Installation of MacNair and Associates Tree Protection ProcOreS • Page 3 8/6/01 aeration systems may also be required depending upon the extent, depth, and type of the fill. 5.6 The established method for protecting trees subjected to deep grading fills is to construct a well around the trunk and install an aeration system over the root system at the original grade level. The aeration system utilizes perforated plastic pipe laid out in a radially spoked pattern from the tree well with vertical pipes providing connection to surface oxygen and water. This aeration system should facilitate drainage away from the trunk. The fill is then placed over the aeration system. 6.0 Foundation Construction 6.1. Foundation construction within the TPZ of retained trees is recommended to be either a pier and grade beam construction which bridges root areas, cantilevered structures, or raised foundations using pier footings. 7.0 Site Drainage 7.1 All grading shall be designed to provide positive drainage away from the base of the tree trunk, and not create ponding within the TPZ. 7.2 Drainage features such as v- ditches and French drains will be utilized upslope from existing trees to divert runoff away from roots and the TPZ. These v- ditches are best utilized downslope of any irrigated landscape areas. 8.0 Pruning 8.1 Any tree pruning or other similar activity which may be proposed as part of site construction will be included on site plans and be reviewed by a qualified arborist or City representative. 8.2 Pruning methods shall conform to the ANSI A 300 Pruning Standards and be performed by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker. 9.0 Tree Damage Mitigation 9.1 Trees damaged during construction shall be evaluated by the Supervising Arborist or City representative. Proper mitigation measures shall be specified and may include: a.) Pruning of damaged and dead wood. b.) Installation of a drip irrigation system to provide supplemental irrigation for three to five seasons following damage. . 4 `,`, c.) Proper low nitrogen fertilization timed to growth response and phenological development of the tree. d.) Periodic hazard evaluation of tree. e.) Replacement of tree per city requirements. f.) Alleviation of severe compaction by vertical mulching with augers or hydraulic soil probes. g.) Alleviation of surface compaction by light cultivation or raking and the application of a mulch. MacNair and Associates Tree Protection Proces Page 4 8/6/01 Post - Construction Recommendations: Retained trees are recommended to receive the following cultural procedures: 1.0 Drip Irrigation System: An in -line emitter drip system is recommended for placement at edge of the canopy drip line for trees subject to construction impact. The emitters should have a 2 gallon per hour flow rate and be spaced at 24 inches on center. This system should be installed for all trees deemed important to preserve. Irrigate one time per month from May through September for ten hours. If excessive run- off occurs reduce run tirne by 50% and repeat application in two days. 2.0 Fertilization: Post - construction a slow release nitrogen formulation should be applied in non - graded areas in a 10 foot wide band at the canopy edge. Rate of application should be .5 pound actual nitrogen per 1000 square feet. Timing of application is in November after winter rains have begun. Additional fertilization requirements shall be determined by the supervising arborist. 3.0 Mulch Application: Apply a four to six inch depth of bark mulch below and 10 feet beyond canopy where appropriate. There is new insect/pathogen syndrome named Sudden Oak Death (SOD) (Western oak bark beetle, ambrosia beetle, and Phytophthora fungus) killing live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and black oak (Quercus kelloggii) in Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties. Trees, which are over mature, stressed, fire damaged, and /or damaged from construction or cultural practices, are particularly susceptible to attack. Symptoms of SOD were not observed on this site. Following are general recommendations pertaining to management of this insect/disease syndrome: 1.) Oaks should be checked during the months of March to October for symptoms of bark beetle infestations. Trees with symptoms or trees deemed critical for preservations should be sprayed with permethrin (Astro®) from soil level to at least eight feet above grade. Certain fungicides (Subdue® and Phyton -270) are approved for use too � prevent bark infection and can be applied to important trees. 2.) Dead trees are likely to drop limbs or collapse completely. Dead trees located close to construction areas or where they may be hazardous should be removed promptly. 3.) All removed trees and pruning debris should be retained on site or disposed of at a local landfill site (check with the County Agricultural Commissioner for approved locations). Do not transport dirt from infected sites. 4.) Prune oaks only during the months of June to August. Pruning of live wood should be avoided, if possible. Damaged, dead, or low vigor limbs should be removed. MacNair and Associates Tree Protection Proces Page 5 8/6/01 Sanitize pruning equipment with Lysol, 70% alcohol, or 10% bleach prior to pruning healthy trees or working in a disease free area. 5.) Any stumps should be cut as close to the ground as practical. Stump grinders should not be used to avoid contamination of the grinder. 6.) Prompt treatment of insect foliar pests (oak worm, loopers, tent caterpillars) should be done to prevent further stress of trees. 7.) Provide supplemental irrigation during summer months (May though September) to oaks subject to root loss from construction or if trees are drought stressed due to insufficient rainfall. Irrigation can be applied with drip lines or soaker hoses and should be limited to a ten foot band at the canopy edge.,.- Frequency of irrigation should be every three to six weeks depending upon soil and root depth. . 8.) Avoid soil compaction and excessive irrigation near oaks. Provide positive drainage away from tree trunks. Landscaping The following guidelines apply to landscaping around native oak trees. Planting Issues: a.) Do not plant within 10' of the trunk. Use deep mulches (4 ") in this area. b.) Do not allow irrigation to spray on trunk or within a 15' radius of the trunk. c.) Do not plant lawn or high water requiring groundcovers. Use drought tolerant plants that require minimal irrigation. d.) Irrigation frequencies should be no more than once every three weeks May through November. Choose irrigation systems that best fit the needs of the plants. This can be drip (with multiple emitters), bubblers, or low volume spray heads. e.) Do not over plant. Use wide plant spacing to increase the drought tolerance of the plants and to limit competition with the oak. Q Fertilize only in late winter and only as needed. Plants naturally adaptive to oak woodlands will require minimal fertilization. .. °h. MacNair and Associates I tN C O R P O R A T E S PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 619 Ely Road . . . Petaluma, CA 94952 Assessors Parcel Number: 137 -070 -09 Project Number: 01 -03 -1 -P Prepared for Waterford Associates Attn: Mr. Benjamin Smith 945 Front Street Novato, CA 94945 Prepared by HANOVER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 56 Hanover Lane, Suite 100 Chico, CA 28 March 2001 ATTACHMENT 11 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE HYDROLOGY HAZ -MAT CONTRACTING REGULATORY COMPLIANCE HANOVER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. PH 530.342.1333 56 HANOVER LANE. SUITE 100 FAX 530.342.1490 CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 EMAIL HAN_ENV @PACBELL.NET Table of Contents 1.0 Summary ...................................................................................... ............................... 3 ................. 2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................... ............................... 3 2.2 Detailed ed Scope -of Services ......................................................................... ............................... 3 2.3 Significant Assumptions ............................................................................. ............................... 3 2.4 Limitations and Exceptions ...................................................... .............................. 3 .. ................. 3.0 Site Description ............................................................................................. ............................... 4 3.1 Location and Legal Description .............................. ............................... 3.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics ................................................................. ............................... 4 3.3 Current Use of the Property ........................................................................ ............................... 5 3.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site ............. ............................... 5 3.5 Current Uses of the Adjoining Properties .............................. .............................. 5 .. .................... 4.0 User Provided Information ............................................................................. ............................... 5 4.1 Title Records .............................................................................................. ............................... 5 4.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ................................. ............................... 5 4.3 Specialized Knowledge ............................................................................ ............................... 6 4.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ............................................ ............................... 6 4.5 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information. ............................................................... 6 4.6 Reason for Performing Phase I ................................................................... ............................... 6 4.7 Other ......................................................................................................... ............................... 6 5.0 Records Review ............................................................................................. ............................... 6 5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources .................................................... ............................... 6 5.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources .................................................. ............................... 6 5.3 Physical Setting Source(s) .......................................................................... ............................... 7 5.4 Historical Use Information on the Property and Adjoining Property Sources .............................. 8 6.0 Site Reconnaissance ....................................................................................... ............................... 8 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ....................................................... ............................... 8 6.2 General Site Setting ......................................................................... ............................... 8 7.0 Interviews ................ ........................... ............................... 9 7.1 Interview with Owner ....................................................... ................:......... ........................:...... 9 7.2 Interview with Site Manager ....................................................................... ............................... 9 7.3 Interview with Occupants ........................................................................... ............................... 9 7.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials ............................................... ............................... 9 8.0 Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................... ............................... 9 8.1 Record Search ............................................................................................ ............................... 9 8.1.1 Standard Environmental Record Search - Federal ................................ ............................... 9 8.1.2 Standard Environmental Record Search- State ..................................... ............................... 9 8.1.3 Local Record Search ......................................................................... ............................... 10 8.2 Historical Use Search of Subject Property ................................................. ............................... 10 8.2.1 Summary of Historical Use of the Subject Property ........................... ............................... 11 8.3 Historical Use Search of Surrounding Properties ....................................... ............................... 11 8.4 Opinions, Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................... ............................... 12 9.0 Qualification and Signature .......................................................................... ............................... 13 1.0 Summary Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitation of ASTM Practice E1527 -00 for the subject property described as Assessor's Parcel Number 137 -070 -09 located at 619 Ely Road, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from this practice are described in Section 2.4 and Section 6.1 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in association with the subject property. 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Purpose This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been created by Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. (Hanover) under the direction of a State of California Registered Environmental Assessor, whose seal and/or signature appears hereon. This document serves to identify recognized environmental conditions in association with the subject property. The term recognized environmental conditions means the presence or the likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the subject property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous material or petroleum product into structures on the subject property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the subject property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimus conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. This report has been prepared in an objective and unbiased manner and in accord with ASTM Practice E 1527 -00. This document has been prepared to satisfy the "appropriate inquiry" portion of the innocent landowner defense to of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) concerning the subject property located at 619 Ely Road, Petaluma, Sonoma County, CA. This document is for the sole use of Waterford Associates and their agents. 2.2 Detailed Scope -of Services This assessment has been conducted within the recommendations of American Society for Testing. and Materials (ASTM) and included a review and analysis of existing data and information concerning the property, as well as an update, review and analysis of any current information and data concerning the property as contained in the records of the governmental regulatory agencies concerned with the property. Additionally, a site review of the subject property was performed and interviews were conducted, as appropriate, to determine the existence or non - existence of recognized environmental conditions, now and in the past, and any contamination arising therefrom. 2.3 Significant Assumptions Hanover believes the results, specifications, conclusions and professional opinions to be accurate and relevant but cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of public documentation or accuracy, completeness, or possible withholding of information by interviewees or other private parties. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied. 2.4 Limitations and Exceptions The scope of services performed to complete this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is limited in nature. Site conditions can change in time, and our assessment is not intended to predict future site conditions. Because of the limited nature of this assessment, site history will be developed based only on information provided by the client, interview process, and a review of available regulatory files on this site and near -by sites. This report is not a complete risk assessment and the scope of services does not include a complete determination of the extent of, nor the environmental or public health impact of, known or suspected hazardous materials or wastes. This property assessment did not include air, soil or water sampling, or laboratory analysis. Therefore, the results of this investigation do not preclude the possibility of substances that are currently or in the future may be defined as hazardous being present on the property. This report does not purport to address all safety problems, if any, associated with the subject property, The following are several non -scope considerations that persons may want to assess in connection with commercial real estate. No implication is intended as to the relative importance of inquiry into such non- scope considerations, and this list is not intended to be all - inclusive: Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) Radon Lead based paint Lead in drinking water Wetlands Regulatory compliance Cultural and historic resources Health and safety Ecological resources Endangered species Indoor air quality The government database search included sites that are within the ASTM search range of the subject property. However, sites exist that are in the general vicinity of the subject property without enough information listed to map these "orphan" sites or determine if they are within the ASTM search range. The Orphan summary indicated that there are fourteen (14) orphan sites, While the Hanover representative collected reasonably ascertainable historical information, gaps in evidence of property use exist. Based on information obtained during the interview process and general knowledge of the history of this vicinity of Petaluma, it is the opinion of the Hanover representative that the historical property uses have been adequately defined. Several portions of on -site structures could not be thoroughly inspected due to poor and/or unsafe conditions or debris and stored items located on the subject property. Despite these limitations it is the opinion of Will Bono, Registered Environmental Assessor #04233, that this property assessment provides an appropriate degree of inquiry to determine if recognized environmental conditions exists on the subject property. 3.0 Site Description The Hanover representative performed a site inspection on 20 March 2001. 3.1 Location and Legal Description Physical Address: 619 Ely Road, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California Assessors Parcel Number: 137 -070 -09 Latitude: 38.273998 -380 16' 26.4" Longitude: 122.648598 - 1220 38' 55.0" 3.2 Site and lrcinity Characteristics The subject property is located in a medium - density residential/agricultural area of Petaluma, Sonoma County, CA. The subject property is approximately 5 acres in size. One residential structure and two barns were located on the subject property at the time of the site inspection. 4 The subject property is situated at an elevation of approximately 60 feet above mean sea level. Site topography was relatively flat with regional topography sloping toward the San Pablo Bay located southeast of Petaluma. The subject property is located in the California Coast Range province. The Coast Ranges extend approximately 600 miles from the Oregon border in the north to the Santa Ynez River in the south and are divided into two sub- provinces: the ranges north of San Francisco Bay and those from the bay south to Santa Barbara County. The few differences between the sub- provinces probably exist because the northern ranges lie east of the San Andreas fault zone, and most of the southern ranges are to the west of the San Andreas fault zone. The Coast Ranges contain many elongate ranges and narrow valleys that are approximately parallel to the coast (Norris & Webb, 1990). The large streams in the northern ranges of the Coastal Ranges all fellow the structural grain of faults or folds for much of their lengths. The larger northern streams include the Klamath, Mad, Eel, and Russian Rivers. The southern ranges also contain drainage strongly controlled by faults and synclinal folds. Southern streams include the Salinas, the San Antonio and Nacimiento Rivers (Norris & Webb, 1990) Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) supplied information on 7 March 2001 regarding the physical setting of the subject property. They reported dominant soil composition in the general area of the subject property as a clay with very slow infiltration rates (see Section 5.3 for a listing of physical setting sources). 3.3 Current Use of the Property During the 20 March 2001 site inspection, the subject property was structurally developed with a residence and two barn structures. The property was an operating sheep ranch and associated residence 3.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads, Other Improvements on the Site One residential structure and two barns existed on the subject property during the 20 March 2001 site inspection. The one -story residential structure was approximately 1400 square feet in size and was built in approximately 1922. The house was constricted on a perimeter foundation with a wood frame, stucco sidir:g and composition roofing material. The house appeared to be in good condition. Two barns were also built in approximately 1922. The barns were built using typical "balloon" construction with corrugated metal roofs. The barns appeared to be in fair condition with portions of the larger barn in poor condition. Utilities to the property included power and gas, telephone. Water was proved by a domestic well. Sewerage services were provided by a 1200 - gallon septic system. No storm drains were seen on the property. 3.5 Current Uses of the Adjoining Properties North: School West: Corona Road (Residential/agricultural properties located west of the road) South: Residential/municipal water pump station East: Residential 4.0 User Provided Information 4.1 Title Records A Preliminary Title Report from North Bay Title Company of Petaluma, CA, dated 13 December 2000, was provided by Mr. Ben Smith of Waterford Associates, 4.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations There are no known environmental liens or activity and use limitations due to hazardous material issues on the subject property. 4.3 Specialized Knowledge Other than information provided during the interview process (see Section 7.0), there was no specialized knowledge provided by parties formerly or currently associated with the subject property. 4.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues There is no known valuation reduction of environmental issues involving the subject property. 4.5 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information Property Owner: Larry C. Baker and Joe Ann Baker Property Manager: Same Occupant: Same 4.6 Reason for Performing Phase I The purpose of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is to qualify for the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability. 4.7 Other Questionnaires/information sheets were completed by Mr. Ben Smith of Waterford Associates and during the site inspection by Mr. Larry Baker, the current property owner. The questionnaires included inquiry regarding site characteristics, documents listed in Section 9.8.1, and user's responsibilities described in Section 5.0 of the ASTM Practice E 1527 -00 standard. Copies of the questionnaires are on file at Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. Chico office and are available for review upon request. 5.0 Records Review 5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources Information on Standard Environmental Records was provided by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) on 7 March 2001. The Standard Environmental Records searched, original source of information, approximate search distance, date information was last updated by EDP, and date information was last updated by original source are listed below. Record Original Search EDR Update Original Source Distance (m1) Source Update Federal NPL EPA 1.0 2/16/01 1/23/01 Federal CERCLIS EPA 0.5 8116/00 4116100 Federal CERCLIS NFRAP EPA 0.25 8116100 4/16/00 Federal RCRA CORRACTS EPA 1.0 8/1/00 4/20/00 Federal RCRA -TSD EPA/NTIS 0.5 7/31/00 6/21/00 Federal RCRA generators EPA/NTIS 0.25 7/31/00 6/21/00 Federal ERNS EPA/N MS Target Property 916100 8/8/00 Cal -Sites (AWP) CA EPA 1.0 5110100 3110/00 Cal -Sites DTSC 1.0 11/22/00 10 /1 /00 CHMIRS OES 1.0 4/24/95 12/31/94 Cortese CA EPA/OES 1.0 9/23/98 411/98 Notify 65 SWRCB 1.0 11/19/93 10/21/93 Toxic Pits SWRCB 1.0 9/26/95 7/1/95 State Landfill Integrated Waste 0.5 10/30/00 9/27/00 WMUDS /SWAT SWRCB 0.5 5/10/00 4/1/00 LUST SWRCB 0.5 11/28/00 10/4/00 UST SWRCB 0.25 2/12/91 10/15/90 CA Bond Exp, Plan Dept Health Serv, 1.0 8/2/94 1/1/89 CA FID CA EPA 0.25 9/29/95 10/31/94 5.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources Information on Additional Environmental Records was provided by EDR on 7 March 2001. - The Additional Environmental Records searched, original source of information, approximate search distance, date information was last updated by EDR, and date information was last updated by original source are listed below. 6 The Sonoma County Environmental Health Division was contacted on 19 March 2001 in an effort to determine if hazardous materials incidents and/or underground storage tank issues exist for the subject property. Record Original Search EDR Contact Original Source Distance (nil) Source Update CONSENT EPA/NTIS 1.0 NA NA ROD NTIS 1.0 10/12/00 1/31/99 FINDS EPA Target Property 10/10/00 7!7/00 HMIRS USDOT Target Property 10/24/00 6130199 MLTS Nuclear Reg. Target Property 10/10/00 4/23/00 MINES Dept of Labor 0.25 10/2/00 8/1/98 NPL Liens EPA Target Property 8/21/00 100115191 PADS EPA Target Property 8/15/00 1/1/00 RAATS EPA Target Property 9/12/00 4/17/95 TRIS EPA Target Property - 9/25/00 12/31/97 TSCA EPA Target Property 9/12/00 12/31/98 AST SWRCB Target Property 1116100 9/1/00 WDS SWRCB Target Property 8/30/00 8/21/00 HAZNET CA EPA 0.25 8/15/00 12/31/99 5.3 Physical Setting Source(s) Physical setting information was provided by the 2438122 -C6 COTATI, CA USGS 7.5 minute quad index. In addition, EDR provided information on hydrology, hydrogeology, geology, etc. A list of the original sources and status of data is shown below. Search results can be found in Appendix A with a discussion of findings in Section 8.0. Hydrologic Information: FEMA Flood Zone for Sonoma., CA FEMA Q3 Flood Data Electronic Coverage: Flood Plain Panel at Target Property: Additional Panels in search area: National Wetland Inventory NWI Quad for Cotati Hydrogeologic Information: Site - Specific Hydrogeological Data (CERCLIS Alerts, Inc.) 2.0 Mile Radius Aquiflow (2.0 Mile Radius) Geologic Information: Geologic Age and Rock Stratigrullic Unit Yes -refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map 0603750870B / CBPP 0603790001C / CBPP 06037900020 / CBPP Yes -refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map Not Found Twenty -seven points identified, see Appendix A and Physical Setting Source Map P.G. Schruben, RE. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale -a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS -11 (1994). Dominant Soil Composition in General Area of Target Pro= Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 7 March 2001, Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data. 7 5.4 Historical Use Information on the Property and Adjoining Property Sources In addition to information provided during the interview process, historical use information was provided by the following sources: • The Sonoma County Building Department was contacted by the Hanover representative on 19 March 2001. • The Hanover representative contacted the Sonoma County Assessor's office for information on the subject property on 19 March 2001. • EDR performed an aerial photograph search for the subject property on 9 March 2001. Aerial photographs depicting the subject and surrounding properties were provided for 1952, 1965, 1982 and 1994. • EDR's collection of Sanborn® Fire Insurance Maps was reviewed on 8 March 2001. Maps depicting the subject property were not identified. • A review of city directories depicting the subject and surrounding properties was provided by EDR on 14 March 2001. 6.0 Site Reconnaissance 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions On 20 March 2001, the Hanover representative performed a site reconnaissance to obtain information indicating the likelihood of identifying recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. The periphery of the property was visually and/or physically observed as well as the periphery of all structures on the property. The property was viewed from all adjacent public thoroughfares. The interiors of the structures were also visually and/or physically observed if possible. Observation of a portion of the interior of one of the barn structures was limited to what could be viewed from the exterior of the structure based on safety issues relating to structural integrity. Observation of soils and vegetation was limited by on site structures and debris/garbage. The Hanover representative relied on information provided by individuals currently or historically involved with the property. 6.2 General Site Setting Weather conditions in the vicinity of Petaluma during the 20 March 2001 site visit were hazy and warm with temperatures in the 70 °F range. The general surface gradient was relatively flat. During the 20 March 2001 site visit the property was structurally developed. The adjoining properties were residential or agricultural in nature, with a school located north of the property (see Section 3.5 for a description of current adjoining properties). One approximately 550 - gallon above ground diesel tank (AST) was observed on the subject property. The tank supplied diesel fuel for the on -site ranch activities. The tank appeared to be in good condition and was empty at the time of the site visit. No staining or stressed vegetation was seen in the vicinity of the AST. Several 55 -gallon drums were located on the property. The drums were empty and no staining was seen on or around the vicinity where they were stored. The drums were used for storage for the ranch, and feed and water containers for the sheep. One 25- gallon drum of solvent, small quantities of paint, grease, and pesticides were located in the small barn structure for on -site ranch activities. One 55- gallon drum located in the large barn appeared to contain oil. A small amount of staining (less than 5 gallons) could be seen on the soil under the flooring. No further evidence of hazardous materials was identified on the subject property. 7.0 Interviews 7.1 Interview with Owner On 20 March 2001, Mr. Larry Baker, the current property owner provided information regarding the site during the site inspection. Mr. Baker stated that his family has owned the property since approximately 1915. The property was used for a chicken ranch until approximately 1959 when they converted to sheep. Mr. Baker stated that he has been familiar with the property his whole life. He reported that no hazardous materials are stored on the subject property and any chemicals historically used on the property have been used, stored and disposed of according to manufacture's recommendations. To his knowledge, no chemicals that have since been banned were employed on the subject property. Mr. Baker stated the above ground storage tank has not been used since approximately 1975. Prior to that there had been no incidents of spills, leaks, or unauthorized releases. He also stated that a majority of the 55- gallon drums stored on the property were brought to the site empty and have been used for storage and feed and water supply for the livestock. 7.2 Interview with Site Manager Same as above 7.3 Interview with Occupants Same as above 7.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials On 27 March 2001 the Hanover representative contacted Mr. John Tracy of the Sonoma County Environmental Health Division in an effort to identify any current or historical hazardous materials issues or incidents in association with the subject property or surrounding properties. Mr. Tracy stated that he has been with the UST program since approximately 1995. He stated that there have been a number of UST sites in that area of Petaluma. Specifically he mentioned a PG&E site, located at 210 Corona Rd. that was closed in 1999. He recalled a ranch site on Adobe Rd. that has since been closed and the J &D Automotive site on 279 Adobe Rd. that is still an active site. Mr. Tracy stated that to his knowledge there are no active sites in the immediate vicinity of Ely Rd. and Corona Rd. He did state that generalizing a regional groundwater flow direction in the area would be difficult due to numerous surface streams. 8.0 Findings and Conclusions 8.1 Record Search The subject property was not identified in any of the databases searched by EDR 8.1.1 Standard Environmental Record Search - Federal No sites were identified in the federal database search within the ASTM standard search radius. A complete listing and description of databases that were searched and the search results are included in Appendix A. 8.1.2 Standard Environmental Record Search -State A brief summary of sites identified within the search radius of the subject property in the California Regulatory records databases follows. A complete listing is included in Appendix A. CORTESE Database (CORTESE)r This database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with USTs having a reportable release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The source is the California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency Information. A review of the Cortese list has revealed that there are seven (7) Cortese sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Based on the distance of these sites, they are not considered recognized environmental conditions in association with the subject property. Notify 65: Proposition 65 Notification Records, NOTIFY 65 contains facility notifications about any release which could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. The source of this information is the State Water Resources Control Board. A search of this database identified six (6) sites within the search distance of the subject property. Based on the distance of these sites they are not considered a recognized environmental condition in association with the subject property. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUST: LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. The source of this information is the State Water Resources Control Board. A search of this database revealed two (2) sites within the search radius of the subject property. Based on the site status ("signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary") of the site identified as the Bollinger Property at 580 Corona Rd., it is not considered a recognized environmental condition in association with the subject property. The Grayview Farms property located at 694 Corona Rd. is not considered a recognized environmental condition in connection with the subject property based on the distance (greater than 1/8 mile). Underground Storage Tank Database (UST: The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database is a historical listing of UST sites. The source of information in this database is the State Water Resources Control Board. A search of this database identified one (1) site within the search radius of the subject property. Based on the nature of this database and the distance of the site it is not considered a recognized environmental condition in association with the subject property. Orphan Summary: The above government database search included sites that are within the ASTM search range of the subject property. However, sites exist that are in the general vicinity of the subject property without enough information listed to map these "orphan" sites or determine if they-are within the ASTM search range. The Orphan summary indicates that there are fourteen (14) orphan sites. 8.1.3 Local Record Search Sonoma County Environmental Health Division On 20 March 2001 the Hanover representative contacted the Sonoma County Environmental Health Division in an effort to identify any current or historical hazardous materials issues or incidents in association with the subject property or surrounding properties. No file existed for the subject property. 8.2 Historical Use Search of Subject Property Aerial Photographs The following is a summary of aerial photographs depicting the subject property provided by EDR on 9 March 2001 (photographs are on file at the Chico office of Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. and can be viewed upon request): 1952: The subject property appears to be structurally developed with the current structures. 1965: The aerial photograph is similar to the 1952 photo. 1982: The aerial photograph is similar to the 1965 photo. 1994: The aerial photograph is similar to the 1982 photo. 10 Sanborn ® Fire Insurance Maps Sanborn® fire insurance maps for the subject property were not reasonably ascertainable. City Directory Search A city directory search for the subject property as provided by EDR on 14 March 2001 resulted in no listing for the street for 1950, 1956, 1958, and 1962. There was no listing for the address for 1967. The site was listed as a residence in 1971. Sonoma County Building Department The Sonoma County Building Department file had record of one permit from 1984 to replace a patio cover. The records in this department generally date back to the 1960s. Permits were not required prior to 1962. Sonoma County Assessor's Office On 19 March 2001, the Hanover representative contacted the Sonoma County Assessor's office in an effort to determine past land uses. The records indicated that a residential structure, a barn and a chicken house have existed on the property since 1922. 8.2.1 Summary of Historical Use of the Subject Property 1910 - present: Subject property structurally developed for residential and agricultural purposes 8.3 Historical Use Search of Surrounding Properties Former use of surrounding properties has consistently remained largely residential and agricultural in nature. City Directory Search A city directory search for the surrounding properties as provided by EDR on 14 March 2001 resulted in the following listings: Year Address Listing 1950 Street not listed 1956 Street not listed 1958 Street not listed 1962 Street not listed 1967 539 Ely Rd, Residence 580 -1225 Ely Rd. Address not listed 1971 539 Ely Rd. Residence 580 Ely Rd. Residence 581 Ely Rd. Residence 1171 Ely Rd. Residence 1224 ,Ely Rd. Residence 1225 Ely Rd. Residence Aerial Photographs The following is a summary of aerial photographs depicting the subject property provided by EDR on 9 March 2001 (photographs are on file at the Chico office of Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. and can be viewed upon request): 1952: (Poor quality photo) Moderate structural development in surrounding areas. The property located east of the subject property remains structurally undeveloped and planted with a grass crop. Various structures can be seen to the north, south, and west of the subject property. These structures are likely residential and agricultural in nature. Ely Road and Corona Road can both be seen in the photo. 1965: The aerial photograph is similar to the 1952. 11 1982: The aerial photograph is similar to the 1965 photo with an increase in development in the surrounding areas. A high density residential development can be seen in the southern portion of the photograph. 1994: The aerial photograph is similar to the 1982 photo with an increase in structural development. 8.4 Opinions, Conclusions and Recommendations Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitation of ASTM Practice E1527 -00 for the subject property described as Assessor's Parcel Number 137 -070 -09 located at 619 Ely Road, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from this practice are described in Sections 2.4 and 6.1 of this report. While a small area of staining was seen in the vicinity of a 55 -gallon drum stored in the larger barn, based on information provided by the property owner, it is the opinion of the Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. that this incident has not environmentally impacted the subject property. Prior to transfer of title, Hanover recommends that all hazardous materials stored on site should be relocated or disposed of in an appropriate manner. While no environmental site assessment can fully eliminate the uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions, the ASTM standard does cite the balance between appropriate levels of inquiry and the cost of such exhaustive investigations. The information contained in this report would lead one to the opinion that the probability of recognized environmental conditions in association with the subject property is not significant enough to warrant further investigation. 12 9.0 Qualification and Signature Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. has performed this assessment under my supervision in accordance with generally accepted environmental practices and procedures, as of the date of this report. I have employed the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable environmental professionals practicing in this area. The conclusions contained within this assessment are based upon site conditions readily observed or were reasonably, ascertainable and present at the time of the site inspection. The conclusions and recommendations stated in this report are based upon personal observations made by employees of Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. and upon information provided by others. I have no reason to suspect or believe that the information provided is inaccurate. Signature of Senior Environmental Assessor - Will Bono, RE4 #04233 \ �NyIR A h ILL B0410 Signature /Sea] of Senior Environmental Assessor*?, NO. 04233 w° date' OF 13 Appendix A: Subject Property Maps 14 Site Vicinity Map 15 C r Ri Ei v m z m N m C O 'C Q. N Q E vi m oO1 ° o o� r o m U E"" EO N t O� p> �Q r Z NmJ � � N m c N- N UIQ �p LI. C N �+ _G OI O y O � 1` y L m p 4 N DoE o(9u N � n [6 NO W G) m rnrnrn ®tt •c a qaq oUU U®® Site Map 16 O y e � L p :O C O � wa�,E b � COUNTY COUNrY ASS ESSV R:5 PARCEL MAP Parcel Map Na 278 B,t US Pps, /4 -15, RAC, 6 -17=94 Porcel Map Na 89-66,9 Bd; 507 Pp s. /5- 17, Ric, .3- J / -SJ J 64 #4i•JI' PE Pcl Mop No 303 R1,, 36Z, Rgs JJ..56, Rea 4,d7 -S7 r.1 /Jr OB r6a. av JIS.GO t OT I,1J t 4.8eA� y f,71 1 7sJ,OG en I 4/ for Z -% 6, 4.95 Ac, M I 30, 44" Aa 470 oo rsd , a i /:J.91A= NA/A V Ar hti /. "pt / 4 AIZ b — — — — — — - -- Ale 93 -J99e6 9.53 Ac. b h ° t 9IT n 1 M 3I'49%9- K14° -rats' 713.34 ZPd.Z6 i 3J070 C o 1,q /2a.o i N54 ° ?u SY cti 2 p %Pd.o OI a go s.�4°33'F rZS,J4 = v I s soAc. a '� 60344 /Zl,90 .4v,st w aI 4.94 A0. 2 tY7, /0 IJt I tOA. � MJ4�5p'lI'M' lIII.Q'J 8 0 h _ p Q O � _ 4 ' Pcl. A 6. JB Ac. 'r, b 2 h a#r.i♦ !!L /I R/ES11NO ti 7z,�t; f a �' spa• /7'E 6�iJo X11 I r t` 1 /37 I 36 I L;u, o ELY ROAD 11-11, 4 4B PCI.0 4.6Ar- G,C.- ras, 0 r./o 175 -003 4944 W 7177, I0 3-030 '\ 1 P 1 1 D ,. C.p.L414.6r 4 U�j/7 W �..Gi o. J.7/ Ae, f37 -c7 CIRCLE 4AI Rat. 22 September,;'. v az�r�°E'� •'� I p+ S. /DA- +�, ssro.00 PM 89-6692 414! G.C. - I •M. 303 ,v 0 S3♦ °J /'t $44`3. !!i J]•f i 0 5.4 ses 7/ t e I I+ I I Pct. B !+ 1 1 1 I 4 14. Z44. e/iu f57 I �r J9 i ! . }�r /J7 29 , 4 I + I + Database Overview Map 17 OVERVIEW MAP - 6030-19.3s - Hanover Environmental Svs. 1 S 1 P \D < , PKWY to .0 Kj Target Property Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property • Sites at elevations lower than the target property A. Coal Gasification Sites (if requested) National Priority List Sites Landfill Sites \ \i\ 0 114 112 1 Wes MWOMMMEMEMENd - -� Power transmission lines Areas of Concern Oil & Gas pipelines F 100 -year flood zone Ej 500 -year Hood zone Wetlands TARGET PROPERTY: 619 Ely Road CUSTOMER: Hanover Environmental Svs. ADDRESS: 619 Ely Road CONTACT: Lyna Black CITY /STATE /ZIP: Petaluma CA 94954 INQUIRY #: 603919.3s LAT /LONG: 38.2740 /122.6486 DATE: March 07, 2001 3:21 pm Database Detail Map 18 DETAIL. MAP - 603919.3s - Hanover Environmental Svs. <. Target Property o uis �re vauib� Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property Sites at elevations lower than Power transmission lines Areas of Concern the target property Oil &Gas pipelines A. Coal Gasification Sites (if requested) 0 100 -year flood zone t Sensitive Receptors a 500 -year flood zone Nafional Priority List Sites Wetlands Landfill Sites TARGET PROPERTY: 619 Ely Road CUSTOMER: Hanover Environmental Svs. ADDRESS: 619 Ely Road CONTACT: Lyna Slack CITY /STATE/ZIP: Petaluma CA 94954 INQUIRY #: 603919,3s LAT /LONG: 38.2740 /122.6486 DATE: March 07, 2001 3:22 pm Database Topographic Map 19 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 603919.3s l \ uJ ,.` boo 1 o \ DO _a \V \ \0B O \�y ` , 2 \9l \ Vf \� \ \�� f, Mt>ullTA�N — `\\ If '23 s . � D SKI! LMAN LN / \ \. fit` 41 \\ f CA Major Roads Contour Lines Earthquake Fault Lines Airports Water Wells P Public Water Supply Wells } Groundwater Flow Direction - = Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location Groundwater Flow Varies at Location 0 Cluster of Multiple loons TARGET PROPERTY: 619 Ely Road ADDRESS: 619 Ely Road CITY /STATE /ZIP: Petaluma CA 94954 LAT /LONG: 38.2740/122.6486 v 112 1 2 Was I Earthquake epicenter, Richter 9 or greater =P ' Closest Hydrogeological Data Oil, gas or related wells CUSTOMER: Hanover Environmental Svs. CONTACT: Lyna Black INQUIRY #: 603919.3s DATE: March 07, 2001 3:23 pm Appendix B: Site Reconnaissance and Historical Aerial Photographs 20 Site Reconnaissance Photograph Description Photo 1: Residential structure located on the southwestem corner of subject property Photo 2: Smaller bam structure, located near the western property boundary. Photo 3: Larger barn structure located toward the southwestern portion of the subject property, 21 Photo 1: Photo 2 Photo 3: �� . IxC 3Y i }�3' � i. _It•Y` s!t?.�y {i +•. LL 4 .i ztt _ 9 VIA I+-S` 'jam Y FFa-l2 Historical Aerial Photograph Description Photo 1: Year: 1994 Source: Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Flyer: USGS Scale: 1" =666' North: T Photo 2: Year: 1982 Source: Environmental Data Resources, Inc. _ Flyer: Western State Aerial Scale: 1" =690' North: T Photo 3: Year: 1965 Source: Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Flyer: Cartwright Scale: 1"=666' North: T Photo 4: Year: 1952 Source: Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Flyer: Pacific Air Scale: 1" =833' North: T 22 tl• t r tz .� i It f XMI ti Fr „� � si Y f� tsYn't��4+�y:it.- +i �f` -• y �`� .. ., L- 'p �. t� v - ?S- . •ter r Fr N + t + `;. ^ r � ,. , � . . �"�� '. 4V is i�.' �` -��'7, .�, 17�•�,• p{ '�,� '�. �y.p �- !'la r_s'�� ;:c`�e �,, �• j I E� , � ' �• a �,.�, ' +� �y` � , i ,'I•e ? � r -• ,'\ � � �.� i'!, '� a�,y _ -irT ., .t.' Yir��' •.h � � k•'-�i � _ r, .-+e .,t,.= •�.� •� r �' jd�`�"e, � n i' t /d'til�. �•' �� _ ti' R" �T' •'mot .: a f It � - �1►� ' � ,j7!p•�'..:y�. +_.:ice '`,-.` .. G � •a.. 4f. ?1111= �t� t - I `'. ` '' � � rr d' fk `Ti �'Td' d, t� �i .�•r : 'r�``,. � �- '-. t +a+ ;iv; 4 ips A� > #' \ fr� �, _ � � ,�:.. �- +- �4AF,s =r_�' t -i.• -51��'�" o ^Hr•>v i3 � �,,, : " - ' ' rt" -. r{ r ,r 1 r `•. , / ed -1 .'sY �� }' •v 4,h .� JJ't ,•1ri� 3� � .8��" All sQ tr, *47� T r y 40 r q ,� t / , t h• Fi ', { . r r '�. �/i,� Fig *uJ•� 1,�T. � � ` .. - 5 » <4rr �1 liefy � �F �� .'..�r �'�� •1� �. � 'i.it 'L4 a t .,��'. y "t J' .�..e t5}'.' nib t 4 F Oro �•�, l'4 Rti. �F sa -}%.{� "f 7.+r r c, v \� t € }\ ,, �j L - = _ .} tom. •'..' 4 Y% 1 FA. y _ :'' 4 .T tr4 1. .fL+ f9t ^ �r r.. - i- ��t_,�,�•� AA, �+.„,�'"n� - # �• e �'',:�''� '� '� ' .h. fits ;r�"��x '�"�` -r •� s � CF {�rf � � -� : ,r h s � J:. iP` {�., t �. Jl: t�£:y� f "L -" iYY ��r� f r,'» �� -:..y �.y;. � t• Air , "N' „„ g''•. At .Ml. � � h" -`,-'t �.g t �•� O e4'` .'! =a ,s.�t` eer;t,�''+^0� -+e .`l'r` • .�a.�' ''��66'' '�• TF' - v 3a i ��f+ -ate . .�! T� . � , r `° "�'� *.•^,��jl_y,��.r.. / r � �.-,r ! e`` 'r -�` '?�� .tJ'Q�u�' Y'�� `/� 1 �tir<� u'• � nt • d � Y ,e� ,,. i �` t �,° M1 '�';'�s4�' �W � ..i� � � a j t _� y 3 r �` '� { t t . 3'- "<'�c _ �.�' `j:4gl�'� ?�t:�`•�1 ,�� - l • r'r r'�,gT81 � �'� - .�� "r Jr 6 •� €.�) ,y3 3-� �� ,� ii �L-.tt i . +• a 5 t ------ .... ...�� ,! ¢, era. v ,I ,}'. s - r .0 ' .-li ! ' _ .+�.3 ,•.� Z ' �:-, �a �g r�e�' �v c. �•�r, � 'c P � _ �' "r.� r r� - ,4 otn`3; "t f ` iNt ' d ��. � Y "�'y�5 r.:� a�.• �J4tfi.1�(�r, e+L ter r,�4Tk I- `�- �� f% r ..�.>; '}'• fir• �.°��t �: 4tfl r J ��' �.= -�,tt� � �, �� .•�y r'� tw � ":n: •�.!` -� r�'r ij ei�' KYi ;. �..' rt A. y,L 5�,.�* >: ��`�. p� < •'ne 1 If -i ¢ a.•ra 1 Yr' r i t ,j_+x > fJ'r, ie �y�n�,;n• �pw., e��` �" •. 1 ��. }3f ,{_,.�". ,� r-rs� ' � �Tt1 / ra er.7;.� `�" 'i ��rC�� ft� .tom fir'.': ! y�la. T � ''.�^- k � .Yp� syry 7'' +� t. >•' "tiyi'r J fi^ a `+�} '�-' ri-�� jBre�i ?ec�l.lk '-� t : t +' M'� d S� r y - 'Y 7 t s. /= 1 G }.M x, d�.'tT �'.�-+ }'',.'••7 -Y� 4. �'.' l`,• r�l � � tidk r ,y .h: � r � • ,; : c. �•.� §' 1.:vr ,7•'�1 � r>= ky.;. ` r At m4 4ir Lk. . . . . . . Ow Tie- 'coil it -jA r 4*V,- it - 40 1; 746, .r. I IV 14 or Appendix C: Regulatory Records Documentation 23 A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527 -00. Search distances are per ASTM standard or custom distances requested by the user. TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 619 ELY ROAD PETALUMA, CA 94954 COORDINATES Latitude (North): 38.274000 - 38' 16'26.4" Longitude (West): 122.648600 - 122' 38'55.0" Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 10 UTM X (Meters): 530737.6 UTM Y (Meters): 4236068.5 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY Target Property: 2438122 -C6 COTATI, CA Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government records either on the target property or within the ASTM E 1527 -00 search radius around the target property for the following databases: FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD NPL ......................... National Priority List Proposed NPL-------- - - - - -- Proposed National Priority List Sites CERCLIS--------------------- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information . System CERC- NFRAP- --------- - - - - -. CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned CORRACTS .................. Corrective Action Report RCRIS- TSD------------ ------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS- LQG ............ . . . ... Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS- SQG------- --- ------ -- Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System ERNS------ -------- -- -- - - - - -- Emergency Response Notification System STATE ASTM STANDARD AWP--- ---------------- - - - - -- Annual Workplan Sites Cal- Sites ..................... Calsites Database CHMIRS----- -------- ------_ California Hazardous Material Incident Report System Toxic Pits-------- _--- ...... Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites TC603919.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SWF /LF__ ______ ___ __ _____ ____ Solid Waste Information System WMUDS/SWAT .............. Waste Management Unit Database CA BOND EXP. PLAN ------- Bond Expenditure Plan CA FID UST----- -- --- -- - --- -- Facility Inventory Database FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT .... .. .... ..:...... Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees ROD-- --- --- -------- --------- Records Of Decision Delisted NPL ... ..... ..... .., National Priority List Deletions FINDS ------------------------ Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report HMIRS-- ---- --- --- --- -- -- - - -- Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System MILTS .... ... ... .. ..... ... .... Material Licensing Tracking System MINES--- --- --- --- ----- - ----- Mines Master Index File NPL Liens ... ..... ... ... .. . .. Federal Superfund Liens PADS---- --- -- ------ ---- - - --- PCB Activity Database System RAATS------- --- --- -- -- - - ---. RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System TRIS ......................... Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA ....................... Toxic Substances Control Act FITS ...... ... ... .......... ... FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System- FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & . Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL AST .. ....... .. ....... .. ...... Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities CA WDS . .. .... ... ..... . .. ... Waste Discharge System CA SLIC- --- ---- -- --- -- - -- --- Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing HAZNET______________ _ ___ ___ Hazardous Waste Information System EDR PROPRIETARY DATABASES Coad Gas-- -- ---- ----- -- - -- --. Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were identified. Elevations have been determined from the USGS 1 degree Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. EDR's definition of a site with an elevation equal to the target property includes a tolerance of +/- 10 feet. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property (by more than 10 feet). Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold Italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. STATE ASTM STANDARD CORTESE: This database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with USTs having a reportable release and all TC603919.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The source is the California Environmental Protection Agency /Office of Emergency Information. A review of the Cortese list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 7 Cortese sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Lower Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page J & D AUTOMOTIVE 278 CORONA RD 1)2-1 SW A6 9 NORTH BAY CONSTRUCTION IN 1360 MCDOWELL 1/2-1 WSW 8 11 UNOCAL 201 PETALUMA WAY 1/2-1 S 9 11 PG & E 210 CORONA RD 1/2-1 SW 10 11 OFFICE HELPER PRODUCTS 1330 ROSS ST 112-1 WSW 11 12 POINT PLASTICS 1312 SCOTT ST 1/2-1 WSW 13 14 LAURA SCUDDERS INC. 1314 HOLM RD 112-1 WSW 15 15 NOTIFY 65: Notify 65 records contain facility notifications about any release that could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board's Proposition 65 database. A review of the Notify 65 list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 6 Notify 65 sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Lower Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page J & D AUTOMOTIVE 278 CORONA RD. 1/2-1 SW A4 8 J & D AUTOMOTIVE 278 CORONA RD. 112-1 SW AS 9 J & D AUTOMOTIVE 278 CORONA RD. 1/2-1 SW A7 11 AUTO WORLD 115 PETALUMA 112-1 SSW 12 13 SPONGBERG, CHARLES 1330 ROSS STREET 1/2-1 WSW 14 15 Not reported 745 N MCDOWELL BLVD 1/2-1 S 16 16 LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System. - A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/04/2000 has revealed that there are 2 LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal /Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page BOLLINGER PROPERTY 580 CORONA RD 0 - 1/8 WSW 1 6 GRAYVIEW FARMS 694 CORONA RD 1/8 - 1 /4NNE 2 7 UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board's Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database. A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/15/1990 has revealed that there is 1 UST site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page BROODER RANCH 500 CORONA RD 1/8 - 1 /4SW 3 8 TC603919.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name CASA GRANDE SITE SONOMA -MARIN FAIRGROUNDS SOUTHERN LAKEVILLE AREA SLUDGE LAND APP COURTESY AUTO & TRUCK REP CITY OF PETALUMA WATER DEPT DR SAWICKI- PODIATRY OFFICE DR BLAIR KIRK DDS MARTIN STEIGNER DDS XANDEXINC ELY BLVD N /MONROE ST. 2601 LAKEVILLE HWY AND CASA GRANDE ROAD (BEACON STATION) 804 MEACHAM ROAD 804 MEACHAM ROAD 1445 STONEY POINT ROAD Database(s) SWF /LF, Cal -Sites Cal -Sites SWF /LF LUST HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET ERNS ERNS ERNS ERNS ERNS TC603919.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 0 0 v /i OVERVIEW MAP - 603919.3s - Hanover Environmental Svs. O AD �s F �� 90 O Q O Q' O O 7- PKWY � N s 0 0 A / 0 / Tip Nr4 G6, W I arget rropeny 0 Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property • Sites at elevations lower than the target property l Coal Gasification Sites (if requested) E3 National Priority List Sites ED Landfill Sites 114 1r2 1 Yllec �J Power transmission lines ED Areas of Concern Oil & Gas pipelines ® 100 -year flood zone ® 500 -year flood zone Wetlands TARGET PROPERTY: 619 Ely Road CUSTOMER: Hanover Environmental Svs. ADDRESS: 619 Ely Road CONTACT: Lyna Black CITY /STATE/ZIP: Petaluma CA 94954 IN #: 603919.3s LAT /LONG: 38.2740 /122.6486 DATE: March 07, 2001 3:21 pm DETAIL MAP - 603919.3s - Hanover Environmental Svs. * Target Property ° 1na 1n 1 /4YI6s A, Sites at elevations higher than 619 Ely Road CONTACT: or equal to the target property CITY/STATE/21P: Petaluma CA 94954 Sites at elevations lower than f�l Power transmission lines Areas of Concern 38.2740 /122.6486 the target property N Oil Gas pipelines A. Coal Gasification Sites (if requested) ® i00-year flood zone Sensitive Receptors ® 500 -year flood zone EDNational Priority List Sites ® Wetlands Q Landfill Sites TARGET PROPERTY: 619 Ely Road CUSTOMER: Hanover Environmental Svs. ADDRESS: 619 Ely Road CONTACT: Lyna Black CITY/STATE/21P: Petaluma CA 94954 INQUIRY #: 603919.3s LAT /LONG: 38.2740 /122.6486 DATE: March 07, 2001 3:22 pm TC603919.3s Page 4 Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0, Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 CERC -NFRAP 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 RCRIS -TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0.: NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 STATE ASTM STANDARD AWP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Cal -Sites 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CHMIRS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Cortese 1.000 0 0 0 7 NR 7 Notify 65 1.000 0 0 0 6 NR 6 Toxic Pits 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 WMUDS /SWAT 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST 0.500 1 1 0 NR NR 2 UST 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 CA Bond Exp. Plan 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CA FID UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL AST TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 CA WDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 CA SLIC 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 TC603919.3s Page 4 Search Target Distance Database Property (Miles) HAZNET 0.250 EDR PROPRIETARY DATABASES Total < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted 0 0 NR NR NR 0 Coal Gas 1.000 0 AQUIFLOW - see EDR Physical Setting Source Addendum TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database h, 0 0 NR 0 TC603919.3s Page 5 Map ID :>::» aiP.....# �iRlt?t ��+., �€.::<`•> :: >:: >s:: »:: »: >:::: > » ? >:<:: >�:; Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found In a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database. 1 BOLLINGER PROPERTY LUST S102425529 WSW 580 CORONA RD NIA < 1/8 PETALUMA, CA 94952 288 Higher State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 49 -0017 Reg Board: San Francisco Bay Region Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Regional Board Local Agency: 49000 Case Type: Soil only Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary County: Sonoma Abate Method: No Action Taken - no action has as yet been taken at the site Review Date: 02/28/90 Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: 05/15/69 Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 4/11/91 Release Date: 10/03/89 Cleanup Fund Id :Not reported Discover Date : 10/03/1989 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: N Enter Date : 03/02/90 Funding: Federal Funds Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Tank Closure How Stopped: Close Tank Interim : No Lat/Lon : 38.273368 /- 122.649593 Leak Cause: Structure Failure Leak Source: Tank Local Case #: 49 -0017 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : JMJ MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested : NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies : Not reported Max MTBE Soil ; 0 Soil Qualifies : Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : UST Priority: Not reported Review Date: 02/28/90 Stop Date : 10/03/1989 Street Number: 580 Work Suspended iii Responsible PartyNot reported TC603919.3s Page 6 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number BOLLINGER PROPERTY (Continued) Summary: ARCHIVED 4/4196 CONTROL NO 120 -014 SRC 0904664 LUST Region 2: Region: Facility Id: Entered Date: Facility Status: Maximum Soil Concentration: Maximum Groundwater Impact: Current Benzene: Current MTBE : Maximum MTBE Groundwater: MTBE Quali: 2 49 -0017 03/02/1990 Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary 3200 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported S102425529 2 GRAYVIEW FARMS LUST S101304835 NNE 694 CORONA RD N/A 1/8 -1/4 PETALUMA, CA 94952 959 Higher State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 49 -0217 Reg Board: San Francisco Bay Region Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Regional Board Local Agency: 49000 Case Type: Aquifer affected Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary County: Sonoma Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site Review Date: 04 /11/96 Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Char. 4/8/93 Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 4/11/96 Release Date: 04/26/93 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date : 09/05/1989 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: N Enter Date : 05/10/93 Funding: Federal Funds Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Other Means How Stopped: Other Means Interim: Yes Lat/Lon : 38.274754 / - 122.64835 Leak Cause: Unknown Leak Source: Tank Local Case #: 4M217 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : JMJ MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported TC603919.3s Page 7 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number GRAYVIEW FARMS (Continued) S101304835 Max MTBE Soil: 0 Soil Qualifies : Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : UST Priority : Not reported J 8: D AUTOMOTIVE Review Date : 04/11/96 28794 Stop Date : 09/05/1989 1 Street Number: 694 500 Work Suspended :N PRODUCT Responsible PartyNot reported DIESEL Summary: ARCHIVED 11/1/96 CONTROL NO 120 -126 SRC 0904776 LUST Region 2: Contact Name: Region: 2 Facility Id: 49 -0217 Entered Date: 05/10/1993 Facility Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Maximum Soil Concentration: 19 Maximum Groundwater Impact: 4 Current Benzene: 3 Current MTBE: Not reported Maximum MTBE Groundwater: Not reported MTBE Quail: Not reported 3 BROODER RANCH SW 500 CORONA RD 1/8 -1/4 PETALUMA, CA 94952 1255 Lower State UST: J 8: D AUTOMOTIVE Facility ID: 28794 Tank Num: 1 Tank Capacity: 500 Tank Used for PRODUCT Type of Fuel: DIESEL Leak Detection: Stock inventor Contact Name: M. LONG Total Tanks: 2 Facility Type: 2 Facility ID: 28794 ' Tank Num: 2 Tank Capacity: 500 Tank Used for PRODUCT Type of Fuel: REGULAR Leak Detection: Stock inventor Contact Name: M. LONG Total Tanks: 2 Facility Type: 2 A4 J 8: D AUTOMOTIVE SW 278 CORONA RD. 1/2 -1 PETALUMA, CA 94954 3200 AGRICULTURE Lower Site 1 of 4 In cluster A UST 0001600401 NIA Container Num: 1 Year Installed: Not reported Tank Constrctn: Not reported Telephone: (707) 795 -8937 Region: STATE Other Type: AGRICULTURE Container Num: 2 Year Installed: Not reported Tank Constrctn: Not reported Telephone: (707) 795 -8937 Region: STATE Other Type: AGRICULTURE Notify 65 $100353560 NIA TC603919.3s Page 8 Map ID ::> s>:< zN1 AF�... �! ifJli�( 1^.+° r::: E:::>:::: >::E::: >:: >::;� ?:::: %:::'•::::: Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number J & D AUTOMOTIVE (Continued) NOTIFY 65: Date Reported: Board File Number. Facility Type: Discharge Date: Incident Description: A5 J & D AUTOMOTIVE SW 278 CORONA RD. 112 -1 PETALUMA, CA 94954 3200 Not reported Lower Site 2 of 4 in cluster A 07/3011992 Staff Initials: Not reported OLG921235 Leak Rpt Not reported 94954-1319 S100353560 Notify 65 S100453833 HAZNET N/A HAZNET: Gepaid: CAL920845964 Tepaid: CAD980887418 Contact: J&D AUTOMOTIVE Telephone: (707) 763 -2909 Gen County: Sonoma Tsd County: 1 Tons: 0.6255 Category: Aqueous solution with less than 10% total organic residues Disposal Method: Transfer Station Mailing Address: 278 CORONA RD PETALUMA, CA 94954 -1319 County Not reported NOTIFY 65: Date Reported: 07/30/1992 Staff Initials: Not reported Board File Number. OLG921235 Facility Type: Leak Rpt Discharge Date: Not reported Incident Description: 949541319 A6 J & D AUTOMOTIVE UST 0001600484 SW 278 CORONA RD Cortese N/A 1/2 -1 PETALUMA, CA 94952 LUST 3200 Lower Site 3 of 4 In cluster A State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 49 -0169 Reg Board: San Francisco Bay Region Chemical: Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 49000 Case Type: Aquifer affected Status: Pollution characterization County: Sonoma Abate Method: No Action Taken - no action has as yet been taken at the site Review Date: 08 /07/98 Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: 07/29/93 Pollution Char. 11/7/94 Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported Release Date: 01/17/91 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date : 07/19/1992 Enforcement Dt : Not reported TC603919.3s Page 9 Map ID .::...: M�tP..::# NtQl t�(. t' v, S.:;•>:.;;:.:: ;::.:.:�:.:�:.:.;;;:;;:;:;:.;;: Direction:i »s: >;::i: >3 >': » »:: >: »: >:;::: >:.:- <::«:::< » >:; s> t:;;>: ::<:;;r:: { >::•;:a<::a;a >;;:< >:> Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number J & D AUTOMOTIVE (Continued) 0001600484 Enf Type: N Enter Date: 09/18/92 Funding: Federal Funds Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Tank Closure How Stopped: Close Tank Interim: No Lat/Lon : 38.266358 / - 122.655976 Leak Cause: Structure Failure Leak Source: Tank Local Case # : 1218 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : JMJ MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: 0 Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority : Not reported Review Date : 08/07/98 Stop Date : 07/19/1992 Street Number: 278 Work Suspended N Responsible PartyNot reported Summary: 1ST QRTLY RPT BY 1123/95 LUST Region 2: Region: 2 Facility Id: 49 -0169 Entered Date: 09/18/1992 Facility Status: Pollution characterization Maximum Soil Concentration: 48 Maximum Groundwater Impact: 15 Current Benzene: Not reported Current MTBE: Not reported Maximum MTBE Groundwater: Not reported MTBE Quall: Not reported LUST Sonoma County: Region: SONOMA Reported: 01/17/1991 Substance: Gasoline, Waste Oil Referred to RWQCB for Lead: Date: Not reported Zip 1: 94952 Zip 2: Not reported Lead Type: 5 CORTESE: Reg By: LTNKA Reg Id: 49 -0169 Region: CORTESE TC603919.3s Page 10 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number J S D AUTOMOTIVE (Continued) State UST: Year Installed: Facility ID: 23807 Tank Num: 1 Tank Capacity: 550 Tank Used for. PRODUCT Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Leak Detection: Visual, Stock Inventor Contact Name: JOHN A. TROUP, OWNER Total Tanks: 1 Facility Type: 2 Container Num: #1 Year Installed: 1982 Tank Constrctn: Not reported Telephone: (707) 763 -2909 Region: STATE Other Type: AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR 0001600484 AT J & D AUTOMOTIVE Notify 65 S100453870 SW 278 CORONA RD. N/A 1/2 -1 PETALUMA, CA 94954 3200 Lower Site 4 of 4 In cluster A NOTIFY 65: Date Reported: Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported Board File Number. Not reported Facility Type: Not reported 10 Discharge Date: Not reported SW Incident Description: 949541319 8 NORTH BAY CONSTRUCTION IN Cortese S102434435 WSW 1360 MCDOWELL N/A 1/2 -1 PETALUMA, CA 94952 3928 Lower CORTESE: Reg By: LTNKA Reg Id: 49 -0109 Region: CORTESE 9 UNOCAL Cortese S104660363 South 201 PETALUMA WAY N/A 1/2 -1 PETALUMA, CA 94952 4237 Lower CORTESE: Reg By: LTNKA Reg Id: 49 -0199 Region: CORTESE 10 PG&E Cortese S102435154 SW 210 CORONA RD N/A 1/2 -1 PETALUMA, CA 94952 4362 Lower CORTESE: Reg By: LTNKA Reg Id: 4"127 Region: CORTESE TC603919.3s Page 11 4460 Lower State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 49 -0111 Reg Board: San Francisco Bay Region Chemical: Misc. Motor Vehicle Fuels Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 49000 Case Type: Aquifer affected Status: Pollution characterization County: Sonoma Abate Method: No Action Taken - no action has as yet been taken at the site Review Date: 08 /12/98 Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: 09/21/89 Pollution Char. 8113/97 Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: Not reported Release Date: 10/07/88 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 10/1511988 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: N Enter Date : 10/07188 Funding: Federal Funds Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Tank Closure How Stopped: Close Tank Interim : No Lat/Lon : 38.2692 / - 122.6628 Leak Cause: Structure Failure Leak Source: Tank Local Case #: 1776 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : JMJ MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested : NO Max MTBE GW : 0.1 GW Qualifies: < Max MTBE Soil: 0 Soil Qualifies : Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator: Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority: Not reported Review Date: 08/12198 Stop Date : 10/1511988 Street Number: 1330 Work Suspended N Responsible PartyNot reported Summary: 1 MW PROPOSED 8/89,FP IN SOIL -NONE IN EXCAVATION LUST Region 2: Region: 2 Facility Id: 49 -0111 TC603919.3s Page 12 P ID IIkEkE )+ Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number TC603919.3s Page 13 OFFICE HELPER PRODUCTS (Continued) S101304864 Entered Date: 10/07/1988 Facility Status: Pollution characterization Maximum Soil Concentration: 5300 Maximum Groundwater Impact: 2800 Current Benzene: 1600 Current MTBE: ND Maximum MTBE Groundwater: 0.1 MTBE Quail: < LUST Sonoma County: Region: SONOMA Reported: 10/07/1988 Substance: Misc. Motor Vehicle Fuels Referred to RWQCB for Lead: Date: Not reported Zip 1: 94952 Zip 2: Not reported Lead Type: 5 . CORTESE: Reg By: LTNKA Reg Id: 49 -0111 Region: CORTESE 12 AUTO WORLD Notify 65 5100179242 SSW 115 PETALUMA LUST N/A 112 -1 PETALUMA, CA 93010 4594 Lower State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 49 -0008 Reg Board: San Francisco Bay Region Chemical: Misc. Motor Vehicle Fuels Lead Agency: Local Agency LocalAgency: 49000 Case Type: Undefined Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary County: Sonoma Abate Method: No Action Taken - no action has as yet been taken at the site Review Date: 09/28/89 Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 07/30/90 Prelim Assess: 06/22/90 Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 8115/91 Release Date: 08/08/89 Cleanup Fund Id : Not reported Discover Date: 08/25/1989 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: N Enter Date : 09/28/89 Funding: Federal Funds Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Tank Closure How Stopped: Close Tank Interim: No Lat/Lon : Not reported Leak Cause: Structure Failure Leak Source: Tank TC603919.3s Page 13 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number AUTO WORLD (Continued) Local Case #: 491119 Beneficial: Not reported Staff : JMJ MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil: 0 Soil Qualifies: Not reported Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority: Not reported Review Date : 09/28/89 Stop Date : 08/25!1989 Street Number: 115 Work Suspended N Responsible PartyNot reported Summary: ARCHIVED 4/4/96 CONTROL NO 120 -014 SRC 0904664 LUST Region 2: POINT PLASTICS Region: 2 Facility Id: 49 -0008 Entered Date: 09/28/1989 Facility Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Maximum Soil Concentration: ND Maximum Groundwater Impact: Not reported Current Benzene: Not reported Current MTBE: Not reported Maximum MTBE Groundwater: Not reported MTBE Quali: Not reported LUST Sonoma County: Region: SONOMA Reported: 08/08/1989 Substance: Misc. Motor Vehicle Fuels Referred to RWQCB for Lead: Date: 9/19/91 Zip 1: 94952 Zip 2: Not reported Lead Type: 9 NOTIFY 65: Date Reported: Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported Board File Number. Not reported Facility Type: Not reported Discharge Date: Not reported Incident Description: 93010 13 POINT PLASTICS WSW 1312 SCOTT ST 1/2.1 PETALUMA, CA 94952 4679 Lower CORTESE: Reg By: LTNKA Reg Id: 49 -0129 Region: CORTESE S100179242 Cortese S102435357 N/A TC603919.3s Page 14 Map ID Direction Distance Distance (ft.) Elevation Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 14 SPONGBERG, CHARLES Cross Street: Notify 65 5100178818 WSW 1330 ROSS STREET 49 -0090 Reg Board: N/A 112 -1 PETALUMA, CA 93010 Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 4684 Case Type: Aquifer affected Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Lower Sonoma Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site, Pump and Treat Ground Water - generally employed to remove NOTIFY 65: dissolved contaminants Review Date: 01/07/98 Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: Date Reported: Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Board File Number. Not reported Release Date: 04/02190 Cleanup Fund id Facility Type: Not reported 04/18/1990 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Discharge Date: Not reported Enter Date : 04/27/90 Funding: Incident Description: 93010 Not reported How Discovered: 15 LAURA SCUDDERS INC. Close Tank UST 0001600519 WSW 1314 HOLM RD Leak Cause: Cortese N/A 1/2 -1 PETALUMA, CA 94952 1260 LUST Not reported 4976 Lower State LUST: Cross Street: Not reported Qty Leaked: Not reported Case Number 49 -0090 Reg Board: San Francisco Bay Region Chemical: Regular Gasoline Lead Agency: Local Agency Local Agency: 49000 Case Type: Aquifer affected Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary County: Sonoma Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site, Pump and Treat Ground Water - generally employed to remove dissolved contaminants Review Date: 01/07/98 Confirm Leak: Not reported Workplan: 09 /19/90 Prelim Assess: Not reported Pollution Char. Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported Close Date: 12/31/97 Release Date: 04/02190 Cleanup Fund id : Not reported Discover Date : 04/18/1990 Enforcement Dt : Not reported Enf Type: N Enter Date : 04/27/90 Funding: Federal Funds Staff Initials: Not reported How Discovered: Tank Closure How Stopped: Close Tank Interim : Yes Lat/LDn : 38.2698 / - 122.6652 Leak Cause: Structure Failure Leak Source: Tank Local Case # : 1260 Beneficial: Not reported Staff: JMJ MTBE Date: Not reported MTBE Tested: NT Max MTBE GW : Not reported GW Qualifies: Not reported Max MTBE Soil : 0 Soil Qualifies : Not reported TC603919.3s Page 15 Map ID ............. Direction Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number 16 South 1/2 -1 5163 Lower LAURA SCUDDERS INC. (Continued) Hydr Basin #: Not reported Operator : Not reported Oversight Prgm : LOP Priority: Not reported Review Date : 01/07/98 Stop Date : 04/18/1990 Street Number: 1314 Work Suspended :N Responsible PartyNot reported Summary: SOURCE REMOVAL COMPLETED MAY 1996, LUST Region 2: Region: 2 Facility Id: 49 -0090 Entered Date: 04/27/1990 Facility Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Maximum Soil Concentration: 23 Maximum Groundwater Impact: 86000 Current Benzene: NO Current MTBE : Not reported Maximum MTBE Groundwater: Not reported MTBE Quail: Not reported CORTESE: 1 Reg By: LTNKA Reg Id: 49 -0090 Region: CORTESE State UST: PRODUCT Facility ID: 12958 Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 02 Tank Capacity: 7000 Year Installed: 1975 Tank Used fc,- PRODUCT Type of Fuel: REGULAR Tank Constrctn: Not reported Leak Detection: None Contact Name: CHUCK MILLER Telephone: (707) 762 -1334 Total Tanks: 1 Region: STATE Facility Type: 2 Other Type: ROUTE SALES 745 N MCDOWELL BLVD PETALUMA, CA 93010 NOTIFY 65: Date Reported: Board File Number. Facility Type: Discharge Date: Incident Description Not reported Staff Initials: Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 93010 0001600519 Notify 65 S100179555 NIA TC603919.3s Page 16 k # \ \ ! } � \ § 7 « @ § f 0 § J z(n e�� §«m��m ?§ /d§ ]§§)§§§ /§ `~LO/ /0/0 / \ki! ;212 A LLJ ) z 2 $ / 2 A $ § M ® /)$\ §\ \\L)Z $ /�� ,.wR2wo �5 oWpPw0w (L ƒ+bo- »3WWW"<<0ZW zow3w O oc= =e <z $) § \ }(}kkkkk §/k })k)§k)m / / §iF (In k 2 \ § z z & / UJ U) j Z< }§ < § 3/ 6k << <$ E£ )x § UJ E _ \}A§xoo5owdo >z /§�°mot � o �°°6 -$7 0 =a < \2E< <oLU �)$R ±S�75K) \ � // § §) /kkkkkk)7i \ \k I 0 L Kala -~ W W, ) 2 ) IS 2 } lo—co G «« «= Gaaa « < «« < « « < « « « <« a� „ ■ �� „ »� „ DDDSB S=BDDDDSD u0-ua.0 muILuumuuu ��0. m m IL it m m a. m a. w \ ] ) ) k §2 g \) (\ ® � \(( ) \ 4$ 5v5 §$ k # \ \ ! } � \ § 7 « @ § f 0 § J z(n e�� §«m��m ?§ /d§ ]§§)§§§ /§ `~LO/ /0/0 / \ki! ;212 A LLJ ) z 2 $ / 2 A $ § M ® /)$\ §\ \\L)Z $ /�� ,.wR2wo �5 oWpPw0w (L ƒ+bo- »3WWW"<<0ZW zow3w O oc= =e <z $) § \ }(}kkkkk §/k })k)§k)m / / §iF (In k 2 \ § z z & / UJ U) j Z< }§ < § 3/ 6k << <$ E£ )x § UJ E _ \}A§xoo5owdo >z /§�°mot � o �°°6 -$7 0 =a < \2E< <oLU �)$R ±S�75K) \ � // § §) /kkkkkk)7i \ \k I 0 L Kala -~ W W, ) 2 ) IS 2 } lo—co G «« «= Gaaa « < «« < « « < « « « <« a� „ ■ �� „ »� „ DDDSB S=BDDDDSD u0-ua.0 muILuumuuu ��0. m m IL it m m a. m a. w \ ] ) ) To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement of the ASTM standard. FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS NPL: National Priority List Source: EPA Telephone: N/A National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL Is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup.under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC). Date of Government Version: 01/23/01 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/16/01 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Date of Government Version: 01/23/01 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/16/01 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 02/05/01 Elapsed ASTM days: 11 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/05101 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 02/05/01 Elapsed ASTM days: 11 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/05/01 CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Source: EPA Telephone: 703 -413 -0223 CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version: 04/16/00 Date Made Active at EDR: 08/16/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 06/05/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 72 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/00 CERCLIS- NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Source: EPA Telephone: 703413 -0223 As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned" ( NFRAP) have been removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately 25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites. Date of Government Version: 04/16/00 Date Made Active at EDR: 08 /16/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 06/05/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 72 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/00 CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report Source: EPA Telephone: 800 - 424 -9346 CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. TC603919.3s Page GRA Date of Government Version: 04 /20/00 Date Made Active at EDR: 08 /01/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 06/12/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 50 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/11/00 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800.424 -9346 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS Includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Date of Government Version: 06 /21/00 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/10/00 Date Made Active at EDR: 07/31/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 21 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/30101 ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202 - 260 -2342 Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 08 /08/00 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/11/00 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/06/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 26 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/02/01 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS BRS: Biennial Reporting System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800 - 424 -9346 The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LOG) and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Date of Government Version: 12131/97 Database Release Frequency: Biennially Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/19/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/01 CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Source: EPA Regional Offices Telephone: Varies Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL ( Superfund) sites. Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version: N/A Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A ROD: Records Of Decision Source: NTIS Telephone: 703 -416 -0223 Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL ( Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Date of Government Version: 09/30/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/09/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/09/01 DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions Source: EPA Telephone: NIA The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300,425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. TC603919.3s Page GR -2 Date of Government Version: 01/23/01 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/05/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/01 FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report Source: EPA Telephone: NIA Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases In this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C- DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). Date of Government Version: 07/07/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/09/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /09/01 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202- 3664526 Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version: 05/31/00 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/23/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/23/01 MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301 - 415 -7169 MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain cun•ency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 04 /23/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly MINES: Mines Master Index File Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Telephone: 303 - 231 -5959 Date of Government Version: 08 /01/98 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/09/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /09/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/02101 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /02/01 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Source: EPA Telephone: 205-564-4267 Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action - expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. Date of Government Version: 10/15/91 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/20/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05121/01 PADS: PCB Activity Database System Source: EPA Telephone: 202 - 260 -3936 PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and /or brokers and disposers of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version: 01 /01 /00 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/12/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/14/01' TC603919.3s Page GR -3 RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System Source: EPA Telephone: 202 - 5644104 RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. Date of Government Version: 04 /17/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 12111/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/01 TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -260 -1531 Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. - _ . Date of Government Version: 12/31/97 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/27/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/01 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -260 -1444 Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. Date of Government Version: 12/31/98 Database Release Frequency: Every 4 Years Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/12/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/01 FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Telephone: 202 - 260 -7864 FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 08 /30/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01 /30/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/01 FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticde Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Source: EPA Telephone: 202 -564 -2501 Date of Government Version: 08/10/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASTM STANDARD RECORDS Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/28/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/01 CAL -SITES (AWP): Annual Workplan Sites Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916 - 323 -3400 Known Hazardous Waste Sites. California DTSC's Annual Workplan (AWP), formerly BEP, identifies known hazardous substance sites targeted for cleanup. Date of Government Version: 03/10100 Date Made Active at EDR: 05/10/00 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04 /10/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 30 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/30/01 TC603919.3s Page GRA CAL -SITES (ASPIS): Calsites Database Source: Department of Toxic Substance Control Telephone: 916 - 323 -3400 The Calsites database contains potential or confirmed hazardous substance release properties. In 1996, California EPA reevaluated and significantly reduced the number of sites in the Calsites database. Date of Government Version: 10/01/00 Date Made Active at EDR: 11/22/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/30100 Elapsed ASTM days: 23 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/09/01 CHMIRS: California Hazardous Material Incident Report System Source: Office of Emergency Services Telephone: 916 -464 -3283 California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System. CHMIRS contains information on reported hazardous material incidents (accidental releases or spills). Date of Government Version: 12/31/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 04/24/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/13/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 42 Date of Last EDR Contact: 1'1/27/00 CORTESE: "Cortese" Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List Source: CAL EPA/Office of Emergency Information Telephone: 916 -327 -1848 The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board (LUST), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal- Sites). Date of Government Version: 04 /01/98 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/23/96 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08126/98 Elapsed ASTM days: 28 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01130/01 NOTIFY 65: Proposition 65 Records Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 657 -0696 Proposition 65 Notification Records. NOTIFY 65 contains facility notifications about any release which could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. Date of Government Version: 10/21/93 Date Made Active at EDR: 11119/93 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11101/93 Elapsed ASTM days: 18 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/26101 TOXIC PITS: Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 227.4364 Toxic PITS Cleanup Act Sites. TOXIC PITS identifies sites suspected of containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed. Date of Government Version: 07/01195 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/26/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/30/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 27 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/06/01 SWF/LF (SWIS): Solid Waste Information System Source: Integrated Waste Management Board Telephone: 916 -341 -6320 Active, Closed and Inactive Landfills. SWF /LF records typically contain an inve ntory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills. These may be active or I nactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Government Version: 09 /27100 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/30100 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/27/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 33 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/20/00 TC603919.3s Page GR -5 WMUDS /SWAT: Waste Management Unit Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 227-4448 Waste Management Unit Database System. WMUDS is used by the State Water Resources Control Board staff and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards for program tracking and Inventory of waste management units. WMUDS is composed of the following databases: Facility Information, Scheduled Inspections Information, Waste Management Unit Information, SWAT Program Information, SWAT Report Summary Information, SWAT Report Summary Data, Chapter 15 (formerly Subchapter 15) Information, Chapter 15 Monitoring Parameters, TPCA Program Information, RCRA Program Information, Closure Information, and Interested Parties Information. Date of Government Version: 04 /01/00 Date Made Active at EDR: 05 /10/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04/10/00 Elapsed ASTM days: 30 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/13/00 LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank information System Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 445 -6532 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. Date of Government Version: 10/04/00 Date Made Active at EDR: 11/28/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10110100 Elapsed ASTM days: 49 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/11/01 CA UST: UST: Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 227 -4408 The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database is a historical listing of UST sites. Refer to local/county source for current data. Date of Government Version: 10/15/90 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/12/91 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/25/91 Elapsed ASTM days: 18 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/16/01 CA BOND EXP. PLAN: Bond Expenditure Plan Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916 - 255 -2118 Department of Health Services developed a site - specific expenditure plan as the basis for an appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act funds. It Is not updated. Date of Government Version: 01/01/89 Date Made Active at EDR: 08 /02194 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/27/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 6 Date of Last EDR Contact: 05131/94 CA FID UST: Facility Inventory Database Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916 -445 -6532 The Facility Inventory Database (FID) contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board. Refer to local/county source for current data. Date of Government Version: 10/31/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/29/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS AST: Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 - 227 -4382 Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks. Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/05/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 24 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12128/98 TC603919.3s Page GR-6 Date of Government Version: 10/28/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly CA WDS: Waste Discharge System Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916 -657 -1571 Sites which have been issued waste discharge requirements. Date of Government Version: 08 /21/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/05/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/28/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/01 HAZNET: Hazardous Waste Information System Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916- 255 -1136 Facility and Manifest Data. The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DTSC. The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000 - 1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 350,000 - 500,000 shipments. Data are from the manifests submitted without correction, and therefore many contain some invalid values for data elements such as generator ID, TSD ID, waste category, and disposal method. Date of Government Version: 12/31/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually LOCAL RECORDS ALAMEDA COUNTY: Local Oversight Program Listing of UGT Cleanup Sites Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510- 567 -6700 Date of Government Version: 08 /01/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Underground Tanks Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510 - 567 -6700 Date of Government Version: 08/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/14/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/14/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/30/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/30/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/30/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/30/01 Site List Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department Telephone: 925 -646 -2286 List includes sites from the underground tank, hazardous waste generator and business plan/2185 programs. Date of Government Version: 09/01100 Database Release Frequency: Semi- Annually KERN COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Sites & Tanks Listing Source: Kam County Environment Health Services Department Telephone: 661 - 862 -8700 Kern County Sites and Tanks Listing. Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/04/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05101 TC603919.3s Page GR -7 Date of Government Version: 06 /09 /00 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/06/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/01 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: List of Solid Waste Facilities Source: La County Department of Public Works Telephone: 818.458 -5185 Date of Government Version: 09/16/98 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/19/00 Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/01 City of El Segundo Underground Storage Tank Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department Telephone: 310 - 607 -2239 Date of Government Version: 02/01/00 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/19/01 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/01 City of Long Beach Underground Storage Tank Source: City of Long Beach Fire Department Telephone: 562 - 570 -2543 Date of Government Version: 10/01/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/28/00 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/26/01 City of Torrance Underground Storage Tank Source: City of Torrance Fire Department Telephone: 310 -618 -2973 Date of Government Version: 02/01/00 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/19/01 Database Release Frequency: Semi- Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/01 City of Los Angeles Landfills Source: Engineering & Construction Division Telephone: 213473 -7869 Date of Government Version: 08/31/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/19/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/01 Street Number List Source: Department of Public Works Telephone: 626458 -3517 Industrial Waste and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Date of Government Version: 08 /31/00 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/19/01 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/01 Site Mitigation List Source: Community Health Services Telephone: 323 -890 -7806 Industrial sites that have had some sort of spill or complaint. Date of Government Version: 06 /02/00 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/19/01 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/01 San Gabriel Valley Areas of Concern Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415 -744 -2407 San Gabriel Valley areas where VOC contamination is at or above the MCL as designated by region 9 EPA office. TC603919.3s Page GR-8 Date of Government Version: 12/31/98 Database Release Frequency: NIA MARIN COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Public Works Deparhment Waste Management Telephone: 415499 -6647 Currently permitted USTs in Marin County. Date of Government Version: G8 /08/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually NAPA COUNTY: Sites With Reported Contamination Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707 - 253 -4269 Date of Government Version: 10123100 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Closed and Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707- 253 -4269 Date of Government Version: 08 /30/00 Database Release Frequency: Annually ORANGE COUNTY: List of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714 -834 -3446 Orange County Undergrwnd Storage Tank Cleanups (LUST). Date of Government Version: 08 /21/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714 -834 -3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST). Date of Government Version: 11/29/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly List of Industrial Site Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency Telephone: 714 -834 -3446 Petroleum and non - petroleum spills. Date of Government Version: 01/19/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 06129/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/05/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/02101 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/02/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/02101 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /02/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/11/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12101 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/11/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/11/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/01 TC603919.3s Page GR -9 PLACER COUNTY: Master List of Facilities Source: Placer County Health and Human Services Telephone: 530 -889 -7335 List includes aboveground tanks, underground tanks and cleanup sites. Date of Government Version: 10/10/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually RNERSIDE COUNTY: Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 909 -358 -5055 Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Version: 12/05/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tank Tank List Source: Health Services Agency Telephone: 909 -358 -5055 Date of Government Version: 12/05/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SACRAMENTO COUNTY: Toxislte List Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916-875-8450 Date of Government Version: 11129/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/28/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03126/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/23/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/23/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/23/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04123/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/06/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/01 Regulatory Compliance Master List Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916 - 875 -8450 Any business that has hazardous materials on site - hazardous material storage sites, underground storage tanks, waste generators. Date of Government Version: 11/29/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/06/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/07/01 Hazardous Material Permits Source: San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division Telephone: 909- 387 -3041 This listing includes underground storage tanks, medical waste handlers/generators, hazardous materials handlers, hazardous waste generators, and waste oil generators/handlers. Date of Government Version: 10 /02/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/11/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/01 TC603919.3s Page GR -10 SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Solid Waste Facilities Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 619 - 338 -2209 San Diego County Solid Waste Facilities. Date of Government Version: 07/01/98 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/28/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/26/01 Hazardous Materials Management Division Database Source: Hazardous Materials Management Division Telephone: 619 -338 -2268 The database includes: HE58 - This report contains the business name, site address, business phone number, establishment 'H' permit number, type of permit, and the business status. HE17 - In addition to providing the same information provided in the HE58 listing, HE17 provides inspection dates, violations received by the establishment, hazardous waste generated, the quantity, method of storage, treatment/disposal of waste and the hauler, and information on underground storage tanks. Unauthorized Release List - Includes a summary of environmental contamination cases In San Diego County (underground tank cases, non -tank cases, groundwater contamination, and soil contamination are included.) Date of Government Version: 10/08/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY: Local Oversite Facilities Source: Department Of Public Health San Francisco County Telephone: 415 - 252 -3920 Date of Government Version: 09/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tank Information Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 415 - 252 -3929 Date of Government Version: 12/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN MATEO COUNTY: Fuel Leak List Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650- 363 -1921 Date of Government Version: 10/05/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/08/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /09/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/28/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/28/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01130/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/30/01 Business Inventory Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650 -363 -1921 List includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan, hazardous waste generators, and underground storage tanks. Date of Government Version: 06 /24/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/16/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /16101 TC603919.3s Page GR -11 SANTA CLARA COUNTY: Fuel Leak Site Activity Report Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District Telephone: 408- 927 -0710 Date of Government Version: 07/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Hazaroud Material Facilities Source: City of San Jose Fire Department Telephone: 408 - 277 -0659 Date of Government Version: 03/20/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SOLANO COUNTY: Leaking Undergroung Storage Tanks Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707. 421 -6770 Date of Government Version: 09 /01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tanks Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707 - 421 -6770 Date of Government Version: 09/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SONOMA COUNTY: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 707 - 525 -6565 Date of Government Version: 12/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SUTTER COUNTY: Underground Storage Tanks Source: Sutter County Department of Agriculture Telephone: 530 -822 -7500 Date of Government Version: 07/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi- Annually VENTURA COUNTY: Inventory of Illegal Abandoned and Inactive Sites Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654 -2813 Ventura County Inventory of Closed, Illegal Abandoned, and Inactive Sites, Date of Last EDR Contact: 01129/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /02/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/11/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/19/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12119/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/30/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/30/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/09/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /09/01 TC603919.3s Page GR -12 Date of Government Version: 06 /01/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654 -2813 Ventura County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Version: 07/26/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/27/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/26/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/19/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/01 Underground Tank Closed Sites List Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654 -2813 Ventura County Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites (UST) /Underground Tank Closed Sites List. Date of Government Version: 07/21/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/16/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /16/01 Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Producers, and Operating Underground Tanks Source: Ventura County Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805 -654 -2813 The BWT list indicates by site address whether the Environmental Health Division has Business Plan (B), Waste Producer (W), and/or Underground Tank (T) information. Date of Government Version: 11/22100 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly YOLO COUNTY: Underground Storage Tank Comprehensive Facility Report Source: Yolo County Department of Health Telephone: 530 - 666 -8646 Date of Government Version: 07/07/00 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/18/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/23/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/23/01 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) LUST Records LUST REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigation Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast (1) Telephone: 707 - 576 -2220 Date of Government Version: 08/01 /00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/27/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/26/01 LUST REG 2: Fuel Leak List Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510 - 286-0457 Date of Government Version: 09/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 3: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 805 -549 -3147 Date of Government Version: 11/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/15/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /16/00 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/19/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/01 TC603919.3s Page GR -13 LUST REG 4: Underground Storage Tank Leak List Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213 - 266 -6600 Date of Government Version: 11/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 5: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916- 255 -3125 Date of Government Version: 10/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 6L: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region (6) Telephone: 916-542-5424 Date of Government Version: 10/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 6V: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Victorville Branch Office (6) Telephone: 760 -346 -7491 Date of Government Version: 10/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01 /02/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /02/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/09101 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /09/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01 /09/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /09/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/09/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 109/01 LUST REG 7: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin Region (7) Telephone: 760 -346 -7491 Date of Government Version: 10/23100 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually LUST REG 8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8) Telephone: 909 - 7823498 Date of Government Version: 11/22/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually LUST REG 9: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Report Source: Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 619 -467 -2952 Date of Government Version: 09 /08100 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/02/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /02101 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/15/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/14/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/22101 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/23/01 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) SLIC Records SLIC REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigations Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (1) Telephone: 707 - 576 -2220 Date of Government Version: 08 /01/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi- Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 11127/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/26/01 SLIC REG 2: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510 - 286 -0457 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to Impact groundwater. TC603919.3s Page GR -14 Date of Government Version: 09/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/15/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /16/01 SLIC REG 3: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 805 -549 -3147 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 11/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/19/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/01 SLIC REG 4: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Region Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213 - 576 -6600 Any contaminated site that Impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 11/15/00 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01130/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /30/01 SLIC REG 5: Spills, Leaks s, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916 -855 -3075 Unregulated sites that Impact groundwater or have the potential to Impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 10/04100 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually SLIC REG 6V: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Victorville Branch Telephone: 619- 241 -6583 Date of Government Version: 10/01/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually SLIC REG 8: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Region Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8) Telephone: 909 - 782 -3298 Date of Government Varsion: 06 /01/00 Database Release Frequency: Semi - Annually SLIC REG 9: Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 858 -467 -2980 Date of Government Version: 06 /01/00 Database Release Frequency: Annually EDR PROPRIETARY DATABASES Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/08/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /09/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/09/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /09/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 01 111/01 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04 /09/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/04/00 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/01 Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. QCopyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative. Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc. The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal opinion. TC603919.3s Page GR -15 HISTORICAL AND OTHER DATABASE /S Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. Oil /Gas Pipelines/Elactrical Transmission Lines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000 -Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines. Sensitive Receptors: There are Individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. Flood Zone Data: This data, available In select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR In 1999 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, TC603919.3s Page GR -16 TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS 619 ELY ROAD 619 ELY ROAD PETALUMA, CA 94954 TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES Latitude (North): 38.273998 - 38' 16'26.4" Longitude (West): 122.648598 - 122'38'55.0" Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 10 UTM X (Meters): 530737.6 UTM Y (Meters): 4236068.5 EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum has been developed to assist the environmental professional with the collection of physical setting source information in accordance with ASTM 1527 -00, Section 7.2.3. Section 7.2.3 requires that a current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (or equivalent, such as the USGS Digital Elevation Model) be reviewed. It also requires that one or more additional physical setting sources be sought when (1) conditions have been identified in which hazardous substances or petroleum products are likely to migrate to or from the property, and (2) more information than is provided in the current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (or equivalent) is generally obtained, pursuant to local good commercial or customary practice, to assess the impact of migration of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. Such additional physical setting sources generally include information about the topographic, hydrologic, hydrogeologic, and geologic characteristics of a site, and wells in the area. Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components: 1. Groundwater flow direction, and 2. Groundwater flow velocity. Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the geologic strata. EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration. TC603919.3s Page A -1 GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site - specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers). TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE Target Property: 2438122 -C6 COTATI, CA Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index GENERAL TOPOGRAPHIC GRADIENT AT TARGET PROPERTY Target Property: General SSW Source: General Topographic Gradient has been determined from the USGS 1 Degree Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways and bodies of water). FEMA FLOOD ZONE Target Property County SONOMA,CA Flood Plain Panel at Target Property: Additional Panels in search area: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY NWI Quad at Target Property COTATI HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION FEMA Q3 Flood Data Electronic Coverage YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map 06037508708 / CBPP 06037900010 / CBPP 0603790002C / CBPP NWI Electronic Coverage YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. TC603919.3s Page A -2 Site- Specific Hydrogeological Data ": Search Radius: 2.0 miles Status: Not found AQUIFLOWs Search Radius: 2.000 Miles. EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table. For additional site information, refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings, GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes move more quickly through sandy - gravelly types of soils than silty -dayey types of soils. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed at which contaminant migration may be occurring. O'1996 She- spadfic t�ydr o�jed date geU�ed by CERCUS Alertc, Inc., Bet,6rk)ge klanq WA. NI,IyMS TWV6d. N M V" kftMe on "opWd press W ere IMSe M Me c te0 EPA �epan(s), wNcfi were eprpleled uger o Compietwncive Envionr�entel Respaise Conpensatbn W UeDiry Mlorrttetlon Syvte,n (CERC 21 Imestlgnon. TC603919.3s Page A -3 LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW 1 1/8 -1/4 Mile NNE N A3 1/2 -1 Mile SW SE B4 1/2 -1 Mile WSW Not Reported B5 1/2 -1 Mile WSW SW C6 1/2-1 Mile SW S C7 1/2 -1 Mile SW S C8 1/2 -1 Mile SW S B9 1/2-1 Mile West Not Reported D10 1/2 -1 Mile WSW Not Reported D11 1/2-1 Mile WSW SW E13 1 - 2 Miles West NW E14 1 - 2 Miles West S E15 1 - 2 Miles West S F16 1 - 2 Miles West WSW F17 1 - 2 Miles West WSW 18 1 - 2 Miles SSW NE F19 1 - 2 Miles WSW Not Reported F20 1 - 2 Miles WSW SSW F21 1 - 2 Miles WSW E F22 1 - 2 Miles WSW SE 23 1 - 2 Miles SW Not Reported 24 1 - 2 Miles SSE Not Reported G25 1 - 2 Miles WSW SE G26 1 - 2 Miles WSW SE 27 1 - 2 Miles South S 28 1 - 2 Miles SE WSW 29 1 - 2 Miles South Varies For additional site information, refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings, GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes move more quickly through sandy - gravelly types of soils than silty -dayey types of soils. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed at which contaminant migration may be occurring. O'1996 She- spadfic t�ydr o�jed date geU�ed by CERCUS Alertc, Inc., Bet,6rk)ge klanq WA. NI,IyMS TWV6d. N M V" kftMe on "opWd press W ere IMSe M Me c te0 EPA �epan(s), wNcfi were eprpleled uger o Compietwncive Envionr�entel Respaise Conpensatbn W UeDiry Mlorrttetlon Syvte,n (CERC 21 Imestlgnon. TC603919.3s Page A -3 GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION Geologic Code: Tp Era: Cenozoic System: Tertiary Series: Pliocene ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT Category: Stratified Sequence Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994). DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data. Soil Component Name: CLEAR LAKE Soil Surface Texture: clay Hydrologic Group: Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer. Soil Drainage Class: Poorly. Soils may have a saturated zone, a layer of low hydraulic Soil Texture Class conductivity, or seepage. Depth to water table is less than 1 foot. Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil. Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: HIGH Depth to Bedrock Min: > 60 inches Depth to Bedrock Max: > 60 inches Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unwed Soil Permeabili Soil Reaction Rate (in/hr) (pH) 1 0 inches 13 inches clay Slit -Clay FINE - GRAINED Max: 0.20 Max: 7.30 Materials (more SOILS, Silts Min: 0.06 Min: 5.60 than 35 pct. and Clays passing No. (liquid limit 200), Clayey 50% or more), Soils. Fat Clay. 2 13 inches Winches clay Silt -Clay FINE - GRAINED Max: 0.20 Max: 8.40 Materials (more SOILS, Silts Min: 0.06 Min: 7.40 than 35 pct. and Clays passing No. (liquid limit 200), Clayey 50% or more), Soils. I Fat Clay. TC603919.3s Page A4 OTHER SOIL TYPES IN AREA Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data, the following additional subordinant soil types may appear within the general area of target property. Soil Surface Textures: clay loam loam fine sandy loam silty clay loam gravelly - loam silty Gay Surficial Soil Types: clay loam loam fine sandy loam silty Gay loam gravelly - loam silty Gay Shallow Soil Types: clay loam sandy clay loam silty Gay clay Deeper Soil Types: sandy clay loam gravelly - loam very gravelly - clay loam weathered bedrock cobbly - clay loam ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES According to ASTM E 1527 -00, Section 7.2.2, "one or more additional state or local sources of environmental records may be checked, in the discretion of the environmental professional, to enhance and supplement federal and state sources... Factors to consider in determining which local or additional state records, if any, should be checked include (1) whether they are reasonably ascertainable, (2) whether they are sufficiently useful, accurate, and complete in light of the objective of the records review (see 7.1.1), and (3) whether they are obtained, pursuant to local, good commercial or customary practice." One of the record sources listed in Section 7.2.2 is water well information. Water well information can be used to assist the environmental professional in assessing sources that may impact groundwater flow direction, and in forming an opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells. - WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles) Federal USGS 1.000 Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile State Database 1.000 FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION MAP ID WELL ID LOCATION FROM TP TC603919.3s Page A -5 FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP. A2 381603122391101 1/2 - 1 Mile SSW FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP No PWS System Found Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location. STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP 12 5593 1/2 - 1 Mile WSW TC603919.3s Page A -6 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 603919.3s N Major Roads N Contour Lines Earthquake Fault Lines Airports ® Water Wells © Public Water Supply Wells Groundwater Flow Direction c i Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location cv Groundwater Flow Varies at Location a Cluster of Multiple Icons D 1/2 t 2MIsg (�J} Earthquake epicenter, Richter b or greater ® Closest Hydrogeological Data ® al, gas or related wells TARGET PROPERTY: 619 Ely Road CUSTOMER: Hanover Environmental Svs. ADDRESS: 619 Ely Road CONTACT: Lyna Black CITY /STATE/ZIP: Petaluma CA 94954 INQUIRY #: 603919.3s LAT/LONG: 3B.2740/122.6486 DATE: March 07, 2001 3:23 pm Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number 1 Site ID: 49 -0217 NNE Groundwater Flow: N AQUIFLOW 65961 1/8. 1/4 Mile Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Higher Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 6 Date: 10/29/1992 A2 SSW FED USGS 381603122391101 1/2 -1 Mlle Lower BASIC WELL DATA Site ID: Not Reported Site Type: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Groundwater Flow: Year Constructed: Not Reported County: Sonoma Altitude: 41.00 ft. State: California Well Depth: 158.00 ft. Topographic Setting: Flat surface Depth to Water Table: 53.40 ft. Prim. Use of Site: Withdrawal of water Date Measured: 08311978 Prim. Use of Water. Stock A3 Site ID: Not Reported SW Groundwater Flow: SE AQUIFLOW 54628 1/2 -1 Mile Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 04/15/1999 B4 Site ID: Not Reported WSW Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 54582 1/2-1 Mile Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Lower Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 12 Date: 06/15/1993 B5 Site ID: Not Reported WSW Groundwater Flow: SW AQUIFLOW 54072 112-1 Mile Shallow Water Depth: 4.96 Lower Deep Water Depth: 6.19 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 03/19/1991 C6 Site ID: Not Reported SW Groundwater Flow: S AQUIFLOW _ 54225 1/2 -1 Mile Shallow Water Depth: 5 Lower Deep Water Depth: 6 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 10/1989 TC603919.3s Page A -8 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number C7 Site ID: Not Reported SW Groundwater Flow: S AQUIFLOW 54223 1/2 - 1 Mlle Lo wer Lo Shallow Water Depth: 6 SW Deep Water Depth: 7 1/2 - 1 Mite Shallow Water Depth: Lower Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 02/1999 C8 Site 1D: Not Reported SW Groundwater Flow: S AQUIFLOW 54221 1/2 -1 Mile Lower Shallow Water Depth: 6 SW Deep Water Depth: 7 1/2 - 1 Mite Shallow Water Depth: Lower Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 02/1999 B9 Site ID: Not Reported West Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 54581 1/2 - 1 Mile Lo Lo wer Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 12 Date: 06/15/1993 D10 Site ID: WSW Groundwater Flow: - 1 Mile Lo wer Shallow Water Depth: Lo Deep Water Depth: Average Water Depth: Date: Not Reported Not Reported 9 15 Not Reported 07/1997 AQUIFLOW 54065 D11 Site ID: Not Reported WSW Groundwater Flow: SW AQUIFLOW 54071 1/2 - 1 Mite Shallow Water Depth: Lower 4.96 Deep Water Depth: 6.19 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 03/19/1991 12 WSW CA WELLS 5593 112 -1 Mite Lower Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 05N/07W -18R01 M User ID: RXR FRDS Number. 4910006013 County: Sonoma District Number. 03 Station Type: WELUAMBNT /MUN /INTAKE Water Type: Well/Groundwater Well Status: Inactive Raw Source Lat/Long: 381615.5 1223953.5 Precision: 100 Feet (one Second) Source Name: STUB WELL - INACTIVE TC603919.3s Page A -9 System Number: 4910006 System Name: Petaluma, City of Organization That Operates System: E13 PO BOX 61 Not Reported West Groundwater Flow: PETALUMA, CA 94953 1 - 2 Mlles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Pop Served: 49957 Connections; 16502 Area Served: PETALUMA Not Reported Sample Information: • Only Findings Above Detection Level Are Listed Sample Collected: 10/13/1989 Findings: 1.630 PCI /L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 03/31/1990 Findings: 1.200 UG /L Chemical: BROMODICHLORMETHANE (THM) Sample Collected: 03/31/1990 Findings: .600 UG/L Chemical: DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) Sample Collected: 03/31/1990 Findings: .800 UG/L Chemical: CHLOROFORM (THM) Sample Collected: 03/31/1990 Findings: 2.600 UG /L Chemical: TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES Sample Collected: 07/24/1990 Findings: 273.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 07/24/1990 Findings: 7.800 Chemical: PH (LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 07/24/1990 Findings: 112.000 MG /L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY (AS CAC03) Sample Collected: 07/24/1990 Findings: 112.000 MG /L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Semple Collected: 07/24/1990 Findings: 106.000 MG /L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CAC03) Sample Collected: 07124/1990 Findings: 22.500 MG /L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 07/24/1990 Findings: 8.600 MG /L Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 07/24/1990 Findings: 5.000 MG /L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 07124/1990 Findings: 171.000 UG /L . Chemical: ZINC Sample Collected: 07/24/1990 Findings: 144.000 MG /L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 07124/1990 Findings: .500 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY (LAB) E13 Site ID: Not Reported West Groundwater Flow: NW AQUIFLOW 54255 1 - 2 Mlles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 04/26/1999 TC603919.3s Page A -10 Map ID Site 10: Not Reported Direction Groundwater Flow: S AQUIFLOW 54254 Distance Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Elevation Deep Water Depth: Database EDR ID Number Average Water Depth: Not Reported E14 Site ID: Not Reported West Groundwater Flow: S AQUIFLOW 54252 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported 1 - 2 Miles Lower Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 11/10/1998 E15 Site 10: Not Reported West Groundwater Flow: S AQUIFLOW 54254 1 - 2 Mlles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 11/10/1998 F16 Site ID: Not Reported West Groundwater Flow: WSW AQUIFLOW 54257 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 08/18/1999 F17 Site ID: Not Reported West Groundwater Flow: WSW AQUIFLOW 54296 1 Mlles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 08/18/1999 18 Site ID: Not Reported SSW Groundwater Flow: NE AQUIFLOW 53987 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 09121/1999 F19 Site ID: Not Reported WSW Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 54079 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: 4.34 Deep Water Depth: 15 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 06110/1997 F20 Site ID: Not Reported WSW Groundwater Flow: SSW AQUIFLOW 53992 1 - 2 Mlles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 11/11/1991 TC603919.3s Page A -11 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number F21 Site ID: Not Reported WSW Groundwater Flow: E AQUIFLOW 54057 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 12 Date: 03/24/1989 F22 Site ID: Not Reported WSW Groundwater Flow: SE AQUIFLOW 54055 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 12/3011997 23 Site ID: Not Reported SW Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 54063 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: 15 Deep Water Depth: 17 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 11/05/1998 24 Site ID: Not Reported SSE Groundwater Flow: Not Reported AQUIFLOW 54610 1 -2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: 8.33 Deep Water Depth: 11.92 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 11/23/1994 G25 Site ID: Not Reported WSW Groundwater Flow: SE AQUIFLOW 54304 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 08 109/1999 G26 Site ID: Not Reported WSW Groundwater Flow: SE AQUIFLOW 54303 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 08 /09/1999 27 Site ID: Not Reported South Groundwater Flow: S AQUIFLOW 54070 1 - 2 Mlles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: 31.5 Date: 06111/1992 TC603919.3s Page A -12 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number 28 Site ID: Not Reported SE Groundwater Flow: WSW AQUIFLOW 54080 1 - 2 Mlles Lower Shallow Water Depth: 5.72 Deep Water Depth: 8.73 Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 10/08/1999 29 Site ID: Not Reported South Groundwater Flow: Varies AQUIFLOW 54233 1 - 2 Miles Lower Shallow Water Depth: Not Reported Deep Water Depth: Not Reported Average Water Depth: Not Reported Date: 11/06/1997 TC603919.3s Page A -13 AREA RADON INFORMATION Federal EPA Radon Zone for SONOMA County: 3 Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCUL. Zone 2 indoor average level — 2 pCUL and — 4 pCUL. Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCUL. Zip Code: 94954 Number of sites tested: 8 Area Average Activity % <4 pCUL Living Area - 1st Floor 0.275 pCUL 100% Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Basement Not Reported Not Reported % 4-20 pCUL 0% Not Reported Not Reported % X20 pCUL 0% Not Reported Not Reported TC603919.3s Page A -14 HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION AQUIFLOWR Information System Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table information. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994). STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the national Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) and Is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES FEDERAL WATER WELLS PWS: Public Water Systems Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202 - 260 -2805 Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources. PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202 - 260 -2805 Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). USGS Water Wells: In November 1971 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) implemented a national water resource information tracking system. This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface water and /or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on more than 900,000 wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater. TC603919.3s Page A -15 STATE RECORDS Califomla Drinking Water Quality Database Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916- 324 -2319 The database includes all drinking water compliance and special studies monitoring for the state of California since 1984. It consists of over 3,200,000 individual analyses along with well and water system information. California Oil and Gas Well Locations for District 2 and 6 Source: Department of Conservation Telephone: 916 - 323 -1779 RADON Area Radon Information: The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Surveyand the National Residential Radon Survey. The study covers the years 1986 -1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. EPA Radon Zones: Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and Identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels. OTHER Epicenters: Works earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration California Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR's Topographic map are digitized quaternary fault lines, prepared in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey. Additional information (also from 1975) regarding activity at specific fault lines comes from California's Preliminary Fault Activity Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology. TC603919.3s Page A -16 Appendix D: Additional Information 24 Preliminary Title Report 25 NORTH BAY TITLE CO. PRELIMINARY REPORT Jody Sornmerhauser Special Projects Officer Order Igo.: 00105433 - 001 -JES Reference No.: 228623JB Regarding: 619 Ely Road Petaluma, CA Buyer /Borrower: Waterford Associates, LLC. Escrow Officer: Jackie Boceabella Address: California Land Title Company 700 Irwin Street San Rafael, CA 94901 Phone, 415. 454 -9323 North Bay Title Company hereby reports that it is prepar 'ed to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance of describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception on Schedule B or not excluded frorn coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit "A" attached, Copies of the Policy forms should be read, They are available from the office which issued this report, please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the Exceptions and Exclusions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered, It is important to note that this Preliminary Report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the iseuanee of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of. a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. Dated as of December 13, 2000 at 7:30 A.M. 0 431 E STREET, P.Q. BOX 3439, SANTA ROSA, CA 95402 (707) 5:64000 * FAX (707) 526.4 "382 C3 6650 COMMERCE BLVD. SUITE t, ROHN CRT PAR& CA 94928 (707) 585 -2355 • FAX (707) $84-9621 0 765 pAYWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 143, PETALIIMA, CA 94954 (707) 778.2000 0 F.it (707) 764 -4175 File No. 00 105433-00 1 J ES The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is, California Land Title Association Standard Coverage Policy American Land Title Association Loar. Policy The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is: A Fee Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Larry C. Baker and Joe Ann Baker, his wife The land referred to in this Report is situated in the State of California, County of Sonoma and is described as follows; (See "Legal Description" Schedule C Attached) At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy would be those as shown on the following pages, 1. General and Special County Taxes for fiscal year 2000 -2001, a lien. 1st Installment: $306.11 Paid 2nd Installment: $306.11 Open Assessor's Parcel No. 137- 070 --009 -000, Code Area: 175 003, Exemption: 7,000.00 Includes Special District Taxes and/or Assessments shown on the Tax Roll us "Flat Charges ". 2. The lien of Supplemental taxes, if arty, assessed as a result of transfer of interest and /or new construction, said supplemented taxes being assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of California Revenue and Taxation code. 3. ANY FACTS, RIGHTS, INTERESTS OR CLAIMS which are not disclosed by the public records but which could be ascertained by snaking inquiry of the parties of persons in possession of the herein described laud. 4. WATER RIG11TS, claims or title to water, whether or not the same are shown by the public records. File No. X30105433- 001 -JES 5. RIGHTS of the public in common with the vestee as to that portion of the property described lying within Corona Road (Bethel School House Road). 6, AN OIL AND GAS LEASE for the term therein provided with certain covenants, conditions and provisions, together with casements, if any, as set forth therein. Dated: August 2 7, 1951 Lessor: Theron H. Baker and Dora G. Baker Lessee: The Texas Company Recorded: February 23, 1952 in Book 1110 of Official Records at Page 202, Serial No. D 61330, Sonoma County Records. 7. A DEED OF TRUST to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations secured thereby Amount: $20,000.00 Dated: June 1, 1970 Trustor: Larry C. Baker and Joe Ann Baker, his wife Trustee; Title Insurance and Trust Company, a California corporation Beneficiary: Dora G. Bakers, a widow - Address : c/o Lounibos & Lounibos, 10 Fourth Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Loan No.: Not shown Recorded: June 15, 1970 in Book 2466 of Official Records at Page 661, Serial No. L 66753, Sonoma County Records. AN ASSIGNMENT of the beneficial interest under said deed of trust which names: Assignee: Dora G. Baker, a widow, and Larry C. Baker, a married man., as joint tenants Address: c/o Lounibos & Lounibos, 10 Fourth Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Loan No.: Not shown Recorded: May 18,1976 in Book 3080 of Official Records at Page 675, Serial No. R 29586, Sonoma County Records, File No. 00105433 - 001 -JIES INFORMATIONAL NOTES: A. THIS REPORT is issued in contemplation of the issuance of an ALTA Policy of Title Insurance. We have no knowledge of any fact which would preclude the issuance of said ALTA Policy with Endorsements 100 and 116 attached. According to the public records, said land is known as: 619 Ely Road, Petaluma, CA - Single Family Residence NOTE: This transaction may be subject to a cancellation charge to be determined as adequate compensation for the work performed, but in no case less than $420.00, as required by Section 12404.1 of the Insurance Code. This charge may be waived only in compliance with said Section 12404.1 NOTE: Sonoma County Documentary Transfer Tax is based on $1.10 per thousand of consideration or portion thereof. Documentary Transfer Tax is paid on full consideration minus any loans assumed in the sale. The following cities have enacted property transfer tax. If the property described herein lies within any of the following cities, be certain to shown both the appropriate county and cite amounts of Documentary Transfer Tax on your conveyance document(s): 1. Rohnert Park: $1.10 per $1,000 of consideration or portion thereof, minus any loans assumed in the sale. 2. Cloverdale: $1.10 per $1,000 of consideration or portion thereof, minus any loans assumed in the sale. 3. Cotati: $1.90 per $1,000 of consideration or portion thereof, minus any loans assumed in the sale. 4. Santa Rosa: $2.00 per $1,000 of consideration or portion thereof, no exemption for any loans assumed in the sale. 5. Petaluma: $2.00 per $1,000 of consideration or portion thereof, no exemption for any loans assumed in the sale. 6. Sebastopol: $2.00 per $1,000 of consideration or portion thereof, no exemption for any loans assumed in the sale. THIS COMPANY ISSUES POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE ON CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, STEWART TITLE GUARANTEE CONIPA.NY, LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, ANY OF WHICH MAY BE ISSUED IN THIS TRANSACTION. CHAIN OF TITTLE: Title of the vestees herein was acquired two years or more preceding the date hereof. TXI /ho File No. 00105433 - 001 -JEi S Schedule C Legal Description Situated in the State of California, Unincorporated Area; County of Sonoma, and described as .follows: Being a portion of Lot No. 296 as the same is laid down and numbered upon Rowe's Map of the Petaluma Rancho, and which portion hereby conveyed is described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point in the center of the Bethel School House Road leading from the Petaluma and Santa Rosa Road to the Bethel School House, 30 feet Northwesterly from the Northwest comer of said Lot No. 296 and on the extended line of the Southwesterly side of said Lot No. 296; running thence in a Northeasterly direction and along the center of said Bethel School House Road 334.3 feet to a stake; running thence at right angles in a Southeasterly direction South 540 18' East 6213 feet to an iron pipe; running thence South 351 28' West 334.6 feet to an iron pipe on the Northeasterly side line ofthe County Road running to Ely Station, and running thence in a Northwesterly direction and along the Northeasterly sideline of said road leading to Ely Station 651.3 feet to the point of beginning, and containing 5 acres of land. Said property hereby conveyed being a portion of the Petaluma Rancho. (137 -070- 009 -000) c.-wc N i v O;o C n H �awrr cagy, , E mO0 COUN7'Y A,5SE-SSOR�5 PARCEL MAP Parcel Mop Na 276 Btu 5�'6 Pps, l4 -/5, Rte• 6 -li -sa Parcel Map No. 89- 669 Bk $07 Pgs.15 -/7, Rec. 3- JI -5.3 res. 00 Lot 3 �:✓ 4.68 Ac. a S 54949''"'£ 76d, Ov $ Lot Z w 4/ 4.95 Ac. S 34 °Or 49 E ti 4.53 Ac. P' PE Pcl Mop MO. 303 Bk..i62, t3,s 33,M, Rea 4,4 LW !37 08 J 14 #4i,Jl'€ A J4.1. x E f M I � I h 6" 1-5. Yd 30.44 At 1,�-W. 91A-- NstA/V r`'t. Lct ! A/£ 93 -39666 f d4r Pr N 34-o 'W 16fe./o XS411J3W' 7Y5.34 E8o,Z6 i 3j0.70 . NtiI °3441 q p l21A f N54 °Z+S1F' q /ts.o 4 S.DOAC a �f I a f4t?1 175 - 003 077. YO 3-0-30 CIRCLE OA! Rec. 22 September, It 554.31,1 4 ♦ w • W 1 w 3, 7) Ac. /t".f4 w'6 N 6� 44 !Pl.90 b �� :td•37 �tv P0, 0 0' h ti 4.94 AC. h P.40Ac � 6I • X34` v` 6 .66 rrr./0 r a„ r41 .� Pcl. 9 q l l l I p M54060t14'lr lrs4.e5 $ o 14.24Ac. o I It b Z rig." rXO•M r1f.OJ lro.13 •f 117.01 t /3r `` Q 1'91,03 Sir. lI J7s.Is JJJ• ROA 0 / 92 Z R/ESL /N6 1* 1—N 1��.�-'�0jii,.i" -- � JI.l1 M $ ti 140.0 Jas. to 4 j1i l L4 «3�' I y �: I I �o� '0 }Zi ; I37 Pcl.0 / S �`t„iT�l } I d ar G.C,.1 4.6AG 4�� ssl, ra t~ I 36 '`� v ; ' i � 4ot 175 -0+03 0 � � I � � ; , l }t nt t 037 WtY i 33 n 554•!7 E 65/.30 L z@!_•! _ 10 o�o rao.e da - -��q;5 �-�i �.�' -r- y Af' • ELY ROAO .,� - sse's7'c �V C i O OJt ;� Lam% � �ys�• t•- wa 3.79A� � s � 5.4 r 4 i 5 5. IOAc. ; ; pM 89 -669 $ 5/0.00 S Sas 4n.4sG,C. -1 M. 303 0 M w rr4,as �` r roes.. P0, 0 0' h ti 4.94 AC. h P.40Ac � 6I • X34` v` 6 .66 rrr./0 r a„ r41 .� Pcl. 9 q l l l I p M54060t14'lr lrs4.e5 $ o 14.24Ac. o I It b Z rig." rXO•M r1f.OJ lro.13 •f 117.01 t /3r `` Q 1'91,03 Sir. lI J7s.Is JJJ• ROA 0 / 92 Z R/ESL /N6 1* 1—N 1��.�-'�0jii,.i" -- � JI.l1 M $ ti 140.0 Jas. to 4 j1i l L4 «3�' I y �: I I �o� '0 }Zi ; I37 Pcl.0 / S �`t„iT�l } I d ar G.C,.1 4.6AG 4�� ssl, ra t~ I 36 '`� v ; ' i � 4ot 175 -0+03 0 � � I � � ; , l }t nt t 037 WtY i 33 n 554•!7 E 65/.30 L z@!_•! _ 10 o�o rao.e da - -��q;5 �-�i �.�' -r- y Af' • ELY ROAO .,� - - — EXHIBIT A LIST OF PRINTED EXCEPTiONS AND EXCLUSIONS 1, CALIFORNIA LiiND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - 1990 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly exciaded from the coverage Of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, oosx, attorney's fees or expenses which anse by reason or: t. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to !I) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (ill) a separation in ewnersnip or a change in the dimensions of or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of ftte enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the (and had been recorded In the public records at date of policy. (b) encumbrance resulting from power violation or alleged violattion affecting the extent recorded m Me public e io ds at date of olicy,efect, lien or 2. Mgttts of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at date of policy, but not excluding horn coverage any taking which has occurred prior to date Of policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters' (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at date of policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by it* insured claimant: (b) no' known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at date of policy, but known to the insured c'aimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy.; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant: (d) attaching or created subsequent to date of policy: or (a) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or the estate of interest insured by this policy, a. Unenf-orceab(lity of the Iten of the insured mortgage becaase of the inability w failure of the insured at date of policy, or the Inability cr failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the slate in which the land is situated. 5. invalidity, or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, wnich arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth•in• lending law. 6. Any claim, which arises out of th& ' ransaction vesting in the insured the estate or .. nterest Insured by this policy or the transaction creating trio interest Ot the insured lender, by reason of th9 operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar cred :tors' rights :aws, EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This Policy does riot insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of; 1, Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public Agency which may result in taxes cr assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records, 21 Any facts, rights, interests or cairns which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encurnorances, or claims tnereof, which are not shown by the public records. d. Discrepancies, confilcts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroaohmenw, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records, 5. (a) Unpatented mining ciairrls; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the mate *s excepted upper (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. RE\/. 10/92 EXHIBIT A (Continued) 2• AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION (ALTA) RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY (6 -1 -87) EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in SeheQuie B. yoo are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulfing from. 1. Governmental Oicy power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning: • land use • improvements on the land • land divisions • environmental protection This Exclusion does not apply to violations or enforcement of these matters which appear In the Public Records at the Policy date. This Exclusion does not limit the zoning coverage described in Items 12 and 13 of the Covered Frisks, 2 The right to take the land by c ndemning R, unless; • a notice of exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date, • the taking happened before the Poiioy mate ano Is binding on you if You bought the land without knowing of the taking. 3 Title Risks: ♦ that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you that are Known to You, but not to Us, on the Policy Date - unless they appear in the Public Records • that result in no loss to You • that first occur after the Policy pate • this does not limit the coverage the labor or material lien coverage in Item a of Covared Title Risks. b. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 5. Lack of a right: • to any Land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A, or • in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch your Land, This Exclusion does not limit the access coverage described in Item 5 of Coverea Title risks. EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE in addition to the Exclusions, you are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses resulting from: f. Someone claiminq an interest in your land by reason of; A. Easements not shown in the public records B. Boundar/ disputes not shown in the public records C. Improvements owned by your neignbor piaceo on your land 2. It, in addition to a single family residence, your existing structure consists of one or more Additional Dwelling Units, Item 12 of Covered Title risks does not insure you against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting frorn: A. The forced removal of any Additional pwelling Unit, or, S, The forced conversion of any Additonal Dwelling Unit back to its original use, If said A6ditional Dwelling Unit was either constructed ur converted to use as a dwelling unit in violation of any law or government regulation. REV, 10/92 EXHIBIT A (Continued) 3. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (10- 17 -92) WITH ALTA ENDORSEMENT - FORM 1 COVERAGE and AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD LOAN POLICY (10- 1792) WiTH ALTA ENDORSEMENT - FORM 1 COVERAGE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or camage, costs, attorney's fees 0; expenses which arise by reason of; 1 (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including out not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prahibipng or relating to (l) the occupancy, Use, of enjoyment of the land; 61) the character, dimensions or locations of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (til) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (Iv) environryental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or govemmertai regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land tied been recorded in the public records at Date of pcdioy, (b) Any governmental ponce power nct excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a detnot, lien or ercumoranc6 resuiting from a violation or alleged violation, affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at date of policy 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise infect has been recorded in the public records at datu of policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to irate of policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge, 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters; (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company,. not recorded in the public records at dato of policy, but known to the insured ciaima it and not disclosed In writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior tc the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or createC subsequent to date of policy (except to The extent that this policy insures the priority of the I'en of the nsured mortgage over any statutory lions for services, labor or matariais, or to the extent tnsurancv is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvemer s under construction or completed at date of policy); or (e) resulting .n loss or damage which would not hove been sustained if the insured claimant nod pall : a;ue for the insured mortgage. 4, Unenforce3bdity of the lien of the insured r ortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at date of policy, Or tno inauirity or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness tc comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the lano is situated. 5, Invalidity or unenforceabiirty of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced oy the inburea mortgage and is teased upon usury or i:ny consumer credit projection or truth -in- lending law. B, Any statutory lien for services, tabor or materials (or the claim or priority of any statutory Tier, for services, labor or materials over the ien ,f the insured mortgage) arising from the Improvement or worK related to the land which is contracted for aria commenced subsequent to date o' policy and i, pct finanoad in whole or in part by proceeds of the ineebteoness secured by the insurer mortgage which at date of policy the insurer' has 3ovanceJ Or 16 obligated to advance, 7. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the Interest of the mongage6 insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of fecerar bankruptcy. state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on; (t) the transaction creating tire interest of the insured .mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or frauduieni transfer, or (ti) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as the result of the application of the doctrine of equitable suboraination; or (iii) the transaction creating the Interest of the insured mortgagee being deer.led a preferential transfer accept where the preferential transfer resu;ts from the failure: (a) to timely retard the instrument of transfer; or (o) of such recordation to impart notice to purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor, The above Policy forms may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to rite above Exclusions fro, e, the Exoeption from Coverage in a Standard Coverage Policy will also include the following General Exceptions: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This Policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' foes or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1, Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing hens by the records of any tax :no authority that lovies taxes or assessments on real proPfcty of by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes of assessments, or notices of such prcceedirras, whOhw c- nct showr by the ecords cf such agency or ay the public records. 2 Any facts, rigrits, interests or ciaims which are not shown by the public records but whim could be ascertained by art Inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof, 3. Eosements, liens or encumbrances, or cleirns thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in ooundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or ony other fatal wh ch a correct survey v:ouid disclose. And which are not shown by the public records, 5. (a) Unpatented mining ciaims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or nLt the maters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the pubi1^1 records. REV. 10192 EXHIBIT A (Continued) 4. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICdY (10- 17-92) an AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION !LEASEHOLD OWNER'S POLICY (10.17 -92) - EXCLUSIONS FROiN COVERAGE i he following matters are expressly excluded from the ooverage of this policy and the ComCany wiH not pay toss or damage, costs, attorney's lees or expenses which arise by reason of; 1. (a} Any law, ordinane9 or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or reguiations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (1) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (11) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (ill) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions of or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a pan: of (iv) environmental protection. or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land had been recorded in the public records at date of policy, (b) Any governmental police power not exeiuded by (a) above, Axceptto the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notico of a defect, her or encumbrance resulting from it violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at date of policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at data of policy, but not exciuoing from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to date of policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for .slue without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at date of policy, but Created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in trig public records at date of policy, but known to the insured claimant and not discloses in wrung t0 the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant oacame an insured under this policy,; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insureo claimant; (d) attaching or creatad subsequent to date of policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not nave been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for tho insured mortgage or the estate of interest insured by this policy, 4, Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or Interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of 6derat bankruptcy. state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based or,. (a) the transaction Creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer: or (b) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure; (i) to timely record the instrurrent or transfer; or (11) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a Judgement or lien creailor. Tne above Policy forms may be issued to afford eitner Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage, In addition to the above Exclusions tier Coverage. the Exception from Coverage in a Standard Coverage Policy wilt also include the following General ExcoPtions: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This Policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of; 1, Taxes or assessments whicr are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes o+ assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of sucl^ proceedings, whether or nor shown by the records of such agen.^,y or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, Gees or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey Would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5, (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or it Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or riot the maters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. REV. 10!92 EXHIBIT A (Continued) 6. CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNERS'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (6 -2 -98) EXCLUSIONS in Addition to the Exceptions in Schedule e, you are not insured against loss, casts, attornays' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation, This includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning! (a) building (b) zoning (c) land use (d) improvements on the land (e) land division (f) environmental protection This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters if notice of the violation appears in IN) public records at the policy dale, This exclusion does not limit the.coverage described in covered risk 14, 15, 16, 17 or 24, 2. The failure of your existing sttuotures, or any part of them, to be constructed in ageordance with applicable building codes. This exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes If notice of tits violation appears In the public records at the policy date, 3 The right to take the land by Condemning it unless: (a) a notice of exercising the right appears In the public records at the policy date; or (b) the taking happened befom the policy date afd Is binding on you if you bought the land without knowing of the taking. 4. Risks: (a) that are created, allowed or agreed to by you, whether or not they appear in the public records; (b) that are known to you at the policy date, but not to us, unless they appear in the public records at the policy data; (c) that result in no loss to you; or (d) that first occur after the policy date - this does not limit the coverage described in covered risk 7, 8.d, 22, 23, 24, or 28. 5, Failure to pay value for your title. 6. Lack of a right: (a) to any lend outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; ano (b) in streets, alleys or waterways that touch the land, This Exclusion does not Unlit the coverage described in Covered risk t' or 18. REV, 10192 ATTACHMENT 12 May 1, 2001 Mr. Ben Smith W •TRANS E'• °rii� = l.Ui Waterford Homes 945 Front Street :,.LL; Novato, CA 94945 Traffic Impact Review for the Baker Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Smith; As requested, we have reviewed the development plans prepared for the proposed Baker Ranch Subdivision in the City of Petaluma, California. The project as proposed will an eleven (11) lot single family subdivision of which one is existing and ten lots are new. The purpose of our review was to determine the compatibility in terms of traffic impacts of the currently proposed project with previous assumptions of site development envisioned in the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. The project as proposed will construct a new cul -de -sac street with access from Ely Road which will serve six of the eleven lots. The new cul -de -sac street is proposed to access Ely Road at a point approximately 290 feet northerly of Harman Lane. The remaining five new parcels will have access directly onto Hartman Lane. For purposes of estimating the number of new trips which the proposed project can be expected to generate, Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997, was used. This is a standard reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country, and is based on actual trip generation studies performed at numerous locations in areas of various populations. As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 98 new daily vehicle trips, which includes 7 new a.m, peak hour trips and 9 new p.m. peak hour trips. Shown, as well, is the trip generation potential of the existing dwelling on the project site. Table 1 Trip Generation Summary Land Use Units Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Single Family ( #210) l'0 New Units 9.57 98 0.75 8 2 6 1.01 10 6 4 Single Family ( #2l 0) 1 units 1 9.57 10 0.75 1 0 1 1.01 1 1 0 The project site is located within the sub -area identified as traffic analysis zone 250 (TAZ 250) which encompasses the project site. It was envisioned in the Corona /Ely Specific Plan that the TAZ would include 110 single family homes and a 300 - student elementary school. To date, 82 dwelling units and the Corona Elementary School have been constructed within this Traffic Assignment Zone. At 11 single family dwelling units, this project will bring the total residential component to 93 single family dwelling units, which corresponds to 85 percent of the total envisioned within this zone. It is concluded that this project is consistent with the goals and is within the anticipated density of development envisioned. WHITLOCK & W E I N B E R G E R T R A N S P O R T A T I O N I N C 509 Seventh Street, Suite 101 • Santa Rosa, CA 95401 • (707) 542 -9500 • FAX (707) 542 -9590 • www.w- trans.com 0* 6 Mr. Ben Smith Page 2 May 1, 2001 The location of the new access street intersection was evaluated for consistency with current street design guidelines. The new street intersection is located 290 feet from Hartman Lane and is beyond the threshold of 200 feet. The new cul -de -sac street is proposed to be constructed with a curb -to -curb width of 32 feet and meets City of Petaluma Street design standards. Conclusions The project as proposed will generate an average of 88 additional daily trips. The addition of 9 p.m. peak hour trips is expected to have a less than significant impact on the area's circulation network. It is concluded that this project is consistent with the goals of the Specific Plan and is within the anticipated density of development envisioned. Please feel free to contact me should you have questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincere] Allan G AGTldjw PET043.L1 ATTACHMENT 13 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472�'"� RECEIVED 0 0 r JUN -6 1997 CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Case No.: 97- 09 -429P MACKAY & SOMP5 The Honorable Patricia Hilligoss Community: City of Petaluma, California ,Mayor, City of Petaluma Community No.: 060379 P.O. Brix 61 Panel - Affected: 060375 0870 B Petaluma, California 94953 Effective Date of This Revision: JUN f 1 :/ W1 102 -D -A U N Dear Mayor Hllligoss; This responds; to a request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revise the effecdve Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Fltxxt hisuranre Study (FI S) report for your community in accordance with Part 65 of the Naeional Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) reguladoas. In a letter dated January 8, 1997, Mr. William J, Stanton, Jr., Operations Managel•, Macl(ay & Somps, requested that f EMA revue die FIRM and FIS report to show the effects of a chanriLlization project avid culverts along Corona Creek from just upstream of North McDowell Boulevard to approximately 2,200 feet upstream of Ely Road. Although the area included in this revision is shown on Tile effective FIRM for the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County, it has been winevd by the City of Petaluma. This request follows up on a Conditional Letter of Map Revision issued on July 22, 1991. All data required to complete our review of this request were submitted with letters from Mr. Stanton. We have completed our review of the submitted data and the flood data shown on the effective FIRM and FIS report. We have revised the FIRM and FIS report to modify the elevations and floodplain boundary delineations of die flood having a I- percent chance of being tqualed or exceeded in any given year (base flood) along Corona Creek. As a result of the inodificatiolis, die Special Flood hazard Area (SFI4A), die area that would be inundated by the base flood, and die base flood elevations (BF1;s) for Corona Creek have been removed from just upstream of North McDowell Boulevard to approximately 2,150 feet upstream of Ely Road. -[lie bast flood anal the flood liaving a 0,2- percent chalice of being equaled or exceeded in any given year are contained In the. channel for the above - described reach. 'llie iiiodificaliotLti ale shown oil die encloscd arwowed copy of FIRM Panel(s) 060375 0870 B and Profile Panels) 118P, 119P, and 12013. '111is Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) hereby revises die above - referenced paiiel(s) of the effective FIRM dated April 2, 1991, and die affected portions of the FIS report dated June 19, 1997, for die unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. The modilicadow are effective as of die date shown above. Tlie map panel(s) as listed above and as modified by this letter will he used for all flood insurance policies and renewals issued for your community. 0 O The following table is a partial listing of existing and modified BFF.s: Existing BFE Modified BFE Location (feet)* (feet)* Approximately 250 feet upstream of North McDowell. Boulevard 32 None Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of Nord) McDowell Boulevard 41 None Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Ely Road 53 None *Referenced to die National Geodetic Vertical Datum, rounded to the nearest whole'foot Public notification of the modified BFEs will be given in die Argus Courier oil or about June 17 and June 24, 1997, A colty of this notification is enclosed. In addition, a notice of changes will be published in the Federal Register. -Within 90 flays of the second publication in (lie Argus Courier, a citizen may request that FEMA reconsider tic determination tihadt by this LOMR. Arty request fur recot►sidet aliou Hurst be based on scientific or technical data. All interested parties arc oil notice that, until die 90 -day period elapses, tic determination to modify tie BFEs presented in dtis LOMR may itself be modified. Because this LOMR will not be printed and distributed to primary users, such as local insurance agents and mortgage lenders, your community will serve as a repository for dtese new data. We encourage you to disseminate the information reflected by this LOMR throughout tie community, so that interested persons, such as property owners, local insurance agents, and mortgage lenders, may benefit from die information. We also encourage you to prepare a related article for publication in your community's local newspaper. 'fills article should describe the assistance that officials of your community will give to interested person_y by providing these data and interpreting the NFIP maps. We will not physically revise and republish the FIRM and FIS report for your community to reflect die modifications made by this LOMB at this time. When changes to rile previously cited FIRM panel(s) and FIS report warrant physical revision and republication in fire future, we will incorporate the modifications made by this LOMB at that time. This LOMR Is based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the NFII'. Your community is responsible for approving all lloodplain development, and for ensuring all necessary permits required by Federal or Stale law have beta received. State, county, and community otlicials, based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction in rte SFHA. If die State, county, or community has adopted more restrictive or coniprelhettsive floodplain management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria. The basis of this LOMR is, in whole or in part, a channel- modifrcationtculvert project. NFIP regulations, as cited in Paragraph 60.3(b)(7), require drat communities ensure that the flood - carrying capacity widlin die altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained. This provision is incorporated 'into your community'N existing floodplaui ilia r>r1gernent regulations. Con,cyuendy, die ultimate responsibility for maintenance or tite modified channel and culvert rtsts with your community. This determination has been made pursuant to Sectinn 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93 -234) and is in accordance witli tie National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (Title X11I of the flousi%, and Urban Development Act of 1968, Public Law 90 -448), 42 U.S.C. 4001 -4128, anti 4-4 CFR Part 65. Pursuant to Section 1361 of die National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, communities participating in the NFIP are required to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed NF1P criteria. These criteria are the initutnuln requirwrients and du 11OL supersede any State or local requirements of a more stringent nature, This includes adoption of the efi•cctivc FIRM and FIS report to which the regulations apply and the modifications described in this LOMR. If you have any questions regarding floodplain management regulations for your community or the NFIP in general, please contact the Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) for your community. Informadon on the CCO for your community may be obtained by contacting the Director, Mitigation Division of FEMA in San Francisco, California, at (415) 923 -7177. If you have any technical quesdons regarding this LOMR, please contact Mr. John Magnoni of our staff in Washington, DC, either by telephone at (202) 646 -3932 or by facsimile at (202) 646 -4596. Sincerely ;;Z S rr hief Hasard identification Branch Mitigation Directorate Enclosure(s) cc: Tlie Honorable Jim Harberson Chairperson, Board of Supervisors Sonoma County Mr. James C. McCann Floodplain Administrator City of Petaluma Mr, Robert Mayas Chief Engineer Sonoma County Water Agency Mr. William J. Stanton, jr. Operations Manager MacKay & Somps E El zm ♦ CH.ANGES ARE MADE IN b— fERMINATIONS OF BASE FLOOD ELL AT FOR THE CITY OF PETALUMA, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, UNDER THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE. PROGRAM On April 2, 1991, the Federal Emergency Management Agency identified Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County, California, through Issuance of a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The Mlbgation Dim i-torate has determined that modification of the elevations of the flood having a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) for certain locations in this community is sppropriate. The modified base flood elevations (BFEs) revise the FIRM for the conrrnnuilty. Although the area included in this revision is shown on the effective FIRM for the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County, it has been atuiexed by die City of Petaluma. The changes are being made ptusuant to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93 -234) arxi arc in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (Title XIII of the !lousing and Urban Development Act of 1968, Public Law 90448), 42 U.S.C. 4001 -4128, and 44 CFR Part 65. A hydraulic analysis was performed to incorporate a chatuielization project and several culverts along Corona Creek. As a result of this project, the SFIIA and the BFEs for Corona Creek have been removed from the FIRM from approximately 4,300 feet upstream of the confluence with Capri Creek to approximately 2,150 felt upstream of Ely Road. The aforernentioned clhamhelized portion of Corona Creek. contacts the base flood and the flood having a 0.2- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The table below Indicates existing wid modified BFEs for selected lineations along die affiected length~ of the flooding source(s) cited above. Existing BFE Modified BFE Location (feet)* (feet)* Approximately 250 feet upstream of North McDowell Boulevard 32 None Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of North McDowell Boulevard 41 None Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Ely Road 53 None *National Geodetic 'Vertical Datum, rounded to nearest whole tool Under the above- mentioned Acts of 1968 and 1973, the Mitigation Directorate must develop criteria for floodplain management. To paniclpate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the community must use die modified BEES w administer the floodplain managemem measures of the NF1P. These modified BFEs will also be used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance prenilutn rates for new buildings and their content; and for the second layer of insurance on e.xistb)g buildings and contents. Upon die second publication of notice of these changes in this newspaper, any person has 90 days in which he or she can request, through tie Chief Executive Officer of die comnwtiity, that tie Mitigation Directorate reconsider the determination. Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data. All interested parties are on notice that until the 90 -day period elapses, the Mitigation Directorate's determination to modify the BFEs may itself be changed. Any person having knowledge or wishing to comment on these changes should immediately notify: The Honorable Patricia Hilligoss Mayor. City of Petaluma P.O. Box 61 Petaluma, California 94953 E. Clark Thompson Mayo? Janice Cader - Thompson Michael Healy Matt Maguire Bryant Moynihan Mike O'Brien Pamela Torliatt Councilmembers Water Resources & Conservation 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Phone (707) 778 -4304 Fax (707) 776 -3635 E -Mail: dwrc @ci.pe taluma. ca. us Water Field Office 202 N. McDowell Boulevard Petaluma, CA 94954 Phone (707) 778 -4392 Fax (707) 778 -4508 E -Mail: water @ci.petaluma. ca. us i0 Pdnled on recycled paper ATTACHMENT 14 I'I'I OF PETALUMA POST OFFICE BOX 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953 -0061 October 2, 2001 RE: Baker Ranch Subdivision Tentative Map Conditions of Approval Dear Planning Commission: Pursuant to subdivision 20.16.420 of the Petaluma Municipal Code and Ordinance 1046 NCS section 1, 1972: (prior code section 22.4.901), the City Engineer shall prepare a written report of recommendations on the tentative map in relation to the public improvement requirements of this ordinance and the provisions of the map act. The following are recommended conditions of approval, including public improvement requirements, for the proposed Baker Ranch Subdivision development. Frontage Improvements 1. Frontage improvements for the Ely Road project frontage .located within existing City Limits shall include but not be limited to, meandering sidewalk, handicap ramps, striping, channelization, signing and landscaping. 2. Frontage improvements for the Ely Road project frontage currently located within the County of Sonoma shall consist of a 5 -foot wide striped on- street bike lane and separated pedestrian pathway. These improvements shall be installed for the entire half street portion of Ely Road to be annexed into the City of Petaluma. The construction materials (i.e. Concrete, Asphalt Concrete, Decomposed Granite, etc.) used for the separated pathway area shall be subject to the review and approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) and City staff prior to final map approval. 3. The City requires a traffic index of 8 (T.I. = 8) for Ely Road. A geotechnical report addendum is required and shall identify the existing pavement section and traffic index for the County portion of Ely Road. In the event that the existing Ely Road pavement section does not meet T.I. = 8 standards, the developer shall be responsible for reconstructing the existing portions of Ely Road, from centerline, along the current County of Sonoma project frontage. An asphalt overlay conform shall be required as necessary to provide a smooth street crown and insure positive cross sectional drainage of 2% minimum. 4. A slurry seal shall be applied to the entire Hartman Lane half street project frontage. 5. City standard street and utility improvements shall be installed to serve the proposed parcels located on Baker Ranch Street. 6. The pavement sections for the proposed interior streets shall be designed for a traffic index of 5 (T.I. = 5) and shall contain a minimum of four inches of asphalt concrete. 7. The proposed 47 -foot radius cul -de -sac shall be designed to include interior parking per City Standard 217 (3 of 4). 8. The proposed property line for parcels one and three shall be realigned to provide a circular right of way along the cul -de -sac with a portion of the shared property line designed to be radial to the cul -de -sac. 9. Parking shall be prohibited along the Ely Road project frontage. No parking street signs shall be installed. 10. Driveway approaches and utility services for proposed lots one and two shall be installed with the proposed Baker Ranch Street improvements. Sanitary Sewer Collection and Water Supply Utilities 1. A 10 -inch diameter sanitary sewer main is to be installed to serve the project as prescribed in the Sewer System Capacity Study dated 1985 by Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers. Alternatively, the proposed 8 -inch sewer main or other alternative could be used provided the applicant's engineer submits calculations indicating the pipe has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project and remaining Corona / Ely Specific Plan area within the Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The Zone IV City water supply system shall serve the project. 3. Fire flow calculations indicating sufficient fire flow and pressure per the Fire Marshal's office shall be submitted with the final map /improvement plan application. 4. Each lot shall have separate sanitary sewer laterals and water services. Grading and Drainage 1. Hydrology calculations for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) prior to final map and improvement plan approval. If the hydraulic capacity of any downstream drainage facilities are exceeded per SCWA and City of Petaluma criteria/standards /etc. as a result of this project, the developer is responsible for upgrade improvements subject to the review and approval by the SCWA and City Engineer. 2. Lot to lot drainage shall not be allowed without drainage /storm drain easements. 3. Grading conforms to adjacent developments shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 4. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan is required as a part of the improvement plans and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 5. The applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the California State Water Resources Control Board and provide a copy of the filed notice to the City of Petaluma prior to final map approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a detailed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with latest state standards for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. The SWPPP shall be available on -site in the job trailer at all times throughout the construction process. The SWPPP and NOI copy shall be submitted with the improvement plan application package. The developer and /or contractor shall update the SWPPP throughout the construction process per the latest state standards. 7. The applicant shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the California State Water Resources Control Board and a copy to the City of Petaluma upon completion of the proj ect. 8. A maintenance declaration shall be provided for perpetual maintenance of the proposed private storm drain line prior to final map approval. Easements 1. Documentation that a ten -foot wide public utility easement exists along the Hartman Lane project frontage shall be provided prior to final map approval. If the easement does not exist, it shall be provided. 2. A 1 -foot wide non - access easement is required along the Ely Road project frontage up to the 10 -12 feet currently used to access proposed parcel number two subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Miscellaneous 1. The developer is responsible for paying assessments to the Corona / Ely Assessment Benefit District subject to the terms of the Benefit District. 2. Any existing septic systems located on the site shall be abandoned per County of Sonoma Environmental Health Department standards. Existing wells may be retained for landscaping irrigation purposes. All retained wells are required to meet City standards. 3. All new public utilities shall be underground. 4. The applicant shall submit either a digitized data fee in the amount of ten dollars per lot or provide electronic base map information for updating the City's base map system prior to final map and improvement plan approval. 5. The final map and improvement plans shall be prepared in accordance with latest City standards, codes, policies and ordinances. Sincerely, f r Thomas S. Hargis, P.E., City Engine Director, Water Resources & Conservation c: Engineering File Planning File SAEngineering Division \Development Processing Folder\Planning Project Referrals\ TSM \Itrbakerranchsubconofapp.doc 3 y of Petaluma, Califo.a ATTACHMENT 15 MEMORANDUM Fire Marshal, 11 English Street, Petaluma, C4 94952 (707) 778 -4389, Fax (707) 778 -4498 DATE: May 17, 2001 TO: George White, Planning Manager , FROM: Lonnie Armstrong, Plans Examin P Ua,- ul SUBJECT: Baker Ranch — 619 Ely Road Listed below are fire protection requirement code(s) for the above project. 1. Post address numbers on or near main entry door. Numbers to be a minimum of four inches high with contrasting background. Must be visible from street. 2. As of July 1, 2000, Ordinance 2084 became effective. Any residence submitted after July 1, 2000, is required to be sprinklered. See below. 3. Sprinklers shall be installed at overhangs and concealed spaces per NFPA 13, Chapter 4. 4. All contractors performing work on fire sprinkler systems, either overhead systems or underground fire service mains, shall have a C -16 Contractors License. 5. All contractors shall have a city business license and a workers compensation certificate on file with the Fire Marshal's office. 6. Install fire hydrants every 300 lineal feet. No structure or fire department sprinkler connection shall be in excess of 150 feet from a fire hydrant. 7. Provisions for Annual Weed /Brush Abatement of the urban interface and the developed area shall be the responsibility of the developer /property owner. A plan that outlines the criteria for provisions of weed abatement shall be developed. This plan shall be approved by the Fire Marshal's office prior to approval of final map of the project. This plan shall include conditions for fire safe landscaping, firebreaks and shall be - in accordance with "Fire Safe Standards" developed by the State of California. 8. Add hydrant as shown on Page 2. 9. Radius of Cul -De -Sac — City Standard is R = 47' inside of curb. 10. Provide "No Parking" Signs and paint curbs red and marked "Fire Lane No Parking ". 11. This plan has been reviewed with the information supplied; subsequent plan submittal for review may be subject to additional requirements as plans are revised. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please feel free to contact this office at 707 - 778 -4389. aArnsoflice \winword\ 619 Ely Road Baker Ranch fire #47 sk 5/17/01 OF PETAL � ATTACHMENT 16 tTMA, CAi, +�.�1I� 6 MEM®RANDU Police Department 969 Petaluma Blvd North, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778 -4372 Fax (707) 778 -4476 E- mail.police(adPetaluma. ca. us DATE: 5/29/01 TO: George White, Planning FROM: Jan Morrow, CSO SUBJECT: SPC01023 -Baker Ranch �;OMMU;tili `'rVclCP l Per iiEv,gRitiiEN? I have reviewed the above listed project description as detailed and offer the following comments and recommendations. Street: I. The street shall be at least 28' wide. This is to allow for residential street parking and emergency vehicle access to the residences in the court. 2. The court shall have a turning radius of at least 51' to allow for the turning around of emergency vehicles, which include fire trucks. 3. The sidewalk shall extend from Baker Ct. along Ely Rd. to Hartman Lane to allow for pedestrian traffic to access Hartman Lane. 4. The driveway access leading to the parcel listed as parcel #I shall be placed off Baker Ct. Lighting: l.The street shall have lighting on both sides of the street and the court, which meets current lighting standards. 2.The houses shall have illuminated addresses on the side of the house, which face the street. 3.There.shall be monuments at the entrances of each driveway that clearly state the numerics and layout of the house(s) set back from the street. Laura Lafler LSA Associates 157 Park Place Point Richmond, Ca 9+801 ATTACHMENT 17 46 -F VA-UGHSCH-00 JRILIIIWI 1851 Hartman Lane Petalunl-- CA 9"JqC;4 1 (707) 765-31331 782-9666 StiPei*?IeWI(?)',I c S c 0 11 1i' -'a h 0? 7 e. y. j; a , . D. August 51, 2001 SEP - 5 2001 This letter is to reiterate our telephone conversation yesterday regarding a pedestrian entry point from the Baker Ranch development to Corona Creek School, Our district would not support such an entrance since it would jeopardize campus security. We have no means of monitoring access at the point you mentioned so do not believe it would be safe. Sincerely, Et Mahoney, Ed-D. Superintendent Corona Creek Elementar), School Scott Mahoney, Ed.D., Principal 1851 Hartman Lane Petaluma, CA 94954 (707) 7165-3331 FAX (707) 782-9666 Relentlessly Pursuing Success For All Meadow School Stefanie Capps, Principal 880 Maria Drive Petaluma, CA 94954 (707) 762-4905 FAX (707) 762-5751 ATTACHMENT 18 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -mail. planning@ci petalumaxa,us DATE: June 11, 2001 TO: Laura Lafler FROM: Anne Windsor /Jan Tolbert SUBJECT: Estimated Development Fees for Baker Ranch The following estimated development fees apply to the above project. Sewer: $3,129 /unit (effective July 1, 200 1) Water: Contact the Water Field Office @ 778 -4392 for quotation. Community Facilities: $919.62 /unit Storm Drain: $7,500 (see attached calculation) Park Fees: $3,974 /unit School Fees: Contact the School District @ 778 -4621 for quotation. In -lieu Housing: $2,400 /unit Traffic: $3,007 /unit SAPlan Dept\ feequote \619elymad- bakerranch.doc 6/11/01 City of Petaluma Storm Drain Calculation Project Name: Baker Ranch Standard Residential Calculation Total Site Acreage: 5 Runoff Coefficient, Before: 0.3 Runoff Coefficient, After: 0.5 Before Project Runoff 0.75 After Project Runoff 1.25 Additional Runoff Created= 0.5 Impact Fee= $7,500 - -- Or" 0 0 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 19 Water Resources Field Office, 202 North McDowell Blvd, Petaluma, CA 94954 (707) 778 -4392 Fax (707) 778 -4508 E-mail: gblackledge@ci.Petalumaca.us DATE: May 21, 2001 TO: George White FROM: Gary Blackledge SUBJECT: Baker Ranch Developer needs to submit water'G.P.M. requirements to determine water service and meter size for all lots. Need to install water valve within 8 to 20 ft. before blow -off at end of water main. . Curt Bates . Steve Simmons ATTACHMENT 20 BAKER RANCH (Planner: George White) PBAC Conditions of Approval -- 6/13/2001 Bikeways, Class I: Construct a multi -use off -road Clasg I path on the perimeter of this project along Corona Road to provide safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. (Class 1, Policies 8 & 12, p. 18) Pedestrian Access: There shall be a non - meandering sidewalk connecting Balser Ranch Court to the Corona Road Class I path. ( Pedestrian Needs, Objective B, p. 26) Benches: There shall be two benches along the Corona Road Class I multi -use path. One located adjacent to Parcel One; the other adjacent to Parcel Two. (Benches, Policy 55, p. 24) Through - Travel: l.) Provide pedestrian and bicycle access from the cul -de -sac to the school by creating a 50' wide public open area connecting the Baker Ranch Court cul -de -sac with the school. (Connections, Program 2, p. 26; Objective A, p. 26) 2.) There shall be a 12' path from the public open area at the end of the cul -de -sac between the Greystone Creek subdivision and lots 3 and 7 connecting to Hartman Lane. (Connections, Program 2, p. 26; Objective A, p. 26) Pesticide /Herbicide Use: Under no circumstances should any pesticide /herbicide be applied in areas used by pedestrians/bicyclists any where in this project or the surrounding areas without appropriate signs warning of the use of chemicals, a policy currently employed by the Music, Recreation, and Parks Department. This project shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for the protection of bicyclists and pedestrians. (Pesticide, Policies 13 -14, pp. 12 -13) 1721 Stonehenge Way - Petaluma, CA 94954 C;l_`.'::, July 30, 2001 0Fi VC�._ Clark Thompson, Mayor . City Council Planning Commission City of Petaluma. Dear Mr. Mayor ATTACHMENT 21 County property located on the S E corner of Ely & Corona Roads, will soon be before the City for incorporation and subdivision. Our former neighbor Lary Baker recently sold his sheep ranchette to Waterford Development of Novato. Four coastal oaks stand on this property, near its southern property line. These oaks are part of the original stand of oaks that extend to the west about' /4 mile, on the south side of Corona Road. Two of these original oaks were retained as part of the Condiotti housing development, called Heather Wood. My 95- year -old neighbor, who lives on Corona Rd. opposite the former Baker property, remembers that these were already big oaks when he was in first grade at the Waugh school. I and many of my neighbors at Heather Wood, fear that the developer, to implement his subdivision for residential building lotspay cut down these 4 trees. Coastal oaks are a treasure wherever they remain in the county, and especially when they can be melded into our new neighborhoods. Condiotti willingly or otherwise, turned one of these oaks a `micro open space' (corner Kensington & Andover), with a meandering walk, steps, benches, and landscape amendments. Kids play under and around the tree. Mothers and neighbors use the benches to chat and get acquainted. Wildlife had a unique part of their habitat respected; which was especially vital in the interim years when the land was stripped barren for subdivision, and until new trees and shrubs started to fill -in the void left by the bulldozer. Early this year, Waterford Dev. hired MACNAIR & Associates of Glen Ellen as arborist- consultant, to look at their 4 trees. Not surprisingly, they found faults with. each of the trees, and recommended that at least 2 of the trees be removed, All of the oaks for a' /4 mile, previously described, took root in the original flood plain and no doubt are of similar age. If this arborist or any other, were hired 20, 30,40 yrs. ago to inspect these old coastal oaks, they could have had a long list of faults, including hollowed trunks. It seems that as long as no one told the old trees, they continued their annual cycles. They will probably continue living long after the kids who currently see the trees every day on their way to Corona Creek school, bring their own kids back to show them the oaks, where they walked, collected acorns, and perhaps got their first kiss. Page 2 The four Waterford oaks, form an approximate line from E to W, and come within about 40' of Ely Road. When preserved as the group, they form a beautiful green canopy, for everyone to enjoy, and also for our new residents who will. then occupy one of the last build -outs near the Urban Limit Line. Waterford may also find a way to' incorporate those oaks into his on -site detention pond, since this property is within our designated flood plain. When considering Waterford's applications to the city, I urge everyone to take the longer view, and preserve the oaks and our rural heritage. While the developer needs to preserve his bottom line, our town needs to preserve some of its priceless assets on the Eastside, as well as the Westside. On the Westside, when the land was sub - divided fox building lots a long time ago, the coastal oaks were respected by our predecessors. Today, these centenarian oaks stand proudly in the backyards of the homes, on the hillsides, and occasionally arch onto our streets. Do they also have `warts, weevils, and wiggles'? - -I guess so - -Would anyone cut any of there down because they show their. agel 1 c Hank Flum SONOMA C O U N T Y WATER �z_ A G E N C Y June 13, 2001 George White City of Petaluma Planning Division P.O. Box 61 Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: BAKER RANCH; SPCO1023 Dear Mr. White: ATTACHMENT 22 ,F.tiS��.�il FILE:FDR/TENT %BAKER RANCH sPC 01023 The Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) has reviewed the Project Referral for the above mentioned project. In response, the Agency submits the following comment. For site - specific improvements, Agency staff recommends that the drainage design for the project be in compliance with the Agency's Flood Control Design Criteria. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. For specific flood and drainage issues, please contact David Grundman at 547 -1946. For additional questions or comments, I can be reached at 547 -1998 or emailed at bautista@scwa.ca.gov. Sincerely, Marc Bautista Environmental Specialist C Ken Goddard Phillip Wadsworth IT; RS3 \U \CLVDT\ERPAD\B AUTISTA\SPC01023 P.O. Box 11628 - Santa Rosa, CA 95406 - 2150 W. College Avenue - Santa Rosa, CA 95401 - (707) 526 -5370 - Fax (707) 544 -6123 * , , , -, - .;. I 1; -,�? - V-, �,V,� ---�-W-,PF AP,i�e, - - f� 1, � - - �� ., r * L . __ZK7W.:_ 7p Vzz t� .t� - _'lr�Ll � - ., �% ,!.!--._., .. 'ti, -1 .; �, ;,�,�a,,,�!� J�_ 5t, - y ,, - - . ,j - - , I. _ . .1 , �� . - :� . - - I e �l ,It.,, , � , - - . , - j - ,:_ _�_ .1 I .--- - � - ..N .� ',� , 1 _- .1. . . , 1 ,-1-1, " i R F .4 . - � - 1 - � , . � I , - , .. . , a . - . I __l_, - - ,-%,�� - -.. Q, _ I " =. eolll� . �l - . - , - . , ;li --'.--- - z .. , . --- -_ - .." 1�_ti' � zi , -_ t� , � -. .q-l;'- _- J, � ,il � ;, �� "?.i , , - , - - - --- - - , I 0��r _- � - f-_'V'�',A�-� - ,I,'--'-' - .., _7 � Z .; _-!.,r� . - - �--- _�'V ,,!�_.�E , - - .q - K - - W I - - - 11 � - _ 1. -- n _0 . - _ . *.�v.-�� *,� .- , _,�-.'�,t, ,-4y .- i -, . - - t .A � .; 'P. 4 , . , i" . , - I � - ' 7 2-4; �4 -�l ��-* , � . - 5, Z�11'11P a "W., '. * t� � ..'.,�'.�L etc _- . - - ." � L : 'r4� 'k . , - / .1-1-1 a..,�.-`�,�-� , . . - - - , -- - , ��,Pj ,- ,A'. - r ,,, . lig - -, _* -_ �. - A :v .I. - - . , -� . , - �- -� .. - -� " -, , -; � �-, 1p_-� Ll"-,7�,. �� ;Z�� - , ,,-�,_,:.,:__ 1, A � - - - -,�! s-�` ,�E!J ::�AU g, , CO. ry , - . . W , -�!��-r,.--4� ,.- - A . ��,, f*' J�&-�'Yr-_ , ATTACHMENT 23 . - �t - -l".1 . - ..:� . � �r �l _§-1.1 � l",.. . 4:1. 1 AP� :�'-',-1 ,:�-, Z-., " ._- N �l - 'f , qv� �W-? - " -,, R ,� I ,.." - - .., , --,-,' ,--- W ._ - .A� �_ w " �:,�.* _��.z . 41 - �1*111 - _�, - " -.1 � -IF . - , . . I% I 'C-- R � 4 - .� -,--r, � �, t�;!�. - 4 _:N I , �:qj-v ... �! '. , . � -, 4. ,,, -,v �, , ", , I a i!-;�,4�,�V,-,�',_i - I - ,- .-y- �e - Z�' , - - MV "'. q ". � -: - � ,��., - - - , -"- - , ;;,. ,,- F �,,,-- � ,-,`r*�Lc"l'X,--"�`: -, ` :q _t�4 iK, ,�, - *..-,�, -,I�t1r;�i',,��,,�,-i.=,'�3;.�;:,.,� - -, - . , , �, . " " � *e il,, I -, � �'4-z " �,_., :�. ,`� - 4-', A__ � q4 `X',�'-,'�--,.,�*.� ,� TUAL SITE PHOTO ;N ti�_ - - . " � - ,, - - �, __ ,..;. � - , _, , - - .2 i, I, ��11;;eU i� ,; - - - - - """ * - - � - %r-,:?i' - .., * �-_-�,��!� , - �l - � - -i ,*--- -�,,,%'.� -,,� P., . . ,V:i tlft:� , - "7- I 1W.71-1.1 - . -, - --1,,l'�-,%Tj"4j , W�V-t ,�,g� ,�.7: ' -.,, ., - I . , -- 1"! - _� � - 5- - �.. . ,� '. ,�t�;FXY, -- qk� ,*-- - Nlr;l - - �_*_-,�5z--*i,� . " - , i ,� " , ,5 -, - - .." v��-'�, , I I .! , - , E*l , - - '' - - - . 4 , , . --: - , - ,�,� � ,� -40� ,��,� I � - , I � _R - . ,., , -, . , , --! - '- _ - � , -_ , 2 _ '. � - �- � �,z, �1/1 , -1 . - - " i OR - 1p;,*- -,,,*, - � - "%�.�-P'q:�` _�-_-'�'�'� , W-1- - -:. -1 _- er - 2_--!'j�:�� 0--'agoi �V, " -, - ,-�*. -.-,,`� - --,,�, ---'.-,�l . ; ,�.-�-;�-'.�,�*,,.�,--�--��, .�'-,,�? - , '. - L -.-;, _,�. .I , .1 . _; �-' " - .... - �PK"�t mA�:�,,, 1 I" � '4.-A- � -,)� - -1. vz , - ) - . , _ Z`,,-.'�E.�� t.t� C,�.,�_- . �, ` F, , 4�,-4�zi,ILMI;�` - I - �tg�_'�!T::Z.-,`,&._i , �:.,"��'..;�..,:;,�-"-� �,� , "I - �, -,�,�:�-,;--.A-,��t:, n �1-.-;N,-Y-_ - � ---t ,�,-_. , ,;-x- . " �- . .11.1 I ;,-,. ��17), 4� 1, __� :� , , . - . , f .., , ; !� ,,.,�.. - � .11�.rh , - 1 , �� - , - I � , W,' - Y, N - I I- 1. . - - -0,QM5 �*, .t,,�,�, . �;j . .. .... . I,�, �,,, - � � . -'�:, - , " - R. � �j W, - 7, �'.l �!-I�' _.�� I-, , � " - -�; - -, , - .- , , ,6E .1 • , 1- , . - ��Z�l' !�6,,?-& - " . . � __ � , - - - .., - ,,� , I - �,, ", - , , , `,9 ,� -� . , �'� � - - . - , - , . lly'. f'��:, . , - , �� - �N� - ,;,L �.� - -g-�ft . ., ` `k,'-.-i:'A�',�2 .: � - , - �-- x �t,l �' t ---�., `-, %'t-it- - -;�U-4M27"?O-,� - , � , , - - ,`_--� ;g � � 51 - 4 , �� ,�-�, -7 - V� i*'IV - h�-j -,",:,- - - - , - � -� , , , .,-*-,!qm_-,�� , , - '. , "I," `la � - --tv -1- - - ,�'A., � ??E,`�4i , ,4',r��-O.-"- ,� .WMW�l Iq w ,i� , " .- . , , i. v �S if , , _. " , x ��, --- j- � T_ , " -- " 1Z..". -_ . , , .� . lr: / �_�a..-, - -j� -- - -1 - , ,� - . - - . L�-_. .-':.g " -.,.�-�.�.,,,..,-, .,� i.t - - ,,P�� .�,01�.� - , Z, , - _t_ " * . , �'_- _--, , _. _ - __ i�_ Z�,i. . "W'"',"�m - q .!� - __ : , , - - . NU 11 . � ' -, 'f " - -- - -1;14�Y__--� g - , ., � �,-`.-lt;,-_,� , I � ---- - -- 1. , . . I - '�. , -., --,--,-- - A�.�,, it;4�:-� � r� �; , �4 ,, . � - - , - - - , � . , �: , f * , - -�% �� Q . � ;: . ;:.,:. , . , V, -V� ,41 ,.,,� � ,p -�,tgl�-t --I � 1:'. 1, ,, ,4jlF_ , X �, u�� - !, , , - . . .. .. - Mi`� ,.. :." � ", - ll,�, , . . , . �,��,,t� � - ...1- I - - �; - � jr,� �l , _� i,:4, T , - 14�,�, 1t'jp�:-� , � . - - , .. J�;�- -Jz�W, - I- ljmg&76�g)T, -!�,,,,-r, - 4 -, , ,� , .. ", -�-,',-., ��' '_&% f . '1� , ,-, . , , , ��-,�t.--,�,zt-�7:i-�k3.--....,��n��-,i,,I - I , -',P _�., , - , . '91,�- ,A--""- o ,;�,w - , , - m ` - * -4 � 'Tl;�lY'_l'l% "' ,-, �� --�- z� o,-.-*x-,-n_-A , , v -, '%.. '.-Z!R�f�, ,-. � ,�"l , " , j p � � 1, " - � _V __ - �.,,�--.-,*.,.-�,,�.-,.,,,-��, - ,e - .., . �,,-AM,, z-A, ". , -.11., �.-�,�Z.--_ , _i'�`,K - _ 11.�"-�,-��-,�f-)i��,,*�,,,.:..�-�v � - I --.'9�",L,jV::4 , Y, ,T S.I��, " 1 - , - � I. __.� � �,�� ,- � - A'_--��--:�Le .K '. � -I I . -.-, `_ -7�7- , - '- , , .- � ^ " -,�-�;, .IX FW- ,f.,�-'P7, 't �,:�* -�-"",.,"�,�--'�z,'�";,�,i; �_i_ 0- ,:,.'m31 -_� , _�14"JI--N 11 — __.__.;3W7'l _lrx� . ;� , - � -, 4 ; � , 1 ., 2 ,7,f.-'l.l 11, �- . - !-;;b4 A,�p .. :: ,� .p, ,,'-l_W-_l.A,, . 'i __� I �L i�_ �.Z4v, ,�,P_!r -1 __4AT . �, - - ",?, - ., . x - . I - - I - t�, ,�2; _;��. _l,p,A Q, - ", , , - - . . � � ,� 1; '!'l_.-, - , ":., -.:gn,�T, - _ - 1.1--l- v .. .... �, f, Ir .... . . �!F�� ,v K."4 � -, ee, -wo - � -%?,� ... ... Z,-_,,7 . v �'%v ,,,,, j,.-jl:!T;j " -.*nl;'�,.t-4*, .,_.,�,.4 ',;� - ..' * :I SS .-_�. . _zv, �_ , ,,w;,�,--�-.I;j�,�q�,.. -;Yr ;!.--,-.,lq'-_,-.��:;�`; � � g , - . , I , -, � .7-i�4!z�!-;,',,,*�,;---.-,��,-�,f��l"-2i��f�:.,-� -,�� -,. -� . I '. �� .�', 1-11i ��,-i � - -�, ,-1, I...�.-",�l.."".-�,*.,.1;�'� _f, - - , 'j- - , , I .j , 1, i, " " ,�. , -:�/. r-W�1��_, --.',,' "I'-:m, ,;--ir 3, .N10— - - ,�, .,,t.--.�.'.,.';,�,,'-.--..�,�-:,��,P-�.-, 1, . -, ", - - 14F - k ., _� , , , s �l I , " !�,,; _�_�eb� - -,UA-_.gg;,-" �. . 50 ;� V - _*��* I 11 7 ,� , , , I "Ji _�� , Tj-,`�jd , ,'�, ,!-.-f" ,;�",r��z;�-r.',-'.�,,*.-,:--..� Z�� 3%,"Al �, - .w ., - - , --- 1�� ,p.��r q Z� i�l, �, - - � - �mi_ X., , , ?, �4, ,".Z �' _:.� 11 �,T, , ., _� ,�. , a,.�, V .;.", � _� �., r, I - - , , - -- � -.fl��i,�.i .., I .,� , _, - - �, � '. ., L. -, s - ,V,�.��,_:�f�-�,-Ii��'PVL-�e'�:��-�l'�,�.-F,�,X�z.-*�,,��',',-�t.,..��'-, -� ,I�-_-:"_.-��,� !", �.-Vhl;:�!M.,-L 7� -- - - - Ru .-M,". " - .-,-5,1 -yl- ":,-, g�,i;,�:--&g - '�'._-i,"1,-�*.,;';��.;',-'4��',��..�-.':!'.�f:":" .,�,;E I .. `,�. _. . _. ., __ 11)", -, i -, -� Q . , :-1 -:� - f'-�!,�.,,', _� ', . �..*.l , .�. '. �. - , q , - � - _ -, �, tte,� � , T ��f, , , _'.� . 71114YD;�1_141 v. ,j,_3�9:,',��',�- ;,"',� I �;.,.,�.�,,'��"",.��l,,',,:��:-7��t'�-e�:-;� WQ- '.xlo, 'f,l�,� - -�" ,,, ��'-��F-�.��I�2��'.,.'-it.,'�7�� , .- -, ,,-. . - I � � . � - ,Z,D _ ;__ , :. ,7 � *��* �_� -f, `1.4�'_w - -�, .:.�,,%'�5- ZQ _ � 1 , 1:no " " _ , . _`_i��,.`_,� - - - T,'��-` � - ,� _� � " - ,,S�:.. . � , -; -% - , -._::�, . . . . . - �l - �: - 'i:i " we-:!,, -&r__-_ _& -Y.,-;w� � :.,.4 u - , __ A 54� _� __ , I �' I . m , W ��'---�-,-�-,*�,-*.'..--�.7.,,�;..; t�'i,.N ."�"-r- ;��.-.`�," --�-,� - ai , , - - . _K -, � , - - , - , �.; - .,_�.,: . ...... �, " - , ��. 4��,V�yl 1 '.. 1, . � �,_'� � ." ,00* ��'. -,- �I,;---,z - �,_�. �, � � .2__:,�,,,�' , z ..", - .1 Y�_";'�,,,�.. .tl.:y . , _P, - , ... --l-, �l i 11 , ,`�`�-t.`�,-, --,- .v -_'47' , , , �, � , _� i,�_ `�, * 7T , -. -�-,,;'?�";;o�q`, -R-,W!M�,,�Xia- �l 11 - . � � . -/ , " � , �,� , ;�.�-,��P- - I e �_ , . - _0 � � - - � /� - .� ;,M-!' ��U ik, i . ili,;V;,�. - , 11. � - 1-1,," Z --l". __ - k" ,,, -�'�lr_,C;�,--_�n-.2 11- ,�,.�,??,l . � , �-.�4 11"-.1".., . �. , I 1 - �i -, 'Fl �u - - - , - -'� - _ - ..,- - "I '�,; ", ,�;�,,_ -� - _- *:,, _.*N,*. , .r_-�.�, , T�j�W�ZN_ ,� , . " , , P�� - ( I - ,I- � .Ot� '1,� _ *_ 5 ,�,��.,�,,, - I llll,`�.. it'�',, . ,� -��e.�,!��.,,',-�,,�-.".-�",-S�,.'�',,*'.�-�',:;,,'�;;-*!"T.,ti",Z�,.?..'r'��-;-".--� �-- * , -1 , . -i 'I- _� , - ., f� - j .. �*� , - " , * f� .. , W .... � -,,, � K ,r'`�l__" - �';. "--%, ','�,-.*,-L-*,':�.��--;-�-�i-'��- _� , �� - ., -, ,�' � 41:;� ..�iLD�,%,�4 -;�� 4�__llllo�� I _,V,�� .� T "� '� - � . i��',�k�,�: � �'ik,_ �.' a';"-.4& I'. ,,, A I ll_,,V�_ CO �n � , _ , 11 � , .� , 119 A 301:11'�lil.;._.�N_ �f , ., t " - - - -, " - _'. .- .- , , , - i I , , - ". , - I �,"%pl. ;�,. -, A: - ,. . . rte. „i ,!._**�i ".”, '*�_f,,I,.,-��W � I �-� N'j �_4',.j - _oRk" . - .. -T,l -t-f -, - - - '� I " - ? , �_ '!�, 7" - � .71 ��'ir��,.�",.",,*��j"-*.,7��.', .0 n i54�� - - - - - .- � I , _., 1IFN � O.". ," -,� , 5; - ., � i .1 r - .. y I � - Z , 7 - I 113, �1� � � � r . ...... z �' ,, I �J� COUNTY � .4 : .. , � :. - � "'. _ _,"..". I � I -4 ",.e'-4j�v. 1,�, 1. � . ., � - - ., _ ll�t�rf�,W " I - i , -, " , jw,�n74,. - ....... � 'i , ", - .1 ,� �i � ,,-,�.,,r-�.,,�...��.�-,,�'--�--,'.� - - - - I ", 1--l-W t� .. V� :, jl'l -z", � , .. , I - , 4 - - � . , . I " , -Ir. � !� I-.7,'�,4 ,.-, -rb, ., 7�1 "s. , . .. � .. - . * I -:5. -!� �� - - I llw_ I . '��j�*, I - - - . �� 47 � . . - - , '. ,2 -, , -- .. - �. , - , , - . . � - - 3 �2 - - 11A,.,.i ."..., j, - tm a I i ,.� �;; � N-V�--_�,� _M � - - � , ff�- , yi , I - r • *1, - , j COUNTY �.. '`';-, JWffl'' - .� - - , - m�'. , - - � -- t � � - �. I - � � - �,, , . , . . , � , , --,, �- 1 !� :.r/ - , " - - .�. � . !A , , I , ", �-;,-'�gt,_-: .1 -i -.'��,� -4"'- -'W'jj. . .�__Fll!;_'l,4;4r, _,� ,'I li:t; ,_4 � I - . . , '. f��_ , UiR--� -, , ". Z. .. �,�iI�..----.-, ---* .1 - - :�, � - -, -- -- - NP, � '. �,�,,,T-_,7 , �. , 'T ,I-, - " � • I, � , - - - - ,T,;t��, � �.', , , - - / I" Z. ;!. .� ,,_� ;, ,�. "I , .. - 1'�-:��,11*1 - 1, - • - - . - , - ", _, - __?�7�7�%"-g - ili." "j. ,, I I ', �7 W ,,.A,*.Ir� ,-�, " ,!-,r -`�t;�,:,- -;,,� -_,"� .-'�l,._,_- -_--,,-%�;.',:r�-� z. _-- - �, - , p,j 4� IN .-�N;N.,�!_��t;,,* �; ;;�� , " 1, . -y , , __- -, �. __ . , , - '. . ,. _ 1, - - . .� '.. �� , - - ""' N�p , _ � �_ 4 : 7r . � - "'o'. �1: , ��. ��, - � -, f� ��, w -�- � - ,� �s 1: _7 I 11, - ,."? I..'.,,0,7�. , _, ,� �. - -4... , - - , ', _0,-�,i,.T-,,;,. .. � r, - - - v �,, , - ! - , , .fA,,�' !.�! ,�,� . .. .... �, ,, -".-, ,3�, ,,i�,;��,�"C' Y,�'.,%;!�.-� f ,_._pWq35F4_ r ' - . . - 1� ..� � , - - . il� � . - Is `W:.:,4_;�. - 1.177_t_ , - _ �l � 1,� "Z'... "g- � �,!,�:,'_:�V, - f" ,_" __ 11 - I__ _j I - -�;M.,4- I' 'jf.,T,4��,�'j � % g, - �*� - - - Q , �,,, Z, - __ _1 � - . I . . , _ �. ... ..... �_ � _',7"� 5 , ;!�`, - , , __ - - __ ",.'-,�;;O!� . � z 1_ - � .... -- , -1 - f-, z_ � -";F, , 17", "!.,* 5,i-,_-m,�, `� � . � . _41', 4 __ivum ,,, !'� -, ,,-;F, _ , -,--,- `0 " .fn -'_�- �,5`�i-� ' - 1 .. � "I . - ,_!"", - - - - -_11--A-�'m ,_ 'm Y" ,/ 'I, , - 'F�, -,f- �_,.'.r�� -',.�:-!-�;""*�,.',:j',��:,'�."-.*��":�� I I - -.I--- � A - _�41 , 4 1 1 , - - , .�� - I , .k � . -, , . - iF ,; , _ - V W`. - - � , " - i . f,..,� , -;- ., I I I'll, - , 4. ___ r, �l " __ � f�-�-�'�,�Jlf ,,�,,�',� � . -";); . ,i .., ,wy"',�*�-_, ,�i 9' 4 j �� , � - , _,T.,-_3, z,,:,,?,, - , � , - �� Z -.'�,., I ,- �',-,�,T, . ,, , � , li A - _: . ,�� z _�, � -, - ` * -L ,�- ��,- " 1 ;�.�:�g .- I , 1_,�. , * ,4 ,�. vnl� �,�a- , 'S'o .- - � I - - - - - - - - -.Ir _ . ,, . * r, � `� � �4 , _`I1 I - - -, '... I , _.". __ . - ��f_ 11 - -,.-- . - . � � m " M"I-. - -.4-'.. Z�,44,,��_.2.w . . -_:�;`, � ,I, . .'� ` . ' 1�;W ,.137, ,-;7��!il. �_-f ��r7 , _�l !�,�� .. - - . � ,. . i , 11 "' ' ' ' 1. �X. xi-,4�,7RK�i ,i�*,_;f�`.-. n, ,7"!-- � ".-Ai , - � , A I , VAY.K. , .,,,�, i 1 � -4 - . _.f " , - �. ,_;, , I . - . , , � - I , , - - 11 �' - �� I I , - j3.,,.� A - i . I /I " .. w _IV - �,� � "," OL � L , - Q'&-, 2'r-I" , - -�,. � � i " - � -�� - - , �QR�,,, , __ ';,L �. �� " - lt� '� .� . , - ." " .� , ' , - i� - il�'-�W - -V I i�n-'�..,'gj_, _ ,7 - � - :�_' 7--1 ,", ��,-,..p gfqt�y .,,.fir 7 j§j;- -- , � P - . . � , �:` - - - I '! " Vf.l�g,'- . � - -;., ;,;�-��i,-�-,�Z"4,?��l-'�i��d,��t�;,j4- ,D&1_11�,,4' �P-1 - ,k-7, .1 ,j�j� � _� .- , " " , I."- � - , , ' .' N' .__'I�'" ., IX '. ." , - - G - .� - m -_��w j - ,4t -' I-- ,,, , ,rA , - ;w -, _!, .!,7/-, -,. % - , - - , , 1. �1111 I .-!,��-',*a�-�:k;,�,,�,Y-.1�-,Ig,,��.i. � - j�, - - - - . . , - -- -- ,� - � ., � IWI?1_1�. _� , . - . Q. I " - . . ,_, , * fN;..l�,,_`, f , - " .11 . , , - , . - W, - --,� � ,,-I I - , �,� Z.- _ ___ 1 7" _ - �, M-5" - I - 10 � �� ....... - f,_�,,S'f • -;� ff� lv� - , _ .9 - .�g - � , ,�� P, �. *� � , . �P; . ? 14.1, I .11 , . -, 4�1* � -MM ,111.�-,�ll -:. - p I IF . , - I . � - . vw� ;�__ll -1 - ;_ _,� - . �t , I 1. I . � � � � " k. VI.A.-I � .. - - - I -1, -_ �__, �_t.'K;l� 'I-, - i . 7 "I'll, - - _ .... . I _., ,_�_ - " - - - " -- "' � --- --_:-- 179 - - �z -!, F�,,�Nwil - - - t��'"?',�,$.',��z- � !;��`%r AIV. i�- I I - _ ��' -' , -�)A,�I�:__l - M - W ; .. fr - :_4L _ , - , , __ 1-111'.'1111�_ -K,��-�L, �- . . . . .. , , .U. I , - -, , P, - - _ - . , IV . -,�� It'. , - , � - -- --- - - . - * - . ✓ . - - _ ': _ , � ��R.4t!t-9 - I . � - .TqF`_%A _. ,2�1 -V . -5 - - - ___ppl_ - z - Cr M - .. I .. I M r�Tvtl�,.,_ . - - I- %'5�1,zl,_�-*� , - : - 1�. W` - � _,,-,_ -!�, -�j;n 1 1, --- - , pg '. �. - - M -�* � -F,�'. � , . , - - ; ,�. , L - 'P---- , " , .; ,�F -_ N �.�. �" .1: � _ )I; ! i. .� . 1��'. -7�'j �.- ' - - , , - , r r,!�, - - $� " . - 'Y'rjp� , , - t� �4 ,,,;�' , -_�; - - 41, 0 .1 - . , - , - .'*4l.,,l_,r - " � - - ". � �r;-- n ',--- -�,f- -, _-, 2�t�--'. - , - - , ,_ - ___ _" , , _ - __ - -4,., � � - , " , - ; " . R wm�. �X ,��* , I - . , , !.� I �, "? -. ;�,� ii� �_z!g_' I I - - � , , - � r � -- -- - I- 1; , - ? I - " - � , f4&ffp ,� �� _7r�� . ec �� . , - , .� -4 V_. i�'... I - , , . ,"r ,,,,,.,, , . k I . "i , 0 ., .4, ,� - � p 00i'� 'Z,:"P�,��_,Z___ ,,^.,,.' 4 - :z , - )- -py - �� -11 ;Z., gt.;�-,- -;17fl,'. - j, _-_,jg� .�.' ; -,-; , , . 1, j �&,-, ;1�.��j,_�_, r, "o-�,_,"I -g---",� '. � _.- _ _. , - I 0 A - -� - _ k'" _ _ , - , , � in .. W, . , , g �� - -_ -'-,, - � - � z , I �;,_,, , Pl,*' I - I'll -, , , ,� - ra , 't.��4a_- " ,- " W,JN-vf5 - ( - MO. , - . " 't � -�X�,lq�, , _i�� 134"n ir �, .g ' : � `-� " ' ` 9" - Q " , - :.i,m . - ' i`�, I . - ',, '� `%:' - n - . "'i, " -eLk .VA � .11 --, . -'�, ..Ilil��, .�r * 4 SCHOOL ;' I ,,,, i" Al � N&I - - I . 7�� - , Z�l J� , `�',j��, lau � _ A - * 9 _1M �_r - - -1,4-0 �_ - 9, - � � �Y. M, i; - � - - , , , 15; - i , � ;, 9'�, ,,,, ., - * v;,--_,- N � -1 � � ,p " , mi��_ �� ;�. � :, Nd '� �:."mo� , * - "m X I 4, i, - a , ----,- - ,--. . 5,T"V� M g, , _ .:._ - -�_ , , - , I - � - .1 " z�, . , 2e Tw � 1, � � - 'mj, , �, 1;. rx-,. �. 1, ;�,_ m - 1? .'�m. .,N ,� ,- - 01 , "t�;%,_ i , ,_ 11-;= -, 1,11r. - I - ,, V-0 - , � I ,R, �,�. I ql-_�* �-� w � V, -5. � W. . . ... w_�n11_lR"-'lT , - _ - - ; 'F,�Il __ - .�� . 4 11.1, :,- v_*;!`L.-1 i I ull,� 1, , rt ,. -, �, -: 4' '? � . , . - V, . -i4Xn,,.T�� .i ,j,� - , , ,�._ - , U - �`-; -1-1., - ,,� �.. - � r , , I _ . _ . , - R, . . " ,�� - i - ,] - - . , , '. ;�i�j� �i_vl B I __ - , 1. ,�W. -,v iP� - - - ,� , �-'ijt � , R � � .-,, -: - r �- :` . -, 1110 � - .. - _ .,j . � , � ii,; , _� -m 1-41, W , _ I" . , , ., �� A- , 'I'�Q-,"P'."?:,�:�,�..4-c�,�',',�ZP.V ,F, ---,--,,. i6�0�1, - _. �l - - ,5, - . " - - , ,. - -, 10, - -. � , , " V-'IN", - ,�� g - ! m�.l . - .*� .y � __lk , _ , , , I "I'll-W -<. �-: -,��P,,,tg , �y -,�e�".,.��.�-:a�--,�;Ll�$��,T&�i�v,ic .ii� � 0 - Z3,':-,, � 11 - �� .� I I , I � fl`�: -t-,, - . •.7,-, - - _� �!, �.,�,--JV,4 &:� � _. 'I '. t, . . ,w ", , g , , k - - ", -- - - A - rr X .MM iV --- �l ��,".k �4 " , , , :.��, - - - - q,t -. ki "i 51M., , - 'In. .., � -1 ylt g_.- ,,� . . I , ". Mi V i�. MR` w--- - . - ;_ r1OWNK Fjv,.,- - - ,�4tof. ,_� l'N,7,-;T , 3A';ZMY,;��5- .,r �l -;'I-. __.p_'_ __ -:it;. � , . , - - - ,I,- �! � : �t,!j � '?,4'r____�,� . - *�� ' ----- , .� .01�� '. LNg g- - . I , I . 11 U�. , _� 1, ";*,' �. _� �__ ,� - , , , '4. T. I t 4", , , .'II,, � 5 .. - " 4 1 :T" I" j I , - , . �'i- _ " - 1. - � - , ,; - . -1 ,?; �� , -1. , - � - . - --I , "'. � _ , j, - , ,;--�.' - V � :,.- , § ,5 -�, ,s--_�;!:;-_-whvt-_ -,10 _;pgjT;1_,nr, T. . - , _ _ -- - - - 7,� , �, .-A - - - ,�.; e � '. � - z rZ1,11- 45 . - I - , � � I , - . �. F & ,I - k5M - , e, f,j.�,:� -,,A , - - - �_1201 - -�lwf�'Tl - ?vy, j,;, � " ,,, 11 . � .��-.. -, - . "$ N I OR, .- V�, )r,:-,,-" ,14�! '1 � _0 . " p V.V , _f% � ;)�� -:1 �-__.,11i:� 4 Ai, ,jT 1� T A, F/ .� 5% ,� , m� , p , - .. -; . - -1!�-f_��i,-_,--_,�-,, �- ,,! V A. __.If� xE j I � 11 I:i � I - ;W�-� - ." ji 'ic� - I- ,. � I "�'. .. . , . ��§ , , , �O_- W. , - - ,1 Arn, PROJECT ltma , .. , , v.;;? , :� _ 1. I- 45 - - 4. * -S'. , �.�,*,,_ : , ? ? � V- - - , " � I I - , PRO , , Owwm. M, - T Irl.-Il , - - " ai�� * ,� - , , , I ;;T , , AW - , ,� 1��,�.. -, - I, -1-1c.., __ . , � , "', .� � z'�' v * _�� 0-11- " , n - , - Z, _V__'�� .1, iKM -1 � - "-h-, _. , � - , cl 131 - - -- I -,i:F-, ,?,--; -1 , " ",� � 1, I ___ `,,,N� , y _�_ .. 4. T,,� , I-; _. � , - - , ._..; ".;Pll r: , -, .L "Mr W W, , Re �`_`; - - I I V - 'I'l, - _'� - _� '� V _Z�, - 4,10 �,nl uaiiE 'PriP"ll, zt , ". . ,� � - ,,'!,4 /"'lj�;:'� JAW " 4 ' . I 17��_---,, .,- ;,, -, -.#.�4�Ir,,��.. i� 'Ili -.11 I ., ";. __ `- , ��`��` , .r . . "' , �r - N ? �, 'm 'i , ,W _ #, - R, � - ,4.-N 0 ,t.&e ,.JM,rr .'�� . " 7- - �,-,,�'. : =.l---.am. - -XI _`.,�** ` __ . t,jg� .... U4 I '- - -g , mx,��tX,,y,,.17�)-� I- - - . -.,,,, .:, I . �4 �'e',� � 1: . .�5, - E 'If FS .._`p , I I . � .I '. , J§ , z 5 . �! ., I %.;.� � �� .--" .I:;:,. , � , -111" NfEl,�91-)" - .,7ii - n , , A.Kr,.. ,': ` , , '? i; - " -� , , . , "" "ewW*:, - - � , , - ��..*�4f' It. '� -,-,. " -L N 4' . 1 " __ � R S, /;ll r. , � - . ; : " , � �j �� , - " ", � __ . -- - _ - -1 , .:�.i�� . - SITE �-, - I ;� ,L� ,4.. 10, 1 . , # #'r-•= , I v I - , , - . , " , - , - � , 1, , ,�_"",,�: "��, -*;V,�, '-�'!� �U'- . - _._ - -�.11 I � ,�,�, .,;lp,�. ;� , i m, � 3 � 1 ff, ,J_ ". i,: , ,�O - % _�, � � , ., ffl�,;�-,�Mplr-,vA _- 1 I - �y _ - � - . I , . - 11 "" Jr _,��ltm.�N, , " H.___ - ,vv.,--,� - , �, � _. '_ . V.jq- 1'�j.�I�L'4,�',j 4 - 'r .. 11 . , M,c� mvvg, 1� -, -i,q'tI�."y.:-. . . - - , '.. I 1_1"A", �,?,; .:��, _ ., , f Wr I .'.t'��, I-5 v ,"i"'.', ",&.*,'�', � - - , . ` �,�-,�, %-.'�, ,, ,� I',�* ,.,t:,_�, ,- � ,K � ,�,� _� ��, _�.� - I , - I '. - , �-,�, -'7 �- - . - - 4...�,4; , " ,� , - 7qu-i-F-Som i- p _ - !� , � -1 .1 7�� " - IV , .. ... * N-RiN, �, ,�-,;�p ,- - ,-.---,,. -.,.. , .: . , , , .- .4 ��, - -`D,�,,- QP t_ 0.2 J. , - ;�l '."_'4 � �?�- -,,j,4, �V,.,-t . ,. . i 0 _ , � � . - ,� ,' MF � - .-I , , `i, ."V, r�� g, Elite . - -Y - . , -N, , , , I .1� 1��. '7- t ,�,�'tl�v , - f . � . - _ "M" _� . , 1!4, , , , ,,, -0 -, , * , _r �, ,,, /i - g , � . , . ,� q, -, 1* -�e�:�: , , .., . - _f, , �,*� .-M�'i�-i _.. - ., , , . . . . . . - - � 4`�N - � -Ilivlli�� ,� - _�F, 24,7,- ,-,--�v, ,-, Zt `�_ 01 M -1 , T�v ., .1, - , � , , ,4 , 1. '41 , W i. I �1_1, ), IF " .., -1 -, 'if , .? 'p, , - ,.-- ll I F , , " I 1 -�'��" ' _'�Q , " , ',- -.t 1� � , 14 ;"i,'r, y - �� -� ." I � :� 1-4 -- , , . I, I, �,,,, .,-� I N5Q,W.gg, I `_,;��__,, �*il t _;-., . ', -4;N(-, 1�ff� R �, �� _ , - _��e�`.�:, I. ��_ � - I . Y., i ,� - ,ii..1v . -,��N c ' RESIDENTIAL " ' , � .. � - - - " - - f, , � _'C _�' I ' I ,� ,�_ - �=,��, , :p; . " �_ _ . , W - I , - 1: - K41,z�,%-: 1�� ij, I.; - "I � ..Q � 1. g . . ", , _1 � ,��, . , . ''. " _ - -_ i 11 — I.V_ - - - 1. - , ✓ , ', , , , - -1--1 M7 ". ,�� I-- - -. �, .... 'N _., ,,k-�., . - - _4, I . - �w ti � - �* Y, �I _�, 11-111- 5 � -� , - 'F�t , I - . . : A � . - �` - �� -� .7-,--;v .:-.� � �, ,, -,�";- *� F ,�., -&�4,A. , -m =T,',"'IK� , , .; - _u.j, . , . t " 44.. 7�, - - . . _�yv' , -VIii, -- - , ,�� V,f I �. - , , - - I - - ,,/ '�ti, , , �, . . - ;�"'�,�A�_, . ",4 ".. - �' - , ,,� - , - , . - - , "j'o _. . Tf� L '. . I I ZW 1p�`�_, � _ Y , ,T,& -j�, q, ', , - , -,�, - -NA. 1�, ,.m, -,*,,��ris.�'ri�,,�,�'�'.--,�,Li .� - , ', �',_,j,�,$;p,_ � _4 ,.� � . .. ,::k" �_ �. �,, , ,l q, _ , I 2 , ,,,� I I ,�l V, ��_. , , " I - -1, � _ .-M ) , 1, 'i _., %1 "��ll,�,,�F,-I�P,�-!,;-�,-��,-,,�z . � .A, " " , , ;1' ,_ .- . . - '*.' �F - "p- �""'ell, E *':7%-- - - .,�'. , .A j(, - ._ , > �11,1,1 lk�- _ _� - * - ... -- - - - -, - - ,).,7�-..;, - ,*_;T ; _ 4., �� - ,N�jr,lllli�� :,' �. ,, i -S ,� X �,i :7 - _ " " _?* � �� JW_? i:. �F p 1-10 - - -f�Sig',- t/ r , I " - ` , Alz 40 .1- I ,I". - ✓ - - Z. � , I � - . , I'll M , , .-, , , � ��.� -;i , � , , , . _; . , C,� ., - P: '. , - & - , 0. -:: ,�o . , �_,_ .,� 0257.1 � , ': " . _ �� 1. � - p - - - - "--f ", - t, , � , A% - AV40 . . r�, j� . _,'j,V,;-:'�� lyw� � 1. . � '.,;�,A*` -.�e - �i, , "' _* .,.":;� �� , . , . , " � , - , - - L 1,1, �, ; . . q ,-,;-, � . "! - i " W, 1 . ��;� V,w� -,,; �,�,�,;:� ,- i 7, , � � ��.. ,. �', , " - �, • _.Vi: � — 1 " 'A � . �� 17 -, .- , ,� " .,�� . tM -,al,� ,T,;" -, ff .�,:'--"-,-..r � .7 ".. ..", - ... — " lt4 ... ... .. - . , , , - . I .1. 1, I 54.1.1, -11 lk_____� ��. `� i I ;11011 ' ,��, - - �,'-- - ." , Ir , .�Nl I.' 1;, .� ". - , .',r � �,qv-"�- !,�, ".."f ',� , -,-',.*'.*,-'�---","!,',,'.,�,,-:��,�I --�- - . 't,� , _� & . - ... I :,, - - �.�, ::, I - ,�..� , , - . , I � ." . - � � " " . ... . " � - - � , , -�� I ��1144 - , ". '. _._.__'__'--_"_ .�'L- 4;�--,`�.p i�,' — - - � - ..�� !,� �, t//, . .1 A �.r ,z I I , - t.�, , - I I — '; , ,4 .�,,.�4 , .. W -1 .. - _,. I , .1 'S - � ,- , 6- . , , _ , - . j - .-r� .._�. - I I . . 'I. , r! �- �J�, - I . , -- r " - _,�, 1. 1.11�e - - �� -.� , q�� " - l , , . '. 5,1�:,�,,�.!_K , . , /, - _ ... �`e_ ; .. . , , - / , 5� . . -, P. , 1. .1 __ -,'*, • --; 'i ,*�`.*�f�l�Y,.` vl -1 . L.� ��,* .. ,t;.. - . I .. . . . .7. , • , .. , , W. I ll,� I 4� r , -, ,, - _ !" V ". 7 ,� 1, 1 4,-V, . -.1 "?.., .: QC�, I r ' I �F - __ �l 1. Y; '111� ;S-'- � - / A. , ..--:, �, -, 1 -.' -, .. Ll , " I j ,- . '. �! �,- -� ;�p,',N-,e,44,-,- ..� � -1 -, . i- - . - . �.: I , 1 _14 1. - * . I -� .�.JAYI,-��-, - 17, �, �,J, ;/ , - . � �_ ` -=V -'r - , - " _;;;;�. - . �,, - I ".. - . - I . , � I , �� Tl� 11 - __ . - , ; , ,0 � : - - L�l / " ., - �l I - 1.11 - .�.f � .N " " , ll�� _- -7 I . , * . . x - ;/,�� - , . - - �-s9,+,.jzjo3p ,: Z , !4 . .. . .:,.. - � • ��,, 1". - -zf � � -� i�i,� , .,., � ,�-. I -��ll -.,. - - , �� -, ---,.,��,," , -, , I I - . , , � , - � . - - , ,� -1 - . . , I �_I,! "', � - , . - � . "I . , �l , , , . , . , , f � '. - ,� . " 4 , . - I - ., , , - , , - �q , " _ _', ", 1,.�_, , �,/ I ll� t` � l;,',�;),F,-i.-,4 R - - - 754; ;A - 1. ,,� .a i . Au."IM-. - -( - . i,�,, -p 'i - 11 , � , ,. , - ,. � . " - , - - . � 1, �:�: k , , , . 0, , � . .. 1��T r .,/; ., " �,,, , � , - %�-, , .� . , , � �_ t ,I -,.** �.W - , .1 � .kvWp#,A �., X., . , , i, .. �. .. • 3",ig, ,4, �..�, Z - ��.' !_._:.'l., I 1.1� N A - - V "� - - . , - -, , - . , , . I • - Ii "," . NZ.- �,` ; �--Z� Arl. - . , , , . _�lr�.Kl ll_;��ll - . 1 -;; - 1. �, I , I : � I . ,_�-��Z� ;l.. N1_1_1.tt?� " I _� � . I it ,.�,,_ I I . , - . , , " _�-�_-:l , d . �) � , , , - - �, - - -. ', _ , w � A, �,.�: ; ., - - , I ' I ,.� - - �t , ., . . - � t,g, . . .- -r- -10, , , . I - _ -, �. - 11 j ,% .6,1f �, , " . , {.• -. "� ��, I % � . .;I! ,� - ��:f]. -, 1: �, 191 vw IV llui ,-�Wvl ,; ',k,� -, . - X - ". -%., - - I I ,:. _"�:- " 10 1, � 1, 4. ,.,A , . 2M.- " 7� V , , N I � , - . Z� -1 '. , i !w � i..� - , - . � . I " ,�x , F t , fk.� �,$ 1 . 1. I �i_ f; 4 �, *. _%/"-�� - _-., A . 'r , � / , � rt�_XL,�. I , , r , -� -.,-�n - � / I- __ e� . ..i . . 11 1�<_ : - �, , _ j ..- . "", � , ` - - -%-,- ;;, � '.. - ,',', -rT 1'4� _r ' � - - _- I "" , , , - , � ." ,, 1, k.; � ; , ", - r __ . 1. . . " .!V� ., - , , , t't X. 4 k 4 . . . �, , � �rw - r;. , , �1. - , " 1, � . , 1" �; , ... r -.,*, r w , 1" �; 1" �; 1" �; , - , 1�, , , Y' _k _�%, ; - - " �,�, - _�. I I , . ; . -; , . " � . 4, ? . -,- 1�qg��Y/ -,,� ,., - 1", I , - . - - , , ,� % . � , . �., ... -,. " - - - �,,"."�_Nll , N ,*7- 1 - I 1_1J;,1QF1'_c .! - ,!,T7,, 'i.�,, , , - ,� , , '_-�!*,� "� - , -�t I's __ - . -�,-, 4 , � -, �r , � 2�u - ... __ D , 77_-U..'-�- ..", rN , , � , 0- N 4, P� . . , L, - ,� ." � , ", - �) �, . r. 1� -NESIDENTIAL ': �,-'N �-, -�56, - � ,w . , ; _ � � � �� . W!"S',-, I ;��, � f :� ,,-,w , ,. � �� . � . I I - _� �) , . . . �ijkl'r . 1. 1 Illm.7 - ll.�'. - .1 1: ,,�-.. ""- I 'Q . 11 ;� - I - " ,- .1 11 I-- " - , ��- ,�,-, - wv� - - - - �� , y , `Q;, 17 ,;� " -1 .1, .r1l I c. .. - I - ,., - I , .'7�,� - ,W I *.1; , , . 4v,:z . � I - , , - . m� ,* :;, , . - , gr --,�- ,7 1 - 1, � - �n? �, ", �, � - " I � 3 . . '.';,l-,, " � . i , 0 . I A .,/ L - - Olk- -.�,,77� (_ , , !,,�','� ,.J� I _&0- P" - -'- -11�� - � , r 4 .y . - - � , ; I. .� I 'lllr� 1_w-__,�, � , - ;§ "-- :-�:f4_v, w , . 11 �l � A I . �'.F,zx,l ��, - , A _r,� �qp 'K , - .- _��,�. ,. � '..'11 rte . - , I , r! z- j. � -,-,-, 4R. M - . _�, _., - , ., , , --,. 11-1-V &K . fi, :� . - rf� ", ,;,, , -1, - 4 -4lV;mr* I : - '70 /'I?�4",� , . - . - , I - - . Q� " - � .� , .;I- ,;;;;;;; .. ll'i� - -V _�Wi ft� - . , -,; - . � , Zi o -� - p:" m - , - , - , A 6 I "! - , . � ii -A, �� - " / _'. . � - , I - 7�v I F., pr' - - , . .1 ,��, , . .� . A% . . '. , .�� -.f , Q 'i I . ---l-v. - ,�i _ . - �,, : r I j.- - , , --�,-�- , -� t - -�T .�;, � - - .i. . , I" 11 _ ✓ as " Ag ./ , . 4, � , , - . , "r. " '.. . , ;7 �,! .. .k� ,- - , _ 0___ I , 1W. I ,_o 4A 'I " *7!- . , r;f --- - - , - I I , ,,�Qw .--:- - fr7__Aw 1 1 ..l. - t 51- �11 "�_ k / - I ol- /,,v ' N- A' z �l �, 4 _ � - .. .�� '. . �,.�_ r5., �0� -1, � 1;4 11 ... I si �, .1, , 4 ,r�-_-,, -1�. , . , - _ " '�-�, 1:,v ., - - , � !�v . ., . _ , . "t 1. - _� , r S). RF-, - , � _0 [V - ,�. �� ?-,? , i,, . A'� & �Fl ___ ,_ W, I - - I o' � �� _��L,_ I .-AA1, � , .� 1p j T - _�;� i�' * W ,-,,,.,F/ .,-� 'K - --- � - 7..�tp. .. M �A, �!F. "i. MR, I I . . - . I jt,a, - _ K . .J, ,. iL " , i� , , -, 'M . i .... .. ; I It_ - , - .��, � ;_n�_� _ � � . � v V. . W-i-p ��!�� - . �, -_'. z I's- _A7 _Q;l I � � r � . - - - . . , �-- , ,�7 -i _. ., iz - � -_�,t�, � � ... - 17 -,-,��. - % 4f��4� ,�,,,., -,, . I/ ,l I , � , - � .��'l __ ., , " �4 , 4 .,i - , , � - �Wl .* , , . ..-. . ,� .,�, ;I-M-1 ,_ I - .% -:V_;�; T �l k . - _; � 4 �, ... . . .�'. - - _� _� . - -,�,�;!,,�, - I _. �: ; ", % - - , , _%*W: -..l:_-,.'l A , . � - � -1 -1.1. - �� , . ,,� ,� 1. �� I .e - ft / , . I7 ' I - I . . . . . . A-. � , , - I , . I - - , -, !� , , ; - , " I , * I ""A " * A, *,'� �, � •.; , ��ry , - ,/ �v :; 11 i� 71. , '/io_M_,l _'.li,.;l.I§ ILZ .. , ,� 1'5e� • 0 / ,,�rp Z�. - I- I - - .� 11- . . - - � , N, .., � oi, . 1;�I,l K .. ff `W - - .1 I - _� �f- . 11 W - - , I .,? ". . - - � - . - � I .-,;.,I,eZ��' , , "Y' , U -T __�11. ,, ,�f � 1. I b , , '86 I _.�� , I - ,14; - � � ,I, 1, �: m ., / - , *, - ";', � , . I . .4 , , _:�-.. ; -AnN, � �, .�,! � '._; -.* -- , I ., �-cpq ��. . , - ." /N. `- �, I- A . �,'A,,-:-��-�--,�,�i-�r'�-';-Z�.R7�-- .., .-;,-,- -.-,-, t *� � - , A \, -;I. i�� .. -, ,_ ,. -� - , * �� - %,,,; * �.v 11 1� �; �; t, i., � I �.� zz, ,f , -��.� " �* - � ,� iA' . . , -, . - - , �. �_ - ,,'! �4 A '.. I . _ . . .1 - , ,,.�, . . � . ..- 11 -_ -- J - I _. - - � . - , , T '_ "� ;_ �, - A ,�, R� " � , . - . ... - E tk'p' ' , 11 � � -1 I., - - I , I 1. - 7,,� " -;�W_w �-_-R�%,, - '-pl., �l .1.11 �/ I IVII � I - - 7 �� I AN- ol !,m�, APAM,-&� It W �; , -, I -1 4�,l �_ ,_ Fn , I ";p I , � : �,, - - � .. 11 t�F ", ; t_� - � �i �l -fit.. � .4 I � , I ._, -:/W�� ,42 .r . ,�o �;.., -�q.�-, - - - ij -- M -19. .l.,: ,,,,,---,I ',W,Z�,l � 'I , I -�& ,:A , 5- 1 7 7 4 1 �.A �vowp*,l - -.&..A , I '. , ,l./ - - . —.1 ., - _! , - .. . Nc 7 , � . - 'y , 'A,�, I- - N� - _4;� Syr - � _- - 0. r, ? - f - - 51 ,. •i; - g :: - - ,_ - � , -�-, - ,� -7,- -, �,�, - � 1-1 . ... , � ;kl�, , . - 11 , - N �,�,"., . , i , - 7- . - - .0, �, . : . .T " ,p - iKl N> v p� �,* . . � , .�Alfi , " 4, !�., ,!� �. 1 I? iN 1� -, �,, - �, wk , � ,� __ " 11 . .;o! m-7-.. . . 4- , i _. - .;o! � . i �. , - - -��- I �l t; i�l __ .1 �,.- � W., / , r 4sol ' �� -, 11 1� I � , , - I I*, 211 I _- - � �- - ez ;1� ,, W_.4� , - - , , 11 - ,. 4! , 7 p , !. - A ., W.�, - � N "I -1 1A a - .� - ,�,l _YV 7 ',d g, �-,� 9.1 ay_%] �_ % 10 - 'W ., R � �. VS. 1. " , 'y '_ , .. .. 11 V.1" 0 "", - - t - v I, p V�l , , ',.._�ri*-, , `- - , -i- ,V/ L. -1- 11 - , - - , � �_Al Kil, . : -1 � 4p_ " lPKW � � - - ',,;t, 1 �:�',tl' -, " " �, ,*.'I- ", :,I" ,r , " , -k I -A 0- �51...4'7_4 .-f 4, , , .,-- - �f -1 .,� , ;,� , f, '? . .. f ", - 4- .!�, �,��,= , .i � -1 . . -1 � 4w; . I � , I � . - .� . 4, ., i� I a . - - ;�.. , . . K, 1* - -- -'--"-- --- � . - N I 11- :V_ - zzl_� vi��A �l �4 wi !� - iA" - ,.Vl - - - ,I- i" c . '� ��7 " --'/4;N - , 'i .� �, I, x - 7 '. �� , � . � 0 I :;,o . r, , , W, I A. .%�j, , , ; . � , 4 . , i, . � A .,� ;* , - It: i v - SM � /�-. _�:, t W� - , , ,� , 1 t 1. ,< , . .. - �i " - ., I - z i� � `0 ,� , . � I " . - - N - . W �, I I 11 , I -A- ff# - � NI �- � I wili�.; ...'� A . . , � �� 7, 7� ,� - ... ,,- , -': �r, I, .,_� . .- --�, . . '.m� "I - - K -r #;-,"S 'i - , . 11 el-11 -1 _r� , W,',' -, - r , - �05, -*--.. 11"g � � I I V tj _A%-x10.. *Am , � i . , . _/ * lz� � . ..' �L,Ao - I , - , ,� , - , I gj�t�y , 'A 14F � I - 1 . .0 �rl,�*:�k;_ �� ,! - . " , ,.._� - i .� , - v - , � - .4, , � - � Wl�lqpt..._�` . - ,,_Ttl_..- _-, W , -Uvr 1,;, � __ __ -1 lll��_� .. ", , ',-J5 - - . " -11 . -, & ;.� - � V� I i A;. - 71 . , t �h '4- .1- ,�_2 . � Wo�v 7 - , - A' 'i . , , __ U-1, I 'i, 1 , -, -1 -�z _,-�q , 4 p,-_ , 1;ai " - f&-, , .1 �, I :',-�.�_�,hl_ . -- * * -,,, , , , , " . - - el- - ,�,?' I-, - ,,�, !� ),� _--..� :'l N. l% ,.. I - : - -;::.�IRr I W_ .. v - . - .. � li ,ff , 1 ;-vz I - �-�"-!,�7i- i �e-7 . � -1 -A. ... I - 7. - , � , , j , — � rr , .. I ! W ZZ11 r� . I - � .. �.. _`Z�1'4 . - _� ' L�._._. . - - - I g-- g 4. �WVIR 1. ,-.-ta-7 -7 - , . . I , -411' .. ,_ . aft ,, 4' �. 7 - , t I . lo�l - il 4 , V__.� - I - , � -14 71�_,_ - A - - . - . , K1, „Y, : - �-L�: -I -1 __ 4�7 - - 'c � -, - - --f, / , . 1 7 � �,��!,--,- _"k C. ,�.� - - - ;� �A - I K a ��,A ' -0. - - lf';Y -r��. � , - . - Vj.� ., 'll! _ .4, . - --, ; -11 I ., ,'j,", , � 1 1 - -, - , �l -:?--4. ---- ---_�r:4,4 , . '.1 _ - ,�-, 'l. � .. - , wa. - - a, I z.� : -Z� ll,. _ � " - . �o "' .1 11 t� � - , # U_ , , 4� - 4 � - ; ,.,.�,-;,,7�* !?� __ o4:t -0 , � 'j�' ,' - , , d * IF? � - - -1-1. ., � 1 I :�Y- , �� s- -- �--, -_� - . - - -1 * . 11 � ,ll 12F -Z.& ,4 7 ", t�_ � , '-,� �. I -1 -,rf_�-J�[-- . ii -, , t '.,, - - 17 _--vj- :. - 'q�- - j 5-&X. -,. 0� !I - _-.�— - �,-,, v - --Is - , - '. N ` -- , .. �� I ;V,Iv I 11 `t4b� I 14N"' l? ._ � Ng;- , - --- , - , , . , g� �/ � ., . W. � ."TT .- . I , 7a�;O-Z�,, - . it V, , A_� :�,.J��, � _. , - -, , 1�1 .. , _., ? , , 'N - � , . , �. . --- , . t , " _11-.- __ . . , - I I - � " , . I I . � - - - "', " !-� �, - I. . - -A .a- - 1 - �, - - __ .1, , :K I � .1 I � �," A - rl .911) 'ZIC - - .� ,, , - * _'_ . I � - - -- , .../ - �, - .. - I - 171 FINI�11� ",.?:1 " i�_ -, - * , - .), - - .... 1.1, , 1:1 �.,� 1.1_;�,, .. �!�.'� 1-3 -Y'A , d --- . .� 717- _��, , `� �� - .4 ., - - � 4 � - - - - N I ., " I 2 ., " - .Yi�,��-�i,....,. it iz� ,., � ., , � � pv*� , , �� 0 , _� -, - , , , * _6! .. 11 �7 � " . ,., r '. ), -, ?la .-,I - .. - �-' ,_'� 1---�L ,� d r. - � . -1 -I...- - _Z�_�� ii F. .Jr , ; �� ` , 7 N1 . " L , 4 o� , T -, 79W- - ��l . � ,*, � .. " , 1�,4 4 t .1 � l � ., N ". . 6 �uf,i r. -:2-WO I, - __ � , `f I.- Ar,'J,'� 'A"Mjr �. - ., , . IF I -, f , . , .1 _q ._. jAa.�.'� . .;; m - - __ __* � - 1. ., __ .4 ";�_ 4-4 .p'l 2�V. *� -, , -- , " "I� r Alklko � ,� . � li ��'�.!_ , "N I 11, �, - �'"j I , � -4 �7. ,_,"H i;;.F,St��ril-7;7�"-':�1--�v�-,��,.-.T .. _ I ,:A-, � - ��; -.-A 1.1-1 -m- I -1 I � lll. 11.1, - 1,�. -- i�l � , �- , . L - , r . �. - , I IWA.1_4. _W - �l ,* -l"m '.. _Ri _� - .- 7 , - 'S ;- 1. , �, -1 N-' .1 i I, ,',�!t-4 �111 - . - . I qj�l - _._'. " - ��l I - - I,-, � �. ." .7 I "t��'. �. - . _ _. . . , �, . k - , . , N�u'4`.*- W.4 5 � I � . . I - "T �� - ,-.� . . - . � - , r � A� I A -- - , -g��r,�_-.- - _ . � . - I 2_111A : ;,'.�::, j 4 -Z I,- � - , - � ql i- _�,� .- . 7 .1 ft, I. _� ___ , . ,� .. ��` ;'. - _-� . �j _7W.,, - - �, "A z: h . 'X;�� "OfF , _ .. - . ... ... . ;.: , - a . �� - - I.. . ,- . - , , ,%j - ' - - *.'.e- ,Z, �' 'o - � �� , , ,,, ;y _AR51 - * , ,--- -�iq�, i�l ' Q - �o,.:.�:�, � �, � �. , . '. 6 -_ t' �4%M:�_';__' V�!:'A��;7_ �'_;`_�' a .�j.,�yf_wp Im"V.? ` )A I - � - ,�. . q-�q 4T" ,;t ,' - --- �.�*.! - __ , -*k- - ". � � "., - _4 'A T •�4 . - - . . , - 4-7- R- k- 1, 4 . . _�M, - * I * , 11 ,7-,'-----, N - ". A- - - � ��,�� . . x , , -1 , , w-lr--..-)?" �Z-Q�! 1_1�.. .- -1. . , ? 1.1,10,_�_ .,-.r,: _ .j��&* 4: ,� _�-4 1, 7 - ... f ,� -p ,,�, - - . ., - , , .. �� . , -, - ., - . -, - , ", - _ - , -., P% �.' - m N W , .��'��t - , _ - , _ 4 I - - '. . . - � - , - ... .. . . , , - � - � . I - , ., Z 'A 11 .�, - _?! 1 :" , 'r �;��i . � �! _-?p--. �_ � - f "; I 5 - , , -- _, �v ��_.�� 4; - Ov - -, - - r , . I I � - . , I . - - . �ltm . � �-;? :-I. " - - , 1 �7�- ;.,�- - - , - �t ,_17 , . i9l