DOCSLIB.ORG

Washington Place Residences (City File No. PLN2016- 00304)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Washington Place Residences (City File No. PLN2016- 00304) Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304 City of Fremont Initial Study 1. Project: Washington Place Residences (City file no. PLN2016- 00304) 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Fremont Community Development Department 39550 Liberty Street, First Floor, Fremont, CA 94538 Phone: 510.494.4440 | Fax: 510. 494.4457 3. Contact person and phone number Terry Wong, Associate Planner, City of Fremont Phone: 510.494.4456 | Email: [email protected] 4. Location: 2529 Washington Boulevard, Fremont CA; Alameda County - APN 525-0423-001 5. Project sponsor’s name and address (including e-mail address/fax no. as appropriate): SRE Development Company 901 Campisi Way, Suite 222 Campbell, CA 95008 Contact: Michael Sullivan Phone: 408.819.0615 6. General Plan designation: Residential (Low), 2.3 to 8.7 dwellings per acre 7. Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1-X-6.5); Proposed Planned District Zoning 8. Description of Project: The proposed Project involves redevelopment of a 2.1 acre parcel located at 2529 Washington Boulevard to allow a new Preliminary and Precise Planned District, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8342 (PLN2016-00304). The project will create a 14-unit single family home development with a private street. The proposed units would be configured as duet dwellings, with two units located per building with a shared wall, but separate fee title ownership by each family of both the living area/structure and underlying land. The Project is located in the Mission San Jose Community Plan Area of the City, west of the Interstate 680 southbound exit in the City of Fremont (APN 525-0423-001) on the north side of Washington Boulevard. Currently, the majority of the project site is undeveloped, with a creek Line 6K-1 (Washington Creek) running the length of the site on its northern border. Attachment 1, Figures 1 through 5 provides maps of the project area and site. Attachment 2 is the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The proposed project would remove/demolish two non-historic dilapidated single-story houses located at 2473 and 2529 Washington Boulevard as well as associated ancillary structures and construct 14 units in seven 3-story duet dwellings. Construction would include a total of 36 parking spaces (including 28 covered spaces within 2-vehicle garages), eight guest parking spaces, and a common open space area at the rear of the proposed development. 1 Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304 The applicant proposes to create separate parcels for each of the fourteen dwelling units (see Vesting Tentative Tract Map Sheets 1 through 7) as well as separate parcels for commonly owned open space areas. The subdivision would be accessed via a new private street leading from Washington Boulevard into the property and providing access to the garages of each unit. A separate parcel would also be created for the on-site portion of the Creek (Parcel F). The Project site density, after development, will be 8.7 dwelling units per acre. The single family homes would feature two different three-story floor plans ranging in size from 1,857 to 1,960 square feet of living area. All residences would be provided with a two-car garage and front porch. Some of the units would have a second story balcony. The eight units fronting on Washington Boulevard are split-level with two stories in the front and three stories in the rear. A landscaped open space would be provided near the center of the site. In addition to owner parking, guest parking spaces would be provided along the private street and adjacent to the common open space at the center of the development. Two pedestrian walkways would be located along the project’s Washington Boulevard frontage and would connect to the front entrances of each residence throughout the development. The property is currently zoned R-1-X-6.5, Single Family Residential. The proposed Project involves rezoning to establish a new Preliminary and Precise Planned District, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Private Street. The Project would require approval by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The Project site is currently occupied by two contiguous vacant houses. The Project site is bordered by Interstate 680 (I-680) to the east and residential land uses to the west and south. The subject site has street frontage along Washington Boulevard, directly to the south. A creek Line 6K-1 (Washington Creek) is located along the property’s northern border, with single-family residences sited north of the creek area. Washington Boulevard is a four-lane arterial road with a median island in the middle in front of the project site, with residential neighborhoods along its south side. The proposed development would be accessed via a new private street located directly off Washington Boulevard approximately 275 feet west of the intersection of Washington Boulevard and I-680. Residents would be limited to site access using right-in; right-out only turns. 10. Congestion Management Program - Land Use Analysis: The project analysis does not need to be submitted to the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for review, because there are no “Yes” responses to the following three questions: YES NO This project does not include a request for a General Plan X Amendment. YES X NO There will be no Notice of Preparation prepared for this project. YES NO There will be no Environmental Impact Report prepared for this X project. 11. Other public agencies requiring approval: Alameda County Flood Control District (ACFCD); Alameda County Water District (ACWD); Union Sanitary District (USD). 2 Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The following list indicates the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project. Those factors that are indicated as a "Potentially Significant Impact" in the initial study checklist are labeled “PS” while those factors that are indicated as a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” are labeled “M”. Agriculture and Forest Aesthetics M Air Quality Resources M Biological Resources M Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Material Greenhouse Gas Mineral Resources M Noise Emissions Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Mandatory Findings of Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Significance DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OF FREMONT: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will 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 X agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that 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. Signature: Date: Printed Name: Terry Wong, Associate Planner For: City of Fremont Senior Planner Review: 3 Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304 Move the star to project site 4 Washington Place Residences PLN 2016 - 00304 I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Information ISSUES: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Sources 1, 8, A a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not b limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X 1, 8, A within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 1, 8, A c. X of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1, 3, 8 d. X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Environmental Setting The project site consists of a 2.1 acre parcel occupied by two vacant single-story houses and ancillary structures located at 2473 and 2529 Washington Boulevard. The site is overgrown with a dense cover of seasonal grasses and weeds. The Line 6K-1 (Washington Creek) bank on the north side of the project is also overgrown with dense vegetation. Forty-two trees were identified during a tree inventory of the property (see Attachment 2, sheet C-2). The majority of the existing trees are located within the creek channel and block views of the residences to the north. The following discussion is based in part upon a Tree Inventory of 2529 Washington Boulevard, Fremont, California, prepared HortScience, Inc., and dated June 23, 2016. Each project site tree over 6-inches in diameter was rated for preservation suitability based upon age, health, structural condition, and ability to coexist with the planned development. The tree inventory concludes that twelve trees have high suitability for preservation; that ten are moderately suitable; and twelve trees have low suitability. All of the trees are protected, as defined and regulated by the City of Fremont Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 18.215 of the Fremont Municipal Code).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southern Sonoma County Stormwater Resources Plan Evaluation Process
    Appendix A List of Stakeholders Engaged APPENDIX A List of Stakeholders Engaged Specific audiences engaged in the planning process are identified below. These audiences include: cities, government officials, landowners, public land managers, locally regulated commercial, agricultural and industrial stakeholders, non-governmental organizations, mosquito and vector control districts and the general public. TABLE 1 LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGED Organization Type Watershed 1st District Supervisor Government Sonoma 5th District Supervisor Government Petaluma City of Petaluma Government Petaluma City of Sonoma Government Sonoma Daily Acts Non-Governmental Petaluma Friends of the Petaluma River Non-Governmental Petaluma Zone 2A Petaluma River Watershed- Flood Control Government Petaluma Advisory Committee Zone 3A Valley of the Moon - Flood Control Advisory Government Sonoma Committee Marin Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Special District Both Sonoma Ecology Center Non-Governmental Sonoma Sonoma County Regional Parks Government Both Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Government Both Space District Sonoma Land Trust Non-Governmental Both Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works Government Both Valley of the Moon Water District Government Sonoma Sonoma Resource Conservation District Special District Both Sonoma County Permit Sonoma Government Both Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Non-Governmental N/A California State Parks Government Both California State Water Resources Control Board Government N/A Southern Sonoma
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Drought Response
    Statewide Drought Response: Stressor Monitoring SUMMARY REPORT • 2014-2017 COVER IMAGES, CLOCKWISE FROM TOP: South Lake Reservoir with low water levels due to drought in California. CDFW staff conducting a salmon carcass survey in the Merced River in 2012. CDFW staff conducting a snorkel survey in Gobernador Creek in 2015. Please direct questions about this report to Ms. Kristine Atkinson, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist), at [email protected], CDFW Fisheries Branch, 830 S Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 Contributors FISHERIES BRANCH BAY DELTA REGION Kristine Atkinson NORTH OF SAN FRANCISCO John Kelly Ryan Watanabe Stephen Swales Derek Acomb Melissa Mandrup George Neillands Patrick Mulcahy Lydia Eldridge SOUTH OF SAN FRANCISCO Helen Benson Jennifer Nelson Stephanie Mehalick Michelle Leicester Jon Jankovitz BIOGEOGRAPHIC DATA BRANCH George Neillands Janet Brewster Ryan Hill CENTRAL REGION Kristina White COASTAL Dennis Michniuk OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION, Matthew Michie EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Margaret Paul Meredith Fleener WILD TROUT / INLAND Ken Johnson NORTHERN REGION Eric Guzman COASTAL SAN JOAQUIN BASIN Seth Ricker Pat Ferguson CENTRAL VALLEY Steve Tsao Stacey Alexander Jason Roberts SOUTH COAST REGION WILD TROUT / INLAND COASTAL Andrew Jensen Ben Lakish Jennifer Bull Mary Larson Paul Divine Kyle Evans Steve Baumgartner Marianne Pelletier Mike Dege Bernard Aguilar INLAND Caitlin Bean Jennifer Pareti Tom Christy Tim Hovey Dylan Nickerson NORTH CENTRAL REGION Russell Barabe CENTRAL VALLEY Hans Hansen Tracy McReynolds
    [Show full text]
  • MAJOR STREAMS in SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000
    MAJOR STREAMS IN SONOMA COUNTY March 1, 2000 Bill Cox District Fishery Biologist Sonoma / Marin Gualala River 234 North Fork Gualala River 34 Big Pepperwood Creek 34 Rockpile Creek 34 Buckeye Creek 34 Francini Creek 23 Soda Springs Creek 34 Little Creek North Fork Buckeye Creek Osser Creek 3 Roy Creek 3 Flatridge Creek 3 South Fork Gualala River 32 Marshall Creek 234 Sproul Creek 34 Wild Cattle Canyon Creek 34 McKenzie Creek 34 Wheatfield Fork Gualala River 3 Fuller Creek 234 Boyd Creek 3 Sullivan Creek 3 North Fork Fuller Creek 23 South Fork Fuller Creek 23 Haupt Creek 234 Tobacco Creek 3 Elk Creek House Creek 34 Soda Spring Creek Allen Creek Pepperwood Creek 34 Danfield Creek 34 Cow Creek Jim Creek 34 Grasshopper Creek Britain Creek 3 Cedar Creek 3 Wolf Creek 3 Tombs Creek 3 Sugar Loaf Creek 3 Deadman Gulch Cannon Gulch Chinese Gulch Phillips Gulch Miller Creek 3 Warren Creek Wildcat Creek Stockhoff Creek 3 Timber Cove Creek Kohlmer Gulch 3 Fort Ross Creek 234 Russian Gulch 234 East Branch Russian Gulch 234 Middle Branch Russian Gulch 234 West Branch Russian Gulch 34 Russian River 31 Jenner Creek 3 Willow Creek 134 Sheephouse Creek 13 Orrs Creek Freezeout Creek 23 Austin Creek 235 Kohute Gulch 23 Kidd Creek 23 East Austin Creek 235 Black Rock Creek 3 Gilliam Creek 23 Schoolhouse Creek 3 Thompson Creek 3 Gray Creek 3 Lawhead Creek Devils Creek 3 Conshea Creek 3 Tiny Creek Sulphur Creek 3 Ward Creek 13 Big Oat Creek 3 Blue Jay 3 Pole Mountain Creek 3 Bear Pen Creek 3 Red Slide Creek 23 Dutch Bill Creek 234 Lancel Creek 3 N.F.
    [Show full text]
  • A STATISTICAL SUMMARY of DATA from the U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY's NATIONAL WATER QUALITY NETWORKS by Richard A
    A STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S NATIONAL WATER QUALITY NETWORKS by Richard A. Smith and Richard B. Alexander U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-533 Reston, Virginia June 1983 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: Chief Hydrologist Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Box 25425, Federal Center Reston, Virginia 22092 Denver, Colorado 80225 (Telephone: (303) 234-5888) CONTENTS Page Abstract 4 Introduction- 5 Statistical Methods 7 Data Screening 7 Estimates of Mean Concentration and Mean Transport of Common Constituents 8 Trend Test 8 Slope Estimator 9 Flow Adjustment Test 9 Summary Statistics for Trace Metals 11 References 30 TABLES Table 1. Detection Limits (in units of ug L-l) applicable during the period of summary for total recoverable and dissolved metal s--------- --------- -_----___- .................. ------ 13 Table 2. Station list by drainage basin 14 Table 3. Station list by state 21 Summary Tables by Station 28 A STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S NATIONAL WATER QUALITY NETWORKS By Richard A. Smith and Richard B. Alexander ABSTRACT The U.S. Geological Survey operates two nationwide networks to monitor water quality, the National Hydrologic Bench-Mark Network and the National Stream Quality Accounting Network {NASQAN). The Bench-Mark network is composed of 51 stations in small drainage basins which are as close as possible to their natural state, with no human influence and little likelihood of future development.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration SONOMA COUNTY Petaluma River Watershed The Petaluma River watershed lies within portions of Marin and Sonoma Counties. The river flows in a northwesterly to southeasterly direction into San Pablo Bay. Petaluma River In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that the Petaluma River was an historical migration route and habitat for steelhead (Skinner 1962). At that time, the creek was said to be “lightly used” as steelhead habitat (Skinner 1962). In July 1968, DFG surveyed portions of the Petaluma River accessible by automobile from the upstream limit of tidal influence to the headwaters. No O. mykiss were observed (Thomson and Michaels 1968d). Leidy electrofished upstream from the Corona Road crossing in July 1993. No salmonids were found (Leidy 2002). San Antonio Creek San Antonio Creek is a tributary of Petaluma River and drains an area of approximately 12 square miles. The channel is the border between Sonoma and Marin Counties. In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that San Antonio Creek was an historical migration route for steelhead (Skinner 1962).
    [Show full text]
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments
    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Water Bodies
    Attachment A: Detailed list of receiving water bodies within the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Control District boundaries under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control Boards One and Two This list of watercourses in the San Francisco Bay Area groups rivers, creeks, sloughs, etc. according to the bodies of water they flow into. Tributaries are listed under the watercourses they feed, sorted by the elevation of the confluence so that tributaries entering nearest the sea appear they first. Numbers in parentheses are Geographic Nantes Information System feature ids. Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County north of Bodega Head, listed from north to south:W The Gualala River and its tributaries • Gualala River (253221): o North Fork (229679) - flows from Mendocino County. o South Fork (235010): Big Pepperwood Creek (219227) - flows from Mendocino County. • Rockpile Creek (231751) - flows from Mendocino County. Buckeye Creek (220029): Little Creek (227239) North Fork Buckeye Crcck (229647): Osser Creek (230143) • Roy Creek (231987) • Soda Springs Creek (234853) Wheatfield Fork (237594): Fuller Creek (223983): • Sullivan Crcck (235693) Boyd Creek (219738) • North Fork Fuller Creek (229676) South Fork Fuller Creek (235005) Haupt Creek (225023) • Tobacco Creek (236406) Elk Creek (223108) • )`louse Creek (225688): Soda Spring Creek (234845) Allen Creek (218142) Peppeawood Creek (230514): • Danfield Creek (222007): • Cow Creek (221691) • Jim Creek (226237) • Grasshopper Creek (224470) Britain Creek (219851) • Cedar Creek (220760) • Wolf Creek (238086) • Tombs Crock (236448) • Marshall Creek (228139): • McKenzie Creek (228391) Northern Sonoma Coast Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County between the Gualala and Russian Rivers, numbered from north to south: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1C
    NPS Form 10-900 OMBNo. 1024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properti Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by e appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property___________________________________________________ historic name Ellis-Martin House_____________________________________ other names/site number Martin House, Ellis, John D., House_ 2. Location street & number 1197 E. Washington Street N/A O not for publication city or town Petaluma N/A H] vicinity state California________code CA county Sonoma_ code 097_ zip code 94952 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the Natior al Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this _3 nomination D request fot-d,et 3rmination of eligibility i ne sts the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Plages ar d meets the procequra ar d professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property I3 meets tj does not meet the National \e ister Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant D nationally DstatewiMAiaic cally.
    [Show full text]
  • Glisan, Rodney L. Collection
    Glisan, Rodney L. Collection Object ID VM1993.001.003 Scope & Content Series 3: The Outing Committee of the Multnomah Athletic Club sponsored hiking and climbing trips for its members. Rodney Glisan participated as a leader on some of these events. As many as 30 people participated on these hikes. They usually travelled by train to the vicinity of the trailhead, and then took motor coaches or private cars for the remainder of the way. Of the four hikes that are recorded Mount Saint Helens was the first climb undertaken by the Club. On the Beacon Rock hike Lower Hardy Falls on the nearby Hamilton Mountain trail were rechristened Rodney Falls in honor of the "mountaineer" Rodney Glisan. Trips included Mount Saint Helens Climb, July 4 and 5, 1915; Table Mountain Hike, November 14, 1915; Mount Adams Climb, July 1, 1916; and Beacon Rock Hike, November 4, 1917. Date 1915; 1916; 1917 People Allen, Art Blakney, Clem E. English, Nelson Evans, Bill Glisan, Rodney L. Griffin, Margaret Grilley, A.M. Jones, Frank I. Jones, Tom Klepper, Milton Reed Lee, John A. McNeil, Fred Hutchison Newell, Ben W. Ormandy, Jim Sammons, Edward C. Smedley, Georgian E. Stadter, Fred W. Thatcher, Guy Treichel, Chester Wolbers, Harry L. Subjects Adams, Mount (Wash.) Bird Creek Meadows Castle Rock (Wash.) Climbs--Mazamas--Saint Helens, Mount Eyrie Hell Roaring Canyon Mount Saint Helens--Photographs Multnomah Amatuer Athletic Association Spirit Lake (Wash.) Table Mountain--Columbia River Gorge (Wash.) Trout Lake (Wash.) Creator Glisan, Rodney L. Container List 07 05 Mt. St. Helens Climb, July 4-5,1915 News clipping.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Sonoma County Storm Water Resources Plan
    Final - Update 1 SOUTHERN SONOMA COUNTY STORM WATER RESOURCES PLAN Prepared by May 2019 Sonoma Water Final - Update 1 SOUTHERN SONOMA COUNTY STORM WATER RESOURCES PLAN Prepared by May 2019 Sonoma Water 1425 N. McDowell Boulevard Suite 200 Petaluma, CA 94954 707.795.0900 www.esassoc.com Bend Oakland San Francisco Camarillo Orlando Santa Monica Delray Beach Pasadena Sarasota Destin Petaluma Seattle Irvine Portland Sunrise Los Angeles Sacramento Tampa Miami San Diego D170210.01 PLAN COLLABORATORS Funding has been provided in full or in part through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board using funds from Proposition 1. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the foregoing, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Southern Sonoma County Storm Water Resources Plan Page Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ES-1 Background .............................................................................................................. ES-1 Southern Sonoma County Watersheds .................................................................... ES-1 Stakeholder Engagement and Plan Implementation ................................................ ES-4 Quantitative Methodologies and Identification and Prioritization of Projects ...........
    [Show full text]