DATE: November 15, 2017 PROJECT TITLE: LAFCO APPLICATION NO. 2017-04 - Stanislaus … ·...

DATE: November 15, 2017 TO: Interested Agencies FROM: Javier Camarena, Assistant Executive Officer SUBJECT: Public Hearing Notice & Request for Comments PROJECT TITLE: LAFCO APPLICATION NO. 2017-04 - T STREET REORGANIZATION

TO THE CITY OF NEWMAN ____________________________________________________________________________ This notice is to advise your agency that the City of Newman has submitted the following annexation application to LAFCO. Description: LAFCO Application No. 2017-04 –T Street Reorganization to the City of

Newman: Request to annex approximately 3 acres to the City of Newman and simultaneously detach the area from the West Stanislaus Fire Protection District and Central California Irrigation District.

Location: The proposal is located at the southwest corner of the Orestimba Road and T

Street intersection, just west of the Newman City Limits. The site includes a portion of APN 026-026-027. (See attached Project Map.)

CEQA: The City of Newman, through its planning process, assumed the role of Lead

Agency, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the project. The City approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for purposes of CEQA. LAFCO, as a Responsible Agency, will consider the environmental documentation prepared by the City as part of its action.

A copy of this notice and other related project documentation can be reviewed at the LAFCO office or on the LAFCO website at www.stanislauslafco.org under the “Public Notices” link. Your comments in your field of expertise are needed to complete the review of this project. Any significant comments submitted will be utilized in the review process. Your comments should be received by November 28, 2017 in order to include them in the Staff Report. The Commission anticipates hearing this item at a public hearing on Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at a meeting starting at 6:00 P.M. in the Joint Chambers, Basement Level, Tenth Street Place, 1010 10th Street, Modesto, California. In addition, it is the intent of the Commission, if the proposal is approved to waive subsequent protest proceedings whenever all conditions pursuant to Government Code Section 56662 authorizing such waivers are met unless written opposition to this waiver is received. Should you have any questions, please contact our office at (209) 525-7660, or via email at [email protected]. Enclosures: Project Map

http://www.stanislauslafco.org/

DATE: _________________________ TO: Stanislaus LAFCO

1010 10th Street, 3rd Floor Modesto, CA 95354 FROM: __________________________________________ SUBJECT: Project Review Comments PROJECT TITLE: LAFCO APPLICATION NO. 2017-04 - T STREET REORGANIZATION

TO THE CITY OF NEWMAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to annex approximately 3 acres to the City of Newman and simultaneously detach the territory from the West Stanislaus Fire Protection District and Central California Irrigation District. The proposal is located at the southwest corner of the Orestimba Road and T Street intersection, just west of the Newman City Limits. The site includes a portion of APN 026-026-027. Based on the agency’s particular field(s) of expertise, it is our position the project described above: _______ Will have an effect on the ability of this agency to provide service(s). _______ Will not have an effect on this agency. _______ No comments. Listed below are facts which support our determination (e.g., infrastructure needs, additional police/fire personnel, limited capacity, etc.)

1. 2. 3. 4.

Listed below are methods for reducing effects this project will have on this agency.

1. 2. 3. 4.

In addition, our agency has the following comments: (attach additional sheets if necessary). Response prepared by: ____________________________________________________________________________(Name) (Title) (Date)

SITE

T STREET

REORGANIZATION TO

THE CITY OF NEWMAN

Source: LAFCO Files, Amended November 15, 2017

CITY OF

NEWMAN

S TA'V'StA US LAFCOStanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission

1010 - 1Oth Street, 3'd Floor I Modesto, CA 95354(209) 525-7660 a FAX (209)525-7643

www. stan i sl auslafco. oro

FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS

This checklist is provided as a guide for the preparation of a complete application packet to LAFCO. You arerequired to consult with LAFCO staff prior to the submittal of the completed application. lf you have anyquestions regarding your proposal or preparation of your application packet, please contact the LAFCO staff at(209) 525-7660.

{ L Application form completed with oriqinat siqnatures and required attachments.

{ Z. Filing fee (deposit) payable to Stanislaus LAFCO. (See Schedule of Fees and Deposits.)

{ g. Vicinity Map (8T2"x11" paper)

{ q. Legal description and map prepared to State Board of Equalization (SBOE) specifications.Provide an original copy, stamped by the engineer on 8Tr"x1 1" paper. A separate fee for theSEOE filing will be determined and collected at time of project approval.

{ S. Evidence of approval. Please check the appropriate items:

{ e. lf annexation is to a city, the resolution and map of prezoning is required.lnclude the CEQA lnitial Study, Notice of Determination, and copy of Fish &Wildlife receipt.

_ B. lf annexation is to a district, resolution or copy of development approval (e.9.tentative subdivision map, use permit, conditions of approval, etc). lnclude theCEQA lnitial Study, Notice of Determination, and copy of Fish & Wildlife receipt.

{ C. lf applicant is city or district, a Resolution of Application by the city council ordistrict governing board.

- D. lf application is by petition of registered voters or landowners, a Notice of lntent

to Circulate Petition has been provided and a completed petition is attached.(See Petition for Proceedinqs template.)

{ A. Plan for Services, prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 56653 demonstratingthe agency's ability to provide services, a financing plan, and evidence of the timelyavailability of water supplies adequate for projected needs (Section 56668k).

{ t. Plan for Agricultural Preservation: For a sphere of influence expansion or annexation to acity or special district providing one or more urban services (i.e. potable water, sewer) thatincludes agricultural lands, a Plan for Agricultural Preservation must be provided,consistent with Commission Policy 22.

- 8. For applications with lengthy support documents, compact discs may be requested for the

Commission.

Two (2) sets of labels for property owners and registered voters within the boundaries ofthe proposal and one (1) set of labels for property owners and registered voters within a300ft radius. outside the proposal area (provide a map showing this area).

I{

2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 1

S TAN'SLA US LAFCOStanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission

1010 - 1Oth Street, 3'd Floor I Modesto, CA 95354(209)52s-7660 a FAX (209)525-7643

wrrvriv.stanislauslafco.orq

APPLICATION FOR (Gheck allthat apply):

Sphere of lnfluence AmendmentAnnexation to: City of'. Newman

Detachment from: City of:Formation of a Special District: - Type of DistrictOther:

DistrictDistrict: Wesf Sfanislaus FPD, CCID

trEEI

trtr

NAME OF PROPOSAL: f Sfreef Annexation Proiect

GENEML DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:Annexation of ! 3.01 acres to the Citv of Newman and detachment from the West Sfanis/aus Fire ProtectionDistrict and Central California lrrioation District

REASONS FOR PROPOSAL:The site has been annroved for a vestino tentative map to subdivide the proiect site into tenresidential lots between 10,010 and 12,659 square feet. New sewer and water lines would be extended into tlasite from citv lines on Orestimba Road.

LOCATION AND ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS (attach additional sheets if necessary):1035 T Sfreef. Newman CA 95360APNs: 026-026-027 & 128-001-001

APPLICANT:Name: Citv of Newman Communitv Development DepaftmentAddress: 938 Fresno St.2nd FloorPhone: 209-862-3725 Fax: 209-862-3199 E-Mail: socasrorO wman.comContact Person: Stephanie Ocasio

APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVEName: N/A

Title: Cifv Planner

Address:Phone: Fax: E-MailContact Person Title:

LAFCO Use Only:ProposalName:SubmittalDate:

LAFCO Application No

LAFCO Filing Fee: $SBOE Fee: $

Fees Paid?Fees Paid?

YesYes

Cert. of Filing Date:

-NoNo

100% Property Owners Consent? _ Yes _ NoTerritory Uninhabited? _ Yes _ No


PROPERTY OWNER(S):lf multiple property owners, please provide the names, with address information, on a separate page

Name: George Souza (G&M Souza 2012 Trust)

2101 Hallowell Rd. Newman, CA 95360AddressPhone: 209-678-2288 Fax: E-Mail

Name:AddressPhone: Fax E-Mail

SUBJECT AGENCIES WITHIN PROPOSAL AREA THAT WILL GAIN OR LOSE TERRITORY:lf more than three subject agencies, please provide the names and information on a separate page

Name: Wesf Sfanlslaus Fire Protection District

Address: 344 W. Las Palmas Ave. Patterson, CA 95363

Phone: 209-895-8130 Fax: 209-895-8139 E-Mai I : jg regory@cit. pafterson. ca. u s

Contact Person: Jeff Gresory

Name: Central California lrrigation District

Title: Fire Chief

Address: 1335 West / Sf. P.O Box 1231

Phone: 209-826-1421

Contact Person: Chris White

Name:

Fax: 209-926-3184 E-Mail:Title: GeneralManager

AddressPhone: Fax: E-MailContact Person Title

AFFECTED AGENCIES WITHIN PROPOSAL AREA: (Agencies that may have overlying boundariesor sphere of influence.) lf more than two affected agencies, please provide the names andinformation, on a separate page.

Name: Sfanis/aus County

Address: 1010 1jth St. Suite 3400

Phone: 209-525-6330

Contact Person: Angela Freitas

Name: N/A

Fax: 209-525-5911 E-Mail : [email protected]

Title: Director

Address:Phone: Fax E-MailContact Person Title

SCHOOL DISTRICTS: (School districts within the proposal area)

Name: Newman - Crows Landing lJnified1162 Main St. Newman cA 95360Address

Phone: 209-862-2933 Fax: 209-862-01 1 3 E-Mail: [email protected] 2.ca.us

Contact Person: Randy Fillpot Title: Superintendent


Name: N/A

AddressPhone: Fax: E-MailContact Person: Title

INTERESTED AGENCIES: (Other agencies which provide facilities or services to proposal area.) lfmore than two interested agencies, please provide the name and information, on a separate page.

Name: N/A

Address:Phone: Fax: E-MailContact Person

Name: N/A

Title:

AddressPhone: Fax: E-MailContact Person Title:

PERSONS REQUESTING TO BE NOTIFIED:lf more than two names, please provide the names and information on a separate page.

Name: N/A

Address:Phone: Fax E-MailContact Person:

Name: N/A

Title

Address:Phone: Fax: E-MailContact Person Title

Please respond to all items in this questionnaire and indicate N/A when a question does notapply. Any additional information that is pertinent to the application filing should be includedin the application at the time of submiftal.

I. LANDOWNER CONSENT

Have all property owners involved with the proposal given their written consent?

d YeS (lf yes, please attach the original signed petitions, letters or applications)

D NO (lf no, please attach the petitions, letters or applications with the originalsignatures of those consenting and provide the name, address and APN of thoseproperty owners not consenting.)

II. REGISTERED VOTER INFORMATION

A. Number of Registered Voters residing within the proposal: 0

(This information can be obtained from the Stanislaus County Elections Office.)


III. LAND USE

A. Area of Proposal (Gross Acres)

B. Land Uses of Proposed Area:

! 3.03

EXISTING PROPOSED

Zoning A-2-10 (GeneralAg) D CityM County

R-1 (Low Density Res.) d Citytr County

General PlanDesignation

Urban Transition D CityEl County

Low Density Res. M citytr County

Use of ProposalAreaVacant Srng/e Family Homes and Right of Way

Dedications

C. Surrounding Land Uses

D. Describe any public easements/oil well operations/cellular site leases, etc. that currently existon the site:N/A

E. Evidence of Approval - Are there any land use entitlements involved in the project?@Yes trNo

lf yes, please provide a copy of the documentation for this entitlement. Please check thosedocuments, which may apply:

tr Tentative Map and ConditionsEl Subdivision Map or Parcel Maptr Specific Planq PrezoningB General Plan Amendmenttr Rezoningtr Other - (provide explanation):

Describe(including specific uses)

ZoningGeneral PlanDesignation

City or CountyDesignation

NorthLion's Park Recreation and

ParksOS Open Space EI

DCityCounty

SouthLarge Lot Rural Single Family Home A-2-10 Urban Transition D City

O County

EastSlng/e Family Homes Central

ResidentialR-l Single Family

ResidentialO Citytr County

WestLarge Lot Rural Single Family Home and

Single Family HomesA-2-10 Urban Transition tr City

El County


IV. TOPOGRAPHY

A. Describe the physical features of the subject parcel(s). Refer to major highways, roads,watercourses, and topographical featuresThe project slfe ls essentially level. The proposed project would direct site drainage via pavement,gufters, and pipes into the citv storm drainage svstem at Orestimba Road. The changes to sitedrainage patterns would not result in erosion or flooding.

B. Drainage and average slopes: See '?" above within this section

V. BOUNDARIES AND ASSESSMENT

A. ls the property contiguous to the existing City or District boundary?: d Yes tr No(Contiguous is defined by Govt. Code Section 56031)

B. ls the prolect co-terminus with:The Assessor's Parcel boundaries?The legal lot boundaries?

C. ls the proposal completely surrounded by the annexing city or district? E Yes M trto

Expla in: The site is only adjacent along the nofthern and eastern srdes of fhe sife

trNoDNo

El YesEl Yes

D. Maps and Legal Description - Attach the following

1. A map (8Y."x11") which shows specifically the boundaries of the proposal, all bearings anddistances, and the relationship of the boundaries to those of the existing district or cityboundaries. The map must be drawn to the State Board of Equalization requirements.

2. A generalized/vicinity map (8/r"x1 1") showing the boundaries and relative size of theproposal with respect to the surrounding area.

3. A written legal description of the boundaries of the proposal. The legal description must bewritten clearly pursuant to State Board of Equalization Requirements.

4. Tax Assessor Parcel lnformation (Use additional sheets if necessary; information can beobtained from the County Assessor's Office):

Assessor's Parcel Number Tax Rate Area

026-026-027 083-027

Assessed Land Value

$185,000.00128-001-001 003-027 $49,796.00

Total: $234,796.00


VI. AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE

A. ls the current zoning classification for the site

G. Number of Acres considered Open Space Lands(as defined by Gov. Code Section 56059)

Agriculture?Open Space?

Ef YesE Yes

trNoEil trlo

B. ls the current general plan designation for the site: Agriculture?Open Space?

C. ls the site currently used for agriculture?

D. Number of Acres considered Prime Ag ricultural Land: 0 - Classified as urban and built up(as defined by the CA Dept. of Conservation as being prime, unique or of statewide importance, anddefined by Government Code Section 51201(c) and 56064)

E. Number of Acres considered Agricu Itural Lands: 0 - Land is vacant(as defined by Gov. Code Section 56016)

F. ls the site under Williamson Act Contract(s)?: E Yes Et Nolf yes, please provide the following information (attach additional sheets if necessary)

Contract Number(s):Date of Williamson Act contract execution:Has a non-renewal been filed for the contract?Date of Williamson Act contract expiration/cancellation

trNoEI trto

Ef tto

El YesE Yes

E Yes

0

H. Does the site have an open space easement? E Yes

l. ls the site within or adjacent to an approved greenbelt?: E Yes

lf yes, name/location

VII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

A. Population 0

B. Number/Type of Dwelling Units within the proposed area:

Ef No

El No

Existing:Proposed 10 (Ten parcels at 1 unit per parcel)

C. Please explain the extent to which the proposalwill assist the receiving entity in achieving itsfair share of the regional housing needs as determined by the appropriate council ofgovernments (Government Code Section 56668):The proposed proiect will result in the construction of ten new houses. The proposed proiect wouldnot necessitate the construction of replacement housing.


VIII. PUBLIC SERVICES

A. Services for the Proposal Area:

1. ls the reorganization requested for a proposed development? M Yes tr No

2. Describe what services will be provided to subject property: (Please attach any "lntent toServe" letters for water andior sewer services). lf sewer and/or water agency annexationis also part of the request, please expand upon the agency's ability to provide services inthe Plan for Services document and attach any relevant studies/master plans.

Note: Evidence must also be included to demonstrate the timely availability of water supp/iesadequate for projected needs of the area (Government Code Secfion 56668).

B

B. Assessment and lndebtedness of Service Areas:

1. Does the City/DistricUCounty have current plans to establish any new assessment districtsin order to pay for new or extended service(s) to the proposal area?

E Yes El ltolf yes, please describe

2. Will the subject territory assume any existinq bonded indebtedness upon annexation to theCity/District?:

EYes ilruoHow will indebtedness be repaid? (e.9., property taxes, assessments, service fees):

Will the proposal area be subject to special assessments or fees?El Yes D No

U

Service

Current ServiceProvider

Level & Rangeof Service

To beProvidedby this

Proposal?

lf YEs to (D),Approx. DateService WillBe Available

lf YES to (D), Methodto Finance

WATERCity of Newman Ten 1" Residential

Connections &Re I ated I nfra stru ctu re

Yes UponAnnexation and

Development

Developer Paid CapitalFacility and Connection

Fees

SEWERCity of Newman Ten Residential

Connections &Rel ated I nfra structu re


Development

Developer Paid CapitalF acil ity and Connection

Fees

POLICECity of Newman Full Seruice

Police SeruicesYes Upon

Annexation andDevelopment

Developer PaidCapital Facility Fees

FIRE City of Newman Full SeruiceFire Seruices


Development

Developer PaidCapital Facility Fees

3

Explain: Veteran's Memorial Fee. Communitv Benefit Fee


C. Sewer lnformation

1. ls extension of sewer service part of this application? E Yes d ruo

2. ls a developed parcel requesting annexation due to failed septic system?E Yes Ef Nolf yes, please include a copy of any letters from the Dept. of Environmental Resourcesor a private septic system company.

3. ls the subject parcel(s) within the sphere of influence of a district or city that provides publicsewer service? M Yes tr No

lf yes, which agency? Citv of Newman

4. Has the agency that will be providing service issued an "lntent to Serye" letter?E Yes d trto (lf yes, please attach letter to application.)

lf no: Will the agency be prepared to furnish sewer service upon annexation?EI Yes E No

5. Does the agency have the necessary contractual and design capacity to provide sewerservice to the proposed area? d Yes D No

lf no, please describe the agency's plan to increase capacity: The city's General PIanand recent infrastructure plannina anticipates up to 6 units per acre on the proiect site;development of 10 units will be accommodated by the city's wastewater infrastructure

6. lndicate the method of financing improvements and on-going operations (e.9., generalproperty tax, assessment district, landowner/developer fees, etc.):All developments costs shall be fhe responsibility of the developer. lmpacts to City seruices shall beaddressed via Capital Facilitv Fee pavments.

D. Water lnformation:

1. ls extension of water part of this application? E Yes d trto

2. ls a well or other on-site water system currently used on this property? E Yes M wo

3. ls the subject parcel(s) within the sphere of influence of a district or city that provides publicwater service? il Yes tr No

7. What is the distance for connection to the agency's existing sewer system?600 feet

lf yes, which agency? City of Newman

4. Please list:Wholesale Water Agency: N/A

Retail Water Agency: N/A

Has the agency that will be providing service issued an "lntent to Serve" letter?El Yes fl No (lf yes, please attached letter to application)

Will the agency be prepared to furnish water service upon annexation?6Yes trNo

5

lf no


6. Does the agency have the necessary contractual and design capacity to provide waterservice to the proposed area? El Yes tr No

lf no, please describe the agency's plan to increase capacity: Perthe Newman GP ElR,the City has an adequate supply of groundwater to serue all development anticipated atGeneral Plan build-out.

7. lndicate the method of financing improvements and on-going operations (e.9. generalproperty tax, assessment d istrict, landowner/developer fees, etc. ):All developmenfs cosfs shall be the responsibility of the developer. lmpacts to City seruices shallbe addressed via Capital Facility Fee payments.

8. What is the distance for connection to the agency's existing water system?570 feet

E. Police Service

1. lf annexation to a City, what are the existing police service levels provided within the Citylimits? Full service Police Department.

2. What level of police services will be provided to the area upon full development?Full service Police Department.

Will the service levels be maintained? Ef Yes tr Nolf yes, how will the City finance or maintain existing service levels to the area (masterservice plans, ClP, etc.)? Explavia Capital Facility Fee payments.

in lmpacts to City services shall be addressed

F. Fire Protection Service

1. lf annexation to a City, what are the existing fire protection service levels provided withinthe City limits? Volunteer Fire Department with Full-Time Chief.

2. What level of fire protection services will be provided to the area upon full development?Volunteer Fire Depaftment with Full-Time Chief.

Will the service levels be maintained? El Yes tr Nolf yes, how will the City finance or maintain existing service levels to the area (masterservice plans, ClP, etc.)? Explai n'. lmpacts to City serylces shall be addressedvia Capital Facility Fee payments.

3. What are the "lnsurance Services Office (lSO)" Class ratings of the affected agencies?City 5 (2014 Eval) District 4

2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 1O

IX. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

A. Lead Agency for project: City of Newman

B. The project:

trlsexemptpursuanttoCEQAsection-andaNoticeofExemptionhasbeenprepared by the lead agency (please attach).

D Will have no significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration wasprepared. (Please attach Notice of Determination.)

tr Was found to be within the scope of a Master Environmental lmpact Report (ElR)pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21157.1. (Please attach Notice of Determination.)

g May have significant adverse environmental impacts and in accordance with Section15070 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has beencertified by the lead agency. (Please attach Notice of Determination.)

List impact areas in the MND that propose mitigation measures to lessen theenvironmental impacts to less than signifisznl' Biological resources dealingpafticularly with Swainson's Hawk, Kit Fox, Burrowing Owl, and other nesting birds;Culturalresources,' Norse; and Traffic at the Hardin St f Sf. intersection.

tr Will have significant adverse environmental impacts and the lead agency has prepared anEnvironmental lmpact Report (ElR). (Please attach.)

List impact areas that were found to be unmitigatable in the EIR: (Attach anyStatement of Overriding Considerations, as applicable)

Please note: lnclude with the above requested attachmenfs fhe complete environmentaldocumentation (e.9., Initial Study, NOD, NOE, ElR, etc.) and copies of receipts from any filingfees paid (including Fish & Wildlife fees).

X. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE APPLICATION

For those proposals requesting a Sphere of lnfluen ce Amendment, has a Sphere of lnfluenceYes d ttoSuoolem Application has been included? [

XI. CERTIFICATION

I certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the informationcontained in this application is true and correct. I acknowledge and agree that the StanislausLocal Agency Formation Commission is relying on the accuracy of the information provided andmy representations in order to process this application proposal.

Print Name Ocasio Title: City Planner

Signature Date: 11/9/17

City or District ApplicantProperty Owner ApplicantApplicant's Representative/Agent (Proof of authority must be provided)

EfDtr

2015 LAFCOAPPLICATION, PAGE 11


1010 - 10 th Street, 3'o Floor i Modesto, CA 95354(209) s25-7660 a FAX (209) 525-7643

www. sta n isl a u slafco.o rq

INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

As part of this application, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold harmless and release theStanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), its officers, employees, attorneys, oragents from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of them, the purpose of which is toattack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, LAFCO's action on a proposal or on theenvironmental documents submitted to support it. This indemnification obligation shall include, butnot be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees, and expert witness fees that may beasserted by any person or entity, including the applicant arising out of or in connection with theapplication.

Date 11/9/17

APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE(Proof of authority must be provided)

Signature

Name:

Title:

Agency:

Address:

Stephanie Ocasio

City Planner

City of Newman

938 Fresno Street / P.O. Box 787

Newman, CA 95360

2015 LAFCO APPLICATION. PAGE 12


1010 - 1Oth Street, 3'd Floor O Modesto, CA 95354(209) s25-7660 a FAX (209)525-7643

www. stan islau slafco. org

COMPLIANCE WITH POLITICAL EXPENDITURE AND CONTRIBUTIONDISCLOSURE REQUIREM ENTS

EffectiveJanuary1,2008: Pursuant to Government Code Sections 56700.1 and 57009 of theCortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, and 82015 and 82025 of thePolitical Reform Act, applicants for LAFCO approvals and those opposing such proposals are requiredto report to LAFCO all political contributions and expenditures with respect to the proposal thatexceed $1,000. By your signature to this application, you are binding the applicant to abide by thesedisclosure requirements. You are further agreeing that should LAFCO be required to enforce theserequirements against you (or if the agency is the formal applicant, the real party in interest) that youwill reimburse LAFCO for all staff cost and legal fees, and litigation expenses incurred in thatenforcement process.

Date11/9/17

APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:(Proof of authority must be provided)

Signature

Name:

Title:

Agency:

Address:

Stephanie Ocasio

City Planner

City of Newman

938 Fresno Street / P.O. Box 787

Newman, CA 95360



1010 - 1Oth Street, 3'd Floor I Modesto, CA 95354(209)525-7660 a FAX (209)52s-7643

www. sta n isl au slafco. org

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEM ENT

Consistent with the requirements of the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission, eachapplicant or their agent must complete and submit this Statement of Disclosure form with anyapplication that requires discretionary action by Stanislaus LAFCO (Government Code 584308 of thePolitical Reform Act).

Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club,fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, cityand county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combinationacting as a unit."

1. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved or anyfinancial interest in the application. (Use additional sheets if necessary.)

G&M Souza 2012 Trust

2. lf any person identified pursuant to #1 is a corporation or partnership, list the names of allindividuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning anypartnership interest in the partnership.

N/A

3. lf any person identified pursuant to #1 is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the namesof any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiaryor trustor of the trust.

George and Marlene Souza

4. Has any person identified pursuant to #1 had $250 or more worth of business transactedwith any Commissioner or Alternate or Commission staff person within the past 12months? EYes I dNo

lf Yes, please indicate person's name/s:


5. Has any person identified pursuant to #1, or his or her agent, contributed $250 or more toany Commissioner or Alternate within the past 12 months? fl Yes / Ef trto

lf Yes, please indicate person(s) or agent(s) making contribution:

Name/s of Commissioner(s/Alternate(s) receiving contri bution :

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALW OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION ISTRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

Applicant Signature

Printed Name: Stephanie Ocasio forthe City of Newman

Date: 11n/l7


LEGAL DESCRIPTION

The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California, County of Stanislaus, City of Newman and described as follows:

Parcel 1:

Lot 1 of the Giddings Tract as per Map filed December 2, 1912 in Vol. 7 of Maps at Page 13, Stanislaus County Records.

Excepting threfrom the Following beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 1 of the Giddings Tract, said point being on the North Boundary of Orestimba Avenue, and running thence North 89° 28' West 330.63 feet along the North Boundary of Orestimba Avenue; thence North 263.53 feet; thence South 89° 31' East 330.55 feet; thence South 263.44 feet along the East boundary of said Lot 1 to the Point of beginning.

Parcel 2:

Beginning at a point on the Westerly Line of Lot 1 in Block 111 of the Town of Newman, as per Map filed July 28, 1916 in Vol. 8 of Maps at Page 42, Stanislaus County Records which point bears North distant 230.54 feet from the Southeast corner of Lot 1 and running thence; North 258.76 feet along said Lot line to the North corner of said Lot 1; thence South 17° 03' East, 271.44 feet along the Westerly Line of"I" Street; thence South 89° 32' West 80.26 feet to the point of beginning.

APN: 026-026-027 and 128-001-001 (End of Legal Description)

File No.: 01180-68856 Prelim Report SCE

Page 3 of 7

RESOLUTION NO.2OI7-II

A RESOLUTION OF A¡INEXATION REFERRAL TO THE STAIIISLAUS COTJNTY LOCALAGENCY FORMATTON COMMTSSTON (LAFCO) FOR THE ANNEXATTON OF THE

PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1035 T STREET

WHEREAS, the property owner, George Souza, has requested the prezone and annexation of1035 T Street to the City; and

WHEREAS, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map VTTM 17-01 proposed on approximately 3.3acres of land known as 1035 T Street has been submitted for a specific piece of property described inthe County Assessor's Office Records as APN 026-026-027 and 128-001-001 to the City of Newman;and

WHEREAS, the Newman City Planning Commission, after conducting a public hearing on theproject, approved the tentative map; and

WHEREAS, a Prezoning application has been submitted to prezone the property in a mannerconsistent with the City's General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Prezoning proposal, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan andtherefore the Council has taken action to approve the Prezoning of this property in accordance with therequirements of Section 5 .26.030 of Newman Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, Annexation No. l7-01 and Prezone No. 17-01 constitute a project as defined underthe Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Guidelines for Implementation of theCalifomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2016052018), has beenprepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC Section 21000 et seq.) toanalyze the environmental effects of the project; and

WHEREAS, on February 16,2017 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receivecomments regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, on February 16,2017 the Planning Commission unanimously voted torecommend certification of the lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration prepared for the project, the project staff report, the Planning Commission report, and allevidence received by the Planning Commission and at the City Council hearings, all of whichdocuments and evidence are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the City Council is required pursuant to CEQA (Guidelines Section 15021), toadopt all feasible mitigation measr¡res or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen oravoid any significant environmental effects keeping in mind the obligation to balance avanety of publicobjectives; and

WHEREAS, a proposal for a change in local government reorganization shall be made by aresolution of application by the legislative body of an affected local agency pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Government Reorganization Act of 2000; and

WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Stanislaus has adopted,pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Govemment Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, Part 2, commencing

with Section 56425 of the Califomia Government Code, both a primary and secondary sphere ofinfluence for the City of Newman; and

WHEREAS, on April 10,2007, the Newman City Council adopted the Newman 2030 GeneralPlan which established formal city policies regarding land use designations and direction for the physicalgrowth of the city; and

WHEREAS, the subject property is presently located within the City of Newman's primarySphere of Influence and must be arurexed to the City before these actions of the City can take effect, and

WHEREAS, the project site is located within the district boundaries of the Central CaliforniaIrrigation District (CCID); and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the City of Newman can provide all necessarypublic services needed to serve the area proposed for annexation; and

WHEREAS, the City Newman's Planning Commission has held a public hearing and reviewedthe project in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.03.040 of the City of Newman MunicipalCode, and

WHEREAS, once the City Council has authorized City staff to submit an application to LAFCO,staff will prepare and submit that application to LAFCO on behalf of the City and property owner. Theproperty owner will be required to pay for all necessary LAFCO, Department of Equalization, andanylall other applicable fees.

THE NEWMAN CITY COLTNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:Annexation of approximately 3.3 acres to the City of Newman, as requested by the property owner,is approved by the City of Newman on the bases of the following findings:l. The annexation and prezone are substantially consistent with the General Plan and Zoníng

Code.2. The project site is physically suitable for the proposed low-density development (R-1 Single

Family Residential).3. The armexation and prezone are not likely to cause substantial and considerable damage to the

natural environment, including fish, wildlife or their habitat.4. The annexation and prezone will not cause serious public health and safety problems.5. The annexation and prezone will not conflict with public easements within or through the site.6. The unincorporated territory to be annexed is within the City's Primary Sphere of lnfluence.7 . The boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed are definite and certain.8. The annexation and prezone do not split lines of assessment or ownership.9. The annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide

municipal services.10. The annexation site is contiguous to the existing City limits and an orderly and efficient pattern

of urban development.I 1. Public utility services are available and present to serve the project.12. Physical improvements are present upon parcels within the area;

13. The territory is not prime agricultural land as defined by GC $56064.14. The proposal will assist the City in meeting its respective 2014-2023 Regional Housing Needs

Allocation (RHNA) as determined by StanCOG.I 5. The amexation and subsequent development thereof will deliver a housing product not

currently available in the City.

II. Detachment from the Central California Irrigation District (CCID) is recommended by the City ofNewman based on the following hndings:l. The detachment is consistent with CCID policy; and2. The detachment is consistent with the Newman General Plan; and

3. The detachment is consistent with the City policy to extend City water to the incorporated areas

of the City; and4. The proposed detachment will not have a detrimental effect on adjacent unincorporated land

that will continue to be provided water service by CCID.

III. An Initial Study has been prepared and circulated for the project in accordance with therequirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and on the basis of this analysis, andcornments provided, that the project is not likely to create an avoidable Significant AdverseEnvironmental Impact and therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared andadopted.

The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City ofNewman held on the 28ft of March, 2017 by Council Member Day, who moved its adoption, whichmotion was duly seconded and it was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the followingroll call vote:

AYES: McDonald, Graham, Candea, Day and Mayor Martina.NOES: None.ABSENT: None.

4-Mayor of the City of Newman

ATTEST:

City Clerk of the City of Newman

o EXI.IIBI'I A

ôo

=ôÉI

tsuI

a

vElllIt_u48

<räOfrÈrJsÈ¡

fiEËü

Ë

3&

,'E-9,1;; +' OWNER / DEELOPÊR INFORMTION:

WE: GEOrcT $UAMRES: 21Or rctOwELl RN

NilU, q 9$STEGPÐNEi (2@)ô74-22æ

PROJECT SITE INFORMNON

^,P,N NUVBER: 026-02A-027. l2a-@l-ml

SÍE ÆDRBS: lor5 f- SREÍ. NilN, qá

õÉ8UIOINGSUMMRY

GROSS PMECT SE ÆA - f,.01 ÆRES

026 026 0J0PrcXIUTE RIGfr-OF-WAY DEOIqTþN (OREflITU RN NO T SIREÐ . O.II ÆRES

NE PRdECT SÍE ÆA frER Rcil-oF-s Y DEDlqlO¡ - 2.S ÆRES

r0 uNtrs / 2.90 ÆiEs - 1.4 uN[s / ÆRE\

IEGEND

¡t - o:effi*Íñffiuru

È

z.a<Øo

=EHóÉUU)

ts

zo;F>

Iz2FØu

1

I

',:: ffircmÊsltr

- qrq N¡ / cuÈ nr

026-026 013o@r

L 4I

fllL

l.l

È?)-J36

L l

026-026.0r6

(

s slRÊÉl

\

\

\

\

tro.æ7 s. F.

- IFP.G. - '_l

\

\

I

-l2

i0,044 9. fl

Jr0,J96 Q. ñ.

10.417 9. F.

512,059 S. f

lo10,oro 9. fl.

612,s9 s. ñ.

I

710,146 SQ. F

I10,306 sQ, F,

\a.

'F

I10.0!5 sQ. f,_

¡i5$tr]F¡

ORESTIMBAROAD

EXHIBIT BAerial View of 1035 T Street

P.O. BOX 787 • 938 FRESNO STREET • NEWMAN, CA 95360 | PH (209) 862-3725 • FAX (209) 862-3199 | WWW.CITYOFNEWMAN.COM

T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 & VTTM #16-01) NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Newman has undertaken environmental review for the above listed project and intends to adopt a mitigated negative declaration (MND). The City of Newman invites all interested persons and agencies to comment on the proposed MND. Lead Agency: City of Newman

Project Location: 1035 T Street, Newman, CA 95360

APNs: 026-026-027 & 128-001-001

Project Description: For the purposes of CEQA review, the proposed project includes annexation and pre-zoning of the project site (1035 T Street) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) for development of residential lots. The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative subdivision map to subdivide the project site into ten residential lots of between 9,874 and 11,325 square feet. The gross density would be 3.3 units per acre. The applicant would dedicate 0.11 acres of additional right-of-way along Orestimba Road and T Street, and would dedicate 0.5 acres of right-of-way for a proposed internal street. New sewer and water lines would be extended into the site from city lines in Orestimba Road. A six-foot masonry wall would be constructed along yards backing onto Orestimba Road and T Street. Per CEQA Guidelines section 15072(f)(5), the project site is not on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 as a hazardous waste facility, land designated as a hazardous waste property, or a hazardous waste disposal site.

Public Review Period: Begins: May 10, 2016, 8:00 am Ends: June 10, 2016, 5:00 pm

Proposed Negative Declaration is Available for Public Review at these Locations:

City of Newman Community Development Department 938 Fresno Street, 2nd Floor Newman, CA 95360 Phone: 209.862.3725, Option 4

Address Where Written Comments May be Sent:

Stephanie Ocasio, City Planner City of Newman Community Development Department P.O. Box 787 Newman, CA 95360 [email protected] Fax: 209.862.3199

Public Hearing: After public review, the project will be considered by the City Council. A date for consideration has not yet been set. Should this matter at some future date go to court, court testimony may be limited to issues raised in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, or in public consideration of the project.

mailto:[email protected]

Mr. Stan RisenStanislaus County CEO1010 10th StreetModesto, CA 95354

Stanislaus County Planning1010 10th Street, Ste. 3400Modesto, CA 95354

Mr. Jim DeMartiniStanislaus County - District 51010 10th Street, Ste. 6500Modesto, CA 95354

Stanislaus County DER3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite CModesto, Ca 95358

Stanislaus Co. Public Works1716 Morgan Rd.Modesto, CA 95358

Stanislaus County LAFCO1010 10th Street, 3rd. Floor Modesto, CA 95354

Stanislaus Co. LibraryNewman Branch1305 Kern StreetNewman, CA 95360

Stanislaus County Ag Commissioner3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite BModesto, CA 95358

StanCOG1111 I Street, Suite 308Modesto, CA 95354

CA HCD2020 West El Camino Avenue Sacramento, CA 95833

CA Dept. of ConservationDiv. of Land Resource Protection801 K Street, MS 14-15Sacramento, CA 95814-3528

CVRWQCBSacramento Main Office11020 Sun Center Drive #200Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

CalTrans - District 101976 East Charter WayStockton, CA 95205

CA OHP/SHPO1725 23rd Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816

CA CDFW Central Region1234 E. Shaw AvenueFresno, CA 93710

CAL EPAP.O. Box 2815Sacramento, CA 95812-2815

CA Native American Heritage Commission1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 W. Sacramento, CA 95691

PG&E1524 N. Carpenter RoadModesto, CA 9535

AT&T1860 W. Wardrobe Ave.Merced, CA 95340

ComcastLocal Government Affairs1242 National DriveSacramento, CA 95834

SJVAPCDNORTHERN REGION4800 Enterprise WayModesto, CA 95356

SJVAPCD1990 E. Gettysburg Ave.Fresno, CA 93726

CCIDP.O. Box 1231Los Banos, CA 93635

Randy FillpotNCLUSD1162 Main StreetNewman, CA 95360

Turlock Mosquito Abatement District4412 N. Washington Rd.Turlock, CA 95380

NOI Distribution List

2016-05-2018

INITI AL S T UDY

T STREET ANNEXATION

(AX #16-01 and VTTM #16-01)

PREP ARE D F OR

City of Newman Community Development Department

April 6, 2016

T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 and VTTM #16-01)

INI TIAL ST UDY

PREP ARE D F OR City of Newman

Stephanie Ocasio, City Planner

938 Fresno Street

Newman, CA 95360

Tel 209.862.3725

PREP ARE D B Y EMC Planning Group Inc

301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C

Monterey CA 93940

Tel 831.649.1799

[email protected]

www.emcplanning.com

April 6, 2016

EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. BACKGROUND ............................................................... 1

B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..... 11

C. DETERMINATION ......................................................... 12

D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................. 13

1. Aesthetics ......................................................................... 15

2. Agriculture and Forest Resources ........................................ 17

3. Air Quality ....................................................................... 19

4. Biological Resources .......................................................... 21

5. Cultural Resources ............................................................ 32

6. Geology and Soils .............................................................. 34

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................. 36

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................... 38

8. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................. 40

9. Land Use and Planning ...................................................... 43

10. Mineral Resources ............................................................. 45

11. Noise ............................................................................... 46

12. Population and Housing ..................................................... 49

13. Public Services .................................................................. 50

14. Recreation ........................................................................ 52

15. Transportation/Traffic ....................................................... 53

16. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................. 56

17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................... 59

E. SOURCES .................................................................... 61

EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.

Appendices

Appendix A Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur in the

Project Vicinity

Figures

Figure 1 Project Location ................................................................................... 3

Figure 2 Project Vicinity .................................................................................... 5

Figure 3 Existing Project Site Conditions ........................................................... 7

Figure 4 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map ...................................................... 9

Figure 5 Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Locations and Foraging Habitat Radii ....... 25

EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1

A. BACKGROUND Project Title T Street Annexation (AX #16-01 and VTTM #16-01)

Lead Agency Contact Person

and Phone Number

City of Newman

Stephanie Ocasio, City Planner

(209) 826-3725

Date Prepared April 6, 2016

Study Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc.

301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C

Monterey, CA 93940

Richard James, AICP, Principal

Polaris Kinison Brown, Principal Planner

Janine Bird, Assistant Planner

Stefanie Krantz, Associate Biologist

Project Location 1035 T Street (at Orestimba Road) Newman, CA

Project Sponsor Name and Address George Souza, 2101 Hollowell Road, Newman, CA

General Plan Designation Stanislaus County “Urban Transition”

City of Newman “Planned Mixed Residential”

Zoning Stanislaus County A-2-10

Proposed City of Newman R-1

Setting The project site is 3.01 acres at 1035 T Street (the southwest corner of T Street and Orestimba Road) adjacent to the City of Newman city limits (to the north and east). Figure 1, Project Location, shows the general location of the City of Newman. Figure 2, Project Vicinity, shows significant features in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is essentially flat and vacant of structures. Figure 3, Existing Project Site Conditions, shows existing features of the project site.

To the north of the project site is Lion’s Park (with ball fields and a community center), and north of the park is Orestimba High School. To the northeast are single-family residences and Hunt Elementary School. To the east is a park, municipal well, and single-family residences. To the south and the west of the project site are large lot and rural single family residences.

The project site’s Newman 2030 General Plan (“General Plan”) land use designation is Planned Mixed Residential. The project site’s Stanislaus County general plan land use designation is Urban Transition and is zoned A-2-10. The project site is within the city’s primary sphere of influence.

2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.

Description of Project

The proposed project includes annexation and pre-zoning of the project site to R-1 (Low Density

Residential) for development of residential lots. Figure 2 Project Vicinity shows the existing city

limits in the vicinity of the project site. The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative

subdivision map to subdivide the project site into ten residential lots of between 9,874 and

11,325 square feet. The gross density would be 3.3 units per acre. The applicant would dedicate

0.11 acres of additional right-of-way along Orestimba Road and T Street, and would dedicate 0.5

acres of right-of-way for a proposed internal street. New sewer and water lines would be

extended into the site from city lines in Orestimba Road. A six-foot masonry wall would be

constructed along yards backing onto Orestimba Road and T Street. Figure 4 Vesting Tentative

Subdivision Map shows the proposed subdivision.

Site Build-out at General Plan Densities

Section 9, Land Use and Planning, shows the project site is located in an area designated as

Planned Mixed Residential (PMR). The PMR land use designation allows for single-family

detached homes. Given the small project size, a low density residential designation is

appropriate. 2030 GP LU-15 identifies LDR density in the range of three to six units per gross

acre. The gross project size is 3.01 acres x 3 units per acre = 9 units minimum; therefore, the

proposed 10 units are an acceptable density for the project site.

Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required

Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)

1. Annexation to the City of Newman

2. Detachment from the West Stanislaus Fire District

Project Site

kT St. Inyo Ave.

GustineUV140

")J18River Rd.

Merced St.

Orestimba Rd. Driskell Ave.Newman

Orch

ard

Rd.

Hills Fe

rry Rd.Stuhr Rd.

Hunt

Rd.

East

in R

d.

§̈¦5

UV140

UV33

Source: Esri Streetmap North America 2010

Figure 1

Project LocationT Street Annexation Initial Study

0 1.25 miles

ProjectLocation

£¤101

k

UV152Gilroy

Atwater Merced

Stockton

UV120 UV49

§̈¦5

UV4

Los Banos

Sonora

NewmanSanJose

Modesto§̈¦580

§̈¦5

UV99

Regional Location

Project Site


This side intentionally left blank.

Current City Limits Primary Sphere of Influence

Orestimba High School

Yolo Middle School

HuntElementary

School

Lions Park

PioneerPark

Mariposa Street

Yolo Street

T Street

Har

din

Road

State Route 33

Main Street

Fresno Street

Orestimba Road

DenmorePark

Figure 2

T Street Annexation Initial Study

Project Vicinity

Source: Google Earth 20150 500 feet

Project Site

STATE HIGHWAYSState Route 1State Route 68State Route 156

U.S. HIGHWAYSU.S. Highway 101

INTERSTATE HIGHWAYSInterstate 5 or I-5

Orestimba High School

Yolo Middle School

HuntElementary

School

Lions Park

DenmorePark

PioneerPark

Mariposa Street

Yolo Street

T Street

Har

din

Road

State Route 33

Main Street

Fresno Street

Orestimba Road

Figure 3


Existing Project Site Conditions

Source: Google Earth 2015not to scale0 500 feet

Project Site

ORESTIMBA ROAD

"T" STREET

LEGEND:

BUILDING SUMMARY:

PROJECT SITE INFORMATION:

OWNER / DEVELOPER INFORMATION:

50' STREETORESTIMBA ROAD

SCALE: 1" = 30'

VICINITY MAP

PROJECTSITE

NEWMAN

SO

US

AE

NG

INE

ER

ING

INF

RA

ST

RU

CT

UR

E -

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T -

AG

RIC

UL

TU

RE

Use Century Gothic Font, 9 pt

Figure 4


Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map

Source: Sousa Engineering Services 20160 80 feet

T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY


B. 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.

Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Public Services

Agriculture Hydrology/Water quality Recreation

Air quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic

Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems

Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance

Geology/Soils Population/Housing


C. DETERMINATION 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 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 (1) have been analyzed adequately

in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,

and (2) 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.

May 6, 2016

Stephanie Ocasio, City Planner Date



D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Notes 1. A brief explanation is provided for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are

adequately supported by the information sources cited 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 is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis.

2. All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers 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 Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The mitigation measures are described, along with a brief explanation of 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 are used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document or negative declaration. [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)] In this case, a brief discussion would identify the following:

a. “Earlier Analysis Used” identifies and states where such document is available for

review.

b. “Impact Adequately Addressed” identifies which effects from the checklist were

within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to

applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by

mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.


c. “Mitigation Measures”—For effects that are “Less-Than-Significant Impact with

Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” mitigation measures are described which were

incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they

address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans,

zoning ordinances, etc.) are incorporated. Each reference to a previously prepared or

outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where

the statement is substantiated.

7. “Supporting Information Sources”—A source list is attached, and other sources used or

individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.

8. This is the format recommended in the CEQA Guidelines as amended October 1998.

9. The explanation of each issue identifies:

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.



1. AESTHETICS

Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated

Less-Than- Significant

Impact

No Impact

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (1, 2, 3, 9)

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (1, 2, 3)

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (1, 2, 3, 8, 9)

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (1, 2, 3)

Comments:

a. Scenic vistas in the city are limited to views of the surrounding agricultural areas. The

General Plan includes policies to protect this agricultural land, thus preserving the scenic

qualities. The project site is within the city’s primary sphere of influence, and is not

adjacent to scenic agricultural land; there are no views of scenic agricultural land from

the project site. The annexation will not result in the formation of a peninsula of

incorporated land (that would encroach into scenic agricultural land), and is therefore

consistent with General Plan Policy NR-1.5.

b. There are no state-designated scenic highways in or around Newman.

c. The proposed project would result in the construction of houses on a three-acre parcel

bounded by developed parcels on most sides. Proposed development would be at a

greater density than exists on parcels to the west and south, and lower density than

existing development to the east. A park and a school are located to the north. The

proposed project includes masonry walls facing Oristimba Road and T Street. Although

sound walls along public rights-of-way are discouraged by the General Plan, when sound

walls are used they must be set back from the street with enhanced design and

landscaping to mitigate effects on pedestrians. The proposed project includes a five-foot

sidewalk and five-foot planting area between the street and the wall to reduce visual

impacts.


Because the proposed project occupies a small site, the community design requirements

for focal points and gateways are not applicable. Impacts on community character would

be less than significant.

d. The proposed project would increase the number of light sources within the city.

Municipal Code section 5.16.030 requires consideration of exterior lighting in the design

of buildings. Lights at the proposed project are anticipated to be typical of single-family

residences, and therefore would not result in significant impacts.



2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects

and in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, 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. Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps preparedpursuant to the Farmland Mapping andMonitoring Program of the CaliforniaResources Agency, to nonagricultural use?(12)

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agriculturaluse, or a Williamson Act contract? (2, 3)

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or causerezoning of, forest land (as defined in PublicResources Code section 12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public ResourcesCode section 4526), or timberland zonedTimberland Production (as defined byGovernment Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversionof forest land to non-forest use? (8)

e. Involve other changes in the existingenvironment which, due to their location ornature, could result in conversion ofFarmland to nonagricultural use?(1, 2, 3, 8, 12)

Comments:

a. The project site is classified as urban and built-up land.

b. The project site currently has a Stanislaus County zoning designation of agricultural;however, the proposed project includes annexation to the City of Newman and pre-zoning to Residential, R-1. Although the county zoning designation is agricultural, thecounty’s long-range planning foresees urban development at the project site: the countyhas given the project site an “Urban Transition” designation in its general plan, andStanislaus LAFCO has included the project site within the City of Newman’s primarysphere of influence. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning foragricultural use. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.


c/d. The project site does not contain forestland or commercial timberland and is not zoned

for forestland or timberland production. Therefore no impacts to these resources could

result from the proposed project.

e. Although the proposed project extends development of the city closer to prime farmland

to the west, neither the project site nor the immediately adjacent land is designated as

Prime Farmland or used for agricultural production. The project site is within the city’s

primary sphere of influence and both the Stanislaus County and City of Newman general

plans designate the project site for development. The proposed project would not

significantly affect farmland to the west. The city has a right-to-farm ordinance

(Municipal Code section 5.23.140) that prevents nuisance claims against exiting

agricultural operations.



3. AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance 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:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (1, 2, 3)

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1, 2, 3, 13, 24)

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (1, 2, 3, 13,24)

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (1, 2, 3, 9)

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (9)

Comments:

a-c. The proposed project would result in the development of ten new dwelling units on the

project site. The proposed project would result in direct air emissions (i.e. on-site fuel

burning for heat or cooking) and indirect air emissions (automobile trips and off-site

electrical generation). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (air district)

has published guidance on determining CEQA applicability, significance of impacts, and

potential mitigation of significant impacts, in its Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air

Quality Impacts. The air district’s Small Project Analysis Level thresholds establish that

single-family residential projects of fewer than 152 units are deemed to have a less than

significant impact on air quality and as such are excluded from quantifying criteria

pollutant emissions for CEQA purposes (San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District

2012, Table 5-3(a).


In addition, the air district has stated that in some cases of short-term or intermittent

operation, it is possible to exclude some types of land use from performing further

quantification of emissions. Residential development (construction) projects of 400 or

fewer units have been determined by the air district to qualify for this “small project”

exclusion (San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District 2012, page 3).

Since the proposed project consists of fewer than 152 single-family residential units, it

qualifies for the Small Project Analysis Level which involves screening the proposed

project and project site for toxic or hazardous air emissions, odors, and cumulative

effects. Each of these is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Hazardous Air Emissions. The project site is located in a predominately residential and

agricultural area. There are no known industrial sources of hazardous air emissions that

would pose a significant hazard to residents of the proposed project. Several commercial

establishments within a mile of the project site (such as gasoline stations) use hazardous

materials, but these are regulated to provide an acceptable level of safety and to reduce

risks to the public (General Plan EIR page 4.7-5). The proposed project does not include

the demolition or renovation of any buildings; therefore, there is no risk of release of

asbestos building materials.

Odors. Refer to the discussion of item d/e.

Cumulative Effects. The proposed project would not result in a development density

greater than that planned for the project site by the General Plan. However, the General

Plan EIR determined that the General Plan growth projections were higher than and not

consistent with those used to model the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control

District’s Clean Air Plan. Therefore, buildout of the General Plan would result in a

significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on air quality. The city adopted a

statement of overriding considerations when it certified the General Plan and adopted

the General Plan. The proposed project would result in the construction of ten residential

units, of an estimated 8,773 new units projected by the General Plan (General Plan EIR

page 4.11-7). The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts

would not be cumulatively considerable.

d/e. The proposed project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive

pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would not cause objectionable odors.



4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

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, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (1, 2, 3, 9, 20, 21, 22, 23,29)

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (20, 21, 9)

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, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? (9)

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? (9, 20)

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (1, 2, 3, 4)

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (1, 2, 3)


Comments:

a. A biological resources database search for the project site was completed by EMC

Planning Group Inc. in May 2015 and site visits to review existing conditions were

conducted in August and October 2008. A search of the California Department of Fish

and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2015) was

conducted to identify special status species that have been previously documented in the

project vicinity or have the potential to occur in the project vicinity based on suitable

habitat and geographical distribution. The project site is located within the Newman 7.5-

minute United States Geology Service (USGS) topographic quadrangle. Occurrence

information from the subject quadrangle plus the eight surrounding quadrangles was

compiled for evaluation of the potential presence of special status species. See

Appendix A for the list of species.

Richard James, AICP, principal planner with EMC Planning Group Inc., conducted the

site visits on August 28, 2008 and October 7, 2008. The visits consisted of walking

throughout the project site, making observations of plant and wildlife species, and

collecting representative photographs. A search was also conducted for potential

jurisdictional water features. A desktop review of the site was conducted by Stefanie

Krantz, wildlife biologist with EMC Planning Group Inc., in May of 2015.

The project site is surrounded by urban and agricultural land. The project formerly had a

house, driveway, and ornamental plants on the southeast corner of the project site, but

these structures were cleared in 2009, and the site now consists of a fallow field with just

four trees on its borders.

The project site is located within four miles of a known Swainson’s hawk (Buteo

swainsoni) nesting location. Swainson’s hawks are listed as endangered by the CDFG and

as a “species of concern” by the USFWS. The Swainson's hawk is a medium-sized hawk

with relatively long, pointed wings and a long, square tail. Swainson's hawks breeding in

the Central Valley of California may spend the winter in Mexico and Columbia.

Preferred prey includes small mammals such as California vole (Microtus californicus),

California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and deer mouse (Peromyscus

maniculatus), as well as insects and other small birds. Over 85 percent of Swainson’s

hawk territories in the Central Valley are in riparian systems, or lone trees or groves of

trees in agricultural fields. Swainson's hawks require large, open grasslands with

abundant prey in association with suitable nest trees. Suitable foraging areas include

native grasslands or lightly grazed pastures, alfalfa and other hay crops, and certain grain

and row croplands.



Because the project site includes vacant land adjacent to agricultural land and

Swainson’s hawks are known to nest near the project area, the CDFW will likely

consider the project site suitable foraging habitat. Based on regulations regarding take of

species and their habitats and birds of prey set forth in the Fish and Game Code

(Sections 2080-2085 and Section 3503.5, 1992, respectively), the federal Migratory Bird

Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989), and standards of significance

established by CEQA, impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitat are

considered significant. The Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks

in the Central Valley of California (California Department of Fish and Game 1994) includes

recommended measures to mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawk.

Policy NR-3.3 of the General Plan recommends initiating cooperation with other

jurisdictions to develop a regional Habitat Management Plan and to provide guidelines

and standards to mitigate impacts on special-status species such as Swainson’s hawk.

Policy NR-3.9 would require new development to avoid active nests for special-status

bird species. Policy NR-3.1 would require new development to meet all federal, State

and regional regulations for habitat and species protection, which would include

Swainson’s hawk. With these policies in place, the impact would be less than significant;

however, at the time of the publication of this initial study, a Habitat Management Plan

has not been approved for the project area. Mitigation for habitat loss is therefore

required on a project by project basis.

The extent of any necessary mitigation should be negotiated with CDFW, however past

mitigation recommended by CDFW for loss of foraging habitat has been at a ratio of 1.5

acres of suitable foraging habitat for every one acre utilized by the proposed project

within one mile of an active nest tree, 0.75 acres of suitable foraging habitat for every one

acre utilized by the proposed project within five miles of an active nest tree, and 0.5 acres

of suitable foraging habitat for every one acre utilized by the proposed project within 10

miles of the active nest tree. The proposed project is located within a five-mile radius of a

nesting location, as shown on Figure 5, Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Locations and

Foraging Habitat Radii. The following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to

Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures

BIO-1. The project developer shall be responsible for mitigating the loss of Swainson’s hawk

foraging habitat and comply with the following measures:

a. Developers will compensate for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat by

providing habitat management lands to California Department of Fish and

Wildlife as defined in the Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to


Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California (California Department of

Fish and Game 1994). The project site is located within a five-mile radius of a

Swainson’s hawk nest as shown on Figure 5, Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Locations

and Foraging Habitat Radii. The location, habitat quality, and amount of land

appropriate for mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the

California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

b. Prior to obtaining clearance to grade the site or conducting any earthmoving

activity for the proposed project, developers shall place and record one or more

Conservation Easements that meet the acreage requirements determined in

negotiations with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The conservation

easement(s) shall be executed by the developer and a conservation operator. The

city may, at its discretion, also be a party to the conservation easement(s). The

conservation easement(s) shall be reviewed and approved in writing by California

Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to the recordation for the purpose of

confirming consistency. The purpose of the conservation easement(s) shall be to

preserve the value of the land as foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk.

Proof of mitigation compliance shall be presented to the City of Newman Community

Development Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.

BIO-2. If construction is proposed to commence between March 1 and September 15, pre-

construction surveys for Swainson's hawk and other nesting raptors shall be conducted by a

qualified biologist. If any active nests are located within a half mile of proposed heavy

equipment operations or construction activities, the project proponent shall consult with the

California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine the appropriate course of action

to reduce potential impacts on nesting raptors and to determine under what circumstances

equipment operation and construction activities can occur.



Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 and BIO-2 would ensure impacts to

Swainson’s hawk are less than significant by requiring mitigation the loss of Swainson’s

hawk foraging habitat and a pre-construction survey for bird nests (should construction

be scheduled during the nesting season) and implementation appropriate measures (as

determined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) should any active nests

be found.

Project Site

k

93

24472447

46

399

548

24512449

2446

2450

USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, NationalElevation Dataset, Geographic Names Information System, NationalHydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, NationalStructures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; U.S. CensusBureau - TIGER/Line; HERE Road Data

Source: California Deparment of Fish and Wildlife 2015, USGS The National Map 2015

Figure 5

Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Locations and Foraging Habitat RadiiT Street Annexation Initial Study

0 3.00 miles

Project Site Buffers

One-mile Buffer

Three-mile Buffer

Five-mile Buffer

Swainson's Hawk: Recordedoccurrences with occurrencenumber

Swainson's Hawk: Five-mile bufferfrom recorded occurrence points

Swainson's Hawk



San Joaquin kit fox. San Joaquin kit fox are listed as endangered by the USFWS and as

threatened by the CDFW. Kit fox typically inhabits annual grasslands or grassy open

spaces with scattered shrubby vegetation, but can also be found in some agricultural

habitats and urban areas. San Joaquin kit foxes need loose-textured sandy soils for

burrowing, and they also need areas that provide a suitable prey base, including black-

tailed hare (Lepus californicus), desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii), and California

ground squirrels, as well as birds, reptiles, and carrion.

The project site is located along the southeastern edge of Newman and is contiguous

with urban development including residential development (to the east, south and west),

and schools and parks (to the north and northeast). Kit fox is known to occur primarily

west of the project vicinity.

Although breeding habitat is not present at the project site, the fallow fields may be

utilized for foraging or migration habitat. Should San Joaquin kit fox move on or

immediately adjacent to the project site, construction and site preparation activities on

the project site could result in disturbance to individuals of this species or its habitat. This

would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation

measures will reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures

BIO-3. No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of grading or

construction activities on the project site, a field survey shall be conducted by a qualified

biologist to determine if active kit fox dens are located on or within 150 meters

(approximately 500 feet) of the project site. If an active kit fox den is detected within the

survey area, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will be contacted immediately to

determine the best course of action.



BIO-4. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the project applicant shall arrange for a

qualified biologist to inform workers of the potential presence of San Joaquin kit fox, their

protected status, work boundaries, and measures to be implemented to avoid loss of these

species during construction activities. Avoidance and minimization measures may include,

but not be limited to, measures identified in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or

During Ground Disturbance (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2011) including the

following measures:


a. Any trench or pit deeper than two feet shall include ramps of either fill or planks to

prevent kit fox from becoming trapped in the trench or pit;

b. Pipes, culverts, and other hollow materials greater than four inches in diameter

shall be stored in a manner that will prevent kit foxes from using these materials as

temporary refuge. In addition, these materials shall be inspected for kit foxes daily,

prior to the onset of construction activities; and

c. During construction activities, all food-related trash items shall be enclosed in

sealed containers and regularly removed from the project site to avoid attracting

wildlife to the project site, and pets shall not be allowed on the construction site.

The proper location of the trash containers shall be subject to the review and

approval of the City of Newman Community Development Department.

d. During construction activities, project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime

speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county

roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night

when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the

extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to

10-mph.

e. During construction activities, no pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted

on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of

dens.

Proof of mitigation compliance shall be presented to the City of Newman Community Development

Department prior to issuance of a grading permit

Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 and BIO-4 would ensure impacts to San

Joaquin kit fox are less than significant by requiring presence/absence surveys prior to

construction and avoidance and minimization measures during construction.

Burrowing owl. Burrowing owl is a CDFW Species of Special Concern, and is protected

by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They are considered by the USFWS to be a Bird of

Conservation Concern at the national level. Burrowing owls live and breed in burrows in

the ground, especially in abandoned ground squirrel burrows. Optimal habitat conditions

include large, open, dry, and nearly level grasslands or prairies with short to moderate

vegetation height and cover, areas of bare ground, and populations of burrowing

mammals. This species occurs in open, dry grasslands, deserts, and shrub-lands with

low-growing vegetation; it usually occupies natural burrows excavated by other fossorial

species such as the California ground squirrel. Burrowing owls have also been known to

utilize man-made areas such as culverts, concrete rubble piles, and artificial dens for



breeding sites. In open habitats, they prefer flat, open areas where the vegetation is

relatively short, affording an observable vantage point from which to evade potential

predators, however, they have been known to breed on fallow fields in urban areas with

tall vegetation.

Resident burrowing owls are rare in Stanislaus County. There are no known breeding

records of this species in the immediate vicinity of Newman, although this may be due to

lack of survey effort rather than reflecting true absence. Burrowing owls have low

potential to occur on the site due to neighboring and historical land uses. However, due

to the lack of development on the project site, and the presence of foraging habitat in the

surrounding agricultural fields, this species could occur on the site. Therefore, if the

project site has been undisturbed (i.e. not disked) for two years prior to development, the

following mitigation measure shall be required:

Mitigation Measure

BIO-5. To avoid/minimize potential impacts to burrowing owls, the project developer will retain a

qualified biologist to conduct a two-visit (i.e. morning and evening) presence/absence

survey at areas of suitable habitat on and adjacent to the project site no less than 14 days

prior to the start of construction. Surveys shall be conducted according to methods described

in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and

Wildlife 2012). If these pre-construction “take avoidance” surveys performed during the

breeding season (February through August) or the non-breeding season (September through

January) for the species locate occupied burrows in or near the construction area, then

consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife would be required to

interpret survey results and develop a project-specific avoidance and minimization

approach.

The project developer shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure.

Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure impacts to burrowing owls

are less than significant by requiring presence/absence surveys for habitat (should it be

determined that the site has been undisturbed for two years prior to development) and

implementation of avoidance measures should any active burrows be found.

Other Nesting Birds. Vegetation adjacent to the project site has the potential to provide

breeding habitat for nesting birds protected by the California Fish and Wildlife Code

and/or the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If any active nest(s) of protected bird

species should occur adjacent to the site, then construction activities or vegetation

removal, if conducted during the bird nesting season (February 1 through September 15),

could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of


an active nest. This would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following

mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure

BIO-6. If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities

begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), or if construction

activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the nesting bird

season, then the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-

construction survey for nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable nesting

habitat areas adjacent to the project site to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed

during project implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than two weeks

prior to the initiation of disturbance/construction activities. A report documenting survey

results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the

qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Newman for review and approval prior to

disturbance and/or construction activities.

If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as

scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is detected during the survey,

then a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall determine and clearly delineate an

appropriately sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on

the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed disturbance and/or

construction activities.

The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 50-300 feet, determined at

the discretion of the qualified biologist and in compliance with applicable project permits.

To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance

and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the

juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at

nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist.

The project developer shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure.

Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6 would ensure impacts to nesting birds are

less than significant by requiring a pre-construction survey for bird nests (should

construction be scheduled during the nesting season) and implementation of avoidance

measures should any active nests be found.

b/c. Based on the site visits and review of aerial photographs, the project site contains no

riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural community. The Army Corps of Engineers

claims jurisdiction over agricultural canals when they are connected or drain to a

jurisdictional water (hydrologic connection). Based on the site visits, the minor drainage



channels along the western project boundary do not appear connected to jurisdictional

waters and permits to disturb the ditches are not required.

d. The project site does not contain wildlife movement corridors. Implementation of the

proposed project would not affect movement of wildlife species.

e. There are no trees on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project

would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

f. Development of the project site would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or a

Natural Community Conservation Plan. There are no habitat conservation plans or

natural community conservation plans in the city.


5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 15064.5? (6,8)

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? (11)

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (2, 3)

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (11)

a. There are no homes or other structures on the site. Therefore, there will be no impact regarding a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

b. An archival records search at the Central California Information Center did not reveal any known prehistoric or historic resources in or around the project site. A general surface reconnaissance did not reveal any evidence of significant archaeological materials. The possibility remains that unknown buried cultural resources could be discovered during construction; disturbance of such resources would be a significant environmental impact. The following standard procedures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

CR-1. The following language shall be included on any permits issued for the project site,

including, but not limited to, grading and building permits for future development.

In the event that significant prehistoric traces (artifacts, concentrations of shell/bone/

rock/ash) are encountered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop within a

fifty (50) meter radius of the find until the Newman Planning Department is notified and

an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented.

CR-2. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following

language shall be included in all permits.

If human remains are found during construction there shall be no further excavation or

disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human

remains until a coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death



is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall

contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American

Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely

descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make

recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for

means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and

associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The

landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human

remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location

not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is

unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours

after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a

recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the

recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage

Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Implementation of mitigation measure CR-1 and CR-2 would require construction to be

halted and appropriate evaluation and actions be taken should archaeological resources

be discovered during construction. Implementation of the mitigation measures would

reduce potentially significant impacts associated with significant archaeological

resources to a less-than-significant level.

c. Paleontological resources are not known to exist in the city (General Plan Draft EIR

page 4.5-10).

d. Disturbance of unknown buried human remains during construction would be a

significant environmental impact. Implementation of the standard procedures as

included in Mitigation Measure CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce this potential impact to a

less than significant level.


6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

(1) 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. (2, 3, 14)

(2) Strong seismic ground shaking? (2, 3)

(3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (2, 3)

(4) Landslides? (8)

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (2, 3)

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (2, 3)

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? (2, 3)

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (9)



Comments:

a. The project site is about two miles northeast of the nearest known earthquake fault, the

San Joaquin Fault. There is no Alquist-Priolo fault map covering the project site. The

General Plan EIR determined that building standards will mitigate the effects of ground

shaking from earthquakes, and soils in the city are not subject to liquefaction (General

Plan EIR page 4.6-13). The project site is level and not subject to landslides.

b-d. The project site is underlain by Vernalis Loam, which has moderate erosion potential

and low to moderate expansive potential (General Plan EIR page 4.6-9). General Plan

policy HS-1.1 requires preparation of a soils report for all new development, and requires

that any identified soil problem be mitigated in the design and construction of the new

structures. Policy HS-1.2 requires preparation of geotechnical reports for all new major

development projects, and requires that new structures be designed and built to

withstand the effects of seismically-induced ground failure. Policy HS-1.4 requires all

new construction and renovations conform to the California Building Codes, which

include specific seismic design and construction requirements. Implementation of these

general plan policies would ensure that the impacts associated with seismic events would

be mitigated to a less than significant level.

The General Plan EIR (page 4.6-8) determined that because the city is on level ground,

the potential for erosion from water was limited, and the greater erosion potential was

from wind. General Plan policy NR-2.5 requires preparation of soil erosion control

plans. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District regulation VIII requires

developers to develop dust control plans that would limit the erosion of soil from wind.

e. The proposed project would connect to the city’s wastewater collection and treatment

system.


7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (26, 27, 28)

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (26, 27, 28)

Comments:

a/b. The project site is within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control

District (air district). The air district has provided guidance for addressing greenhouse

gas (GHG) impacts of new land use projects. The guidance suggests that proposed

projects which reduce GHG emissions volumes by 29 percent below business-as-usual

conditions would have a less-than-significant GHG impact (San Joaquin Valley Air

Pollution Control District 2009). Business-as-usual conditions are those existing in the

2002-2004 period. The guidance suggests that GHG emissions be quantified, with GHG

emissions reduction measures incorporated into a project if its annual GHG emissions

volume does not meet the 29 percent reduction guidance.

For purposes of the proposed project, quantification of GHG emissions is not deemed

necessary and its GHG impact is less than significant. These determinations are based on

several factors. First, the project size is small. The air district does not have screening

criteria for determining the size of different types of land use development projects that

would have less-than-significant GHG emissions impacts. However, two nearby air

districts, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the San Luis Obispo Air

Pollution Control District do have such criteria. The Bay Area Air Quality Management

District deems single-family development projects of 56 units or less to have a less-than-

significant GHG impact (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010, Table 3-1).

For the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, the screening threshold is 70

units for projects located in urban areas and 49 units for projects located in rural areas

(San Luis Obispo Air Quality Management District 2012, Table 1-1). Both of these air

districts have determined that projects of these sizes or smaller would not constrain the

ability of each district to meet the GHG emissions reduction goal set forth in AB 32, the



Global Warming Solutions Act. Their determinations were made based on substantial

evidence. Clearly, the project size of up to 10 single-family dwelling units is substantially

below these two comparative screening thresholds.

A second factor owes to GHG emissions reductions for the project that accrue to state

regulations and programs. GHG emissions reductions from state legislation and state

regulations enacted to implement the 2008 and 2014 AB 32 Scoping Plans are not part of

the air district’s business-as-usual condition. The Scoping Plan contains the programs

being implemented by the state to meet AB 32 emissions reductions targets. Reductions

from state actions whose implementation has already begun are reasonably foreseeable.

Examples of these programs include the Pavley I Rule, Low Carbon Fuel Standard,

Renewable Portfolio Standard, and Title 24, Part 6, Building and Appliance Energy

Efficiency. GHG reductions from such legislation and regulations contribute to the air

district’s 29 percent target reduction goal. For projects of the type and size proposed,

these reductions are often sufficient to reduce GHG emissions to 29 percent or more

below business-as-usual, without the need for project-specific mitigation, such that the

project impact would be less-than-significant.


8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (9)

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? (9)

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (9)

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, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (2, 3, 15)

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 a public-use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (2, 3, 6)

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (2, 3, 6)

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1, 2, 3, 9)

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands area adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (2, 3, 8)



Comments:

a-d. The proposed project is residential and would not involve the use of significant quantities

of hazardous materials. A search of the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s

EnviroStor database revealed only two hazardous materials sites in Newman, both of

which were on Hills Ferry Road, several miles to the east of the project site, and one

evaluation site, more than a mile southeast of the project site.

e/f. The nearest general aviation airports are 15 miles away in Turlock and Oakdale and the

nearest airport with scheduled service is 30 miles away in Modesto. A private airstrip

used for crop-dusting planes is located about one mile north of the project site. Flights

from the private airstrip are not frequent and the General Plan EIR concludes that the

risk is less than significant (General Plan EIR page 4.7-12).

g. The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan.

However, refer to Section 15 Transportation/Traffic for discussion of emergency vehicle

access.

h. The city is surrounded by agricultural land and not subject to wildfires.


8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (1, 2, 3, 5, 16,30)

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., would the production rate of preexisting nearby wells drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (1, 2, 3, 5, 31)

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? (1, 2, 3, 8, 9)

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 run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (1, 2, 3, 8, 9)

e. Create or contribute run-off water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? (1, 2, 3, 5, 8)

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (1, 2, 3, 19)

g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (2, 3)




Impact



Impact

No Impact

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (2, 3)

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? (2, 3)

j. Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (2, 3, 6, 7, 8)

Comments:

a. The city’s wastewater treatment plant is located about 3/4 of a mile to the northeast of

the city along Hills Ferry Road. The city has adequate treatment plant capacity to serve

the existing city, and a new collection pipe adequate to serve new development to the

north of the city. According to the General Plan EIR (page 4.14-9), current and approved

development will bring the plant to slightly above its operating capacity, and expansions

are necessary to prevent spillage of treated effluent. The city has conducted engineering

for a plant expansion, and obtained authorization from the Regional Water Quality

Control Board to proceed. The city’s wastewater treatment expansion, completed in

2009, was designed to provide service required to serve the General Plan’s anticipated

development. The city’s infrastructure planning anticipates development at the proposed

density.

b. Municipal water service is provided by the city from groundwater wells at several

locations within the city. Additional wells will be constructed by the city and funded by

development impact fees; one new well is required for approximately 600 new

residences. Residential and some agricultural uses outside the city limits depend on wells

using the same aquifers as the municipal system (General Plan EIR pages 4.14-2 and

4.14-3). One of the city’s existing wells is located just east of the project site. According

to the General Plan EIR, the city has an adequate supply of groundwater to serve all

development anticipated at General Plan build-out. The proposed project (ten houses)

does not exceed the development density anticipated by the General Plan, so adequate

groundwater supplies exist to serve the proposed project. In addition, the city’s Water

Rate Study (Stantec Consulting Services Inc. and Hansford Economic Consulting 2012)

analyzed the adequacy of revenues and provided alternatives for ensuring the city has

adequate funds to cover recurring operating and maintenance costs as well as needed

capital costs while supporting water service obligations through 2022 (based on


development buildout of the general plan). Therefore, adequate water supplies and

service provision would also be available for the proposed project.

c/d. The project site is essentially level. An irrigation ditch located off-site to the west ends

with a gate onto the project site; a shallow drainage ditch at the western boundary of the

project site that appears to have served for irrigation of the site in the past. The proposed

project would direct site drainage via pavement, gutters, and pipes into the city storm

drainage system at Orestimba Road. The changes to site drainage patterns would not

result in erosion or flooding.

e. Most of the city’s storm drainage eventually flows eastward within a major collector pipe

beneath Inyo Avenue, and then into the Newman Wasteway, southeast of the city.

Storm drainage from the proposed project would drain through various storm water

pipes and eventually into the Inyo Avenue pipe. A section of the Inyo Avenue pipe is

undersized to meet the needs of General Plan build-out. However, the city plans to

upgrade this section to 60-inch pipe to accommodate build-out flows (General Plan EIR

page 4.14-8). The proposed project would pay a storm drainage fee that would contribute

toward the funding of this upgrade.

f. Urban pollutants (oils, fertilizers, garden pesticides, etc.) from the proposed project could

make their way into storm water run-off and eventually into the Newman Wasteway and

potentially other surface waters or the groundwater. General Plan policies NR-2.2 and

NR-2.5 require best management practices to reduce storm water pollutants. Since the

population of the city has now exceeded 10,000 persons (the 2015 population is

estimated at 10,753 by the Department of Finance), the city is subject to the NPDES

Phase II storm water quality requirements.

g/h. The project site is not within a 100-year flood zone (General Plan EIR page 4.8-3).

i/j. The project site is not in an area affected by inundation from dam failures, seiche, or

tsunami. The project site is level and not subject to mudflows.



9. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Physically divide an established community? (1, 8, 9)

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? (1, 2, 3)

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1, 2, 3)

Comments:

a. The proposed project would not physically divide the community.

b. The project site is located in an area designated as Planned Mixed Residential (PMR).

The PMR land use designation allows for single-family detached homes and a mix of

Very-Low, Low, Medium and High density residential uses. Given the small project size,

a LDR designation is appropriate. 2030 General Plan LU-15 identifies LDR density in

the range of three to six units per gross acre. The gross project size is 3.01 acres x 3 units

per acre = 9 units minimum; therefore, the proposed 10 units would be acceptable to

meet General Plan density requirements.

LAFCO would ultimately approve the annexation and pre-zoning of the project site.

Annexation to an adjacent city is in conformance with LAFCO’s general priorities for

annexations as stated in LAFCO Policy 4. The proposal includes appropriate pre-zoning

in conformance with LAFCO Policy 5. The proposed project is consistent with LAFCO

Policy 20, which requires logical boundaries. The proposed project is contiguous to the

existing city limits on the north and east, and follows property lines on the south and

west. The proposed project is within the primary sphere of influence and would not

result in an island of incorporated land. The proposed project would not result in the

premature conversion of important farmland (refer to Section 2.0 Agricultural


Resources). The city would be able to adequately serve the proposed project (refer to

Section 13 Public Services and Section 16 Utilities and Service Systems in this initial

study).

c. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in

the city.



10. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (1, 2, 3)

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land-use plan? (1, 2, 3)

Comments:

a/b. The vicinity of Newman contains concrete-grade aggregate, which is mined in several

locations outside the city’s sphere of influence. The project site could potentially contain

these aggregate resources, but is not designated by the state as an aggregate resource area

(General Plan EIR page 4.6-14).


11. NOISE

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies? (1, 2, 3)

b. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (1, 2, 3, 8, 9)

c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (1, 2, 3)

d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (1, 2, 3)

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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (2, 3, 6, 7)

f. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (2, 3, 6, 7)

Comments:

a. General Plan policy HS-6.1 establishes a standard of 45 Ldn for residential interiors, 60

Ldn for private single-family residential yards (typically backyards) and 65 Ldn for multi-

family exteriors. General Plan build-out traffic will increase noise to unacceptable levels

near many of the city’s collector and arterial streets. Assuming 80-foot rights-of-way, the

60 Ldn contour would be located about 70 feet into the project site along T Street, and

about 120 feet into the project site along Orestimba Road. Sound attenuation would be



required in order to meet single-family residential exterior noise standards in backyards

within 80 or 120 feet of these streets (General Plan EIR Appendix A Table A-1). The

proposed project places the backyards of at least five houses within the 65 Ldn contour,

and includes a six-foot tall masonry wall. Exposure to exterior noise over 60 Ldn is a

significant environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure

would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

N-1. For single family lots with rear or side yards facing onto Orestimba Road, the builder shall

have an acoustical analysis prepared to determine noise levels at the backyards of those

houses, and to recommend fence or wall designs to reduce backyard noise levels to no

greater than 60 Ldn. The acoustical analysis shall accompany the redesigned tentative

subdivision map. The recommended noise attenuation designs shall be completed prior to

occupancy of those houses.

Implementation of Mitigation N-1 requiring noise attenuating project designs and

features would reduce the effects to a less than significant level.

Due to the noise attenuating value of current residential construction, interior noise

levels would not typically be greater than the 45 Ldn standards; however, the California

Building Code requires proof of sound transmission compliance for residential building

interiors when the building exterior is exposed to greater than 60 Ldn. Builders must

demonstrate that interior noise levels will be within the allowable 45 Ldn level.

b. There are no sources of significant vibration at or near the project site.

c. Traffic noise is the greatest source of noise in the project site vicinity. At General Plan

buildout, Orestimba Road in the project vicinity is planned to carry 6,500 vehicles per

day (General Plan Draft EIR, Appendix B, Table 6). The proposed project’s share of

those vehicle trips is about 95 vehicle trips per day. This small increase in vehicle-related

noise would not have a measurable effect on the noise environment.

d. Temporary construction noise could result in noise levels of more than 80 dBA at project

site boundaries and could adversely affect residents at nearby houses on T Street and

Orestimba Street. Exposure of residences to construction noise is a potentially significant

environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would

reduce this impact to a less than significant level:


Mitigation Measure

N-2. Construction activity shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 7:00

PM and Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM in accordance with Newman 2030 General

Plan Policy HS-6.9.

e/f. The nearest general aviation airports are 15 miles away in Turlock and Oakdale and the

nearest airport with scheduled service is 30 miles away in Modesto. A private airstrip

used for crop-dusting planes is located about one mile north of the project site. Flights

from the private airstrip are not frequent and not result in a noise effect at the project site.



12. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (1, 2, 3, 8)

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (9)

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (9)

Comments:

a. The proposed annexation is within the city’s primary sphere of influence and would not

induce significant population growth. The proposed project would not extend

infrastructure or foster growth beyond that planned in the General Plan.

b/c. The proposed project would result in the construction of ten new houses. The proposed

project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing.


13. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of

or 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 following public services:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Fire protection? (1, 2, 3, 5, 17)

b. Police protection? (1, 2, 3, 5, 17)

c. Schools? (1, 2, 3, 18)

d. Parks? (1, 2, 3, 5)

e. Other public facilities? (1, 2, 3)

Comments:

a/b. The city’s police department is staffed with 13 sworn officers, a code enforcement officer, and three professional staff members (City of Newman website, http://www.cityofnewman.com/departments/fire.html). The city has a 30 member volunteer force, led by a fire chief and two assistant fire chiefs (General Plan pages PFS-7 through PFS-10 and City of Newman website, http://www.cityofnewman.com/ departments/fire.html). The proposed project would shift the responsibility for primary response from the Stanislaus County Sheriff to the city police department, and from the West Stanislaus County Fire District to the city’s fire department. Thus, there would be an incremental increase in demands on the city’s fire and police services. The proposed project would pay a development impact fee to cover the pro-rata share of the cost of additional facilities that would be needed as the city grows. The proposed project would not require any new facilities in order to maintain existing levels of service. The city’s services planning anticipates three to six units per acre on the project site, so if a higher density development were constructed on the project site, it would pay a proportionately higher development impact fee and would be adequately served by the city’s fire and police departments.

c. The nearest elementary school to the project site is Hunt Elementary (within 1/4 mile

north of the project site). Yolo Middle School (1/2 mile south of the project site) and

Orestimba High School (within 1/4 mile north of the project site) serve the entire city.

Hunt Elementary opened for the 2003-2004 school year to provide additional elementary

school capacity for the city.



Future development of the project site would be required by law to pay development

impact fees to each affected school district at the time of the building permit issuance.

These fees are used by the school districts to mitigate impacts to school facilities with

new development in accordance with State law. Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the

California Government Code, payment of these fees “is deemed to be full and complete

mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not

limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in

government organization or reorganization.” The number of students associated with the

future residential development of the proposed 10 dwelling units would be very small

and is not anticipated to require provision of, or need for, new or physically altered

school facilities. Nonetheless, with the payment of state-mandated impact fees, any

environmental impacts associated new students generated by future development of the

project site would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

d. The project is located near two city parks. The additional residents generated by the

proposed project would incrementally increase demand on public park facilities. The

proposed project would pay development impact fees to off-set its additional demand on

parks facilities.

e. The proposed project would add additional demand for library services within the city.

The city is served by Stanislaus County libraries. About three-quarters of the cost of

library capital and operational expenses are funded through a County-wide sales tax.

Expansion would be required as the city’s population increases. The General Plan EIR

determined that although expansion may be necessary, that there was no significant

impact on library services (General Plan EIR page 4.12-15).


14. RECREATION


Impact



Impact

No Impact

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? (1, 2, 3, 5)

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (9)

Comments:

a. The project site is near two city parks. The additional residents generated by the

proposed project would incrementally increase demand on public park facilities. The

proposed project would pay development impact fees to off-set its additional demand on

parks facilities.

b. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities.



15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

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 the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (1, 2, 3, 9, 25)

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 25)

c. 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? (9)

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (8)

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? (1, 2, 3, 9)

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1, 2, 3)

g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? (1, 2, 3, 9)

Comments: The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ standard traffic generation factors for

single-family residential development is slightly under 10 weekday trips per unit, of which 10

percent each are assumed to occur in the morning or afternoon peak traffic hours (Trip

Generation Manual, 9th Edition 2012). The weekday morning peak hour of traffic generally falls

within the 7:00 to 9:00 am period and the weekday afternoon peak hour is typically in the 4:00

to 6:00 pm period.


There is currently no development on the project site and therefore no traffic generated from the

site. Utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ generation factors, future residential

development of ten single family homes would generate an estimated 95 daily trips, of which

eight would be in the morning peak hour and ten would be in the afternoon peak hours.

a/b. The project site is at the southwest corner of the intersection formed by Orestimba Road,

Yolo Street, T Street, and Hardin Road. Orestimba Road is planned as a two-lane

arterial, and the other streets are planned as two-lane major collector streets. At General

Plan build-out this intersection is planned to include left turn lanes on each leg and a

signal light.

The city’s level of service (LOS) standard is LOS C. All streets and intersections near the

project site currently operate at LOS A or LOS B. The proposed project would add an

estimated 95 daily trips to local streets. The proposed project would not cause any of the

nearby roadway segments or intersections to operate at unacceptable levels of service.

At build-out of the General Plan, the segments of Orestimba Road, Hardin Road and

Yolo Street near the project site are projected to operate at LOS A or LOS B. The

proposed project does not include development at higher densities than the General Plan

assumptions that were utilized in preparing the General Plan traffic modeling. Therefore,

development of the proposed project (10 units) would not result in significant increases

of traffic or unacceptable levels of service on these street segments. With improvements

proposed in the General Plan (turn lanes and traffic signal), the intersection of Orestimba

Road, T Street, Hardin Road and Yolo Street is projected to operate at LOS D at

General Plan build-out, with delays of about 44 seconds during the morning peak. The

General Plan EIR determined that even with the planned improvements, the level of

service at this intersection could not be improved to LOS C, and that build-out of the

General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact (General Plan EIR

Table 4.13-7). The proposed project would pay the city’s traffic impact fee, which

mitigates the proposed project’s contribution to this impact.

c. The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns.

d. The proposed subdivision design would not result in hazards to vehicles.

e. General Plan Policy CD-4.5 requires that uninterrupted emergency vehicle access should

be provided at the end of a cul-de-sac. The proposed project includes a cul-de-sac, but it

measures only about 300 feet long and has a turn-around bulb at the end, so the impact

would be less than significant.



f. The city requires new development to provide off-street parking spaces in accordance

with the zoning ordinance. The proposed project would meet the city’s off-street parking

requirements.

g. General Plan policies CD-4.2 and CD-4.5 require subdivisions to be designed with a grid

pattern that emphasizes pedestrian connections. If cul-de-sacs are used, the ends must

provide for pedestrian and bicycle connections. The proposed project includes a cul-de-

sac, but it is only 300 feet long and does not contribute to significant pedestrian delay.

The proposed project would not result in a significant impact.


16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (1, 2, 3, 5, 16, 30)

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (1, 2, 3, 5, 16,30)

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? (1, 2, 3,31)

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (1, 2, 3)

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (1, 2, 3, 5, 16,30)

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid-waste disposal needs? (1, 2, 3)

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? (1, 2, 3)

Comments:

a/b. The city’s wastewater treatment plant is located about three-quarters of a mile to the

northeast of the city along Hills Ferry Road. The wastewater treatment plant provides

primary and secondary treatment, with the treated discharge water used to irrigate non-

food crops on farmland on the treatment plant site. The city has adequate treatment



plant capacity to serve the existing city, and a new collection pipe adequate to serve new

development to the north of the city. According to the General Plan EIR (page 4.14-9),

current and approved development will bring the plant to slightly above its operating

capacity, and expansions are necessary. The city conducted engineering for a plant

expansion, and in 2008 received authorization from the Regional Water Quality Control

Board to proceed. The city’s wastewater treatment expansion was designed to provide

service required to serve the General Plan’s anticipated development. The wastewater

expansion was completed in 2009.

The city’s General Plan and recent infrastructure planning anticipates 3 to 6 units per

acre on the project site, so development of 10 units would be accommodated by the city’s

wastewater infrastructure.

According to the General Plan EIR (page 4.14-3) a new municipal well is required with

the addition of each 600 new residential units. The proposed project would pay a city

development impact fee to defray its fair share cost of additional well development. The

development of new municipal wells would be subject to separate CEQA review as a

city-sponsored project. The city’s distribution system was upgraded during the 1980s and

is considered adequate to serve future growth (General Plan page PFS-2). The proposed

project would extend lines into the project site from existing lines in adjacent streets. The

city’s infrastructure planning anticipates three to six units per acre on the project site, so

development of 10 units would be accommodated by the city’s infrastructure.

c. Most of the city’s storm drainage eventually flows eastward within a major collector pipe

beneath Inyo Avenue, and then into the Newman Wasteway, southeast of the city.

Storm drainage from the proposed project would drain through various storm water

pipes and eventually into the Inyo Avenue pipe. A section of the Inyo Avenue pipe is

undersized to meet the needs of the city’s General Plan build-out (General Plan EIR

page 4.14-13). However, the city plans to upgrade this section to 60-inch pipe to

accommodate build-out flows. The proposed project would pay a storm drainage fee that

would contribute toward the funding of this upgrade. The city’s infrastructure planning

anticipates three to six units per acre on the project site, so construction of 10 units

would be accommodated by the city’s infrastructure. The storm drainage upgrade would

be subject to separate CEQA review as a city-sponsored project.

d. The city relies on groundwater supplies. According to the General Plan EIR (page

4.14-7), the city has an adequate supply of groundwater to serve all development

anticipated at General Plan build-out. The proposed project does not exceed the

development density anticipated by the General Plan, so adequate groundwater supplies

exist to serve the proposed project. The city’s infrastructure planning anticipates three to


six units per acre on the project site, so development of 10 units would be accommodated

by the city’s infrastructure.

e. Refer to the discussion of items a/b.

f/g. The city contracts for removal of garbage and recyclable materials from residential

curbsides. Waste is brought to the Fink Road landfill at Crow’s Landing, where it is

either recycled, buried, or burned in a co-generation energy plant. The land fill has

adequate capacity to serve build-out of the General Plan (General Plan EIR page

4.14-17). The city’s General Plan anticipates three to six units per acre on the project site,

so development of 10 units as proposed by the project would be accommodated.



17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (1, 2, 3, 9, 20, 21, 22, 23,29)

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)? (1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21)

c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (1, 2, 3, 8)

Comments:

a. The proposed project could have significant effects on two special status species:

San Joaquin kit fox and Swainson’s hawk. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2

require compensation for lost Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and pre-construction

surveys for Swainson’s hawk; Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 require pre-

construction surveys for San Joaquin kit fox and implementation of protection measures

during construction; BIO-5 requires a presence/absence surveys for habitat (should it be

determined that the site has been undisturbed for two years prior to development) and

implementation of avoidance measures should any active burrows be found; and BIO-6

requires a pre-construction survey for bird nests (should construction be scheduled

during the nesting season) and implementation of avoidance measures should any active

nests be found. These mitigation measures would reduce the effect of these biological

resources impacts to a less than significant level.


The proposed project would not affect important examples of California history or pre-

history.

b. The proposed project would contribute to cumulative adverse effects on agricultural

resources, air quality, biological resources, public services and utilities, and traffic as part

of the build-out of the General Plan.

The proposed project would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts on

regional air quality; however, the proposed project represents only ten of a projected

8,873 new residential units at General Plan build-out, so the proposed project’s

impact would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would

contribute to the cumulative loss of habitat for two special status species, but Mitigation

Measure BIO-1 would require the proposed project to compensate for the loss of this

habitat and this would reduce the proposed project’s cumulative impact to a less

than significant level. The proposed project would require additional public services

and utilities, which would result in a cumulative impact at build-out of the

General Plan; however, the proposed project would pay development impact fees

that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The proposed

project would contribute traffic to the intersection of Orestimba Road/Yolo Street/

Hardin Street/T Street, which is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service

at General Plan buildout. However, the proposed project would contribute only

approximately 95 of the projected 2,600 trips at this intersection and would pay a

traffic impact development fee. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a

cumulatively considerable impact on this intersection.

c. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse effects on human beings.



E. SOURCES 1. City of Newman. Newman 2030 General Plan. Adopted April 10, 2007.

2. City of Newman. Newman 2030 General Plan EIR. October 4, 2006.

3. Newman 2030 General Plan Final EIR. 2007.

4. Newman Municipal Code. http://codepublishing.com/ca/newman/(accessed May

2015).

5. City of Newman City-wide Services Master Plan (April 29, 2002).

6. Google Earth. Aerial Photographs dated 1991-2015.

7. USGS Topographic Map, Newman 1971.

8. Planner’s knowledge of the area and site visits (August 28, 2008 and October 7, 2008)

9. Project Plans (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, January 5, 2016)

10. Archaeological Resources Management. Historic Evaluation for 1035 T Street, Newman CA

September 25, 2008.

11. Archaeological Resources Management. Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Property at

1035 T Street in the City of Newman, Stanislaus County. September 25, 2008.

12. California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Rural Land Mapping Edition Stanislaus County Important Farmland 2012 Map. Published

February 2014.

13. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control

District Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL). June 2012.

http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/SPALTables61912.pdf

(accessed May 20, 2015).

14. California Department of Conservation. Index to Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones

Maps. 2015. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm (accessed May

19, 2015).

15. Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database search,

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mapfull.asp (accessed May 19, 2015).


16. ECO:LOGIC Engineers. City of Newman Wastewater Collection System Sewer System

Management Plan (SSMP). 2009.

http://www.cityofnewman.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layo

ut=blog&id=26&Itemid=82 (accessed May 2015).

17. City of Newman website. www.cityofnewman.com (accessed May 2015).

18. 2014 Annual Reports for Hunt Elementary School, Yolo Junior High School and

Orestimba High School.

http://www.nclusd.k12.ca.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=297890&type=d&pRE

C_ID=696151(accesssed June 1, 2015).

19. California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties,

and the State, January 1, 2011-2015, with 2010 Benchmark. Report. May 1, 2015.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/

research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php (accessed May 2015).

20. California Department of Fish and Game. California Natural Diversity Database,

Newman and surrounding eight quadrangles. 2015.

21. California Native Plant Society. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, Sixth

Edition. 2015.

22. California Department of Fish and Game. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to

Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California. 1994.

23. USFWS. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the

San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. 2011.

24. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating

Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015.

http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf (accessed May 20,

2015).

25. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. 2012.

26. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in

Addressing GHG Emissions for New Projects. 2009.



27. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality

Guidelines. 2010.

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Dra

ft_BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en (accessed May 26,

2015).

28. San Luis Obispo Air Quality Management District. A Guide for Assessing the Air Quality

Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review. 2012.

http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v1.p

df (accessed May 26, 2015).

29. CDFW. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 2012.

30. ECO:LOGIC. City of Newman Wastewater Collection System Master Plan – Draft. January

2008.

31. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. and Hansford Economic Consulting. City of Newman

Water Rate Study - Final Draft. June 2012.

All documents indicated with bold numbers are available for review at the City of Newman

Community Development Department, 938 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360,

(209) 826-3725 during normal business hours.

All documents listed above are available for review at EMC Planning Group Inc., 301

Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C, Monterey, California 93940, (831) 649-1799 during normal

business hours.

http://www.baaqmd.gov/%7E/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en

http://www.baaqmd.gov/%7E/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en

http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v1.pdf

http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v1.pdf

APPENDIX A

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN

THE PROJECT VICINITY

Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank

Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP

alkali milk-vetch

Astragalus tener var. tener

PDFAB0F8R1 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2

American badger

Taxidea taxus

AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC

bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

ABNKC10010 Delisted Endangered G5 S2 FP

big tarplant

Blepharizonia plumosa

PDAST1C011 None None G2 S2 1B.1

burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC

cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose

Branta hutchinsii leucopareia

ABNJB05035 Delisted None G5T3 S2

California horned lark

Eremophila alpestris actia

ABPAT02011 None None G5T3Q S3 WL

California linderiella

Linderiella occidentalis

ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3

California red-legged frog

Rana draytonii

AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC

California tiger salamander

Ambystoma californiense

AAAAA01180 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 SSC

Cismontane Alkali Marsh

Cismontane Alkali Marsh

CTT52310CA None None G1 S1.1

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh


Conservancy fairy shrimp

Branchinecta conservatio

ICBRA03010 Endangered None G1 S1

Delta button-celery

Eryngium racemosum

PDAPI0Z0S0 None Endangered G1Q S1 1B.1

diamond-petaled California poppy

Eschscholzia rhombipetala

PDPAP0A0D0 None None G1 S1 1B.1

giant garter snake

Thamnophis gigas

ARADB36150 Threatened Threatened G2 S2

golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP

Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest

Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest


heartscale

Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata

PDCHE040B0 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2

Query Criteria: Quad is (Crevison Peak (3712122) or Crows Landing (3712141) or Gustine (3712038) or Hatch (3712048) or Howard Ranch (3712121) or Ingomar (3712028) or Newman (3712131) or Orestimba Peak (3712132) or Patterson (3712142))

Report Printed on Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Page 1 of 3Commercial Version -- Dated May, 5 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch

Information Expires 11/5/2015

Selected Elements by Common NameCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife

California Natural Diversity Database



hispid salty bird's-beak

Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum

PDSCR0J0D1 None None G2T2 S2 1B.1

hoary bat

Lasiurus cinereus

AMACC05030 None None G5 S4

Hospital Canyon larkspur

Delphinium californicum ssp. interius

PDRAN0B0A2 None None G3T3 S3 1B.2

least Bell's vireo

Vireo bellii pusillus

ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2

Lemmon's jewelflower

Caulanthus lemmonii

PDBRA0M0E0 None None G3 S3 1B.2

lesser saltscale

Atriplex minuscula

PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1

Lime Ridge navarretia

Navarretia gowenii

PDPLM0C120 None None G1 S1 1B.1

loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

ABPBR01030 None None G4 S4 SSC

longhorn fairy shrimp

Branchinecta longiantenna

ICBRA03020 Endangered None G1 S1

Menke's cuckoo wasp

Ceratochrysis menkei

IIHYM71050 None None G1 S1

northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

ABNKC11010 None None G5 S3 SSC

pallid bat

Antrozous pallidus

AMACC10010 None None G5 S3 SSC

prairie falcon

Falco mexicanus

ABNKD06090 None None G5 S4 WL

prostrate vernal pool navarretia

Navarretia prostrata

PDPLM0C0Q0 None None G2 S2 1B.1

round-leaved filaree

California macrophylla

PDGER01070 None None G2 S2 1B.1

Sacramento splittail

Pogonichthys macrolepidotus

AFCJB34020 None None G2 S2 SSC

San Joaquin kit fox

Vulpes macrotis mutica

AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S2

San Joaquin Pocket Mouse

Perognathus inornatus

AMAFD01060 None None G2G3 S2S3

San Joaquin roach

Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 1

AFCJB19021 None None G4T3Q S3 SSC

San Joaquin spearscale

Extriplex joaquinana

PDCHE041F3 None None G2 S2 1B.2

San Joaquin whipsnake

Masticophis flagellum ruddocki

ARADB21021 None None G5T2T3 S2? SSC








Sanford's arrowhead

Sagittaria sanfordii

PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2

slender-leaved pondweed

Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina

PMPOT03091 None None G5T5 S3 2B.2

spiny-sepaled button-celery

Eryngium spinosepalum

PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2

steelhead - Central Valley DPS

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus

AFCHA0209K Threatened None G5T2Q S2

Swainson's hawk

Buteo swainsoni

ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3

Sycamore Alluvial Woodland

Sycamore Alluvial Woodland


tricolored blackbird

Agelaius tricolor

ABPBXB0020 None Endangered G2G3 S1S2 SSC

Valley Sacaton Grassland

Valley Sacaton Grassland


Valley Sink Scrub

Valley Sink Scrub


vernal pool fairy shrimp

Branchinecta lynchi

ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S2S3

vernal pool smallscale

Atriplex persistens

PDCHE042P0 None None G2 S2 1B.2

vernal pool tadpole shrimp

Lepidurus packardi

ICBRA10010 Endangered None G3 S2S3

western pond turtle

Emys marmorata

ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC

western red bat

Lasiurus blossevillii

AMACC05060 None None G5 S3 SSC

western spadefoot

Spea hammondii

AAABF02020 None None G3 S3 SSC

Yuma myotis

Myotis yumanensis

AMACC01020 None None G5 S4

Record Count: 56






of 2

T Street Annexation Project - Plan for Services Wastewater The city’s wastewater treatment plant is located about three-quarters of a mile to the northeast of the city along Hills Ferry Road. The wastewater treatment plant provides primary and secondary treatment, with the treated discharge water used to irrigate nonfood crops on farmland on the treatment plant site. The city has adequate treatment plant capacity to serve the existing city, and a new collection pipe adequate to serve new development to the north of the city. According to the General Plan EIR (page 4.14-9), current and approved development will bring the plant to slightly above its operating capacity, and expansions are necessary. The city conducted engineering for a plant expansion, and in 2008 received authorization from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to proceed. The city’s wastewater treatment expansion was designed to provide service required to serve the General Plan’s anticipated development. The wastewater expansion was completed in 2009. The city’s General Plan and recent infrastructure planning anticipates 3 to 6 units per acre on the project site, so development of 10 units would be accommodated by the city’s wastewater infrastructure. According to the General Plan EIR (page 4.14-3) a new municipal well is required with the addition of each 600 new residential units. The proposed project would pay a city development impact fee to defray its fair share cost of additional well development. The development of new municipal wells would be subject to separate CEQA review as a city-sponsored project. The city’s distribution system was upgraded during the 1980s and is considered adequate to serve future growth (General Plan page PFS-2). The proposed project would extend lines into the project site from existing lines in adjacent streets. The city’s infrastructure planning anticipates three to six units per acre on the project site, so development of 10 units would be accommodated by the city’s infrastructure. Storm Drain Most of the city’s storm drainage eventually flows eastward within a major collector pipe beneath Inyo Avenue, and then into the Newman Wasteway, southeast of the city. Storm drainage from the proposed project would drain through various storm water pipes and eventually into the Inyo Avenue pipe. A section of the Inyo Avenue pipe is undersized to meet the needs of the city’s General Plan build-out (General Plan EIR page 4.14-13). However, the city plans to upgrade this section to 60-inch pipe to accommodate build-out flows. The proposed project would pay a storm drainage fee that would contribute toward the funding of this upgrade. The city’s infrastructure planning anticipates three to six units per acre on the project site, so construction of 10 units would be accommodated by the city’s infrastructure. Water The city relies on groundwater supplies. According to the General Plan EIR (page 4.14-7), the city has an adequate supply of groundwater to serve all development anticipated at General Plan build-out. The proposed project does not exceed the development density anticipated by the General Plan, so adequate groundwater supplies exist to serve the proposed project. The proposed project would pay a water impact fee that would contribute towards water system costs. The city’s infrastructure planning anticipates three to. six units per acre on the project site, so development of 10 units would be accommodated by the city’s infrastructure. Waste Disposal The city contracts for removal of garbage and recyclable materials from residential curbsides. Waste is brought to the Fink Road landfill at Crow’s Landing, where it is either recycled, buried, or burned in a co-generation energy plant. The land fill has adequate capacity to serve build-out of the General Plan (General Plan EIR page 4.14-17). The city’s General Plan anticipates three to six units per acre

of 2

on the project site, so development of 10 units as proposed by the project would be accommodated. All waste disposal is paid for by developers/occupants. Roads The project site is at the southwest corner of the intersection formed by Orestimba Road, Yolo Street, T Street, and Hardin Road. Orestimba Road is planned as a two-lane arterial, and the other streets are planned as two-lane major collector streets. At General Plan build-out this intersection is planned to include left turn lanes on each leg and a signal light. More specifically located at the southwest corner of T Street and Orestimba Road, the project is designed as a cul-de-sac containing ten (10) lots ranging from 10,010 and 12,659 square feet; aligned in an east-west formation. Project access will be from Orestimba Road. Orestimba Road is identified as a 50 foot right-of-way on the Tentative Map. Although the road currently measures 50 feet in width, the general Plan identifies Orestimba Road as a 2-lane arterial with a minimum width of 54 feet (no on street parking). Therefore, a two foot (2’) roadway dedication will be made. Outside of the new cul-de-sac that is being developed, no new roads are required to serve the project site. Curb and gutter are currently present along the project’s T Street frontage and additional improvements such as sidewalk, curb and gutter will be installed as required. Said improvements will be identified on the project’s Improvement Plans. All improvements shall be financed by the developer. The city’s level of service (LOS) standard is LOS C. All streets and intersections near the project site currently operate at LOS A or LOS B. The proposed project would add an estimated 95 daily trips to local streets. The proposed project would not cause any of the nearby roadway segments or intersections to operate at unacceptable levels of service.

DATE: November 15, 2017 PROJECT TITLE: LAFCO APPLICATION NO. 2017-04 - Stanislaus … ·...

Documents

Transcript of DATE: November 15, 2017 PROJECT TITLE: LAFCO APPLICATION NO. 2017-04 - Stanislaus … ·...