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
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
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 2
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
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 3
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.)
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 4
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
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 5
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
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 6
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.
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 7
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
Yes UponAnnexation and
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
Yes UponAnnexation and
Development
Developer PaidCapital Facility Fees
3
Explain: Veteran's Memorial Fee. Communitv Benefit Fee
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 8
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
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 9
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
S TAN'SLA US LAFCOStanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission
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
S TAN'SLA US LAFCOStanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission
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
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 13
S TAN'SLA US LAFCOStanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission
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:
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 14
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
2015 LAFCO APPLICATION, PAGE 15
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.
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
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
4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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
6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
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
T Street Annexation Initial Study
Existing Project Site Conditions
Source: Google Earth 2015not to scale0 500 feet
Project Site
8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
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
T Street Annexation Initial Study
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
Source: Sousa Engineering Services 20160 80 feet
10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 11
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
12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 13
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.
14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 15
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.
16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 17
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:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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.
18 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 19
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:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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).
20 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 21
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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, 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)
22 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 23
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
24 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
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-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
26 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 27
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.
Proof of mitigation compliance shall be presented to the City of Newman Community
Development Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.
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:
28 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 29
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
30 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 31
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.
32 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 33
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.
34 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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)
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 35
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.
36 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 37
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.
38 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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)
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 39
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.
40 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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)
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 41
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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
42 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 43
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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
44 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 45
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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).
46 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
11. NOISE
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 47
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:
48 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 49
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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.
50 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 51
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).
52 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
14. RECREATION
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 53
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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.
54 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 55
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.
56 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 57
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
58 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 59
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated
Less-Than- Significant
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.
60 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 61
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).
62 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
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.
T STREET ANNEXATION (AX #16-01 AND VTTM #16-01) INITIAL STUDY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 63
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.
64 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
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
CTT52410CA None None G3 S2.1
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
CTT61410CA None None G2 S2.1
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
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP
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
Report Printed on Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Page 2 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
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank
Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP
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
CTT62100CA None None G1 S1.1
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020 None Endangered G2G3 S1S2 SSC
Valley Sacaton Grassland
Valley Sacaton Grassland
CTT42120CA None None G1 S1.1
Valley Sink Scrub
Valley Sink Scrub
CTT36210CA None None G1 S1.1
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
Report Printed on Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Page 3 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
Page 1 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
Page 2 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.
Top Related