Salida Sanitary District - Stanislaus LAFCO Rpts/SalidaSan.Pelandale.pdfSalida Sanitary District...

EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 27, 2010

Salida Sanitary District

City of Modesto

PELANDALE

District Sphere of Influence

NLEAF

LAFCO APPLICATION NO. 2010-03

PELANDALE COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION TO THE SALIDA SANITARY DISTRICT

PROPOSAL A request to annex approximately 9.43 acres to the Salida Sanitary District. The territory is located at the northeast corner of Pelandale Avenue and Sisk Road. (See detailed maps, Exhibit “A”.) 1. Applicant: Norm Soares, Bright Development 2. Property Owner: Bright Development 3. Location: Northeast corner of Pelandale

Avenue and Sisk Road, in the Salida area. 4. Parcels of Land Involved and Acreage: There is

one whole parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 135-029-019) and a small portion of Modesto Irrigation District canal right-of-way included in the proposal.

5. Reason for Proposal: The property has been

approved for commercial development by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors. Annexation to the Salida Sanitary District is being requested in order to obtain sewer service.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Stanislaus County, as Lead Agency, approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Community Plan Amendment and Rezone Application for the project on August 17, 2010. (See Exhibit “B”.) LAFCO, as a Responsible Agency, must consider the environmental documentation as prepared by the County. FACTORS The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires several factors to be considered by a LAFCO when evaluating a proposal. The following discussion pertains to the identified factors: a. Population and Land Use. The area is considered to be uninhabited by State law, as it

contains less than 12 registered voters. The subject territory has been zoned by the County as Planned Development for commercial uses within the Salida Community Plan area. The site falls within Tax Code Area 096-001 and the current assessed land value is $962,662.

b. Governmental Services and Controls: Essential governmental services which are provided to the subject area at the present time, and which will be provided after the proposal is finalized, are indicated in the following chart:

1

EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 27, 2010 PAGE 2

Type

Now Provided By

After Proposed Action Service Provided By:

Law Enforcement Stanislaus County Same Fire Protection Salida Fire Protection District Same Planning & Zoning Stanislaus County Same Building Inspection Stanislaus County Same Health Stanislaus County Same Street Maintenance Stanislaus County Same Domestic Water City of Modesto (Del Este) Same Public Sewer None Salida Sanitary District Mosquito Abatement

Eastside Mosquito Abatement District

Same

The Salida Sanitary District has adopted Resolution No. 1503, supporting the annexation of the proposed territory (Exhibit “C”). The action adopting the resolution indicates that the District is willing and able to provide services to the territory. In addition, the District has issued a will-serve letter for the property (Exhibit “D”).

c. Effect of Proposal: There are no social or economic communities of interest as defined by

the Commission in the area. The proposal is consistent with adopted Commission policies to encourage efficient and effective delivery of governmental services.

d. Conformity with Plans: The proposal is consistent with adopted Commission policies for

providing planned, orderly, and efficient patterns of urban development. e. Impact on Agricultural Lands: The property is surrounded by a variety of commercial and

light industrial uses. Per County Planning, it was approved for a commercial center in 1987, but never developed. It has since been used seasonally for a strawberry stand and Christmas tree sales.

f. Definiteness and Certainty of Boundaries: The proposed boundary includes one whole Tax

Assessor parcels and a small portion of the MID canal to the north, making it contiguous to existing Salida Sanitary District boundaries.

g. Consistency with General Plan(s), Regional Transportation Plans, and Specific Plans: The

proposal is consistent with the Stanislaus County General Plan and Salida Community Plan.

h. Conformance with Spheres of Influence: The territory is currently within the Salida Sanitary

District’s Sphere of Influence.

i. Comments from Affected Agencies and Jurisdictions: All affected agencies and jurisdictions have been notified pursuant to State law requirements and the Commission adopted policies. To date, no comments have been received.

2


j. Ability to Serve Proposed Area: In its resolution, the District states that it has both the capability and capacity to provide services to the annexation area. The current capacity of the Salida Sanitary District’s wastewater treatment plant is 2.4 million gallons per day (mgd). The proposed development is expected to discharge 0.035mgd (or 1.46% of the treatment plant’s total capacity). In addition, the applicant has prepared a Sewer Feasibility Analysis in order to demonstrate the ability of the extended infrastructure to accommodate not only the Pelandale Commercial site, but the neighboring Greenleaf Court area, should those properties request annexation in the future. The Sewer Feasibility Analysis is attached to this report as Exhibit “E”.

k. Water Supplies: The property is in the former Del Este service area and has received a

will-serve letter from the City of Modesto for water service. l. Regional Housing Needs: Not applicable. m. Landowner Comments: The landowner, as applicant, has consented to the change of

organization.

n. Other Land Use Information: Although outside the City of Modesto’s sphere of influence, the property is directly adjacent the City’s current limits and Sphere.

o. Environmental Justice: As defined by the Government Code, “environmental justice” means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the location of public facilities and the provision of public services. Staff has determined that approval of the annexation would not result in the unfair treatment of any person based on race, culture or income with respect to the provision of services within the proposal area.

WAIVER OF CONDUCTING AUTHORITY PROCEEDINGS Government Code Section 56663(c) allows the Commission to waive conducting authority proceedings with regards to uninhabited areas entirely if both of the following apply: 1. All the owners of the land within the affected territory have given their written consent to the

change of organization or reorganization.

2. No subject agency has submitted written opposition to a waiver of protest proceedings. As the above two conditions have been met, conducting authority proceedings may be waived, following Commission’s consideration of the proposal. ALTERNATIVES FOR LAFCO ACTION After consideration of this report and any testimony or additional materials that are submitted, the Commission should consider choosing one of the following options:

Option 1: APPROVE the proposal, as submitted by the Applicant. Option 2: APPROVE the proposal with amendment(s). Option 3: DENY the proposal without prejudice.

3


Option 4: CONTINUE this proposal to a future meeting (maximum 70 days) for

additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Option 1. Based on the information and discussion in this report, including evidence presented, it is recommended that the Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2010-16, considering the necessary environmental documentation and approving the proposal as requested by Bright Development. Respectfully submitted,

Sara Lytle-Pinhey Sara Lytle-Pinhey Assistant Executive Officer Attachments: LAFCO Resolution 2010-16 (pg. 5) Exhibit A – Maps (pg. 8) Exhibit B – Environmental Documentation (pg. 11) Exhibit C – Salida Sanitary District Resolution No. 1503 (pg. 32) Exhibit D – District Will-Serve Letters (pg. 35) Exhibit E – Sewer Feasibility Analysis (pg. 39) (I:\LAFCO\Admin\SPECIAL DISTRICTS\Sanitary Districts\Salida Sanitary\Pelandale Commercial\Staff Report.doc)

4

LAFCO Resolution No. 2010-16

5

STANISLAUS COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

RESOLUTION

DATE: October 27, 2010 No. 2010-16 SUBJECT: LAFCO Application No. 2010-03 – Pelandale Commercial Change of Organization

to the Salida Sanitary District On the motion of Commissioner _______, seconded by Commissioner _______, and approved by the following: Ayes: Commissioners: Noes: Commissioners: Absent: Commissioners: Ineligible: Commissioners: THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to annex approximately 9.43 acres to the Salida Sanitary District; WHEREAS, the Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider the proposal on October 27, 2010, and notice of said hearing was given pursuant to Sections 56660 and 56661 of the California Government Code and Commission Policy; WHEREAS, the territory is considered uninhabited as it contains less than 12 registered voters; WHEREAS, Stanislaus County, as Lead Agency, prepared and subsequently approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Community Plan Amendment and Rezone for the subject property in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, there are no Williamson Act Contracts within the boundaries of the annexation; WHEREAS, based on adopted Commission policies, the inclusion of territory within the Salida Sanitary District boundaries is timely and appropriate when: a) the District has submitted evidence that it can serve the area; b) the site is contiguous to the existing District boundaries; and c) it is consistent with the County-approved Salida Community Plan; WHEREAS, at the time and in the form and manner provided by law, the Executive Officer has given notice of the October 27, 2010 public hearing by this Commission on this matter; and, WHEREAS, the Commission has, in evaluating the proposal, considered the report submitted by the Executive Officer, the factors set forth in Government Code Section 56668, and testimony and evidence presented at the meeting held on October 27, 2010.

6

pinheys

Draft

LAFCO Resolution No. 2010-16 October 27, 2010 Page 2

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission:

1. Certifies, as a Responsible Agency, that it has considered the environmental documentation prepared by Stanislaus County.

2. Determines that: (a) approval of the proposal is consistent with all applicable spheres of

influence, overall Commission policies and local general plans; (b) there are less than twelve (12) registered voters within the territory and it is considered uninhabited; (c) all the owners of land within the subject territory have given their written consent to the annexation; (d) no subject agencies have submitted written protest to a waiver of protest proceedings; and (e) approval of the proposal will encourage efficient and effective delivery of government services in the form of sewer service to the area.

3. Approves the proposal subject to the following terms and conditions:

a. The applicant shall pay State Board of Equalization fees, pursuant to

Government Code Section 54902.5.

b. The applicant agrees to defend, hold harmless and indemnify LAFCO and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against LAFCO and/or its agents, officers and employees to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of LAFCO concerning this proposal or any action relating to or arising out of such approval, and provide for the reimbursement or assumption of all legal costs in connection with that approval.

c. The application submitted has been processed as a change of organization

consisting of annexation of the subject territory to the Salida Sanitary District.

d. The effective date of the change of organization (annexation) shall be the date of recordation of the Certificate of Completion.

4. Designates the proposal as the “Pelandale Commercial Change of Organization to the

Salida Sanitary District”.

5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56663(c), waives the conducting authority proceedings and orders the change of organization consisting of the annexation of territory to the Salida Sanitary District, subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 57000 et seq.

6. Authorizes and directs the Executive Officer to prepare and execute a Certificate of Completion in accordance with Government Code Section 57203, upon receipt of a map and legal description prepared pursuant to the requirements of the State Board of Equalization and accepted to form by the Executive Officer, subject to the specified terms and conditions.

ATTEST: __________________________

Marjorie Blom Executive Officer

7

EXHIBIT A

Maps

8

LAFCO APPLICATION NO. 2010-03

PELANDALE COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION TO THE SALIDA SANITARY DISTRICTORGANIZATION TO THE SALIDA SANITARY DISTRICT

VICINITY MAP

District Sphere of Influence

Salida Sanitary District

City of Modesto

= Ex. Salida Sanitary District Boundary

= District Sphere of Influence

= Proposed Annexation Site (9.43 acres)

Source: LAFCO Files, August 2010

= City of Modesto

9

10

EXHIBIT B

Environmental Documentation

11

BY----_..~-:::-:-:._-----..:...

STANISLAUS COUNTYDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ANDCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT1010 10th Street, Suite 3400Modesto, California 95354

10

Fl LE

20

NOTICE OF DETERMINATIONFiling of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code

Project Title: Community Plan Amendment Application No. 2009-01, Rezone Application No. 2009-01 - PelandaleCommercial

Applicant Information: Bright Development/1620 N. Carpenter Road No. B-17 / Modesto, CA 95357 / (209) 526-8242

Project Location: Northeast corner of Pelandale Avenue and Sisk Road, in the Modesto area, Stanislaus County. APN:135-029-019

Description of Project: Request to amend the Salida Community Plan and zoning designation of an 8.71 acre parcel fromHighway Commercial Planned Development (HCPD) to Planned Development (P-D) and P-D (151) to a new P-D to permitconstruction of 107,000 square feet of new buildings for retail and drive thru businesses.

Name of Agency Approving Project: Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors

Lead Agency Contact Person: Rachel Wyse, Assistant Planner Telephone: (209) 525-6330

This is to advise that the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors on August 17, 2010 has approved the above describedproject and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project:

1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at:Stanislaus County Department of Planning and Community Development1010 10th Street. Suite 3400Modesto, California 95354

3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.

(1IStaffrptICPA\2009ICPA 2009-01 REZ 2009-01 - Pelandale CommerclallBOSINotice of Determinationwpd)

12

Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development

1010 10th Street, Suite 3400 Phone: (209) 525-6330Modesto, California 95354 Fax: (209) 525-5911

CEQA INITIAL STUDYAdapted from CEQA Guidelines APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text, October 26, 1998

1. Project title: Community Plan Amendment Application No.2009-01, Rezone Application No. 2009-01 -Pelandale Commercial

2. Lead agency name and address: Stanislaus County1010 10th Street, Suite 3400Modesto, CA 95354

3. Contact person and phone number: Rachel Wyse, Assistant Planner(209) 525-6330

4. Project location: Northeast corner of Pelandale Avenue and SiskRoad, within the Salida Community Plan area,adjacent to the city of Modesto. (APN: 135-029-019)

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Bright Development1620 N. Carpenter Road, Suite B-17Modesto, CA 95357

6. General plan designation: Planned Development

7. Zoning: Expired Planned Development P-D (151)

8. Description of project:

Request to amend the Community Plan from Highway Commercial Planned Development (HCPD) to PlannedDevelopment (PD) and rezone 8.71 acres of expired Planned Development zone P-D (151) to a new PlannedDevelopment zone to allow seven buildings for retail commercial, Big Box commercial and drive-thru businesses,totaling 107,000± square feet. The parcel will be served by City of Modesto water and the Salida Sanitary District.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Commercial/light industrial uses to the north, east,west and south. City of Modesto to the east andsouth. Highway 99 to the west.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g.,permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.):

Stanislaus County Public Works DepartmentStanislaus Fire Prevention BureauSalida Fire Protection DistrictCity of Modesto (water)Salida Sanitary DistrictCalTransStanislaus County Local Agency FormationCommission (LAFCO)

13

14

Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 3

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by theinformation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer isadequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projectslike the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explainedwhere it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitivereceptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

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

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers mustindicate 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 thereare one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation ofmitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less thansignificant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect hasbeen adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope ofand adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whethersuch effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,”describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extentto which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potentialimpacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individualscontacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies shouldnormally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whateverformat is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significant 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.

15


ISSUES

I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact

Less ThanSignificant

With MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but notlimited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildingswithin a state scenic highway?

X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualityof the site and its surroundings? X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which wouldadversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X

Discussion: The site itself is not considered to be a scenic resource or a unique scenic vista. Community standardsgenerally do not dictate the need or desire for architectural review of agricultural or residential subdivisions. Anydevelopment resulting from this project will be consistent with existing developments in the area. The City of Modestoresponded with specific requirements requiring compliance with the City’s Commercial and Industrial Guidelines. The projectsite is not within the City’s Sphere of Influence. Final approval of the design and placement of the proposed buildings willbe subject to the County Planning Director’s (or appointed designee’s) discretion, however, County Planning Staff will beincorporating some of the City’s Guidelines as Conditions of Approval. A Condition of Approval will be added to the subjectproject addressing nighttime lighting and shielding of parking lot lights.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whetherimpacts to agricultural resources are significant environmentaleffects, lead agencies may refer to the California AgriculturalLand Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared bythe California Department of Conservation as an optional modelto use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Wouldthe project:

PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ofStatewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the mapsprepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and MonitoringProgram of the California Resources Agency, to non-agriculturaluse?

X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or aWilliamson Act contract? X

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, dueto their location or nature, could result in conversion ofFarmland, to non-agricultural use?

X

Discussion: The project site is zoned Planned Development. Adjoining parcels are zoned for planned development useand are approved for a variety of commercial and light industrial uses. The project site was approved as a commercialcenter in 1987, but never developed. The subject parcel is currently in agricultural production and is planted with seasonalstrawberries and improved with a produce stand. The soils are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the CaliforniaState Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. There are two (2) types of soil on thesubject parcel: Tujunga sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, Index Rating of 43, and Grade of 3; Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 3 percentslopes, Index Rating of 95, Grade of 1. This project will not conflict with any bonafide agricultural operation.

16


Mitigation: None.


III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteriaestablished by the applicable air quality management or airpollution control district may be relied upon to make thefollowing determinations. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable airquality plan? X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially toan existing or projected air quality violation? X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of anycriteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainmentunder an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitativethresholds for ozone precursors)?

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations? X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? X

Discussion: The project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which has been classified as "severe non-attainment" for ozone and respirable particulate matter (PM-10) as defined by the Federal Clean Air Act. The San JoaquinValley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has been established by the State in an effort to control and minimize airpollution. As such, the District maintains permit authority over stationary sources of pollutants.

The primary source of air pollutants generated by this project would be classified as being generated from "mobile" sources.Mobile sources would generally include dust from roads, farming, and automobile exhausts. Mobile sources are generallyregulated by the Air Resources Board of the California EPA which sets emissions for vehicles and acts on issues regardingcleaner burning fuels and alternative fuel technologies. As such, the District has addressed most criteria air pollutantsthrough basin wide programs and policies to prevent cumulative deterioration of air quality within the Basin.

A referral response from the District determined that the proposed project may be subject to District Rule 9510 and willrequire the applicants to apply for an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) prior to final discretionary approval. Consequently, theapplicants shall be required to provide proof of AIA application prior to scheduling for a public hearing. All other Districtrequirements shall appear as Conditions of Approval.

Mitigation: None.

References: Referral response dated February 5, 2009, from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, SanJoaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Regulation VIII Fugitive Dust/PM-10 Synopsis, Stanislaus County General Planand Support Documentation1.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or throughhabitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fishand Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

17


b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat orother sensitive natural community identified in local or regionalplans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protectedwetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, orother means?

X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any nativeresident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with establishednative resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the useof native wildlife nursery sites?

X

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protectingbiological resources, such as a tree preservation policy orordinance?

X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HabitatConservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, orother approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan?

X

Discussion: It does not appear this project will result in impacts to endangered species or habitats, locally designatedspecies, or wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors. There is no known sensitive or protected species or natural communitylocated on the site. There are California Natural Diversity Database records of two (2) species, California tiger salamander(ambystoma californiense) and Swainson’s hawk (buteo swainsoni), along the Stanislaus River approximately 2.7 milesnorthwest of the project site, and one (1) species, the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (desmocerus californicusdimorphus), 1.6 miles southeast of the project site.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1, California Department of Fish and GameCalifornia Natural Diversity Database.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ahistorical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of anarchaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologicalresource or site or unique geologic feature? X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsideof formal cemeteries? X

Discussion: It does not appear this project will result in significant impacts to any archaeological or cultural resources.Community Plan Amendment applications require that a records search be compiled by the Central California InformationCenter and submitted to the Planning Department. Based on the records search submitted by the applicant, the subjectparcel has a low sensitivity for the possible discovery of historical resources. Cultural resources are not known to exist onthe project site. However, a standardized Condition of Approval shall be added to this project to address any discovery ofcultural resources during the construction phases.

18


Mitigation: None.


VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverseeffects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated onthe most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault ZoningMap issued by the State Geologist for the area or basedon other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer toDivision of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, includingliquefaction? X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or thatwould become unstable as a result of the project, andpotentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks tolife or property?

X

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ofseptic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems wheresewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

X

Discussion: As contained in Chapter 5 of the General Plan Support Documentation, the areas of the County subject tosignificant geologic hazard are located in the Diablo Range, west of Interstate 5. However, as per the 2007 CaliforniaBuilding Code all of Stanislaus County is located within a geologic hazard zone (Seismic Design Category D, E, or F) anda soils test may be required at building permit application. Results from the soils test will determine if unstable or expansivesoils are present. If such soils are present special engineering of the structure will be required to compensate for the soildeficiency. Any structures resulting from this project will be designed and built according to building standards appropriateto withstand shaking for the area in which they are constructed. Any earth moving is subject to Public Works Standards andSpecifications which considers the potential for erosion and run-off prior to permit approval. Likewise, any addition of aseptic tank or alternative waste water disposal system would require the approval of the Department of EnvironmentalResources through the building permit process, which also takes soil type into consideration within the specific designrequirements.

Mitigation: None.

References: California Building Code (2007), Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation - SafetyElement1.

19


VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would theproject:


Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmentthrough the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardousmaterials?

X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmentthrough reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditionsinvolving the release of hazardous materials into theenvironment?

X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutelyhazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quartermile of an existing or proposed school?

X

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardousmaterials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard tothe public or the environment?

X

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, wheresuch a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a publicairport or public use airport, would the project result in a safetyhazard for people residing or working in the project area?

X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would theproject result in a safety hazard for people residing or workingin the project area?

X

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with anadopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan?

X

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including wherewildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residencesare intermixed with wildlands?

X

Discussion: No known hazardous materials are on site. Pesticide exposure is a risk in agricultural areas. Sources ofexposure include contaminated groundwater which is consumed and drift from spray applications. Application of spraysis strictly controlled by the Agricultural Commissioner and can only be accomplished after first obtaining permits. The CountyDepartment of Environmental Resources (DER) is responsible for overseeing hazardous materials in this area. The projectwas referred to the Hazardous Materials Division of DER, but no response has been received to date.

The project site is located within a low-level flight plan according to the California Military Land Use compatibility AnalystReport. The project was referred to the US Military and the Airport Land Use Commission, but no response has beenreceived to date.

Mitigation: None.


20


VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischargerequirements? X

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interferesubstantially with groundwater recharge such that there wouldbe a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the localgroundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existingnearby wells would drop to a level which would not supportexisting land uses or planned uses for which permits have beengranted)?

X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orarea, including through the alteration of the course of a streamor river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosionor siltation on- or off-site?

X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orarea, including through the alteration of the course of a streamor river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surfacerunoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed thecapacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems orprovide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mappedon a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance RateMap or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures whichwould impede or redirect flood flows? X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injuryor death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of thefailure of a levee or dam?

X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

Discussion: Run-off is not considered an issue because of several factors which limit the potential impact. These factorsinclude a relative flat terrain of the subject site, and relatively low rainfall intensities. Areas subject to flooding have beenidentified in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Act. The project site itself is not located within arecognized flood zone and, as such, flooding is not an issue with respect to this project. On-site areas subject to floodinghave not been identified in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Act and/or County designated flood areas.

However, by virtue of paving for the building pad, parking and driveway, the current absorption patterns of water placed uponthis property will be altered. In order to address these issues, Public Works has provided a Condition of Approval requiringthe applicant to obtain a grading and drainage permit prior to moving any dirt on-site. The project application states thatthe applicant intends to address storm water runoff through underground storage. Public Works has indicated concern overthe on-site drainage for the project and whether there will be sufficient percolation for the amount of collected storm water.A Condition of Approval will be placed on the project requiring that storm drainage be addressed prior to issuance of abuilding permit. If underground storage is deemed to be insufficient and the project site is required to annex into a CountyService Area for the extension of storm drainage services, Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)approval will be required as the proposed project site is not located within a County Service Area (CSA). The project wasreferred to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, but to date no comments have been received.

21


The City of Modesto responded with Conditions of Approval based on the location of storm water retention. If storm wateris retained on site the applicant will be required to provide proof that the City will not be impacted by storm water from theproposed project during a 100 year 6 day storm event. If storm water is retained on a parcel within City limits the projectwill be required to comply with City of Modesto Standards for storm drainage volumes and disposal.

Mitigation: None.

References: Referral response dated February 11, 2009, from Stanislaus County Public Works, referral response datedFebruary 3, 2009, from LAFCO, referral response dated March 10, 2009 from the City of Modesto, Stanislaus CountyGeneral Plan and Support Documentation1.

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Physically divide an established community? X

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, orregulation 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 thepurpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ornatural community conservation plan? X

Discussion: The project site was zoned P-D 151 (Planned Development) with a General Plan of Planned Development,but that zoning has expired due to lack of development. The site has been surrounded by urban commercial/industrial usesfor some time. If approved, the project would reclassify the Community Plan and Zoning District as Planned Development.The applicants are proposing to change the Community Plan from HCPD to PD in an effort to allow more uses on the siteas the HCPD Community Plan designation limits development of the property to six (6) specific uses and four (4) accessoryuses, which are not consistent with the proposed development. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicablehabitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and will not physically divide an established community.

Mitigation: None.


X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resourcethat would be of value to the region and the residents of thestate?

X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineralresource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan?

X

Discussion: The location of all commercially viable mineral resources in Stanislaus County has been mapped by theState Division of Mines and Geology in Special Report 173. There are no known significant resources on the site.

Mitigation: None.


22


XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels inexcess of standards established in the local general plan ornoise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessivegroundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels inthe project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noiselevels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject?

X

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, wheresuch a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a publicairport or public use airport, would the project expose peopleresiding or working in the project area to excessive noiselevels?

X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would theproject expose people residing or working in the project area toexcessive noise levels?

X

Discussion: The site itself is impacted by the noise generated from existing commercial type uses and Highway 99. TheStanislaus County General Plan1 identifies noise levels up to 75 dB Ldn (or CNEL) as the normally acceptable level of noisefor industrial, manufacturing, utility, and agricultural uses, and 60 dB Ldn (or CNEL) as the normally acceptable level of noisefor Residential - Low Density Single-Family, Duplex, and Mobile Homes. The project site is flanked by commercial and lightindustrial developments, a canal and two (2) major thoroughfares (Pelandale Avenue and Sisk Road). There are noresidential neighborhoods in the immediate vicinity of the project site. On-site grading and construction resulting from thisproject may result in a temporary increase in the area’s ambient noise levels. Noise impacts associated with on-siteactivities will most likely not exceed the normally acceptable levels of noise for industrial and manufacturing zones. Propertyin agricultural production does exist across the canal to the northeast, however those parcels were rezoned SCP-PI withthe adoption of the Salida Initiative in 2007. The Modesto Irrigation District is requiring a 6-foot masonry wall be installedalong the north parcel boundary as a Condition of Approval. Consequently, a minimal noise buffer shall be installed. Thesite is not located within an airport land use plan, but is located beneath a low level flight path. The project was referred tothe Airport Land Use Commission and to the United States Military Agencies, but no responses have been received to date.

Mitigation: None.

References: Referral response dated February 17, 2009, from the Modesto Irrigation District, Stanislaus County GeneralPlan and Support Documentation1.

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, eitherdirectly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or otherinfrastructure)?

X

23


b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housingelsewhere?

X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating theconstruction of replacement housing elsewhere? X

Discussion: This project does not propose any significant type of growth inducing features, therefore, adverse affectscreated by population growth should not occur. New businesses are being proposed, however, the development will be anextension of the commercial center approved on the adjacent eastern parcels by the City of Modesto. No housing orpersons will be displaced by this project. The proposed parcel will be restricted to the approved uses and structures. Anyalterations to the use or building type could result in the developer being required to submit a Use Permit or Rezone tomodify the project beyond what was reviewed in compliance with CEQA. The site is currently improved with a seasonalproduce stand which will be removed prior to construction of the proposed structures. This project does not propose anytype of significant growth inducing features, therefore, adverse affects created by population growth should not occur.

Mitigation: None.


XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physicalimpacts associated with the provision of new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, need for new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, the construction of which couldcause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintainacceptable service ratios, response times or other performanceobjectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? X

Police protection? X

Schools? X

Parks? X

Other public facilities? X

Discussion: The County has adopted a standardized mitigation measure requiring payment of all applicable PublicFacilities Fees, as well as one for the Fire Facility Fees on behalf of the appropriate fire district, to address impacts to publicservices. In addition, first year costs of the Sheriff’s Department have been standardized based on studies conducted bythe Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s Department indicated that the subject project would have a less than significantimpact. However, Public Facility fees, Fire Facility fees and standardized Sheriff’s fees will be required upon issuance ofany building permits and will be placed as Conditions of Approval for this project. Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau andthe Salida Fire Protection District responded with Conditions of Approval. The District has further required that theapplicants enter into an agreement requiring a special tax, that will reflect the actual costs of providing fire and life safetyservices, be placed on the project. A Condition of Approval shall be added requiring that the developer pay applicable andcurrent school fees at the time of building permit issuance.

Mitigation: None.

References: Referral response dated February 3, 2009, from the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, referralresponse dated February 10, 2009, from the Salida Fire Protection District, referral response dated February 8, 2009, fromthe Stanislaus County Fire Prevention Bureau, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

24


XIV. RECREATION: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhoodand regional parks or other recreational facilities such thatsubstantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur orbe accelerated?

X

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require theconstruction or expansion of recreational facilities which mighthave an adverse physical effect on the environment?

X

Discussion: The proposed commercial project will not cause an increase in the use of existing recreational facilities asno dwelling units will be permitted as a part of this project.

Mitigation: None.

References: Referral response dated March 2, 2009, from the Stanislaus County Department of Parks and Recreation,Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation tothe existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicletrips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion atintersections)?

X

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of servicestandard established by the county congestion managementagency for designated roads or highways?

X

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either anincrease in traffic levels or a change in location that results insubstantial safety risks?

X

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)?

X

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supportingalternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X

Discussion: The project will increase traffic in the area. Primary access will be from a right-in/right-out driveway onCounty-maintained Sisk Road. However, the traffic study indicates that a number of the trips generated will use the existingaccess easements as reflected on the parcel which permit reciprocal access from the commercial center to the east. Thetraffic study further indicates that users of the commercial center to the east will use the proposed development during thesame trip. The City of Modesto is recommending a deacceleration lane onto the subject parcel be provided as a Conditionof Approval. The portion of Sisk Road adjacent to the project site belongs to Stanislaus County. Comments from the Cityof Modesto were forwarded to the Stanislaus County Public Works Department, but no further Conditions of Approval were

25


provided by the County requiring the deacceleration lane. The Stanislaus County Public Works Department and City ofModesto have reviewed this project and provided Conditions of Approval. The project was referred to CalTrans, whoresponded with clarification requests regarding the traffic study, however no Conditions of Approval have been provided todate.

The applicant hired Fehr & Peers to provide a Traffic Study. The Traffic Study made six (6) site recommendations. Staffhas incorporated five (5) of those items into Mitigation Measures. These Mitigation Measures address pedestrian safety,bicycle racks, truck delivery circulation and right-in/right-out access off of Sisk Road. Site Recommendation 6 of the trafficstudy was not incorporated as a mitigation measure as all handicap accessible parking is regulated by Uniform BuildingCode. Regardless of the distribution of ADA compliant parking spaces shown on the site plan all buildings will be required,at the time of building permit application, to meet ADA requirements for number of handicap accessible parking spaces.

Mitigation:

1. Restrict the Sisk Road driveway to right-in/right-out operations. Restricted access would minimize turningmovement conflicts and queuing impacts within the site and adjacent street system.

2. In development of the final site plan, the Project Applicant shall accommodate pedestrians at the vehicularconnections between the Project site and adjacent retail center.

3. Provide additional pedestrian crossing treatments across the main drive aisles.

4. The Project Applicant shall identify truck routes through the site and internal intersections and drive aisles shall bedesigned to accommodate the turning radii of delivery vehicles typically expected to make deliveries to the site.An AutoTURN analysis shall be conducted for delivery vehicle site access. Delivery time restrictions shall bedeveloped if delivery trucks are likely to impede on customer parking areas.

5. The Project Applicant shall provide at least 1 bicycle parking space per every 10 employees. Short-term patronstalls should be provided by each of the building areas, as well as secure employee bicycle parking at major siteemployers.

References: Referral responses dated February 17, 2009 and March 24, 2009, from CalTrans, referral response datedMarch 10, 2009, from the City of Modesto, referral response dated February 11, 2009, from Stanislaus County Public Works,Traffic Study dated January 7, 2009, from Fehr & Peers, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicableRegional Water Quality Control Board? X

b) Require or result in the construction of new water orwastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of which could cause significantenvironmental effects?

X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm waterdrainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could cause significant environmentaleffects?

X

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the projectfrom existing entitlements and resources, or are new orexpanded entitlements needed?

X

26


e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatmentprovider which serves or may serve the project that it hasadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand inaddition to the provider’s existing commitments?

X

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity toaccommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulationsrelated to solid waste? X

Discussion: Limitations on public utilities and service systems have not been identified. The applicants have obtainedwill-serve letters for water service from the City of Modesto and sewer service from Salida Sanitary District. Guidelines forconnecting to the water and sewer service, as indicated in the will-serve letters, will be reflected in the project’s Conditionsof Approval. The Conditions of Approval reflected in the will-serve letters are subject to change. However, the SalidaSanitary District will be required to obtain LAFCO approval, to extend its service area, prior to issuance of a building permit.Less than significant impacts associated with public utility easement(s) will be reflected in the project’s Conditions ofApproval. An early consultation was sent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, but to date no response has beenreceived.

Mitigation: None.


XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: PotentiallySignificant

Impact




Impact

NoImpact

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to dropbelow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant oranimal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of arare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate importantexamples of the major periods of California history orprehistory?

X

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”means that the incremental effects of a project are considerablewhen viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, theeffects of other current projects, and the effects of probablefuture projects)?

X

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will causesubstantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly orindirectly?

X

Discussion: Review of this project indicated the need for Mitigation Measures to address traffic and site issues. Staffhas incorporated Mitigation Measures into Section XV. Transportation/Traffic. Implementation of these Mitigation Measuresinsures that the project will not significantly impact the environmental quality of the site and/or the surrounding area.

I:\Staffrpt\CPA\2009\CPA 2009-01 REZ 2009-01 - Pelandale Commercial\Initial Study.PC.wpd

1Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation adopted in October 1994, as amended. Optional andupdated elements of the General Plan and Support Documentation: Agricultural Element adopted on December 18, 2007;Housing Element adopted on December 12, 2003 and certified by the California Department of Housing and CommunityDevelopment Department on March 26, 2004; Circulation Element and Noise Element adopted on April 18, 2006.

27

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

NAME OF PROJECT: Community Plan Amendment Application No. 2009-01, Rezone ApplicationNo. 2009-01 - Pelandale Commercial

LOCATION OF PROJECT: Northeast corner of Pelandale Avenue and Sisk Road, within the SalidaCommunity Plan area, adjacent to the city of Modesto. (APN: 135-029-019)

PROJECT DEVELOPER: Bright Development1620 N. Carpenter Road, Suite B-17Modesto, CA 95357

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Request to amend the Community Plan from Highway Commercial PlannedDevelopment (HCPD) to Planned Development (PD) and rezone 8.71 acres of expired Planned Developmentzone P-D (151) to a new Planned Development zone to allow seven buildings for retail commercial, Big Boxcommercial and drive-thru businesses, totaling 107,000± square feet. The parcel will be served by City ofModesto water and the Salida Sanitary District.

Based upon the Initial Study, dated May 5, 2009, the Environmental Coordinator finds as follows:

1. This project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, nor to curtail thediversity of the environment.

2. This project will not have a detrimental effect upon either short-term or long-term environmental goals.

3. This project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.

4. This project will not have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects uponhuman beings, either directly or indirectly.

The aforementioned findings are contingent upon the following mitigation measures (if indicated) which shallbe incorporated into this project:

1. Restrict the Sisk Road driveway to right-in/right-out operations. Restricted access would minimizeturning movement conflicts and queuing impacts within the site and adjacent street system.

2. In development of the final site plan, the Project Applicant shall accommodate pedestrians at thevehicular connections between the Project site and adjacent retail center.

3. Provide additional pedestrian crossing treatments across the main drive aisles.

4. The Project Applicant shall identify truck routes through the site and internal intersections and driveaisles shall be designed to accommodate the turning radii of delivery vehicles typically expected tomake deliveries to the site. An AutoTURN analysis shall be conducted for delivery vehicle siteaccess. Delivery time restrictions shall be developed if delivery trucks are likely to impede oncustomer parking areas.

5. The Project Applicant shall provide at least 1 bicycle parking space per every 10 employees. Short-term patron stalls should be provided by each of the building areas, as well as secure employeebicycle parking at major site employers.

The Initial Study and other environmental documents are available for public review at the Department ofPlanning and Community Development, 1010 10th Street, Suite 3400, Modesto, California.

Initial Study prepared by: Rachel Wyse, Assistant Planner

Submit comments to: Stanislaus CountyPlanning and Community Development Department1010 10th Street, Suite 3400Modesto, California 95354

(I:\Staffrpt\CPA\2009\CPA 2009-01 REZ 2009-01 - Pelandale Commercial\Mit Neg Dec.wpd)

28

Stanislaus CountyPlanning and Community Development

1010 10th Street, Suite 3400 Phone: (209) 525-6330Modesto, CA 95354 Fax: (209) 525-5911

Mitigation Monitoring PlanAdapted from CEQA Guidelines sec. 15097 Final Text, October 26, 1998

May 5, 2009

1. Project title and location: Community Plan Amendment Application No.2009-01, Rezone Application No. 2009-01 -Pelandale Commercial

Northeast corner of Pelandale Avenue and SiskRoad, within the Salida Community Plan area,adjacent to the city of Modesto. (APN: 135-029-019)

2. Project Applicant name and address: Bright Development1620 N. Carpenter Road, Suite B-17Modesto, CA 95357

3. Person Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Program (Applicant Representative): Norm Soares, Bright Development

4. Contact person at County: Rachel Wyse, Assistant Planner (209) 525-6330

MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM:

List all Mitigation Measures by topic as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and complete the formfor each measure.

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

No. 1 Mitigation Measure: Restrict the Sisk Road driveway to right-in/right-out operations. Restrictedaccess would minimize turning movement conflicts and queuing impactswithin the site and adjacent street system.

Who Implements the Measure: Applicant and future property owners.

When should the measure be implemented: Prior to or concurrent with building permit orgrading permit application.

When should it be completed: Prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit orfinal inspection for any building permit.

Who verifies compliance: Stanislaus County Public Works

Other Responsible Agencies: None

No. 2 Mitigation Measure: In development of the final site plan, the Project Applicant shallaccommodate pedestrians at the vehicular connections between the Projectsite and adjacent retail center.


29

Stanislaus County Mitigation Monitoring Plan Page 2CPA 2009-01 & REZ 2009-01 - Pelandale Commercial May 5, 2009



Who verifies compliance: Stanislaus County Planning Department,Stanislaus County Public Works, City of Modesto


No. 3 Mitigation Measure: Provide additional pedestrian crossing treatments across the main driveaisles.




Who verifies compliance: Stanislaus County Planning Department,Stanislaus County Public Works.


No. 4 Mitigation Measure: The Project Applicant shall identify truck routes through the site and internalintersections and drive aisles shall be designed to accommodate the turningradii of delivery vehicles typically expected to make deliveries to the site. AnAutoTURN analysis shall be conducted for delivery vehicle site access.Delivery time restrictions shall be developed if delivery trucks are likely toimpede on customer parking




Who verifies compliance: Stanislaus County Public Works, StanislausCounty Planning Department


No. 5 Mitigation Measure: The Project Applicant shall provide at least 1 bicycle parking space perevery 10 employees. Short-term patron stalls should be provided by eachof the building areas, as well as secure employee bicycle parking at majorsite employers.



30

Stanislaus County Mitigation Monitoring Plan Page 3CPA 2009-01 & REZ 2009-01 - Pelandale Commercial May 5, 2009


Who verifies compliance: Stanislaus County Public Works, StanislausCounty Planning Department


I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I understand and agree to be responsible for implementing theMitigation Program for the above listed project.

Signature on file May 5, 2009Person Responsible for Implementing DateMitigation Program

(I:\Staffrpt\CPA\2009\CPA 2009-01 REZ 2009-01 - Pelandale Commercial\Mit Mon Plan.wpd)

31

EXHIBIT C

Salida Sanitary District Resolution No. 1503

32

33

pinheys

Rectangle

34

pinheys

Rectangle

EXHIBIT D

District Will-Serve Letters

35

36

37

38

EXHIBIT E

Sewer Feasibility Analysis

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

Date post:	04-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Salida Sanitary District - Stanislaus LAFCO Rpts/SalidaSan.Pelandale.pdfSalida Sanitary District...

Documents