STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF … sr.pdfDec 03, 2009 · stanislaus county planning commission december 3, 2009 staff report tentative parcel map application no. 2007-28

STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

December 3, 2009

STAFF REPORT

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NO. 2007-28EXCEPTION APPLICATION NO. 2007-02

OSEGUERA

REQUEST: TO DIVIDE A 2.92-ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS OF 0.83, 0.82 AND1.27 ACRES IN THE R-A (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. ANEXCEPTION IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW A 30-FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT ONTWO LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A COUNTY-MAINTAINED ROAD. THEAPPLICANT HAS WAIVED THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT NEW DWELLINGS ONALL PARCELS UNTIL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF FURTHER DEVELOPMENTARE CONSIDERED BY A SPECIFIC PLAN AND/OR AN ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT IS APPROVED.

APPLICATION INFORMATION

Owner/Applicant: Antonio & Sonia Oseguera and Trinidad &Soledad Oseguera

Agent/Engineer: Jesse Stanley, Stanley Land SurveyingLocation: West side of Dillwood Road (9553 Dillwood

Road), 300 feet north of Hwy 108/120, in theeast Oakdale area

Section, Township, Range: 7-2-11Supervisorial District: One (Supervisor O’Brien)Assessor’s Parcel: 010-033-021Referrals: See Exhibit G

Environmental Review ReferralsArea of Parcels: Parcel 1: 1.27 acres

Parcel 2: 0.82 acresParcel 3: 0.83 acres

Water Supply: Water wellSewage Disposal: Septic tank/leach fieldExisting Zoning: R-A (Rural Residential)General Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)Williamson Act Contract No.: N/AEnvironmental Review: Negative DeclarationPresent Land Use: One single-family residential dwelling and

open land in the rear of the propertySurrounding Land Use: The property is surrounded by ranchette-style

parcels, larger agricultural parcels to thesouth and a rural-residential subdivision tothe west

1

PM 2007-28, EXC 2007-02Staff ReportDecember 3, 2009Page 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

This is a request to subdivide a 2.92-acre parcel into three parcels in the R-A (Rural Residential)zoning district with a Low Density Residential General Plan designation. Parcel 1 is proposed at1.27 acres, Parcel 2 is proposed at 0.82 acres, and Parcel 3 is proposed at 0.83 acres. No newuses or dwellings are being proposed. The application includes a request for an exception fromthe Stanislaus County Subdivision Ordinance, which would allow an access easement on two lotsthat do not front on a county-maintained road.

The applicants have submitted two maps. The original parcel map provides a 30-foot accesseasement along the northern portion of the property. (See Exhibit "A-7" - Original Parcel Map) Inan effort to address concerns raised by the County Public Works Department, the applicants havesubmitted an alternative map providing a 25-foot easement along the southern property line. (SeeExhibit "A-8" - Alternative Parcel Map) The parcel map being presented to the PlanningCommission for consideration is the original parcel map which has undergone environmentalreview. If the alternative map were to be approved, the Planning Commission would need to makeaddition findings to show the alternative placement of the easement is equivalent to or moreeffective in mitigating impacts associated with the proposed project. Concerns raised by PublicWorks are provided in the “Discussion” portion of this report.

Since 2005, the project site has been identified as being within the East Oakdale Specific Planarea. (See Exhibit “A-5” - East Oakdale Specific Plan Area) Within the Specific Plan (SP) area,cumulative impacts such as traffic, water, wastewater, and fire protection have been identified asneeding to be reviewed before development can be considered. The Department of EnvironmentalResources also has raised concerns with placement of additional septic systems on smaller lotswithin the East Oakdale Specific Plan area. New dwellings need to be evaluated for “Measure X”and engineered septic systems which, depending on the intensity of development within the EastOakdale Specific Plan area, could necessitate a larger parcel size. Public Works has identified theneed for the SP to show how the traffic circulation and infrastructure needs, such as storm drainageand water, will be addressed.

Including this application, there have been three parcel map applications and one subdivision mapapplication submitted within the SP area and the applications have all been placed on hold pendingcompletion of a SP and related environmental review. (See Exhibit "A-6" - East OakdaleApplications) The subdivision map has since been withdrawn from the active project list and oneof the parcel maps has been approved by the Planning Commission.

On July 16, 2009, the Planning Commission approved Parcel Map 2008-12 and Exception 2008-03- Mark Layton following an appeal of staff’s determination regarding the need for a SP and relatedenvironmental review to be completed before the project be considered. The appeal was grantedon the grounds the project could be approved if the applicant voluntarily waived their rights toconstruct any new dwellings. The Layton parcel map proposed to create two parcels with anexisting single-family dwelling unit on each of the proposed parcels.

The proposed parcel map is similar to the Layton parcel map with respect to the applicantsvoluntarily waiving their right to construct any new dwellings. However, this parcel map proposesthe creation of two undeveloped (vacant) residential parcels.

2


If the Planning Commission approves this project, the applicants can record their parcel map, butcannot build any new homes before a SP and related environmental review are completed. Thereis currently one other parcel map application, Parcel Map 2006-40 - Randy Thomas, still on hold.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The property is located on the west side of Dillwood Road, at 9553 Dillwood Road, north of Highway108/120, in the East Oakdale area. The property gains access via Dillwood Road, which can beseen in Exhibit A - Maps. An existing single-family residence, which will remain, can be found onthe eastern portion of the property. The rest of the property is irrigated pastureland. The residenceis served by a private well and a septic system.

DISCUSSION

The site is designated Low Density Residential in the Land Use Element of the General Plan andzoned R-A (Rural Residential), which requires a minimum lot size of twenty thousand square feetif the parcel is serviced by public water and a private septic tank. A Will-Serve letter addressingthe three lots is attached in Exhibit B, Applicant’s Submittal. As of November 6, 2009, the Will-Serve letter has expired. However, the applicants are working with the Oakdale Irrigation District(OID) to obtain a new Will-Serve letter and, based on staff discussions with OID, there is noindication the applicants will have a problem obtaining a new Will-Serve letter. This project isconditioned to require a valid Will-Serve letter be provided to the County prior to the parcel mapbeing recorded. The Department of Environmental Resources has indicated that the existing wellwill need to be destroyed (Exhibit C, Condition No. 9). If this application were to be approved, OIDhas stated that the existing dwelling shall connect to the District’s domestic water system. The timeframe for the existing home to connect will be prior to the parcel map being recorded.

Proposed Parcels 2 and 3, in the rear of the property, do not have access to or frontage on acounty-maintain road. The County requires that residential lots front on a public maintained road,hence the need for the exception. According to the Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau and OakdaleRural Fire Protection District, the proposed exception will not affect the District’s ability to accessthe proposed parcels during emergencies. The Public Works Department does not favor theproposed exception. However, if the exception were to be approved, Public Works recommendsthe easement be moved to the southern property line to provide an opportunity for a shareddriveway between the project site and the parcel to the south. A shared driveway will help toreduce the number of future driveways onto Dillwood Road. Due to the setback of the existingdwelling from the southern property line, a 30-foot easement cannot be accommodated and, assuch, the applicants alternative map proposes a 25-foot easement. The portable shed found in thisarea and the existing carport will need to be removed and relocated. The large English Walnut treewill not be affected by the access easement in the southern location.

As stated earlier, the proposed map being considered for approval is the applicants original parcelmap with a 30-foot easement along the northern property line. Exhibit “F” includes Public Worksresponse letter dated November 20, 2009 which provides conditions of approval for the alternativemap providing a 25-foot easement along the southern property line.

3


In order to approve an exception, the Planning Commission must make the following findings:

a) That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property beingdivided;

b) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantialproperty right of the owner;

c) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare,injurious to other property in the neighborhood of the subdivision, and that it will notconstitute a special privilege not enjoyed by others under similar circumstances; and

d) The granting of the exception will not be in conflict with the purposes and objectivesof the general plan or any element thereof or any specific plan.

The exception is simply to allow the rear parcels access from Dillwood Road by easement, and notrequire construction of an additional county-maintained road. The applicants have provided a“Findings Statement” (Exhibit B - Applicant’s Submittal), which states that the project is consistentwith the County General Plan, and will not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by others undersimilar circumstances; listing three nearby properties along Dillwood Road. While staff does notagree that all three of the applicants examples illustrate similar circumstances, there have beensimilar exception requests approved along Dillwood Road and within the East Oakdale SpecificPlan area. Where the requests differ is in showing a special circumstance or condition applying tothe property being divided. In this case, the applicants have not identified any special circumstanceor condition applying to the property which would limit the ability to construct a new road along thenorthern property boundary.

One of the items to be addressed by the East Oakdale Specific plan is circulation. In this case, theproject site is adjacent to three parcels, one to the south and two to the north, which are largeenough to be further subdivided. Without completion of the SP it is unclear if the proposed designof the subdivision, requiring an exception, is likely to contribute towards cumulative environmentalimpacts.

In order to approve the parcel map, the following findings must be made:

a) The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and community plans asspecified in Section 65451;

b) The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicablegeneral and specific plans;

c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development;

d) The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development;

e) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to causesubstantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish orwildlife or their habitat;

4


f) The design of the subdivision or type of improvement is not likely to cause seriouspublic health problems; and

g) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict witheasements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, propertywithin the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body mayapprove a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will beprovided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquiredby the public.

In the case of the Layton parcel map discussed earlier, the two proposed parcels were each alreadydeveloped with a single-family dwelling. In this case, the project proposes the creation of twovacant residential parcels which cannot be developed. If and when a SP is completed for the area,it will not be possible to integrate the project site into a circulation system serving the parcels to thenorth and south as a result of the site having already been subdivided. There may also be issueswith requiring future development on the proposed parcel to contribute their fair-share of feesidentified by the SP as being necessary for development of the East Oakdale Specific Plan area.As such staff believes this request is premature and will establish a precedence for allowing thecreation of other vacant residential parcels when property owners voluntarily waive their rights toconstruct new dwellings. Staff is also concerned that if this project is approved and a precedenceis set, when and who is going to move forward with the East Oakdale SP and how willimplementation occur if parcels are allowed to be created before the SP is even developed andcumulative effects of parcel divisions considered as part of the environmental review.

The purpose of a SP is to allow for the systematic implementation of the General Plan for all or partof the area covered by the General Plan. Creating parcels prior to preparation of a SP erodes thepurpose for adopting such a plan. Based on the discussion above, staff does not believe all of theexception or parcel map findings required for approval of this project can be made.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project was circulatedto all interested parties and responsible agencies for review and comment. Based on the InitialStudy prepared for this project, adoption of a Negative Declaration is being proposed. The InitialStudy and comments to the Initial Study have not presented any substantial information to identifya potential significant impact needing to be mitigated based on the project description. Responsesreceived from agencies have been incorporated into this project as conditions of approval (seeExhibit C - Conditions of Approval).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing discussion, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny TentativeParcel Map Application No. 2007-28 and Exception Application No. 2007-02 - Oseguera.

Should the Planning Commission determine the project can be approved, staff recommends thefollowing findings:

5


1. Adopt the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), by findingthat on the basis of the whole record, including the Initial Study and any commentsreceived, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect onthe environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects Stanislaus County’s independentjudgement and analysis.

2. Order the filing of a Notice of Determination with the Stanislaus County Clerk-RecordersOffice pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and CEQA Guidelines Section15075.

3. Find that:

a) The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and community plans asspecified in Section 65451;

b) The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicablegeneral and specific plans;

c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development;

d) The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development;

e) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to causesubstantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish orwildlife or their habitat;

f) The design of the subdivision or type of improvement is not likely to cause seriouspublic health problems;

g) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict witheasements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, propertywithin the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body mayapprove a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will beprovided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquiredby the public;

h) That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property beingdivided;

i) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantialproperty right of the owner;

j) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare,injurious to other property in the neighborhood of the subdivision, and that it will notconstitute a special privilege not enjoyed by others under similar circumstances;

k) The granting of the exception will not be in conflict with the purposes and objectivesof the general plan or any element thereof or any specific plan.

6


4. Approve Tentative Parcel Map Application No. 2007-28 and Exception Application No.2007-02 - Oseguera, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.

*****

Note: Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, all project applicants subject tothe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall pay a filing fee for each project. Therefore,the applicant will further be required to pay $2,050.00 for the Department of Fish and Game andthe Clerk Recorder filing fees. The attached Conditions of Approval ensure that this will occur.

Report written by: Sean D. Purciel, Associate Planner, November 12, 2009Reviewed by: Bill Carlson, Senior Planner

Attachments: Exhibit A - MapsExhibit B - Applicant’s SubmittalExhibit C - Conditions of ApprovalExhibit D - Initial StudyExhibit E - Negative DeclarationExhibit F - Referral ResponsesExhibit G - Environmental Review Referrals

(I:\Staffrpt\PM\2007\PM 2007-28 EXC 2007-02 - Oseguera\Staff Reports\Staff Report_11-20-2009.wpd)

7

Vicinity Map

HWY 108 120

DILLW

OO

D R

D

010- 033-021

DIXON RD

WA

MB

LE R

D

STEAR

NS

RD

SITE

CITYOF OAKDALE

STANISLAUS RIVER

PM 2007PM 2007--2828EXC. 2007EXC. 2007--0202

OsegueraOsegueraVICINITY MAP

SITE

8

General Plan

HWY 108 120

DILLW

OO

D R

D

010-033-021

SITE

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

AGRICULTURE

PM 2007PM 2007--2828EXC. 2007EXC. 2007--0202

OsegueraOsegueraGENERAL PLAN

9

Zoning

HWY 108 120

DILLW

OO

D R

D

010-033-021

SITE R-A

A-2-40

PM 2007PM 2007--2828EXC. 2007EXC. 2007--0202

OsegueraOsegueraZONING

10

Aerial Photo

HWY 108 120

DILLW

OO

D R

D

010-033-021

SITE

PM 2007PM 2007--2828EXC. 2007EXC. 2007--0202

OsegueraOsegueraAERIAL PHOTO

11

12

STANISLAUS

ATL

A S R

D

DIXON RD

DIL

LWO

OD

RD

FOX BOROUGH DRGOLDSBOROUGH CI

MO

RR

IS H

UN

T ER D

RDILLWOOD CT

MALLARD CT

ALMO

ND

WO

OD

DR

WILD OAK DR

HWY 120 HWY 120

PM 2007-28EXC. 2007-02

OsegueraEAST OAKDALE SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA

13

EOSPPIM

LEY D

R

WILD OAK DR

DILLW

OO

D R

D

DILLWOOD CT

VALLEY OAK DR

SCARLET OAK DR

GOLDSBOROUGH CI

MO

RR

IS HUN

TER DR

RIO SOMBRA DR

ST ANDREWS DR

ATLAS R

D

POPPY HILLS DR

DIXON RD

RODDEN RD

FOX BOROUGH DR

PM 2007-28 & EXC 2007-02 OSGUERA

TM 2005-07 & EXC 2005-04

HILLSBOROUGH ESTATES 3

PM 2006-40 RANDY

THOMAS

STANISLAUS RIVER

PM 2008-12 & EXC 2008-03

LAYTON

PM 2007-28EXC. 2007-02

OsegueraEAST OAKDALE APPLICATIONS

14

Site Plan

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DRAFT

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NO. 2007-28EXCEPTION APPLICATION NO. 2007-02

OSEGUERA

Planning and Community Development

1. If development should occur on any of the proposed parcels, all Public Facilities ImpactFees and Fire Facilities Fees as adopted by Resolution of the Board of Supervisors shallbe paid. The Fees shall be payable at the time of issuance for any building permit for anyconstruction in the development project and shall be based on the rates in effect at the timeof building permit issuance. In addition, all applicable parks fees and/or fees identified ina Specific Plan for the East Oakdale Specific Plan area shall be paid.

2. The subdivider is required to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County, its officersand employees from any claim, action, or proceedings against the County to set aside theapproval of the map as set forth in Government Code Section 66474.9. The County shallpromptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding to set aside the approvaland shall cooperate fully in the defense.

3. Pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code (effective January 1,2009), the applicant is required to pay a Department of Fish and Game filing fee at the timeof recording a “Notice of Determination.” Within five (5) days of approval of this project bythe Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, the applicant shall submit to theDepartment of Planning and Community Development a check for $2,050.00, made payableto Stanislaus County, for the payment of Fish and Game and Clerk Recorder filing fees.

Pursuant to Section 711.4 (e)(3) of the California Fish and Game Code, no project shall beoperative, vested, or final, nor shall local government permits for the project be valid, untilthe filing fees required pursuant to this section are paid.

4. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall record a Notice ofAdministrative Conditions and Restrictions with the County Recorder’s Office within 30 daysof project approval. The Notice includes: Conditions of Approval/Development Standardsand Schedule; any adopted Mitigation Measures; and a project area map.

5. No new dwellings shall be constructed on any of the proposed parcels until a Specific Planand related environmental review for the East Oakdale Specific Plan area has beenapproved. Any development occurring after approval of a Specific Plan shall comply withall applicable conditions of approval/mitigation measures of the Specific Plan.

Building Permits Division

6. Future development will need to comply with Building Permit Requirements, adoptedCalifornia Building Codes, Section 105 and Title 24 in effect at that time.

28

PM 2007-28, EXC 2007-02 DRAFTConditions of Approval December 3, 2009Page 2

Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau

7. When new buildings can be constructed, they shall comply with all applicable codes andordinances, including fire apparatus access road standards, water for fire protection, etc.

8. When new buildings can be constructed, all buildings 5,000 square feet and greater and/orcontaining five or more dwelling units shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinklersystem.

Department of Environmental Resources

9. No private water wells will be allowed on any of the proposed parcels. All existing waterwells shall be destroyed under permit and inspected by the Department of EnvironmentalResources, prior to the parcel map being recorded.

10. On-site sewage disposal shall be by individual Primary and Secondary wastewatertreatments units, operated under conditions and guidelines established by Measure X.Statement shall be placed on the final map to be recorded; statement shall read:

“As per Stanislaus County Code 16.10.020 and 16.10.040, all persons purchasing lotswithin the boundaries of this approved map should be prepared to accept theresponsibilities and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the requiredprimary and secondary onsite wastewater treatment system. All persons are required toprovide adequate maintenance and operate the onsite wastewater treatment system asprescribed by the manufacturer, so as to prevent groundwater degradation.”

11. The applicant shall determine, to the satisfaction of the Department of EnvironmentalResources (DER), that a site containing (or formerly containing) residences or farmbuildings, or structures, has been fully investigated (via Phase I and II studies) prior to theissuance of a grading permit. Any discovery of underground storage tanks, formerunderground storage tank locations, buried chemicals, buried refuse, or contaminated soilshall be brought to the immediate attention of DER.

Oakdale Irrigation District (OID)

12. The developer shall apply to OID for a Surface Water Irrigation Service AbandonmentAgreement to be approved by the Board of Directors, prior to approval for connection to theOID domestic water service.

13. The District requires that existing irrigation pipelines, canals, ditches, structures, turnoutsand drains on the created parcel (both District and Private) be shown on the recorded parcelmap.

14. The following language shall be shown on the recorded parcel map: “Oakdale IrrigationDistrict is not responsible for channeling, diverting nor conveying any storm drainage thattakes place within the boundaries of this parcel map.”

29


15. A signature block as required by OID shall be shown on the recorded Parcel Map. Therequested signature block will be signed after OID has reviewed and approvedprofessionally engineered plans for a private irrigation and drainage system crossing theproject site. The private irrigation system must be capable of providing independentirrigation to the two (2) impacted parcels north of the project site from the historic point ofdiversion.

16. Parcels impacted by the proposed development that continue to irrigate shall have watermade available under one of these options:

Option 1: An independent delivery system to each parcel. Each Parcel to be served by asingle pipeline with its beginning at a cluster well or sump provided at the historical point ofdelivery. The District has standard plans available for this purpose.

Option 2: A single pipeline that serves multiple properties with its beginning at the historicalpoint of delivery. The District has standard plans available for this purpose. This option isonly available for developments operating under an Improvement District (Water Code§23600) arrangement with the OID.

17. A valid Will-Serve letter for domestic water service shall be provided to the County prior torecording of the parcel map. All conditions of the Will-Serve letter required to ensure theproposed parcels will have access to a domestic water service shall be met prior torecording of the parcel map.

Department of Public Works

18. The recorded parcel map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or a qualifiedregistered civil engineer licensed to practice land surveying.

19. All structures not shown on the tentative parcel map shall be removed prior to the parcelmap being recorded.

20. A statement shall be on the final parcel map that all the access easements are private,non-county maintained.

21. All existing non-public facilities and/or utilities that do not have lawful authority to occupy theroad right-of-way shall be relocated onto private property upon request of the Departmentof Public Works.

22. Due to the potential that the parcel to the north (APN 010-033-020) may develop, werecommend the following: that a shared private access run along the north property line.All adjacent parcels as shown on this map shall take place over this access. If existingdriveways are present, they shall be removed.a. The private access shall be created along the north property line of the existing

parcel (APN 010-033-021) and the parcel to the north (APN 010-033-020). Theaccess shall total 30-feet in width.

b. Future access to all properties adjacent, as shown on this map, shall take place overthe now shared access. At such time, any and all other access to these adjacentproperties shall be removed.

30


23. Prior to the final parcel map being recorded, a Road Maintenance Agreement shall beexecuted and recorded or a Homeowner’s Association shall be formed. The documentshall be recorded and specify that maintenance of the private access will be the soleresponsibility of the property owners. A statement in the recorded document shall includea provision for joint use of a private easement with the adjoining property to the north, if itdevelops. Each existing property shall have 30-feet of access with the existing property lineacting as centerline of the private 60-foot access (the north property line of existing APN010-33-021 and the south property line of existing APN 010-33-020 will be the centerlineof the access). This shall serve all properties created by this map and any futuredevelopment of APN 010-033-020. A copy of the recorded Road Maintenance Agreementor homeowner’s association shall be provided to the Department of Public Works and theDepartment of Planning and Community Development for review and approval prior torecordation of the map.

24. Provide a cross section for review and approval by this Department and Fire.

25. If the easements are recorded prior to recording the map, the applicant needs to cite theinstrument numbers of the recorded easements on the parcel map.

26. An encroachment permit shall be taken out prior to any work done in the County right-of-way.

******

Please note: If Conditions of Approval/Development Standards are amended by the PlanningCommission or Board of Supervisors, such amendments will be noted in the upper right-handcorner of the Conditions of Approval/Development Standards, new wording is in bold, and deletedwording will have a line through it.

(I:\Staffrpt\PM\2007\PM 2007-28 EXC 2007-02 - Oseguera\Staff Reports\Staff Report_11-20-2009.wpd)

31

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: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. 2007-28 &Exception Application No. 2007-02 - Oseguera

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

3. Contact person and phone number: Sean Purciel, Associate Planner(209) 525-6330

4. Project location: The project is located on the west side of DillwoodRoad (9553 Dillwood Road) and 300 feet north ofHwy 108/120, in the east Oakdale area. (APN:010-033-021)

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Antonio & Sonia, Trinidad & Soledad Oseguera9553 Dillwood RoadOakdale, CA 95361

6. General plan designation: LDR (Low Density Residential)

7. Zoning: R-A (Rural Residential)

8. Description of project:

This is a request to create three parcels of 0.83, 0.83 and 1.27 acres from a 2.92-acre parcel. An exception isrequested to allow a 30-foot access easement on two lots that do not front on a county-maintained road. Theapplicant has voluntarily waived the right to construct new dwellings on all parcels until cumulative impacts of furtherdevelopment are considered by a Specific Plan and/or an Environmental Impact Report is approved.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The property is surrounded by ranchette-stylesparcels, larger agricultural parcels to the southand a rural-residential subdivision to the west.

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

Department of Public WorksDepartment of Environmental ResourcesStanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau

32

33

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 aswell as 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.

34


ISSUES

I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact

Less ThanSignificant With

MitigationIncluded

Less ThanSignificant

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 2.92-acre parcel is currently in rural residential uses with one house. There are no significant trees,rock outcroppings, or historic buildings in the vicinity of the site. The site is in a rural area of the County, about a mile eastof the City of Oakdale. The project site and surrounding area are not identified as a scenic vista in the Stanislaus CountyGeneral Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element. There are no state scenic highways within the vicinity. The site issurrounded by ranchette parcels, and some scattered single-family dwellings. Larger agricultural parcels can be found tothe south and a rural-residential subdivision can be found to the west. The proposal would not substantially degrade theexisting visual character or quality of the site, local streets, or the site surroundings.

The applicant has voluntarily waived the right to construct new dwellings on all parcels until cumulative impacts of furtherdevelopment are considered by a Specific Plan and/or an Environmental Impact Report is approved. The proposed projectwould not create a new source of light. Existing buildings are the only light sources in the area. Therefore, the emissionsof light and glare would be considered minimal.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use and Circulation Element, Stanislaus County Code Title - 21- Zoning Ordinance.

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


MitigationIncluded


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

35


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: To characterize the agricultural resources for the vicinity, the Important Farmland Maps produced by theDepartment of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) for Stanislaus County were reviewed.The farmland map category for the site is listed as “Urban Built Up” land. The proposed project would not convert importantfarm resources to urban uses.

The site is located outside the limits of an incorporated city. The City of Oakdale is over a mile west of the property. Theparcel is designated as Rural Residential in the Stanislaus County General Plan, Land Use Element. The parcel is notenrolled in the Williamson Act, and the proposal will not conflict with existing zoning or agricultural uses in the vicinity of theproject.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use and Agricultural Element, Stanislaus County Code Title - 21 -Zoning Ordinance, California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program - StanislausCounty Farmland, August 2004, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/, Soil Survey, Eastern Stanislaus Area, SoilConservation Service, California, September 1964.

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


MitigationIncluded


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: According to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, the San Joaquin Valley, which includesStanislaus County, air quality has been designated as “non-attainment” by the Environmental Protection Agency and by theAir Resources Board for PM-10 and PM 2.5 (fine particulate matter and dust). Additionally, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin(SJVAB) is currently in non-attainment for both the Federal and State designation for one-hour ozone (O3) and is classifiedas “extreme.” The District maintains permit authority over stationary sources of pollutants. The Federal Clean Air Act andthe California Clean Air Act require areas that are designated non-attainment to reduce emissions until standards are met.

The SJVAPCD has not responded to the early consultation for the project. Based on previously submitted letters from theDistrict, in regards to residential parcel map applications, the proposed project would only have minor influences on the landwith the implementation of their rules and regulations, which staff will add as conditions of approval for the project. Sincethis parcel map application will not create any new residential units, air quality will not be effected.

36


The proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations within the area. This land division isnot anticipated to be either a generator or receiver of odors. There are no uses nearby that generate odors that could beconsidered significant.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Regulation VIII FugitiveDust/PM-10 Synopsis, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review(ISR) (Adopted December 15, 2005), http://www.valleyair.org/index.htm.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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

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: This parcel map will not have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special studiesspecies or habitats. Additionally, the project will be restricted to building until a Specific Plan and or an EnvironmentalImpact Report addresses cumulative impacts in the east Oakdale area. If this subdivision is approved, it will not convertsensitive habitat to an urbanized use.

According to the County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, the site is not located within a biologicallysensitive area. No vernal pools, sensitive and endangered species or wetland habitats were found in the vicinity. The siteis not near a riparian habitat or a sensitive natural community according to the County biological database. The land divisionproposed will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CleanWater Act. Additionally, the project will not interfere with the movement of any native or migratory fish, or wildlife species,or with established native or migratory wildlife corridors. Correspondences have not been received from the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service or the State Department of Fish and Game. Furthermore, the project is not anticipated to conflict with localpolicies or ordinances protecting biological resources, tree preservation, an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, a NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

37


Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use, Conservation/Open Space Element, California NaturalDiversity Database, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Plans and Agreements Database.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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: According to the County General Plan, Land Use, Conservation/Open Space Element, the area is not knownto be within a location of archaeological or geological resources. A Central California Information Center records survey(October 15, 2007) was conducted for the project. No known historically important, paleontological, or prehistoric resourceshave been found on the project site. However, the report indicated historical resources in the vicinity, which includesprehistoric and archaeological resources. There is one residence, about 1,100 feet (across Highway 120) from the projectthat has been recorded in the National Register of Historic Places. A standardized condition of approval will be added tothis project to address any discovery of cultural and/or historical resources if structures or construction is proposed in thefuture. No construction is planned with this project and the applicant has voluntarily waived the right to construct newdwellings on all parcels until cumulative impacts of further development are considered by a Specific Plan and/or anEnvironmental Impact Report is approved. There is no indication that the subdivision of the parcel will be detrimental toprehistoric and historical resources because of the urbanized nature of the area.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use, Conservation/Open Space Element, Central CaliforniaInformation Center Report, dated October 15, 2007.

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

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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

38


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 1804.2 ofthe California Building Code (2007), 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: According to the Stanislaus County General Plan, Safety Element, several known faults exist in the DiabloRange, west of Interstate 5. The Ortigalita Fault, part of which is designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone,is located in the southwestern portion of the County. The project site is located in eastern Stanislaus County, east of theInterstate outside the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As per the 2007 California Building Code all of StanislausCounty is located within a geologic hazard zone (Seismic Design Category D, E, or F). A soils test may be required atbuilding permit application if it is determined that the structure is within a geologic hazard area. Results from the soils testwill determine if unstable or expansive soils are present. If such soils are present special engineering of the structure willbe required to compensate for the soil deficiency. Any additions or smaller structures resulting from this project will bedesigned and built according to building standards appropriate to withstand shaking for the area. Any earth moving issubject to Public Works Standards and Specifications, which considers the potential for erosion and run-off prior to permitapproval. Likewise, any addition of a septic tank or alternative waste water disposal system would require the approval ofthe Department of Environmental Resources through the building permit process, which also takes soil type intoconsideration within the specific design requirements.

There is minimal potential for on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction to occur in the vicinityof the site. Furthermore, buildings and construction are not proposed at this time.

The property cannot hook up to a city waste water system and would remain on its existing private septic system. TheDepartment of Environmental Resources (DER) would be responsible for enforcing water and septic system requirementsand regulations. Finally, subdivided parcels usually require their own water and septic systems, which would also beregulated by DER. Water would be provided by a public water system provided by Oakdale Irrigation District.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Safety Element, Soil Survey, Eastern Stanislaus Area, Soil ConservationService, California, September 1964, NRCS - http://soils.usda.gov/, National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S.A.

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would theproject:


Impact


MitigationIncluded


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

39


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: The County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is responsible for overseeing hazardousmaterials and has not indicated any particular concerns in this area. The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State,and local regulations and policies involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The StateDepartment of Toxic Substances (DTS) maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances List (also known as the “CorteseList”), in accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5. The most current Cortese List indicates that thereare no hazardous waste or substance sites in the east Oakdale vicinity.

The parcel is located approximately a mile and a half away from the municipal airport located on the outskirts of the City ofOakdale. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or a wildlands area, or near a public or privateairstrip. Therefore, this item is not applicable.

The areas of potential wildland fires are the Diablo Range, located west of Interstate 5, and the Sierra Nevada foothills inthe eastern portion of Stanislaus County. The proposed project is not located within areas identified as potential wildfirehazard zones by the County’s General Plan.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use and Safety Element, The State Department of ToxicSubstances (DTS) Hazardous Waste and Substances List - http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

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

Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

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

40


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: The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and local policies and regulations related to waterquality. Currently, the site has access to public water provided by Oakdale Irrigation District and an existing septic system.Any expansion will be reviewed by the Department of Environmental Resources for Measure X guidelines as applicable.The proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.Oakdale Irrigation District responded to the proposal with several conditions on the map. The proposed project would notincrementally increase the need for irrigation and water services associated with the district. However, with the proposal,the parcels will be declared non-irrigateable, and an OID abandonment agreement will be necessary prior to connection tothe domestic water service.

Cumulative impacts, as they relate to the East Oakdale Specific Plan, will be negligible due to the fact that the applicant isvoluntarily waiving the right to construct a second unit on both parcels. No future homes can be constructed until a SpecificPlan and/or an Environmental Impact Report are approved.

All structures will comply with all floodplain rules and regulations, to include any additional structures and outbuildingsproposed in the future. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, ordeath involving flooding as a result of the failure of a dam. The likelihood of a seiche, an earthquake induced wave in a lake,or a tsunami, is less than significant due to the proposed project’s distance from the above-mentioned bodies of water.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Safety Element, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),reviewed July 9, 2009, Oakdale Irrigation District, letter from John Davids, dated July 8, 2009 and “will serve” letter fromSteven Webb, dated November 6, 2007.

41


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

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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 proposed project involves a subdivision of a Rural Residential (R-A) parcel. The zoning of the parcelis consistent with the General Plan land use classification. Subdivisions are permitted within the R-A zone, however, theapplicant waives the right to construct a dwelling or second unit until cumulative impacts of further development areconsidered by a Specific Plan and/or an Environmental Impact Report. The project will not physically divide an establishedcommunity to include the surrounding Oakdale community. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitatconservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County Code Title - 21 - Zoning Ordinance, Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use Element.

X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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 or immediatelyadjacent to the project site.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use and Safety Element, State Division of Mines and GeologySpecial Report 173.

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

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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

42


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 surroundings of the project are dominated by noise sources, which primarily include vehicular trafficon local roads and farming equipment. In fact, the site is very quiet. The Stanislaus County General Plan, Noise Element,identifies noise levels up to 60 dB Ldn (or CNEL) as the normally acceptable level of noise for residential uses. Noiseimpacts associated with on-site activities and traffic are not anticipated to exceed the normally acceptable level of noise.However, nearby Hwy 108/120 is a notable source of noise. A noise study is not necessary for the subdivision of theproperty. The proposed project would not create excessive ground-borne noise vibration or noise. Furthermore, theproposed project would not result in exposure of persons to generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-bornenoise levels and a less than significant impact is anticipated.

The principal short-term noise impact associated with the project would occur during construction. Presently, there is noconstruction proposed. However, if construction is proposed in the future, construction noise represents a sporadic, ratherthan a continuous impact on ambient noise levels in and around construction activity areas on the project site. Duringproject construction, the character of noise levels surrounding the construction sites would change as work progresses fromgrading to actual construction of the proposed structures. As a standard condition of approval, the County requires thatconstruction be limited to normal working hours and equipment be properly muffled. With implementation of this standardcondition of approval, a less than significant impact would result.

The parcel is located over a mile and a half away from the municipal airport located in the City of Oakdale. The project isbeyond any public or private airstrip. Due to the project’s distance from airports, this item is not applicable.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Noise Element.

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

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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

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

X

43


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

Discussion: The proposed use of the site will not create significant service extensions or new infrastructure that couldbe considered growth inducing. No housing or persons will be displaced by the project. The proposed project does notinclude the displacement of existing housing. Therefore, this item will not have an impact on population and housing.

The applicant voluntarily waives the right to construct a dwelling or second unit on the subdivided parcels, until cumulativeimpacts of further development are considered by a Specific Plan and/or an Environmental Impact Report.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Housing Element.

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: PotentiallySignificant

Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impactsassociated with the provision of new or physically alteredgovernmental facilities, need for new or physically alteredgovernmental facilities, the construction of which could causesignificant 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 applicant has voluntarily waived the right to construct a dwelling or second unit until a Specific Planand/or an Environmental Impact Report is approved. This issue will be minimal in regards to public services. Since onesingle-family dwelling exists, there is no impact to services and no additional fees will be required for Fire, Sheriff, schools,and other local government services. The proposed project will not create greater demand for parks. The County ofStanislaus will charge the project development impact fees to offset the cumulative costs of providing additional recreationalfacilities not provided on-site. The Stanislaus County Parks and Recreation Department responded with “No Comment.”The proposed project would not incrementally increase the need for general governmental services.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use Element, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, letter fromM. Wirowek, received June 29, 2009, Stanislaus County Parks and Recreation, letter from Margarita Ramos, dated June29, 2009, Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau, letter from Kenneth Slamon, dated June 28, 2009.

XIV. RECREATION: PotentiallySignificant

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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

44


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 parcel map will not result in the construction of new residential dwellings. The use of existingparks and other recreational facilities will not be increased. Implementation of the proposed project would not result inimpacts to recreation. Letters from the Parks Department had a “No Comment” response for the proposal.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use and Conservation/Open Space Element, Stanislaus CountyParks and Recreation, letter from Margarita Ramos, dated June 29, 2009.

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

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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: Since there are no additional houses proposed to be constructed, the project will not increase the tripgeneration along adjacent streets and intersections, notably Dillwood Road. An exception is requested to allow a 30-footaccess easement on two lots that do not front on a county-maintained road. The design of improvements (i.e., curb, gutter,sidewalk, as required), will be in accordance with the County Standards and Specifications, and shall be approved by thePublic Works Department prior to development.

The project will not exceed (individually or cumulatively) a level of service standard. No traffic studies or analysis wererecommended for the proposal. The County Public Works Department has not identified any significant traffic impact to localCounty roads associated with this project. The Public Works Department has identified some road improvement conditionsand encroachment issues that will be resolved with conditions of approval.

Finally, there has not been any identified conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternativetransportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). According to the Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau, the proposed projectwill not impair the District’s ability to access the proposed project during emergencies.

45


Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Circulation Element, Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau, letter fromKenneth Slamon, dated June 28, 2009.

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

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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

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: The project is currently being served by public water and a septic system. The project cannot be servedby a wastewater treatment provider. Additionally, this parcel map application will not require or result in the constructionof new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Conditions of approval will be added to the projectto address necessary permits from the County Department of Environmental Resources, in regards to wastewater,stormwater, and water service connections (provided by Oakdale Irrigation District). The agency has indicated that wellswill not be allowed on any of the proposed parcels. Furthermore, the existing septic system shall be contained within theproposed parcel boundaries as per required Department setback standards and any additional development of any of theproposed parcels will be subject to Measure X.

The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and local policies and regulations related to solid waste. Theproject is presently served by a private solid waste service. There has been no indication that the project would conflict withsolid waste regulations.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use and Conservation/Open Space Element, Department ofEnvironmental Resources, letter from Bella Badal, dated July 7, 2009.

46


XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: PotentiallySignificant

Impact


MitigationIncluded


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 has not indicated any feature(s) which might result in a significant environmentalimpact.

I:\Staffrpt\PM\2007\PM 2007-28 EXC 2007-08 - Oseguera\Initial Study - Oseguera.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.

47

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

NAME OF PROJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. 2007-28 & ExceptionApplication No. 2007-02 - Oseguera

LOCATION OF PROJECT: The project is located on the west side of Dillwood Road(9553 Dillwood Road) and 300 feet north of Hwy 108/120, inthe east Oakdale area. (APN: 010-033-021)

PROJECT DEVELOPERS: Antonio & Sonia, Trinidad & Soledad Oseguera9553 Dillwood RoadOakdale, CA 95361

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This is a request to create three parcels of 0.83, 0.83 and 1.27acres from a 2.92-acre parcel. An exception is requested to allow a 30-foot access easement ontwo lots that do not front on a county-maintained road. The applicant has voluntarily waived theright to construct new dwellings on all parcels until cumulative impacts of further development areconsidered by a Specific Plan and/or an Environmental Impact Report is approved.

Based upon the Initial Study, dated July 22, 2009, the County Planning Department finds asfollows:

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

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

3. This project will not have impacts, which are individually limited but cumulativelyconsiderable.

4. This project will not have environmental impacts, which will cause substantial adverseeffects upon human beings, either directly or indirectly.

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

Initial Study prepared by: Sean D. Purciel, Associate Planner

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

I:\Staffrpt\PM\2007\PM 2007-28 EXC 2007-08 - Oseguera\Initial Study - Oseguera.wpd

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

REFERRED TO:

2 W

K

30 D

AY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE YE

S

NO

WILL NOT HAVE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT

IMPACT

NO COMMENT NON CEQA YE

S

NO

YES

NO

AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER X X X BUILDING PERMITS DIVISION X X X X X X X CALTRANS DISTRICT 10 X X X X CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE X X X COOPERATIVE EXTENSION X X X COUNTY COUNSEL X X X ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES X X X X X X X FIRE PROTECTION DIST: OAKDALE X X X X FISH & GAME, DEPT OF X X X X HAZARDOUS MATERIALS X X X HOSPITAL DISTRICT: OAK VALLEY X X X X IRRIGATION DISTRICT: OAKDALE X X X X X X X X LAFCO X X X X MOSQUITO DISTRICT: EASTSIDE X X X X MT VALLEY EMERGENCY MEDICAL X X X X PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC X X X X PARKS & FACILITIES X X X X X X X PUBLIC WORKS X X X X X X X SCHOOL DISTRICT 1: OAKDALE X X X X SHERIFF X X X X X X X StanCOG X X X STANISLAUS ERC X X X TBD X X X STANISLAUS FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU X X X X X X X SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 1: O'BRIEN X X X SURROUNDING LAND OWNERS X X TELEPHONE COMPANY: AT&T X X X X VALLEY AIR DISTRICT (SJVAPCD) X X X X

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REFERRALS

RESPONDED RESPONSE MITIGATION MEASURES CONDITIONS

PROJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NO. 2007-28, EXCEPTION APPLICATION NO. 2007-02 - OSEGUERA

60

Documents

STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF … sr.pdfDec 03, 2009 · stanislaus county planning commission december 3, 2009 staff report tentative parcel map application no. 2007-28