stanislaus county - board agenda # c1 · 2007-08-28 · the board of supervisors of the county of...

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS ACTION AGENDA SUMMARY

DEPT: Public Works & BOARD AGENDA # *C-4

Urgent Routine C1 AGENDADATE August 28,2007

CEO Concurs with Recommendation YES NO 415 Vote Required YES NO (Information Attached)

SUBJECT:

Approval to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Stanislaus County Intersection Improvements at Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road at Santa Fe Avenue and Approval of Purchase Agreements to Acquire Road Right-of-way for the Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue lntersection Project

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Find the project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Stanislaus County General Plan.

2. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(B), by finding on the basis of the whole record, including the Initial Study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects Stanislaus County's independent judgement and analysis.

3. Order the filing of a Notice of Determination with the Stanislaus County Clerk-Recorder's Office pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 125 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15075.

(Continued on Page 2)

FISCAL IWIPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions for adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The $48,893 for the purchase of this right-of-way is funded 100% by the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program (RTIF) and consists of $45,893 for the purchase of the road easement and $3,000 for estimated escrow and title insurance fees.

................................................................................................................... BOARD ACTION AS FOLLOWS:

NO. 2007-675

On motion of Supervisor- - - - - MayfielA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . , Seconded by Supervisor - - - - grove^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - and approved by the following vote, Ayes: Supervise rs:- - Y!-ay_fielll, G-rwe~, M-~nt_e!t_h, De??_a-rt_in i -and_ C-hairrn-a-n- O!Bri_e_n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

None Noes: Supervisors: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excused or Absent: Supervisors:- -Fllo_n_e- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

None Abstaining: Supervisor_: - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - I) X Approved as recommended 2) Denied 3) Approved as amended 4) Other: MOTION:

ATTEST: CHRISTINE FERRARO TALLMAN, Clerk File No.

Approval to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Stanislaus County lntersection Improvements at Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road at Santa Fe Avenue and Approval of Purchase Agreements to Acquire Road Right-of-way for the Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue lntersection Project

4. Approve the purchase agreements for the subject acquisitions.

5. Authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute the agreements.

6. Direct the Auditor-Controller to increase appropriations and estimated revenue for the Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue lntersection Improvement Project by $48,893 per the financial transaction sheet.

7. Direct the Auditor-Controller to issue a warrant in the total amount of $48,893, payable to Fidelity National Title Company, for the purchase amounts of $27,693 and $1 8,200 and $3,000 for estimated escrow fees and title insurance.

DISCUSSION:

In January 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved the Public Works Department Traffic Congestion Relief Program. The Traffic Congestion Relief Program provides for the installation of traffic signals, left turn lanes and related improvements on selected roadways throughout the County, including the improvements to the Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue and the Hatch Road at Santa Fe Avenue intersections.

In May 2004, the Board of Supervisors awarded a contract to BKF Engineers for environmental and engineering services for the Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road at Santa Fe Avenue intersection improvements.

The proposed new traffic signals and additional through and turn lanes will improve traffic safety and enhance the flow of traffic through these intersections. Installation of safety lighting, upgrade of railroad signals, and shoulder widening will also be completed.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), BKF Engineers has prepared and circulated an Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration to various agencies and to the public. The public comment period closed on May 4, 2007. Department staff received comments from four agencies and has incorporated the comments into the final Mitigated Negative Declaration.

To accomplish this project, the County will need to acquire additional right-of-way from the parcel on the northeast corner and the parcel on the southwest corner of Geer Road and Santa Fe Avenue. The property owners have agreed to accept the following:

Amount of Assessors Right-of-way Property Owner(s) Compensation Parcel Number Area

Francisco & Gregoria Resendiz ------------- $27,693 045-009-008 11,609 S.F. Darryl M. Starn & Tamra Starn--------------- $18,200 045-077-077 11,034 S.F.

Approval to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Stanislaus County lntersection Improvements at Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road at Santa Fe Avenue and Approval of Purchase Agreements to Acquire Road Right-of-way for the Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue Intersection Project

The amount of compensation has been determined to be within the range of just compensation by an independent appraiser hired by the County.

POLICY ISSUES:

The Board should consider if the recommended actions are consistent with its priorities of providing a safe community, a healthy community and a well-planned infrastructure system.

STAFFING IMPACT:

There is no staffing impact associated with this item.

BM:la L:\ROADS\9704 - GEER ROAD @ SANTA FE AVENUE\Board Reports\MND.doc

AUDITOR-CONTROLLER BUDGET JOURNAL

Balance Type Category Source Currency Budget Name Batch Name Journal Name Journal description Period Organization

I Transfer budget to Geer Rd @ Santa Fe and Hatch Rd @ Santa Fe JUL-07 to JuN-081 Stanislaus Budaet Ora 1

Requesting De~wmen'i , , Sharon Andrews

( Signature Signature 1

Audltors Qffice Only , .

Prepared By Admit) Apprpval($75K+)

Contact Person 8 Phone Number I

812W07 GPq/2( / 6 7 Date Date

Page 1 of

</a 1107 Date Date

AUDITOR-CONTROLLER

(Description I

STANDARD JOURNAL VOUCHER BATCH SCREEN Batch Period

PW Aug-07 1

JOURNAL SCREEN

Journal Category Balance Type Description Control Total

- -

PW SKA JV I Transfer A JA = Actual or E = Encumbrance Transfer funds from RTlF to Project accounts (Geer @J Santa Fe and Hatch @Santa Fe) 48,893.00

Line

1 2 3 4 5

Coding Structure I

Fund I Org 1 Account 1 GILProj 1 Loc 1 Misc 1 4

6400 1102

Debit 7

64100 40310

Credit 5

85850 46615

I

Description 7

0 9704

6

0 0

6

0 0

.O

.O

.o

.O 0

48,893.00 48,893.00 Geer @, Santa Fe

Project: Santa Fe AvenueIGeer Road Intersection Project Grantor(s): Darryl M. and Tamara Starn

APN.: 045-007-007

AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY

This Agreement for Acquisition of Property is between the County of Stanislaus (County) and Danyl M. Starn and Tamra Starn, and their successors, as Trustees of the Starn Family 1996 Trust, pursuant to Declaration of Trust dated December 12,1996 (Grantor(s). This Agreement is expressly subject to approval by the County Board of Supervisors.

1. PROPERTY.

Grantor(s) agrees to sell to County, and County agrees to purchase from Grantor(s), on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the real property interest described in the Exhibits attached hereto which are incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property").

2. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS/ESCROW.

All documents necessary for the transfer of the Property shall be executed and delivered by Grantor(s) to the County's designated Acquisition Agent.

This transaction shall be handled through an escrow with Fidelity National Title Company at 3425 Coffee Road, Suite C, Modesto CA. 95355. Telepone 209 529-2376 Escrow # 06-6052255

3. PURCHASE PRICE AND TITLE.

The consideration to be paid by the County for the Property is EIGHTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($ 18,200) (the "Purchase Price").

County shall deliver the Purchase Price no later than 45 days after Board of Supervisors approval and after delivery and execution of all necessary tranfer documents. Grantor(s) shall convey good, marketable and insurable title to the Property fiee and clear of all liens, encumbrances, taxes, assessments and leases recorded andlor unrecorded.

Good, marketable and insurable roadway easement title to the Property shall be evidenced by an ALTA extended coverage owner's policy of title insurance ("Title Policy"), with survey exception if County elects not to obtain an ALTA survey for the Property. The Title Policy shall be in the amount of the Purchase Price, showing roadway esement title to the Property vested in County. It shall be a condition precedent to County's obligations under this Agreement that escrow holder is able to issue the Title Policy to County.

County shall pay all costs of any escrow, title insurance, and recording fees incurred in this transaction. County shall pay for all costs associated with acquiring an ALTA extended coverage owner's policy of title insurance.

Agreement for Purchase Starn Page 2 of 3

The Grantor(s) agree that if claims are submitted by lien-holders, the County is hereby authorized to honor such claims and deduct the amount of said claims from the amount to be paid to the property owner. The County will notify the Grantor(s) of any such claims prior to payment.

The Grantor(s) acknowledge that this transaction is a negotiated settlement in lieu of condemnation and agree(s) that the Purchase Price to be paid herein is in full settlement of any claims for compensation or damages that may have arisen, including, but not limited to, attorney fees, pre-condemnation damages, severance damages, business goodwill, or any other claim regarding the acquisition of the Property or construction of improvements thereon.

4. PRORATION OF TAXES.

(a) Taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code section 508 1 et seq., as of the recordation of the Road Easement conveying title to County, except that where County has taken bossession of the Property, taxes shall be prorated as of the date of possession.

(b) Grantor(s) authorizes County to deduct from the purchase price any amount necessary to satisfy any delinquent taxes, together with penalties and interest thereon, and any delinquent or non-delinquent assessments or bonds, which are to be cleared from the title to the Property.

5. POSSESSION.

Grantor(s) agrees that immediately upon approval of this agreement by County, the County may enter upon and take possession of the Property.

6. HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL

The Grantor(s) hereby represent(s) and warrant(s) that during the period of Grantor(s)'s ownership of the Property, there have been no disposals or releases of hazardous substances on, from, or under the Property. Grantor(s) further represent(s) and warrant(s) that Grantor(s) has no knowledge of any disposal or release of hazardous substances, on, from, or under the Property which may have occurred prior to Grantor(s) taking title to the Property.

The Purchase Price of the Property reflects the fair market value of the Property without the presence of contamination. If the Property is found to be contaminated by the presence of hazardous substances which requires mitigation under Federal or County law, the County reserves the right to recover its clean-up costs from those who caused or contributed to the contamination.

Agreement for Purchase Starn Page 3 of 3

7. CONSTUCTION CONTRACT WORK

Reasonable access to the subject property will be maintained during the course of construction. Mailboxes will be relocated if necessary. Irrigation pipe and fixtures that may be located in the. acquisition area will be relocated, removed. and replaced, as necessary.

&ud&di) 8, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on J U D ~ as follows:

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS GRANTOR(S) Darryl M. Starn and Tarnra Starn, and their successors, as Trustees of the Starn Family 1996 Trust, pursuant to Declaration of Trust

William O'Brien Chairman of the Board of Supervisors /

- 2 3 Tamra Starn

ATTEST: Christine Ferraro Tallman Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Stanislaus, State of California

By:

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Department of Public Works

Matthew Machado, D i r e c t o r

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael H. Krausnick County qoupsel

By:

Deputy County Counsel

RCM Revised 7/6/07

WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

Stanislaus County Department of Public Works 1010 loth Street, Suite 3500 Modesto, CA 95354

Record without Fee Govt. Code SEC. 6 103

THIS SPACE FOR RECORDERS USE OLNLY

Project: Santa Fe AvenueIGeer Road Intersection Project APN: 045-007-007

STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

ROAD EASEMENT

Darryl M. Starn and Tamra Starn, and their successors, as Trustees of the Starn Family 1996 Trust, pursuant to Declaration of Trust dated December 12, 1996 does hereby grant to Stanislaus County, a municipal corporation of the State of California, for the purpose of a Public Highway or Road, and all the necessary utilities, the Right of Way over, under and across that certain real property in the County of Stanislaus, State of California, bounded and described as follows:

See Parcel 4-01-1 Exhibits "A" and Exhibit "B" and Parcel 4-02-1 Exhibits "A" and Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof

Dated this ! 3 day of 9 2007

GRANTOR:

Darryl M. Starn and Tamra Starn, and their successors, as Trustees of the Starn Family 1996 Trust, pursuant to Declaration of Trust dated December 12,1996

Tamra Starn

ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

County of Stanislaus

-I /

On 5 l y /S * 7 before me, .5&~4=7 4 5 , the undersigned Notary -C

Public, personally appeared )?&V/)f. .(7r~/~d+ /+&m 2 7 ~ f l ~ personally known to me ( or

proved to me on the basis of satisfaLory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) #are subscribed to

the within instrument and acknowledged to me that )&/s)r'el they executed the same inlfiserltheir authorized

capacity(ies), and that by l$s@r/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf

of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal

BkF March 15, 2007 BKF Job No.: 20045040-20

EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 4-01-1

RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION

SuRvE~oRs All that certain real property situate in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of PLANNERS Section 22, Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, County

of Stanislaus, State of California, and desoribed as follows:

BEING a portion of Parcel No. 3 as said parcel is described in the Quitclaim Deed to Darryl M. Starn and Tamara Starn, and their successors, as Trustees of the Starn Family 1996 Trust, recorded December 13, 1996, as Document 96-0107371 -00, Stanislaus County Records;

BEGINNING on the southerly line of said Parcel No. 3 on the.westerly right of way line of Geer Road (right of way varies); THENCE westerly along said southerly line North 89'58'36" West 15.00 feet; THENCE leaving said southerly line North 00°06'5 1 " West 132.26 feet to the northeasterly line of said' Parcel No. 3; THENCE along said northeasterly line South 38'56'06" East 23.93 feet to s&d westerly right of way line of Geer Road; THENCE southerly along said westerly right of way line South 00'06'51" East 113.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing an area of 1,844 square feet, inore or less.

A plat showing the above described dedication is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B".

This description has been prepared from record data for BKF.

By: Bany T. Williams, P.L;S. No. 67 1 1 License Expires: 06130108

Dated:

k:\main\2004\2004504O\legal descriptions\geer 4-0 1- 1 desc.doc

Page 1 of 1

LEGEND:

O.R. O F F I C I A L RECORDS PM PARCEL MAP

P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING R /W R l GHT OF WAY

P O R I J O N O F SECTION 23, T . 4 S . , R . I O E . , M.D.B.&M.

045-009-ooa RESENDJZ

93-025456 O.R. 045-0 10-052

SJERRA GRAIN TERMJNAL LLC 1 9 9 9 - 0 7 4 8 8 6 O.R.

P A R C E L A 4 9 PM 82

30' R/W DEDICATION 1 PORTION O F S E C T I O N 2 2 ,

T.4S., R . I O E . , M.D.B.&M.

045-007-007 045-007-007

PARCEL N O . 3 PARCEL NO. 1

PARCEL NO. 2 96- 10737 1 O.R. 9 6 - 1 0 7 3 7 1 O.R. I

I 96- 1 0 7 3 7 1 O.R. I I

i GRAPHIC SCALE

c 150 0 150 300

\

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "0"

2737 NORTH MAIN STREET S u b j e c t PLAT TO ACCOMPANY SUITE 200 4-01 -1 R l GHT OF WAY DED l CAT l ON

I. WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 Iq B F 925-940-2200 Job No, 20045040-20

925-940-2299 (FAX) By MLM D a t e 03/15/07 Chkd.BTW ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS IPLINNERS SHEET 1 OF 1

March 15,2007 BKF Job No.: 20045040-20

RIGHT

EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 4-02-1 OF WAY DEDICATION

SuRvEYoRs A11 that certain real property situate in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of PLAN N ERs Section 22, Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, County

of Stanislaus, State of California, and desoribed as follows:

BEING a portion of Parcel No. 1 as said p'arcel is described in the Quitclaim Deed to Darryl M. Starn and Tamara Starn, and their successors, as Trustees of the Starn Fanily 1996 Trust, recorded December 13, 1996, as Document 96-0 107371 -00, Stanislaus County Records;

BEGINNING on the northerly line of said Parcel No. 1 on the westerly right of way line of Geer Road (right of way varies); THENCE southerly along said westerly right of way line South 00'06'51" East 612.73 feet to the southerly line of said Parcel No. 1 ; THENCE leaving said westerly right of way line along said southerly line North 89'40'3 1" West 15.00 feet; THENCE leaving said southerly line North 00'06'5 1 " West 612.65 feet to said northerly line; THENCE easterly along said northerly line South 89'58'36'' East 15.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing an area of 9,190 square feet, more or less.

A plat showing the above described dedication is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B".


By: Barry T. Williams, P.L.S. No. 671 1 License Expires: 06130108

Dated:

Page 1 of 1

LEGEND: O.R. O F F I C I A L RECORDS

PM PARCEL MAP P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING

R / W RIGHT OF WAY

PORTION OF SECTION 2 3 , T.4S., R . lOE . , M.D.B.&M.

045-009-008

RESENDIZ 045-0 10-052 9 3 - 0 2 5 4 5 6 O.R,

SIERRA GRAIN TERMINAL LLC 3 999-074886 O.R.

PARCEL A 49 PM 82

--

30' R/W DEDlCATlON 50 PM 30 1

045-007-007 045-007-007

96- 1 0 7 3 7 1 O.R. PARCEL NO. 2

PARCEL NO. 1 96- 10737 1 O.R.

I I 96- 10737 1 O.R. I

1 PORTION OF SECTION 22,

/ T . 4 S . , R 10E., M.D.B.&M.

GRAPHIC SCALE

c 1 5 0 0 1 5 0 300

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS \

CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "0"

2737 N O R M MAIN STREET S u b j e c t PLAT TO ACCOMPANY SUITE 200 4-01-1 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 B k F 925-940-2200

J o b No. 20045040-20

925-940-2299 (FAX) B y MLM D a t e 03/15/07 Chkd.BTW ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS SHEET 1 OF 1

Project: Santa Fe AvenueIGeer Road Intersection Project Grantor(s): Francisco and Gregoria Resendiz

APN.: 045-009-008

AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY

This Agreement for Acquisition of Property is between the County of Stanislaus (County) and Francisco Resendiz and Gregoria Resendiz, husband and wife, as joints tenants (Grantor(s). This Agreement is expressly subject to approval by the County Board of Supervisors.

1 . PROPERTY.

Grantor(s) agrees to sell to County, and Csunty agrees to purchase from Grantor(s), on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the real property interest described in the Exhibits attached hereto which are incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property").

2. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTSJESCROW.

All documents necessary for the transfer of the Property shall be executed and delivered by Grantor(s) to the County's designated Acquisition Agent.

This transaction shall be handled through an escrow with Fidelity National Title Company at 3425 Coffee Road, Suite C, Modesto CA. 95355. Telepone 209 529-2376 Escrow # 06-6052255

3. PURCHASE PRICE AND TITLE.

The consideration to be paid by the County for the Property is TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY THREE DOLLARS ($27,693) (the "Purchase Price").

County shall deliver the Purchase Price no later than 45 days after Board of Supervisors approval and after delivery and execution of all necessary tranfer documents. Grantor(s) shall convey good, marketable and insurable title to the Property free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, taxes, assessments and leases recorded andfor unrecorded.

Good, marketable and insurable roadway easement title to the Property shall be evidenced by an ALTA extended coverage owner's policy of title insurance ("Title Policy"), with survey exception if County elects not to obtain an ALTA survey for the Property. The Title Policy shall be in the amount of the Purchase Price, showing roadway esement title to the Property vested in County. It shall be a condition precedent to County's obligations under this Agreement that escrow holder is able to issue the Title Policy to County.

County shall pay all costs of any escrow, title insurance, and recording fees incurred in this transaction. County shall pay for all costs associated with acquiring an ALTA extended coverage owner's policy of title insurance.

Agreement for Purchase Resendiz Page 2 of 3

The Grantor(s) agree that if claims are submitted by lien-holders, the County is hereby authorized to honor such claims and deduct the amount of said claims from the amount to be paid to the property owner. The County will notify the Grantor(s) of any such claims prior to payment.

The Grantor(s) acknowledge that this transaction is a negotiated settlement in lieu of condemnation and agree(s) that the Purchase Price to be paid herein is in full settlement of any claims for compensation or damages that may have arisen, including, but not limited to, attorney fees, pre-condemnation damages, severance damages, business goodwill, or any other claim regarding the acquisition of the Property or construction of improvements thereon.

4. PRORATION OF TAXES.

(a) Taxes shall be prorated in accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code section 508 1 et seq., as of the recordation of the Road Easement conveying title to County, except that where County has taken possession of the Property, taxes shall be prorated as of the date of possession.

(b) Grantor(s) authorizes County to deduct from the purchase price any amount necessary to satisfy any delinquent taxes, together with penalties and interest thereon, and any delinquent or non-delinquent assessments or bonds, which are to be cleared from the title to the Property.

5 . POSSESSION.

Grantor(s) agrees that immediately upon approval of this agreement by County, the County may enter upon and take possession of the Property.

6. HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL

The Grantor(s) hereby represent(s) and warrant(s) that during the period of Grantor(s)'s ownership of the Property, there have been no disposals or releases of hazardous substances on, from, or under the Property. Grantor(s) further represent(s) and warrant(s) that Grantor(s) has no knowledge of any disposal or release of hazardous substances, on, from, or under the Property which may have occurred prior to Grantor(s) taking title to the Property.

The Purchase Price of the Property reflects the fair market value of the Property without the presence of contamination. If the Property is found to be contaminated by the presence of hazardous substances which requires mitigation under Federal or County law, the County reserves the right to recover its clean-up costs from those who caused or contributed to the contamination.

Agreement for Purchase Resendiz Page 3 of 3

A9.4sf IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on 25, JOB7 as follows:

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS GRANTOR(S) Francisco Resendiz and Gregoria Resendiz,

1J&% William O 'Br ien Chairman of the Board of Supervisors

ATTEST: Christine Ferraro Tallman Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Stanislaus, State of California

By:

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Department of Public Works

f l a t t - Machado, D i r e c t o r

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael H. Krausnick County Counsel

By:

V

Deputy County Counsel

WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

Stanislaus County Department of Public Works 1010 loth Street, Suite 3500 Modesto, CA 95354

Record without Fee Govt. Code SEC. 6103

THIS SPACE FOR RECORDERS USE OLNLY

Project: San ta Fe AvenueIGeer Road Intersection Project APN: 045-009-008

STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

ROAD EASEMENT

Francisco Resendiz and Gregoria Resendiz, husband and wife, as joints does hereby grant to Stanislaus County, a municipal corporation of the State of California, for the purpose of a Public Highway or Road, and all the necessary utilities, the Right of Way over, under and across that certain real property in the County of Stanislaus, State of California, bounded and described as follows:

See Exhibits " A and Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof

Dated this _h day of -7 0 ) 2007

GRANTOR:

Francisco Resendiz and Gregoria Resendiz, husband and wife, as joints


STATE OF CALIFORNIA


/ / On , / , before me, ; I 1114, ~ ? L F I ; G ~ , the undersigned Notary

Public, personally appeared * r personally known to me ( or

proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person'($ whose name@Q@/are subscribed to

the within instrument and acknowledged to me that@she/ they executed the same in@/her/their authorized

c a p a c i t m , and that by@herltheir signaturewon the instrument the person&), or the entity upon behalf

of which the persontgacted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal


STATE OF CALIFORNIA


On 7/1(0bm , before me, r kp \ M \i ci> , the undersigned Notary

Public, personally appeared &@&)~\&~PWMIZ~ personally known to me ( or

proved to me on the basis of satisfacdry evidence) to be the person( whose name Y' $$'&re subscribed to

the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/@ they executed the same in h i sw the i r authorized

capacity&, and that by h i s e t h e i r s ignaturwon the instrument the personM, or the entity upon behalf

of which the person$$ acted, executed the instrument.

'7 - mmm Marnal5,2007

BkF BKF Job No.: 20045040-20

EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1-01-1

E N G I N E E R S RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION

SURVEYORS PLANNERS All that certain real property situate in the sout1lwest quarter of the northwest quarter of

Sectlon 23, Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, County of Stanislaus, State of California, and described as follows:

BEING a portion of the lands described in the Grant Deed to Francisco Resendiz and Gregoria Resei~diz, recorded March 19, 1993, as Document 93-0025456-00, Stanislaus County Records, said portion being more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at the most southerly comcr of the easement for public road and highway purposes described in the Road Dced to the County of Stanislaus recorded November IS, 1994, as Document 94-01091 59-00 (94-109 159), Stanislaus County Recorders, on the northeastcrly right of way line of Santa Fe Avenue (50 foot wide right of way), being also the southcasterly line of said easement (94- 109 I 59);

THENCE northeasterly along said southeasterly line 1Vortl1 51°03'54" East 14.00 feet; THENCE leaving said southeasterly line Soutl~ 38O56'06" East 829.21 feet; THENCE South 51°03'54" West 14.00 feet to said northeasterly right of way line of Santa Fe Avenue; THENCE along said northeasterly light of way line North 38'56'06" Wcst 829.21 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing an area of 1 1,609 square feet, more or lcss.

A plat showing the abovc described dedication is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B".


By: -- -- Barry T. Williams, P.L.S. No. 67 1 1 License Expires: 06/30/08

Dated:

k:\main\2004\20045040\1cgal descriptions\geer 1-01 - I desc.tloc

Page 1 of 1

LEGEND: I "=I 50'

O.R. O F F I C I A L RECORDS PM PARCEL MAP

4 z - P . O . B . POINT OF BEGINNING S 51°03'54" W ,

R/W R l GHT OF WAY

GRAPHIC SCALE

c 150 0 150 300

PORTlON OF SECTION 2 3 , T . 4 S . , R . l O E . , M.D.B.&M.

045-009-008

RESENDIZ 9 3 - 0 2 5 4 5 6 O.K.

DEDICATION

1 9 9 9 - 0 7 4 8 8 6 0 . R .

PARCEL A 49 PM 8 2

GEER ROAD

045-007-007 (4-02) 045-007-007

96- 10737 1 O.R. S-M R N 045-007-007 PARCEL NO. I

STAR N 9 6 - 1 0 7 3 7 1 O.R. PARCEL NO. 3

9 6 - 10737 1 O.R.

\

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "B"

2737 NORTH MAIN STREET Sub j e c t P L A T TO ACCOMPANY SUITE 2 0 0 1-01-1 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 B k F 925-940-2200

Job N o . 20045040-20

925-940-2299 (FAX) By MLM D a t e 03/15/07 Chkd .BTW ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS SHEET 1 OF 1

FINAL INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

STANISLAUS COUNTY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT

GEER ROAD - SANTA FE AVENUE AND HATCH ROAD - SANTA FE AVENUE

SCH # 2007042020

July 27,2007

COPYRIGHT 2007 KLEINFELDER

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Unauthorized Use Or Copying Of This Document Is Strictly Prohibited By Anyone Other Than The Client For The Specific Project

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION


Date: July 27, 2007

Decision-Making Body: Stanislaus County

Project Name: Intersection Improvements at Geer Road- Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road-Santa Fe Avenue

Project Description: Stanislaus County is irrlplementing projects to mitigate for traffic congestion in the County, as directed by the Capital Improvement Program, which was based on adoption of the 1991 County General Plan. As part of the County's General Plan, the following intersection improvements are proposed for implementation: (A) Santa Fe AvenueIHatch Road--Signalize intersection and widen approaches to accommodate two through lanes and a left turn lane in each. Direction; and (B) Santa Fe AvenuelGeer Road--Signalize intersection and widen approaches to accommodate two through lanes and a left turn lane in each..

Project Location: Starlislaus County, California

Assessor's Parcel Numbers: APN 01 8-065-007-000; APN 007-007-031 -000; APN 045-007-007-Parcel 1 ; APN 045-007-007- Parcel 3; and, APN 045-009-008-000

General Plan Designation:

Zoning:

73930 (OAK7M012)les Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder

Agricultural; Planned Development: Urban Transition

NIA

Page I of 2 July 27,2007


Finding:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact'' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Public Review Period: April 4, 2007 to May 4, 2007

Where to Submit Comments: Stanislaus County Department of Public Works (County) 1716 Morgan Road Modesto, CA 95358

Staff Contact: Robert Meleg Telephone: (209) 567-4883

Attachment: Initial Study

73930 (OAK7M012)Ies Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder

Page 2 of 2 July 27, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

............................................................................................................... CHAPTER PAGE

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1 1 . 1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................. 1

.......................................................................................... 1.2 Project Objectives 2 1.3 Project Description ......................................................................................... 3

............................................................................................. 1.3.1 Location 4 1.4 Construction Methods and Schedule ............................................................. 5

1.4.1 Schedule ............................................................................................ 5 1.5 Permits and Approvals Required ................................................................... 5

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ............................................................. 7 ................................................ 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 9

2.2 Potential Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 10 2.2.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................ 12

..................................................................... 2.2.2 Agriculture Resources 14 ........................................................................................ 2.2.3 Air Quality 16

...................................................................... 2.2.4 Biological Resources 2 0 ......................................................................... 2.2.5 Cultural Resources 2 5

2.2.6 Geology And Soils ........................................................................... 28 2.2.7 Hazards And Hazardous Materials .................................................. 31

........................................................... 2.2.8 Hydrology And Water Quality 34 2.2.9 Land Use And Planning ................................................................... 39

........................................................................... 2.2.10 Mineral Resources 42 2.2.11 Noise ............................................................................................... 43 2.2.12 Population And Housing .................................................................. 47

............................................................................. 2.2.1 3 Public Services 4 8 ....................................................................................... 2.2.14 Recreation 49

..................................................................... 2.2.1 5 Transportation 1 Traffic 50 .......................................................... 2.2.16 Utilities And Service Systems 53

................................................ 2.2.17 Mandatory Findings Of Significance 55 3.0 REPORT PREPARATION .................................................................................. 57

................................................................................................ 3.1 Lead Agency 57 3.2 Report Preparers ......................................................................................... 57

................................................................................................... 4.0 REFERENCES 58

7393011 (OAK7R086)les Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder

PLATES

1.1 Project Location Map 1.2 Project Vicinity Map 1.3 Project Site Map: Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue 1.4 Project Site Map: Hatch Road at Santa Fe Avenue

2.1 Photo of Roadside Trees: Hatch Road at Santa Fe Avenue 2.2 Photo of Mature Monterey Pine: Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue 2.3 Photo of Portion of a Mature Orchard near Santa Fe Avenue at Geer Road 2.4 Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue Area Williamson Act Properties 2.5 Hatch Road1 Santa Fe Avenue Area Williamson Act Properties

TABLES

2-1 Summary of LOS Analysis 2-2 Projected Roadway Noise levels 2-3 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

ATTACHMENTS

A CClC Records Search B Best Management Practices - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan C Comments Received on Draft Initial Study and Stanislaus County's Responses


July 27, 2007

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

This Final lnitial Study 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by Kleinfelder on behalf of the Lead Agency, Stanislaus County Department of Public Works (County), to respond to comments received by the County on the Draft lnitial Study 1 MND for the Stanislaus County Intersection Improvements at Geer Road - Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road - Santa Fe Avenue (State Clearinghouse No. 2007042020, March 29, 2007) and circulated for public review from April 4 through May 4, 2007. This lnitial Study has been prepared pursuant to Califorr~ia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15063. Stanislaus County is currently implementing projects to mitigate traffic congestion in the County, as directed by the Capital Improvement Program, which was based on adoption of the 1991 County General Plan. As part of the County's General Plan the following intersection improvements are proposed for implementation:

Santa Fe AvenuelHatch Road--Signalize intersection and widen approaches to accommodate two through lanes and a left turn lane in each direction.

Santa Fe AvenueIGeer Road-Signalize intersection and widen approaches to accorr~modate two through lanes and a left turn lane in each.

In order to address potential impacts associated with the proposed project, the following lnitial Study has been prepared.

As shown on the attached Project Location Map (Plate 1.1), the proposed project (site) is located in unincorporated Stanislaus County, and is under the jurisdiction of the Stanislaus County General Plan (General Plan). The site is also within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Hughson. The SO1 includes land over which the City currently holds no jurisdiction; however, the proposed project site was recently annexed by the City of Hughson on May 8, 2007. The City may choose to urbanize this area in the future.

The lnitial Study contains the following:

Required approvals Project description Potential environmental impacts associated with the project Mitigation measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

In summary, significant environmental impacts associated with the project have been mitigated to less than significant levels, and therefore, support the preparation of Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA requirements.


1 of 58 July 27, 2007

This lnitial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND) was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) and the CEQA Guidelines.

The Draft lnitial Study I MND was circulated for public review from April 4 through May 4, 2007. During this period, the County received written comments from the following organizations:

State Clearinghouse City of Hughson Mountain Valley EMS Turlock Irrigation District Native American Heritage Commission

Copies of the correspondence received and the County's responses are provided in Attachment C. Revisions of the Draft lnitial Study I MND are developed in response to comments received during the public review period and have been incorporated into this Final Initial Study I MND.

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The proposed intersection improvement project is part of the County's 1991 General Plan and is intended to provide improvements to these two specific intersections, which are currently operating at poor conditions. These intersections are also being widened to provide capacity for expected regional growth. This growth has already been evaluated in the Stanislaus County General Plan EIR, as well as the more recent City of Hughson 2005 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (City of Hughson 2005 General Plan was fully adopted on December 12, 2005).

Santa Fe Avenue is an arterial and runs northwest to southeast connecting Denair to Empire. Geer Road is a north-south arterial serving Hughson, and runs along Hughson's eastern SO1 boundary connecting Turlock to Oakdale. Hatch Road is an east-west arterial connecting to SR-99 and the commercial areas of the City of Ceres. Both of these intersections are currently controlled using stop signs with no exclusive turning movements.

During a July of 2004 testing of Levels of Service (LOS) in the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours, the Santa Fe Avenue and Geer Road intersection operated at LOS B and C (respectively). The Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection operated at LOS C and F (respectively). In order to reduce congestion and bring LOS levels into an acceptable range, the two intersections have been proposed for improvements. With the proposed project, the cumulative 2020 projection for both AM and PM peak periods at both intersections is expected be LOS C.

7393011 (OAK7R086)le.s Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder

July 27, 2007

This project will encompass two intersections: Geer Road at Santa Fe (a two-lane northwest-southeast highway), and Hatch Road at Santa Fe Avenue. Geer and Hatch Roads exist as two-lane roads (See Plate 1.2). Geer Road and Santa Fe Avenue cross each other at an acute angle in a largely agricultural area in Stanislaus County just west and south of the City of Hughson (see Plate 1.3). Hatch Road and Santa Fe Avenue cross each other at an acute angle just northwest of the City of Hughson (See Plate 1.4). Several of the agricultural parcels adjacent to both roadway intersections are in Williamson Act protection.

The following modifications would be implemented at each intersection:

Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue lntersection Improvements:

Widen the intersection at Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue from two to four lanes on each road for a total of 4,200 feet of roadway.

Install a new traffic signal linked to the Geer Road railroad-crossing signal.

Widen the railroad crossing (from 26 feet to 59 feet) to accorr~modate the four- lane roadway.

Regrade Geer Road and Santa Fe Avenue for higher traffic speeds.

Install new concrete panels at the Geer Road railroad grade crossing.

Relocate power poles (5 power poles are relocated, longest relocation is 88 feet from present condition. One Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) pole will be relocated 48 feet to the northwest of the intersection. All poles will avoid proposed vehicular areas.

Replace railroad crossing gates.

Staging areas will be situated within the County right-of-way, adjacent to the construction area.

Construction will occur during the summer of 2007.

The Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection will be closed for the duration of construction operations. The County will provide detours around the construction zone using existing roadways.

Hatch RoadISanta Avenue Fe lntersection Irr~provements:

Widen the intersection at Hatch RoadlSanta Fe Avenue from two to four lanes on each road for a total of 3,500 feet of roadway.


3 of 58 July 27, 2007

Install a new traffic signal linked to the railroad-crossing signal.

Widen the railroad crossing (31 feet to 64 feet) to accommodate the four-lane roadway.

Regrade Geer Road and Santa Fe Avenue for higher traffic speeds.

Install new concrete panels at the Santa Fe Avenue railroad grade crossing.

Relocate nine power poles on Santa Fe Avenue between 8 feet and 30 feet from the road, to avoid proposed vehicular paving areas. One BNSF pole will be relocated 32 feet to the northwest, away from the proposed intersection to avoid the proposed vehicular paving area.

Replace Railroad Crossing Gates.

Replace concrete bollards protecting railroad signals.

Install a new box culvert (seismic retrofit to existing) for Santa Fe Ave where it crosses the Ceres Main Irrigation Canal.

Install new railings for the bridge.

Staging areas will be situated within the County right-of-way, adjacent to the construction area.

Retrofit and widening of the Santa Fe Avenue Bridge will occl-lr in the winter of 2008. Constr~~ction on the Hatch RoadlSanta Fe Avenue intersection improvements will occur during the spring of 2008.

Santa Fe Avenue will be closed during the retrofit and widening of the bridge crossing. The Hatch RoadlSanta Fe Avenue intersection will be closed to vehicular traffic for the duration of construction. The county will set up detours so vehicles can navigate around the construction zone using existing county roads.

1.3.1 LOCATION

The proposed project (site) is located in Stanislaus County, which is situated in the Central Valley of California, approximately ten miles southeast of Modesto, east of Ceres and north of Turlock. As shown in Figure 1-1, the proposed project is also situated adjacent to the City of Hughson, which lies about 90 miles south of Sacramento and 100 miles southeast of San Francisco. Stanislaus County is 1,516 square miles (970,169 acres) in size and is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world. The County contains over 386,000 acres of farmland and over 375,000acres of grazing land.

7393011 (OAK7R086)Ies Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder

July 27, 2007

Stanislaus Co~~nty is also one of the fastest growing counties in California. Based on U.S. Census data, the County's population climbed from 265,900 to 370,522 during the 1980's for a total increase of 39-percent compared to 26-percent statewide. Since 1990, the County's population has continued to grow at an average annual rate of 3.5-percent, reaching a total population of 412,676 in January 1994 (Stanislaus County General Plan, Circulation Element Support Document). This growth requires expansion of the infrastructure system and public services. Existing streets and roads facilities will not be adequate to service the growth expected over the next twenty years. This is also true of public services such as schools, parks, fire protection, law enforcement, health care, welfare and many other services expected by people as they move into the area.

The project area is dominated by agricultural land uses. Farm fresh produce sales (Resendiz Farms) are featured at one of the parcels at the intersection. Other parcels appear to be developed with single-family homes and accompanying farm outbuildings and agricultural acreage. Hatch Road and Santa Fe Avenue also cross each other at an acute angle in a largely agricultural area in Stanislaus County to the north of the City of Hughson. One parcel adjacent to the roadway intersection falls within the Williamson Act guidelines. Other parcels appear to be developed with single-family homes and accompanying farm outbuildings and agricultural acreage. The Ceres Main Canal parallels Hatch Road along its southern side, while the BNSF Railroad tracks are adjacent to the southwest side of Santa Fe Avenue

1.4 CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND SCHEDULE

During construction, existing pavement and structures would be removed with pavement breakers, scrapers, earthmovers, and loaders. Bulldozers, backhoes, and graders would then be used to prepare the project sites. Concrete and other materials would be delivered to the sites by trucks; and loaders and pavers would be used to place the materials onto the sites. Additional equipment likely to be used includes hand tools and various air- and electric-powered hand tools.

1.4.1 Schedule

Construction for the Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection improvements is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2007, and would last approximately three to four months. Retrofit and widening of the Santa Fe Avenue Bridge will occur in the winter of 2008. Construction on the Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection improvements will occur during the spring of 2008.

1.5 PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED

Permits, consultations, and/or approvals may be required from the following agencies and private entities:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Nationwide Perrnit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) for impacts to Waters of the U.S. and/or jurisdictional wetlands regarding construction in the Ceres Main Canal. Although the U.S.


5 of 58 July 27, 2007

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not consider the Tuolumne River above Basso Bridge to be navigable (See Attachment C: correspondence from TID to Stanislaus County, May 3, 2006). TID's diversion at La Grange is above that point in the river, therefore 1-ID never opens the canal system to a navigable river and the Ceres Main Canal does not qualify as Waters of the U.S. The canal; however, may still qualify as Waters of the State (subject to regulation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water and Porter Cologne Acts) during the irrigation season, which typically runs from March 15 to October 15.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - (Informal Consultation pursuant to Sections 7 of the Endangered Species Act) regarding potential impacts to sensitive habitats and listed species.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for permits (Streambed Alternation Agreement and Informal Consultation pursuant to Sections 1602 and 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code) regarding construction in the Ceres Main Canal.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board - (Water Quality Certi,Acation pursuant to Section S401 of the Clean Water Act) for impacts to Waters of the State regarding construction in the Ceres Main Canal.

Star~islaus County - (Construction Permit) BNSF Railroad for permits regarding the railroad bridge extension.

City of Hughson - A City Encroachment Permit will be required for construction activities occurring at locations within their jurisdiction.

Approvals could be required ,from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) for construction-related air emissions.


July 27, 2007

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project Title: Intersection Improvements at Geer Road- Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road-Santa Fe Avenue

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Stanislaus County Department of Public Works (County) 171 6 Morgan Road Modesto, CA 95358

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Robert Meleg (209) 567-4883

4. Project Location: Stanislaus County, California

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: See No. 2, Lead Agency, above.

6. General Plan Designation: Agricultural; Planned Development: Urban Transition

7. Zoning: NIA

8. Description of Project: Stanislaus County is implementing projects to mitigate for traffic congestion in the County, as directed by the Capital Improvement Program, which was based on adoption of the 1991 County General Plan. As part of the County's General Plan, the following intersection improvements are proposed for implementation: (A) Santa Fe AvenueIHatch Road--Signalize intersection and widen approaches to accommodate two through lanes and a left turn lane in each. Direction; and (B) Santa Fe AvenueIGeer Road--Signalize intersection and widen approaches to accommodate two through lanes and a left turn lane in each.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. The setting of the project area is primarily agricultural with active farms developed with single-family homes and accompanying farm outbuildings. The Ceres Main Canal parallels Hatch Road along its southern side, while the BNSF Railroad tracks are adjacent to the southwest side of Santa Fe Avenue. The Stanislaus County General Plan land use designations are as follows:

Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue: The area east of Geer Road and south of Santa Fe Avenue has a designation of Agriculture. The area west of Geer Road and north of Santa Fe Avenue has a Planned Development designation.

Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue: All areas north of Hatch Road, including those west of Santa Fe Avenue, have an Agricultural designation. The area southeast of the Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection has an Urban Transition designation.


7 of 58 July 27, 2007

10. Other public agencies whose approval may be required:

US. Army Corps of Engineers (Nationwide Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) for impacts to Waters of the U.S. andlor jurisdiction wetlands regarding construction in the Ceres Main Canal. Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not consider the Tuolumne River above Basso Bridge to be navigable (See Attachment C: correspondence from TID to Stanislaus County, May 3, 2006). TID's diversion at La Grange is above that point in the river, therefore TID never opens the canal system to a navigable river and the Ceres Main Canal does not qualify as Waters of the U.S. The canal; however, may still qualify as Waters of the State (subject to regulation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water and Porter Cologne Acts) during the irrigation season, which typically runs from March 15 to October 15.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - (Informal Consultation pursuant to Sections 7 of the Endangered Species Act) regarding potential impacts to sensitive habitats and listed species.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for permits (Streambed Alternation Agreement and Informal Consultation pursuant to Sections 1602 and 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code) regarding construction in the Ceres Main Canal.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Con,trol Board - (Water Quality Certi,fication pursuant to Section S401 of the Clean Water Act) for impacts to Waters of the State regarding construction in the Ceres Main Canal.

Stanislaus County - (Construction Permit)

City of Hughson - (Encroachment Permit)


July 27, 2007

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one irr~pact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics IXI Agriculture Resources q Air Quality IXI Biological Resources IXI Cultural Resources IXI Geology / Soils q Hazards &Hazardous Materials IXI Hydrology I Water Qualityn Land Use 1 Planning q Mineral Resources [XI Noise Population 1 Housirlg

Public Services q Recreation [XI Transportation / Traffic q Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

[XI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGAlmIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.


July 27, 2007

2.2 PO'TEN'TIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section describes the environmental consequences, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, of the Proposed Action, as well as recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) and/or mitigation measures.

A direct environmental impact is one that is immediately caused by the alternative and that occurs at or near the time and place of the action. lndirect impacts are caused by the alternative but may occur some time later or at some distance. lndirect impacts may, for example, include induced changes in the pattern of land use or population density or growth rate and their related effects on natural systems or other social systems. Cumulative impacts occur in combination with other actions or projects that are occurring or are projected to occur within the region of the Proposed Action.

To provide a clear classification of impacts, this Initial Study defines five types of impacts, including:

Significant Impact. A significant impact includes effects ,that exceed established or defined thresholds. For example, noise levels that exceed local noise level standards would be considered a significant adverse impact.

Potentially Significant Impact. A potentially significant impact includes effects that may be significant but there is insufficient information to verify the magnitude of the effect. For example, to determine vehicular noise impacts for a new development from a nearby roadway requires information on traffic volume, topography, building location and orientation, construction material, window types and treatment, and height and mass of any structure between the residents and the vehicles. Lack of information relating to these details precludes a definitive conclusion as to whether interior noise levels meet or exceed local or state noise standards.

Less Than Significant Impact. A less than significant impact includes effects that are perceptible, but do not exceed established or defined thresholds. For example, alterations in the development intensity of a site would be noticeable but would not necessarily represent a significant change in land use compatibility, especially if the Proposed Action is consistent with local development standards.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A less than significant impact with mitigation indicates that the effects of a significant or potentially significant impact have been reduced below established thresholds through the irr~plementation of specific mitigation measures. For example, implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater runoff-including silt fences, infiltration galleries and vehicle maintenance-may reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant.


July 27, 2007

No Impact. A Proposed Action with no impact will have no perceptible effect on the resources in question.

The Best Management Practices (BMPs) are provided below for each resource category. BMPs are included as part of the proposed action to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant (or in some cases to no impact). For some resource categories, mitigation measures have been provided to reduce impacts to less than significant where impacts could not be avoided.


July 27, 2007

Less Than Significant

Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation ~mpact Impact

2.2.1 Aesthetics

Would the project:

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

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? !a

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? IXI

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which wo~lld adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? !a

Discussion

a) The proposed project wo1.1ld modify and improve existing intersections. The Stanislaus County General Plan Conservation Element support document does not identify scenic vistas in the area of these two project locations. No impact is anticipated.

b) The Stanislaus County General Plan Conservation Element support document does not identify scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings in the area of these two projects. None of the roads involved is identified as a Scenic Highway or is near a Scenic Highway or vista. No impact is anticipated.

c) In both locations, construction operations would induce temporary visual disruptions to nearby visual receptors. These disruptions would cease upon project completion, and no mitigation is required or recommended.

The proposed project is essentially the modification and replacement of features and two existing intersections. While the proposed project would change some of the existing visual features at both intersections, this would not be an adverse change, as the established visual character would remain largely unchanged. The new improvements would be visually corr~patible with the current uses and visual conditions in the area, and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or


12 of 58 July 27, 2007

its surroundirlgs. Therefore, the impacts would be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required or recommended.

The proposed project may require the removal of up to five roadside ,trees that are in poor condition at the Hatch Road site Plate 2.1. Of greater importance is the mature Monterey Pine (Plate 2.2) and portion of a mature orchard of trees near Santa Fe Avenue at Geer Road that may be adversely affected by the project (Plate 2.3). Ground vegetation will also be removed from each site to prepare for new roadway. The removal of these resources would significantly affect the visual quality of the site and its surroundings. Applicatio~i of BMP Measure A-I would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

d) The proposed project would introdl~ce a new set of traffic signals and intersection lightirlg into each intersection area to replace existing lighting. The proposed project lighting elements have been designed to avoid creating adverse light and glare impacts onto adjacent properties by directing light downward onto the road surfaces. As lighting at the stop signs currently exists at both project sites, replacement of the existing lighting would represent a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required or recommended.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

BMP Measure A-I: The County will implement re-vegetation and landscaping measures that would include the planting of trees and appropriate ground cover at both sites. The tree and groundcover species planted would consist of drought-resistant native species obtained from a local source,

Implementation of this BMP measure w o ~ ~ l d reduce potential impacts to aesthetics to less-than-significant levels.


July 27. 2007



Impact lncomoration Impact Impact

2.2.2 Agriculture Resources

Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of ,the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? €a

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? IXI

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

Discussion

a,b,c) Agricultural activities currently occur on or within the vicinity of both project sites. Programs that apply to agricultural resources include the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. The CDC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies and designates lands that are prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. According to the 2002 Stanislaus County Important Farmland Map prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, the proposed project site and its surroundings are classified as Prime Farmland.

One Williamson Act parcel would be affected at the Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection (APN 018-065-007-000). (See Plate 2.4). Three Williamson Act parcels would be affected at the Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection: APN 045-007-007- Parcel I; APN 045-007-007-Parcel 3; and APN 045-009-008-000 (See Plate 2.5). The proposed project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 5,517 square feet of prime farmland to roadway near Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue, and 22,643 square feet of prime farmland to roadway at Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue, for a combined total of 28,160 square feet, less than one acre in all. Permanent conversion of prime farmland would result in the permanent loss of the continued agricultural and envirorrmental benefts that these lands currently provide. The implementation of


14 of 58 July 27, 2007

Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-2 would reduce these signi,ficant irnpacts to less- than-significant levels.

The land surrounding the two project sites is primarily designated Agricultural, A-2-40 under the Stanislaus County General Plan. The following exceptions apply: at the Geer Road RoadlSanta Fe Avenue site, the area northwest of the intersection is designated Planned Development with P-D zoning. The area to the southeast is designated as Agriculture with P-D zoning. Southeast of the Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection, the General Plan designation is Urban Transition and the zoning is A-2-40. Roadway improvements or modifications do not represent a significant change in land use conditions and are typically allowed under the County General Plan and zoning code.

Mitigation Measure AG-1: Prior to the start of project construction, the Stanislaus County Public Works Department shall enter into an agreement with the Central Valley Farmland Trust (or another other land trust organization within Stanislaus County whose mission is to permanently preserve lands that have an agricultural, ecological, scenic, historic, or recreational value), to provide in-lieu fees for conservation easements to compensate for the permanent conversion of prime agricultural land to non-agricult~~ral use.

Mitigation Measure AG-2: Prior to the start of project construction, the Stanislaus County Public Works Department shall enter into an agreement with each land owner andlor farmer, as appropriate, to provide fair compensation for the loss of income from cultivation land taken out of production due to the proposed intersection improvements.


July 27,2007



Impact lncorooration Imoact Im~act

2.2.3 Air Quality

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 [XI 0

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 17 0 [XI

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 0 [XI

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 El

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? • 0 [XI

Discussion

a) The Project is located in Stanislaus County and is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The District has made continual progress toward achieving clean air and complying with state and federal clean air requirements. Presently the District is designated as in attainment for CO, and non-attainment area for ozone, PMlo and PM2.~. The Modesto Urbanized Area was redesignated as attainment for CO in March 1998 and has continued to maintain compliance with that standard.

The District's Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan describes measures intended to maintain the CO standard until 2018. The District is developing an 8-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, which it will submit to the EPA by June 2007. Based on official monitoring data, the District has been attaining federal PMlo standards for the past three years (2003-2005). The CARB has forwarded the District's 2006 PMlo Plan to the EPA and requested it to find the District in attainment for PMlo. Due to the significant achievement in efforts to reduce particulate

7393011 (OAK7RO86)le.s Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder

16 of 58 July 27, 2007

air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley area, the EPA is proposing to redesignate the District as attainment for federal PMlo standards.

The proposed project is included in the long-range plans of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and regional transportation agencies and is consistent with a conforming Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program.

The proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of any of the control measures in the District's air quality maintenance plans. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended.

b) For transportation projects, on the local scale, the pollutant of greatest interest is carbon monoxide. This Project involves widening of roadways at two intersections and does not contribute to adding vehicle highway capacity.

According to the District's 'Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts', if neither of the following criteria are met at all intersections affected by the project, the project can be said to have no potential to create a violation of the CO standard :

A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or

A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or intersections in the project vicinity.

Based on a recent traffic study provided by BKF Engineers for the two intersections of concern, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse affect on roadway LOS (see Table 2-I), and hence not have the potential to create a violation of the carbon monoxide standards.

Table 2-1: Summary of LOS Analysis

Construction activities such as clearing, excavation, and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed soil would be expected to


17 of 58 July 27, 2007

generate short-term airborne emissions, primarily exhaust emissions and particulate matter. The proper maintenance, control, and operation of construction equipment would minimize the potential exhaust emissions. Construction activities in the Project would be required to comply with the District's Regulation Vlll on fugitive PMIO that specifies actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions. The impacts would then be less than significant with incorporation of BMP Measure AQ-1.

c) The District has specified thresholds of significance of ozone precursor emissions, namely oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Exhaust from vehicle tailpipes is a common source for these precursors. The proposed improvements at the two intersections do not add highway vehicle capacity and therefore the project is not anticipated to increase the precursor emissions from the project region.

d) A sensitive receptor is defined as a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals and schools. The area is agricultural, and therefore sensitive receptors are not likely to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. The nearest schools are located approximately 1.2 miles from either Project site, and the nearest concentration of residences is on the Hatch RoadlSanta Fe Avenue intersection's southeastern side, approximately 1.2 mile away. Concentrated residences are located a mile away from the Geer RoadlSanta Fe Avenue intersection. Due to the distance of potential receptors, project air quality impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended.

e) Objectionable odors are typically associated with waste handling, treatment and disposal facilities and with industrial operations that utilize strong-smelling elements or processes. The Project does not include these types of uses or activities. Emissions from asphalt operations and construction vehicles could create some short-term objectionable odors; however any construction-related odors would be temporary. Therefore the proposed project is anticipated to have a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required or recommended.


BMP Measure AQ-1: The County of Stanislaus shall include the following control measures in the plans, specifications, and contract documents for the construction of all phases of the proposed project. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the County shall subrnit a Dust Control Plan to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Construction activities shall not commence ~ ~ n t i l the SJVAPCD has approved or conditionally approved the Dust Control Plan. The County shall provide written notification to the SJVAPCD within ten days prior to earthmoving activities via fax or mail. The Dust Control Plan shall describe all fugitive dust control measures to be implemented before, during, and after any dust generating activity. A copy of the Dust Control Plan shall remain on site during construction activities. The following control measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction activities:

7393011 (OAK7R086)le.s Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder

18 of 58 July 27, 2007

Pre-water site sufficient to limit visible dust emissions (VDE) to 20-percent opacity

Phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time

Apply water or chemicallorganic stabilizerslsuppressants sufficient to limit VDE to 20-percent opacity; or construct and maintain wind barriers sufficient to limit VDE to 20-percent opacity. If utilizing wind barriers, work shall also be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time.

Apply water or chemicallorganic stabilizerslsuppressants to unpaved haullaccess roads and unpaved vehiclelequipment traffic areas sufficient to limit VDE to 20- percent opacity and meet the conditions of a stabilized unpaved road surface.

Restrict vehicular access to the area; and apply water or chemicallorganic stabilizers1 suppressants, sufficient to comply with the conditions of a stabilized surface. If an area having 0.5 acres or more of disturbed surface area remains unused for seven or more days, the area must comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface area as defined in section 3.58 of Rule 801 1.

An ownerloperator shall limit the speed of vehicles traveling on uncontrolled unpaved accesslhaul roads within construction sites to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.

An ownerloperator shall post speed limit signs that meet State and Federal Department of Transportation standards at each construction site's uncontrolled unpaved accesslhaul road entrance. At a minimum, speed limit signs shall also be posted at least every 500 feet and shall be readable in both directions of travel along uncontrolled unpaved accesslhaul roads.

Cease outdoor construction, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities that disturb the soil whenever VDE exceeds 20-percent opacity.

Continue operation of water trucks/devices when outdoor construction excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities cease, unless unsafe to do so.

Implementation of this BMP measure would reduce potentially significant air quality impacts to less-than-significant levels.


July 27, 2007



lmoact lncomoration Impact lmoact

2.2.4 Biological Resources

Would the project:

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

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

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interr~~ption, or other means? la

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? IX1

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?


July 27, 2007

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 17 El

Discussion

a,d) There are a number of trees located west of Geer Road and to northwest of Hatch Road that have the potential to be avian habitat. Depending on the size and types of trees, they could provide habitat for raptors, including the Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and smaller migratory birds. The potential of a State-listed California Endangered Species (e.g., Swainson's hawk) to be affected by the project would necessitate consultation with CDFG pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2080 et seq.). The State has the authority to issue an incidental take permit under $2081 of the Fish and Game Code. Furthermore, CESA states that reasonable and prudent alternatives shall be developed by CDFG, together with the project proponent and the State lead agency, consistent with conserving the species, while at the same time maintaining the project purpose to the greatest extent possible (Fish and Game Code Section 2053). Raptor nests could be affected by the removal of large trees during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31). Raptor and other bird nests could be adversely affected by the removal of large trees and nearby construction activity if the proposed project is implemented during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31). This impact is considered potentially significant. Application of BMP Measure Bio-I would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

In addition, there have been four known sightings (CNDDB 2006) Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) within five miles of the two sites. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle is listed as federally threatened. This species is dependent on elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus) shrubs for both food and reproduction. Ground-disturbing activities, use of herbicides, or other activities may destroy occupied elderberry shrubs, resulting in potential take of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. The intersection improvements are within the known range of the species and elderberry shrubs may be located in the project area. The proposed project could potentially remove habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, which would be considered a potentially significant impact. Application of BMP Measure Bio-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

b) There are no apparent riparian areas at either site, and the General Plan does not identify any sensitive habitats or natural communities within the project vicinity. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation is required or recommended.

c) The Ceres Main Canal, which is used for irrigation, is located immediately south of the Geer and Santa Fe intersection. The proposed project would widen a portion of the existing bridge that crosses Ceres Canal by extending a section of the bridge's concrete


21 of 58 July 27, 2007

and its two pier walls into the canal. The existing concrete lining in the canal would be removed and a new concrete lining would be installed after the widening work is corr~pleted. Temporary falsework would be used in the canal to support the bridge widening forms during construction. According to the Turlock Irrigation District (TID), which owns and operates the Ceres Canal, the district irrigation season typically runs from March 15 to October 15 (though weather conditions often change the start and finish dates). No formal wetland survey has been conducted on this site to date; however, during an informal site visit on August 28, 2006, the Canal was observed to be running at full capacity, and there appeared to be no wetlands present. In the event wetland resources are found to be present their encroachment by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. Application of BMP Measure Bio-3 would reduce potential irrlpacts to a less-than-significant level.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not consider the Tuolumne River above Basso Bridge to be navigable (See Attachment C: correspondence from l-ID to Stanislaus County, May 3, 2006). TID's diversion at La Grange is above that point in the river, therefore TID never opens the canal system to a navigable river and the Ceres Main Canal does not qualify as Waters of the U.S. The canal; however, may still qualify as Waters of the State (subject to regulation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water and Porter Cologne Acts) during the irrigation season, which typically runs from March 15 to October 15. While the proposed project would involve work within the canal, the proposed construction work is expected to take place outside of the irrigation season. Therefore, no impact to Waters of the U.S. is anticipated. At a minimum, the California Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted prior to project initiation for potential permit requirements.

The widening of Hatch Road and Santa Fe Avenue is likely to impact the Ceres Main Canal running parallel to Hatch Road. Widening the intersection will require an expansion of drainage improvements, installing a new box culvert (seismic retrofit to existing) for Santa Fe Ave where it crosses the Canal, and installing new railings for the bridge.

e) Neither location is known to contain oak woodland according to the General Plan. Also, the projects do not conflict with any known tree preservation policy or ordinance, so no additional mitigation is required or recommended.

f) The site is not included in any known habitat conservation plan. Therefore the proposed work is not in conflict with such plans and no impact is anticipated. No mitigation is required or recommended.


Implementation of the following BMPs would reduce potentially significant irrlpacts to biological resources to less-than-significant levels.


22 of 58 July 27, 2007

BMP Measure Bio-I: Implementation of the following BMPs would ensure that impacts to nesting raptors and other birds are less-than-significant:

To avoid disrupting the nesting season for all birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treat Act (active nests, adults, eggs, and young of most species of birds), the proposed project shall limit any tree removal and trimming and bridge widening to the period between September 1 and January 31.

If construction must occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a focused survey for raptor and other bird nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify active nests within 114 mile of the project area. The survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of construction and shall be within the nesting season. The biologist shall consult with appropriate agencies should any special status species be observed.

If nesting raptors or other birds are found during the focused survey, no construction shall occur within 500 feet of an active nest until the young have fledged (as determined by a qualified biologist), without prior approval by CDFG. Construction within 500 feet may be permitted if a nest monitor is present to ensure that disturbance is minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

BMP Measure Bio-2: The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that impacts to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle are less-than significant:

Prior to any construction activity or grading for either intersection project, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to determine the number and location of elderberry shrubs on the project site.

If no elderberry shrubs are found on the project site or if all elderberry shrubs will be avoided by at least 100 feet, impacts to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle will be less-than-significant and no further mitigation is necessary.

If elderberry shrubs are found within the project area, the project proponent will consult with USFWS under Section 7 of ESA to determine a future course of action, including whether incidental take authorization is needed. Through consultation and negotiations with USFWS, appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures will be determined and implemented.

BMP Measure Bio-3: Prior to construction grading or tree removal, a qualified biologist shall make a determination whether the Ceres Main Canal qualifies as a jurisdictional Waters of the State (since the Canal may qualify as such between the dates of March 15 and October 15 (any year) and also identify any potential wetlands that may be present in the project area at that time. Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not consider the Tuolumne River above Basso Bridge to be navigable (See Attachment C: correspondence from TID to Stanislaus County, May 3, 2006). TID's diversion at La Grange is above that point in the river, therefore TID never opens


23 of 58 July 27, 2007

the canal system to a navigable river and the Ceres Main Canal does not qualify as Waters of the U.S. The canal; however, may still qualify as Waters of the State (subject to regulation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water and Porter Cologne Acts) during the irrigation season, which typically runs from March 15 to October 15. To ensure that there are no significant impacts to sensitive communities, this area should be assessed to determine if it contains a sensitive community, if it is in or outside the area of project impact, and what hydrologic cor~nection it has to the project site if any. If it is determined to be a sensitive community, and if it is to be impacted, then to reduce impacts to less than significant levels it will require assessment and documentation by USACE and CDFG standards, permits obtained, and adherence to any compensatory mitigation required by these agencies. If the feature is deterrnined to be on or off site and not to be impacted, then specific measures should be included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to protect water quality into the feature. Additionally, the feature should be fenced to prevent accidental trespass and impact.

lrrtplementation of these BMP measures would reduce the potential for impact to all biological resources to a less-than-significant level.


July 27, 2007



Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

2.2.5 Cultural Resources

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 91 5064.5? €a

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? €a

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleonotological resource or site or unique geologic feature? a

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 17 •

Discussion

a) No impact. There are no identified prehistoric or historic resources within 500 feet of the project area, according to the Central California Information Center (CCIC) survey of August 10, 2006.

b) Natural soils within the project site have been substantially altered as a result of past roadway, canal, and telephone line construction. Because of the disturbed nature of the area, it is unlikely that archaeological resources are located within the proposed project sites. However, excavation and grading could result in unearthing unknown resources, as well as damaging or destroying them, which is considered a significant impact. Implementation of BMP Measure CR-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

The following structures near the Hatch RoadtSanta Fe Avenue intersection are identified by the CCIC as being over 45 years of age:

Ceres Main Canal (Napton 1992, and Jensen 1996, did not identify the Ceres Main Canal at this location to be a significant resource);


July 27, 2007

Santa Fe Avenue railroad bridge over the Ceres Main Canal (identified as bridge #38C-84, constructed in 1921 but altered in 1954, and determined by Caltrans to be ineligible for the NRHP, bridges inventory 311987 and 812000); and,

ATSFIBNSF Railroad Bridge over the Ceres Main Canal, which has not yet been evaluated.

The GLO Plat map for T4SlR1 OE (sheet #44-245, dated 1853-1 854) shows a road and a trail in the SE % of Section 5. The trail continues into the S % of Section 4. The road continues into the NE % of Section 8. Based on their location and trajectory, these historic features have most likely been obliterated by development and agriculture or subsumed into modern road alignments.

According to the CCIC, the following structures near the Geer RoadlSanta Fe intersection are over 45 years of age:

ATSFIBNSF Railroad line nearby, and one building immediately east of the intersection (shown on the 1957 Army Map Service copy (1:25000 scale) of the 1953 Denair USGS 7.5' map (1:24,000), but it is difficult to tell if it still remains from map analysis.)

It appears that none of the afore-mentioned structures would be affected by the proposed project and no irr~pact is anticipated.

Based on a record search conducted by the CCIC (A~~gust 10, 2006), the project area has low sensitivity for the possible discovery of historical resources, prehistoric or historic, unless the project extends to the adjacent railroad line or bridge. The CCIC has recommended avoidance of these features. Except for the replacement of railroad grade crossing panels at Hatch Road and Geer Road, the railroad line would not be affected. According to CCIC, the immediate area of both project components "appear to have been otherwise adequately surveyed by professional archaeologists and no further study appears to be indicated at this time." The railroad panels are anticipated to be of low historical importance at best and replacing them and would represent a less-than- significant impact. However, in the event that unrecorded historical resources are discovered during project-related construction activities, all work would stop and BMP Measure CR-1 would be implemented. The County would then consult a qualified professional to determine the importance and appropriate treatment of the find.

c) Neither paleontological nor unique geological resources are presently known to, or are likely to exist at both project sites. Grading and earth excavation during project construction could result in the discovery of unknown resources. If paleontological resources andlor unique geologic features were uncovered as a result of project implementation, adherence to BMP Measure CR-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.


July 27,2007

d) No cemeteries, gravesites or human remains are known to exist within the proposed project site. The proposed project does not involve extensive excavation and is not anticipated to disturb any buried human remains. However, there is a possibility that human remains may be encountered, which could result in a significant impact. Implementation of BMP Measure CR-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.


lmplementation of the following BMPs would reduce the potential for disturbance of cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.

BMP Measure CR-1: Should undiscovered cultural resources, such as structural features, or unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during construction activities, the contractor would suspend work and contact County staff. A qualified cdltural resource specialist would be retained and would perform necessary investigations to determine the significance of the find. The County would then implement mitigation deemed necessary for the recordation and/or protection of the cultural resources. In addition, pursuant to Sections 5097.97 and 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of human remains, all work must be halted and the County Coroner will be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission will be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.

BMP Measure CR-2: The County will notify a qualified paleontologist of unanticipated discoveries, made by either a qualified cultural resources specialist consulted under BMP Measure CR-1 or construction personnel and subsequently document the discovery as needed. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a breas, true, andlor trace fossil during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.


July 27,2007



Impact Incornoration Impact Impact

2.2.6 Geology And Soils

Would the project:

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

i) Rl.~ptl.~re of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

IXI

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? IX]

iv) Landslides?

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

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

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? El 17

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


IXI

July 27, 2007

Discussion

a. i) No faults are currently known to exist within the valley part of Stanislaus County where the project is located. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. (Source: Stanislaus County General Plan Safety Element). No mitigation is required or recommended.

a. ii) As previously stated, no active or inactive faults are know to exist, however some degree of seismic ground shaking could occur within the valley part of Stanislaus County where the project is located as a result of a seismic event on the Nacimiento, San Andreas, Calaveras, or Hayward fault. The project site lies within Seismic Zone 3 as shown on Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Since the site is located in Seismic Zone 3, near-source factors are not required. The nearest Seismic Source Type A fault is mapped greater than 15 kilometers (km) from the project site and the nearest Seismic Source Type B fault is mapped greater than 10 km from the site. (Source: Stanislaus County General Plan Safety Element and "Foundation Report: Geer Road Bridge Widening Turlock Irrigation District Canal Adjacent To Hatch Road, Stanislaus COI-~nty, California" June 24, 2005). This represents a less than significant impact and no rrritigation is required or recommended.

a. iii) The project is to be constructed to meet State and Stanislaus County standards for earthquake resistant construction. Little seismic related ground failure has been known to occur within the valley part of Stanislaus County where the project is located. (Source: Stanislaus County General Plan Safety Element). Potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required or recommended.

a. iv) These projects are located in the Rat agricultural valley. No areas in which landslides and possible seismic activity that threaten the public health and safety are located within the project areas. (Source: Stanislaus County General Plan Safety Element). No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is req~~ired or recommended.

b) The soils encountered in the test borings drilled in 2004 and 2005 by Kleinfelder near each of these sites showed a very loose silty sand fill from the surface to depths of approximately 12 feet. The proposed site preparation and excavation activities for the expanded roadways may temporarily expose soils to erosion potential particularly if exposed to heavy rain and strong winds. In addition, the construction effort associated with installing a new, attached culvert section for the Ceres Main Canal (on the Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection) may result in exposed creek banks. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant irr~pact with respect to soil erosion. Implementation of this BMP Measure Geo-I would minimize soil erosion impacts to a less than significant level.

c) The road widening projects are not located on geologic units or soil that is unstable, or that wol.lld become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Project construction would result in minor modifications to the existing physical


29 of 58 July 27, 2007

topography d l ~ e to excavation, grading, and paving activities. Impacts would be less than significant impact and no mitigation is required or recommended.

d) The soils encountered in the test borings drilled in 2004 and 2005 by Kleinfelder near each of these sites showed a very loose silty sand fill from the surface to depths of approximately 12 feet. Because the soils encountered at the proposed project site are sandy and silty and do not contain a high percentage of clay, it is unlikely that the proposed intersection improvements would experience impacts associated with expansive soils, creating substantial risks to life or property. The proposed project is designed to significantly reduce the movement of the proposed structure. (Source: Modesto General Plan EIR; and, Kleinfelder drilling reports of 2004, and 2005). Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur with project implementation and no mitigation is required or recommended.

e) This project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.


BMP Measure Geo-I: Soil Erosion. The project would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify sources of sediments and pollution that could potentially affect storm water quality. The SWPPP would also identify and implement storm water prevention measures to reduce pollution (see also BMP Measure WQ-1).


July 27, 2007



Im~act Incorporation lmoact lm~act

2.2.7 Hazards And Hazardous Materials

Would the project:

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

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 El 17

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? • 17 El

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 • El

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • • 0 El

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • €3


July 27, 2007



lmoact Incorporation Imoact lmoact

2.2.7 Hazards And Hazardous Materials (Cont.)

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? la

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

Discussion

a) The roadway widenings would have no hazards or hazardous materials impact in the site area. Kleinfelder could find no evidence of a Phase I conducted for the sites. Neither intersection is adjacent to property registered with the EPA for toxic hazards (Source: EPA website August 16, 2006). As such, the County shall determine, to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Resources (DER), that a site containing (or formerly containing) residences or farm buildings, or stn~ctures, has been fully investigated (via Phase I study and Phase II study if necessary) prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Any discovery of underground storage tanks, former underground storage tank locations, buried chemicals, buried refuse, or contaminated soil shall be brought to the immediate attention of DER.

Implementation of policies in the Stanislaus County General Plan Safety Element minimizes the effects of hazardous conditions that might cause loss of life and property in the unincorporated areas of the county. The Hazardous Waste Management Plan provides guidelines for managing hazardous waste in ,the county (Stanislaus County General Plan Conservation Element, Goal 5; Safety Element, 1994). The County Department of Environmental Resources coordinates efforts to identify locations of hazardous materials and prepare and implement plans for management of spilled hazardous materials, as required throughout the County (i.e., in both incorporated and unincorporated areas).

lmplementation of the intersection improvements would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as no unusual use of hazardous materials are included in the project components and no in- pact is anticipated.


32 of 58 July 27, 2007

b) The proposed project site consists of agricultural lands, roadway, and land adjacent to roadways, all of which have some propensity for holding pesticides, lead, and other particles. Earth excavation and construction would disturb project area soils, resulting in potential worker exposure. However, standard dust control measures would be required for the project (see Air Quality Section, Item Ill b of this document). lmplementation of those measures would minimize the potential for the release of lead and pesticides. During fueling of vehicles and equipment, accidental spills may occur. Less than significant impact with the incorporation of BMP Measure Haz-I.

c, dl el f ) The proposed roadway widenings would not be implemented on a listed hazardous material site and are not located within '/4 mile of an existing or proposed school. The proposed project sites are not in an airport land use plan area, within two miles of an airport, or within two miles of a private airstrip. No impact would result as from project implementation and no mi'tigation is required or recommended.

g) Project construction activities would constrain access to the GeerISanta Fe and Hatch RdISanta Fe intersections, increasing congestion temporarily, resulting in temporary impacts to traffic flow and emergency access. lmplementation of BMP Measure Haz-2 would reduce potential impact to emergency response and emergency response plans to less-than-significant levels.

h) The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland ,fires, beyond the existing conditions at both locations. Impact would be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required or recommended.


BMP Measure Haz-I: Prior to initiating construction, the Stanislaus County Public Works Department shall prepare a Spill Preventiorr Plan. The Spill Prevention Plan shall outline measures to prevent accidental spills during the fueling of construction vehicles and equipment. In addition, the Spill Prevention Plan shall also propose measures for cleaning accidental fuel spills.

BMP Measure Haz-2: The Stanislaus County Public Works Department shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for the initiation and duration of project construction.

73930/1 (OAK7R086)tes Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder

July 27, 2007



Impact Incor~oration Impact Impact

2.2.8 Hydrology And Water Quality

Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?

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

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

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

17 IXI

IXI

IXI

IXI IXI

IXI

IXI

IXI


July 27, 2007

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that woi~ld impede or redirect flood flows? 17 IXI

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? El

j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IxI

Discussion

a,c) Widening of these intersections would increase the amount of paved surface area for each roadway as well as the bridge over the Ceres Canal. Roadway expansion potentially increases pollutant runoff from the site. The projects are subject to NPDES Perrrlit discharge requirements and Provision C3 requirements, as implemented by the County of Stanislaus, for the construction and post-construction phases. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB) as well as preparation of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (see Item Vlll c). Construction and post-construction stormwater quality controls would be implemented in conformance with the County's regulations and permit requirements. Impact would be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required or recommended.

The project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that could result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site. The widening of the bridge over the Ceres Canal will require the removal (during the dry season) of the concrete lining of the canal during construction, which would increase the potential for erosion and siltation. A construction project that disturbs an area of one acre or more must obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (General Construction Permit) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for storm water discharges associated with constr~~ction activity. To obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit, an NO1 must also be filed with the SWRCB. As the project would disturb more than one acre, the above-referenced SWPPP must also be prepared and implemented pursuant to the requirements of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The SWPPP will identify appropriate stormwater pollution prevention measures or BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from construction sites. Implementation of the BMPs specified within the SWPPP would serve to prevent storm water pollution from impacting water quality. The SWPPP would incorporate a set of both construction and post-constr~~ction stormwater runoff controls, including vegetative swales, and/or other measures as prescribed by the County. These measures would include the following stormwater pollution prevention measures:

Phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas and time of exposure; avoid grading and excavation during wet weather.


35 of 58 July 27,2007

Construct diversion dikes and drainage swales to channel runoff around the construction site.

Delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses, and buffer zones to prevent excessive, or unnecessary disturbances and exposure.

Plant vegetation on exposed slopes or use erosion control blankets (e.g., jute matting, glass fiber or excelsior matting, mulch netting) to reduce the potential for erosion.

Once grading is complete, stabilize the disturbed areas with permanent vegetation or other measures as soon as possible.

Cover stockpiled soil and landscaping materials with secured plastic sheeting and divert runoff around them.

Protect drainage courses, creeks, and catch basins with straw bales, silt fences, and/or temporary drainage swales.

Protect storm drain inlets from sediment-laden runoff with sand-bag barriers, filter-fabric fences, block - and-gravel filters, and excavated drop-inlet sediment traps.

Prevent construction vehicles from tracking soil onto adjacent streets by constructing a temporary stone pad with a filter-fabric underliner near the exit where dirt and mud can be washed from vehicles.

Use dry-sweep methods to clean sediments from streets, driveways, and paved areas of the construction site.

Maintain all constr~~ction vehicles and equipment; inspect them frequently for and repair leaks.

Designate specific areas of the construction site, located well away from creeks or storm drain inlets, for auto and equipment parking and routine vehicle maintenance.

Perform major maintenance, repair, and vehicle and equipment washing offsite or in a designated and controlled area; clean up spills immediately.

When vehicle fluids or materials such as paints, solvents, fertilizers, and other materials are spilled, clean up immediately; use dry cleanup techniques whenever possible. The proposed project involves surface drainage improvements to collect and convey surface runoff to appropriate roadside outlets.


36 of 58 July 27, 2007

Store wet and dry building materials that have the potential to pollute runoff under cover and/or surrounded by berms when rain is forecast or during wet weather months.

Cover and maintain dumpsters.

Collect and properly dispose of construction debris, plant and organic material, trash, and hazardous materials as soon as possible.

Plan roadwork and pavement construction to avoid stormwater pollution during wet weather months.

Following project construction, areas disturbed by grading and excavation would be covered with permanent surfaces. With the implementation of the permit-required SWPPP, potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant level and no further mitigation is required or recommended.

b) The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. While the proposed projects would increase the extent of paved surfaces with the proposed widening of Geer, Hatch, and Santa Fe Roads, and the bridge over the Ceres Canal, the increase would be marginal and would not interfere with ground water recharge. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required or recommended.

d) The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that could result in flooding on or off-site. A less than significant impact is anticipated and no mitigations are required or recommended.

g) The project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Sufficient drainage systems to handle runoff from the expanded roadways are included in the project design. The project would be subject to the County's requirements for the provision of construction stormwater quality control measures. Incorporation of the SWPPP referenced above (Item a,c) into the construction specifications would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels and no further mitigation would be necessary.

h) The major flooding in Stanislaus County is typically limited to areas along the San Joaquin River and isolated stretches of the Tuolumne River (Source: Stanislaus General Plan Safety Element) that are well outside of the project area. A less than significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required or recommended.

i) The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding caused by the failure of a dam or levee. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required or recommended.


37 of 58 July 27,2007

j) The project will not create or be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required or recommended.


No additional measures are required or recommended.


July 27, 2007



lm~ac t lncor~oration Impact lm~acf

2.2.9 Land Use And Planning

Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community? [XI

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jul-isdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [XI

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural cornmurrity conservation plan? [XI

Discussion

a) The established community is largely agricultural in nature and the roads that need to be widened already exist. Therefore, the project will not physically divide an established community and no impact would result.

b) The proposed roadway widenings were anticipated as part of the General Plan effort in the traffic projections to 2030. Roadways do not have either zoning or General Plan designations accordirrg to the County (conversation with Sara Lytle-Pinhey of Stanislaus County Planning, August 2, 2006).

Agricultural activities currently occur on or within the vicinity of both project sites. Programs that apply to agricultural resources include the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. The CDC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies and designates lands that are prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. According to the 2002 Stanislaus County Important Farmland Map prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, the proposed project site and its surroundings are classified as Prime Farmland.


July 27, 2007

One Williamson Act parcel would be affected at the Geer RoadlSanta Fe Avenue intersection (APN 018-065-007-000). (See Plate 2.4). Three Williamson Act parcels would be affected at the Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection: APN 045-007-007- Parcel I ; APN 045-007-007-Parcel 3; and APN 045-009-008-000 (See Plate 2.5). The proposed project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 5,517 square feet of prime farmland to roadway near Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue, and 22,643 square feet of prime farmland to roadway at Geer RoadlSanta Fe Avenue, for a combined total of 28,160 square feet, less than one acre in all. Permanent conversion of prime farmland would result in the permanent loss of the continued agricultural and environmental benefits that these lands currently provide. The implementation of Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-2 would reduce these significant impacts to less- than-significant levels.

General Plan Policies

The project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:

General Plan Circulation Element

Policv Two: Circulation systems shall be designed and maintained to promote safety and minimize traffic congestion.

Consistencv: The proposed traffic improvements would facilitate the movement of traffic through the intersections, provide for additional intersection capacity, and improve traffic safety by controlling the movement of turning traffic.

Implementation Measure 2: Traffic control devices (e.g., traflic signals) shall be utilized to control the flow of traffic and rr~inimize delays.

Consistencv: The proposed project would install a traffic signals for intersections identified for improvement in the General Plan.

Implementation Measure 3: The County shall maintain LOS C or better for all roadways and intersections, unless they are located within the sphere of influence of a city that has adopted a lower level of service.

Consistencv: According to the September 20, 2004 Intersection Analysis prepared for the Geer and Santa Fe and Hatch and Santa Fe intersections (revised June 14, 2005), with implementation of the proposed intersection improvements, these intersections would operate at a acceptable level of service (C or better) according to the County of Stanislaus performance criteria.

The proposed project would not conflict with the General Plan in respect to both land use designation and applicable policies. Prior to construction or operation, the County Public Works Department would obtain all required permits and approvals. Therefore, no related land use impacts would result from the proposed project. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required or recommended.


40 of 58 July 27, 2007

c) The intersection modifications will not conflict with Stanislaus County habitat plans or natural community conservation plans. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required or recommended.


None required or recommended.


July 27,2007




2.2.10 Mineral Resources

Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [XI

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

Discussion

a) No known mineral resources of value to the region and to the State would be lost as a result of these intersection improvements. No impact is anticipated.

b) No locally important mineral resource recovery site is located near the affected intersections. No impact is anticipated.




July 27, 2007



lmoact Incorporation lm~ac t lmoact

2.2.1 1 Noise

Would the project result in:

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

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne noise levels? [XI

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

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

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? El

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [XI

Discussion

a) While daily traffic volumes would not significantly increase, the higher rate of speed possible for the traffic may increase, which could generate increased noise levels along the roadways. According to the Stanislaus County General Plan, "sensitive receptors" are described as the following noise sensitive land uses:


Schools Hospitals Convalescent homes Churches

One sensitive receptor (a church) is situated near Hatch Road 1 Santa Fe Avenue intersection. No other sensitive receptors are located within either project area. The project anticipates a possible increase up to a 3 dBA increase in traffic-generated noise along the project-improved roadways. The Noise Element (Chapter IV) of the Stanislaus County General Plan defines noise levels of less than 3 dBA as a "Minimum Detectable Change" in noise conditions. As it is not anticipated that project-generated noise would exceed the 3 dBA level, and as the church is a part-time use, it is determined that the anticipated change in noise conditions at this location would represent a minor change in noise conditions and would still be considered less-than- signi.ficant. The railroad line adjacent to the church in question is not anticipated to significantly contribute to noise conditions at this location as it represents an intermittent source of noise occurrence that would also be short-term in duration. As such, this impact is also considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended.

b) Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not involve the use of equipment anticipated to generate substantial ground-borne vibration levels. Construction activities would likely require the use of various trucks, bulldozers, scrapers, loaders, graders, and earthmovers. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment would be less than 0.09 inches per second peak particle velocity (ppv) at 25 feet. Predicted vibration levels at the nearest onsite and offsite str~~ctures would not be anticipated to exceed the most conservative threshold of 0.2 inches per second ppv. Therefore, short term groundborne vibration impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigations are required or recommended.

c) With the projected increase in the speed of traffic on the affected roadways, there would also be a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing conditions without the project (see Table 2-2, below). These conditions have been anticipated in the County General Plan and analyzed in the Stanislaus Co~~n ty General Plan Update Technical Reference Document for Noise Analysis. As discussed above for Criteria (a), because project-generated noise is not anticipated to exceed the 3 dBA level, and because of the part-time use of the one sensitive receptor, this would also be considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required or recommended.


July 27, 2007

Table 2-2: Projected Roadway Noise Levels

From Appendix B of the Future Noise Environment of the Stanislaus County General Plan Update Technical Reference Document for Noise Analysis

d) The project construction operations will result in intermittent, elevated noise levels along the roadway during construction. As shown on Table 2-3, noise generated by construction equipment (including trucks, graders, and other associated equipment) can reach high levels. The construction activities of the proposed project would increase existing ambient noise levels; however, construction activities would be short-term and temporary. Nonetheless, it is recommended to implement BMP Measure N-I to reduce potential construction-related noise impacts associated with the proposed project to better assl-ire a less than significant level of impact.

Table 2-3: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment Noise Level (dBA) @ 50 Feet

With Feasible Noise controla

Earthmoving: Front Loader Backhoe Dozer Tractor

Materials Handling: Crane

Stationary: Pump Generator

Impact: Jack Hammer Pneumatic Tools

Other: Saw Vibrator

a Estimated levels obtainable by selecting quieter procedures or machines and implementing noise-control features requiring no major redesign or extreme cost.


45 of 58 July 27, 2007

elf) The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of an airport or a private airstrip. Therefore, there would be no irnpacts associated with exposing construction workers to excessive noise levels from airport activities.


BMP Measure Noise-I: As a means of limiting the potential noise impacts associated with construction activities, the following measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project:

Pneumatic tools and demolition equipment operations are limited to the daytime hours, as feasible.

Equipment shall be equipped with factory mufflers.

Residents within 100 feet of the proposed project site shall be notified by the Coi~nty Public Works Department within 15 days of nighttime construction activities, if any are to be conducted.

These measures would reduce potentially significant construction noise impacts to less than sigr~ificant levels.


July 27, 2007



Irn~act Incor~oration Irn~act Irn~act

2.2.1 2 Population And Housing

Would the project:

a) Induce substantial popl.llation growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? !a

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? !a

c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? lxl

Discussion

a) The proposed intersection improvements would be implemented to accommodate future population growth, as well as to respond to projected poor roadway levels in service that has been anticipated in the Stanislaus County General Plan. Therefore the proposed project would not induce population growth and there would be no impact.

b) Neither roadway widening will displace existing housing, therefore providing replacement housing elsewhere is not necessary. No impact would result.

c) Neither roadway widening will displace substantial numbers of people and replacement housing is not necessary. No impact would result.




July 27, 2007


Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO

Im~ac t Incor~oration lmoact Impact

2.2.1 3 Public Services

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?

Discussion

a) Because the project consists of the widening of existing roads, there is no increase in demand for fire, police, schools, parks, and other facilities. No new services or facilities will be necessary, and no impacts are anticipated.







2.2.14 Recreation

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [XI

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [XI

Discussion

a,b) The project involves the widening of existing roadways to improve levels of service. Neighborhood and regional parks are not served by these improvements, nor would substantial physical deterioration occur or be accelerated. TIie project does not require expansion of recreational facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts are anticipated.




July 27, 2007



Impact Incor~oration Impact Impact

2.2.1 5 Transportation 1 Traffic

Would the project:

a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

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

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

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

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

IXI 17

IXI

Discussion

a,b) The roadway widenings are planned to address low service levels (i.e. extended waiting periods) at the existing intersections. There will be no substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion


50 of 58 July 27, 2007

at intersections. The Stanislaus General Plan Transportation element incorporated recommendations from each of the cities' general plans, the Caltrans Transportation Corridor Reports, and the Regional Transportation Plan developed by the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) to develop specific recommendations for improvements. To confirm the need for transportation irrlprovements identified in the Circulation Element, a forecast of traffic volumes and Level of Service was prepared based upon the level of growth anticipated by the year 2030, the planning horizon for the General Plan. The forecast was based on the latest population, housing and employment projections prepared by StanCOG, the agency designated by ,the State to prepare these forecasts. These forecasts were adjusted to reflect additional growth anticipated by the cities or the County since the adoption of the StanCOG forecast.

The result was the adoption of the policy "The County shall maintain LOS C or better for all County roadways and intersections, except, within the sphere of in,lluence of a city that has adopted a lower level of service standard, the City standard shall apply. The County may adopt either a higher or lower level of service standard for roadways and intersections within urban areas such as Community Plan areas, but in no case shall the adopted LOS fall below LOS D". A "Class C 4-lane Expressway (Major Road should ) be constructed for Santa Fe Avenue, outside of the communities of Errlpire and Denair, and the City of Hughson, within an 85-foot right-of-way measured from the railroad right- of-way." The Geer Rd and Hatch Rd intersections with Santa Fe Avenue are located on either end of the City of Huston and are referred to in this policy (Source: Chapter II - Circulation Support Document; Stanislaus County General Plan).

During project construction, access to these two intersections could be constrained and congestion may increase. However, construction related traffic impacts would be short- term and temporary in nature and would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed intersection improvements would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required or recommended.

c) The proposed intersection improvements would not affect air traffic patterns. No impact is anticipated.

d) The proposed intersection improvements are designed to enhance driving safety conditions. There will be no modifications to existing roadways that would substantially increase hazards. No impact is anticipated.

e) During project construction, access to the intersections could be constrained and congestion may increase, resulting in temporary impacts to traffic flow and emergency access. Implementation of BMP Measure Haz-2 (Refer to Item Vll.g, in Section 2.2.7 above) w o ~ ~ l d reduce potential emergency access impacts to less than significant levels and no further mitigation would be necessary.

f) Neither intersection improvement would require associated parking capacity. No impact is anticipated.


51 of 58 July 27, 2007

g) In agricultural areas, the County provides adequate striping and paving in accordance with Caltrans and AASHTO standards to safely accommodate bicycle travel whenever a roadway is widened, and, where adequate right-of-way exists, whenever a roadway is resurfaced, restored, or rehabilitated on all routes except Minor roads. Marked andlor signed bicycle lanes and paths are provided in accordance with the Regional Bicycle Action Plan adopted by StanCOG, the adopted Community Plans for the urban areas of the County, and the General Plans of the cities within the spheres of influence. Adopted policy: "To safely accommodate bicycle traffic, adequate pavement shoulder andlor striping shall be planned and implemented for Expressways, Major, and Collector roads, and, in agricultural areas, on Local roads when constructing new roadways or implementing major rehabilitation projects in accordance with the County Standards and Specifications, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, or other nationally recognized standard". No impact is anticipated.




July 27. 2007



Impact incorporation lmoact Impact

2.2.16 Utilities And Service Systems

Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

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

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?


July 27, 2007

Discussion

a, b, e) The proposed intersection improvements will not require wastewater treatment services or affect wastewater treatment requirenients of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, nor will the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities be required by construction of this project. No impact is anticipated.

c) The project will require the construction and replacement of existing storm water drainage facilities. These facilities are designed to handle roadway runoff that would result from the project. The construction of these facilities would have a less-then- significant impact (See Hydrology and Water Quality discussion in Section 2.2.8).

d) The proposed project would not require a water supply and no new or expanded entitlements would be needed. No impact is anticipated.

f,g) The proposed improvements would not generate solid waste and therefore would not require landfill services and would not exceed federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No irr~pact is anticipated.


None required or recommended


July 27, 2007

Potentially Significant

Impact


With Less Than Mitigation Significant No

Incor~oration Impact Impact

2.2.1 7 Mandatory Findings Of Significance

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elirr~inate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fut~.~re projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

[XI

[XI

Discussion

a) The proposed intersection improvements would result in a less than significant impact with mitigations incorporated. The project could potentially have an effect on humans, endangered plants, or animals; however, mitigation measures and BMPs are included to reduce potential project impacts. Mitigation measures are also included in the event that human remains are unearthed during construction, to ensure resources important to California prehistory are not eliminated.

One Williamson Act parcel would be affected at the Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection (APN 018-065-007-000). (See Plate 2.4). Three Williamson Act parcels would be affected at the Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue intersection: APN 045-007-007- Parcel I; APN 045-007-007-Parcel 3; and APN 045-009-008-000 (See Plate 2.5). The proposed project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 5,517 square feet of prime farmland to roadway near Hatch RoadISanta Fe Avenue, and 22,643 square feet of prime farrr~land to roadway at Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue, for a corr~bined total of 28,160 square feet, less than one acre in all. Permanent conversion of


55 of 58 July 27, 2007

prime farmland would result in the permanent loss of the continued agricultural and environmental benefits that these lands currently provide. However, the County's irr~plementation of Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-2 would reduce these significant impacts to less-than-significant levels.

b) The proposed project is consistent with the County's General Plan. The irrlpacts of the proposed project, when corrlbined with current and future projects will not result in significantly considerable cumulative effects above and beyond what was already addressed within the Stanislaus General Plan and associated support documentation.

c) As described throughout this envirorlmental checklist, the proposed project would not result in substantial environmental effects on human, endangered plants, and animals. BMP measures are identified in this Initial Study to reduce potential adverse effects related to site-specific agricultural, air quality, noise, and emergency evacuation and response hazards to less-than-significant levels.

No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation.


July 27, 2007

3.0 REPORT PREPARATION

3.1 LEAD AGENCY

Stanislaus County Department of Public Works is the lead agency under CEQA for the preparation of the Geer Road - Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road - Santa Fe Avenue Intersection lrr~provements Initial Study1 Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Stanislaus County Department of Public Works 1716 Morgan Road Modesto, CA 95358

Staff Contact: Robert Meleg Phone: (209) 567.4883 Fax (209) 525.4148 Email: [email protected]

3.2 REPORT PREPARERS

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Kleinfelder 1970 Broadway, Suite 71 0 Oakland, CA 94612

Project Staff: Iris Starr Richard Sykes


July 27, 2007

4.0 REFERENCES

Cari Anderson Consulting - Onroad Mobile Sources Emissions Analysis for the Stanislaus County's Circulation Element. November 26, 2005. Prepared for Dowling Associates, Inc.

City of Hughson. City of Hughson 2005 Final General Plan. Prepared by: Design, Community & Environment, Inc. December 12, 2005.

City of Hughson. City of Hughson 2005 General Plan Draft Environmental lmpact Report. Prepared by: Design, Community & Environment, Inc. June 30, 2005.

City of Hughson. City of Hughson 2005 General Plan Final Environmental lmpact Report. Prepared by: Design, Community & Environment, Inc. October 1 1 , 2005.

Stanislaus County - Report for: Traffic Analysis of Stanislaus County's Circulation Element. Prepared for: Stanislaus County, Planning Department. November 26, 2005. Dowling Associates, Inc.

Stanislaus County - Stanislaus County General Plan Chapter 11: Circulation Support Documentation

Stanislaus County - Stanislaus County General Plan Chapter 111: Consen/ation/Open Space Support Documentation.

Star~islaus County - Stanislaus County General Plan Chapter IV: Noise Element Support Documentation.

City of Modesto, Modesto Urban Area General Plan, by Modesto City Council Resolution No. 95-409 (Adopted August 15, 1995): As Amended by Modesto City Council Resolution No. 2003- 122 (March 4, 2003).

City of Modesto, Final Environmental lmpact Report for the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan (State Clearinghouse #1999082041). Prepared for the City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department. Prepared by: Jones & Stokes, March 2003.

City of Modesto, Draft Master Environmental lmpact Report for the Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan; TRRP Joint Powers Authority, SCH# 2000022028. Lead Agency: City of Modesto. Prepared by EDA W, Inc., May 2001.

City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental lmpact Report for the Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan; TRRP Joint Powers Authority, SCH# 2000022028. Lead Agency: City of Modesto. Prepared by EDA W, Inc., September 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) December 1971, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.


July 27, 2007

ATTACHMENTS

A. CClC Records Search

6 . Best Management Practices - Mitigation Monitoring and Reportiqg Plan

C Comments Received on Draft Initial Study and Responses

PLATES

Plate 1.1

Project Location Map

Geer RoadISanta Fe Avenue and Hatch Road Santa Fe Avenue are located just outside of Hughson, California

Plate 1.2

v EO 021 O l M d r

Hatch Road at Santa Fe Avenue Geer Road at Santa Fe Avenue

Project located in Stanislaus County, California. Both are located within the Hughson Sphere of Influence.

I

I

PLATE 2.1 Photo of Roadside Trees that are in Poor Condition: Hatch Road at Santa Fe

PLATE 2.2 Photo of Mature Monterey Pine: Geer Road at Santa Fe

PLATE 2.3 Photo of Portion of a Mature Orchard Near Santa Fe Avenue at Geer Road that may

be Adversely Affected by the Project

PLATE 2.2.4 Geer RdlSanta Fe Ave Area Williamson Act Properties

PLATE 2.5 Hatch RdISanta Fe Ave Area Williamson Act Properties

APPENDIX A

CClC RECORDS SEARCH

CENTRAL CAUFORNTA INFORMAlZON C M R ' . & M a HWwW R.scnrrrrs I n t b m a t b Sysfem

beptmmt o f Anthropology - California Stab Imivursity, S t a n i ~ h s 801 W. Monta Wrt4 Avu~w, Twlock, Culifornla 95382

(zosi] 667-3307 - FAX (209) 667-3324

Date: August 10,2006

CCIC File #:6405N Project: Gccr RoadSanta Fe Intersection vicinily of Hughson/DcnairmUlock (Project # not given)

Iris S h , AICP Bay A m Planning Manager Kleidklder, Inc. 1970 Broadway, Suite 710 Oakh~d, CA 94612

Dear Ma Starr.

We W e conducted a rccor& scarch as per your rcqucst for lhc aboy6refem1ced project area locaM on thc Denair USGS 73-minurc quadranglo map In Stanislaus County.

Search of our files inc1udes review of our maps for the sp&~c project area and a 500-Wt radius of the project area (as qnxScd by the clicnt), and revicw of the National Rcgister of Historic Placcs. Ulc California Register of Historical Resources, the CcrIi/omia Inventory oflfistoric Resources (1 976), the CalYomia IiistoricaI Lonhmks (1 990). and the Califc~mia Points of ~sloricol Interest listing (May 1992 and updatcs), the Historic Properly Data File and the Acchaeological Dctcrminations of Eligibility (Ome a€ Historic Pmsemtion m a computer lists dated 6/16/2006), the CALTRANS State and Local Bridge Su~ley (1989 and updatcs), thc Smey of Swveys (1989). GLO Plats, and olhcr pertinent historic data available at the CCIC for each specific county.

The following dctails lhc results of the rccords sea~ch:

Prehistoric or historic rcsoureur within the project area:

No prchisloric or historic archaeological rcsources or historic properties have bax rcportcd to the CCIC.

Prehistoric or hiatoric remrccs within a 5Woot radius of the project m:

No prehistoric or historic archaeological rcsources or hislosic properties have been reported to thr CCIC.

Slructures over 45 years old:

a ATSF/BNSF Railroad line nearby. The 1957 Army Map Sctvice copy (1:25000 scale) ofthe 1953 Dcnair USGS 7.5' map (1:24000 scalc) shows onc building immediately adjacenl lo the east side of Ihc i n t e d o n . It is diflicull to lcll if that particular suucture is still there.

Rtyources that arc known to have vduc to local cultural groups:

None have bccn formally rcported to thc CCIC.

WOW invdgat im within the project:

Two haw been reported to the CCE as follows:

CCIC report e ST-1451 Naplon (1992) CnIfural ResoureesInve~tlgatfons of the ProposcdUvingdon

Cogeneratfon Project, Mercsd and Banislaus Counttes, Cdfornia

ST-1793 Napton (1992) Cutturd1 Resources Inveslfgatlons ome Pmpased Livingston Cogeneration Project: Addendum 1: New Altemu1iv.s to MID kV 7Pmsmf.vion R&les, Stm~slms Connp. Cali/ornia

Prcvious invcPtiQatroas within a 500-foot mdhs of the project area:

No others ~eparted to the CCIC.

Recommenda~dComnents:

Please be advised titat a historical remum is dafIncd as a bullding, slruchve, abject, pmhbric or historic a r c ~ l o g i c a l site, or &&id p o s d g physical evidence of human actbitk wer 45 yeara old Thae may be unidmtiPEcd fkahms involved in yout pmject that axe 45 ycars or old= and oonsidercd as historical resoun;es requiring thrther study and evaluation by a qualified pmhsional a f b appropriate Wpliine.

Based on existing data in our files the project a m appsars to have been df'ed to culturaI resources study . (with negative n?sults) Ln the areas when one might most likely e~a,unter patentid historic xesonrces. No

further etudy appears to be indicatcd at !his time.

We advise you that in accordance with State law, if any historical remwoc~ are dimmered during project- related construction activities, all work is to stop and the lead agency and a qdiiled pmfbsional are to be umsulted a m e the importance and appropiate treatment of the find. If Native Anmican remains are found the Coudy Cosoner and the Native American Heritage Commission, Sammaio (916-653-4082) are to be notilied immediately for mommended pmdurea.

We thank you fbr conractiag this d c e regarding historical m m c a pmemation. PIease ktw know when we can be of fttther service.. Biing is attached, payable within 60 dtys of receipt of the inmica

Robin Hards, Assistant Research Technkian Centtal Wania Momation Center Calihrnia Historical Remwces Infomution System

I

Jan 12 07 04: 17p Rntho/Geag 6673324 P - 4 i 4

CENfRAL CALIFORMA INFORMATION C€NTER GzIifcwnkr H- kowwzs I n b m M W Syst#n

Oe-mt of Anthropalogy - Cnllfomla State WMnlty, Stanbkars 801 W. Monte Vldo A w e , Turladc, bllfotnh 95382. .

(209) 667-3307 - FA% (209) 667-3324

A W , a h , AlarIm, h i d , Sm 3 ' , StdslQur d r i m WZU

Date: August 10,2006

CCIC File #:6404N Project: East Hatch W S a n t a Fe Avenue Wersection, vicinity of Hughson (Project # not given)

Iris sum, AlCP Bay Area Planning Manager KlMlder , Inc. 1970 Broadway, Suile 7 10 Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Ms. Starr,

We have conducted a records search as per your request for tho aboverefennctd project area located on the CGI# USGS 7.5-minute qaahngle map in Slanisbus County.

Search of o& files includes review of our maps for the specific pIPlject area and a 500-foot radius of the project area (as specified by thc client). and review of thc National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of H f s t d Resources, the Califonria Inwnto6ry of Historic Re~vurces (1976). the Cali/omia Hfstorfcul Lmdmmks (L990), and the Cnlifornnia PoinLr ofHistorical Interest listing (May 1992 and updates), thc Historic Property Data File and the Archaedlogical Determiearions of Elig'bility ( M c e of Hiatoric Preservation ammt amputer lists dated 6/16/2006). the CALTRANS State and Local Bridge S w e y (1989 and updates), the Survey of 8weys (1989), a0 Plats, and &er pertinent historic data available at the CCIC fi each specific county.

The following details the d t s of the records search:

)Pteblstork or histork rebources within the project area:

No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or historic properties have bccn reported to the CCIC.

Prehlfitorie or hiytoric resources within a 500-foot radius of the project area:

No phistoric or historic archaeological resources or historic properties have been reported to the CCIC.

Shuclures over 15 years old

. Cens Main Canal- Napton (1992) and Jensen (1996) did not identify the Ccres Main Canal at this location to be a siguiticant resource.

. Santa Fe Road bridge ovcr Ceres Main Canal- is identi64 as bridge #38C-84, canstruded in 1921 but aitmd in 1954, and determined by Caltans to be ineligible for the MIHP (Caltrans L&cal Agency Bridges Inventory 3/1987 and 8 / 2 0 versions). ATSFBNSF Railroad bridge over the Ceres Main Canal-it has not yet been evaluated, Lo oux knowledge.

The GLO Plat map for T4S/RIOE ( s W #44-245, dated 1853-1854) shows a Road and a Trail ia tho SB X .

ddon 5. The m i 1 continues into thc S H of section 4. The Road conrinucs iab the NE % of seuion 8. Based on their locadon and tajectory, these historic feam have most Likaly been obliterated by development and agriculbnal activity or subsumed into madem road allgnnwlts.

Resotuxes that are known to have value to local cultural groupa:

None have been formally rqoned to the CCIC.

P m h a inveStlgatioas within the pmjeck

Two have been reported to the CClC as follows:

CCIC report # ST-1451 Napton (1992) Cuhral Resourcss I ~ t i g 1 1 1 1 ~ s of the Pmposed LiPingsfon

Cogeneration Prqjecr, Merced and,StanisJmds Counties, C o l I / ~ ~ l o

ST-2930 Jmsen (1996) Archueologicai Invantory Suwey, Tracy--Pestto Longhaul Fibemptics Dota Tranmfsslon Line. Portions of h m o , iUoder(l, Mereed, S&nisIaus, and San Joaqin Cowtties, CaIIfomfa

PIPvious invatigatimu within a 500-foot radius of the projed *rca:

No othm reported to the CCIC.

Please be advised that a historical mmma is ddincd as a building. stmchw objcct, prehistoric or historic ardacological site, or distrid possedig physical cvidenca of human a&ities over 45 years old. There q v be midentifled feames hJvd in your project that mi 45 yxan or older and considend as histoxi4 ~sourocs r-ng Authet study and evaluation by a qualified profksional ofthe appropriate Wptine.

B a d on existing data in our fllw tho project area has a low sensitivity for the possl%le discovery of hisbridal re-, pte- or historic (unless it cxtends to the adjacent railroad line or bridge; we recomnsend.avoii ofthe railroad features). Tbe imm&c project area appears to haw been otherwise adequately wmycd by proibsional archaeologists and no further study appears lo be indicated at tbis

We advise you that in accordance with State law, if any hfstorlcal res~urces are discmered during project- related comction iactivities, al l work is to stop and the lead agency and a quidi6ed probsional an to be consdtal to detednc the importance and appropriate treatment oftho 8nd KNptive Ametican mains are fbuad lhe County Coroner and the Nadvc American Haitage Commlseioq Sacrammto (916-653-4082) elre to be mtklied immbtdy for t8commwded p d u r e s .

We thank you for mntacting this ofice regarding historical mum pmcNalian. please let & know yben wecanbeofArrtIsetservice. Billingisatta~payeMtwithin60duya of rcceiptoftheiavoics.

gincerely, ,

'- t c h % d L . crlf Robin Hards, Assistant Research Technician Central California Lnfomaion C~torlcalifomia Hiorical Resources M o d o n System

APPENDIX B

BEST MANAGEMENT PRAC'TICES-

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN

Best Management Practices - Mitigations

APPENDIX B

STANISLAUS COUNTY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT GEER ROAD - SANTA FE AVENUE AND HATCH ROAD - SANTA FE AVENUE

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN

Note: The numbering of the topical headings below corresponds to the appropriate topical subsection in Section 2.2 of the Initial Study. Those subsections that do not require mitigation are not shown here.

2.2.1 AESTHETICS


Measure A-I : The County will implement re-vegetation and landscaping measures that would include the planting of trees and appropriate ground cover at both sites. The tree and groundcover species planted would consist of drought-resistant native species obtained from a local source,

1. County drafts Site 1. Prior to drafting

CDFG specifications and in consultation with a certified arborist.

the Plan into construction

stock from a local Plan consistency.

according to Plan.


B-I July 27, 2007

Best Manaaement Practices - Mitiaations

2.2.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES


BMP Measure AG-1: Prior to the start of project construction, the Stanislaus County Public Works Department shall enter into an agreement with the Central Valley Farmland Trust (or another other land trust organization within Stanislaus County whose mission is to permanently preserve lands that have an agricultural, ecological, scenic, historic, or recreational value), to provide in-lieu fees for conservation easements to compensate for the permanent conversion of prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use.

1. County identifies and initiates consultation with appropriate land negotiations to land trust organization. trust organization.

2. County and land trust

conservation easements

3. County submits the 3. County confirms 3. Stanislaus

compensation payment

BMP Measure AG-2: Prior to the start of project construction, the Stanislaus County Public Works Department shall enter into an agreement with each land owner andlor farmer, as appropriate, to provide fair compensation for the loss of income from cultivation land taken out of production due to the proposed intersection improvements.


July 27, 2007


1. County initiates 1. County contacts negotiations with individual property

2. County and property owners reach

according to input received from property owners.

3. County provides 3. County provides

individual property

2.2.3 AIR QUALITY


BMP Measure AQ-1: The County of Stanislaus shall include the following control measures in the plans, specifications, and contract documents for the construction of all phases of the proposed project. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the County shall submit a Dust Control Plan to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Construction activities shall not commence until the SJVAPCD has approved or conditionally approved the Dust Control Plan. The County shall provide written notification to the SJVAPCD within ten days prior to earthmoving activities via fax or mail. The Dust Control Plan shall describe all fugitive dust cor~trol measures to be implemented before, during, and after any dust generating activity. A copy of the Dust Control Plan shall remain on site during construction activities. The following control measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction activities:

Pre-water site sufficient to limit visible dust emissions (VDE) to 20-percent opacity

Phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time

Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants sufficient to limit VDE to 20-percent opacity; or construct and maintain wind barriers sufficient to lirr~it VDE to


July 27, 2007


20-percent opacity. If utilizing wind barriers, work shall also be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time.

Apply water or chemicallorganic stabilizerslsuppressants to unpaved hauIlaccess roads and unpaved vehiclelequipment traffic areas sufficient to limit VDE to 20- percent opacity and meet the conditions of a stabilized unpaved road surface.

Restrict vehicular access to the area; and apply water or chemicallorganic stabilizers1 suppressants, sufficient to comply with the conditions of a stabilized surface. If an area having 0.5 acres or more of disturbed surface area remains 1.1nused for seven or more days, the area must comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface area as defined in section 3.58 of Rule 801 1.

An ownerloperator shall limit the speed of vehicles traveling on uncontrolled unpaved accesslhaul roads within construction sites to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.

An ownerloperator shall post speed limit signs that meet State and Federal Department of Transportation standards at each construction site's uncontrolled unpaved accesslhaul road entrance. At a minimum, speed limit signs shall also be posted at least every 500 feet and shall be readable in both directions of travel along IJ ncontrolled unpaved accesslhau l roads.

Cease outdoor construction, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities that disturb the soil whenever VDE exceeds 20-percent opacity.

Continue operation of water trucksldevices when outdoor construction excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities cease, unless unsafe to do so.

measures in the measures are being


July 27, 2007


2.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


Measure B-I: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to nesting raptors and other birds are less-than-significant:

To avoid disrupting the nesting season for all birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treat Act (active nests, adults, eggs, and young of most species of birds), the proposed project shall limit any tree removal and trimming and bridge widening to the period between September 1 and January 31.

If construction must occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a focused slJrvey for raptor and other bird nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify active nests within 114 mile of the project area. The survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of construction and shall be within the nesting season. The biologist shall consult with appropriate agencies should any special status species be observed.

If nesting raptors or other birds are found during the focused survey, no construction shall occur within 500 feet of an active nest until the young have fledged (as determined by a qualified biologist), without prior approval by CDFG. Construction within 500 feet may be permitted if a nest monitor is present to ensure that disturbance is minimized to the maximum extent practicable.


habitat protection

2. County secures the 2. Biologist reports services of a qualified findings to County and

8-5 July 27, 2007

the appropriate measures. Biologist begins monitoring.

4. Contractor complies with specifications and the monitor's instructions.

necessary instruction and direction to work crew. Reports to agencies as appropriate.

4. Confirmation by County that measures have been implemented.

4. Stanislaus County

and immediately following construction.

4. During and after construction.


Measure 8-2: The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that impacts to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle are less-than significant:

+ Prior to any construction activity or grading for either intersection project, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to determine the number and location of elderberry shrubs on the project site.

+ If no elderberry shrubs are found on the project site or if all elderberry shrubs will be avoided by at least 100 feet, impacts to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle will be less-than-significant and no further mitigation is necessary.

+ If elderberry shrubs are found within the project area, the project proponent will consult with USFWS under Section 7 of ESA to determine a future course of action, including whether incidental take authorization is needed. Through consultation and negotiations with USFWS, appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures will be determined and implemented.

1. County secures the services of a qualified

elderberry survey. recommendations.

would initiate construction. If elderberry bushes are found, County will begin consultation with USFWS.

3. Based on USFWS

develop and apply and confirms habitat appropriate habitat protection measures are protection measures.

BMP Measure Bio-3: Prior to construction grading or tree removal, a qualified biologist shall make a determination whether the Ceres Main Canal qualifies as a jurisdictional Waters of the State (since the Canal may qualify as such between the dates of March 15 and October 15 (any year) and also identify any potential wetlands that may be


B-6 July 27,2007

Best Manaaement Practices - Mitigations

present in the project area at that time. Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not consider the Tuolurr~ne River above Basso Bridge to be navigable (See Attachment C: correspondence from TID to Stanislaus County, May 3, 2006). TID's diversion at La Grange is above that point in the river, therefore -1-ID never opens the canal system to a navigable river and the Ceres Main Canal does not qualify as Waters of the U.S. The canal; however, may still qualify as Waters of the State (subject to reg~~lation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water and Porter Cologne Acts) during the irrigation season, which typically runs from March 15 to October 15. To ensure that there are no significant impacts to sensitive communities, this area should be assessed to determine if it contains a sensitive community, if it is in or outside the area of project impact, and what hydrologic connection it has to the project site if any. If it is determined to be a sensitive community, and if it is to be impacted, then to reduce impacts to less than significant levels it will require assessment and documentation by USACE and CDFG standards, permits obtained, and adherence to any compensatory mitigation required by these agencies. If the feature is determined to be on or off site and not to be impacted, then specific measures should be included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to protect water quality into the feature. Additionally, the feature should be fenced to prevent accidental trespass and impact.

2, Prior to, during,

requirements (if any). If required, County secures incidental take authorization.

3. Monitor provides the necessary instruction and observation of direction to work crew. after construction.

activities. Reports to

after construction. been implemented.


July 27, 2007



Measure CR-1: Should undiscovered cultural resources, such as structural features, or unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during construction activities, the contractor would suspend work and contact County staff. A qualified cultural resource specialist would be retained and would perform necessary investigations to determine the significance of the find. The County would then implement mitigation deemed necessary for the recordation and/or protection of the cultural resources. In addition, pursuant to Sections 5097.97 and 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of human remains, all work niust be halted and the County Coroner will be immediately notified. If the remains are deterrnined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission will be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.

construction specifications.

2. In the event that cultural

qualified cultural resource the administrative file. specialist would be consulted. County would implement mitigation based upon the specialist recommendation.

are found, work would stop construction and and the procedures identified above will be implemented. construction re-

commences.

dministrative files.


July 27, 2007


Measure CR-2: The County will notify a qualified paleontologist of unanticipated discoveries, made by either a qualified cultural resources specialist consulted under BMP Measure CR-1 or construction personnel and subsequently document the discovery. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a breas, true, andlor trace fossil during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.

procedures identified above will be implemented.

3. Appropriate protection procedures would be implemented based on the recommended

construction re- and the paleontologist. commences.

2.2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS


BMP Measure Geo-I: Soil Erosion. The project would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify sources of sediments and pollution that could potentially affect storm water quality. The SWPPP would also identify and implement storm water prevention measures to reduce pollution.


July 27, 2007


that measures have been implemented.

2.2.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS


Measure HM-1: Prior to initiating construction, the Stanislaus County Public Works Department shall prepare a Hazardous MaterialsISpill Prevention Plan. The Hazardous MaterialsISpill Prevention Plan shall outline measures to prevent accidental spills durirlg the fueling of construction vehicles and equipment. In addition, the Hazardous MaterialsISpill Prevention Plan shall also propose measures for cleaning accidental fuel spills.

1. County shall include

Prevention Plan in Prevention Plan. construction specifications.

Prevention Plan.


July 27, 2007


BMP Measure Haz-2: The Stanislaus County Public Works Department shall prepare a Construction TrafCic Management Plan (CTMP) for the initiation and duration of project construction.

prepare or require the contractor to prepare a review and approve construction CTMP.

2.2.11 NOISE


Measure N-I: As a means of limiting the potential noise impacts associated with construction activities, the following measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project:

All pneumatic tools and demolition equipment operations are limited to the daytime hours, as feasible.

All equipment shall be equipped with factory mufflers.

All residents within 100 feet of the proposed project site shall be notified by the County Public Works Department within 15 days of nighttime construction activities, if any are to be conducted.

IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY


July 27, 2007

APPENDIX C

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND STANISLAUS COUNTY'S RESPONSES

Kenneth A. Moore Mayor

Stophon Quslls Mayor Pro Tern

Greg Adams Collnc~l Member

Gerald "Jerry" Ltdcnnann

Counc~l Member

Ramon Bawanan Counc~l Member

Joseph E. Dnnabed City Manager

Mary Jane CsntreII CMC, Dlrcctor of Adrntn~s~ral~ve ServlcedC~ty Clerk

David M. Chase, P.E Director of Public WorksICity Engineer

Deborah L. Barone Dtrector o f Finance: C~ry Treasurer

Barry Siobc Director o r Planning & Budding

Thomas Clark Parks & Recreation Manager

Janet Rasmcusen Chiefof Police Ser\,~ces

John W. Slovall City Aaomey

7018 Pine StreetlP.0. Box 9 ' Hughson, California 95326 ' (209) 8834054 ' Fax (209) 883-2638 www.Huahson.org

May 1,2007

Robert C. Meleg, P.E., Associate Civil Iingineer Stanislaus Ccunty Dept. of Public Works 1 '7 16 Morgan Road Modesto, CA 95358

SUBJECT: City of Hughson Public Works Department comments in Response to Project Referral CEQA Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Stanislaus County Intersection Improvements at Santa Fe Avenue and Geer Roads, and Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road.

Dear Mr. Mclcg:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the above subject proposal. Thc following comments are provided for the County's consideration:

The project recommendation refers to CIP per 1991 GP. Should it not take into consideration the recently adopted and revised county circulation elcmcnt?

How do these proposed improvements relate to the ultimate improvements contemplated by the C'ounty's current circulation element?

The City has submitted a Draft Street Master Plan to the county for review and comment. By way of that submittal, the city is submitting comment upon these proposed projects as well. Has the county taken that information into consideration and how have those comments been addressed? There should be a statement regarding conformity to that plan.

Page 1, Section 1 . 1 Paragraph 5, last sentence is incorrect; it will be annexed on May 8,2007.

Lcna to Robm C. Mckg. S~s~iislatu Cotmty Response lo Project Rcferral - Propoxd MND - l~~tersectron lmprovernents Santa Fe & Geer Rd.. Santa Fe & Hatell Rd P 2

The City and County need to have a separate dialog regarding the long term maintenance and operation of the intersection, Including but not

limited to the signalization. In that regard we seek detailed information about the type, design, and operation characteristics.

Page 2, Section 1.2 first paragraph, last sentence is incorrect. The City General Plan was fully adopted on December 12, 2005.

Page 2, Section 1.3, the Geer Road1 Santa Fe Intersection is also in the City of Hughson Sol, and subject to the CitylCounty MOU on coordination. We believe that the effective implementation of the intent of that MOU goes beyond mere CEQA review.

Page 3, seventh bullet. Don't you need to specify the detours in order to evaluate the potential project impacts? Same comment on page 4, third bullet. We really need to talk about this upfront and early on.

The specific relocation of above ground utilities (poles in particular) is of particular interest to the city and we would like to see exactly what is being proposed.

Page 4, the last bullet point of section 1.3 relating to diversion of traffic during construction. What are the proposed routes? What impact to City of Hughson along Santa Fe to Whitmore during this time frame? Has an analysis of these impacts been conducted?

Page 5, section 1.4.1 Schedule. We would suggest that the project proponent give considerable consideration to the options for compressing the length of closures.

Page 5, Section 1.5 Permits and Approvals. Should include a city Encroachment permit for Hatch and Santa Fe. Same comment on page 7.

Page 16, Table 2-1. Does this agree with the City's report by Fehr and Peers? It doesn't appear to.

Page 16, there is a typo on b) second bullet point "...LOS F on one or more streets or a more or more.. ." should read ". . .one or more.. ."

Page 43, first paragraph is incorrect. There is a sensitive receptor (Church) right at the intersection of Santa Fe and Hatch. You may wish to discuss background rail traffic noise in this regard.

Letter lo Roben C. Meleg. Slan~slata Colln~y Response lo Project Refenal - Proposed MND - ll~terscclion lmprovemellts .Salnn Fe & Ccer Rd.. Snnla Fe & Hatch Rd P .3

We presume the Plates represent the APE Maps?

Pg 49, Section 2.2.15 a) Project has potential to create increased congestion to local street service levels for City of Hughson during construction. IS indicates Less than Significant Impact.. .????

Plate 2.2 incorrectly identifies a Monterey Pine located at Hatch Road and Santa Fe. It should be Geer Road and Santa Fe.

Geer Road is designated as a regional bicycle facility in the StanCOG adopted Regional Bicycle Master Plan. Will bicycle facilities be taken into account with this project?

The City of Hughson is extremely gratehl to the County of Stanislaus, the Board of Supervisors, and County Staff for their leadership and dedication in managing these important regional congestion mitigation projects. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please call me at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Thom Clark Interim Planning & Building Director

From: 'David Chase" <[email protected]> To: "Robert Meleg" <mel~co.stanislaus.ca.US> Date: 4/25/2007 85334 AM Subject: FW: County Project at Santa Fe and Hatch

FYI.

I haven't reviewed the documents yet.

---Original Message---- From: Thomas Clark Sent: Tuesday, April 24,2007 258 PM To: David Chase Subject: County Project at Santa Fe and Hatch

Attached are the Planning Department's comments.

Thorn Clark

Interim Planning and Building Director

7018 Pine Street

PO Box 9

Hughson. CA 95326

209-883-4054 office

209-883-2038 fax

Pg 4 of 57 1 s t bukt point of section 1.3 relating to dhersion of t r a c during construction. What are the proposed routes'? What impact to City of Hughson along Santa Fe to Whitmore during tlus time fiame? Has an wsi s of these impacts been conducted'?

Pg 16 of 57 t?po on b) second bullet point ". . .LOS F on one or more streets or a mare or .. more.. . " should read -'. . .one or more.. .

Pg 49 of 5 7. Section 2.2.15 a) Project has potential to create increased congestion to local street sen-ice lei-els for City of Hughson during construction. IS indicates Less than Signrficant Impact . . . '??'??

Plate 2.2 incorrectly identrfies Monterq. Pine located at Hatch Road and Santa Fe ... should be Geer Road and Santa Fe?

Geer Road is designated as a regional biqcle facility in the StanCOG adopted Regional Biqcle Master Plan.

Response to Comments Received from the City of Hughson

Stanislaus County Department of Public Works received the comments from the City of Hughson Public Works Department (correspondence dated May 1, 2007) regarding the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was circulated for public review from April 4, 2007 to May 4, 2007. The County's responses to the City's corr~ments are provided below. The County's responses also address the set of comments forwarded separately from the City via email by David Chase on April 25, 2007.

Comment 1: "The project recommendation refers to CIP per 1991 GP. Should it not take into consideration the recently adopted and revised county circulation element?"

Response: The citation of the Capital Improvement Program in the Initial Study refers only to the proposed project's original adoption under the 1991 County General Plan. The current adopted Stanislaus County General Plan and its Circulation Element were also considered for evaluation of this project. The current County General Plan is listed in section 4.0 (References) of the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Comment 2: "How do these proposed improvements relate to the ultimate improvements contemplated by the County's current circulation element?"

Response: The proposed improvements are based on a 20 - year design life. The County's current circulation element does not have a schedule for implementation. Improvements to meet the needs of the Stanislaus County General Plan Circulation Element will depend on the rate of future development.

Comment 3: "The City has submitted a Draft Street Master Plan to the county for review and comment. By way of that submittal, the city is submitting comment upon these proposed projects as well. Has the county taken that information into consideration and how have those comments been addressed? There should be a statement regarding conformity to that plan."

Response: County staff has reviewed the Draft Street Master Plan prepared for the City of Hughson and provided comments to the City of Hughson. The proposed improvements at the intersections of Geer Road and Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road and Santa Fe Avenue are consistent with the City of Hughson Street Master Plan. The City's Street Master Plan requires that these intersections be signalized; however, full - street improvements are not warranted at this time as development will need to occur in order to warrant their full implementation as specified in the Plan.

Comment 4: "Page I, Section 1 .I Paragraph 5, last sentence is incorrect; it will be annexed on May 8,2007."

Response: Comment noted, the cited correction has been incorporated in to the final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Comment 5: "The City and County need to have a separate dialog regarding the long term maintenance and operation of the intersection, Including but not limited to the signalization. In that regard we seek detailed information about the type, design, and operation characteristics."

Response: Comment noted, Stanislaus County will include the City of Hughson in discussions to finalize plans for maintenance operation of the intersection(s).

Comment 6: "Page 2, Section 1.2 first paragraph, last sentence is incorrect. The City General Plan was fully adopted on December 12, 2005."

Response: Comment noted, the cited correction has been incorporated in to the final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Comment 7: "Page 2, Section 1.3, the Geer Road1 Santa Fe Intersection is also in the City of Hughson Sol, and subject to the CityICounty MOD on coordination. We believe that the effective implementation of the intent of that MOD goes beyond mere CEQA review."

Response: Comment noted. The County is aware of the applicability of the CityICounty MOD in regards to the proposed project. The County will coordinate with the City of Hughson as specified under the cited MOD regarding the implementation of the project.

Comment 8: "Page 3, seventh bullet. Don't you need to specify the detours in order to evaluate the potential project impacts? Same comment on page 4, third bullet. We really need to talk about this upfront and early on."

Response:

Hatch Road I Santa Fe Avenue Detours

Detours of significant length would occur if the Hatch Road I Santa Fe Avenue intersection were shut down, due to limited access across the Tuolumne River:

a. The most significant detours would occur for traffic on Santa Fe Avenue. The southbound detour will be to turn east on Yosemite Avenue, 2.5 miles north of the intersection, then turn south at Geer Road, four miles east of the intersection. Traffic heading for Hughson can turn west at the intersection of Hatch and Geer.

Thru traffic heading southeast can remain on Geer Road until it hits Santa Fe Avenue. The northbound detour is the reverse of the southbound detour.

b. Detours for Hatch Road traffic will go south of the Hatch Road ISanta Fe Avenue intersection. Eastbound traffic will turn off of Hatch Road at Baldwin Road, about 800-feet west of the intersection. One mile south, detour traffic will turn east on Whitmore Avenue and travel on it for a mile. Then traffic will turn to the north on Tully Road, and drive through Hughson until it rejoins Hatch Road. The westbound detour is the reverse of the eastbound detour.

Geer Road I Santa Fe Avenue Detours

There are alternative routes close by on all legs of the Geer Road and Santa Fe Avenue intersection, should the city approve of temporary closures of the intersection. East Service Road is 1,000-feet north of the intersection, Griffin Road is 2,000-feet west of the intersection, Berkeley Avenue is one mile east of the intersection, East Grayson Road is 3,000-feet south of the intersection (serves Griffin Road), and East Keyes Road is about two miles south of the intersection (serves Berkeley Avenue).

The County will coordinate with the City of Hughson in the final design and implementation of the project detour scheme. The detour scheme will be included in the Construction Traffic Management Plan, as outlined in BMP Measure Haz-I .

Comment 9: "The specific relocation of above ground utilities (poles in particular) is of particular interest to the city and we would like to see exactly what is being proposed."

Response: The relocation of overhead utility poles at the Geer Road and Santa Fe Avenue intersection is already complete. At the intersection of Hatch Road and Santa Fe Avenue, poles supporting electrical lines operated by Turlock Irrigation District (1-ID), fiberoptic communication lines operated by Charter Communications, and telephone lines operated by AT&T are proposed to be moved to accommodate the widened roadways. TID, AT&T, and Charter Communications are all aware of the proposed changes. The construction plans for Hatch Road and Santa Fe Avenue show exactly which poles will be relocated. The project construction plans are available for review at the offices Stanislaus County Public Works during normal business hours.

Comment 10: "Page 4, the last bullet point of section 1.3 relating to diversion of traffic during construction. What are the proposed routes? What impact to City of Hughson along Santa Fe to Whitmore during this time frame? Has an analysis of these impacts been conducted?"

Response: See response to Comment 8.

Comment 11: "Page 5, section 1.4.1 Schedule. We would suggest that the project proponent give considerable consideration to the options for compressing the length of closures."

Response: Comment noted. It is the County's intention to rr~inirr~ize the duration of all project construction-related closures.

Comment 12: "Page 5, Section 1.5 Permits and Approvals. Should include a city Encroachment permit for Hatch and Santa Fe. Same comment on page 7."

Response: Comment noted. The requirement for a City Encroachment Permit has been incorporated in to the final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Comment 13: "Page 16, Table 2-1. Does this agree with the City's report by Fehr and Peers? It doesn't appear to."

Response: Third party traffic reports were not considered in BKF's traffic analysis of the Geer Road I Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road I Santa Fe Avenue intersections.

Comment: "Page 16, there is a typo on b) second bl-lllet point ... LOS F on one or more streets or a more or more ... should read ... one or more ..."

Response 14: Comment noted, the cited corrections have been incorporated in to the final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Comment 15: "Page 43, first paragraph is incorrect. There is a sensitive receptor (Church) right at the intersection of Santa Fe and Hatch. You may wish to discuss background rail traffic noise in this regard."

Response: Cornnient noted, the County confirms the presence of a church at the Hatch Road I Santa Fe Avenue intersection. The project anticipates a possible increase up to a 3 dBA increase in traffic-generated noise along the project-improved roadways. The Noise Element (Chapter IV) of the Stanislaus County General Plan defines noise levels of less than 3 dBA as a "Minimum Detectable Change" in noise conditions. As it is not anticipated that project- generated noise would exceed the 3 dBA level, and as the church is a part-time use, it is determined that the anticipated change in noise conditions at this location would still be less-than-significant. The railroad line adjacent to the church in question is not anticipated to significantly contribute to noise conditions at this location as it represents an intermittent source of noise occurrence that would also be short-term in duration. As such, this impact is also considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required or recommended.

Comment 16: "We presume the Plates represent the APE Maps?"

Response: The comment does not specify which plates it is referring to. As discussed in Section 2.2.5 (Cultural Resources); however, the Central California Information Center (CCIC) at California State University in Turlock evaluated the area within a 500-foot radius of each intersection. Diagrams of each of these areas are provided in Appendix A (CCIC Records Search) of the Draft Initial Study I Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Comment 17: "Pg 49, Section 2.2.15 a) Project has potential to create increased corlgestion to local street service levels for City of Hughson during construction. IS indicates Less than Significant Impact. ..????"

Response: As discussed on page 50 of the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; "construction related traffic impacts would be short-term and temporary in nature and would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed intersection improvements would result in a Less - Than - Significant impact and no mitigation is required or recommended."

Comment 18: "Plate 2.2 incorrectly identifies a Monterey Pine located at Hatch Road and Santa Fe. It should be Geer Road and Santa Fe."

Response: Comment noted. The cited correction has been incorporated in to the final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Comment 19: "Geer Road is designated as a regional bicycle facility in the StanCOG adopted Regional Bicycle Master Plan. Will bicycle facilities be taken into account with this project?"

Response: The County has taken bicycle facilities into account in the project design, per the cited Regional Bicycle Master Plan.

STANISLAUS COUNTY CEQA REFERRAL RESPONSE FORM

TO: Robert Meleg Stanislaus County Department of Public Works 17 1 6 Morgan Road Modesto, CA 95358

i FROM: L[L&!&,LI/V L) k& i? YG PROIECT: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative ~ecl&ation Stanislaus County Intersection Improvements at Geer Road - Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road - Santa Fe Avenue

Based on this agency's particular field(s) of expertise, it is our position the avove described project:

fl Will not have a significant effect on the environment. May have a significant effect on the environment. No Comments.

Listed below are specific impacts, which support our determination (e.g., traffic general, canying capacity, soil types, air quality, etc) - (attach additional sheet if necessary)

1 . 2. 3. 4.

Listed below are possible mitigation measures for the above-listed impacts: 1 . 2. 3. 4.

In addition, our agency has the following comments (attach additional sheets if n e c w ) .

--

0 /?A - qitb /(daw1(:?(-\o~9, 414q

Date

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL M A 4 ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO. CA 9581 4 (9 1 6) 653-4082 (91 6) 657-5390 - F a

April 6, 2007 APR 1 8 2007

STATE CLEARING HOUSE Robert Meleg C Stanislaus County Department of Public Works 1716 Morgan Road Modesto, CA 95354

RE: SCH# 2007042020- Intersection Improvements at Greer Road; Stanislaus County.

Dear Mr. Meleg:

The Native American Herltage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any projea-that causes a substantial adverse change in the sig niflcance of an historical resource, which Includes archeological resources, is a significant effect requiring the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines 15064(b)). To comply wlth this provision the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on historical resources within the area of project effect (APE), and if so to mitigate that effect. To adequately assess and mitigate project-related impacts to archaeological resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:

4 Contact the appropriate Information Center for a record search to determine: I f all or a pa& of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. I f any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. I f the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located In the APE. - I f a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

4 I f an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the flndlngs and recommendations of the records search and field survey. - The flnal report containing site forms, site significance, and mitlgation measurers should be

submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. The flnal written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center.

4 Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for: A Sacred Lands File Check. Please descrlbe the project's location in terms of USGS quadrangle name, township, range, and section. - A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in the mitigation measures. m v e A m e r i v Contact

The NAHC makes no recommendation or preference of a single individual, or group over another. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated, if they cannot supply information, they might recommend other with speciflc knowledge. I f a response has not been recelved within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up wlth a telephone call to ensure that the project information has been received. I f you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from any these individuals or groups, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our llsts contain current information.

Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. Lead agencies should include in thkir mitigation plan:

Provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally dlscovered archeological resources, per CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f). Provisions for monitoring all ground-disturbing activities in areas of identifled archaeological sensitivity by a a~chaeologist meeting the professional qualifications as defined in the in the Secretary of the Intedofs Standards and Guldellnes for archaeology and a culturally affiliated Natlve American monitor. Provisions for the curation of recovered artifacts, per CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(5)(b)(3)(C), in mnsultatlon with culturally affiliated Native Americans.

Page 1 of 1

Provlslons for discovery of Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code 97050.5, CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 55097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of an accidental dlscovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

Sincerely,

Katy Sanchez Associate Governmental Program Analyst (916) 653-4040

CC: State Clearinghouse

Page 2 of 2

Response to Comments Received from the Native American Heritage Commission

Stanislaus County Department of Public Works received the Native American Heritage Commission's (NAHC) correspondence dated April 6, 2007 with their comments and recommendations regarding the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated for public review from April 4, 2007 to May 4, 2007. It is further noted that the County has not received and comments or other correspondence from the Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer in regards to this project.

As stated on page 24, Section 2.2.5 (a) of the Draft Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND), a records search was conducted for the project by the Central California Information Center (CCIF) on August 10, 2006. No prehistoric or historic resources within 500 feet of the respective project locations by the CCIC. It was also noted that the project sites have been heavily disturbed by previous roadway and utility construction. As a result of these findings, it has been determined that the proposed project wol-~ld result in Less-Than-Significant impact to any known cultural resources in the area.

In the event of encountering previously unknown cultural resources during construction operations, the Draft ISIMND has also recommended the application of a set of Best Management Practices to redl~ce potential impacts to Less-Than- Significant levels.

i' STATE O F CALIFORNIA

GOVERNOR'S O ~ C E of PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT

ARNOLD SCHWARBWJUXER GOVBRNOR

May 4,2007

Robert Meleg Stanislaus County Department of Public Works 17 1 6 Morgan Road Modesto, CA 95354

Subject: Intersection Improvements at Greer Road / Santa Fe Avenue / Hatch Road SCH#: 2007042020

b

Dear Robert Meleg:

The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on May 3,2007, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.

Please note that Section 21 104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:

"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation."

These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your f m l environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly.

This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the envir~nmental review process,

Sincerely,

Terry Roberts L Director, State Clearinghouse

Enclosures cc: Resources Agency

1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov

Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base

SCH# 2007042020 Pmject 77Ue Intersection Improvements at Greer Road I Santa Fe Avenue I Hatch Road

Lead Agency Stanislaus County

Type Nag Negative Declaration

DescripUon Stanislaus County is implementing the proposed intersection lmprovement project to mitigate for traffic congestion in the County, as directed by the Capital lmprovement Program, which was based on adoptlon of the 1991 County General Plan.

Lead Agency Contact Name Robert Meleg

Agency Stanislaus County Department of Public Works Phone (209) 567-4883 Fax emall

Address 1716 Morgan Road City Modesto State CA U p 95354

-

Project Locatlon County Stanislaus

City Hughson Region

Cmss Streets Greer Road I Santa Fe Avenue I Hatch Road Parcel No. 045007-007-00; 045-004008 Township Range SecUon Base

Proximity to: Highways 132

Airports Raliways BNSF

Waterways Ceres Main Canal Schools

Land Use Agricultural; Planned Development; Urban Transition

Project issues AestheticNlsual; Agricultural Land; Air Quallty; Archaeologic-Hlstolic; Cumulative Effects; Geologic/Seismic; Landuse; Noise; Publlc Services; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; TraffidCirculation; Water Quality; WeUand/Rlparian; Wildlife

Reviewing Native American Heritage Commission; Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Bd.. Agencies Region 5 (Sacramento); Department of Parks and Recreation; Public UUlities Commission; Oftice of

Emergency Services; Department of Fish and Game, Region 4; Department of Water Resources; Department of Conservation; Callfornla Highway Patrol: Caltrans, District 10; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects

Date Received 04/04/2007 Start of Revlew 04/04/2007 End of Review 05/03/2007

Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient infonnation provided by lead agency.

Response to Comments Received from the State Clearinghouse

The letter dated May 4, 2007, and received by Stanislaus County Department of Public Works from the State Clearinghouse (SCH), acknowledges that the comment period for the Draft Initial Study1 Mitigated Negative Declaration closed on May 3, 2007. The Native American Heritage Commission was the only agency that had submitted comments to the to the SCH by April 18; however, comments from the City of Hughson, Turlock Irrigation District, and Mountain Valley EMS provided their comment directly to the County. The letter in reference further states that the Star~islaus County has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

May 3,2007 TURLoCK IRRIGATION O(SIRICT F ; U ~ O , - I ~ ~ L ~ ~ : ' ; .

333 EAST CANAL DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 949 TIJRLOCK. CALIFORNIA 9538 1

Stanislaus County Department of Public Works Attn: Robert Meleg 1 71 6 Morgan Road Modesto, CA 95358

RE: CEQA Referral - Initial Study g d Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaratioil Gcer Road - Santa Fe Avenue and Hatch Road - Sailta Fe Avenue

Dear Mr. Meleg:

The Engineering Department of the Turlock Irrigation District (District) acknowledges the opportunity to review and comment on the referenced project.

The document incorrectly identifies the Districts's concrete lined irrigation canal at Hatch Road, known as the Ceres Main Canal, to be a navigable water of the U.S. subject to jurisdiction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under their 404 Permit program. Reference Biological Resources, Section 2.2.4, on pages 19-23. The ACOE does not consider the Tuolumne River above Basso Bridge to be navigable. (ACOE to State Lands, 6 June 1978) The District's diversion at La Grange is above that point in the river, therefore the District never opens the canal system to a navigable river. Section C, under Discussion, pages 20-21, should be deleted along with BMP Measure Bio-3 on pages 22-23.

There is a typographical error in the first sentence on Page 25. The statement, "Santa Fe Railroad Bridge over the Ceres Main Canal . . ." should read, "Santa Fe Avenue Bridge over the Ceres Main Canal . . ."

Please note that the Ceres Main Canal is a conveyance facility for stormwater discharges from the City of Hughson and this water will need to be transported through the construction site during the winter months. The approximate flow is 22.5 cfs.

If you have any questions concerning irrigation system requirements or electric utility requirements, please contact me at (209) 883-8384 or Paul Rodriguez at (209) 883-8438 respectively. n

Arie W. Vander Pol I Engineering Technician, Civil CF: 2005062

WATER & POWER rc.q W C & , . ^ , :*(.

Response to Comments Received from the Turlock lrrigation District

Stanislaus County Department of Public Works received the Turlock lrrigation District's (District) correspondence dated May 3, 2007 with their comments regarding the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated for public review from April 4, 2007 to May 4, 2007. The County's responses to the District's comments are provided below.

Comment 1: "The document incorrectly identifies the District's concrete lined irrigation canal at Hatch Road, known as the Ceres Main Canal, to be a navigable water of the U.S. subject to jurisdiction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under their 404 Permit program. Reference Biological Resources, Section 2.2.4, on pages 19-23. The ACOE does not consider the Tuolumne River above Basso Bridge to be navigable. (ACOE to State Lands, 6 June 1978) The District's diversion at La Grange is above that point in the river, therefore the District never opens the canal system to a navigable river. Section C, under Discussion, pages 20-21, should be deleted along with BMP Measure Bio-3 on pages 22-23."

Response: Comment noted. The Final Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration has been revised accordingly. Although the Ceres Main Canal is not considered to be a navigable Waters of the U.S, there remains a potential for the presence of sensitive communities, wetlands or Waters of the State in the project area, and approvals from the California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board may still be required. As such, the County believes it prudent to retain BMP Measure Bio-3 to assure a less-than-significant effects.

Comment 2: "There is a typographical error in the first sentence on Page 25. The statement, "Santa Fe Railroad Bridge over the Ceres Main Canal ..." should read, "Santa Fe Avenue Bridge over the Ceres Main Canal.."

Response: Comment noted. The cited correction has been incorporated into the Final Initial StddyIMitigated Negative Declaration.

Comment 3: "Please note that the Ceres Main Canal is a conveyance facility for stormwater discharges from the City of Hughson and this water will need to be transported through the construction site during the winter months. The approximate flow is 22.5 cfs."

Response: Comment noted. The County is aware of the need to transport water through the Ceres Main Canal during the winter months. The project construction plans provide appropriate measures to allow for adequate water transport.

stanislaus county - board agenda # c1 · 2007-08-28 · the board of supervisors of the county of...

Documents