STANISLAUS LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OUT-OF-BOUNDARY SERVICE APPLICATION

Transcription

1 EECUTIVE OFFICER S AGENDA REPORT DECEMBER 2, 2009 STANISLAUS LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OUT-OF-BOUNDARY SERVICE APPLICATION APPLICANT: City of Ceres (for Stanislaus County - Animal Shelter Facility) LOCATION: Northeast corner of Crows Landing Road and Cornucopia Way, on a 3.35 acre portion of a acre parcel, located at 3312 Crows Landing Road; APN (See Project Map, Exhibit A ) REQUEST: The City of Ceres is requesting to provide sanitary sewer and domestic water service outside its jurisdictional boundaries, but within its sphere of influence, to serve a new Animal Shelter Facility proposed by Stanislaus County. (See Application and Plan for Services, Exhibit B.) INTRODUCTION Government Code specifies that a city or special district must apply for and obtain LAFCO approval before providing new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries. The section describes two situations in which the Commission may authorize services outside a city or district s jurisdictional boundaries. (1) For proposals within a city or district sphere of influence: in anticipation of a later change of organization. (2) For proposals outside a city or district sphere of influence: to respond to an existing or impending threat to the public health or safety of the residents of the affected territory. The section goes on to describe a specific list of exemptions. For example, transfers of nonpotable water, surplus water to agricultural lands, and existing services provided prior to 2001 are exempt from the out-of-boundary service request requirements. (Government Code in its entirety is attached as Exhibit C. ) Stanislaus LAFCO has adopted its own policy with regards to out-of-boundary service requests, known as Policy 15 (see Exhibit D ). Policy 15 reiterates the requirements of 56133, by allowing the Executive Officer to approve extensions for existing development in certain situations on behalf of the Commission, and by also providing a list of considerations to assist the Commission in their review of out-of-boundary requests. Consistent with Policy 15, the Executive Officer has determined to forward the City s request to the Commission as it would serve new development. PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND USE, CITY BOUNDARIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES The project site is currently within an unincorporated area of the County, is designated in the County s General Plan as PD (Planned Development), and is zoned as P-D 224. The property is not under a Williamson Act Contract. 1

2 EECUTIVE OFFICER S AGENDA REPORT DECEMBER 2, 2009 PAGE 2 The area is shown on the Ceres General Plan as Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). The City of Ceres expects that when annexation and development is proposed for the area surrounding the Animal Shelter Facility site, the LDR and MDR designations will be changed to CF, Community Facilities. The City is currently in the process of preparing the West Ceres Specific Plan which will encompass 960 acres, and the subject site is in the Plan area. The City has indicated that it has the capacity and ability to provide the requested services to the subject facility. Connection to water service would be made from a 12-inch water line that currently runs in Service Road. According to the City, it is expected that 91 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) of water will be used for the new Animal Shelter Facility. Because the City can currently produce 13,830 GPM of water, the 91 GPM required for the proposed animal shelter facility represents only a 0.66% impact to the City s delivery system. A 12-inch sewer line is in Service Road, adjacent to the subject property. According to the City s Plan for Services, it is expected that 189 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) of wastewater will be generated from the proposed animal shelter facility. Because the City s Wastewater Treatment Plant current treatment capacity is approximately 1.24 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) and.94 MGD of disposal capacity, development of the animal shelter facility will not pose a significant impact to wastewater capacity and demand. LANDOWNER CONSENT TO ANNE A standard condition for approval of an out-of-boundary extension includes a requirement that the property owner record an agreement consenting to annex the territory. By Board Resolution, Stanislaus County has signed such an agreement with the City of Ceres, stating that the County shall not oppose annexation at such time an application is brought forth by the City. (See Board Resolution No , Exhibit E. ) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL Stanislaus County, as Lead Agency for the project, adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 4, A copy of the County s environmental documentation, including the Notice of Determination and Mitigation Monitoring Program is attached to this report as Exhibit F. CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED COMMISSION POLICIES Applicable State law and Commission policies prefer annexation to cities and special districts rather than the extension of services outside their municipal boundaries. Below is a discussion of each of the situations where out-of-boundary service extensions can be an appropriate alternative to annexation: a. Services will be provided to a small portion of a larger parcel and annexation of the entire parcel would be inappropriate in terms of orderly boundaries, adopted land use plans, open space/greenbelt agreements or other relevant factors. The City has offered to provide sanitary sewer and domestic water services to a portion of the entire acre parcel, in addition to the facilities already served. Annexation of the site, although possible, would create a peninsula and an illogical service boundary for those agencies responsible for providing services in the area. 2

3 EECUTIVE OFFICER S AGENDA REPORT DECEMBER 2, 2009 PAGE 3 As a result, approval of an out-of-boundary service extension may be an appropriate alternative at this time in anticipation of annexation of the West Ceres Specific Plan area. b. Lack of contiguity makes annexation infeasible given current boundaries and the requested public service is justified based on adopted land use plans or other entitlements for use. While the site is currently contiguous to the City limits, it cannot be annexed at this time without including other neighboring properties in the annexation in order to avoid the creation of an illogical boundary. However, the City of Ceres will be pursuing annexation of 960 acres of land as part of the West Ceres Specific Plan area, which will include the future Animal Shelter Facility. c. Where public agencies have a formal agreement defining service areas provided and LAFCO has formally recognized the boundaries of the agreement area. This situation does not apply, as the subject site is not located in an existing defined service area recognized by LAFCO. d. Emergency or health related conditions mitigate against waiting for annexation. The City has stated in their application that the existing sewer and water connections are available to serve the animal shelter at this time, and do not create any issues pertaining to health and safety. Therefore, this situation would not apply. e. Other circumstances which are consistent with the statutory purposes and the policies and standards of the Stanislaus LAFCO. The Commission must also consider Government Code 56133, the applicable state law, which states the commission may authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries but within its sphere of influence in anticipation of a later change of organization [emphasis added]. Because the proposed County Animal Shelter Facility site is located within the Ceres Primary Sphere of Influence, the expectation is that properties within this area may be annexed within a 5 to 10 year timeframe. The City has also indicated in their application that the subject area is located within the West Ceres Specific Plan Area, which is being planned and processed for future annexation. In addition, the City s application includes a copy of an Agreement to Annex signed by the County. Therefore, this situation may be used as an alternative that the Commission could use as a basis for approval of the City s request. DISCUSSION Although Commission policies generally require annexation before services are extended, services may be extended prior to annexation if approved by LAFCO. In this case, the City has indicated in its application to LAFCO that they can provide the necessary sanitary sewer and domestic water service and has executed an agreement with the landowner for these services. 3

4 EECUTIVE OFFICER S AGENDA REPORT DECEMBER 2, 2009 PAGE 4 ALTERNATIVES FOR LAFCO ACTION Based on the discussion in this report, it is recommended that the Commission consider selecting one of the following options: Option 1: APPROVE the request, subject to the following terms and conditions: A. Sanitary sewer and domestic water are the only out-of-boundary services authorized by the Commission. B. The extension of sanitary sewer and domestic water is to accommodate the proposed County Animal Shelter Facility site only. The City shall not allow future connections in the area and outside the City limits without first requesting and securing approval from LAFCO. C. Before sanitary sewer and domestic water services are extended, the property owner shall record an agreement consenting to annex the property to the City of Ceres, and a copy of the recorded agreement shall be forwarded to the LAFCO Office. Option 2: DENY the request without prejudice. Option 3: Continue the request to a future meeting (maximum 70 days). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve Option 1 and adopt Resolution No , authorizing the City of Ceres to provide the requested sanitary sewer and domestic water services to the proposed County Animal Shelter Facility site, subject to the above terms and conditions. Respectfully submitted, Marjorie Blom Marjorie Blom Executive Officer Attachments: LAFCO Resolution Exhibit A - Project Map (pg. 8) Exhibit B - Application & Plan for Services (pg.10) Exhibit C - Government Code (pg. 25) Exhibit D - LAFCO Policy 15 (pg. 28) Exhibit E - Consent to Annex (pg. 31) Exhibit F - Environmental Documentation (pg. 36) Exhibit G - Ceres City Council Resolution No (pg. 61) (I:\LAFCOadmin\LAFCO\Out-of-Boundary\Ceres\Co. Animal Shelter\Staff Report.doc) 4

5 STANISLAUS COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION DATE: December 2, 2009 NO SUBJECT: Out-of-Boundary Service Application City of Ceres (Stanislaus County Animal Shelter Facility) On the motion of Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner, and approved by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Ineligible: Disqualified: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Government Code Section provides that a city may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundaries only if it first requests and receives written approval from the local agency formation commission in the affected county; WHEREAS, the City of Ceres has submitted an out-of-boundary service application on behalf of Stanislaus County, to extend sanitary sewer and domestic water services to accommodate the proposed Animal Shelter Facility, located on a 3.35-acre portion of Assessor s Parcel Number , at the northeast corner of Crows Landing Road and Cornucopia Way; WHEREAS, the Commission may authorize a city to provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries but within its sphere of influence in anticipation of a later change of organization; WHEREAS, in accordance with Commission Policy 15, the Executive Officer has forwarded the City s application to the Commission for consideration, as the proposed sewer and water extensions would serve new development; WHEREAS, the site is located outside the City of Ceres boundaries, but within the City s Primary Sphere of Influence; WHEREAS, the City of Ceres anticipates a later change of organization, as the territory is within the West Ceres Specific Plan Area, which the City proposes to annex in the near future upon completion and adoption of the Specific Plan; WHEREAS, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors has approved development of the Animal Shelter Facility site; WHEREAS, as Lead Agency, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 4, 2009, for the proposed Animal Shelter Facility project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines; 5

6 LAFCO Resolution No December 2, 2009 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City of Ceres has indicated that the requested sanitary sewer and domestic water services are available to serve the proposed Animal Shelter Facility and can be provided upon development; WHEREAS, the out-of-boundary service approval is conditioned that no future extension of sewer or water services by the City of Ceres to this area and/or outside the City s current boundaries, will be permitted unless the City first receives LAFCO approval; and, WHEREAS, the Commission has, in evaluation of the proposal, considered the report submitted by the Executive Officer and the testimony and evidence presented at the meeting held on December 2, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission: 1. Certifies that it has considered the environmental documentation prepared by Stanislaus County as Lead Agency. 2. Authorizes the City of Ceres to provide the requested sanitary sewer and domestic water services to the proposed Animal Shelter Facility only, subject to the following terms and conditions: A. Sanitary sewer and domestic water services are the only out-of-boundary services authorized by the Commission. B. The extension of sanitary sewer and domestic water services is to accommodate the proposed County Animal Shelter Facility site only. The City shall not allow future connections in the area and outside the City limits without first requesting and securing approval from LAFCO. C. Before sanitary sewer and domestic water services are extended, Stanislaus County shall record an agreement consenting to annex the property to the City of Ceres, and a copy of the executed agreement shall be forwarded to the LAFCO Office. 3. Directs the Executive Officer to forward a copy of this resolution to the City of Ceres and Stanislaus County. ATTEST: Marjorie Blom, Executive Officer 6

7 EHIBIT A Project Map 7

8 Stanislaus County Animal Shelter Facility 8 Project Site City of Ceres Limits **NOTE** - Animal Shelter Facility is within the West Ceres Specific Plan area.

9 EHIBIT B Application & Plan for Services 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 CROWS LANDING ROAD SERVICE ROAD 16

17 CROWS LANDING ROAD SERVICE ROAD 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 EHIBIT C Government Code

25 GOVERNMENT CODE (a) (b) (c) A city or district may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundaries only if it first requests and receives written approval from the commission in the affected county. The commission may authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries but within its sphere of influence in anticipation of a later change of organization. The commission may authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries and outside its sphere of influence to respond to an existing or impending threat to the public health or safety of the residents of the affected territory if both of the following requirements are met: (1) The entity applying for the contract approval has provided the commission with documentation of a threat to the health and safety of the public or the affected residents. (2) The commission has notified any alternate service provider, including any water corporation as defined in Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code, or sewer system corporation as defined in Section of the Public Utilities Code, that has filed a map and a statement of its service capabilities with the commission. (d) (e) The executive officer, within 30 days of receipt of a request for approval by a city or district of a contract to extend services outside its jurisdictional boundary, shall determine whether the request is complete and acceptable for filing or whether the request is incomplete. If a request is determined not to be complete, the executive officer shall immediately transmit that determination to the requester, specifying those parts of the request that are incomplete and the manner in which they can be made complete. When the request is deemed complete, the executive officer shall place the request on the agenda of the next commission meeting for which adequate notice can be given but not more than 90 days from the date that the request is deemed complete, unless the commission has delegated approval of those requests to the executive officer. The commission or executive officer shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the contract for extended services. If the contract is disapproved or approved with conditions, the applicant may request reconsideration, citing the reasons for reconsideration. This section does not apply to contracts or agreements solely involving two or more public agencies where the public service to be provided is an alternative to, or substitute for, public services already being provided by an existing public service provider and where the level of service to be provided is consistent with the level of service contemplated by the existing service provider. This section does not apply to contracts for the transfer of nonpotable or nontreated water. This section does not apply to contracts or agreements solely involving the provision of surplus water to agricultural lands and facilities, including, but not limited to, incidental residential structures, for projects that serve conservation purposes or that directly support agricultural industries. 25

26 However, prior to extending surplus water service to any project that will support or induce development, the city or district shall first request and receive written approval from the commission in the affected county. This section does not apply to an extended service that a city or district was providing on or before January 1, This section does not apply to a local publicly owned electric utility, as defined by Section 9604 of the Public Utilities Code, providing electric services that do not involve the acquisition, construction, or installation of electric distribution facilities by the local publicly owned electric utility, outside of the utility's jurisdictional boundaries. 26

27 EHIBIT D LAFCO Policy 15 27

28 Stanislaus LAFCO POLICY 15: OUT-OF-BOUNDARY SERVICE CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS Government Code Section specifies that a city or special district must apply for and obtain LAFCO approval before providing new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries. A. The Commission has determined that the Executive Officer shall have the authority to approve, or conditionally approve, proposals to extend services outside jurisdictional boundaries in cases where the service extension is proposed to remedy a clear health and safety concern, is within the agencies primary area of the sphere of influence and anticipates a later change of organization, or is the result of a city or district action which serves to accommodate relocation of existing development. In addition, the Executive Officer shall have the authority to approve or conditionally approve service extensions where the services in question will not facilitate development (for example, an interagency contract for fire protection services). In cases where the Executive Officer recommends denial of a proposed service extension, that proposal shall be placed on the next agenda for which notice can be provided. After the public hearing, the Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the contract. B. The Commission has determined that the Executive Officer shall have the authority to approve or conditionally approve out-of-boundary service extensions to accommodate new development for the following specific unincorporated areas: Bret Harte Neighborhood, Robertson Road Neighborhood and Shackelford Road Neighborhood. These already developed neighborhood areas have received complete sewer infrastructure installed by Stanislaus County to remedy documented health and safety concerns; are within the sphere of influence of the City of Modesto; and the City has the capacity to provide domestic sewer service to the area. (Amended October 25, 2006.) C. In the case where a city or district has acquired the system of a private or mutual water company prior to the enactment of this legislation, those agencies shall be authorized to continue such service and provide additional connections within the certificated service area of the private or mutual water company defined by the Public Utilities Commission or other appropriate agency, at the time of acquisition without LAFCO review or approval as outlined in Government Code Section The continuation of service connections under this policy shall not be constrained by the sphere of influence of that local agency at that time. Proposals to extend service outside this previously defined certificated area would come under the provisions of Government Code Section for the review and approval by the Commission prior to the signing of a contract/agreement for the provision of the service. D. Exemptions: This section does not apply to contracts for the transfer of nonpotable or nontreated water; contracts or agreements solely involving the provision of surplus water to agricultural lands and facilities, including but not limited to, incidental residential structures, for projects that serve conservation purposes or that directly support agricultural industries. However, prior to extending surplus water service to any project that will support or induce development, the city or district shall first request and receive written approval from the commission in the affected county. This section does not apply 28

29 to an extended service that a city or district was providing on or before January 1, (Amended January 23, 2008.) E. These requirements do not apply to a local publicly owned electrical utility, as defined by Section 9604 of the Public Utilities Code, providing electrical services that do not involve the acquisition, construction, or installation of electrical distribution facilities by the local publicly owned electric utility, outside of the utility s jurisdictional boundaries. F. Health or Safety Concerns: The requirements contained in Section 56133(c) of the Government Code (Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act) will be followed in the review of proposals to serve territory with municipal services outside the local agency s sphere of influence. Service extensions outside a local agency s sphere of influence will not be approved unless there is documented existing or impending threat to public health and safety, and the request meets one or more of the following criteria as outlined below: 1. The lack of the service being requested constitutes an existing or impending health and safety concern. 2. The property is currently developed. 3. No future expansion of service will be permitted without approval from the LAFCO. G. Considerations for Approving Agreements: Annexations to cities and special districts are generally preferred for providing public services; however, out-of-agency service agreements can be an appropriate alternative. While each proposal must be decided on its own merits, the Commission may favorably consider such agreements in the following situations: Services will be provided to a small portion of a larger parcel and annexation of the entire parcel would be inappropriate in terms of orderly boundaries, adopted land use plans, open space/greenbelt agreements or other relevant factors. Lack of contiguity makes annexation infeasible given current boundaries and the requested public service is justified based on adopted land use plans or other entitlements for use. Where public agencies have a formal agreement defining service areas provided LAFCO has formally recognized the boundaries of the agreement area. Emergency or health related conditions mitigate against waiting for annexation. Other circumstances which are consistent with the statutory purposes and the policies and standards of the Stanislaus LAFCO. H. Agreements Consenting to Annex: Whenever the affected property may ultimately be annexed to the service agency, a standard condition for approval of an out-of-agency service agreement is recordation of an agreement by the landowner consenting to annex the territory, which agreement shall inure to future owners of the property. 29

30 EHIBIT E Consent to Annex 30

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 EHIBIT F Environmental Documentation 35

36 36

37 Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development th Street, Suite 3400 Phone: (209) Modesto, California Fax: (209) CEQA INITIAL STUDY Adapted from CEQA Guidelines APPENDI G Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text, October 26, Project title: Stanislaus County Animal Shelter 2. Lead agency name and address: Stanislaus County th Street, Suite 3400 Modesto, CA Contact person and phone number: Bill Carlson, Senior Planner (209) Project location: 3312 Crows Landing Road, in the Ceres area. (APN: ) 5. Project sponsor s name and address: Stanislaus County th Street Modesto, CA General plan designation: Planned Development 7. Zoning: P-D (224) (Planned Development) 8. Description of project: This is a request to relocate the Stanislaus County Animal Shelter, by constructing a 33,600 square foot, 16 foot high animal shelter (constructed with concrete masonry block) and a 2,000 square foot standing barn, on a acre parcel within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Ceres. The shelter will have administrative offices, a veterinary facility, and housing for 563 animals. About 100 animals would be housed in areas such as the hospital, intake and quarantine. There will also be a public animal hold area to encourage adoption. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: County building and ranchettes 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Department of Environmental Resources Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau City of Ceres LAFCO 37

38 38

39 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Negative Declaration: With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially to a. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section VII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) s Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significant criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 39

40 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 4 ISSUES I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: The site itself is not considered to be a scenic resource or a unique scenic vista. The project is not in the city limits but is within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Ceres. The project site is currently vacant behind an existing hay barn which is owned by the County and leased to a local farmer. The new use will be north of the existing Ag Center and west of the existing Public Safety Buildings. To prevent glare onto neighboring properties, all exterior lighting shall be designed (aimed down and toward the site) to provide adequate illumination without a glare effect. This shall include but not be limited to: the use of shielded light fixtures to prevent skyglow (light spilling into the night sky) and the installation of shielded fixtures to prevent light trespass (glare and spill light that shines onto neighboring properties). Mitigation: 1. All exterior lighting shall be designed (aimed down and towards the site) to provide adequate illumination without a glare effect. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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? Discussion: The project site is not enrolled in the Williamson Act. There are four small ranchette properties directly west, across Crows Landing Road. The majority of the project site is made up of Class 1 Hanford sandy loam soils with 0-1 percent slope. The project site s northern portion is classified as rural residential and the southern portion as vacant disturbed land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The proposed project is a permitted use in this P-D zoning designation. 40

41 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 5 In December of 2007, Stanislaus County adopted an updated Agricultural Element which incorporated guidelines for the implementation of agricultural buffers applicable to new and expanding non-agricultural uses within or adjacent to the A-2 zoning district. The purpose of these guidelines is to protect the long-term health of agriculture by minimizing conflicts resulting from the interaction of agricultural and non-agricultural uses. The building will be over 300 feet away from the four (4) ranchette parcels. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion: The project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which has been classified as "severe nonattainment" for ozone and respirable particulate matter (PM-10) as defined by the Federal Clean Air Act. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has been established by the State in an effort to control and minimize air pollution. As such, the District maintains permit authority over stationary sources of pollutants. The primary source of air pollutants generated by this project would be classified as being generated from "mobile" sources. Mobile sources would generally include dust from roads, farming, and automobile exhausts. Mobile sources are generally regulated by the Air Resources Board of the California EPA which sets emissions for vehicles and acts on issues regarding cleaner burning fuels and alternative fuel technologies. As such, the District has addressed most criteria air pollutants through basin wide programs and policies to prevent cumulative deterioration of air quality within the Basin. Mitigation: 2. Construction of the project shall comply with standardized dust controls adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. References: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Regulation VIII Fugitive Dust/PM-10 Synopsis, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. 41

42 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 6 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 interruption, or other means? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? Discussion: It does not appear this project will result in impacts to endangered species or habitats, locally designated species, or wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors. The project site has been developed with other government buildings since the 1990s. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1, California Department of Fish and Game California Natural Diversity Database. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 42

43 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 7 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: It does not appear this project will result in significant impacts to any archaeological or cultural resources. No grading or additional structures are proposed as a part of this project. A standard mitigation measure has been added to mitigate the potential impact should any human remains, or significant or potentially unique objects be found during construction. Mitigation: 3. During the construction phases of the project, if any human remains, or significant or potentially unique objects are found, all construction activities in the area shall cease until a qualified archeologist can be consulted. Construction activities shall not resume in the area until an on-site archeological mitigation program has been approved by a qualified archaeologist. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion: As contained in Chapter 5 of the General Plan Support Documentation, the areas of the County subject to significant geologic hazard are located in the Diablo Range, west of Interstate 5. However, as per the 2007 California Building Code, all of Stanislaus County is located within a geologic hazard zone (Seismic Design Category D, E, or F) and a soils test may be required at building permit application. Results from the soils test will determine if unstable or expansive soils are present. If such soils are present, special engineering of the structure will be required to compensate for the soil 43

44 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 8 deficiency. Any structures resulting from this project will be designed and built according to building standards appropriate to withstand shaking for the area in which they are constructed. Any earth moving is subject to Public Works Standards and Specifications which considers the potential for erosion and run-off prior to permit approval. Likewise, any addition of a septic tank or alternative waste water disposal system would require the approval of the Department of Environmental Resources through the building permit process, which also takes soil type into consideration within the specific design requirements. Mitigation: References: Element 1. None. California Building Code (2007), Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation - Safety VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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? 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? Discussion: No known hazardous materials are on-site. Pesticide exposure is a risk in agricultural areas. Sources of exposure include contaminated groundwater which is consumed and drift from spray applications. Application of sprays is strictly controlled by the Agricultural Commissioner and can only be accomplished after first obtaining permits. The County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is responsible for overseeing hazardous materials in this area. 44

45 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 9 Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 which would result in flooding on- or offsite? 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? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion: The project will require run-off to be maintained on-site and to go into an existing drainage basin that would need to be expanded to meet the new demand. A standard mitigation measure has been added to address this issue. Areas subject to flooding have been identified in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Act. The project site itself is not located within a recognized flood zone and, as such, flooding is not an issue with respect to this project. 45

46 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 10 Mitigation: 4. A Grading and Drainage Plan with engineering calculations shall comply with county standards for a 50-year storm and be approved or found to be acceptable prior to issuance of any building permit. Percolation test results must be provided to demonstrate the runoff for a 10-year storm can be disposed of within a 48 hour period. The plan shall be implemented prior to final and/or occupancy of the first building to be constructed. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion: The site is designated Planned Development (P-D (224)) and is zoned for County Government and related facilities. The proposal is not known to conflict with any State agency or County policies with jurisdiction over the land which would be affected by this proposal. The proposed development is logically situated so as to minimize the disruption to surrounding agricultural operations and will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1, 1990 Stanislaus County Public Safety Center EIR, 1991 Social Service Building EIR, 1990 West Ceres Projects EIR, City of Ceres General Plan Update EIR (SCH No ), Board of Supervisors Meeting May 19, MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No 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? 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? Discussion: The location of all commercially viable mineral resources in Stanislaus County has been mapped by the State Division of Mines and Geology in Special Report 173. There are no known significant resources on the site. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. 46

47 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 11 I. NOISE -- Would the project result in: Potentially With Mitigation Included No 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? 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? Discussion: The Noise Element of the Stanislaus County General Plan states that new development of noise-sensitive land uses will not be permitted in noise-impacted areas unless effective mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design to reduce noise levels. The standards laid out within Table 4 of the Noise Element document allow a maximum hourly Leq, dba noise exposure for stationary sources of 55 for daytime hours and 45 for nighttime hours. Staff requested an acoustical analysis be provided for the proposed project to assess potential noise impacts. J.C. Brennan & Associates Inc. conducted an Environmental Noise Assessment for the Animal Shelter dated May 4, The noise assessment applied the hourly noise level criteria to this project as dog barking consists primarily of recurring impulsive noises. The noise study has been included with this initial study for review. Mitigation: 5. Dogs will be housed inside the facility between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 6. Construction equipment shall comply with implementation Measure 3 of Policy 3 of the Stanislaus County Noise Element. References: Environmental Noise Assessment for the Stanislaus County Animal Shelter by J.C. Brennan & Associates Inc., dated May 4, 2009, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Induce substantial population 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 47

48 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 12 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: The proposed use of the site will not create significant service extensions or new infrastructure that could be considered growth inducing. No housing or persons will be displaced by the project. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. III. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially With Mitigation Included No 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: The Animal Shelter will not affect law enforcement or fire protection. There will also be no impact to schools, parks or other government services with this project. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. IV. RECREATION: Potentially With Mitigation Included No 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The proposed project will not increase significant demands on recreational facilities, as such, no impacts are associated with the proposed project. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. 48

49 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 13 V. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in 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)? Discussion: Stanislaus County required a traffic impact analysis, which was conducted by KD Anderson. Based on the information and site plan supplied to KD Anderson for a 34,000 square foot building, the Shelter is projected to generate approximately 90 and 170 trips in the a.m and p.m. peak traffic hours, respectively. This was based on observations at the existing shelter located on Finch Road and linear interpolation of traffic volumes in relation to existing and proposed building square footage. The current site has 71 customers daily and the maximum number of employees will be 63. The average intersection delays at the signalized study area and intersections are projected to increase by less than one second. The un-signalized intersections are projected to continue to operate normally with no warrant for signalization. No mitigation needs have been identified in the Traffic Analysis. Mitigation: None. References: KD Anderson Traffic Analysis, dated April 24, 2009, Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No 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? 49

50 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 14 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 which 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? Discussion: Limitations on providing services have not been identified. The site will be served by the City of Ceres for both water and waste water. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1. VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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 cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: Any potential project issues with aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, water quality and noise impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level for the proposed project. Review of this project has not indicated any features which might significantly impact the environmental quality of the site and/or the surrounding area. I:\BOS\Animal Shelter\Initial Study.wpd 50

51 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 15 1 Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation adopted in October 1994, as amended. Optional and updated elements of the General Plan and Support Documentation: Agricultural Element adopted on December 18, 2007; Housing Element adopted on December 12, 2003 and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development Department on March 26, 2004; Circulation Element and Noise Element adopted on April 18,

52 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NAME OF PROJECT: Stanislaus County Animal Shelter LOCATION OF PROJECT: 3312 Crows Landing Road, in the Ceres area. (APN: ) PROJECT DEVELOPER: Stanislaus County th Street Modesto, CA DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This is a request to relocate the Stanislaus County Animal Shelter, by constructing a 33,600 square foot, 16 foot high animal shelter (constructed with concrete masonry block) and a 2,000 square foot standing barn, on a acre parcel within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Ceres. The shelter will have administrative offices, a veterinary facility, and housing for 563 animals. About 100 animals would be housed in areas such as the hospital, intake and quarantine. There will also be a public animal hold area to encourage adoption. Based upon the Initial Study, dated June 29, 2009 the Environmental Coordinator finds as follows: 1. This project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, nor to curtail the diversity of the environment. 2. This project will not have a detrimental effect upon either short-term or long-term environmental goals. 3. This project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 4. This project will not have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects upon human beings, either directly or indirectly. The aforementioned findings are contingent upon the following mitigation measures (if indicated) which shall be incorporated into this project: 1. All exterior lighting shall be designed (aimed down and towards the site) to provide adequate illumination without a glare effect. 2. Construction of the project shall comply with standardized dust controls adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 3. During the construction phases of the project, if any human remains, or significant or potentially unique objects are found, all construction activities in the area shall cease until a qualified archeologist can be consulted. Construction activities shall not resume in the area until an on-site archeological mitigation program has been approved by a qualified archaeologist. 4. A Grading and Drainage Plan with engineering calculations shall comply with county standards for a 50-year storm and be approved or found to be acceptable prior to issuance of any building permit. Percolation test results must be provided to demonstrate the runoff for a 10-year storm can be disposed of within a 48 hour period. The plan shall be implemented prior to final and/or occupancy of the first building to be constructed. 5. Dogs will be housed inside the facility between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 6. Construction equipment shall comply with implementation Measure 3 of Policy 3 of the Stanislaus County Noise Element. 52

53 Stanislaus County Animal Shelter Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 The Initial Study and other environmental documents are available for public review at the Department of Planning and Community Development, th Street, Suite 3400, Modesto, California. Initial Study prepared by: Submit comments to: Bill Carlson, Senior Planner Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development Department th Street, Suite 3400 Modesto, California I:\BOS\Animal Shelter\MIT NEG DEC.wpd 53

54 Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development th Street, Suite 3400 Phone: (209) Modesto, CA Fax: Mitigation Monitoring Plan Adapted from CEQA Guidelines sec Final Text, October 26, 1998 June 29, Project title and location: Stanislaus County Animal Shelter 2. Project Applicant name and address: Stanislaus County th Street Modesto, CA Crows Landing Road, in the Ceres area. (APN: ) 3. Person Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Program (Applicant Representative): Annette Patton Director of Animal Services 4. Contact person at County: Bill Carlson, Senior Planner (209) MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM: List all Mitigation Measures by topic as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and complete the form for each measure. I. AESTHETICS No. 1 Mitigation Measure: All exterior lighting shall be designed (aimed down and towards the site) to provide adequate illumination without a glare effect. Who Implements the Measure: When should the measure be implemented: When should it be completed: Who verifies compliance: Other Responsible Agencies: Applicant. Prior to issuance of a building permit. Upon completion of construction/continuous. Stanislaus County Planning Department. None. III. AIR QUALITY No. 2 Mitigation Measure: Construction of the project shall comply with standardized dust controls adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Who Implements the Measure: When should the measure be implemented: When should it be completed: Applicant. At any time construction takes place. Upon completion of construction. 54

55 Stanislaus County Mitigation Monitoring Plan Page 2 Stanislaus County Animal Shelter June 29, 2009 Who verifies compliance: Other Responsible Agencies: Stanislaus County Planning Department. None. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES No. 3 Mitigation Measure: During the construction phases of the project, if any human remains, or significant or potentially unique objects are found, all construction activities in the area shall cease until a qualified archeologist can be consulted. Construction activities shall not resume in the area until an on-site archeological mitigation program has been approved by a qualified archaeologist. Who Implements the Measure: When should the measure be implemented: When should it be completed: Who verifies compliance: Other Responsible Agencies: Applicant. At any time construction takes place. Upon completion of construction. Stanislaus County Planning Department and Building Permits Division. None. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No. 4 Mitigation Measure: A Grading and Drainage Plan with engineering calculations shall comply with county standards for a 50-year storm and be approved or found to be acceptable prior to issuance of any building permit. Percolation test results must be provided to demonstrate the runoff for a 10-year storm can be disposed of within a 48 hour period. The plan shall be implemented prior to final and/or occupancy of the first building to be constructed. Who Implements the Measure: When should the measure be implemented: When should it be completed: Who verifies compliance: Other Responsible Agencies: Applicant. At any time construction takes place. Upon completion of construction. Stanislaus County Building Permits Division, Department of Environmental Resources Code Enforcement Division and Public Works. None. I. NOISE No. 5 Mitigation Measure: Dogs will be housed inside the facility between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Who Implements the Measure: When should the measure be implemented: Applicant. Ongoing. 55

56 Stanislaus County Mitigation Monitoring Plan Page 3 Stanislaus County Animal Shelter June 29, 2009 When should it be completed: Who verifies compliance: Other Responsible Agencies: Ongoing. Stanislaus County Planning Department. None. No. 6 Mitigation Measure: Construction equipment shall comply with implementation Measure 3 of Policy 3 of the Stanislaus County Noise Element. Who Implements the Measure: When should the measure be implemented: When should it be completed: Who verifies compliance: Other Responsible Agencies: Applicant. During construction of the multi-purpose building. At any time construction takes place. Stanislaus County Planning Department and Building Permits Division. None. I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I understand and agree to be responsible for implementing the Mitigation Program for the above listed project. Signature on file. June 29, 2009 Person Responsible for Implementing Date Mitigation Program (I:\BOS\Animal Shelter\Mit Mon Plan.wpd) 56

57 57

58 58

59 59