joslin change of organization to the oakdale irrigation … rpts/joslin.oid.pdf · 4. designates...

EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S AGENDA REPORT APRIL 27, 2011

SITE18.26ac

28 M

ILE

RD

OAKDALE

IRRIGATION

DISTRICT

RIV

ER

RO

CK

RD

LAFCO APPLICATION NO. 2011-01

JOSLIN CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION TO THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

PROPOSAL A request to annex approximately 18.26 acres to the Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). The site is within the existing Sphere of Influence of the District. 1. Applicant: Oakdale Irrigation District 2. Property Owners: Patrick and Brenda K. Joslin 3. Location: The site is located east of 28 Mile

Road and south of Frankenheimer Road, approximately 2 miles northeast of the City of Oakdale.

4. Parcels of Land Involved and Acreage: The

18.26 acres involved is a portion of Assessors Parcel Number 002-052-022, the remainder of which is currently in the District. (See Exhibit “A” – Maps.)

5. Reason for Proposal: As only a portion of the parcel involved is currently within the

boundaries of the District, this annexation would make the entire parcel within OID’s boundaries. The District also recently entered into an agreement with the property owners to annex said acreage in exchange for land to construct the OID North Side Reservoir. (See Exhibit “B” – OID Resolution 2009-64.)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Oakdale Irrigation District, as Lead Agency, adopted a Negative Declaration for the proposed annexation. LAFCO, as a Responsible Agency, must consider the environmental documentation prepared by the District. (See Exhibit “C” – Environmental Documentation.) FACTORS The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires several factors to be considered by a LAFCO when evaluating a proposal. The following discussion pertains to the identified factors: a. Population and Land Use. The territory is considered to be uninhabited by State law, as

it contains less than 12 registered voters. The subject territory is zoned by the County as A-2-40 (General Agriculture, 40-acre minimum). Annexation to the District will not change or lead to a change in the zoning designation. The subject parcel is located in Tax Code Area 084-058. The current total assessed land value is $84,591.

b. Governmental Services and Controls: The property is currently located in the unincorporated area of Stanislaus County. The proposed annexation only affects the

1

EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S AGENDA REPORT APRIL 27, 2011 PAGE 2

provision of irrigation services. Other governmental services and jurisdictions remain the same.

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

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

d. Conformity with Plans: The territory is within an area planned for agricultural uses within

the Stanislaus County General Plan for many years. e. Impact on Agricultural Lands: The acreage involved is enrolled in Williamson Act

Contract 71-468. The proposal would not result in the loss of agricultural land and would not affect the physical and economic integrity of the area. The landowner stated in the application to OID that the property is currently not irrigated and that almonds and walnuts on drip/micro irrigation are proposed. Annexation of the property to the District would provide for a more secure and economical source of irrigation water for the subject acreage and thus, increase the viability of the parcel to remain in agricultural production.

f. Definiteness and Certainty of Boundaries: The present boundary of the Oakdale

Irrigation District bisects the 30.75 acre parcel involved. The proposed annexation of 18.26 acres would bring the remaining portion inside the District.

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

The proposal is consistent with the Stanislaus County General Plan, which designates the territory as Agriculture.

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

Influence of the Oakdale Irrigation District, as originally adopted in 1985.

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

j. Ability to Serve Proposed Area: The District has indicated that it has the ability to serve

the territory and that no new facilities would be constructed or needed as a result of the annexation.

k. Water Supplies: OID’s water supply comes from the Stanislaus River (under well-

established water rights), recapture of drainage water, and pumping from deep groundwater wells. The District has also stated that there will be no impact to existing customers as a result of this annexation.

l. Regional Housing Needs: Not Applicable. m. Landowner Comments: The landowner involved has consented to the annexation.

n. Other Land Use Information: There is no other land use information related to this

project.

2


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

DISCUSSION In 2010, the Oakdale Irrigation District completed construction on its North Side Regulating Reservoir. The land used for the reservoir was acquired from a landowner within the existing District boundaries. As part of the agreement between OID and the landowner, the District agreed to annex the remaining portion of a parcel having territory within and outside of the District’s boundaries. Waiver of Conducting Authority Proceedings Pursuant to Government Code Section 56663, the Commission may approve the annexation without notice and hearing when a proposal has the consent of all property owners. Meeting notice was provided to the subject agencies and property owners in accordance with State law and adopted Commission policies. Government Code Section 56663(c) allows the Commission to waive conducting authority proceedings with regards to uninhabited areas entirely if both of the following conditions are met:

1. All of the owners of land within the affected territory have given their written consent to the change of organization.

2. No subject agencies have submitted written protest to a waiver of protest proceedings.

The landowner within the project area has consented in writing to the change of organization, and the subject agencies have not submitted written opposition to the waiver of protest proceedings. Therefore, as both of the above conditions have been met, and following the Commission’s consideration of the proposal, conducting authority proceedings may be waived. ALTERNATIVES FOR LAFCO ACTION After consideration of this report and any testimony or additional materials that are submitted, the Commission should consider choosing one of the following options: Option 1: APPROVE the proposal, as submitted by the Oakdale Irrigation District. Option 2: APPROVE the proposal with amendment(s). Option 3: DENY the proposal without prejudice. Option 4: CONTINUE this proposal to a future meeting (maximum 70 days) for additional

information.

3


STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Option 1. Based on the information and discussion in this report, including evidence presented, it is recommended that the Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2011-04, which considers the necessary environmental documentation, waives conducting authority proceedings, and approves the proposal as requested by the Oakdale Irrigation District. Respectfully submitted,

Sara Lytle-Pinhey Sara Lytle-Pinhey Assistant Executive Officer

Attachments: LAFCO Resolution 2011-04 (pg. 6) Exhibit A – Maps (pg. 9)

Exhibit B – OID Resolution No. 2009-64 (pg. 12) Exhibit C – Environmental Documentation (pg. 20)

(I:\LAFCO\Admin\SPECIAL DISTRICTS\IRRIGATION & WATER DISTRICTS\OID\Joslin Change of Org\Staff Report.doc)

4

LAFCO Resolution No. 2011-04

5

Pinheys

Draft

Pinheys

Draft

STANISLAUS COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION

RESOLUTION DATE: April 27, 2011 No. 2011-04 SUBJECT: LAFCO Application No. 2011-01 – Joslin Change of Organization to the Oakdale

Irrigation District On the motion of Commissioner _______, seconded by Commissioner _______, and approved by the following: Ayes: Commissioners: Noes: Commissioners: Absent: Commissioners: Ineligible: Commissioners: THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to annex approximately 18.26 acres to the Oakdale Irrigation District; WHEREAS, the Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider the proposal on April 27, 2011, and notice of said hearing was given at the time and in the form and manner provided by law; WHEREAS, the territory is considered uninhabited as it contains less than 12 registered voters; WHEREAS, the Oakdale Irrigation District, as Lead Agency, prepared and subsequently approved a Negative Declaration for the proposal in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); WHEREAS, the Oakdale Irrigation District adopted a Resolution authorizing the filing of an application for annexation with LAFCO and stated it can provide the necessary services; WHEREAS, there is one Williamson Act Contract within the boundaries of the annexation; WHEREAS, the proposal would not result in the loss of agricultural land, as no development is expected to occur as a result of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, the Commission has, in evaluating the proposal, considered the report submitted by the Executive Officer, the factors set forth in Government Code Section 56668, and testimony and evidence presented at the meeting held on April 27, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission:

6

Pinheys

Draft

LAFCO Resolution No. 2011-04 April 27, 2011 Page 2

1. Certifies, in accordance with CEQA, as a Responsible Agency, that it has considered the Negative Declaration prepared by the Oakdale Irrigation District.

2. Determines that: (a) the subject territory is within the Oakdale Irrigation District’s Sphere

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

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

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

Government Code Section 54902.5.

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

c. The effective date of the change of organization shall be the date of recordation

of the Certificate of Completion.

d. The application submitted has been processed as a change of organization consisting of annexation of 18.26 acres to the Oakdale Irrigation District.

4. Designates the proposal as the “Joslin Change of Organization to the Oakdale Irrigation

District”.

5. Waives the protest proceedings pursuant to Government Code Section 56663(c) and orders the change of organization subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 57200 et. seq.

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

ATTEST: __________________________

Marjorie Blom Executive Officer

7

Pinheys

Draft

EXHIBIT A

Maps

8


JOSLIN CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION TO THEOAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICTOAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

VICINITY MAPWoodward Reservoir

PROPOSED ANNEXATION(18.26+/- acres)

28 M

ILE

RD FRANKENHEIMER RD

26 M

ILE

RD

EX. OID BOUNDARIES

City of Oakdale

SIERRA RD

Source: LAFCO Files, County GIS, Jan. 2011

SIERRA RD

9


JOSLIN CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION TO THEOAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICTOAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

AREA MAP

EX OIDEX.OID BOUNDARIES

APN 002-052-010

APN 002-052-001

PROPOSED ANNEXATION(18.26+/- acres)APN 002-052-022 APN 002-052-015

APN 002-052-026

APN 002-052-030

APN 002-052-031

Source: LAFCO Files, County GIS, Jan. 2011

10

EXHIBIT B

Oakdale Irrigation District Resolution No. 2009-64

11

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DiSTRICTRESOLUTION No. 2009·64

A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATIONBY THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIONTO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR

THE JOSLIN ANNEXATION TO OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District that,

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District (010) desiresto initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local GovernmentReorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, Commencing with Section 56000 of theCalifornia Government Code, for the Joslin Annexation to 010; and

Whereas, the proposed change of organization includes the following jurisdictionalchange and sphere of influence action;

A 30.75 Acre parcel of land located within Sections 25 and 26, Township 1 South,Range 10 East located within the unincorporated area of Stanislaus County andhaving an Assessor's Parcel Number of 002-052-022 has 12.49 acres within the010 and 18.26 acres outside the existing 010 boundaries. This proposedreorganization to 010 will annex those 18.26 acres of the subject parcel into the010 from the existing 010 Sphere of Influence; and

Whereas, the reason for the proposed change of organization is to comply with anexisting Agreement between the Landowners of Record of the subject parcel,Patrick Joslin and Brenda K. Joslin and 010, wherein 010 has acquired land fromsaid landowners for a new 010 reservoir, and in exchange has agreed to annexthe remaining 18.26 acre portion of the subject parcel now outside the 010boundaries; and

Whereas, the territory subject to the proposed change of organization isuninhabited, having less than twelve registered voters located within the subjectparcel, and a description of the external boundary of the territory is set forth inExhibit "A" Geographic Description, attached hereto and by this referenceincorporated herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby approved andadopted by the Board of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District. The LocalAgency Formation Commission of Stanislaus County is hereby requested to takeproceedings for the proposed change of organization that includes the territory asdescribed in Exhibit "A", according to the terms and conditions stated above and in

1

1137

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT RESOLUTION No. 2009-64

A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR

THE JOSLIN ANNEXATION TO OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District that,

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District (010) desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, Commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the Joslin Annexation to 010; and

Whereas, the proposed change of organization includes the following jurisdictional change and sphere of influence action;

A 30.75 Acre parcel of land located within Sections 25 and 26, Township 1 South, Range 10 East located within the unincorporated area of Stanislaus County and having an Assessor's Parcel Number of 002-052-022 has 12.49 acres within the 010 and 18.26 acres outside the existing OlD boundaries. This proposed reorganization to 010 will annex those 18.26 acres of the subject parcel into the OlD from the existing OlD Sphere of Influence; and

Whereas, the reason for the proposed change of organization is to comply with an existing Agreement between the Landowners of Record of the subject parcel, Patrick Joslin and Brenda K. Joslin and OlD, wherein 010 has acquired land from said landowners for a new 010 reservoir, and in exchange has agreed to annex the remaining 18.26 acre portion of the subject parcel now outside the 010 boundaries; and

Whereas, the territory subject to the proposed change of organization is uninhabited, having less than twelve registered voters located within the subject parcel, and a description of the external boundary of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "An Geographic Description, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Oakdale Irrigation District. The Local Agency Formation Commission of Stanislaus County is hereby requested to take proceedings for the proposed change of organization that includes the territory as described in Exhibit "An, according to the terms and conditions stated above and in

1

1137

12

1138

the manner provided by the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local GovernmentReorganization Act of 2000. 0Upon motion of Director Bairos, seconded by Director Webb, and duly submittedto the Board for its consideration, the above titled resolution was unanimouslyadopted this fifteenth day of December, 2009.

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Steve Knell, P.E., Secretary

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is atrue and correct copy of the original an filewith the Oakdale irrigation Oistric&..


~!Steve Knell, P,@, ..Genera! Manaer/Secreta

o

Exhibit "A" Annexation Geographic Description attached.Exhibit "B" Annexation Plat Map attached.

Exhibit "e" Application for Annexation attached.Exhibit "0" Board Agenda Report attached.

2u

1138

the manner provided by the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. n Upon motion of Director Bairos, seconded by Director Webb, and duly submitted to the Board for its consideration, the above titled resolution was unanimously adopted this fifteenth day of December, 2009.


Steve Knell, P.E., Secretary

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the original an file with the Oakdale Irligatlon Oistric&..


~! Steve Knell, P .@. .. Genera! Manaer/Secreta

Exhibit "An Annexation Geographic Description attached. Exhibit "B" Annexation Plat Map attached.

Exhibit "C" Application for Annexation attached. Exhibit "0" Board Agenda Report attached.

2

o

u 13

ANNEXATION No. 2009-__

ANNEXATION TO OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICTGEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

All that certain real property situate in Sections 25 and 26, Township 1 South, Range 10 East,Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, County ofStanislaus, State of California, according to theofficial plat thereof, being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the intersection of the south line ofParcel I as described in Record Document No.2001-0003626, Official Records Stanislaus County and the existing Oakdale Irrigation Districtboundary, said point bearing South 47° 19' 14" East, a distance of4311.98 feet, from theintersection of "Frankenheimer Road" and "28 Mile Road";

Thence, (1) North 79° 44' 00" West, along the existing Oakdale Irrigation District boundary, adistance of44.55 feet;

Thence, continuing along said existing boundary following the subsequent courses and distances:(2) South 83° 31' 00" West, a distance of783.00 feet;

Thence, (3) North 50° 14' 00" West, a distance of 495.00 feet;

Thence, (4) North 21 ° 10' 00" East, a distance of255.00 feet;

Thence, (5) North 69° 01' 00" East, a distance of 940.99 feet, to the easterly line of said Parcell;

Thence, leaving said existing boundary, (6) South 32° 55' 30" East, along the easterly line ofsaid Parcell, a distance of 666.49 feet;

Thence, continuing along said easterly line following the subsequent courses and distances:(7) South 22° 29' 52" East, a distance of216.57 feet, to the southeast comer of said Parcell;

Thence, (8) South 72° 05' 39" West, along the southerly line of said Parcell, a distance of50.16feet;

Thence, continuing along said southerly line following the subsequent courses and distances: (9)South 77° 45' 19" West, a distance of 169.61 feet, to the Point of Beginning.

For assessment purposes only. This description ofland is not a legalproperty description as defined in the Subdivision Map Act and maynot be used as the basis for an offer for sale of the land described

EXHIBIT "A"

Date I I ~Signed l2 g d)

ANNEXATION No. 2009-__

ANNEXATION TO OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

All that certain real property situate in Sections 25 and 26, Township 1 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, County of Stanislaus, State of California, according to the official plat thereof, being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the intersection of the south line of Parcel I as described in Record Document No. 2001-0003626, Official Records Stanislaus County and the existing Oakdale Irrigation District boundary, said point bearing South 47° 19' 14" East, a distance of 4311.98 feet, from the intersection of "Frankenheimer Road" and "28 Mile Road";

Thence, (1) North 79° 44' 00" West, along the existing Oakdale Irrigation District boundary, a distance of 44.55 feet;

Thence, continuing along said existing boundary following the subsequent courses and distances: (2) South 83° 31' 00" West, a distance of783.00 feet;

Thence, (3) North 50° 14' 00" West, a distance of 495.00 feet;

Thence, (4) North 21 ° 10' 00" East, a distance of255.00 feet;

Thence, (5) North 69° 01' 00" East, a distance of 940.99 feet, to the easterly line of said Parcell;

Thence, leaving said existing boundary, (6) South 32° 55' 30" East, along the easterly line of said Parcell, a distance of 666.49 feet;

Thence, continuing along said easterly line following the subsequent courses and distances: (7) South 22° 29' 52" East, a distance of216.57 feet, to the southeast comer of said Parcell;

Thence, (8) South 72° 05' 39" West, along the southerly line of said Parcell, a distance of50.16 feet;

Thence, continuing along said southerly line following the subsequent courses and distances: (9) South 77° 45' 19" West, a distance of 169.61 feet, to the Point of Beginning.

For assessment purposes only. This description ofland is not a legal property description as defined in the Subdivision Map Act and may not be used as the basis for an offer for sale of the land described

EXHIBIT "A"

Date I I ~ Signed l2 g d)

14

APN:002-052-010

COURSES:

APN:002-052-026

I

EXISTING DISTRICT BOUN'DA,

APN:002-052-001

APN:002-052-028

·APN:002-052-022

SCALE IN FEET

t-----:-~I~~~io 200 400 800

--

NOT TO SCALE

--A.o__- PROJECT SITE

,

1. N 79·44'00" W 44.55'2. S 83·31'00" W 783.00'3. N 50·14'00" W 495.00'4. N 21·10'00" E 255.00'5. N 69·01'00" E 940.99'6, S 32·55'30" E 666.49'7. S 22·29'52" W 216.57'8. S 72·05'39" W 50.16'9. N 77·45'19" W 169.61'

FRANKENHEIMER ROAD~7

"'.------,/ ------

"")

LAFCO RESOLUTION No. ACREAGE:18.26 ACRES

LOCATION MAP

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL No.002-052-022

P.O.B.

INDICATES AREA TO BE ANNEXEDINTO OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRiCT

POINT OF BEGINNING

EXISTING OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICTBOUNDARY

____ PROPOSED OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICTBOUNDARY

LEGEND

DISCLAIMER:FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DESCRIPTIONOF LAND IS NOT A LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ASDEFINED IN THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND MAY NOTBE USED AS THE BASIS FOR AN OFFER FOR SALE OFLAND DESCRIBED.

eST 1968

CONSUL..TJNG GROUP

LAND SURVEYOR: •

PROVOST& OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT MARTY D. HARTWIG 9-PRITCHARD ANNEXAT10N No. f-.DR_AFTER_:-..,sJO:---_-1~

. SCALE: 1". 400'

An EtnpIoroe Owned Company I--=BE=IN:":":G:--:""A-::P-:-OR~T1--0-N-O':"':F-S-::E-CTl-O-N-S-2-5-&-2-6-..,j-;D::-;ATE;:-: -:1-;:3AU:-::G2=00=9-j ~Ai:O.~~ow.st,~f62 T. 1 S., R. 10 E.• M.D.B.&M JOB NO: 17B30903 !559/~;_;:_g.=,_/~!l-271& __. __~~~NISL_AU_S_~_OU_N_~_ SHEET 1 OF 1 ?

EXHIBIT "B"

DATE SIGNED: t2/~/cj

I

SCALE IN FEET EXISTING DISTRICT BOUN'D;\. . ~ ......-

APN: ......-002-052-001

o

'APN: 002-052-022

800

APN: 002-052-028

LEGEND

P.O.B.

INDICATES AREA TO BE ANNEXED INTO OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

POINT OF BEGINNING

EXISTING OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOUNDARY

____ PROPOSED OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOUNDARY

DISCLAIMER: FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DESCRIPTION OF LAND IS NOT A LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS DEFINED IN THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND MAY NOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR AN OFFER FOR SALE OF LAND DESCRIBED.

APN: 002-052-026

COURSES:

1. N 79'44'00" W 2. S 83'31'00" W 3. N 50'14'00" W 4. N 21'10'00" E 5. N 69"01'00" E 6, S 32'55'30" E 7. S 22'29'52" W 8. S 72'05'39" W 9. N 77'45'19" W

APN: 002-052-010

44.55' 783.00' 495.00'

255.00' 940.99' 666.49' 216.57' 50.16' 169.61'

LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE

FRANKENHEIMER ROAD

" ,/ ......- 7

----Aooo __ - PROJECT SITE

,

r.A~S~SE~S~S~O~R'~S~P~A~R~C~E~L~N~o-.-'~LA~F~C~O~RE~S~O~L~UT~IO~N~N~o-.~A~C~RE~A~G~E~;-----4 002-052-022 18.26 ACRES

! ~ 'l' r ~.

~

~ I

'" ~

~ ~ ;;. 1i ~l

~ j ! ~

j

l .J,

~ ~

~

DATE SIGNED: 12/S!3/cj eST 1968 LAND SURVEYOR: •

PROVOST & OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT MARTY D. HARTWIG 9-PRITC HARD ANNEXA T10N No. ____ f-.OR_AmR_: -..,sJO:---_-I~

. SCALE: 1".. 400'

An EmpIoroe Owned Company I-~BE=!N:-:-:G:--:-A -::P-:-OR~T1--0-N-O':"':F-S-::E-CTl-O-N-S-2-5-&-2-6--j-;D::-;ATE;:-: -:1';73AU:-:::G2=OO=9 -j ~ Ai:O.~~ow.~~f62 T. 1 S., R. 10 E., M.D.B.&M JOB NO: 17830903 !

559/«lI-2700 FAX 559/~!l-271& m . ~ ___ g.""___. __ ~~~N!SL_AU_S_~_OU_N_~_ SHEET 1 OF 1 '?

EXHIBIT "B" CONSUL.TJNG GROUP

15

400

00

\

\

\

\

\

\

to~

II

II

II

-H

II

II

II

II

.-11

I

I

I

CAD FILE No.2010-02-05-001DWG. No. 1 of

Oal<dale Irrigation DistrictNorth Main Regulating Reservoir

.-1002-0~2-028 1,,-47-PM-49 /32-RS-<l4 1_ ..)",- ..

n.-J

PROJECT SITE MAPProposed JosNn AnnexaVon

APN: 002-052-022

____ 1_ ~_._--

I

I

I

I

.-----.

002-052-001

R;f~i~:~t IL~&%lofDeeded 60' land 2007-31530

Realigned length of LaterolNo new Right of Way obtained

DATE: Feb. 5. 2010DRAWN BY: JDFCHECKED BY: JBD

15-5-43

Relocated length of lateralRight of Way to be abandoned

for reversion,

Frankenheimer Road

a I a OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT1205 EAST F STREET

OAKDALE CALIFORNIA 953611------------1


~

Frankenheirner Road

002-052-001

15-S-43

Realigned length of Laterol No new Right of Way obtained

Relocated length of lateral Right of Way to be abandoned

for reversion,

9 47-PM-49 32-RS-04

l·". /.-1

1_>· n

.-J

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

.. .-J I 00

t·---

1 47-PM-49

002-052-010

\

\

\

\

\

\

4 00

Oakdale Irrigation District North Main Regulating Reservoir-

____ L

1205 EAST F STREET a I a OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT OAKDALE CALIFORNIA 95361

t----~~~---!

to ~


DATE: Feb. 5, 2010 DRAWN BY: JDF CHECKED BY: JBD

PROJECT SITE MAP Proposed Joslin Annexation

APN: 002-052-022

CAD FILE No. 2010-02-05-001 DWG. No. 1 of

16

APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICTSECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Applicant Name(s):Mailing Address:

Telephone(s):

Patrick Joslin and Brenda K. Joslin12645 Bentley RoadWaterford California 95386Work: (209) 874-1801 Home: (209) 845-2858

B. Size ofparcel to be annexed:Portion ofparcel to be irrigated

30.75 acres30.75 acres

C. Is this parcel a part ofa larger adjacent land holding?Ifyes, what size is the remainder acreage of the applicant's adjacent lands?Why is this land not included in the Application for Annexation?

No.N/AN/A

D. Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) ofparcel(s) to be annexed: 002-052-022

1. U.S.G.S description: A portion of Sections 25 and 26, T. 1 S., R. 10 E., M. D. B. & M.2. Nearest street or road: 28 Mile Road3. Streams or other natural boundaries of the parcel: None4. Name of nearest O.I.D. service canal: Stevenot Lateral5. Proximity in feet to the nearest OJ.D. service canal: Contiguous to the West Property Line

SECTION II - ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

A. OlD has entered into a Purchase Agreement with the Joslins for the land on which the North MainRegulating Reservoir is constructed, in which OlD shall be responsible for all fees associated with thisAnnexation. Estimated Cost Initials

1. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) fees:

2. Board ofEqualization fees (see LAFCO Schedule):

3. OlD Annexation fees (see Annexation Policy information):

$ 3500.00

$ 800.00

N/A

4. Charges for staffreview per Special Projects Policy: (22610-142) N/A

5. Est. Cost ofDelivery Turnout (as required): N/A

6. Est. Cost for Lateral Construction (as required): N/A

7. Est. Cost for Removal of Existing Encroachments on OlD facilities: N/A

7. Est. Cost of Tailwater Return Flow system (flood irrigated lands): N/A(Drainage Plans are mandatory)

8. How will these costs be paid? One payment or financed?: OlD to pay all costs per PurchaseAgreement noted above.

EXlllBIT "D"

1K:lEngineeringlJoe Fos\Annexation\Annexation 2009IJoslin2009\AnnexApp2009.doc

APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION

A.

B.

C.

D.

Applicant Name (s): Mailing Address:

Patrick Joslin and Brenda K. Joslin 12645 Bentley Road Waterford California 95386

Telephone(s): Work: (209) 874-1801 Home: (209) 845-2858

Size of parcel to be annexed: Portion of parcel to be irrigated

30.75 acres 30.75 acres

Is this parcel a part of a larger adjacent land holding? If yes, what size is the remainder acreage of the applicant's adjacent lands? Why is this land not included in the Application for Annexation?

Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) ofparcel(s) to be annexed: 002-052-022

No. N/A N/A

1. U.S.G.S description: A portion of Sections 25 and 26, T. 1 S., R. 10 E., M. D. B. & M. 2. Nearest street or road: 28 Mile Road 3. Streams or other natural boundaries of the parcel: None 4. Name of nearest O.I.D. service canal: Stevenot Lateral 5. Proximity in feet to the nearest O.I.D. service canal: Contiguous to the West Property Line

SECTION II - ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

A. OID has entered into a Purchase Agreement with the Joslins for the land on which the North Main Regulating Reservoir is constructed, in which OID shall be responsible for all fees associated with this Annexation. Estimated Cost Initials

1. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) fees: $ 3500.00

2. Board of Equalization fees (see LAFCO Schedule): $ 800.00

3. OID Annexation fees (see Annexation Policy information): N/A

4. Charges for staff review per Special Projects Policy: (22610-142) N/A

5. Est. Cost of Delivery Turnout (as required): N/A

6. Est. Cost for Lateral Construction (as required): N/A

7. Est. Cost for Removal of Existing Encroachments on OID facilities: N/A

7. Est. Cost of Tailwater Return Flow system (flood irrigated lands): N/A (Drainage Plans are mandatory)

8. How will these costs be paid? One payment or financed?: OID to pay all costs per Purchase Agreement noted above.

EXlllBIT "D"

1 K:lEngineeringlJoe Fos\Annexation\Annexation 2009IJoslin2009\AnnexApp2009.doc

17

SECTION III - GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY INFORMATION

A. Local Cities, Districts or Agencies ofjurisdiction over the parcel to be annexed: Oakdale Irrigation District

B.

C.

Current zoning on parcel to be annexed:

Type of development, if any, proposed for the parcel to be annexed:

A-2-40

None

SECTION IV - TECHNICAL INFORMATION

A. Type of existing irrigation system: Currently not irrigated. To be irrigated with a drip/micro system.

B. Estimated current irrigation efficiency: N/A - This will be required upon system installation.(Proof of70% (minimum) efficiency is mandatory and contingent for annexation approval)

C. Type of proposed irrigation system: Drip/micro

D. Desired water delivery flow rate (cfs) TBD for duration of (hours) TBD

E. Deep Wells:

Capacity (gpm or cfs):Casing Size:Water Table Depth:Type of Construction:Year of Construction:

Well No.1

N/A

Well No.2

N/A

Well No.3

N/A

Well No.4

N/A

G. What other sources of water are available for irrigation? None

H. Existing crops and acreage:

Proposed crops and acreage:

Dry Land

Almonds/Walnuts

************ ************ ************

LANDOWNERS:

SignaMd~;....-patrick Jos n

Signature---'t~'----'--~~(;-=--'i(""-.,.-,-\<_,_-/---f-'=--'-,=--Lvr:-,--~Brenda K. Joslin

2K:lEngineeringIJoe Fos\Annexation\Annexation 2009IJoslin2009\AnnexApp2009,doc

Date /~¥?

SECTION III - GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY INFORMATION

A. Local Cities, Districts or Agencies of jurisdiction over the parcel to be annexed: Oakdale Irrigation District

B. Current zoning on parcel to be annexed: A-2-40

C. Type of development, if any, proposed for the parcel to be annexed: None

SECTION IV - TECHNICAL INFORMATION

A. Type of existing irrigation system: Currently not irrigated. To be irrigated with a drip/micro system.

B. Estimated current irrigation efficiency: N/A - This will be required upon system installation. (Proof of70% (minimum) efficiency is mandatory and contingent for annexation approval)

C. Type of proposed irrigation system: Drip/micro

D. Desired water delivery flow rate (cfs) TBD for duration of (hours) TBD

E. Deep Wells: Well No.1 Well No.2 Well No.3

Capacity (gpm or cfs): N/A N/A N/A Casing Size: Water Table Depth: Type of Construction: Year of Construction:

G. What other sources of water are available for irrigation? None

H. Existing crops and acreage: Dry Land

Proposed crops and acreage: Almonds/Walnuts

************ ************ ************

LANDOWNERS:

SignaMd~ ;....-patrick Jos n

Date /~¥?

Signature--+~---,---,~~C_( "'_\_< _' --,L~-,=--Cvr:-,--~ Brenda K. Joslin

2 K: lEn gineeringIJ oe F os\Annexation \Annexation 2 009IJ oslin2 009\AnnexApp2 009 ,doc

Well No.4

N/A

18

EXHIBIT C

Environmental Documentation (Notice of Determination & Initial Study)

19

Notice of Determination

From: Oakdale Irrigation District1205 East F Street ,:"Oakdale, CA 9SJ61

To:

Subject:

__Office ofPlanning and Research1400 Tenth Street, Room 121Sacramento, CA 95814

V' County Clerk \ ~, ~;;,County of Stanislaus \ 0' G (~

\ ~ ':',Filing ofNotice ofDetermination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the ~UbI~Resqurc;.Code.

Pro'ect Title: Joslin Annexation Pro'ectState Clearinghouse Number(Ifsubmitted to Clearinghouse)

Lead Agency Contact PersonSteve Knell, P.E., General Manager

Area Code/Teleph(209)840-5508

Project Location (include county)A portion of APN 002-052-022. The S Yz ofthe SW Y4 of Section 25 and the SE Y4 ofthe SE Y4 of Section 26, TIS,

RI0E, Stanislaus County, CA. Nearest cross roads are Frankenheimer Road to the North and Twenty Eight Mile Roadto the west

Project Description:The project proposes to annex approximately 18.26 acres of a 30.59 acre parcel into the Oakdale IrrigationDistrict (OlD) from its sphere of influence. The remainder of the parcel is already within OID.

This is to advise that the ""'O~a~kd~a~l~e~Im~·g~a~tio~n~D~is~tn~·~ct'__ _Lead Agency Responsible Agency

has approved the above described project onregarding the above described project.

November 2, 2010 and has made the following determinations

1. The project [0 will • will not] have a significant effect on the environment.A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA.

2. An Environmental Impact Report was not prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA.

3. Mitigation measures [Owere • were not] made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Plan measures [Owas • was not] adopted for this project.

5. A Statement of Overriding Considerations [0 was • was not] adopted for this project.

6. Findings [.were 0 were not] made pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA.

This is to certify that the Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study with comments and record ofprojectapproval is available to the General Public at:

TitleGeneral Manaaer

DateNovember 2, 2010

.E., Oakdale Irrigation District

~,(

Oakdale Irrigation District, 1205 East F Street, Oakdale, CA 95361 (209) 840-5508

Signature:

Date received for filing and posting at OPR:

Notice of Determination Joslin Annexation

To:

Notice of Determination

__ Office ofPlanning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814

From: Oakdale Irrigation District 1205 East F Street ,::", Oakdale, CA 9SJ61

V' County Clerk \ ~, ~;;, County of Stanislaus \ '0' G (~

\ ~ ':') Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the ~Ubl~Resqur~ Subject: Code.

Pro' ect Title: Joslin Annexation Pro' ect State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse)

Project Location (include county)

Lead Agency Contact Person Steve Knell, P.E., General Manager

Area Code/Teleph (209)840-5508

A portion of APN 002-052-022. The S Yz of the SW Y4 of Section 25 and the SE Y4 of the SE Y4 of Section 26, TIS, RI0E, Stanislaus County, CA. Nearest cross roads are Frankenheimer Road to the North and Twenty Eight Mile Road to the west

Project Description: The project proposes to annex approximately 18.26 acres of a 30.59 acre parcel into the Oakdale Irrigation District (OlD) from its sphere of influence. The remainder of the parcel is already within OID.

This is to advise that the _______ ""'O:!:!a~kd~a::!l~e~Im~·g~ac!:!tio~n~D:.!!is~tn~·~ct'__ ____________ _ Lead Agency Responsible Agency

has approved the above described project on regarding the above described project.

November 2, 2010 and has made the following determinations

1. The project [0 will • will not] have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

2. An Environmental Impact Report was not prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. Mitigation measures [Owere • were not] made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A Mitigation Reporting or Monitoring Plan measures [Owas • was not] adopted for this project.

5. A Statement of Overriding Considerations [0 was • was not] adopted for this project.

6. Findings [.were 0 were not] made pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA.

This is to certify that the Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study with comments and record of project approval is available to the General Public at:

Oakdale Irrigation District, 1205 East F Street, Oakdale, CA 95361 (209) 840-5508

November 2, 2010 General Manaaer Signature: Date Title

Date received for filing and posting at OPR:

Notice of Determination Joslin Annexation 20

DateNovember 2, 2010

FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATIONJoslin Annexation Project

Project Description:The Joslin Annexation Project (Project) proposes to annex approximately 18.26 acresof a 30.59 acre parcel into the Oakdale Irrigation District (010) from its sphere ofinfluence. The remainder of the parcel is already with in 010.

Finding:There are no significant or adverse impacts to the environment as a result ofannexation.

Basis for the Finding:Based on the Initial Study prepared for this Project, it was determined that therewould be no significant adverse environmental effects resulting from annexation into010.

The Negative Declaration is filed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality ActGuidelines.

Stev~~1General Manager, Oakdale Irrigation District

Project Description:

FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Joslin Annexation Project

The Joslin Annexation Project (Project) proposes to annex approximately 18.26 acres of a 30.59 acre parcel into the Oakdale Irrigation District (010) from its sphere of influence. The remainder of the parcel is already with in 010.

Finding: There are no significant or adverse impacts to the environment as a result of annexation.

Basis for the Finding: Based on the Initial Study prepared for this Project, it was determined that there would be no significant adverse environmental effects resulting from annexation into 010.

The Negative Declaration is filed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

Stev~~1 November 2, 2010 Date

General Manager, Oakdale Irrigation District

21

Exhibit "0"

Oakdale Irrigation District1205 East F Street

Oakdale, CA 95361Phone: (209) 847-0341

Fax: (209) 847-3468

CEQA INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT ANEGATIVE DECLARATION

Adapted from CEQA Guidelines APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form. Final Text. October 26, 1998Modified from Stanisiaus County CEQA Initial Study 10/9/2007

This document is being circulated as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project review should befrom the point of view of impacts in areas of responsibility. Please respond by the date listed below.

Date:

To:

From:

Comment Period:

Respond By:

Public Hearing Date:

September 10, 2010

Distribution list (see attached)

Oakdale Irrigation District Engineering Department

September 13 to October 12,2010

October 12, 2010

October 5, 2010

1. Project title: Oakdale Irrigation District Annexation Proposal Joslin

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.8.

Lead agency name and address:

Contact person and phone number:

Project location:

Owner/Applicant:

General plan designation:

Zoning:Williamson Act Contract:

Oakdale Irrigation District

1205 East F Street

Oakdale, CA 95361

Steve Knell, PE, General Manager (209) 8405508

S Y2 of the SW Y4 of Section 25 and the SE Y4 ofthe SE Y4 of Section 26, TiS, R10E, MDBM inStanislaus County, California. The nearestcross streets are Frankenheimer Road to thenorth of the project area and Twenty Eight MileRoad to the west of the project area. A portionof APN 002-052-022.

Pat and Brenda Joslin

Agriculture

A-2-40

Yes

DID Exhibit "0"

Oakdale Irrigation District 1205 East F Street

Oakdale, CA 95361 Phone: (209) 847-0341

Fax: (209) 847-3468

CEQA INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Adapted from CEQA Guidelines APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text, October 26, 1998 Modified from Stanislaus County CEQA Initial Study 10/9/2007

This document is being circulated as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project review should be from the point of view of impacts in areas of responsibility. Please respond by the date listed below.

Date:

To:

From:

Comment Period:

Respond By:

Public Hearing Date:

1. Project title:

September 10, 2010

Distribution list (see attached)

Oakdale Irrigation District Engineering Department

September 13 to October 12,2010

October 12, 2010

October 5, 2010

Oakdale Irrigation District Annexation Proposal -Joslin

2. Lead agency name and address: Oakdale Irrigation District

1205 East F Street

Oakdale, CA 95361

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

Contact person and phone number:

Project location:

Owner/Applicant:

General plan designation:

Zoning: Williamson Act Contract:

Steve Knell, PE, General Manager (209) 840-5508

S % of the SW Y-t of Section 25 and the SE Y-t of the SE Y-t of Section 26, TiS, Ri0E, MDBM in Stanislaus County, California. The nearest cross streets are Frankenheimer Road to the north of the project area and Twenty Eight Mile Road to the west of the project area. A portion of APN 002-052-022.

Pat and Brenda Joslin

Agriculture

A-2-40

Yes

22

9. Description of project: Annex approximately 18.26 acres of a 30.59 acre parcel into the Oakdale Irrigation Districtfrom within its existing sphere of influence. The remainder of the 30.59 acre parcel is already in the OakdaleIrrigation District.

10. Surrounding land uses and setting: Agricultural uses, single-family dwellings and an010 laterals.

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g.,permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Stanislaus County LAFCO

9. Description of project: Annex approximately 18.26 acres of a 30.59 acre parcel into the Oakdale Irrigation District from within its existing sphere of influence. The remainder of the 30.59 acre parcel is already in the Oakdale Irrigation District.

10. Surrounding land uses and setting: Agricultural uses, single-family dwellings and an 010 laterals.

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Stanislaus County LAFCO

23

Oakdale Irrigation DistrictJoslin AnnexationReferral Distribution List

Stanislaus CountyEnvironmental Review Committee1010 10th Street, Suite 6800Modesto, CA 95354

University of CaliforniaCooperative Extension3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite AModesto, CA 95358

California Department of Fish and GameCentral Region1234 East Shaw AvenueFresno, CA 93710

LAFCOAttn: Sara Lytle-Pinhey1010 10th Street, Third FloorModesto, CA 95354

Natural Resources Conservation ServiceModesto Service Center3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite EModesto, CA 95358-9494

Central Valley Regional Water Quality ControlBoardIrrigated Lands Regulatory Program11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Central Valley Flood Protection3310 EI Camino Avenue, Room LL40Sacramento, CA 95821

Sacramento DistrictU.S. Army Corps of Engineers1325 J StreetSacramento, CA 95814

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control BoardNorthern Region1990 East Gettysburg Avenue

U.S. Fish and WildlifeSacramento Fish and Wildlife Office2800 Cottage Way, Room W2605Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

Native American Heritage Commission915 Capitol Mall # 364Sacramento, CA 95814-4801

Tule River Indian TribeNeil Peyron, ChairpersonP.O. Box 589Porterville, CA 93258

Southern Sierra Miwuk NationJay Johnson, Spiritual Leader5235 Allred RoadMariposa, CA 95338

Northern Valley Yokuts TribeKatherine Erolinda PerezP.O. Box 717Linden, CA 95236

Southern Sierra Miwuk NationAnthony Brochini, ChairpersonP.O. Box 1200Mariposa, CA 95338

Southern Sierra Miwuk NationLes James, Spiritual LeaderP.O. Box 1200Mariposa, CA 95338\

City of OakdalePublic Works Department455 South Fifth AvenueOakdale, CA 95361

City of OakdaleCommunity Development Department120 South Sierra AvenueOakdale, CA 95361

Oakdale Irrigation District Joslin Annexation Referral Distribution List

Stanislaus County Environmental Review Committee 1010 10th Street, Suite 6800 Modesto, CA 95354

University of California Cooperative Extension 3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite A Modesto, CA 95358

California Department of Fish and Game Central Region 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710

LAFCO Attn: Sara Lytle-Pinhey 1010 10th Street, Third Floor Modesto, CA 95354

Natural Resources Conservation Service Modesto Service Center 3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite E Modesto, CA 95358-9494

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Central Valley Flood Protection 3310 EI Camino Avenue, Room LL40 Sacramento, CA 95821

Sacramento District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Board Northern Region 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall # 364 Sacramento, CA 95814-4801

Tule River Indian Tribe Neil Peyron, Chairperson P.O. Box 589 Porterville, CA 93258

Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation Jay Johnson, Spiritual Leader 5235 Allred Road Mariposa, CA 95338

Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe Katherine Erolinda Perez P.O. Box 717 Linden, CA 95236

Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation Anthony Brochini, Chairperson P.O. Box 1200 Mariposa, CA 95338

Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation Les James, Spiritual Leader P.O. Box 1200 Mariposa, CA 95338\

City of Oakdale Public Works Department 455 South Fifth Avenue Oakdale, CA 95361

City of Oakdale Community Development Department 120 South Sierra Avenue Oakdale, CA 95361

24

Oakdale Irrigation District Initial Study Checklist Page 4

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impactthat is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

DPublic Services 0 Recreation

DAesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources

oBiological Resources 0 Cultural Resources

DHazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology I Water Quality

DMineral Resources 0 Noise

oUtilities I Service Systems o Mandatory Findings of Significance

DAir Quality

DGeology ISoils

o Land Use I Planning

oPopulation I Housing

DTransportation/Traffic

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

Date

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will notbe a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by theproject proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

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

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

o

o

o

o

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

Signature~ISteve Knell, P.E., General Manager Oakdale Irrigation DistrictPrinted Name For


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

DAesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources DAir Quality

DGeology ISoils o Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources

DHazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology I Water Quality o Land Use I Planning

DMineral Resources 0 Noise o Population I Housing

DTransportation/Traffic DPublic Services 0 Recreation

o Utilities I Service Systems o Mandatory Findings of Significance

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

o

o

o

o

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.

Signature ~I Date

Steve Knell, P.E., General Manager Oakdale Irrigation District Printed Name For

25

Oakdale Irrigation District Initial Study Checklist

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

Page 5

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

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

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers mustindicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant."Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. Ifthere are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

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

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

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

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

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

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and theextent 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 potentialimpacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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

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

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significant criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer 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 Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

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

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

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

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

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope 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 Significant 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.

26


ISSUES

I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:

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

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

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

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

PotentiallySignificant

Impact

Less ThanSignificant With

MitigationIncluded

Less ThanSignificant

Impact

Page 6

NoImpact

x

x

x

xDiscussion: The site itself is not considered to be a scenic resource or a unique scenic vista. The area surroundingthe property is in agricultural use and will remain so after annexation.

Mitigation:

References:

None.

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

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

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

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


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

x

x

x

xDiscussion: The property is enrolled under the Williamson Act and is not mapped as prime farmland, farmland ofstatewide importance, farmland of local importance or unique farmland.

Mitigation: None.

References: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, January 4,2010.


ISSUES

I. AESTHETICS·- Would the project:

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

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrop pings, 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?

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant With

Mitigation Included

Less Than Significant

Impact

Page 6

No Impact

x

x

x

x Discussion: The site itself is not considered to be a scenic resource or a unique scenic vista. The area surrounding the property is in agricultural use and will remain so after annexation.

Mitigation: None.

References:

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:

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?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

No Impact

x

x

x

x Discussion: The property is enrolled under the Williamson Act and is not mapped as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance or unique farmland.

Mitigation: None.


27


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

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

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

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

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople?


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

Page 7

NoImpact

x

x

x

x

xDiscussion: The project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which has been classified as "severe nonattainment" for ozone and respirable particular matter (PM-1 0) as defined by the Federal Clean Air Act. The San JoaquinValley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has been established by the State in an effort to control and minimize airpollution. As such, the District maintains permit authority over stationary sources of pollutants.

No air pollution would be generated by annexation into OlD. An Early Consultation referral was sent to SJVAPCB. Noresponse comments were received.

Mitigation: None

References: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Regulation VIII Fugitive DustlPM-10 Synopsis.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

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

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

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protectedwetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)throu h direct removal, fillin , h drolo ical interruption, or


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

x

x


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:

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?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

Page 7

No Impact

x

x

x

x

x Discussion: The project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which has been classified as "severe nonattainment" for ozone and respirable particular matter (PM-1 0) 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.

No air pollution would be generated by annexation into OlD. An Early Consultation referral was sent to SJVAPCB. No response comments were received.

Mitigation: None

References: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Regulation VIII Fugitive DustlPM-10 Synopsis.

IV. 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?

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.) th h direct on or


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

No Impact

x

x

28


other means?

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

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

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

Page 8

x

x

x

xDiscussion: A baseline biological resources inventory for the project site was prepared by Moore Biological Consultants.The site was found to consist of annual grasslands and a home with the natural vegetation and habitats converted toagriculture and development over many decades. It does not appear this project will result in impacts to endangeredspecies or habitats, locally designated species, or wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors. However, correspondence wasreceived from the USFWS, on August 18, 2010, regarding take of endangered species possibly the state and federally-listedCalifornia Tiger Salamander (CTS), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)(VPFS) and the federally-listed asendangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp. No vernal pool habitat occurs within the project area nor, does there appear to besuitable habitat for CTS. No take will occur as a result of annexation, however, the landowner will be advised to consult withUSFWS, as well as CDFG, if there is a change in land use that could result in a take of an endangered species.

Mitigation: None.

References: California Department of Fish and Game California Natural Diversity Database, Baseline BiologicalResources Inventory at the "Joslin Annexation" Site, Stanislaus County, California, July 7,2010.

v. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

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

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

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

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


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

x

x

x

xDiscussion: A previous literature search was commissioned from the California Historical Resources Information System(CHRIS) Central California Information Center for a one-mile radius which would have included the project site. The CHRISliterature and records review included a review of all recorded archaeological sites as well as all known cultural resourcesurvey and excavation reports. A total of seven cultural resources were reported within the 1-mile buffer of the project areaincluding a ranch complex, a wood-frame residence, canal and lateral segments and the Old Tulloch Drain. The CometaLateral is adjacent to the property and the Stevenot Lateral is in close proximity. All canals and laterals in OlD weredetermined to be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places by consensus through the Section 106 process.Althou h ori inall constructed between 1910 -1913, none of the canals within OlD retain inte rit to this eriod and have


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?

Page 8

x

x

x

x Discussion: A baseline biological resources inventory for the project site was prepared by Moore Biological Consultants. The site was found to consist of annual grasslands and a home with the natural vegetation and habitats converted to agriculture and development over many decades. It does not appear this project will result in impacts to endangered species or habitats, locally designated species, or wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors. However, correspondence was received from the USFWS, on August 18, 2010, regarding take of endangered species possibly the state and federally-listed California Tiger Salamander (CTS), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)(VPFS) and the federally-listed as endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp. No vernal pool habitat occurs within the project area nor, does there appear to be suitable habitat for CTS. No take will occur as a result of annexation, however, the landowner will be advised to consult with USFWS, as well as CDFG, if there is a change in land use that could result in a take of an endangered species.

Mitigation: None.

References: California Department of Fish and Game California Natural Diversity Database, Baseline Biological Resources Inventory at the "Joslin Annexation" Site, Stanislaus County, California, July 7,2010.

v. CULTURAL RESOURCES .- Would the project:

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

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

c} Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d} Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

No Impact

x

x

x

x Discussion: A previous literature search was commissioned from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Central California Information Center for a one-mile radius which would have included the project site. The CHRIS literature and records review included a review of all recorded archaeological sites as well as all known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. A total of seven cultural resources were reported within the i-mile buffer of the project area including a ranch complex, a wood-frame residence, canal and lateral segments and the Old Tulloch Drain. The Cometa Lateral is adjacent to the property and the Steve not Lateral is in close proximity. All canals and laterals in OlD were determined to be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places by consensus through the Section 106 process.

constructed between 1910 -191 none of the canals within OlD retain i . to this and have 29


been altered during normal 010 operations. No 010 facilities will be affected by the proposed annexation.

Page 9

An Early Consultation Referral was also sent to Native American contacts without a response. It does not appear thisproject will result in significant impacts to any archaeological or cultural resources.

Mitigation: None.

References: Cultural Resources Assessment for the North Side Regulating Reservoir Project within OakdaleIrrigation District (revised) CH2M HILL, August 6, 2008.(revised August 13, 2008).

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:

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

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

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, includingliquefaction?

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 thatwould become unstable as a result of the project, andpotentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

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

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


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

x

x

xxx

x

x

xDiscussion: The District is east of the Diablo Range where lands subject to significant geologic hazard are located andwest of Interstate 5. No Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map exists in the project area. Soils in the project are Sanjoaquin sandy loam (Sa8), with 2 - 5 percent slopes. The San Joaquin series soils are imperfectly drained medium andmoderately coarse textured soils with hardpans developed from the alluvium of granitic rock. No buildings or roadconstruction are proposed for the project area as part of the annexation.

Mitigation: None.



been altered during normal 010 operations. No 010 facilities will be affected by the proposed annexation.

An Early Consultation Referral was also sent to Native American contacts without a response. It does not appear this project will result in significant impacts to any archaeological or cultural resources.

Mitigation: None.

References: Cultural Resources Assessment for the North Side Regulating Reservoir Project within Oakdale Irrigation District (revised) CH2M HILL, August 6, 2008.(revised August 13, 2008).

VI. 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) 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 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), 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?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

No Impact

x

x

x x x

x

x

x Discussion: The District is east of the Diablo Range where lands subject to significant geologic hazard are located and west of Interstate 5. No Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map exists in the project area. Soils in the project are San joaquin sandy loam (Sa8), with 2 - 5 percent slopes. The San Joaquin series soils are imperfectly drained medium and moderately coarse textured soils with hardpans developed from the alluvium of granitic rock. No buildings or road construction are proposed for the project area as part of the annexation.

Mitigation: None.


30


XVII. GLOBAL WARMING ~ Would the project:

Have a substantial adverse effect on global temperaturesthrough the increase in greenhouse gas emissions?


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

X

Discussion: Annexation into OlD will not change land use or affect global warming. No development will occur as aresult of annexation and the project area will remain under agricultural use.

Mitigation: None

Reference:

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS •• Would theproject:

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

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

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutelyhazardous 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 hazardousmaterials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard tothe public or the environment?

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

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

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

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involvin wildland fires, including where


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

X

X

NoImpact

X

X

X

X

X

X


XVII. GLOBAL WARMING ~ Would the project:

Have a substantial adverse effect on global temperatures through the increase in greenhouse gas emissions?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

Page 10

No Impact

X

Discussion: Annexation into 010 will not change land use or affect global warming. No development will occur as a result of annexation and the project area will remain under agricultural use.

Mitigation: None

Reference:

VII. 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?

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 65962.5 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, or death involvin wildland fires includi where


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

X

X

No Impact

X

X

X

X

X

X

31


wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residencesare intermixed with wildlands?

Page 11

Discussion: A search on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor Databasewas conducted for Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites,Permitted Operating Sites, Post Closure Sites, Historical Non-Operating Sites and Corrective Action Sites No locationswere listed within a mile radius of the project site. Pesticide exposure, however, is a risk in agricultural areas. Sources ofexposure include drift from spray applications and, no homes or public uses are planned as part of annexation into 010. TheCounty Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is responsible for overseeing hazardous materials in this area. Andapplication of sprays is strictly controlled by the Agricultural Commissioner and can only be accomplished after first obtainingpermits.

Mitigation: None.

References: State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor Database 1/6/2010.

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

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischargerequirements?

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

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

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

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

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 1OO-year flood hazard area as mappedon a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance RateMap or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx


wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Page 11

Discussion: A search on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor Database was conducted for Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Operating Sites, Post Closure Sites, Historical Non-Operating Sites and Corrective Action Sites No locations were listed within a mile radius of the project site. Pesticide exposure, however, is a risk in agricultural areas. Sources of exposure include drift from spray applications and, no homes or public uses are planned as part of annexation into 010. The County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is responsible for overseeing hazardous materials in this area. And application of sprays is strictly controlled by the Agricultural Commissioner and can only be accomplished after first obtaining permits.

Mitigation: None.

References: State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor Database 1/6/2010.

VIII. 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)?

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 1 OO-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


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

No Impact

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

32


would impede or redirect flood flows?

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

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion: No change in drainage pattern will occur as a result of the project.

Mitigation: None.

References:

Page 12

xx

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING _. Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, orregulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for thepurpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

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


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

X

X

X

Discussion: The project is consistent with the county's general plan and zoning designation of agriculture and is withinOlD's adopted sphere of influence.

Mitigation:

References:

None.

X. MINERAL RESOURCES _. Would the project:

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

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


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

X

X

Discussion: There are no known significant resources on the site. Soil at the project site is mapped as San joaquin,sandy loam (SaB). SaB is listed as a poor source of topsoil, sand, gravel, roadfill and as a reclamation material source.

Mitigation: None.


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 ofthe failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion: No change in drainage pattern will occur as a result of the project.

Mitigation: None.

References:

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

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?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

Page 12

x x

No Impact

X

X

X

Discussion: The project is consistent with the county's general plan and zoning designation of agriculture and is within OlD's adopted sphere of influence.

Mitigation: None.

References:

X. 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?

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?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

No Impact

X

X

Discussion: There are no known significant resources on the site. Soil at the project site is mapped as San joaquin, sandy loam (Sa8). Sa8 is listed as a poor source of topsoil, sand, gravel, roadfill and as a reclamation material source.

Mitigation: None.

33


Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, January 4,2010.

Page 13

XI. NOISE·· Would the project result in:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

X

X

X

X

X

X

Discussion: The project is located in an agricultural area where noise generated by agricultural activities already exist onthe property and surrounding properties.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING •• Would the project:

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

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

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

X

X


Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, January 4,2010.

XI. 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?

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?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

Page 13

No Impact

X

X

X

X

X

X

Discussion: The project is located in an agricultural area where noise generated by agricultural activities already exist on the property and surrounding properties.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation 1.

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING _. Would the project:

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?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

No Impact

X

X

34


construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion: There will be no development as a result of the project.

Mitigation: None.

References:

Page 14

X

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES:

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


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

Fire protection? X

Police protection? X

Schools? X

Parks? X

Other public facilities? X

Discussion: No additional public services are required as a result of annexation.

Mitigation: None.

References:

XIV. RECREATION:

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

Discussion: Development will not occur as a result of the project.

Mitigation: None.

References:


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

X


construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion: There will be no development as a result of the project.

Mitigation: None.

References:

XIII. 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?


Impact


Mitigation Included

Discussion: No additional public services are required as a result of annexation.

Mitigation: None.

References:

XIV. 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?

Discussion: Development will not occur as a result of the project.

Mitigation: None.

References:


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact


Impact

Page 14

X

No Impact

X

X

X

X

X

No Impact

X

35


XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC·· Would the project:

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

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

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

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 supportingalternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

x

x

x

x

xx

xDiscussion: There is no anticipated change in traffic as a result of annexation into 010.

Mitigation: None.

References:

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

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

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

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


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

X

x

X


XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., 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)?


Impact


Mitigation Included

Discussion: There is no anticipated change in traffic as a result of annexation into 010.

Mitigation: None.

References:

XVI. 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?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact


Impact

Page 15

No Impact

x

x

x

x

x x

x

No Impact

X

x

X

36


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

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

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

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

Discussion: There will be no impacts to existing 010 customers.

Mitigation: None.

References:

Page 16

x

x

x

x

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

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

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

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


Impact


MitigationIncluded


Impact

NoImpact

X

X

X

Discussion: Review of this project has not indicated any features which might significantly impact the environmentalquality of the site and/or the surrounding area.


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: There will be no impacts to existing 010 customers.

Mitigation: None.

References:

XVIII. 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 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?


Impact


Mitigation Included


Impact

Page 16

x

x

x

x

No Impact

X

X

X

Discussion: Review of this project has not indicated any features which might significantly impact the environmental quality of the site and/or the surrounding area.

37

joslin change of organization to the oakdale irrigation … rpts/joslin.oid.pdf · 4. designates...

Documents