I:\Staffrpt\UP\2009\UP 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood\Staff Report.Wpd

$I:\Staffrpt\UP\2009\UP 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood\Staff Report.Wpd$

STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

April 1, 2010

STAFF REPORT

USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2009-16 FOSTER FARMS - ELLENWOOD

REQUEST: TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CHICKEN HATCHERY BY 29,713 SQUARE FEET ON A 112± ACRE SITE IN THE A-2-40 (GENERAL AGRICULTURE) ZONING DISTRICT.

APPLICATION INFORMATION

Property Owner: Fresno Farming LLC - Foster Farms Applicant: Bob Miller Location: West of Ellenwood Road, between Ellenwood Road and the Oakdale Waterford Highway, in the Waterford area (1307 Ellenwood Road) Section, Township, Range: 17-3-11, 20-3-11 Supervisorial District: One (Supervisor O’Brien) Assessor’s Parcel: 015-003-012, 015-056-007, 015-056-008, 015-056-010, 015-056-011 Referrals: See Exhibit I Environmental Review Referrals Area of Parcel: 112± acres Water Supply: Water well Sewage Disposal: Septic/leach field system Existing Zoning: A-2-40 (General Agriculture) General Plan Designation: Agriculture Sphere of Influence: Not applicable Community Plan Designation: Not applicable Williamson Act Contract No.: 72-613 & 73-1237 Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration Present Land Use: A chicken hatchery, almond orchards, fields containing a forage crop, wastewater ponds, and one single-family dwelling Surrounding Land Use: Almond orchards and forage crops to the north, OID South Canal and orchards to the west, orchards and the Oakdale Waterford Highway to the south, and ranch properties to the east

1 UP 2009-16 Staff Report April 1, 2010 Page 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

In regards to the hatchery, the current facility operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They have one employee 24 hours a day for monitoring the incubators and hatchers. The site has one residence on the property where the supervisor lives. The number of chicks hatched at this facility will increase from 2.06 million birds per week to 3.3 million. This expansion will actually reduce weekly truck trips from 59 to 56 since the applicant will shut down the Albers Hatchery, eliminating the truck traffic from Albers to Ellenwood. Employee estimates are around 35 - 42 due to the expansion. No more than 20 people will be present at any given time. The existing structure is a concrete-tilt-up building, approximately 20 feet tall. The expansion to the existing building will be steel construction with insulated metal panels matching the existing concrete building.

A new wastewater system is also part of the proposal, to include two new lined ponds. The existing southern pond will be expanded. The new pond area will total 1.75 acres, which currently has almond trees on-site. They will continue using a screen and an irrigation system until the new wastewater system comes on-line. The screen is used to collect and remove “chick down” (young chicken feathers and/or chicken waste) from the wastewater. The chick down that is collected (under 200 pounds per day) is taken to a landfill. The property also has about nine acres of pasture where wastewater is used for irrigation. The existing northern wastewater pond is proposed to be abandoned with construction of the new system. Storage of animal waste ponds shall be located a minimum of fifty feet from any property line and three hundred feet from any dwelling on an adjacent property. Other standards may be imposed by other county or state agencies.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located at 1307 Ellenwood Road, west of Ellenwood Road, between Ellenwood Road and the Oakdale Waterford Highway, in the Waterford area. The site is accessible from a driveway on Ellenwood Road. The main facility has been an existing chicken hatchery on its own 12-acre Assessor’s Parcel. The entire project site is approximately 112± acres comprised of five (5) separate Assessor’s Parcels all owned by Fresno Farms LLC - Foster Farms. In addition to the hatchery, the project site is developed with one single-family dwelling and planted in almond orchards and forage crops. The recycled water from the hatchery discharge is used to spray fields in the northern portion of the project site.

A review of land uses in the immediate vicinity reveals similar-sized properties. Structures consist of one single-family dwelling and the existing facility. The surrounding land uses include almond orchards to the north, OID South Canal and orchards to the west, orchards and the Oakdale Waterford Highway to the south, and ranch properties to the east.

2 UP 2009-16 Staff Report April 1, 2010 Page 3

DISCUSSION

The site is located in the General Agriculture (A-2) zoning district. Effective December 26, 2003, the A-2 zoning district requires a use permit for any new or expanding Confined Animal Facility (CAF) requiring a new or modified permit, waiver, or an order for Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), where the issuance of waste discharges require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If no permit, waiver, or order for WDRs is required by RWQCB, a CAF, including the expansion of a chicken hatchery, is considered a permitted use.

Typically, requests for new or expanding CAFs are referred to the RWQCB for a determination regarding the need for a new or modified permit, waiver, or order for WDRs prior to a use permit application being submitted; however, in this case, the use permit was submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to a determination by the RWQCB based on the applicant’s understanding that WDRs would be required as a result of preliminary discussions with the RWQCB. Attempts by staff to obtain a determination from the RWQCB prior to processing of the use permit failed since the RWQCB would not issue a determination until they had an opportunity to review the CEQA environmental documentation for the project. This approach is highly unusual since CEQA only applies if a use permit is required and the RWQCB’s determination is needed to determine if a use permit is required.

In light of the impasse presented by the RWQCB’s inability to make a determination, the applicant and staff agreed to move forward with preparation of the use permit and environmental review on the assumption that WDRs would be required by the RWQCB. During this time the applicant met independently with the RWQCB on January 21, 2010. In response to the CEQA Initial Study, the RWQCB responded on March 1, 2010, stating that WDRs would be required for the project. (See Exhibit H - Public Comments & Environmental Review Referral Responses.) A complete discussion on the environmental review for this project is provided in the section below.

A Use Permit may be granted if the Planning Commission makes the following finding:

• The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use or building applied for is consistent with the General Plan designation of “Agriculture” and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use and that it will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County.

Also, the project site is currently enrolled under the Williamson Act (Contract Nos. 72-613 & 73- 1237). In compliance with Government Code Section 51238.1, Section 21.20.045(A) of the A-2 zoning district requires that all uses requiring use permits that are approved on Williamson Act contracted lands shall be consistent with three principles of compatibility:

1. The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability of the subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in the A-2 zoning district;

3 UP 2009-16 Staff Report April 1, 2010 Page 4

2. The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in the A-2 zoning district. Uses that significantly displace agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed compatible if they relate directly to the production of commercial agricultural products on the subject contracted parcel or neighboring lands, including activities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping; and

3. The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from agricultural or open-space use.

The proposed expansion, may be considered compatible if the Planning Commission finds that the use is consistent with the three principles of compatibility listed above.

This project has been reviewed by the Department of Conservation on numerous occasions. They responded that because the project does not involve a significant conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance they would have no specific project related comments.

Staff has received a letter from a neighbor to the west raising concerns with a noisy on-site vacuum pump. (See Exhibit H - Public Comments & Environmental Review Referral Responses - letter dated March 10, 2010.) Per the neighbor’s letter, Foster Farms has tried to rectify the problem in the past. The neighbor does not have a problem with the project, but hopes the noisy vacuum pump will get rectified with the expansion. The applicant has been notified of the concern and has expressed that the expansion will fix the issue.

Staff believes the necessary findings to approve this project can be made. With conditions of approval in place, there is no indication that, under the circumstances of this particular case, the proposed project will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use and that it will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the county. The services provided by the facility are an important component of the agricultural economy in Stanislaus County and there is no indication this project will interfere or conflict with other agricultural uses in the area.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project was circulated to all interested parties and responsible agencies for review and comment. (See Exhibit I - Environmental Review Referrals.) Based on the Initial Study prepared for the project, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is being proposed.

The mitigation measure identified for the project requires the operator submit a complete Report of Waste Discharge prior to any waste being discharged as a result of the proposed project, if required by the RWQCB. The applicant has already submitted a Report of Waste Discharge to the RWQCB and, as discussed earlier, the RWQCB has determined WDRs will be required. In light of the RWQCB’s determination, a condition of approval has been added to the project requiring the

4 UP 2009-16 Staff Report April 1, 2010 Page 5

WDRs be obtained prior to operation of the expanded hatchery. The original mitigation measure identified prior to the RWQCB’s determination is still being incorporated as a condition of approval since additional information required by the RWQCB to ensure a complete Report of Waste Discharge may still be required.

While not required as part of the use permit application, the applicant provided to the County a “Technical Report in Support of Report of Waste Discharge” prepared by Condor Earth Technology, Inc. This report was not made an attachment to the project’s Initial Study, but was posted online with the Initial Study for reference. The technical report may be viewed online at: http://www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/act-projects.shtm. The technical report’s Table of Contents is provided as Exhibit G.

A referral response dated March 8, 2010, from the Army Corps of Engineers, suggests the need for the applicant to prepare a wetland delineation due to the agency’s belief the facilities southern wastewater pond may be waters of the United States. In addition, the agency feels there may be wetlands in the agricultural land that is currently part of the proposed project footprint. Clearly the agency understands some of the waters of the United States may be wastewater ponds, which in the opinion of staff do not warrant classification as wetlands; however, a standard project condition of approval (Condition No. 12) has been applied to this project which requires the applicant to work with the Army Corps of Engineers to determine if any “wetlands” or “waters of the United States” exist. The applicant will be required to submit written verification to show compliance with the condition prior to issuance of a building permit.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on all evidence on the record, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions regarding this project:

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

2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(d).

3. Order the filing of a Notice of Determination with the Stanislaus County Clerk-Recorders Office pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15075.

4. Find That:

A. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use or building applied for is consistent with the General Plan designation of “Agriculture” and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use and that it will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County;

5 UP 2009-16 Staff Report April 1, 2010 Page 6

B. The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability of the subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in the A-2 zoning district;

C. The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in the A-2 zoning district. Uses that significantly displace agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed compatible if they relate directly to the production of commercial agricultural products on the subject contracted parcel or neighboring lands, including activities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping; and

D. The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from agricultural or open-space use.

5. Approve Use Permit Application No. 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.

******

Note: Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, all project applicants subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall pay a filing fee for each project. Therefore, the applicant will further be required to pay $2,067.25 for the Department of Fish and Game and the Clerk Recorder filing fees. The attached Conditions of Approval ensure that this will occur.

Report written by: Sean D. Purciel, Associate Planner, March 17, 2010 Reviewed by: Bill Carlson, Senior Planner

Attachments: Exhibit A - Project Maps Exhibit B - Applicant’s Project Description Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval Exhibit D - Initial Study Exhibit E - Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit F - Mitigation Monitoring Plan Exhibit G - Technical Report in Support of Report of Waste Discharge Table of Contents Exhibit H - Public Comments and Environmental Review Referral Responses Exhibit I - Environmental Review Referrals

I:\Staffrpt\UP\2009\UP 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood\Staff Report.wpd

6 UP 2009-16 Foster Farms VICINITY MAP MILNES RD

O L

A E

K N D A W L E O

VicinityO Map

W D

SITE D R A

T L E R L

R D F E O B R DRY CREEK D D M R I T 7 H W D O D Y O L

W O N E L ONE OAK RD ONE OAK RD L L P L

E T

S B

N L

T EL POMAR RD D

D A

B CITY OF WATERFORD UP 2009-16 Foster Farms

AREA MAP L

Area Map W

015-003-010 D

SITE D O A K D A 015-003-012 L EEK E CR W DRY A T 015-056-007 E R 015-056-008 F O

8 R D H W Y Hatchery Location 015-056-011

015-056-010

R LONE OAK RD

D 9 Agriculture/ UP 2009-16 Foster Farms

GENERALE PLAN/ZONING

A-2-40 L

GP/Zoning E

SITE D O A K D A L EEK E CR W RY A D T E 10 R F O R D H W Y

R LONE OAK RD

D UP 2009-16 Aerial Foster Farms AERIAL PHOTO

Photo E

SITE D O A K D A L EEK E CR W RY A D 11 T E R F O R D H W Y

R LONE OAK RD

D 12 13 14 DRAFT NOTE: Approval of this application is valid only if the following conditions are met. This permit shall expire unless activated within 18 months of the date of approval. In order to activate the permit, it must be signed by the applicant and one of the following actions must occur: (a) a valid building permit must be obtained to construct the necessary structures and appurtenances; or, (b) the property must be used for the purpose for which the permit is granted. (Stanislaus County Ordinance 21.104.030)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2009-16 FOSTER FARMS - ELLENWOOD

Department of Planning and Community Development

1. This use shall be conducted as described in the application and supporting information (including the plot plan) as approved by the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors and in accordance with other laws and ordinances.

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

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

4. Developer shall pay all Public Facilities Impact Fees and Fire Facilities Fees as adopted by Resolution of the Board of Supervisors. The Fees shall be payable at the time of issuance for any building permit for any construction in the development project and shall be based on the rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

5. Should any archeological or human remains be discovered during development, work shall be immediately halted within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be historically or culturally significant, appropriate mitigation measures to protect and preserve the resource shall be formulated and implemented.

6. Hours of construction on the project site shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday, with no construction allowed on Sundays and holidays.

7. Construction of the project shall comply with standardized dust controls adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

8. All exterior lighting shall be designed (aimed down and towards the site) to provide adequate illumination without a glare effect.

15 UP 2009-16 DRAFT Conditions of Approval April 1, 2010 Page 2

9. A plan for a proposed sign indicating the location, height, area of the sign, and message consistent with County Code §21.20.020(J) must be approved by the Planning Director or designee prior to installation.

10. The facility operator shall use best management practices for odor and vector control at all times. If the operator is unable to control flies, then the operator shall retain the services of a licensed vector control service.

11. Pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code (effective January 1, 2010), the applicant is required to pay a Department of Fish and Game filing fee at the time of recording a “Notice of Determination.” Within five (5) days of approval of this project by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, the applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning and Community Development a check for $2,067.25, made payable to Stanislaus County, for the payment of Fish and Game and Clerk Recorder filing fees.

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

12. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, prior to construction, the developer shall be responsible for contacting the US Army Corps of Engineers to determine if any "wetlands," "waters of the United States," or other areas under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers are present on the project site, and shall be responsible for obtaining all appropriate permits or authorizations from the Corps, including all necessary water quality certifications, if necessary.

13. Pursuant to the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, prior to construction, the developer shall be responsible for contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game to determine if any special status plant or animal species are present on the project site, and shall be responsible for obtaining all appropriate permits or authorizations from these agencies, if necessary.

14. Pursuant to Section 1600 and 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, prior to construction, the developer shall be responsible for contacting the California Department of Fish and Game and shall be responsible for obtaining all appropriate stream-bed alteration agreements, permits or authorizations, if necessary. Written evidence of the contact shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of any building permit. If permits from this agency are necessary, copies of permits shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permit.

15. Pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board Order 99-08-DWQ and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002, prior to construction, the developer shall be responsible for contacting the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine if a "Notice of Intent" is necessary, and shall prepare all appropriate documentation, including a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Once complete, and prior to construction, a copy of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the Stanislaus County Department of Public Works.

16 UP 2009-16 DRAFT Conditions of Approval April 1, 2010 Page 3

16. Storage of animal waste ponds shall be located a minimum of fifty feet from any property line and three hundred feet from any dwelling on an adjacent property. Other standards may be imposed by other county or state agencies.

Building Permits Division

17. Building Permits are required for the proposal. The proposed development must comply with current adopted California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24.

Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau / Consolidated Fire

18. Per the 2007 California Fire Code, fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus (60,000 pounds) and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved (50-foot outside, 30-foot inside). The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved (10 percent). Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus.

19. All buildings 5,000 square feet and greater shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system.

20. The modification and addition of the existing building shall comply with all applicable codes, ordinances and standards, including fire apparatus access, water for fire protection, automatic fire sprinklers, etc.

Modesto Irrigation District

21. In conjunction with related site improvement requirements, existing overhead and underground electric facilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be protected, relocated or removed as required by the District’s Electric Engineering Department. Appropriate easements for electric facilities shall be granted as required.

22. Relocation or installation of electric facilities shall conform to the District’s Electric Service Rules.

23. Costs for relocation and/or undergrounding the District’s facilities at the request of others will be borne by the requesting party. Estimates for relocating or undergrounding existing facilities will be supplied upon request.

24. A 30’ MID easement is required centered on the existing 12kv overhead lines on the parcel 015-056-010 in order to protect the existing electrical facilities, maintain the necessary safety clearances, and serve the adjacent parcel (015-056-011).

17 UP 2009-16 DRAFT Conditions of Approval April 1, 2010 Page 4

25. MID requires a 15’ PUE along all properties that are adjacent to road right-of-way and have overhead primary lines adjacent to them. The easements along Ellenwood Road and the Oakdale Waterford Highway are required in order to protect the existing overhead electric facilities and maintain minimum safety clearances.

26. Existing electrical service to the project site may not be adequate to serve any proposed load additions. The customer should contact the District’s Electric Engineering Department to coordinate electric service requirements for the project.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

27. The applicant shall contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office to determine if an Authority to Construct (ATC) application and new Permits to Operate (PTO) are required.

28. The project shall comply with all applicable District Rules relating to operation and/or construction of the facility.

Department of Environmental Resources

29. Health and Safety Code Section 116550. Permits - Section 116550 (a) no person operating a public water system shall modify, add to, or change his or her source of supply or method of treatment of, or change his or her distribution system unless the person first submits an application to the department and receives an amended permit as provided in this chapter authorizing the modification, addition, or change in his or her source of supply.

30. Health and Safety Code Section 116550. Technical Report - For a public water system, the applicant shall submit a technical report to the department as part of the permit application or when required by the department. This report may include, but not be limited to, detailed plans and specifications, water quality information, physical descriptions of the existing or proposed system, and financial assurance information. (A qualified registered engineer, with at least three years experience in public water system design should prepare the report.)

31. With the proposed addition, engineer design and calculations for On-site Waste Water Disposal System (OSWDS) are required to verify the existing OSWDS is adequate or may be required to be upgraded. The engineered OSWDS design shall be designed for the maximum occupancy of a building and total fixture units proposed within the building. The leach field shall be designed and sized using data collected from soil profile and percolation tests performed at the location. With the proposed addition, Engineered plans and calculations for the existing OSWDS shall be submitted to the Department. The plans should include any addition to the fixture’s units that may require on-site wastewater to upgrade. The OSWDS designed system shall provide 100% expansion area.

32. The applicant shall determine, to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Resources (DER), that a site containing (or formerly containing) residences or farm buildings, or structures, has been fully investigated (via Phase I study, and Phase II study if necessary) prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Any discovery of underground storage tanks, former underground storage tank locations, buried chemicals, buried refuse, or contaminated soil shall be brought to the immediate attention of DER. 18 UP 2009-16 DRAFT Conditions of Approval April 1, 2010 Page 5

Department of Public Works

33. An encroachment permit must be obtained for any change to the driveway approach.

34. No parking, loading or unloading of vehicles shall be permitted within the right-of-way of Ellenwood Road. The developer will be required to install or pay for the installation of any signs and/or markings.

35. Any additional parking area shall be paved and double striped to county standards.

36. A Grading and Drainage Plan for the property shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any building permit. This plan shall verify all runoff shall be kept on-site. After the plan is determined to be acceptable to the Department of Public Works, the plans shall be implemented prior to the final and/or occupancy of any building.

Regional Water Quality Control Board

37. Waste Discharge Requirements shall be obtained prior to operation of the expanded hatchery.

Mitigation Measures

(Pursuant to California Public Resources Code 15074.1: Prior to deleting and substituting for a mitigation measure, the lead agency shall do both of the following: 1) Hold a public hearing to consider the project; and 2) Adopt a written finding that the new measure is equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it in itself will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.)

38. If required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the operator shall submit a complete Report of Waste Discharge prior to any waste being discharged as a result of the proposed project.

******

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

I:\Staffrpt\UP\2009\UP 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood\Staff Report.wpd

19 Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development 1010 10th Street, Suite 3400 Phone: (209) 525-6330 Modesto, California 95354 Fax: (209) 525-5911 CEQA INITIAL STUDY Adapted from CEQA Guidelines APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text, December 30, 2009

1. Project title: Use Permit Application No. 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood

2. Lead agency name and address: Stanislaus County 1010 10th Street, Suite 3400 Modesto, CA 95354

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

4. Project location: West of Ellenwood Road and 700 feet north of the Oakdale Waterford Highway, at 1309 Ellenwood Road, in the Waterford area. APN: 015-003-012, 015-056-007, 015-056-008, 015-056-010, 015-056-011

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Bob Miller Foster Farms 520 C Street Turlock, CA 95380

6. General Plan designation: Agriculture

7. Zoning: A-2-40 (General Agriculture)

8. Description of project:

The project proposes an expansion of the existing Foster Farms - Ellenwood chicken hatchery. The expansion proposes a new incubator and hatch rooms, a new egg room, a new storage room, new offices and break room, remodeling of part of the existing hatchery, including removal of existing offices and break room to make room for an increased chick room, and a new wastewater system. This project will expand the current building area by 29,713 square feet. The existing footprint is presently 64,339 square feet. The Foster Farms site, including hatchery and orchards, totals 112± acres. Most of the surrounding area consists of almond orchards and pastureland. In regards to the hatchery, the current facility operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They have one employee 24 hours a day for monitoring the incubators and hatchers. Additional employees are required when the chicks hatch. The site has one residence on the property where the hatch supervisor lives. The number of chicks hatched at this facility will increase from 2.06 million birds per week to 3.3 million. Truck traffic will be reduced from 59 trucks a week to 56 as the Ellenwood expansion will allow the applicants to shut down the Albers Hatchery, thereby eliminating the truck traffic from Albers to Ellenwood. Employee estimates are around 35 - 42 due to the expansion. No more than 20 people will be present at any given time. The existing structure is a concrete-tilt-up building, approximately 20 feet tall. The expansion to the existing building will be steel construction with insulated metal panels matching the concrete building (similar to the existing structure). A new wastewater system is also part of the proposal, to include two new lined ponds. They will continue using the existing screen

20 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 2

and irrigation system until the new wastewater system comes on-line. The screen is used to collect and remove chick down from the wastewater. The chick down that is collected (under 200 pounds per day) is taken to a land fill. The property also has about nine acres of pasture where wastewater is used for irrigation. The existing southern wastewater pond is proposed to be abandoned with construction of the new system. The property is currently enrolled in Williamson Act Contract No. 73-1237. This Initial Study is prepared on the assumption that Waste Discharge Requirements will be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Almond orchards and a forage crop to the north, OID South Canal and orchards to the west, orchards and the Oakdale Waterford Highway to the south, residential estate to the east.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., Department of Public Works permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Department of Environmental Resources Department of Conservation Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Oakdale Irrigation District

21 22 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 4

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)(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 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.

23 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 5

ISSUES I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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

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

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

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

Discussion: The existing chicken hatchery is on a 12-acre parcel. The entire site is approximately 112± acres if you consider the almond orchards, the fields containing a forage crop (which uses the water from the hatchery to spray the fields), and the wastewater ponds. Structures currently on the property consist of one single-family dwelling and the existing facility, which is presently 64,339 square feet. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings in the vicinity of the site. The site is in a rural area of the County, located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the City of Waterford. The project and vicinity of the project are not identified as scenic vistas in the Stanislaus County General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element. There are no eligible or designated State scenic highways in the area, according to the Stanislaus County General Plan. Interstate 5 is the only officially designated State Scenic Highway in Stanislaus County.

The site is surrounded by large agricultural parcels, some with single-family dwellings. Notably, large tracts of almond orchards can be found in the vicinity. The proposed hatchery already exists and would not urbanize this area (anymore than it already is) and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site.

The proposed project would not create a new source of light. The existing building is the only light source in the area. The new expansion will add wall-mounted exterior lights on the addition. The new office will take up some existing parking so the applicant will add 17 new parking spaces. Also, one additional parking lot light will be added to the existing parking lot. The emission of light and glare would be considered minimal in the area. A condition of approval will be added to the project for exterior lighting of the parking areas. Lighting shall be designed (aimed down and towards the site) to provide adequate illumination without a glaring effect into surrounding properties.

Mitigation: None.

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

24 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 6

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining Potentially Less Than Less Than No whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Included 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. – 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 X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

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

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), X or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land X to non-forest use?

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

Discussion: The site is enrolled under Williamson Act Contract No. 73-1237. Correspondence from the Department of Conservation has not been received at this time. Staff feels that the proposal and expansion would be deemed a compatible use and will not harm or detract from the agricultural use of the property. The hatchery has been in existence since the sixties and was expanded in the eighties. This project will not conflict with any bonafide agricultural activities in the area and/or lands enrolled under the Williamson Act. The proposed parcels will be restricted by the General Agriculture (A-2) zoning district.

To characterize the agricultural resources for the vicinity, the Important Farmland Maps produced by the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) for Stanislaus County were reviewed. The farmland map category for the site as defined by the Department of Conservation’s FMMP is “Prime,” “Statewide Importance” and “Unique” farmland. The proposed project would not convert important farm resources to urban uses.

The site is located outside the limits of an incorporated city, approximately a mile and a half from the City of Waterford. It is designated as Agriculture in the Stanislaus County General Plan, Land Use Element. The proposed project will be consistent with the County General Plan with approval of this permit. The County has a Right to Farm Ordinance in place to protect agricultural operations from unjust nuisance complaints. The proposed project is considered a Tier II use in the A-2 (General Agriculture) zoning district in compliance with §21.20.030(B) of the Zoning Ordinance.

There is no forest land or timberland within the vicinity of the project. Therefore, this item is not applicable.

25 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 7

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use & Agricultural Elements, Farmland Mapping Layer, California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program - Stanislaus County Farmland - 2006, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx

III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria Potentially Less Than Less Than No established by the applicable air quality management or air Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact pollution control district may be relied upon to make the Included following determinations. Would the project:

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

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X 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 X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people?

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

Correspondence from the SJVAPCD was received on September 8, 2009. The project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on air quality according to the District. We can consider that the proposed project will have minimal impacts with the implementation of the district’s rules and regulations, which will be conditioned into the project’s design. They have stated that the proposed project would be subject to the following rules and regulations: Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving, and maintenance Operations), and District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). If the addition exceeds 25,000 square feet of light industrial space, District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) will apply.

The hatchery will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The air emissions associated with the proposal will not exceed the thresholds set by the SJVAPCD. The applicant should be aware of the District’s Rules and Implementation Plans to reduce airborne particulates, such as PM-10 and NOx during construction.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, referral response dated August 26, 2009, from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Regulation VIII Fugitive Dust/PM-10 Synopsis, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review (ISR) (Adopted December 15, 2005), http://www.valleyair.org/index.htm.

26 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 8

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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, X 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 X 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.) X through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established X 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 X ordinance?

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

Discussion: The parcel is designated as Agriculture and has an existing chicken hatchery on the property. The project proposes a large addition to an existing building. Review of the County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, confirms that the site is not located within a biologically sensitive area. No vernal pools, sensitive and endangered species, or wetland habitats have been found in the vicinity of the project.

Staff believes the proposed project will have minimal impacts in regards to sensitive and endangered species, conservation plans, wildlife and vegetation habitat, and significant biological resources. The project will not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan, a Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other locally approved conservation plan.

Mitigation: None.

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

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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

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

27 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 9

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

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

Discussion: The site is located in the eastern portion of Stanislaus County. According to the County General Plan, Conservation/Open Space Element, the area is not known to be within a location of archaeological resources. No known historically important resources or paleontological resources have been found on the project site. It is possible that the site could contain undiscovered archaeological resources. Disturbance of any archaeological resources during construction of the project would be considered a significant environmental impact. The project proponent would be required to comply with the General Plan Program, in regards to finding significant resources, which requires the developer to halt construction if cultural resources are encountered unexpectedly during construction and requires consultation with a qualified archaeologist to determine the significance of the resource.

Standardized conditions of approval will be added to this project to address any discovery of cultural resources during construction phases of the project. If there are suspected human remains identified through project construction, the Stanislaus County Coroner’s Office shall be contacted immediately. If the remains or other archaeological materials are of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted immediately.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Conservation/Open Space Element.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X 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 X on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? X

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

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

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1804.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to X life or property?

28 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 10

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

Discussion: According to the Stanislaus County General Plan, Safety Element, several known faults exist in the Diablo Range, west of Interstate 5. The Ortigalita Fault, part of which is designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, is located in the southwestern portion of the County. The project site is located in eastern Stanislaus County. It has not been identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, there is little impact in regards to this issue.

Any construction of new structures will be subject to all applicable County policies and ordinances. The County is within Seismic Zone 3, indicating moderate potential for ground shaking. All structures and facilities constructed as part of the proposed project will be designed in compliance with the requirements of the California Building Code for seismic safety. Compliance with the engineering requirements of the Code would ensure that the risk of structural failure during a seismic event is minimized to the greatest degree feasible. As a result, the risk of adverse effects from ground shaking would be minimal for the proposal.

The project will not be connecting to an urban water or sewer system. The current house found on the property has a well and a septic system. Wastewater and wastewater ponds will be discussed in the Hydrology Section. Correspondence from the Department of Environmental Resources has not indicated any geology & soils, or wastewater or sewer disposal issues associated with the project expansion. On-site Wastewater Disposal Systems will comply with the Department’s permitting requirements as necessary. Any addition of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system would require the approval of the Department of Environmental Resources through the building permit process, which also takes soil type into consideration within the specific design requirements.

Mitigation: None.

References: California Building Code (2007), Stanislaus County General Plan1, Agriculture and Land Use Element, Farmland Mapping Layer, Stanislaus County Code Title - 21 - Zoning Ordinance, California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program - Stanislaus County Farmland, August 2004, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx, Stanislaus County Farmland 2002, NRCS - http://soils.usda.gov/, National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S.A., referral response dated September 8, 2009, from the Department of Environmental Resources.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted X for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion: The project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorucarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are not proposed at this location. The building presently exists and will not impact the environment with gas emissions.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation1.

29 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 11

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X 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 X 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 X 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 X 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 X in the project area?

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

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

Discussion: The County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is responsible for overseeing hazardous materials and has not indicated any particular concerns in this area. Pesticide exposure is a risk in areas located in the vicinity of agriculture. Sources of exposure include contaminated groundwater and drift from spray applications. Application of sprays is strictly controlled by the Agricultural Commissioner and can only be used after first obtaining permits. Spraying activities on adjacent properties will be conditioned by the Agricultural Commissioners office as well. Therefore, this issue is considered minimal as the property is already built out, with exception to the expansion of new buildings.

The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations and policies involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The applicant should contact DER regarding appropriate permitting requirements for hazardous materials and/or wastes. The applicant and/or occupants handling hazardous materials or generating hazardous wastes must notify DER relative to California Health and Safety, Division 20, which is a standard condition. The applicant will need to comply with the DER’s conditions of approval for the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Chlorine bleach is the main hazardous chemical found throughout the facility as a cleaning agent.

30 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 12

The State Department of Toxic Substances (DTS) maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances List (also known as the “Cortese List”), in accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5. The Cortese List includes data from the “Calsites” database of hazardous waste sites, the leaking underground storage tank database and the California Integrated Waste Management Board database of sanitary landfills with evidence of groundwater contamination. The most current Cortese List indicates that there are no hazardous waste or substance sites in the vicinity. The site is not located in the vicinity of a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5, which would result in a significant hazard to the public or environment at the project site.

The proposed project is not located within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The chicken hatchery expansion would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Safety and Land Use Element, The State Department of Toxic Substances (DTS) Hazardous Waste and Substances List - http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, referral response dated August 26, 2009, from the Department of Environmental Resources (Hazardous Materials Division).

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X 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 X 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 X 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 X runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site?

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

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X

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

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

31 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 13

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

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

Discussion: The proposed chicken hatchery expansion will not connect to an urban water or sewer system. The water source on-site is from groundwater from two wells, and a permitted public water system. The primary well is fitted with a hypochlorinator, which is permitted by the county. The residential structure also has a well and septic system. The main hatchery has its own On-site Wastewater Disposal System (OSWDS). With the proposed addition, engineer design and calculations for the OSWDS are required by DER, as the system will be upgraded. The engineered OSWDS design shall be designed for the maximum occupancy of a building and total fixture units proposed within the building. The leach field shall be designed and sized using data collected from soil profile and percolation tests performed at the location. With the proposed addition, engineered plans and calculations for the existing OSWDS will be submitted to the Department. The plans should include any addition to the fixture’s units that may require on-site wastewater to upgrade. The OSWDS designed system shall provide 100% expansion area. Furthermore, with the proposed expansion, on-site wastewater ponds are proposed to be upgraded to two new discharge ponds. The old pond will be abandoned with completion of the new facility. Wastewater, groundwater geology, groundwater degradation analysis, water and well sampling, and water flows are discussed in the Technical Report in Support of Report of Waste Discharge completed by Condor Earth Technology, Inc., dated September 2009. The proposed project will not 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.

The proposed project does not include the placement of housing or other structures within the 100-year flood plain. However, the facility is 300 feet from Flood Zone A, with proximity to Dry Creek. The hatchery and reclamation fields are outside the FEMA-designated flood plain area, and flood and river flows would not be impeded with the proposed addition to the existing facility. The project is not located in an area of major flood inundation. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a dam. The project site is not in an area subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Wastewater is generated at the facility by washing of incubators and hatch baskets. The wastewater is discharged into a soil-lined storm water pond found on the south side of the facility. The hatchery can divert fluids to the northern pond, as well. Water used by the facility discharges into the 7.6-acre spray-field and then onto the 76-acre orchard. It is expected that the wastewater for the facility will increase due to the expansion and increase in chicks. The wastewater increase is expected to be about six to ten percent. Based on the report by Condor Earth Technology, Inc., Technical Report in Support of Report of Waste Discharge, the discharges from the facility have not caused any groundwater to exceed basin water quality standards. Storm water, routed from buildings and parking areas, percolates throughout the property, but is mainly diverted to the facility’s southern wastewater pond. After the expansion, all storm water will be diverted to the northern storm water pond.

The RWQCB was contacted by phone on December 15, 2009. They have not determined that Waste Discharge Requirements will be required at this time. If required, the applicant will need to comply with the RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements.

Mitigation: 1. If required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the operator shall submit a complete Report of Waste Discharge prior to any waste being discharged as a result of the proposed project.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Safety Element, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Technical Report in Support of Report of Waste Discharge, Condor Earth Technology, Inc., dated September 2009.

32 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 14

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

a) Physically divide an established community? X

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, X 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 X natural community conservation plan?

Discussion: The proposed project involves a Use Permit for a chicken hatchery expansion. The site is zoned A-2-40 (General Agriculture) and the General Plan designation is Agriculture. The zoning of the site is consistent with the General Plan land use classification. The use on the property is consistent with the County land use designation with approval of a Use Permit for the facility. The project will not physically divide an established community to include the surrounding community.

The project was submitted to the RWQCB on August 17, 2009. Staff has not received written comments from the Department. At this time, the RWQCB may wave the requirements depending on their review.

The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project, including but not limited to the Stanislaus County General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed use of the project area does not conflict with the applicable zoning designation for the project area. The proposed project will not conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Mitigation: None.

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

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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 X state?

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

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

Mitigation: None.

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

33 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 15

XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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

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

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in X 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 X 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 X 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 X excessive noise levels?

Discussion: The General Plan identifies 75 Ldn as the normally acceptable level of noise for agriculture, and other similar land uses. Noise impacts associated with on-site activities and associated traffic are not anticipated to exceed the normally acceptable level of noise. On-site improvements and construction may temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Conditions of approval will be added to address potential impacts associated with noise.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Noise Element.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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

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

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

Discussion: The proposed use of the site will not create significant service extensions or new infrastructure that could be considered growth inducing. No housing or persons will be displaced by the project. The proposed project does not include the displacement of existing housing.

34 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 16

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Housing Element.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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? X

Police protection? X

Schools? X

Parks? X

Other public facilities? X

Discussion: The County has adopted Public Facilities Fees, as well as one for the Fire Facility Fees on behalf of the appropriate fire district, to address impacts to public services. Such fees for the expansion are required to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Conditions of approval will be added to this project to insure the proposed development complies with all applicable fire department standards with respect to access and water for fire protection.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use Element.

XV. RECREATION -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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

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

Discussion: The proposed project will not result in the construction of new residential dwellings. The use of existing parks and other recreational facilities will not be increased and no new or expanded facilities will be required. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to recreation. The Stanislaus County Parks and Recreation Department responded with “No Comment”.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use and Conservation/Open Space Element.

35 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 17

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel X and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county X 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 X substantial safety risks?

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

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise X decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Discussion: The Stanislaus County Department of Public Works and CalTrans have reviewed this project. CalTrans did not comment on the project. The proposed project will not increase the trip generation along adjacent streets and intersections, notably Ellenwood Road. The project will be conditioned to assure that all project related impacts are reduced to a level deemed to be less than significant. Any design improvements will be considered in accordance with County Standards and Specifications, and shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to development. The Department of Public Works has not identified any significant traffic impacts to local County roads associated with this project. No mitigation or environmental concerns have been raised.

The proposed project will not conflict with any plans related to alternative transportation.

According to the Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau, the proposed project will not impair the District’s ability to access the proposed project during emergencies.

The project will not impair any air traffic patterns associated with flights departing and arriving into a municipal airport.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Circulation Element, referral response dated September 16, 2009, from the Department of Public Works.

36 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 18

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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

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

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

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has X 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 X accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

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

Discussion: DER has identified the need for the facility to be classified as a public water system. A condition of approval will be added to the project requiring a public water system permit. The existing project already has an approved public wastewater system and a hypochlorinator. However, DER is requesting that a technical report be submitted that includes detailed plans and specifications, water quality, physical descriptions of the existing and the proposed system, to determine that the existing and the proposed system (if necessary) are adequate for the facility. Additionally, DER is requesting the same information and studies for the On-site Wastewater Disposal System. DER needs to determine if the system is adequate or may need to be upgraded. This is also a condition of approval as indicated in their letter. Impacts to the existing utility and service systems are anticipated to be minimal as a result of this project. Referral responses from the Department of Public Works and DER have not indicated any concerns in this area. Staff has not received any referral responses indicating limitations on providing services.

The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and local policies and regulations related to solid waste. State law (AB 939) requires that local jurisdictions meet specified solid waste reduction goals through the implementation of recycling programs. The proposed project would participate in the recycling programs available in Stanislaus County.

Mitigation: None.

References: Stanislaus County General Plan1, Land Use and Conservation/Open Space Element, referral response dated September 8, 2009, from the Department of Environmental Resources.

37 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 19

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Included

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 X 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 X 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 X indirectly?

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. Any potential impacts from this project have been mitigated to a level of less than significant. I:\Staffrpt\UP\2009\UP 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood\Initial Study - Foster Farms.wpd

1Stanislaus County General Plan and Support Documentation adopted in October 1994, as amended. Optional and updated elements of the General Plan and Support Documentation: Agricultural Element adopted on December 18, 2007; Housing Element adopted on December 12, 2003 and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development Department on March 26, 2004; Circulation Element and Noise Element adopted on April 18, 2006. 38 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

NAME OF PROJECT: Use Permit Application No. 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood

LOCATION OF PROJECT: West of Ellenwood Road and 700 feet north of the Oakdale Waterford Highway, at 1309 Ellenwood Road, in the Waterford area. APN: 015-003-012, 015-056-007, 015-056-008, 015-056-010, 015-056-011

PROJECT DEVELOPER: Bob Miller Foster Farms 520 C Street Turlock, CA 95380

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Request to expand the existing Foster Farms - Ellenwood chicken hatchery by 29,713 square feet on a 112± acre site in the A-2-40 (General Agriculture) zoning district.

Based upon the Initial Study, dated January 25, 2010, the Environmental Coordinator finds as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

1. If required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the operator shall submit a complete Report of Waste Discharge prior to any waste being discharged as a result of the proposed project.

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

Initial Study prepared by: Sean Purciel, Associate Planner

Submit comments to: Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development Department 1010 10th Street, Suite 3400 Modesto, California 95354

(I:\Staffrpt\UP\2009\UP 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood\Mitigated Negative Declaration.wpd) 39 Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development 1010 10th Street, Suite 3400 Phone: (209) 525-6330 Modesto, CA 95354 Fax: (209) 525-5911 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Adapted from CEQA Guidelines sec. 15097 Final Text, October 26, 1998 January 25, 2010

1. Project title and location: Use Permit Application No. 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood

West of Ellenwood Road and 700 feet north of the Oakdale Waterford Highway, at 1309 Ellenwood Road, in the Waterford area. APN: 015-003-012, 015-056-007, 015-056-008, 015-056-010, 015-056-011

2. Project Applicant name and address: Bob Miller Foster Farms 520 C Street Turlock, CA 95380

3. Person Responsible for Implementing Mitigation Program (Applicant Representative): Bob Miller

4. Contact person at County: Sean Purciel, Associate Planner (209) 525-6330

MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM:

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

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

No. 1 Mitigation Measure: If required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the operator shall submit a complete Report of Waste Discharge prior to any waste being discharged as a result of the proposed project.

Who Implements the Measure: Applicant

When should the measure be implemented: Ongoing

When should it be completed: Ongoing

Who verifies compliance: Stanislaus County Department of Planning & Community Development

Other Responsible Agencies: Regional Water Quality Control Board

40 Stanislaus County Mitigation Monitoring Plan Page 2 Use Permit Application No. 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood January 25, 2010

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

Signature on file. January 25, 2010 Person Responsible for Implementing Date Mitigation Program

(I:\Staffrpt\UP\2009\UP 2009-16 - Foster Farms - Ellenwood\Mitigation Monitoring Plan.wpd)

41 42 43 44 45 46 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REFERRALS PROJECT: USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2009-16 - FOSTER FARMS - ELLENWOOD MITIGATION RESPONDED RESPONSE CONDITIONS REFERRED TO: MEASURES WILL NOT PUBLIC MAY HAVE HAVE NO COMMENT HEARING SIGNIFICANT NO NO NO YES NON CEQA YES YES

2 WK SIGNIFICANT

30 DAY NOTICE IMPACT IMPACT AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER XX X X X X BUILDING PERMITS DIVISION XX X X X X CALTRANS DISTRICT 10 XX X X X X X CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE XX X X X X CITY OF: WATERFORD XX X X X X X COOPERATIVE EXTENSION XX X X X X X CORPS OF ENGINEERS XX X X X X X COUNTY COUNSEL XX X X X X DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION XX X X X X X ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES XX X X X X FIRE PROTECTION DIST: CONSOLIDATED XX X X X X X FISH AND GAME XX X X X X X HAZARDOUS MATERIALS XX X X X X HOSPITAL: OAK VALLEY XX X X X X X IRRIGATION DISTRICT: MODESTO XX X X X X X IRRIGATION DISTRICT: OAKDALE XX X X X X X MOUNTAIN VALLEY MEDICAL XX X X X X X MOSQUITO DISTRICT: EASTSIDE XX X X X X X PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC XX X X X X X PARKS & FACILITIES XX X X X X PUBLIC WORKS XX X X X X STATE LANDS COMM XX X X X X X REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL XX X X X X X SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY APCD XX X X X X X SCHOOL DISTRICT: WATERFORD XX X X X X X SHERIFF XX X X X X STANISLAUS ERC XX X X X X STANISLAUS FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU XX X X X X SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT: O'BRIEN XX X X X X SURROUNDING LAND OWNERS X TELEPHONE COMPANY: ATT XX X X X X X TRIBAL CONTACTS: COX/CAMP XX X X X X X US FISH & WILDLIFE XX X X X X X