Lathrop City Council
September 11, 2023

665
Ap• il 22, 2022
Mr. Mark Meissner, Community Development Director
City of Lathrop
390 Towne Centre Drive
Lathrop, CA 95330
Subject: Substantial Conformance Findings— Phase 2 Vesting Tentative Map No. 6716 Woodlands East DisU•ict of River Islands)
Dear Mark:

As a follow up to our March 8, 2022 and March 17, 2022 letters requesting substantial confo mance of revised lotting patterns in Phase 2 of River Islands, we are providing this tetter to finalize our request for the Woodlands East District and provide final exhibits as reviewed and commented upon by you and your staff.

Specifically, Exhibit" A" has been updated to reflect an updated lotting pattern that resolves the City' s issues with additional roadway intersections at River Islands Parkway, the relocation of the neighborhood park within Village 4, the expansion of Lake 14 and other issues. We sre also providing an updated Exhibit" B" that summarizes the final changes in acreage and numbers of dwelGng units for the Woodlands F,ast District. Exhibit" C" is a revised parks and parks service area e chibit that reflects the new neighborhood park location. We acknowledge that we must update the Phase 2 Master Parks Plan to the reflect the changes proposed, including the 2, S acres of pa• kland that may not be included with the various efementary school sites. However, Exhibit" C" still reflects the 2. 5 acres of park at schoots, since it is included in the existing, approved Phase 2 Master Parks Plan. We witl be siting an additional neighborhood park in or near Woodlands and will provide details as to that park( ocation with the proposed update/amendment to the Parks Plan.

In order to move forward with this administrative approval, the City witl require that the none of the conditions listed in condition of approva136 to VTM 6716 exist with regards to our proposal. I have provided a brief e: cplanation below as per condition 36( shown in red) that provide evidence that the findings for noi- conformance will not be met:
36) Substrnitia! Conformnnce tii ith Vesting Ten ative Liap. The Fii al Map shall be in sarbstcrntial conformrn7ce wi h the approved Yesting Tentcrtive Map as determitred by the Conrmamity Development Director. Deviations from the npproved vesting Tentative Map thcrt a•e not considered irr szrbstnrrtinl conforma ace include ba t a•e not/ imited to Ihe follotiving:
a) Cha ages to the propvsed locatiaa oflnnd trses not otherwise consistent with the adopted West Lathrop Specific Plan( WLSP) land arse desi tatians; Tire proposed lcryout changes rn e ca sislent with tlae la rd irses adop[ ed x ith tlae IYLSP. The relocate l iaeigl borl7oodpark ir the WODCIIClI7L S, DlS1PlCI IS p 7L'YI711LIL d zrse witl in the lotiv- density reside tlial lmtd use tlesr rnilion in t vhich its locatet/. As noted, at over/cry qfthe pr po.recl lotling rnac perrk lacntial7 changes nre shuwi i t Exhibit ", 4" proi idec! ti rth this tetter. hr ncc' Of' tIpT7CL' 11 1 IT COi7L lllOi7 pf pp 7/' OUpI 666
13Q, priar to! he improvei et 1pinn approvtrl or consh•uction of aityper/ c,s in the srrb Planfring aren, c detailec site plan/ design pler shcrll he revieivecl ancf crpproved by the City Prn ks crnd kecrention C. 01111) 7ISS1017. ACIC 1 lO) 7QIIy, bot/ the FY' nacllanr r crs! 1)istrict NUP K ill reflec! lhis retiti loccrtron arad an an enrlrne yt lo the Phnse 2 P u k.s A laster PIa».
b) Chrntges to the proposecf densities of a development a• ea that are in excess afthe densiry per nittedfor ihat specific area as designated rn tJ1e WLSP; 1Vnne ofthe prn osed chnnges ti+ ill resull in an itrcrease of• esidential tmit clensities that wi11 exceed thr se per-irlrtted t4''LSP. F hibit " B" ta this Ie ter• i]lzrstrates tlte propo.sed: u1il nncl cfensity chan,ges.
c) Sign cnnt changes to the size rmd locatron of open space ancl recrecrtior a• as within n developmerrt a ecr thnt woarld result in less operr space and recreatio 7a1 areas co»ip recl to the nnzozn t reqarired to satisfy that development a•ea' s Qa imby Act require r erits;
Tl e pro osed changes wi11 increase over ll pnrk acrecrge hy 2. 5 acres witl ifa Park N7 ns slrotia n on Filrihit " A". Further, the Iocationa! chcn ges N r`ll» ot affec[ the Cit.' s service• ec iiir ement nf'.%r» ile fvr neighbarhond pnrks crt ct% nrile for cvmmtmify parks a.c shn v a vn Exhibrt " C." Ara updnte t 1he Phnse? h?'aster Parks Plcrra, alotrg ith a Neigl baf•lruod L e>>elopntetrt Plan( NL)P) that co» tcrins all ropo.red cira» ges ta? trinrby Acl pc rks acreage will be reyuirecfp iar 10 the appravcrl of the frrst firaal nrap ir tfre i" oodlcmd.s Ecrs Dis rict. 77re amenc ecl Pcrrks PIL717 YUIII Cl'ISO 1) 1CItfLJE Llll UI?GIQIC l0 EXI71611 " C"( as contaifred ij the Par• ks P/ an) tu reflecl crn nrlclitio» a! park tivithi a ar o/ her p/crnning Dis rict c n the removal of'?.S crcres nfparklcznd l ented at ecrch c fthe fi-8 sclroals within i ood/ ands Easi Di,rt• ict.
c) Sigrrificant ntad cations( sz ch ns to alignnzent nr localion) to major rpadwrxys, such as to major collector or arterial roads where aprecise plan In7e has been ncfopted, Changes that woulrl rest lt ir cr new signifrcant, adverse, s nnritiKatec envirortmental impact, or a significcrnt i crense in rnay previoirsty identified inrpact.

No si nificcmt nrodificcrtioras to nli,n mer t a locc tion arel ru vsed to rnry artei•i 11 or• cvlledar roads ns or•iginnlly proposecl r 7 the approved vesting ter tative rzaE, f'LSP or nny ac opted precise plara line. 1b' n envira7rnenlc l in pact.c are iderrtifrec crs a resttlt.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding the infarmation provided with this letter or if you require any additional infotmation to make your determination. Please feel free to contact me at( 209) 879- 7900 or at sdellosso cr riverislands. com. 667
mcecely,
Susan Dell' Osso
President
cc: Glenn Gebhardt, City Engineer
Brad Taylor, Land Development Manager
Rick Caguiat, City of Lathrop Principal Planner
Trent Dedait, Assistant Planner
David Niskanen, Contract Planner
Michael King, Public Works Director
Zach Jones, Parks and Recreation Director
Todd Sebastian, Superintendent of Parks, Recreation and Maintenance Services Exhibits:

A: Woodlands East Lotting Summary Comparison
B: Itesidential Unit and Acreage Summary
C: Park Locations and Service Areas(" Buffer Map")
668
w
s"
J VILUGE 6 CHANGED FROM
t85LOTST0182LOTS
y YI
7v T S.dt AC PARK AD ED
1" VILUGESCWWGEO FROM
3 RIVER
t73L rs azeiac ro ors s9. s nc}
OlD
r
ry LAI( E 11 SITE EXPANDEO AS SHONM 4N

4., ,-^^"'"'"""""' t;' , GRADINCi PLANS PAHK RELOCATED AS SHO stt t. .: `. y ww. m. WNJ
wy...._... ;... m
J
VILLAGE 4 CNANGEU FROM
j ZB.BtACT025. 9tAC
r. ,
p' .;
e,
t,
VIILA E 8 VILLA E 5 `
1 i',t
s t u„ .
a..,.......
h^,'' ,
VILLAOE4
i VILLAGE 19 F
r..+-..,,, '.
v
Y.j
VIIIAGE 22
VILLAGE 23' , i
VILLAGE 18 w,+ -
r
ii
H ...

VIILA i7 '. _
VILLAGE 21
p
P _ AY
P
u,,.,,, ,•
1'`./
VILLAGE20 rr' N
0 r,
r•

WOODLANDS EAST DISTRICT
b
LOTf1NG SUMMARY COMPARISON E• 61• EERING
RIVER ISLANDS wcm oF unwor e w. mewx aNwry cawonre
ra. w+. aww
wn: wiun.. cr.
n.. m. w ww.« w«
669
a
z
z
p J - _' i

C OC OC
00 N N 01 I 01 N M N tf1 ry H C N r- 1 .- t - Mi . Mi N Mi . mi
N
i
l0 L!' 1 tll M M M M N p a N - 1 .- I e- i ei N ei - 1 r-I N N
W =
7 C N
Q " C Q ? q m `"" O O O 61 00 v G1
N rt tr' f
o 0 0 0 O O uj t tri f
V '> a W y
WN
a
C
Q U o
o . .-
i o 0 0 ^
a m o0
n n
oc oo 0 0 „
t ri
a oc a
h= O z
a
rn rn m rn N t oo
N!
d
a N
ci o ^
n
ni c. i . N-{ °'
N
0 y oo I 1 ^ 01 N O a-- tY') O
L
lG - 1 Op
W Q N M N ^ ^ N N N - mi e- I
0 g
o
Q $ o S S N
0 0 a
tD M 1 d' 00 N t0
F=
ii N ` n n '" d'
v O '
N a`, d F- a
X
C v in ' j p p ~ N 41 N ' W W
J U o . . 0 U CJ O O O
m .-
i L
0 O x x x uf
v u° u° v, n Nv vi v`i 2
g
v_
O o °
c' -
o d
d y i+ v N
Q V G n 00
N y
uf Ct tf1 l0 ^- 1 - i r-1 N N N N C C C i y
O O

W W W W W W W W W W CJ
a
01 t0 p'
O 0
a C7 U U U Ur U C7 U
CO Y Y Y 3 N VI
g g g g g g s M
a
g x z a u.i w
670
CHAPTER 4 : PROPOSED PARKS Si OPEN SPACE SYSTEM Hi CONCEPT'S

EXHIBIT C- NEIGHBORHOC D PARK SERVICE AREA MAP
r '", ,",
t ti
se t. *
P, ,
a,
p 4' '
fj
n .
s - -
e" "
a r .
t` w ""``
Y^ d
V ; ""„
a
a a: r,
s ` , . , s
H
u . a:
r '. o.. y
y w# , t ou
o .
rY
4 -
q`^ z
1'
f ..
z- Wy
F 3 " e"*. .' .§
K ti dk
4 ^ A
w
G
k :
ly3, y.
4 4 .:
x
y
fia a
Neighborhood Park F
4 u1+
y
SCIIOOI 6 . r
a x
r'-`'-.
1/ 4 Mile Radius
1/ 2 Mile Radius
f
a"'
phase 2 limits
s
RIVER ISLANDS PNASE 2 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
671
672
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT ITEM 5. 1
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO

CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE LATHROP MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 2
ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL", CHAPTER

2. 36 PURCHASING SYSTEM", SECTION 2. 36. 110

EXCEPTIONS TO PURCHASING PROCEDURES AND
LIMITS"
RECOMMENDATION: City Council to Consider the Following Items:

1. Hold a Public Hearing; and

2. First Reading and Introduction of an Ordinance
Amending Title 2, Chapter 2. 36 ' Purchasing
System", Section 2. 36. 110 Exceptions To
Purchasing Procedures and Limits" by adding a
new section ( D") to allow Cooperative
Purchasing Agreements
SUMMARY:

The City is currently managing numerous construction, development and maintenance projects. Cooperative purchasing agreements allow staff to timely procure goods, material and services while also meeting state and local government purchasing procedures. By using this process, the City can achieve better pricing and streamline purchases by removing repetitive, resource intensive, and costly bid procedures associated with routine purchases.

Cooperative purchasing is the process of combining the buying power of multiple agencies to negotiate and purchase goods and services at lower prices. The idea behind this procurement method is that the City would not need to conduct its own competitive bidding process since one has already been conducted by an agency that follows strict government purchasing guidelines. Cooperative purchasing agreements allow member public agencies to aggregate individual purchasing power and achieve greater volume discounts.

In order to use Cooperative Purchasing Agreements staff is requesting Council' s consideration and approval of an Ordinance amending Lathrop Municipal Code ( LMC), Title 2, Chapter 2. 36 " Purchasing System", Section 2. 36. 110 " Exceptions To Purchasing Procedures and Limits" by adding a new section (" D") to allow Cooperative Purchasing Agreements .
673
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 2
SEPTEMBER li, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE LMC TITLE 2 ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL", CHAPTER 2. 36
PURCHASING SYSTEM", SECTION 2. 36. 110 EXCEPTIONS TO PURCHASING PROCEDURES AND LIMITS"
BACKGROUND:

The City currently utilizes the California Multiple Award Schedule ( CMAS) program to purchase fleet vehicles and heavy equipment, which is statutorily allowed by California Government Code § 54205; however, this program' s selection of goods and services is somewhat limited.

In an ongoing effort to make best use of staff resources and seek cost savings, many government agencies share contracting efforts through cooperative purchasing. This procurement approach increases pricing competitiveness and lowers operating costs through efficiencies gained by the cooperative purchasing programs. Staff has reviewed available purchasing options and purchasing programs not currently authorized by the LMC that may provide significant cost savings to the City.

Cooperative purchasing programs such as California Communities Purchasing Program ( CCPP), California Multiple Award Schedule ( CMAS), the National Association of Counties ( NACo), Sourcewell, and others assist public agencies by securing competitive prices on a variety of material, equipment and other common items.

What is Cooperative Purchase?
A cooperative purchasing program combines multiple buyers' requirements on a single contract to aggregate volume and raise the purchasing power of each participating entity. A lead agency typically conducts the solicitation, allowing other agencies to " piggyback" on the resulting contract. Through cooperatives, entities can negotiate lower prices and reduce time spent on procurement processes and establishing contracts.

What are the benefits of Cooperative Purchasing?
Cooperative purchasing contracts can save government agencies time and money.

By the time a buyer is presented with the contract, a competitive bid process has already been completed in accordance with state- specific requirements, and there is no need to write or advertise the bid solicitation, receive and evaluate proposals, or negotiate the final purchase price. The contracts also offer scale and negotiation leverage that helps buyers attain better and more affordable pricing. The transparency of these contracts ensures that the purchasing process is competitive and enhances buyers' confidence that they are getting a fair deal.

Cooperative Purchase — How It Works
After identifying its purchasing needs, an organization can simply search through cooperative purchasing contracts that offer the necessary goods, material and services. For example, the typical process with Sourcewell includes registering to participate, finding a contract and then ultimately contacting the supplier. 674
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 3
SEPTEMBER li, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE LMC TITLE 2 ' ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL", CHAPTER 2. 36
PURCHASING SYSTEM", SECTION 2. 36. 110 EXCEPTIONS TO PURCHASING PROCEDURES AND LIMITS"
The supplier then quickly provides a quote based on the contracted price, and the agency finalizes the sale with the supplier using the contract number and the agency' s Sourcewell account number. This process helps organizations simplify the purchasing procedure, fulfilling all state and local competitive- bidding requirements without going through the cumbersome bidding process.

Instead of seeking quotes, bids, or proposals, organizations can simply choose products and services from the cooperative contract' s service catalog. These services have been pre- selected by the agency behind the cooperative through its own stringent competitive- bidding process.

In essence, the cooperative has done this work for the organization already, and so buyers are complying with all local, state, and national procurement laws when they make purchases through a cooperatively purchased contract.

Therefore, staff requests Council' s consideration and approval of an Ordinance amending LMC, Title 2, Chapter 2. 36 " Purchasing System", Section 2. 36. 110 Exceptions To Purchasing Procedures and Limits" by adding a new section (" D") to allow Cooperative Purchasing Agreements. Approval will give the City Manager, as the City' s Purchasing Officer, the authority to purchase supplies, equipment, and Services through legal contracts of other government jurisdictions or public agencies while forgoing competitive bidding.

A Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the Manteca Bulletin newspaper on August 30th, 2023.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:

Cooperative Purchasing Agreements reduce administrative overhead, increasing efficiency and savings. By using this process, the City can achieve better pricing and streamline purchases by removing repetitive, resource intensive, and costly bid procedures associated with routine purchases.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact at this time. Staff will incorporate activities related to this item into current council adopted operating and capital improvement project budgets.

ATTACH M ENTS:

A. Ordinance Amending Title 2, Chapter 2. 36 ' Purchasing System", Section

2. 36. 110 " Exceptions To Purchasing Procedures and Limits" by adding a new section (" D") to allow Cooperative Purchasing Agreements 675
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 4
SEPTEMBER li, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

PUBLIC HEARING ( PUBLISHED NOTICE) TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE LATHROP MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 2 ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL", CHAPTER 2. 36 PURCHASING SYSTEM", SECTION 2. 36. 110 EXCEPTIONS TO PURCHASING PROCEDURES AND LIMITS"
APPROVALS:
c{ Qo / 8_ D 23
Steven Hollenbea Date
Assistant Engineer
ao
Cari Jame Date
Finance Dir tor
b f3e zoti3
Thomas Hedegard Date
Deputy City Manager
g s o - 23
Michael King Date
Assistant City Manager
Zoti
Salvador Navarrete Date
City Attorney
9•S•23
Ste en J. Salvatore Date
City Manager
676
ORDINANCE NO. 23-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LATHROP AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2. 36 PURCHASING SYSTEM", SECTION 2. 36. 110 EXCEPTIONS TO PURCHASING PROCEDURES AND LIMITS" BY ADDING A NEW SECTION ( D") TO ALLOW COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, Cooperative purchasing agreements allow staff to timely procure goods, material and services while also meeting state and local government purchasing procedures; and
WHEREAS, Cooperative purchasing is the process of combining the buying power of multiple agencies to negotiate and purchase goods and services at lower prices. The idea behind this procurement method is that the City would not need to conduct its own competitive bidding process since one has already been conducted by an agency that follows strict government purchasing guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City currently utilizes the California Multiple Award Schedule CMAS) program to purchase fleet vehicles and heavy equipment, which is statutorily allowed by California Government Code § 54205; however, this program' s selection of goods and services is somewhat limited; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code ( GC) §§ 54202- 54203, require local agencies to adopt an ordinance establishing policies and procedures, including bidding regulations, governing purchases of supplies and equipment by the local agency; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the Manteca Bulletin on August 30t", 2023; and
WHEREAS, staff requests that City Council hold a public hearing, consider all information and public testimony and, if determined to be appropriate, adopt an Ordinance amending Lathrop Municipal Code Title 2 ' Administration and Personnel", Chapter 2. 36 Purchasing System", Section 2. 36. 110 Exceptions to purchasing procedures and limits" by adding a new section (" D") to allow the City to utilize cooperative purchasing agreements; and
WHEREAS, this will give the City Manager, as the Purchasing Officer, the authority, where advantageous to the city, to use cooperative purchasing agreements approved by the City Council, to purchase supplies, equipment, and non- professional services through legal contracts of other government jurisdictions, or public agencies without separate competitive bidding by the city.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lathrop does hereby ordain as follows:

Ordinance No. 23-
677
Note: additions are shown below in underline font.

Section 1.

Title 2 of the Lathrop Municipal Code, " Administration and Personnel" is hereby amended by amending Chapter 2. 36 " Purchasing System", Section 2. 36. 110 Exceptions to purchasing procedures and limits", to incorporate the changes as follows:

CHAPTER 2. 36 PURCHASING SYSTEM

2. 36. 110 Exceptions to purchasing procedures and limits.

A. The contracting of service from other governmental agencies, sole source purchases and professional services shall be exempt from bidding procedures.

B. The contracting for the purchase of any item less than seventy- five thousand dollars ($ 75, 000. 00), exclusive of sales or use tax, shipping, handling or delivery charges from other governmental agencies, sole source purchases, or from the Office of Procurement, Department of General Services of the state of California shall be exempt from the bidding procedures.

C. For any exemption to the procedures set forth in this chapter, the department head responsible for the purchase shall certify in writing to the purchasing officer the reason for the exemption claimed.

D. Without complying with the requirements of Sections 2. 36. 050,

2. 36. 060, and 2. 36. 140, the purchasing officer may participate in, use, sponsor, conduct or administer a cooperative purchasing agreement for the procurement of any supplies, equipment, or service with one or more public procurement units in accordance with an agreement entered into between the participants. Such cooperative purchasing may include, but is not limited to, joint or multiparty contracts between public procurement units and open- ended state and/ or federal public procurement unit contracts which are made available to the cit Section 2.

This Ordinance is not intended to and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner that imposes upon the City or any officer or employee thereof a mandatory duty of care toward persons and property within or without the city so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as otherwise imposed by law.

Section 3. Severabilitv.

If any section, subsequent subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

Ordinance No. 23-
678
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance irrespective of the unconstitutionality or invalidity of any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase.

Section 4. Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take legal effect 30 days from and after the date of its passage.

Section 5. Publication.

Within fifteen days of the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Ordinance, to be published in full accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code.

Ordinance No. 23-
679
THIS ORDINANCE was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Lathrop on the 11t" day of September, 2023, and was PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lathrop on the day of 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sonny Dhaliwal, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Teresa Vargas, City Clerk Salvador Navarrete, City Attorney Ordinance No. 23-
680
ITEM 5. 2

CITY MANAGER' S REPORT
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
ITEM: ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR CIP PW 22- 36 AQUIFER

STORAGE AND RECOVERY
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lathrop Aquifer Storage
and Recovery Project, CIP PW 22- 36 in Accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act
Requirements
SUMMARY:

The technique of Aquifer Storage and Recovery ( ASR) involves actively storing water underground during periods of high precipitation for later retrieval as needed. This process of injecting and extracting water utilizes a well and is authorized by the State Water Board.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND) and Mitigation Monitoring/ Reporting Program MMRP) were prepared for the project, pursuant to the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) requirements. The public comment and review period began on August 2, 2023 and ended on September 15t, 2023. As of writing this report, a total of five comments were received and have been addressed in the Responses to Comments Memorandum, included as Attachment D".

Staff requests that Council adopt the attached resolution adopting the MND and MMRP, and authorize staff to file a Notice of Determination with San Joaquin County.

BACKGROUND:

The proposed ASR project would optimize the conjunctive use of the City' s existing supplies of treated surface water and available groundwater to enhance delivered water quality to customers and increase the reliability of the City' s water supply and delivery system.

On January 10, 2022, Council approved the creation of CIP PW 22- 36 Aquifer Storage and Recovery and a Professional Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Carollo) to complete the project' s engineering feasibility study and preliminary design. The ASR project was also included in the FY 23- 34 budget approved by the Planning Commission and adopted by City Council in June 2023.

The proposed project would involve the injection of treated ( potable) drinking water from the City' s South San Joaquin Irrigation District ( SSJID) South County Water Supply Project ( SCWSP) into selected confined aquifer zones for storage and subsequent extraction ( i. e., " recovery").
681
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 2
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CIP PW 22- 36

AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY
The ASR Project would help mitigate drought impacts on the City' s surface water supplies by providing long- term storage of up to 1, 450 acre- feet per year ( AFY) in the lower confined aquifer. The injection period generally occurs from November through April when water demand is lowest.

The proposed ASR project is located in the City of Lathrop at the River Islands potable water tank and booster pump site at APN 210- 210- 28. The project site is currently surrounded by industrial and agricultural uses and located within the River Islands Master Plan area. The site will ultimately be adjacent to an " Employment Center" designated by the River Islands Master Plan.

Currently, the project site has an existing 1. 5- million- gallon ( MG) water tank with plans for two more tanks in the future. The proposed ASR Well and two monitoring wells would be located on the River Islands site. One of the monitoring wells has recently been completed near the southern boundary of this site.

A MND and MMRP were prepared for the project, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA with NEPA like requirements. The MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse SCH# 2023080053) to be circulated for a 30- day public review period commencing on August 2, 2023 and ending on September lst, 2023, in accordance with Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code. Notices of the MND availability were also sent out using CEQA- net, the City' s website, County Clerk, Manteca Bulletin and mailed to a list of CEQA notice subscribers maintained by the City. Comments were received from the SWRCB, PG& E and the SJCOG. The comments received are addressed in the attached responses to comments memorandum.

Overall, the MND concluded that the ASR project could have a " Potentially Significant Impact" to Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources environmental factors which are addressed in the attached Mitigation and Monitoring Program.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City of Lathrop ASR project would considerably enhance reliability and mitigate emerging risks to the City' s water supply by pumping and storing surface water acquired from SSJID during wet periods into the ground allowing for later retrieval and utilization during dry seasons, droughts, or instances of water supply shortage.

Staff requests that City Council adopt the attached resolution for adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/ Reporting Program for the subject project in accordance with CEQA requirements, and authorizing staff to file a Notice of Determination with San Joaquin County.
682
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 3
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CIP PW 22- 36

AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. The ASR project is estimated to cost a total of $ 6, 000, 000 and has been awarded an Urban Communities Drought Relief Grant in the amount of$ 4, 500, 000 with a 25% local cost share in the amount of $ 1, 500, 000.

ATTACH M ENTS:

A. Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/ Reporting Program for CIP PW 22- 36 Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Requirements B. Notice of Determination
C. Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery
D. Responses to Comments Memorandum
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
683
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 4
SEPTEMBER li, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARTION FOR CIP PW 22- 36

AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY
APPROVALS:
l s g 21 Z3
Greg son Date
Senior Civil Engineer
dJZZ?. 23
Brad T or Date
City Engineer
3 Cari Ja Date
Finance irector
8 • Z3 • ZcZ3
Michael King Date
Assistant City Manager
8' ` L3
Salvador Navarrete Date
City Attorney
ct• • Z3
St en J. Salvatore Date
City Manager
684
RESOLUTION NO. 23 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LATHROP

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT, CIP PW 22- 36 IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the proposed City of Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery project, CIP PW 22- 36, would optimize the conjunctive use of the City' s existing supplies of treated surface water in addition to available groundwater, to enhance delivered water quality to customers and increase the reliability of the City' s water supply and delivery system; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2022 Council approved the creation of CIP PW 22- 36 Aquifer Storage and Recovery and a Professional Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers, Inc. ( Carollo) to complete the engineering feasibility study and preliminary design for the project. The ASR project was also included in the FY 23- 34 budget that was approved by the Planning Commission and adopted by City Council in June, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project would involve the injection of treated potable) drinking water from the City' s South San Joaquin Irrigation District SSJID) South County Water Supply Project ( SCWSP) into selected confined aquifer zones for storage and subsequent extraction ( i. e., recovery"); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND) and Mitigation Monitoring/ Reporting Program ( MMRP) were prepared for the project, pursuant to the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) requirements; and WHEREAS, the MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse ( SCH# 2023080053) to be circulated for a 30- day public review period commencing on August 2, 2023 and ending on September 15t, 2023, in accordance with Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the availability of the MND was provided as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15072; and
WHEREAS, five public comments were received on the MND and were addressed in a response to comments memorandum, listed as Attachment " D", of the City Manager' s report, dated September 11th, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City of Lathrop has considered the MND together with any public comments received on the MND; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Monitoring/ Reporting Program ( MMRP) was prepared based on the MND; and
685
WHEREAS, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, Section 21108 and 21152 of the Public Resources Code require the filing of a Notice of Determination within five ( 5) days of certification of the Negative Declaration.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Lathrop has determined, based on its independent judgement, that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery project has met the requirements of CEQA; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Counci) adopts the MND and MMRP and authorizes the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County. 686
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of September 2023, by the following vote of the City Council, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Sonny Dhaliwal, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Teresa Vargas, City Clerk Salvador Navarrete, City Attorney 687
Pnnt Form

ATTACHMENT
Notice of Determination Appendix D
To: From:
0 Office of Planning and Research Public Agency: City of Lathrop U.S. Mail: SireetAddress: Address: 390 Towne Centre Drive P. O. Box 3044 1400 Tenth St., Rm 113
Lathrop, CA 95330
Contact: Gregory W. Gibson, P. E.

Sacramento, CA 95812- 3044 Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone:( 209) 841- 7442
County Clerk
County of: San Joaquin Lead Agency( if different from above):

Address: 44 N. San Joaquin Street, 2nd Floor, Su
Stockton, CA 95202 Address:

Contact:

Phone:

SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.

State Clearinghouse Number( if submitted to State Clearinghouse): 20230080053 Project Title: City of Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Applicant: City of Lathrop
Project Location ( include county): Lathrop, San Joaquin County Project Description:

The proposed ASR project would optimize the conjunctive use of the City' s existing supplies of treated surface water in addition to available groundwater, to enhance delivered water quality to customers and increase the reliability of the City' s water supply and delivery system.

The proposed prolect would involve the injection of treated ( potable) drinking water from the City' s Soutb This is to advise that the City of Lathrop has approved the above Lead Agency or Responsible Agency)
described project on 09/ 11/ 2023 and has made the following determinations regarding the above date)
described project.

1. The project[ will will not] have a significant effect on the environment.

2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

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

4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [ 0 was was not] adopted for this project.

5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ was was not] adopted for this project.

6. Findings[ were were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at:
https:// www. ci. lathrop. ca. us/ com- dev/ page/ public- review- documents Signature ( Public Agency): Title:

Date: Date Received for filing at OPR:

Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code.

Reference Section 21 000- 21 1 74, Public Resources Code. Revised 2011 688
ATTACHMENT :

G
FINAL INITIAi. STUDY AN VI TIGATED
l ATIVE DECL RATIt N

FOR THE
LATHROP A uIFER STORAGE ECQVE tY PROJE T
a
t
r
r 1Y x a '
e>.
1 m
y - SE'' t' I+ BER 2423
x
s
r.,...., '.

P I ' I i? ilu
Preparedfor:

F ,.

Cfty flfL throp
Depat tment of Public W+rks
39 Towne Centre Dr.

Lathrap, CA 95330
Prepared by:

De Nr vo Planning GrBup
102U Suncast Ln, Suite 1Q6
El Darado HilIs, CA 95Z62
916) 997- 1865
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
689

FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE RECOVERY PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2023
Prepared for:

City of Lathrop
Department of Public Works
390 Towne Centre Dr.

Lathrop, CA 95330
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Ln, Suite 106
E1 Dorado Hills, CA 95762
916) 997- 1865
690
INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I I '+

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INITIALSTUDY CHECKLIST........................................................................................................................................ 3 ProjectTitle......................................................................................................................................................... 3 LeadAgency Name and Address.......................................................................................................................... 3 Contact Person and Phone Number.................................................................................................................... 3 ProjectSponsor' s Name and Address................................................................................................................. 3 Purposeof the Initial Study.................................................................................................................................... 3 Update to the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration.................................................................... 4 WaterSupply Considerations................................................................................................................................ 4 ProjectLocation and Setting.................................................................................................................................. 5 General Plan and Zoning Designations.............................................................................................................. 5 ProjectDescription.................................................................................................................................................... 5 ProjectBackground.................................................................................................................................................... 6 Reyuested Entitlements and Other Approvals............................................................................................... 7 ProjectGoals and Objectives.................................................................................................................................. 7 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:................................................................................................ 8 Determination:............................................................................................................................................................. 8 EvaluationInstructions:.............................................................................................................................................. 10 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:................................................................................................................. 11 EnvironmentalChecklist............................................................................................................................................ 12 I. AESTHETICS....................................................................................................................................................... 12 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES...........................................................................................13 III. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................................... 14 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 15 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................... 17 VI. ENERGY............................................................................................................................................................. 19 VII. GEOLOGYAND SOILS.................................................................................................................................21 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................................................... 23 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..........................................................................................24 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...................................................................................................... 26 City of Lathrop
691

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT 1 ly ' '
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING....................................................................................................................... 29 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................................................30 XIII. NOISE...............................................................................................................................................................31 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................................................................32 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES........................................................................................................................................ 33 XVI. RECREATION................................................................................................................................................ 34 XVII. TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC.............................................................................................................. 35 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES...................................................................................................... 36 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS..................................................................................................... 37 XX. WILDFIRE........................................................................................................................................................ 39 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE....................................................................................40 City of Lathrop
692
INIT[ AL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT II I I I

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

PROJECT TITLE
Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project

LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Lathrop
Department of Public Works
390 Towne Centre Dr.

Lathrop, CA 95330

CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Gregory Gibson, Senior Civil Engineer
209- 941- 7442
[email protected]

PROJECT SPONSOR' S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Lathrop
Department of Public Works
390 Towne Centre Dr.

Lathrop, CA 95330

PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
An Initial Study ( IS) is a preliminary analysis which is prepared to determine the relative environmental impacts associated with a proposed project. It is designed as a measuring mechanism to determine if a project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment, thereby triggering the need to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report( EIR). It also functions as an evidentiary document containing information which supports conclusions that the project will not have a significant environmental impact or that the impacts can be mitigated to a" Less Than Significant" or " No Impact" level. If there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration ( ND). Ifthe IS identifies potentially significant effects, but: ( 1) revisions in the project plans or proposals would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and ( 2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment, then a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND) shall be prepared.

This Initial Study has been prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, to determine if the proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery ( ASR) Project ( project) may have a significant effect upon the environment. Based upon the findings and mitigation measures contained within this report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND) will be prepared.

Ciry of Lathrop
693
p , e, i n.,.....

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I P I' i ' UPDATE TO THE INITIAL STUDY fMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Minor revisions have been made to the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND). SpecificallX, tvnographical errors were corrected and clarifications were made to the final environmental document. Added language a ears in a strikeout and underlined format. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. 5( a) requires a lead agencv to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previousl, given. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. S(. a " substantial revision" includes two situations: ( i) a new. avoidable significant effect is identified, and to reduce that effect to a level of insignificance, mitigation measures or project revisions must be added; or iil the lead agency determines that the mitigation measures or project revisions originall,y included in the negative declaration will not reduce potentiallv significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and new miti. ation measures or roject revisions are required. CEQA is clear that recirculation is not required if " new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies. am,plifies. or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration." [ CEQA Guidelines. 15073. S( c)( 4).) None of the revisions made meet the recirculation requirements. As such. recirculation is not required.

WATER SUPPLY CONSIDERATIONS
The San Joaquin River historically divided the city into two separate groundwater basins. To the east ofthe river was the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin1 and to the west is the Tracy Subbasin. z Both subbasins are part of the San Joayuin Valley Groundwater Basin. The City submitted a Basin Boundary Modification Request( BBMR) in June 2018, which was approved in February 2019 to include the entire City within the Tracy Subbasin.

The City has five operational production wells with a combined capacity of 8.4 million gallons per day ( mgd), obtaining water from a relatively shallow aquifer at depths of 270 to 282 feet below land surface ( BLS), above the Corcoran Clay. These wells are subject to contamination plumes from the Occidental Chemical Corporation ( OCC), and by PFAS, resulting in a reduction in production rates and limited use to help meet peak demands. We119 has been placed in standby mode since summer of 2019 due to PFAS concentrations exceeding the State response level.

The City purchases Stanislaus River water from South San Joaquin Irrigation District ( SSJID) through the South County Water Supply Project (SCWSP). The SCWSP is a partnership between Lathrop, Manteca, Tracy, Escalon, and SSJID. The water is treated at the Nick C. DeGroot Water Treatment Plant ( DGWTP) located near the Woodward Reservoir in San Joaquin County, then distributed to the jurisdictions via pipelines.
1 California Department of Water Resources, 2006. California' s Groundwater Bulletin 118, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, Groundwater Basin Number: 5- 22. 01. January.

Available: San loaquin Vallev Groundwater Basin Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin( ca.gov). Accessed: June 19, 2023.
z California Department of Water Resources, 2006. California' s Groundwater Bulletin 118, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Tracy Subbasin, Groundwater Basin Number: 5- 22. 15. January. Available: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Tracy Subbasin( ca. gov.. Accessed: June 19, 2023.

City of Lathrop
694
Ai r r9 r. r f n, diY".

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I

PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery( ASR) project is located in the City of Lathrop at the River Islands potable water storage and sewer pumping project,located at 950 Stewart Road( see Figure 1 and Figure 2), near Water Tank 5 and the L2 South San Joaquin Irrigation District SSJID) turnout. The project site is immediately surrounded by industrial and agricultural uses and is within the River Islands Master Plan area. The potable water storage and sewer pumping project site is located adjacent to an " Employment Center" as designated by the River Islands Master Plan.

Currently the project site has an existing 1. 5- million- gallon ( MG) water tank, and as of July 2023, two additional tanks are currently under construction. The proposed ASR well and two monitoring wells would be located on the River Islands site. There are two alternative placement configurations for the proposed project; the rst is locating the ASR building within the tank site parcel (Figure 3), while the second is locating the ASR building on an adjacent parcel east of the tank site parcel ( Figure 4). One of the monitoring wells has recently been completed near the southern boundary ofthis site.

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The project site is currently designated Regional Commercial- River Islands ( RC- RI) by the City of Lathrop General Plan Land Use Designations Map and is zoned Regional Commercial - River Islands ( CR- RI).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would implement Aquifer Storage and Recovery ( ASR) technology to optimize the conjunctive use ofthe City' s existing supplies oftreated surface water in addition to available groundwater, to enhance delivered water quality to customers and increase the reliability ofthe City's water supply and delivery system.

The proposed project would involve the injection of treated ( potable) drinking water from the City' s South San Joaquin Irrigation District ( SSJID) South County Water Supply Project ( SCWSP) into selected confined aquifer zones for storage and subsequent extraction (i. e.," recovery").

The ASR Project would help mitigate drought impacts on the City' s surface water supplies by providing long-term storage of up to 1, 450 acre- feet per year( AFl in the lower confined aquifer that is not impacted by the City' s groundwater contamination. In general, the injection period would occur from November through April, when water demand is lowest.

The City would utilize a new well within the project site for both the injection of the treated surface water or drinking water supplied from the City's distribution system into the aquifer, and the subsequent extraction of this water. The project would not require an increase in the City' s existing surface water usage or increase the demand for water supplies. Initial well development would start with formation of a buffer zone around the well. The buffer zone initially separates the native groundwater and the stored water, providing water quality and geochemical benefits.

The buffer zone volume is never recovered; however, the subsequent water stored is typically City of Lathrop
695
r.....

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I ' ; fully recovered during times when it is needed to meet peak or emergency demands or during severe droughts. The sum of the buffer zone volume and the volume reyuired for recovery is known as the target storage volume ( TSV). A typical" rule- of-thumb" for the buffer zone volume is at least 70 days of recovery at the design production capacity ofthe well during ASR recovery, i.e., a 2 million gallon per day ( mgd) well would likely have a buffer zone volume of at least 140 million gallons ( MG). The recovery volume remains to be determined, but would be at least the volume required to help meet projected peak summer demands for typically 60 to 120 days and more likely a larger volume intended to provide water supply reliability during an extended drought. For example, to provide water supply reliability during a one- year drought,the volume of water to be stored for a 2- mgd well would be 730 MG, plus the buffer zone volume of at least 140 MG, or at least 870 MG ( 2, 670 acre- feet [AF]).

The ASR well would be drilled to a depth of 1, 200 - 1, 500 feet BLS. The ASR well' s buffer zone is estimated at 1, 000 GPM ( or approximately 1. 44 mgd, or 101 MG [ 309 AF]). A target storage volume of 7 months recovery was selected for this well assuming there is a 4- month peak demand on the existing potable water supply plus a 70- day buffer zone. Adding in the initial buffer zone contribution the total storage volume for this well is estimated to be at least 408 MG. The radius ofthis storage zone is not yet determined as it would relate to how deep and thick is the proposed storage interval. Associated pumps and piping would be constructed to provide water injection and recovery. Two monitoring wells would be installed, one within 30 feet of the ASR well and the other approximately 220 feet of the well. The first well has already been installed as part of preliminary feasibility analyses.

The ASR well may be housed in a masonry building to protect the well, pipes, and electronic components. If constructed, the masonry building would be a single- story structure and would include safety lighting on the outside. It is also possible that the well and piping could remain outdoors, in an unprotected environment, or under a shade canopy. Construction ofthe ASR well. including startu, monitoring, and cvcle testing would take place over approximately 24 months beginning in early 2024.

Water stored in the aquifer under the ASR program would be used for two primary purposes: 1) to meet peak hour summer water demands, and 2) for drought water supply. Peak hour demands occur daily during the summer months. The ASR water would supplement the water stored by the City in above- ground storage tanks, and water pumped from the wells assists the City in keeping water pressure within the distribution system within the desired pressure range.

By delivering stored, high yuality surface water from SSJID, municipal water customers in Lathrop would receive the best quality water at their taps. Water not withdrawn from the aquifer for peak hour demand would remain in the groundwater basin for future use without degradation of quality. The intention of the ASR program is for the City to inject approximately 1, 450 AFY and build up its banked groundwater supply over multiple years.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
In order to determine the feasibility of a long-term ASR project, the City undertook a feasibility analysis at the project site to determine whether an ASR well would result in the desired level of City of Lathrop
696
rl" ia pAi u+. rl', .

INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT IIIII IIIi! II

I II II
I

I III I IIIIM''
storage. An 8. 75- inch diameter borehole to a depth of 800 feet below ground surface( bgs) by the direct rotary drilling method. The test hole was geophysically logged to the completed depth. The test hole was widened to 12. 25- inch diameter to a depth of 270 feet bgs, 10.625- inch diameter from 270 to 540 feet bgs, and 8. 75- inch diameter from 540 to 800 feet bgs and install three piezometers that would allow for the collection of zone- specific water quality samples and water levels. Water quality, minerology, geochemical, and geologic measurements were taken and logged.

The results, conclusions, and findings of the City's ASR Feasibility Assessment.3 The Engineer' s Report included in the feasibility analysis demonstrates that the proposed ASR project is technically feasible, and demonstrates that the proposed project would not adversely impact groundwater quality or the City' s water supply infrastructure.

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER APPROVALS
The City of Lathrop will be the Lead Agency for the proposed project, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), Section 15050. The following agencies may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects ofthe proposed project:

San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department( well drilling permit) State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water( Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection application; water supply permit amendment)

PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Lathrop has identified the following goals and objectives for the proposed project:

1. Provide seasonal storage of drinking water during winter months, when system demand for drinking water is below peak levels and excess water supply and treatment capacity is available, and have sufficient water supplies available for future recovery from the same well when needed to meet peak summer demands.

2. Provide emergency storage for drinking water in the event of a natural disaster, transmission pipeline failure, or if the domestic water supply wells need to be taken partially or completely offline for a period oftime.

3. Provide long-term drinking water storage ( water banking) to provide water supply reliability and sustainability at low cost, allowing more water to be stored in wet years and other times of relatively low water demand with recovery anticipated in later years, and particularly during droughts.

4. Defer expansion of the City's water treatment facilities until such time as more water treatment, not just disinfection, is needed.
3 City of Lathrop, 2023. Aquifer Storage Recovery Feasibility Assessment. Final. March.

City of Lathrop
697
INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQU[ FER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT 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.

Agriculture and Forestry
Aesthetics Air Quality
Resources
Biological Resources X Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gasses
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Quality
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Mandatory Findings of
Wildfire
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X 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. 1 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.

City of Lathrop
698

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT

I I I '
i
i^ D9 6 ZoZ3
Signature Date
City of Lathrop
699

IN( TIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I ,
EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS:
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 projectspecific 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 ifthere 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 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 crossreferenced). 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.

City of Lathrop
700
1 r . i.....

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I 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 significance 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 significance
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

In each area of potential impact listed in this section, there are one or more questions which assess the degree ofpotential environmental effect.A response is provided to each question using one of the four impact evaluation criteria described below. A discussion of the response is also included.

Potentially Significant Impact. This response is appropriate when there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more " Potentially Significant Impact" entries, upon completion ofthe Initial Study, an EIR is required.

Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. This response applies when 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- thansignificant level.

Less- than- Significant Impact. A less- than- significant impact is one which is deemed to have little or no adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures are, therefore, not necessary.

No Impact. These issues were either identified as having no impact on the environment, or they are not relevant to the project.

City of Lathrop
701
r
p.- i -.. ...-. y" , qi ..

INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This section of the Initial Study incorporates the most current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form. Impact questions and responses are included in both tabular and narrative formats for each of the 21 environmental topic areas.

1. AESTHETI CS
W'al td t i te ' :: x`
g
ri:, i ltr s
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 within a state
X
scenic highway?
c) In non- urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? ( Public
views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
X
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime x
views in the area?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through b): No Impact. There are no designated scenic vistas on the project site.

The site is not located near a scenic highway. As such, there would be no change to any visual resources within the city. There would be no impact.

Responses c) through d): Less than Signi cant. The proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The proposed masonry building would be a single-story structure that would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. There is less- than- significant impact.

City of Lathrop
702
iis. i-, . , _
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT

11. AGRICULTUREAND FOREST RESOURCES
wourat+ e# ro,
put t tx' E onF
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
X
California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
x
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land ( as defined in Public Resources Code
section 1222( g)) or timberland( as defined in Public
X
Resources Code section 4526)?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
x
forest land to non- forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or
X
conversion of forest land to non- forest use?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through e): No Impact. The project would not result in any changes to existing land uses within the city, and the project does not have the potential to impact any agricultural or forest resources. The project would provide more reliable municipal water supplies within the City's service area and would not reduce water availability for existing agricultural operations.

The water stored in the aquifer under the ASR program will be used for two primary purposes:
1) to meet peak hour summer water demands, and 2) for drought water supply. There is no impact.

City of Lathrop
703
I I
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I
111. AIR QUALITY
wo d a'
t
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
x
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non- attainment under an applicable federal or
X
state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions ( such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of x people?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through d): e- Less-Than-Si nificant Impact. The project would generate minimal air emissions during_project construction activities. The site is alreadv flat. and there would not be mass dirt moving. Drilling ofthe well would require construction equipment that would emit minimal emissions. There would not be any emissions generated during the operation of the project. T...^ w, ^;*^-;^,. . ,^ n . ,; n ho ;„*., n„ a n foo „ c*,,, ncn r* ^ F ^ r^'; m;^^^, '^;';';*, ^^^'.,-^ project operations would not generate odors. The proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants as there will be no emissions generated during operation and emissions during construction would be minimal.

T'^ r^; c^^; m^^^*. The impact would be less than significant.

City of Lathrop
704
INIT[ AL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Wau1 f tJ e rty t t
t
i
r
9 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 regionai plans, policies, or
X
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, x
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands ( inclading, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through x direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory x
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 x
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
X
or state habitat conservation plan?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through: No Impact. The project involves injecting surface water into the local aquifer for storage and future recovery. The surface water comes from the City' s existing surface water allocations. The project would not increase the rate or volume of surface water use or diversion, and as such, would not impact any riparian habitat or surface water resources that provide habitat for biological resources.

The City of Lathrop is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (" Plan" or" S) MSCP") and is located within the Central Transition Zone of the SJMSCP. The San Joaquin Council of Governments ( SJCOG) prepared the Plan pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding adopted by SJCOG, San Joaquin County, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game CDFG), Caltrans, and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy in October 1994. On February 27, 2001, the Plan was unanimously adopted in its entirety by SJCOG.

City of Lathrop
705
i „ : .
i I II
INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STQRAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I I i II According to Chapter 1 of the SJMSCP, 4 its key purpose is to" provide a strategy for balancing the need to conserve open space and the need to convert open space to non- open space uses, while protecting the region' s agricultural economy; preserving landowner property rights; providing for the long- term management of plant, fish and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed, or may be listed in the future, under the Federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act ( CESA); providing and maintaining multiple use Open Spaces which contribute to the quality of life of the residents of San Joaquin County; and, accommodating a growing population while minimizing costs to project proponents and society at large."
In addition, the goals and principles of the SJMSCP include the following:

Provide a County-wide strategy for balancing the need to conserve open space and the need to convert open space to non- open space uses, while protecting the region' s agricultural economy.

Preserve landowner property rights.

Provide for the long- term management of plant, fish, and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed, or may be listed in the future, under the ESA or the CESA.

Provide and maintain multiple- use open spaces, which contribute to the quality of life of the residents of San Joayuin County.

Accommodate a growing population while minimizing costs to project proponents and society at large.

In addition to providing compensation for conversion of open space to non- open space uses, which affect plant and animal species covered by the SJMSCP, the SJMSCP also provides some compensation to offset impacts of open space conversions on non- wildlife related resources such as recreation, agriculture, scenic values and other beneficial open space uses. Specifically, the SJMSCP compensates for conversions of open space to urban development and the expansion of existing urban boundaries, among other activities, for public and private activities throughout the County and within Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy.

The project would not result in any open space conversions and would not impact any biological resources. Project implementation would not conflict with this plan. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special 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. The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. There is no impact. 4 San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. November 14, 2000.

Accessed July, 2023.

City of Lathrop
706
I.. i i I I. .. il... . ,. Ir
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQU[ FER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
pb,
I orit tl+e, rt
tili o ii
t r nrr, > '
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to x
Section15064. 5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant x
to Section 15064. 5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
X

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Response a) No Impact. There is no potential for the project to impact any cultural or historical resources. The proposed Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. There is no impact.

Responses b) through c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Based on previous disturbance, and the environmental context, the proposed Project has low potential to impact archaeological resources. Despite the low potential, the discovery of archaeological materials during ground- disturbing activities cannot be entirely discounted. The inadvertent discovery of cultural materials during project implementation could be a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a less- than- significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL- 1 and Mitigation Measure CUL- 2, which require avoidance measures or the appropriate treatment of archaeological resources and human remains if discovered during project implementation.

Mitigation Measure CUL- 1
If pre- contact or historic- era cultural resources are encountered during project implementation, construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the U. S. Secretary of the Interior' s Professional Qualification Standards for Archeology, shall inspect the nd within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of Lathrop of their initial assessment. Pre- contact cultural materials might include obsidian and chert flaked- stone tools ( e. g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (" midden") containing heat- affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment ( e. g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic- era materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of inetal, glass, and/ or ceramic refuse.

If the City determines, based on recommendations from a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative (if the resource is pre- contact), that the resource may qualify as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource ( as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. 5) or a tribal cultural resource ( as defined in PRC Section 21080. 3), the resource shall City of Lathrop
707
fi , i•,.

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT be avoided if feasible. Consistent with Section 15126. 4( b)( 3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes (if the resource is pre-contact), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083. 2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery ( according to PRC Section 21083. 2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource ( according to PRC Section 21084. 3).

Mitigation Measure CUL- 2
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during project implementation, construction activities within 100 feet of the find shall cease until the San Joaquin County Coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation ofthe cause of death is required. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, if the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American in origin. The Commission will then identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American ( PRC Section 5097. 98), who in turn would make recommendations to the City for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated funerary objects ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[ d]).

City of Lathrop
708
7,,- y . , il,( _
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT VI. ENERGY
worrtdl pra, i
k
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
X
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through b) Less- than- Si nificant Impact. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce " wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary" energy usage Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [ b][ 3]). According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed Project would be considered " wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary" if it were to violate state and federal energy standards and/ or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The proposed Project would implement ASR technology to optimize the conjunctive use of the City' s existing supplies oftreated surface water in addition to available groundwater, to enhance delivered water quality to customers and increase the reliability of the City' s water supply and delivery system.

The implementation of the proposed Project is estimated to utilize approximately 390, 745 kilowatt- hours per year( kwh year). This was calculated based on the amount of water used for long- term storage for the project ( 1, 450 acre- feet per year), as provided by the City of Lathrop, as well as the electricity intensity factor for water supply in the San joaquin River Hydrologic Region of 827 kwh per million gallons of water.s, s
Other potential sources of energy consumption are not considered herein, as the existing Project site is already established, and the Project is simply the implementation of a new technology on an already existing site. Therefore, other potential sources of energy consumption ( such as worker trips associated with the Project) are considered to already be part of the existing conditions. The new technology ( ASR) is anticipated to require the amount of electricity 5 See the CaIEEMod( v.2022. 1) User's Guide, Appendix G, Table G- 32, for detail on the electricity intensity factor.
6 Based on a conversion factor of 1 acre- foot of water being equal to approximately 325, 851. 4 gallons.

City of Lathrop
709

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I consumption as described above. The proposed Project does not anticipate installation of solar photovoltaic ( PV) systems or other sources of renewable energy on- site.

Conclusion
The proposed Project would use energy resources for the implementation of the ASR technology within the Project site. The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through Statewide and local measures.

The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regulating energy usage. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/ or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for each stage of the proposed Project including construction, operations, maintenance, and/ or removal. The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards, including those established by the City of Lathrop, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the threshold as described by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less- than- significant impact.

City of Lathrop
710
i
iid:,..: o ; mv
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT VII. GEOLOGYAND SOILS
woutrt e pro ie . i
I eaL
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or x 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 x
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
liquefaction?
X
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 potentially result in on- or off-site x 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 direct or indirect risks to life or X
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
X
the disposal of waste water?
f Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontologicai resource or site or unique geologic x
feature?

RESPONSES TO CHECKL/ ST QUESTIONS
Responses a) No Impact. The closest earthquake fault to the Project site is the Vernalis Fault, located approximately 5 miles southwest of the Project site. The proposed Project will not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic- related ground failure such as liquefaction. Therefore, there is no impact.

USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. Available:
https:// www.usgs.gov/ programs/ earthquake- hazards/ faults Accessed: July 10, 2023.

City of Lathrop
711
a,, r ..._, ..

INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT Responses b) through d): Less than Significant. The Corcoran Clay is a major regional confining bed beneath the western part of the San Joaquin Valley. This clay separates the overlying upper aquifer from an underlying confined lower aquifer. The top of the Corcoran Clay is at an average depth of 280 feet beneath the Project site. The electric log and lithologic samples collected during drilling indicate the Corcoran Clay extends from 280 to 420 feet in depth at this location. Groundwater below the Corcoran Clay is indicated to be of high salinity. There are two other shallow clay layers in the upper aquifer. The shallowest is termed the A- clay. The soil cutting and electronic log for this well indicates the equivalent ofthe A-Clay likely extends from 90 to 100 feet in depth. Another regional clay is the C- Clay, which is present between the A- Clay and the Corcoran Clay. The electric log for this well indicates the equivalent C- Clay extends from 220 to 230 feet in depth at this location. 8 Due to previous site disturbance, there is less than significant impact to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. The Project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because ofthe project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Responses e) through : No Impact. The proposed Project would involve the injection of treated drinking water into selected confined ayuifer zones for storage and subsequent extraction. The proposed Project will not affect the use of septic tanks or wastewater resources.

The proposed Project will not destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geological feature. Therefore, there is no impact.
8 City of Lathrop, Stewart Monitoring Well Construction Summary and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well Design Recommendations. March 2023
City of Lathrop
712
r n,;, n. . ,
J ,
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQU[ FER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT ii VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
wowar
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant x
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the x
emissions of greenhouse gasses?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) and b): Less- than-Si nificant Impact. During construction ofthe ASR well, some construction equipment would be used to drill the well. construct the masonrX building, and install piping. GHG emissions from construction equipment would be minimal. The project operation would not generate any greenhouse gas emissions. Project implementation would not conflict with any statewide, regional, or local GHG reduction plans or regulations.

T' r; c^^; m^^^*. The im, act would be less than significant.

City of Lathrop
713
r,.,•' ii" s i sr,,: . i,
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT IX. HAZARDSAND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS
t,,
o
Wstrid pt+ y
xr
i,# idt
lr o t ri.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or x
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
X
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
X
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, x
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 or X
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
projectarea?
f Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or x
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death x involving wildland fires?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through d): No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the use of any hazardous materials. There would be no hazardous materials used, stored or transported to the injection well site as a result of project implementation. The injection well site is not located on a list of hazardous sites. STEAM Academy is located 1 mile north of the well site. However, this school site would not be exposed to any project related hazards, as there are no hazardous materials or activities associated with the project. There is no impact.

Response e): No Impact. The Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) establishes distances of ground clearance for take- off and landing safety based on such items as the type of aircraft using the airport. The San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission ( ALUC) is an advisory body that assists local agencies with ensuring the compatibility of land uses in the vicinity of airports.

The County ALUC reviews proposed development projects for consistency with airport land use City of Lathrop
714

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT compatibility. The General Plan presents a policy that is designed to ensure that new development is consistent with setbacks, height and land use restrictions as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration and the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission.

The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is the closest airport to the project site, located approximately

12. 5 miles north of the site. The San Joaquin County' s Aviation System Stockton Metropolitan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan9 shows that the project site is not located within a flight zone and the proposed project is not considered an incompatible land use. Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact with regards to this environmental issue.

Response : No Impact. The proposed Project does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in population growth that would increase the demand for emergency services during disasters. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impact on this environmental topic.

Response g): No Impact. The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading ( vegetation), fire weather ( winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography( degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point, while fuels such as trees have a lower surface area to mass ratio and require more heat to reach the ignition point.

According to the State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapl the Project site is not located in a SRA High Fire Risk zone. The proposed Project does not include any structures that would be at risk from fires, and does not include any activities that would potentially result in wildland fires. There is no impact.
9 County of San Joaquin Aviation System Stockton Metropolitan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

February 2018. Accessed July 2023.
lo CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map https:// osfm.fire.ca. gov/ divisions/ community- wildfirepreparedness- and- mitigation/ wildfire- preparedness/ fire- hazard- severity- zones/ fire- hazard- severityzones- map/ Accessed July 2023 City of Lathrop
715
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT r I I
i
j'
I fl ',
X. HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY
t; n
would tlte jd Spj, ' t . ' ' , ct
Ct iatcx
j
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially x
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
X
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the x
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result x
in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) 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; or
iv) Impede or redirect Flood flows? x
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable x
groundwater management plan?
RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTlONS
Responses a) and b): Less than Significant. The potential for the proposed project to result in groundwater quality impacts was addressed in the 2023 City of Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Feasibility Assessment. Although the primary goal of most ASR programs is to maximize water supply reliability by storing seasonally available water in the aquifer until needed, an equally important goal is the preservation or enhancement of water quality through the ASR process. The capture, treatment, conveyance, and later recovery ofthis water( in addition to the cost of water purchase and/ or water rights) results in the recharge water being valuable.

The City of Lathrop is evaluating the potential to use an ASR groundwater banking program to enhance the management of surplus water using seasonal storage, emergency storage, and/ or long-term storage methods to support continued drought resiliency and overall water supply reliability. The focus of the ASR program includes the following:

City of Lathrop
716
ii

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT Seasonal storage. During winter months, when system demand for drinking water is below peak levels and excess water supply and treatment capacity is available, drinking water will be stored underground through an ASR well located at the Project site. Ambient water quality in the aquifer is brackish with an estimated TDS concentration of about 4,300 to 6,000 mg/ L. The California drinking water standard for TDS is 1, 000 mg/ L. The stored water will be recovered from the same well when needed to meet peak summer demands.

Emergency storage. In the event of a natural disaster, transmission pipeline failure, or ifthe domestic water supply wells need to be taken partially or completely offline for a period an additional volume of water would be stored that is not needed for seasonal recovery. This will provide the volume required to meet a suitable design flow rate and duration that is determined to be appropriate for an emergency.

Long- term storage. Long- term storage, or " water banking” is increasingly used by water utilities to provide water supply reliability and sustainability at low cost. No additional construction cost would be required; however, the storage volume would be increased beyond what is necessary to meet seasonal and emergency storage demands. More water would be stored in wet years and other times of relatively low water demand. This additional volume of long- term stored water would be carried over for recovery in later year, and particularly during droughts.

An important issue for long- term storage is the natural regional flow rate ( feet per year) and direction that could cause stored water to move laterally downgradient so that it is no longer recoverable from the well in which it was recharged. Deeper ASR wells tend to have higher TDS values, but also lower flow velocity, as in feet per year as opposed to tens or hundreds of feet per year in shallower or unconfined aquifers.

Wellfield design can partially overcome this constraint by providing a line of ASR wells oriented downgradient so that stored water that is no longer recoverable from upgradient ASR wells can be recovered from downgradient ASR wells.

Deferring expansion of water treatment facilities is a secondary objective that could be useful for the City. Water recovered from the ASR well after storage will only need disinfection during the recovery, not retreatment of the water. This will be evaluated during the testing phase of the Project. To the extent that ASR can help meet peak demands with local seasonal storage, planned future expansion of the DGWTP, and associated cost, may be deferred.

Therefore, the impact will be less than significant.

Responses c), d), and e): No Impact. There would be no change to the existing drainage pattern or flood control facilities in the project vicinity or elsewhere in the city as a result of project implementation. The project would not increase the risk of flooding, nor would it involve surface water discharges that could adversely impact surface water quality. There is no impact.

City of Lathrop
717
li.
i..,
I ' ll' i11 : INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I , There are no significant bodies of water near the project site that could result in the occurrence of a seiche or tsunami. Additionally, the project site and the surrounding areas are essentially flat, which precludes the possibility of mudflows occurring on the project site. There is no impact.

City of Lathrop
718
rr

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a y ,. X'+
woifld ti, 1 1 i. t
IIiCs: . r ot: ",
a) Physically divide an established community? x
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
X
environmental effect?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through b): No Impact. Implementation ofthe proposed project would not divide an established community as there is no residential communities located in the surrounding areas. The project would not conflict with the City of Lathrop General Plan or the San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. There is no impact and no mitigation is required.

City of Lathrop
719
i , , , _

INITIA STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I I XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
k
WDot t p c rr" '
r
t. .
thr Z l O , . rt
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region x and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
X
use plan?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through b): No Impact. As described in the City of Lathrop General Plan DEIR, 11 the Project site is located in MRZ- 3, areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. The project would not result in the construction of any facilities or any changes in land use that would interfere with the extraction of mineral resources in the region.

There is no impact.

City of Lathrop. Draft Environmental lmpact Report for the Lathrop General Plan Update. May 2022.

Accessed July 2023.

City of Lathrop
720
r.. rt rr„+ Il r,

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I I I XIII. NOISE
Watuitl e i` t
f
a t
e.
imppd ' : . 7Jat r+ct'
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
X
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or 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
X
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through c): e- I, ac Less-than-Significant Impact. Generally, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or expose people to severe noise levels. In practice, more specific professional standards have been developed. These standards state that a noise impact may be considered significant if it would generate noise that would conflict with local planning criteria or ordinances, or substantially increase noise levels at noise- sensitive land uses.

Construction of the Project would generate some temporary noise during business hours. as dictated bv the Citv' s Noise Ordinance. rm^' m^**;^^ eration of the Project would not generate noise. The Project will not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No permanent increases in ambient noise levels would occur as a result of project implementation, and the project would not generate new noise sensitive land uses. The impact would be less than significant.

Response c): 1Vo Impact. The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or a private airstrip. There is no impact.

City of Lathrop
721

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT XIV. POPULATIONAND HOUSING
s r
W` is1+
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly( for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly ( for x
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of x
replacement housing elsewhere?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through b): No Impact. Implementation of the project would not directly result in population growth, nor would it convert any land use designations to a use that would allow for the construction of housing. The proposed project would not generate a significant number of new jobs which could lead indirectly to population growth.

The project would not extend water, wastewater and electrical infrastructure to an area that could result in indirect population growth as a result of new infrastructure. The project would utilize existing surface water allocations for aquifer storage and recovery. No homes or people would be displaced by the project. There is no impact.

City of Lathrop
722
IN[ TIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I XV. PUBLICSERVICES
y
e
i
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

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a): No Impact. As described above, the project would not induce population growth and would not increase the demand for public services in the City of Lathrop. There is no impact.

City of Lathrop
723
IN[ TIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical x deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
X
physical effect on the environment?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUEST/ ONS
Responses a), b): No Impact. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities, nor would it include the construction of new recreational facilities. There is no impact.

City of Lathrop
724
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT 1 1
XVII. TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC
Wou d '' q+ tl t
t .:
ur ii ,:'
i" a`rt
t+' r; ,
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, x roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. 3, subdivision( b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature ( e. g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses ( e. g., farm
X
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? x

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Response a) through d): No Impact. The proposed project would not increase vehicle traffic in the City of Lathrop. Project operations would not generate vehicle trips on area roadways, and the project would have no impact on traffic operations. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. Project implementation would have no impact on air traffic patterns. There are no roadway design improvements proposed as part of the project, and therefore, no changes to the area roadways would occur. The project would not increase area traffic and emergency access would not be impeded. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increased demand for parking at the injection well site. The project would have no impact on any existing plans or policies related to alternative transportation. There is no impact.

City of Lathrop
725
i , n. p. ii7 i.., ro, i ... .

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STaRAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I II XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
r
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined i
X
Public Resources Code Section 5020. 1( k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set x
forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resources to a
California Native American tribe.

RESPONSES TO CHECKLlST QUEST/ ONS
Responses a): Less than Significant. The proposed Project site has been previously disturbed, the project proposes adding monitoring wells to the site for aquifer storage and recovery.

However, the discovery oftribal cultural resources during ground- disturbing activities cannot be entirely discounted. The inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources during project implementation could be a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a lessthan- significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR- 1, which requires avoidance measures or the appropriate treatment of tribal cultural resources if discovered during project implementation. Therefore, the impact is less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

Mitigation Measure TCR- 1
Implement Mitigation Measure CUL- 1.

City of Lathrop
726
i' ' 1 i. i
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT I I XIX. UTILITIESAND SERVICE SYSTEMS
r ia
tr" t
a t" ' `
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
X
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
X
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project thatit has adequate capacity to serve the x
projects projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
X
of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to x
solid waste?

RESPONSES TO CHECKL/ ST QUESTIONS
Responses a) through e): No Impact. The primary objectives and purpose of the proposed project are to:

1. Improve the quality of potable water delivered to Lathrop customers.

2. Increase available supplies of high- quality water to meet peak demand, particularly during summer months.

3. Provide additional water supplies to meet demand during drought conditions.

The project would not increase the consumption of water in the City of Lathrop. All of the water used in the ASR project would come from existing surface water supplies that are currently entitled. Water delivered to City of Lathrop would not increase beyond existing levels, and no changes to surface water entitlements are proposed or needed. Water stored in the aquifer under the ASR program would be used for two primary purposes: 1) to meet peak hour summer water demands, and 2) for drought water supply. Peak hour demands occur daily during the summer months. The ASR water would supplement the water stored by the City in above- ground storage tanks, and water pumped from the wells assists the City in keeping water pressure within the distribution system within the desired pressure range.

City of Lathrop
727

INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT 9 i, ' '' ` I
By delivering stored, high quality surface water from SSJID, municipal water customers in Lathrop would receive the best quality water at their taps. Water not withdrawn from the aquifer for peak hour demand would remain in the groundwater basin for future use without degradation of quality.

The project would not generate solid waste, nor would it increase wastewater flows in the City of Lathrop. No new or expanded facilities would be constructed, and the project would rely on existing City infrastructure. Overall, the project would provide benefits to the City' s water system, and no adverse impacts would occur.

City of Lathrop
728
INITIAL STUDY— LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT XX. WILDFIRE
s
k:

Wtu6f1 ti fir 5 n x
n
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
X
a wild re or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure( such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
X
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post- fire slope
X
instability, or drainage changes?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a), c): The proposed improvements would reduce fire risks on and relating to the project site relative to existing conditions. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Fire risk would not be increased as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Response b): The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading vegetation), fire weather( winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography( degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. The Project would not result in development of structures or housing which would subject residents, visitors, or workers to long-term wildfire danger. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Response d): The project does not propose any housing that would result in direct population growth. However, projects that do not directly induce population growth still have the potential to result in indirect population growth through the creation of jobs or the extension of infrastructure into areas that were not previously served. The proposed project will not result in intensification of land uses, or the addition of structures or uses that would differ from the current General Plan. As such, exposure to people or structures to any significant risk would not result. Therefore, there would be no impact.

City of Lathrop
729
INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE& RECOVERY PRO] ECT XXI. MANDATORYFINDINGS OFSIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially 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,
X
substantially 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 x
human beings, either directly or indirectly?

RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Response a): Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed Project would not result in any impacts to biological resources including sensitive habitat, aquatic species, plant or animal communities, rare or endangered plants or animals. However, the proposed Project could inadvertently encounter previously unknown cultural, archaeological, or tribal cultural resources, or human remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL- 1, CUL- 2, and TRC1 would require avoidance measures or the appropriate treatment of archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and human remains if discovered during project implementation.

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Responses b), c): Less than Significant. As described throughout the analysis above, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to the environment. The project would not result in any cumulative impacts, impacts to biological resources or impacts to cultural and/ or historical resources. There are no impacts.

City of Lathrop
730
YfJLO ,' one
CGUN7Y r se
r
f
160.. ,.,,
i
S A C R A M E N T O Galt
COUNTY y pi/' l
r._
i' AMSALIOR COUNTY.
i' t
c pa E
i
i C
N`
4 J` .....
i _ R9Crnvv
J
j i
SOLANO COUNTY f'. a'
IT' _ J
i
r//
f
12 ,
v
Rio Vista r84
lsleton r... Ho mr
r Res nno
4 CALAVF RAS
C/ LOdi COUNTY
a1."
4 Y
y ^
2 f' i r c.. ,
i
A /'\ , r`
x .
0 '`
a»z
r ` c,_ r . . f
i\ p"
i 1
U r , ?
t g, I \\ Re..enoir
G.+`' '.`, a, re
S# ttj%`'"' ` 88
ntroch
ey 26 1
i ` i,
Brenitivood C O N T R A ( o ' °' '`€
c
pn 4

COSTA I
COUNTY j I
99 q I
I
Crark
Reservoir
A ' :..

I
I II I i
liI,' III
I V li,l,. lil ii ,
I
a <
il i
Cliflvn l, ;* : e4" u RfiodwmiRsswwb
Project Locaiion
Fanba;
F,`,,;
i.

Lathrop { I
y'
x
i
luuanteca 2
Bettrnry i
12 Resm vk
I
1 r `,.,\ ,
ya`''s
xoa e
T acy z, ti_ ..
i , r. a. R,"., iver6artic
p
w rr
t' ``
k ty,}` ,.-....,,;`} SY ` h3+ e ti` l7R0I r
y ` J,:'V? 9
33 µ ,
w
Y
AIAMEDA ', i
j/(93 1 Waterfo

C O U N T Y
j
Ndi j taueA` I - e% hsrnt Ceres
i w¢'' ' j

STANISLAUS
I X , - g,` ,% Ci7UNTY
Bmh I
t, c,,' ' r j/
i
4 ,..
r, ./
i. r %
TUIfOC C
PatCElson t
r
y
i
SAMTA CLARA h
COUHTY 16 MERCEO
33 COUNTY
LEGEND LATHROP AQUIFER Sl' RAGE RECOVERY
Incorporated Area
N
Q Counry Boundary 1 Figure 1. Regional Project Location 0 2K 5
Miles
I: 1 i.
i... ,. i.... f-._ ; ... ......,..,...,
731
y .,; Y x. e ,
u..._. , _.
d.. -
e .

Q
y
a
a
u „
z .
m ,
u..
r
r
A
it s
v' i
t
i T.: .

K F. N
rr
S, ., ws 4`sr
a, :. 4 " L,,;
t' e; a7,. •,_
r> y Y. . N ,.
s
4 t
r •: •
e anAtlaww. w. a. r .. ax. m
1BF
f"" S5 R
L' s.. i&.

S
daiHvi+.
s. :,'&'
i
t e
rs `
M
kq f"IV p,;.
k
rp ,
k..

3. .
b y,' J' . g `*
5 . K
irt
i
s
c 9 n
f... y .. ryn^.........' . . ... . .
m.
4 a .
4 v
a
t
t
a
e }'
a.
x
n
1,.' " ." •
r Rf s+
r.. J.

G.s y. .....
e
2 m..
y y,.. .
o rCs
i:,
X t. r
i
s'
q,., vk
i i
u
q '
x. "
I I' 1"°",
n
it,
3 u
x
dl9 I
a > i..

Y I
N
xr
a. s
W,
v , ;
a4 k.

LEGEND LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE RECOVERY
Q Site Boundary
N
A Figure 2. Site Aerial Map
o so ,
S F,
Y .. ,.,......,..._
732
o -—.

U
Q
e €
x a
om LL
n
a
W a.
g Z g o
F T :_ _ ''` d
o Q Zo :. . i
4 F - -' -".:-'+ Q=---- j
l
8 f P
LL'
o
o N
W° 1 '
f
i Y, j
IIi
r/
f' r
s
5 I
v z a
3 in l
p
a
a 0 3= 1
w i
g
W ,
g
o
I
Y 3
pp i W Z p a"
J
Y ',
F
a
O
i
n I
Z O
i,`t W
W Z o EDIi
o
Y
i
1'• a
u- 1[ 7 m--, --;- I
k
I;-' '
i y m ,.,
ri a9
D C,
o
r
J'; `- o C7 I
I
c- r __ d
D
I -
I -
q
Y. / ' i o
i r-----,--, i ' I
I . t i i i
a i
i
i .. > . i
i i2 i
j
T''
i ¢ a:' II '+ ...

J.. i
r i ti j I
F :

Y o r
s R
i 5 I i
i
1 g
I J
1 I I
4! . ,.. 1 i 1 f'"' ' f I
11 p '

1\.-
r
f '
r ^
1 11 ry /\"/ I
t / 1 ' "
f 1 . 11 FR 1 .
i Ji I
ii . a... e . . 11 0 1
m
L J\ J
o: ..

I
I
I
V I
733
N
W
O -.—.,
W
z w
W
a
Q
z W
W o° v~i ( II
m= U W a
opzc
e§ p
r
Q n
i
x„ Y r O
ap g
a m o g o
o a t
1 ,-- i- i
ti
o
la I. L
y I
i
I
r>—
F` O e I V
o I
I
a
o
I i
W
W
1 B a z
Y i' w
a i
N~
b n!
u O ab ,. s> Yq i o f j' °_ I F 4
Z
d °
a
o
Y 1 I
m / 1
a LL,
e I 7 C1 I7 - ' j
y E pP 1:

1.. - -- •— • ' j
y+ y
s 0 d Qg, ' f ° ad j
LJ
0 Cl!
i
i i7 I
o /
O
J
I
h; S
i e : . ; ; I
c
i
i• ,> T__ i ', i
W
a" .,.
8 i
m O g
y
I ,..

Y E...,
e , ..
r _ _.
i i
i i
f
e
p
G 5
4 J ;
i.
t 4` I ' 1 1 f
4 1 I
0 s 1 I I
C>' I
J a n
i li 4i4, E a ..•- —' . . , .„ i
i a_'_"""_ ;
y
V I
734
AT'fAC.iMENT
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
memorandum
date September 5, 2023
to Gregory Gibson, Senior Engineer
cc
from Christina Erwin
subject Responses to Comments on the Aquifer Recovery and Storage Project IS/ MND The City of Lathrop posted the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/ MND) for a 30- day public comment period. The City received several comment letters during the public comment period ( August 2, 2023 through September 1, 2023) regarding the project and the environmental analysis.

The California Environmental Quality Act( CEQA) requires that the lead agency consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with comments received during the public comment period, prior to reaching a final decision on the project( Title 14, CCR§ 15074).

Although not required, the City has chosen to respond to comments received on the IS/ MND. Table 1 identifies letters received by the City on the proposed project during the public comment period.

Table 1
Comment Letters Received Regarding the Proposed Project Author( s) of Comment
Letter# Entity Date Received
letter/ e-mail
1 San Joaquin Council of Governments
Laurel Boyd August 1, 2023
SJCOG)
2 Pacific Gas& Electric Company( PG& E) Plan Review Team August 3, 2023 3 State Water Resources Contro) Board
Tahir Mansoor August 22, 2023
SWRCB)
4 San Joaquin County Environmental
Aldara Salinas August 24, 2023
Health Department
5 Central Valley Regional Water Quality
peter Minkel September 1, 2023
Control Board ( CVRWQCB)
735
Letter 1 advised that the City of Lathrop is a signatory to the signatory to San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan ( SJMSCP). As such, certain requirements must be met in order for projects to proceed.

The ASR project is proposed on a parcel that is classified as" Urban Habitat Land" in the SJMSCP. It is located in Land Category B, Other Open Spaces, and is in Compensation Category A, No Pay Zone. l Disturbance of the project site has already been mitigated through compliance with the SJMSCP. In compliance with the SJMSCP, the City must schedule a SJMSCP Biologist to perform a pre- construction survey prior to any ground disturbance. Incidental Take Minimization Measures( ITMMs) must be established and followed.

Letter 2 noted that the PG& E Plan Review Team is reviewing the IS/ MND. Further, it offered broad guidance that should the project have the potential to interfere with PG& E' s facilities, PG& E would advise the City with project- specific comments. They also provided guidance for the City when working near PG& E' s facilities and land rights. Any proposed uses within the PG& E fee strip and/ or easement may include a California Public Utility Commission ( CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG& E' s fee strip or easement. PG& E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851 filing is required for the proposed project.

PG& E' s advisory language would be thoroughly reviewed prior to beginning ground disturbing activities for the proposed project. Any conflict between PG& E' s facilities or land rights would be identified and the City would contact PG& E to coordinate construction activities.

Letter 3 notes that there are two existing tanks shown on the aerial image in Figure 2, in contrast to the IS/ MND text on page 5 of the IS/ MND that indicates there is only one 1. 5- million- gallon ( MG) water tank on the project site. While Figure 2 does show two existing tanks within the boundary of the project site, the southwestern most tank, enclosed behind its own fence, is SSJID Water Tank 5. Figure 3 highlights the area to the east of that tank, but still within the project site, and shows one existing tank( the easternmost tank shown in Figure 2) plus two additional tanks to be constructed in the future under a separate proposal. The proposed project does not include the construction of water tanks.

To construct the proposed project, the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) requires the City to submit a completed Water Supply Permit Environmental Intake Form ( EIF) prior to the SWRCB issuing a use permit for the well.

The proposed project would result in the construction and operation of a new well in the northeastern portion of the project site, as shown on Figure 3. Although the IS/ MND did evaluate the potential impacts related to construction of the project, the text was not clear that construction impacts had been considered. Minor revisions have been made to the draft IS/ MND to clarify where and how construction San Joaquin Council of Governments, 2016. SJMSCP Compensation Map— Lathrop. Last Uploaded August 16, 2016. Available https:// www. sjcog. org/ DocumentCenter/ View/ 769/ SJMSCP- Compensation- Map--- Lathrop. Accessed August 23, 2023.

736
impacts were considered. Added language appears in a strikeout and underlined format in the Final IS/ MND. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. S( a) requires a lead agency to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. S( b), a " substantial revision" includes two situations: ( i) a new, avoidable significant effect is identified, and to reduce that effect to a level of insignificance, mitigation measures or project revisions must be added; or( ii) the lead agency determines that the mitigation measures or project revisions originally included in the negative declaration will not reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and new mitigation measures or project revisions are required. CEQA is clear that recirculation is not required if" new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration." ( CEQA Guidelines, § 15073. 5( c)( 4).) None of the revisions made meet the recirculation requirements. As such, recirculation is not required.

Letter 4 states the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department ( EHD) reviewed the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and has no comments at this time.

Letter 5 provides guidance to the City regarding various permits that may be needed to protect groundwater and surface water quality. The comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for consideration.

737
Letter 1
S JCOG, Inc.
555 East Weber Avenue • Stockton, CA 95202 • ( 209) 235-0574 Email: boyd sjcog. org San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conserr ation£ Open Space Plan ( SJMSCP)

SJMSCP RESPONSE TO LOCAL JURISDICTION( RTLJ)
ADVISORY AGENCY NOTICE TO SJCOG, Inc.

To: Greg Gibson, City of Lathrop, Public Works Departrnent From: Laurel Boyd, SJCOG, Inc. Phone: ( 209) 235-0574 Email: boyd@sjcog. org Date: August 1, 2023
Local Jurisdiction Project Title: Notice of Availability/ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project
Assessor Parcel Number( s): 210- 210- 01
Local Jurisdiction Project Number: N/ A
Total Acres to be converted from Open Space Use: Unknown Habitat Types to be Disturbed: Urban Habitat Land ( Mitigated Prior) Species Impact Findings: Findings to be determined by SJMSCP biologist.

Dear Mr. Gibson:

SJCOG, Inc. has reviewed the project referral for Notice of Availability/ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project. This proposed project would implement Aquifer Storage and Recover ( ASR) technology to optimize the conjunctive use of the City' s existing supplies of treated surface water in addition to the available groundwater to enhance delivered water quality to customers and increase the reliability of the City' s water supply and delivery system.

The proposed project would involve the injection of treated ( potable) drinking water from the City' s South San Joaquin Irrigation District ( SSJID) South County Water Supply Project into selected confined aquifer zones for storage and subsequent extraction ( i. e., " recovery").

Under the ASR project, each year up to 1, 450 acre-feet ( af) of treated potable surface water would be injected into the confined aquifer at a rate of up to two million gallons per day ( gpd). In general, the injection period would occur from November through April, when water demand is lowest.

The City of Lathrop is a signatory to San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan SJMSCP). Participation in the SJMSCP satisfies requirements of both the state and federal endangered species acts, and ensures that the impacts are mitigated below a level of significance in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA). The LOCAL JURISDICTION retains responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate Incidental Take Minimization Measure are properly implemented and monitored and that appropriate fees are paid in compliance with the SJMSCP. Although participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary, Local Jurisdiction/ Lead Agencies should be aware that if project applicants choose against participating in the SJMSCP, they will be required to provide alternative mitigation in an amount and kind equal to that provided in the SJMSCP.

This Project is subject to the SJMSCP. This can be up to a 30 day process and it is recommended that the project applicant contact SJMSCP staff as early as possible. It is also recommended that the project applicant obtain an information package. http:// wwvu. sicoa. ora
Please contact SJMSCP staff regarding completing the following steps to satisfy SJMSCP requirements:

Schedule a SJMSCP Biologist to perform a pre- construction survey prior to any ground disturbance SJMSCP Incidental take Minimization Measures and mitigation requirement:

1. Incidental Take Minimization Measures( ITMMs) will be issued to the project and must be signed by the project applicant prior to any ground disturbance but no later than six( 6) months from receipt of the ITMMs. If ITMMs are not signed within six months, the applicant 738
2 5 . 1 (' OG , la c .
must reapply for SJMSCP Coverage. Upon receipt of signed ITMMs from project applicant, SJCOG, Inc. staff will sigu the ITMMs. This is the effective date of the ITMMs.

2. Under no circumstance shall ground dishubance occur without compliance and satisfaction of the ITMMs.

3. Upon issuance of fully executed ITMMs and prior to any ground disturbance, the project applicant must:
a. Post a bond for payment of the applicable SJMSCP fee covering the entirety of the project acreage being covered( the bond should be valid for no longer than a 6 month period); or b. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP fee for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or c. Dedicate land in- lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or d. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits.

4. Within 6 months from the effective date of the ITMMs or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the project applicant must:
a. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or b. Dedicate land in-lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or c. Purchase approved mitigaUon bank credits.

Failure to satisfy the obligations of the mitigation fee shall subject the bond to be called.

Receive your Certificate of Payment and release the required permit It should be noted that if this project has any potential impacts to waters of the United States( pursuant to Section 404 Clean Water Act], it would require the project to seek voluntary coverage through the unmapped process under the SJMSCP which could take up to 90 days. It may be prudent to obtain a preliminary wetlands map from a qualified consultant. If waters of the United States are confirmed on the project site, the Corps and the Regional Water Quality Control Board( R WQCB) would have regulatory authority over those mapped areas( pursuant to Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act respectively] and permits would be required from each of these resource agencies prior to grading the project site.

If you have any questions, please call ( 209) 235- 0574. 739
3 SJCOG , Inc .

S JCOG, Inc.

San Joaguin County Multi-Sj ecze, r abitat Con.cervation Open Space Plan 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202• ( 209) 235- 0600 • FAX ( 209) 235- 0438

SJMSCP HOLD
TO: Local Jurisdiction: Communitv Development Department, Planninq Department, Buildinp Department, EnQineering Department, Survev Department, Transportation Department, Other:

FROM: Laurel Boyd, SJCOG, Inc.

C? f C} T AtJI` NCtRi SIT C ISTURBANCE
NQT 1 51J A i1111. D[ NG PERMIT
D 3 NC>T lSSUE FC R TF# S P ip.lECT"
The landowner/developer for this site has requested coverage pursuant to the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan( SJMSCP). In accordance with that agreement, the Applicant has agreed to:
1) SJMSCP Incidental Take Minimization Measures and mitigation requirement:

1. Incidental Take Minimization Measures( ITMMs) will be issued to the project and must be signed by the project applicant prior to any ground disturbance but no later than six( 6) months from receipt of the ITMMs.

If ITMMs are not signed within six months, the applicant must reapply for SJMSCP Coverage. Upon receipt of signed ITMMs from project applicant, SJCOG, Inc. staff will sign the ITMMs. This is the effective date of the ITMMs.

2. Under no circumstance shall ground disturbance occur without compliance and satisfaction of the ITMMs.

3. Upon issuance of fully executed ITMMs and prior to any ground disturbance, the project applicant must:
a. Post a bond for payment of tbe applicable SJMSCP fee covering the entirety of the project acreage being covered( the bond sbould be valid for no longer than a 6 month period); or b. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP fee for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or c. Dedicate land in- lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or d. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits.

4. Within 6 months from the effective date of the ITMMs or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the project applicant must:
a. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or b. Dedicate land in- lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or c. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits.

Failure to satisfy the obligations of the mitigarion fee shall subject the bond to be called.

Project Title: Lathroq Aquifer Storape& Recovery Proiect Assessor Parcel# s: 210- 210- 01
T R Section( s):

Local Jurisdiction Contact: Grea Gibson
The LOCAL JURISDICTION retains responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate Incidental Take Minimization Measures are properly implemented and monitored and that appropriate fees are paid in compliance with the SJMSCP. 740
Letter 2
I I Christina Erwin < cervvin@denovoplanning. com>
FW: [** EXTERNAL**] RE: Notice of Availability/Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project
1 message
Gregory Gibson < ggibson@ci. lathrop. ca. us> Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11: 56 AM To: Christina Erwin < cerwin@denovoplanning. com>
Here is the initial response letter from PG& E.

G reg
From: Monica Garcia< mgarcia@ci. lathrop. ca. us>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10: 28 AM
To: Gregory Gibson < ggibson@ci. lathrop. ca. us>
Subject: FW: [*" EXTERNAL**] RE: Notice of Availability/ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project From: PGE Plan Review< PGEPIanReview@pge. com>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10: 27 AM
To: Monica Garcia< mgarcia@ci. lathrop. ca. us>
Subject: ["* EXTERNAL**] RE: Notice ofAvailability/ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project
Classification: Public
Dear Monica Garcia,
Thank you for submitting the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project plans. The PG& E Plan Review Team is currently reviewing the information provided. Should this project have the potential to interfere with PG& E' s facilities, we intend to respond to you with project specific comments. Attached is some general information when working near PG& E facilities that must be adhered to when working near PG& E' s facilities and land rights.
741
This email and attachment does not constitute PG& E' s consent to use any portion of PG& E' s land rights for any purpose not previously conveyed. Ifthere are subsequent modifications made to your design, we ask that you resubmit the plans to the email address listed below.

If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the PG& E Plan Review Team at pgeplanreview( a pge. com.

Thank you,
k:':

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Plan Review Team
Email: pgeplanreview@pge. com
From: Monica Garcia< mgarcia@ci. lathrop. ca. us>
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 1: 55 PM
Cc: Gregory Gibson < ggibson@ci. lathrop. ca. us>
Subject: RE: Notice of Availability/ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project
r.' —-
z,, , : """
7"Ei#` 1,;„, E,.,,# l i `
A;
s
4'}
r+F" 1 xeTr Pt F,*r" , F
a
4 k"' V B'
C 4 A
ti
t:

Good Afternoon,
The IS/ MND is now available on the City of Lathrop' s Website.

City of Lathrop- ASR- IS/ MND
Thank You,
Monica Garcia
Administrative Assistant I
742
City of Lathrop Public Works Department
390 Towne Centre Drive, Lathrop CA 95330
MAIN: 209. 941. 7430 DIRECT: 209. 941. 7423
www. ci. lathrop. ca. us/ publicworks
From: Monica Garcia
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 3: 51 PM
Subject: Notice of Availability/ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project
Hello,
Please see attached Notice of Availability/ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.

Thank You,
Monica Garcia
Administrative Assistant I
City of Lathrop Public Works Department
390 Towne Centre Drive, Lathrop CA 95330
MAIN: 209. 941. 7430 DIRECT: 209. 941. 7423
www. ci. lathrop. ca. us/ publicworks
rY , . `
743
You can read about PG& E' s data privacy practices here or at PGE. com/ privacy.

Initial_ Response_ Letter_ 8- 3- 2023. pdf
260K
744
Pacific Gas and Plan Review Tedm PGEPIanReview@pge com
Land Management
Electric Company`
August 3, 2023
Monica Garcia
City of Lathrop
390 Towne Centre Dr
Lathrop, CA 95330
Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Monica Garcia,
Thank you for submitting the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project plans for our review. PG& E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/ or within PG& E owned property and/ or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.

Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities ( Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG& E' s facilities and its existing rights.

Below is additional information for your review:

1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG& E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG& E Service Planning: https:// www. pqe. com/ en US/ business/ services/ buildinqand- renovation/ overview/overview. paqe.

2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG& E' s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG& E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG& E services.

3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG& E facilities.

Any proposed uses within the PG& E fee strip and/ or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission ( CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG& E' s fee strip or easement. PG& E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.

This letter does not constitute PG& E' s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG& E will provide a project specific response as required.

Sincerely,
Plan Review Team
Land Management
PG& E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Public
745
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company`
Attachment 1 — Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG& E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG& E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https:// www. usanorth811. orq/ imaqes/ pdfs/ CA- LAW- 2018. pdf

1. Standby Inspection: A PG& E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications ( potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/ removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert ( USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.

2. Access: At any time, PG& E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.

Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG& E' s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1: 4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG& E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.

Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG& E' s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.

Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG8 E must evaluate those items on a case-by- case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline ( provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).

No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.

4. Grading: PG& E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines ( or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1: 4.

5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. ( Doing the math for a 24 inch PG& E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Public
746
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company'
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [ 24/ 2 + 24 + 36/ 2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.

Any plans to expose and support a PG& E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG& E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

6. Boring/ Trenchless Installations: PG& E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.

For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 24 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.

7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible ( 90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 24 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ` kicker blocks', storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG& E gas pipeline easement.

If previously retired PG& E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG& E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG& E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.

8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG8 E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG& E' s ability to access its facilities.

9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG& E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG& E corporation locks.

10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG& E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.

Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low- growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet( 4') in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.

PG& E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
Public
747
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company`

11. Cathodic Protection: PG& E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an " Impressed CurrenY' cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG& E Corrosion Engineering.

12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG& E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.

With prior written approval from PGBE Pipeline Services, an existing PG& E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.

13. PG& E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG& E' s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG& E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.

PG& E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
Public
748
Pacific as and
Electric Company
Attachment 2— Electric Facilities
It is PG& E' s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip( s) and/ or easement( s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interFere with PG& E' s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:

1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/ or easement( s) areas. PG& E' s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/ parcel maps as " RESTRICTED USE AREA— NO BUILDING."

2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.

Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans ( including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG8 E' s review. PG& E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-toconductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.

3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&' s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG& E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip( s) and/ or easement( s) will require PG& E review; submit plans to PG& E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.

4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/ or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. PG& E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.

5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG& E' s fee strip( s) and/ or easement( s) for electric transmission lines.

6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG& E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG& E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG& E structures by at least 10 feet.

Protection of PG& E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer' s expense AND to PG& E specifications. Blocked- up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.

7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG& E' s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.

PG& E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Public
749
Pacific Gas and
Electric Gompany"

8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/ or easement( s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG& E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.

9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG& E structures require review by PG& E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG& E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.

10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG& E.

11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks ( pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG& E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG& E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG& E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer' s expense AND to PG& E specifications.

12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG& E' s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor' s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety ( https:// www.dir.ca. gov/ Title8/ sb5 2. g
html), as well as any other safety regulations.

Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 http: Uwww. cpuc. ca. ov/ gos/ G095/ 95 startup a e.) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG& E' s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.

Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG& E' s towers and poles from vehicular damage by installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG& E prior to construction.

13. PG& E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG8 E' s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG& E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.

PG& E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
Public
750
Subject: [** EXTERNAL**] ASR well and tanks - EIF form needed for permi r 3
7 Mansoor, Tahir@Waterboards< Tahir. Mansoor@waterboards. ca. gov> Tue, Aug 22, 3: 28 PM .' to Gregory Gibson
You are viewing an attached message. De Novo Planning Group Mail can' t verify the authenticity of attached messages.
s;;
Hi Greg, our CEQA staff wants the City to complete the attached form for the new two tanks and the ASR well. We' ll ; need this form when the City apply for the permit for their use.

In addition, our staff provided the following comment regarding CEQA document:

If the Ci of Lathro oin to use the current CEQA document the are circulatin for the A uifer Stora e " tY p 9 9 Y 9 q 9 and Recovery Project for the well, they should address the construction of the well in the document, not just it' s use."
Thanks,
Tahir
u.

From: Schmitz, Lori@Waterboards< Lori. Schmit2@waterboards. ca. gov> x.

Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 5: 07 PM
To: Mansoor, Tahir@Waterboards< Tahir. Mansoor@waterboards. ca. gov> Cc: Pierce, Wendy@Waterboards< Wendv.Pierce@Waterboards. ca. gov> Subject: RE: City of Lathrop, Lathrop Aquifer Storage& Recovery Project, Infrastructure Permitting Questions y
E,', s,:-..

Tahir,
p :

I am attaching the Google Screen shot from the document and designs from the document( pdf above).

I don' t know why there are two tanks on the Google Screen Shot already and they stated two tanks are being built, Y
since there is only 3 tanks on the design.
t ,
Could you please follow up with the City to find out what they are building and if they have a CEQA document to cover ; it?
If they are building tanks that are not yet permitted, please have them fill out the EIF form attached for the two ( or one ,. tank) they are building.

If they are going to be developing a well separately in the future they should also fill out an EIF form for that, when they have their document available.

If they are going to use the current CEQA document they are circulating for the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project for the well, they should address the construction of the well in the document, not just iYs use.

Please let us know what you find out.

Thanks!
Lori Schmitz
751

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

WATER SUPPLY PERM/ T ENV/RONMENTAL / NTAKE FORM ( E/F)
Instructions: All water supply permit applicants are required to fill out this EIF and attach the specified attachments.

Fill out Part I and attach the documents detailed under Part I question 10 if there is a completed CEQA or NEPA environmental document that has been circulated at the State Glearinghouse ( SCH) or if a Notice of Exemption ( NOE) was filed at the SCH or at the county clerk.

If there is no environmental document or filed NOE, fill out Part I and Part II and attach the required documentation detailed in Part II A. Applicants that fill out Part II are required to certify the document by signing it.

I. PART 1 GENERAL WATER SYSTEM AND PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Water system name:

2. Water system number:

3. Is Water System a Public agency or Private entity?

4. Water system contact person for this project:

Phone Number: Email:

5. Project Name:

6. Has the project already been constructed? yes no

7. If no, what is the estimated start date for construction?

8. Is there an Environmental Document prepared for the Project? [ i. e. Environmental Impact Report, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or NEPA documents ( Environmental Impact Study, Environmental Assessment, FONSI, Categorical Exclusion)] yes no. If yes, what type?

9. Is there a Notice of Exemption or Categorical Exclusion for the project? yes no

10. Required Attachments for submittal to DDW:

If question 8 is answered ` yes', Submit Part I and following attachments to DDW.

Attachment 1 All environmental documentation ( i. e. draft and final Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program if applicable, Resolution from lead agency adopting the CEQA document and approving the project, and Notice of Determination) Attachment 2 Project design plans
If question 9 is answered ` yes', Submit Part I and following attachments to DDW.

Attachment 1 Notice of Exemption stamped by county clerk or proof of posting on OPR Attachment 2 Project design plans
Attachment 3 Map of project site ( overview of plan on aerial background) If questions 8 and 9 are both answered ` no', fill out Part 2. 1 I' a e
r e i , c d I I 3 :' 0 ( 1
752
II. PART 2 FOR NO ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND PRIVATE ENTITIES Part 2 is for private entities with no environmental document, public agency exempt projects that did not file a NOE, or public agency project with no discretionary approvals required) Section A. Required Attachments
Attachment 1 Project design plans ( minimum 30% design) Attachment 2 Map of project site ( overview of project elements on aerial background preferred)
Attachment 3 Overview photos of Project Site ( If no Google street view available) Attachment 4 Geotechnical report, if available
Section B. Agency Approvals and Permits ( for private entities) List and describe all project- related permits and any other governmental approvals required for this project, including those required by a city, county, regional or special district, or the state (e. g. encroachment permit, conditional use permit, rezoning, variance, etc.) Permit/ A roval enc De artmen Phone numbe Email
Permit/ A roval enc De artmen Phone numbe Email
Permit/ A roval enc De artmen Phone numbe Email
Which public agency do you expect will be the first to permit the project? List the permitting agencies in chronological order: 0
Is there any federally owned land within the project footprint? yes no, If yes what federal agency is the landowner?
Is this project part of a larger project or series of projects? yes no unknown Section C. Project Description for CEQA Review
Provide a thorough project description ( PD) that is detailed enough for CEQA review. This can be done using one of the three following methods. Note method used by checking the appropriate box:

Use the following questions as prompts to write a detailed PD and attach the description to the EIF or fill in PD box under C. 1 ( preferred),
Use as a form and fill in the information that pertains to the project, or Attach an Engineering Report with the preferred project described and fill in the form fields that address details not discussed in the engineering report.

C. 1 General Project Information
Project Name:

Project Address/location ( give nearest cross streets if no address):

City: County: Zip: APN No.:

Describe the location of the project. If there are project elements at different locations, describe all locations:

Are the new project components on land owned by the water system? yes no Provide the total size of the area to be impacted by construction ( ft2 or acres). Be sure to include new access roads, service lines, and staging areas:

Provide a written description of the prolect:
2 Pa r
re ised I 1 ; 2 ' 0 -> 0
753
Is the project within an existing facility? yes no partially within Does the project involve a replacement in the same footprint with a similar capacity? yes no Does the project involve new construction that is not within an existing facility, or replacing or repairing existing infrastructure? yes no
C. 2 Water Tank( s)
Does the project include constructing a water tank( s)? yes no. ( If no, do not fill out this section).

Number of tanks:

Volume of tank( s) in gallons:

Tank( s) dimensions:

Is it a replacement tank? yes no
If yes, list the capacity of the old tank( s):

Will the old tank( s) be destroyed as part of this project? yes no If the new tank capacity is greater than 10% of the old tank' s capacity, but is for fire flow, please provide the breakout of water usage:

Drinking Water( Gallons):

Fire Flow ( Gallons):

Will there be a discharge basin? yes no. If yes, what are the basin dimensions ( LxWxD) Will the basin be lined or unlined ?
C. 3 Well( s)
Does the project include a new well( s)? yes no. ( If no, do not fill out this section).

Number of new wells:

What is the expected capacity of the new well( s)?
Has the new well( s) already been drilled? yes no
Is the new well replacing an old well? yes no
If yes, what is the capacity of the old well:

Will the old well be converted to a different use? ( e. g. monitoring well, standby well, irrigation)? yes no
Will the old well be destroyed/ sealed? yes no
If no, what will be done with the old well?
Where is the old well located?
Will a new pump( s) be installed? If yes, is it electric or diesel ? Will the new pump will be submersible or outside the well ?:

If outside the well, give the dimensions of the concrete pad:

Will there be a well house building? If yes, give dimensions:

Will there be a discharge basin? If yes, what are the basin dimensions ( LxWxD)? C.4 Treatment System( s)
Does the project involve constructing a new or modifying an existing treatment system? ( If not, do not fill out this section).

What kind of treatment system?
Will it be in a new building , in an existing building , or outside ? If in a new building, what are the dimensions of the building? 3 I t : e
i i - .> o :> ti
754
If outside, what are the pad dimensions?
What type of treatment media will be used?
What chemicals will be used?
Will the treatment media need to be removed occasionally? yes no Will the media be taken to a hazardous waste treatmenUdisposal site? yes no How is the spent media disposed?
Will the tanks be backwashed? If yes, describe
C. 5 Piping
Will the project require pipelines to connect new facilities to the existing system or expand the service area? yes no ( If no, do not fill out this section).

Will the new equipment be connected to the existing system on- site? yes no If the connection to the system is not on- site, how many linear feet or miles of pipe is needed? C. 6 Appurtenant Features
Will the project include appurtenant features not discussed above ( lighting, fence, transformers, etc.)? yes no. ( If no, do not fill out this section).

If yes, describe
Will new electrical components be installed in the ground? If yes, what are the pad dimensions? Will trenching for electrical be needed? If yes, how many linear feet of trenching? Will new fencing be installed? yes no
What type of fencing?
The height of the fencing?
C. 7. Additional comments
Section D. Environmental Setting
Describe the topography and geology of the region ( or attach a geotechnical report):

Elevation range
Describe current land use at the project site:

What are the vegetation types? ( check all that apply)
On Project Site Surrounding Area
Urbanized
Landscaped
Ruderal ( Weedy)
Grassland
Shrub/ Chaparral
Oak Woodland
Woodland ( other)
Forest
Riparian/ Streamside
Wetland, vernal pools
4 Pa c
i e i s e i 1 I ' ? i) :> ( l
755
If there are rivers, streams, or wetlands at or near the project site, list and state whether the fiow is permanent, intermittent, or ephemeral.

Does the site have any land within coastal zone jurisdiction? yes no unknown Are there protected status wildlife or plant species within or near the Project? yes no unknown
Environmental Impacts
To the best of your abilify, check any ofthe following impacts that might result from the project.

Discuss below all items checked ` yes"( attach additional sheets as necessary).

Will the Project:

Yes No

1. Remove mature native trees: # species/ type

2. Clear or trim native vegetation

3. Interfere with use of recreational facilities

4. Alter existing drainage patterns

5. Be located in a floodplain

6. Change scenic views or vistas from residential areas, public lands, or roads

7. Produce significant amounts of solid waste or litter

8. Increase dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in the vicinity

9. Substantially change noise or vibration levels in the vicinity ( beyond the property line)

10. Be located on or near a seismic fault

11. Substantially increase fuel consumption

12. Impact wetlands

13. Convert farmland to non-farm use
Describe any known potentially significant environmental effects that may result if the project is implemented ( attach additional sheets as necessary):

Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished in Part II and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature of Applicant: Date:

Name: Title:

S Pa . c
r : i c i I I '. 0 ? O
756
Letter 4
Sa N QQ N
Environmental Health Department

C O U N T Y
Jasjit Kang, REHS, Director
Muniappa Naidu, REHS, Assiatant Director
i, r
r ,; E,, ti,; • . .

PRO( 3RAM COORDINATORS
Jeff Carruesco, REHS, RDI
Wiliy Ng, REHS
Steven Shih, REHS
Elena Manzo, REHS
Natalia Subbotnikova, REHS
August 24, 2023
To: City of Lathrop Community Department of Public Works Attention: Greg Gibson
From: Aldara Salinas ( 209) 616- 3019
Environmental Health Specialist
RE: Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, Referral, SU0015756 Notice of Availability/ Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department ( EHD) has reviewed the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and has no comments at this time. 1868 E. Hazelton Avenue Stockton, California 95205 T 209 468- 3420 F 209 464- 0138 www. sjgov. org/ ehd 757
Letter 5

GAVIN NEWSOM
CnVFHNnH
C t1Io11M•

YANA GARCIA
Water Boards
SEI: RETARY FUR
ENVIRONMEN? AL f` RUTECTION
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
1 September 2023
Gregory Gibson
City of Lathrop
390 Towne Center Drive
Lathrop, CA 95330
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, LATHROP AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT, SCH# 2023080053, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse' s 2 August 2023 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ( Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, located in San Joaquin County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

1. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State' s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131. 36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131. 38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board ( State Water Board), Office of MARK BRADFORD, CHAIR I PA7RICK PULUPA, ESQ., EXECU7IVE OFFICER 11020 Sun Center Drive# 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95870 www. waterboards. ca. gov/ centralvalley 758
Lathrop Aquifer Storage 2 - 1 September 2023
and Recovery Project
San Joaquin County
Administrative Law ( OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three 3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http:// www. waterboards. ca. qov/ centralvallev/ water issues/ basin plans/ Antideqradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy ( State Water Board Resolution 68- 16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https:// www. waterboards. ca. qov/ centralvallev/ water issues/ basin plans/ sacsir 2018

05. pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at ( 916) 557- 5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit— Water Qualitv Certification If an USACE permit ( e. g., Non- Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic 759
Lathrop Aquifer Storage 3 - 1 September 2023
and Recovery Project
San Joaquin County
General Permit), or any other federal permit ( e. g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States ( such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https:// www.waterboards. ca. qov/centralvallev/ water issues/ water qualitvi certificatio n/
Waste Discharqe Requirements — Discharqes to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non- jurisdictional waters of the State ( i. e., " nonfederal" waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https:// www.waterboards. ca. qov/centralvallev/water issues/waste to surface wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non- jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non- jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004- 0004- DWQ ( General Order 2004- 0004). For more information on the General Order 2004- 0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
https:// www. waterboards. ca. qov/ board decisions/ adopted orders/ water qualitv/ 200 4/wqo/wqo2004- 0004. pdf
Dewaterinq Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order ( Low Threat General Order) 2003- 0003 or the Central Valley Water Board' s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements ( Low Threat Waiver) R5- 2018- 0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http:// www.waterboards. ca. qov/board decisions/ adopted orders/water qualitv/2003/ wqo/wqo2003- 0003. pdf
760
Lathrop Aquifer Storage 4 - 1 September 2023
and Recovery Project
San Joaquin County
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https:// www.waterboards. ca. qov/ centralvallev/ board decisions/ adopted orders/ waiv ers/r5- 2018- 0085. pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water( Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https:// www.waterboards. ca. qov/ centralvallev/ board decisions/ adopted orders/ qene ral orders/ r5- 2016- 0076- 01. pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https:// www.waterboards. ca. qov/ centralvallev/ help/ permit/ If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at ( 916) 464- 4684 or Peter. Minkel2@waterboards. ca. gov.
2ta. i: i
Peter Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
761
ATTACHMENi

LATHROP AQUIFER AND STORAGE RECOVERY PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines requires public agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a " mitigated negative declaration" or specified environmental findings related to environmental impact reports.

The following is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( MMRP) for the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery project. The intent of the MMRP is to prescribe and enforce a means for properly and successfully implementing the mitigation measures identified within the Initial Study/ Mitigated Declaration ( IS/ MND) for this project.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures are taken from the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery IS/ MND and are assigned the same number as in the IS/ MND. The MMRP describes the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, and the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions.

MMRP COMPONENTS
The components of the attached table, which contains applicable mitigation measures, are addressed briefly, below.

Impact: This column summarizes the impact stated in the IS/ MND.

Mitigation Measure: All mitigation measures that were identified in the Lathrop Aquifer Storage and Recovery IS/ MND are presented and numbered accordingly.

Action( s): For every mitigation measure, one or more actions are described. The actions delineate the means by which the mitigation measures will be implemented, and, in some instances, the criteria for determining whether a measure has been successfully implemented. Where mitigation measures are particularly detailed, the action may refer back to the measure.

Implementing Party: This item identifies the entity that will undertake the required action.

Timing: Implementation of the action must occur prior to or during some part of project approval, project design or construction or on an ongoing basis. The timing for each measure is identified.

Monitoring Party: The City of Lathrop is primarily responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures are successfully implemented. Within the City, a number of departments and divisions would have responsibility for monitoring some aspect of the overall project.

City of Lathrop
762
i,
INITIAL STUDY- LATHROP AQU[ FER STORAGE& RECOVERY PROJECT This page intentionally left blank.

City of Lathrop
763
d
a
a
a
o
F a
r
r
O
F.

F
V
Lc1 C fC
7 v w
p., a
y
o
a
o
C7 an
z V
O C
v
E, o
C.,' a 5
o2i c A "
W a N >
a o m
Z
a
o
Q
a W a
w cG t7
j L ' z..

J C
z a
a
w
a
o
z a
x
a a
o °. a
a z a
0 Y c
o z ti v
y `° O V L V 4: N Q vl F' f--' r"'
0 7 p
O v'i W OD
Q O v
O i' O a
n C
F O
i' . y G V
p .
v
r ` V L Y G
y L
OJ
Z U
V O +, C 3 N O O C tC Q +'
F,
d
C a 7 0 o o' a, v w
V B " o`'n: T- E m
O 4'..
i ° c a, Z aa',
m m a m:, a ca
n'
c
v' `'
a, .- o ^ v, •"
Lj.7
v
n 00. p O ' y . ' O p G N N . O aNi TJ S C
tr7 o..=' ' O ,°'. " y'°
u p
o
y
v h ayi `° `° °°
c a : >
c,
N
d
w y c a. m. a
m " e ac c o ' C q a' L a ? ° E ° o c
G=
y
s. a y c c.-. EL
c a' o w `° `° ° °'. c
t4 p ' °' v ° i o o " ' C
p
i L , voC o `° , 8 ?' `° c y ° q - a ¢ E ¢ "
v, o ,. >
v E ti u o m
yc m Q 7 a y
c
y
m m
r
a' v : a `° ` , " ° N
y . c " y., y `° A i ° ai m ca > ° c. °,
W - oa .c ` n 7 Y
Lr, 7 y y c`a ca v G cd ia a vi y . _ vi a ' p • y
i.. C V
i„ Q' v ,, >, pp' C
O u o
C
t
V
a a`', >_ V c
L c. c '-' p y Z, a, `
o- c
f°
o " 3 E .

F„ y
o
F a, 4, c , m X N
c = o s. Y G `° V °' ` o °' y m aoVo c c
O cY o N p N p' a u C d Cp. L . Q 7
S R y O
o o d C y y M c `o cVaC L. U L
Y' W Vl V
y y

U TA Q N N
W
d N . fA
y y C G U
W
F
q `
0 t° : 9 p "e'n s G a on.-, . '
v; .
v o ' fl '
oo ia y " " Y o` ci
w .'^ o c
v o o ,.
a o ° u `° d ° c c o o p ' °'° a ia d •-• y ' A a' ci
j A H a°, c y ° o u ^ o ao y °, a. n `° '" E m m y a a a `° a a a' w
OD N 7 N t6 '
F
L. y ' C v , b
w ' O N 7 d
y
y
N G
y CL N ¢' Y V y O V 7 L K N O O C
s. O u U ( C F. N O L' O. C y N V Vl O p rl 0 vi N o a o c. o ' m a, a, m o d d a a 3 m H a ¢ . u o a«. . m E . c ' a._ 3 = m s n c w.. .-. Y a, oa a
O
v a,
F Y 7
a
O
U • y
71 NaQ dL
y
o _
W a
a ° n n
F y d
vr"'. .. o
Q,' 0 ,, > `°
n
a " `° ` F c0 C O
QO y `^ a i
y O n
a p v O F °
u
a "L f6 V
i.'7. 7 av' 4:. c
7 . 7
CJ u n a
764
a,
z
4 C i C. J A
L
iC A N
7 C O C.

F. U n a O
VI7] C
y
o
O a
p a w
a, Y
o
O y
fQ ir
Y
I.. v V y
O G
ri F o,o H
c v, m v
W C
N G, y
W
C a+ S y v°,
7 N
c c a
o
a
a
a
y
Z v
Q
o
v
a
Q
a E
H
a
s
v
a r. a n cG
I a
t y i
F- v °' w
C/ ri m
on^^ y o
a
v .
0 y > C n N i
z
o
o
a ,
F
C -' m v
z v o. o > vc
Q' a
v °'« A a"i
7 y C 3 C 7
O N t O a pO O
G y O ~ O O y O y N
m a u 3vw v na
N < 6
O y G O Y C
N Gi" d C
C ' L' as+ y .

O
C ` e° o o ;° 0
3 $
aai Y o n
E c °' a`°, rn ro o
i+ v • . G i. u b0fn y ' + .
n N a p c l C C
p; `" a ,''` Q ,, y= v v E. c o
o .
c m a a`i, . a
y m' ° . o o` °' ° a ¢
7 ° °' v a ` a v, =
v v o a y c°a a'i' a
o .°' ro u
c. m E t y y
a N £ b ' . .
n
y
y °y' y ' . o a d ,
a° n ' i. A r". ` n, a . t6c o
c °, o d . +' o o ;;
v, afOi aS z ;; v, a o , c o c m
N
a
en, ' oio o c o E _ ' d o • L h r,
z
d c a'
L c°a v m- an.°° v
c°' i ' .-., " d 3
N v c ` , 4 0 °' h
y o m :'
a, c $ v is c d
e tO ;, '-' v o " c
a E a r<
F c '.' ca ° c m i v
on v @ y
o c. o ti x v Z = o '° ,•
a c v
o a o
0 0 °'
a
co o, a °'
y o,— a`i .
y [ '''..
y
y °
x ... c c
v '
c
Q d v qa, y
E ;^ a
W,
o
o m ` c
t°
d ° o y, n a 7 s
L .°
V °' °
m `° E V
v ' m o v
N " a E o , C a a
U A L E a ti O + _
c o
y
Y ` ,
v, u . a `° p, °' ,,, c LS d
b
v . o i.. v ,'-+ 3 , c y F a, y
a,
o 0 o c: o " ... a a
y
m ,..

Q. o
G t C o
y
v o' c C ic , 7 n
G " '- a o ca H o `.., u a
m o o a c c o m ° F- °' s
c v c?, °' ti . o u
ci a 3 a c ai ti n ' y ?+ c c c `° c
c
v E a . c o v
E
y
y''+ , a m
u C ^' a.^ ^ °' N y' m ' L' N L` :+ C .-+
a, v ¢
c
c F v, x ¢ o+ c
n, T7 +-' .. p c . 6., . tn c0 V . C F u ' i N C ^
L. . G
V tp .
o y a", v v ,,, m, `°
c.'. c o `° o y +'' '°' °° y' a °': a N 3° v . : t
G
a N = o ;; o .o
H
pNj a i O ' a+ N
C
p
O V) w aUi c4+i
O N '' C £ !' o C a6' i
N ' '^ y iC L
0 y y
c. a _ o v E r. i . o N a a... n a . 3 . r. z 3 o E z 3 e c v a
O yO fn
V
bD v
y C
L1.' p
d N
0 V V
F c
C
a ti W
u ^ "' o
p s. v
O G b
N V+
d "
O
V A v
y y .
y 61
V
765
o
cacz
a
oF
a
z
w0
o
vW
cC
p
a
CG o cw,
p,
Y
O
o
cN
z
ow
H
o
p; ro
ca
c '
k7
y
Q
0' C
FG
ada
w c7Z
rrr---...
c
1 U
frw a'
n.
a
OCL
W
x

0. a
a
b
y
a
ti
F
U
L
U
G
W
N
QN
C
J
H
7 p 7
O vNi i,j"'„ 00
vo v,
o
o ca
y o
0 y„
u°, o . i
F E.
y
L
U V, i N
V N
Z t
o i
3mooc m ¢ :°
u L . av'i o'
o
o ° aCi
p
a 5 s o ' cLo o Z
A a'
7 fnc
a 7 4. t. ' t6 i W v
HQW
Hy
a' ai
v
O
F °0
FoY
Q
m
F
o ,
c
W a R
y
d
T
y tn
O
ln
y
GJV
V N . V., G/
p
p
v
y.

C,, 'O
a 1'
t.+
7 p IC
7 y {-
H fy wp
a+ d... i..

O'
C
p
O ' C
C U +" y >, Gi
4i] d 6 <
9 a 7 Gl d ' C ,
d
O
V
N
w v
yp
y =
V
4"
yv aF.+
y C ;
b
v .
b
E d a a::- m .
irC v, ?w ^. om ` `° c ° C°' oou . II . c ° n
Y
R
v `
F
tii p p'ON L
C
y U ,
y
0 d
f0 A .^
ON d C^ d C 0 y U 7yi u t o a i V
a '
Y
L
Q d
a i ,
v
u cd
p„
m p '"' ,
Q
A
a a,
4 v m ''
0 3 > " o " . °' ". o °+' ° "
O o,oz
v
a ia o°' p, d ' A ' a°
ai n'
v
v '> .•
S in 'nm a C n
y .

W V
L
a
V
L L
A
Z r,. - K.

N L
OG N .OOLL
E„
i
7 a u '-'
ai
7 m
n
0 cC
O rC u '
O
O
7 C
p O • +-'
O
V
O ,
b
i.. .. d
C
O
N tn O . C . in tn
n i i...
r f6 p, i.

N•
V
7 w
O f4
y
O O
t6 f"'
O
L
V
y 7 O
N
C
A y N y . ' OL
b
u
Q
N A - .
a u ' L7
C ca
i
F F
b
G
i N . N
a v . .^ c o R n
H a. h v°'i.° v °
o
766
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT ITEM 5. 3
SEPTEMBER li, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
ITEM: GRAND 7URY REPORT RESPONSE
RECOMMENDATION: Accept Grand Jury Report On School Safety in San Joaquin County and Direct the City Attorney to
Submit a Letter to the Presiding Judge of the San
Joaquin County Superior Court Responding to the
Finding and Recommendation of the Grand . lury
Report.

SUMMARY
In the attached 2022/ 2023 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report titled School Safety in San Joaquin County: Developing a Culture of Safety, Case # 0322, the Grand Jury recommends the Lathrop City Council, as the responding agency on behalf of the Lathrop Police Department, respond to the following finding and recommendation detailed below.

BAC KG ROU N D
POSSIBLE RESPONSES TO GRAND ] URY FINDINGS:

California Penal Code Section 933. 05 requires the responding agency issue a response in writing to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court indicating whether the responding agency:

Option l. Agrees; or
Option 2. Disagrees wholly or partially with the findings of the Grand ] ury.

POSSIBLE RESPONSES TO GRAND URY RECOMMENDATIONS:

California Penal Code Section 933. 05 also requires the responding agency to respond to each recommendation contained in the Grand Jury report with one of the following:

Option 1. The recommendations have been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.

Option 2. The recommendations have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.

Option 3. The recommendations require further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the ofFicer 767
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 2
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
GRAND ] URY REPORT RESPONSE
or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable.

Option 4. The recommendations will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

GRAND ) URY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH PROPOSED
RESPONSES:

Grand Jury Finding F2. 4: " Many district CSSP' s show a lack of ineaningful collaboration between districts and local law enforcement agencies, causing confusing and chaos during an emergency."
Grand Jury Recommendation R2. 4: " By December 15, 2023, each law enforcement agency in San Joaquin County meaningfully collaborate and approve the updated CSSP for school sites within that agency' s jurisdiction." Proposed Council Response: The City of Lathrop City Council, as the responding agency, partially disagrees with Grand Jury Finding F2. 4 and Recommendation R2. 4 and would like to further clarify that staff confirmed that the Lathrop Police Department has four ( 4) School Resource Officers ( SROs) assigned to the seven ( 7) schools within the City' s
jurisdiction. The recommendation by the
Grand Jury has been implemented as all SROs work collaboratively with school administrators and the Lathrop Police Department has approved all Comprehensive School Safety Plans ( CSSP) for each of the seven ( 7) schools. All SROs are required to be familiar with and regularly work with school personnel pursuant to said CSSP. Table- top exercises and practice drills by SROs pursuant to said CSSP are scheduled for completion at each school site by December 15, 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council accept the Grand ) ury Report and direct the City Attorney to submit the proposed response to the Presiding Judge of the San ) oaquin County Superior Court.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None, except for staff time to prepare this report.
768
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 3
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

GRAND JURY REPORT RESPONSE
ATTACH M ENTS:

A. 2022/ 2023 Grand Jury Final Report titled School Safety in San Joaquin County: Developing a Culture of Safety, Case # 0322
B. Draft Letter to San Joaquin County Superior Court Presiding Judge in response to the 2022/ 2023 Grand Jury Final Report for Case # 0322 769
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 4
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

GRAND JURY REPORT RESPONSE
APPROVALS:
o Z
Raymond Bechler Date
Chief of Police
r---
3- Zo.. 3
Salvador Navarrete Date
City Attorney
0• 3
Stephen J. Salvatore Date
City Manager
770
Attachment A
2022- 2023 San Joaquin County Grand Jury
fUNEK
R
School Safety in San Joaquin County:

Developing a Culture of Safety
Case # 0322
Y
r^ J
t*' L, s k s,*`,"' x
1 f
C 5
t` , 7 t i"'"'
vr; t,._
wr a r
f d
l
ri l r f°°" w ',
r , a,
w< . j, dt," i i
I
lf yt ,
6 1.. ""'
f'e.'....-
a
S i
3K
Summary
The 2022- 2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury examined, through the lens of a layperson, the safety measures in place at the 14 public school districts and the San Joaquin County Office of Education ( SJCOE). These safety measures are mandated by California Education Code 32280- 322895. 5. Through multiple interviews, site visits, and expert witness testimony, the Grand Jury found while many protocols have been established in the County, there is no unified approach to school safety. Rather, safety planning often consists of a patchwork of policies and procedures and 771
many of the Comprehensive School Safety Plans ( CSSPs) required by law are boilerplate documents that are rarely specific to school sites.

Schools in San Joaquin County are safer because of recent efforts by school districts, but more can be done. Districts can create more opportunities for meaningful involvement by parents, students, and staff in safety planning efforts. Parents/ guardians can ask school officials about safety at their child' s school site.

Law enforcement must be more involved in the process of development, implementation, and annual updates of the CSSP, including participation in safety training/ drills, building relationships with students and staff, and helping to create a culture of safety.

While the issue of school safety is vast, the 2022- 2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury review focused on the following areas:

Comprehensive School Safety Plans.

Observations during school site visits.

Safety training.

The 2022- 2023 Civil Grand Jury found CSSPs were not school site- specific and displayed a lack of parental and law enforcement agency involvement, safety training was intermittent, and drills were predictable. The Grand lury also found a lack of ineaningful staff and student discussion regarding school safety, school sites that were inconsistent in visitor check- in procedures, and evacuation maps missing or lacking clarity.

Glossary
AED: Automated External Defibrillator.

Average Daily Attendance: The total days of student attendance divided by the total days of instruction.

CDE: California Department of Education.

Certificated Employee: Certificated school employees are employees of a school, district, or county ofFice of education who are in a position that requires the employee to have a credential from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing ( CCTC).

Charter School: A charter school is a public school that may provide instruction in any combination of grades ( kindergarten through grade 12). Parents/ guardians, teachers, or community members may initiate a charter petition, which is typically presented to and approved by a local school district governing board.

Classified Employee: Classified employees are employees of a school, district, or county office of education who are in a position not requiring certification.

COE: County Office of Education.

Common Areas: Common areas are defined as auditoriums, multipurpose rooms, gymnasiums, cafeterias, wellness centers, and any other area that may be used by both the public as well as 2 772
students and staff. Pursuant to Education Code Sections 38130- 38139, public schools are required to offer the use of school facilities by non- district public groups.

CSSP: Comprehensive School Safety Plan. Safety plan required by California law for each school site operating kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive.

Dependent Charter School: A dependent charter school is a charter school that has been authorized and is governed by the district' s school board and is an integral part of the district' s portFolio of schools.

First Responder: The term includes a firefighter, law enforcement officer, paramedic, emergency medical technician, or other individual who, in the course of his or her professional duties, responds to fire, medical, hazardous material, or other emergencies.

Flip chart: Emergency response flip charts are an effective way of referencing important contacts and actions to be taken in an emergency. Having clearly defined procedures to deal with emergencies that may occur in your workplace and making sure your workers are familiar with these procedures may save lives.

Independent Charter School: A school that, although authorized by a school district board, is governed by a separate governing board, and is operated independently from the other schools administered by the district.

Lock Block System: A simple device that prevents locked doors from completely closing, allowing the handle to stay locked and students or adults to quickly lock doors without the need for keys in the case of danger on campus.

Raptor: Raptor Technologies is a company that has developed integrated school safety software that allows schools to screen and track school visitors.

School Safety Culture: Campus climate and culture are foundational in the creation and maintenance of a safer and more secure school for both students and staff. Keeping students safe both physically and emotionally requires an atmosphere in which parents/ guardians, students, and staff are all working together to protect the learning environment.

SJCOE: San Joaquin County Office of Educafion.

SRO: School Resource Officer.

Tabletop Exercise: Small group discussions about an emergency and the courses of action a school will need to take before, during, and after an emergency to lessen the impact on the school community. Parficipants analyze the problem together and discuss detailed roles, responsibilities, and anticipated courses of action.

Background
Recent media reports of tragic and all too frequent shootings on school campuses across the country have heightened community concerns about school safety and security, but school violence is not a new or recent concern. In fact, school shootings have been part of our nation' s history since Colonial days. During the 19th century, multiple shootings occurred on school campuses involving intentional and accidental gunshots and other forms of violence by students and outside intruders.
3 773
Early in the 20th century the frequency of school violence diminished, but one of the earliest examples of mass school fatalities occurred in 1927 in Bath, Michigan, where 44 people, including 38 students, died when a former school board member dynamited the district school. In the middle of the 20th century school attacks, bombings, and riots by individuals and mobs were often fueled by racial and religious animosity.

The modern school violence trend toward mass casualty shootings began in San loaquin County in 1989. The Cleveland School shooting occurred ten years before the more frequently referenced Columbine High School shooting in Colorado. Although the 1990s and early 2000s saw an overall trend toward fewer deaths from school shootings in the United States, the public' s perception of unsafe schools was shaped by numerous high-visibility shooting incidents that led to the belief that our schools have become increasingly dangerous places.

School shootings are the focus of discussions in the media, however, school safety concerns range across a continuum, from routine discipline to bullying and fighting, weather and natural disasters, nearby transportation and industrial accidents, and shootings, as illustrated below. hocal Saf ty Threat Gantinucam
Routine" Bullying fights
Discipline i
i i
i Verbal i PartnedDating
Aggression Violence ;
i i
i i i i i
i i i
i
t
i
i i
Non- Custodial ; Weather ar ; Shooting or ;
Parentlntident ; Naturaf ; OtherWeapon ;
i Disaster i Incident i
Threats( bomb, Suicide Organized Terrorist
s%NATIONAL SCHOOC SIFETY AND SELURITY SFRVICES
death et. Attack
02016, National School Safety and Security Services
School safety planning requires careful thought, preparation, and training to avoid or mitigate the consequences of all threats across this continuum. These include not only high- consequence threats that have a low probability of occurrence ( school shootings) but also lower-consequence threats that have a much higher probability of occurrence ( bullying). 4 774
Reason for Investigation
Creating a safe and healthy learning environment is a top priority shared by parents/ guardians, educators, policymakers, and the community. The importance of safe schools is reflected in Article I, Section 28( f) of the California Constitution, which states: " All students and staff of public primary, elementary, junior high, and senior high schools, and community colleges, colleges, and universities have the inalienable right to attend campuses which are safe, secure and peaceful." Furthermore, California Education Code Sections 32280- 32289. 5 mandate an annual update of each school site' s Comprehensive School Safety Plan ( CSSP) by March 1 of each year.

The Grand Jury concluded that recent events in San loaquin County and elsewhere raised the question of whether the schools in our County were taking appropriate steps to protect students and staff.

The Federal government does not maintain a database of school shootings, but several other entities do attempt to compile that data. For example, Education Week reports 2022 had the most school shootings in the nation ( 51) and the highest number of casualties ( 40 killed and 100 injured) in the past five years; 21 of those deaths occurred in the Uvalde school shooting in May 2022. San loaquin County did not experience any school shootings in 2022, although one Stockton high school student was fatally stabbed when a man entered the campus through an unattended security checkpoint. Local media reported several instances of students being arrested for alleged threats of violence at schools in the County. Tragically, during the Grand Jury investigation, two students were attacked at Unity Park near Chavez High School; one student was shot and killed and the other student was pistol- whipped.

Rather than focusing the Grand lury' s investigation on one type of school safety threat, such as school shootings, or on school safety planning at one school or district in the County, the Grand Jury concluded it would best serve San Joaquin County citizens to review emergency preparedness planning for threats across the school safety continuum. The Grand Jury evaluated school safety planning from a layperson' s perspective by measuring each district' s preparedness against best practices as identified through research and expert testimony. This report shares with the public the results of that evaluation. Due to the complexity of governance and the large number of independent charter schools ( 32), the Grand Jury focused its investigation on traditional and dependent charter schools.

Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury conducted an extensive literature review and interviewed several school safety experts to identify consensus among experts on best school safety practices and where there were differences of opinion. The Grand lury also surveyed each district about school safety preparation and planning. The Grand Jury compared the responses received from each school district against the best practices recommended by school safety experts. Follow-up interviews were conducted with representatives from each district. Grand Jury members visited one school from each district to confirm the information received and to observe safety preparation at the individual school level.
5 775
Materials Reviewed
California Department of Education, " Comprehensive School Safety Plans— Violence Prevention ( CA Dept of Education)." www.cde.ca.gov, www.cde.ca. gov/ Is/ ss/ vp/ cssp. asp.

Accessed May 2, 2023.

California Education Code Sections 32280- 32289. 5.

California Education Code Sections 38130- 38139.

California State Auditor, " Report 2016- 136." www. Auditor.ca. gov/ reports/ 2016- 136/ introduction. html. Accessed May 2, 2023.

Comprehensive School Safety Plans and related safety information provided to the Grand Jury by the San Joaquin County Office of Education and each of the 14 school districts in San loaquin County.

Trump, Kenneth 5., Proactive School5ecurity and Emergency Preparedness Planning.

Thousand Oaks, Calif., Corwin, 2011.

Websites Searched
Banta Unified School District Home Page." Bantasd.org, www.bantasd.org. Accessed March 4, 2023.

Blad, Evie, et al., " School Shootings in 2022: 4 Key Takeaways." Education Week, January 27, 2023, www.edweek. org/ leadership/ school- shootings- in- 2022- 4- key-takeaways/ 2022/ 12.

Accessed April 3, 2023.

Dorn, Sherman. " Perspective Violence over Schools Is Nothing New in America." Washington Post, September 29, 2021,
www.wash i ngtonpost. com/ outlook/ 2021/ 09/ 29/ violence- over- schools- is- nothi ng- newamerica/. Accessed October 6, 2022.

Escalon Unified School District." www.escalonusd. org, www.escalonusd. org. Accessed March 3, 2023.

Fuentes, Annette. "A Brief History of Schoo) Violence in the United States ( 2011)." Versobooks. com, March 23, 2018, www.versobooks. com/ blogs/ 3705- a- brief-history- ofschool- violence- in- the- united- states- 2011. Accessed June 22, 2022.

Glavin, Chris. " History of School Shootings in the United States K12 Academics." K12academics. com, 26 July 2018, www.kl2academics. com/ school- shootings/ history-schoolshootings- united- states. Accessed October 6, 2022.

Green, Emilee. " ICJIA Research Hub:' Icjia.illinois.gov, November 23, 2020, icjia.illinois.gov/ researchhub/ articles/ exploring- school-violence- and- safety-concerns.

Accessed October 6, 2022.
7efferson School District Home Page:' www.jeffersonschooldistrict. com, www.jeffersonschooldistrict. com. Accessed March 3, 2023.

Lammersville Unified School District Home Page:' www.lammersvilleschooldistrict. net, www. lammersvilleschooldistrict. net. Accessed March 4, 2023.

Lincoln Unified School District Home Page." www.lusd. net, www. lusd. net/ Domain/ 4.

Accessed March 3, 2023.
6 776
Linden Unified School District Home Page:' www.lindenusd. com, www.lindenusd. com.

Accessed March 3, 2023.

Lodi Unified School District Home Page." www.lodiusd.net, www.lodiusd. net. Accessed March 4, 2023.

Manteca Unified School District Home Page." www. mantecausd. net, www. mantecausd. net.

Accessed March 3, 2023.

New Hope Home Page." www.nhesd. net, www.nhesd. net. Accessed March 4, 2023.

New Jerusalem Elementary School District Home Page." Home- NewJerusalem Elementary School District, www. njesd. net/ en- US. Accessed March 4, 2023.

Oak View Elementary School District Home Page:' www. myoakview. com, www.myoakview.com/ oakview.aspx. Accessed March 4, 2023.

Ripon Unified School District Home Page" www. riponusd. net, www. riponusd. net. Accessed March 3, 2023.

School Shootings This Year: How Many and Where." Education Week, January 27, 2023, www.edweek. org/ leadership/ school- shootings- this-year-how- many- and- where/ 2022/ 01.

Accessed April 3, 2023.

Stockton Unified School District/ Home Page." www. stocktonusd. net, www. stocktonusd. net. Accessed March 4, 2023.

The San Joaquin County Office of Education Home Page." www. sjcoe. org, www. sjcoe. org.

Accessed March 3, 2023.

Tracy Unified School District Home Page." www.tracy.kl2.Ca. us, www.tracy.kl2. ca. us.

Accessed March 3, 2023.

Interviews Conducted
District Administrators.

Representatives from all County and Local Law Enforcement Agencies.

San Joaquin County Office of Education Administrators.

School Safety Consultants.

School Safety Experts.

School Site Administrators.

School Site Certificated Personnel.

School Site Classified Personnel.

Sites Visited
Banta Elementary School ( Banta Unified School District).

Hazelton Elementary School ( Stockton Unified School District).

Lodi High School ( Lodi Unified School District).

Mountain House High School ( Lammersville Unified School District).

New Hope Elementary School ( New Hope Elementary School District).

New lerusalem Elementary School ( New Jerusalem School District).

Oak View Elementary School ( Oak View Elementary School District). 7 777
one. Charter Academy of Visual and Performing Arts ( San Joaquin County Office of Education).

Ripon High School ( Ripon Unified School District).

Tom Hawkins Elementary School ( Jefferson School District).

Tully C. Knoles School ( Lincoln Unified School District).

Veritas Elementary School ( Manteca Unified School District).

Vista High School ( Escalon Unified School District).

Waterloo Middle School ( Linden Unified School District).

Williams Middle School ( Tracy Unified School District).

Discussions, Findings, and Recommendations

1. 0 School Safety Fundamentals
When asked, school officials, families, policymakers, and the community agree school safety is a top priority, but often there is a disconnect between safety practices and that priority. There is disagreement about what steps should be taken to make our schools safer or how much time, energy, or money should be devoted to school safety efforts. The recent uptick in gun- related incidents at schools across the country has created what some school safety experts believe is a skewed focus on target hardening. Physical security measures, security hardware equipment, cameras, access control, and other forms of safety technology can be useful in the school safety tool bag but are only as valuable as the weakest human link supporting them. As one school safety expert advised the Grand Jury, " Beware of school safety consultants with something to sell." The emphasis on physical security measures has created a failure to focus on human factors and the fundamentals of school security and culture.

From interviews with school safety experts and a review of publicly available literature, the Grand Jury learned that the best safety plans focus on fundamentals such as:

Site- specific emergency plans.

Creating a culture of safety.

Lockdown drills and sheltering in place.

Evacuation and reunification.

Identifying and assigning incident command roles.

Recognizing abnormalities.

Having situational awareness at all times.

Empowering staff to make decisions during emergencies.

The focus of any school safety program should be on training to prepare people with the skills necessary to take proper action when confronted by an emergency. An emergency by its very nature is a time of extreme stress that often short- circuits rational thought and action. Available 8 778
data indicate lockdown drills ( close and lock the door, turn off the lights, close blinds and curtains, move into a hardened corner that is out of sight of an intruder, and keep quiet) work best to prepare staff and students to respond effectively to emergencies. Options- based training ( run, hide, and fight) is recommended by some safety experts, but such training is controversial and is discouraged by other experts. Basic, age- appropriate drills should be the focus of any safety training involving students. Overly dramatic drills that create student anxiety should be avoided.

Safety training for school employees must be more than a once- a- year event; it must be integrated into staff ineetings throughout the school year and must include not only teachers and administrators but also support staff. Safety drills for staff and students must be diversified in the type and timing of the drills.

In addition to safety training, school climate and relationships are keys to school safety.

Schools should address climate along with security and emergency preparedness, not one or the other. Too often climate is pitted against security, instead of focusing on both.

Schools can be warm, welcoming, and trusting environments and still have balanced security measures and comprehensive emergency preparedness guidelines." 1 A positive school culture is one in which students and staff feel respected, supported, and connected to each other and to the school community. In such a culture, there is a greater sense of shared responsibility for the well- being and safety of everyone in the school, and students are more likely to report concerns or potential safety issues.

In contrast, a negative school culture, characterized by bullying, harassment, discrimination, or general facility disrepair, can contribute to a lack of trust and support among students and staff.

This makes it more difficult for students to feel comfortable reporting safety concerns and contributes to a sense of isolation and disengagement that increases the risk of violence or other safety issues.

Creating a positive school culture that promotes respect, inclusivity, and collaboration helps to foster a sense of community and shared responsibility leading to a safer school environment. This includes initiatives such as anti-bullying and anti- harassment programs, positive behavior interventions and supports ( PBIS), and efforts to promote diversity and cultural sensitivity.

Safety culture is a topic to be revisited throughout the school year to build upon overall school safety. As an expert witness noted:
the key thing is really creating a culture of safetv and a culture for reporting. Where safety is everyone' s job from the custodian, your school secretary, [your] food service worker, your bus drivers, the first and last people to see kids during the day, to encourage not only see something and say something, that catchphrase that has been used since 9/ 11, but training people on how to do something. [ If] someone sees something, they say something, then what are you trained to do. Because if someone reports it and you don' t 1 Trump, Kenneth 5., Proactive School5ecurity and Emergency Preparedness Planning. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Corwin, 2011, page 182.
9 779
act and it' s not acted in a timely appropriate manner, it' s not going to really carry this all the way through."
A school safety culture is encouraged by involving parents/ guardians, students, teachers, administrators, and other school personnel in a school' s safety planning process. It also is encouraged by creating an overall positive climate at the school. Is there school engagement, school ownership, school pride, and student artwork present and visible in the school? Is the school clean and well- maintained? Do students and school employees have an open and trusting relationship?

2. 0 Comprehensive School Safety Plan
The California Constitution guarantees California children the right to attend public schools that are safe, secure, and peaceful. The CDE, public school districts, county offices of education ( COEs), and schools and their personnel are responsible for creating learning environments that are safe and secure. First responders, community partners, and families play an essential role, as well. Schools must be prepared to respond to emergencies including natural and man- made hazards and strive to prevent violence and behavior issues that undermine safety and security. CSSPs include strategies aimed at the prevention of, and education about, potential incidents involving crime and violence on the school campus and aspects of social, emotional, and physical safety for both youth and adults:' z According to California Education Code Section 32281( a), every school district and County Office of Education ( COE) in the State is responsible for developing a Comprehensive School Safety Plan CSSP). For each of its school sites and the site council or safety planning committee for each site is required to write and develop a CSSP that is relevant to the specific needs and resources of that site. In school districts with fewer than " 2, 501 units of average daily attendance;' there may be one CSSP for all schools within the district.

Every year, each school is required to adopt an updated CSSP by March 1. Before adopting its CSSP, the school site council or safety planning committee must hold a public meeting at the school site to allow members of the public the opportunity to express an opinion about the school safety plan.

State law includes a list of individuals and entities that must be notified in writing of these public meetings. These opportunities for meaningful public input on safety plans and goals help build a strong school safety culture.

Each school' s CSSP must be designed to address campus risks, prepare for emergencies, and create a safe, secure learning environment for students and school personnel. The CSSP must include adaptations necessary for the safety of students with disabilities. The school site council is required to consult with representatives from the law enforcement agency, the fire department, and other z California Department ofEducation, " Comprehensive School Safety Plans— Violence Prevenfion( CA Dept of EducationJ." www.cde. ca.gov, www.cde. ca.gov/ Is/ ss/ vp/ cssp.asp. Accessed May2, 2023. 10 780
first responder entities in the writing and development of the CSSP and to share any updates to the CSSP with those entities. An updated file of all safety- related plans and materials also must be readily available for inspection by the public.

Administrators of a school district or COE may elect to develop those portions of a CSSP that include tacfical responses to criminal incidents and to develop those portions of the CSSP themselves, in consultation with law enforcement and a representafive of an exclusive bargaining unit of employees. The governing board of a school district or COE also can confer in closed session with law enforcement ofFicials prior to the approval of a tactical response plan. Any vote to approve the tactical response plan would be announced following the closed session.

The CSSP must include provisions for:
1) assessing the status of crime on school campuses and at school functions and 2) identifying appropriate strategies that will provide or maintain a high level of school safety and address the school' s procedures for complying with existing laws related to school safety.

The SJCOE and all districts in the County have approved CSSPs for their schools. The State CSSP requirements are lengthy and plans that attempt to discuss in detail all required elements can become unwieldy. Some of the CSSPs reviewed by the Grand Jury were several hundred pages long and generally included the major elements required by State law, but only a few appeared to have been drafted to address issues unique to an individual school site. Only a few indicated there had been any significant opportunity for public input during the drafting or approval stages of the annual CSSP updates. Even fewer included an assessment of the status of crime at the school and school- related functions. The Grand Jury also found plans contained only limited mention of the unique needs during emergencies of students with disabilities. Interviews and conversafions with district administrators and school personnel often indicated limited knowledge of the safety information within these lengthy plans or even where the plan was physically located.

Most districts asserted that local law enforcement had been involved in the preparation or update of district CSSPs, but the nature of that involvement varied widely and seldom was documented in a manner that would allow the public to conclude that the involvement was meaningful. Some school officials commented that law enforcement agencies seemed reluctant to collaborate. Fewer districts asserted the local fire district had been involved in the preparation or update of district CSSPs, although some schools reported during site visits that the fire marshal had assisted in the preparation of current evacuation maps. The Grand Jury could not conclude from available information whether law enforcement and first responders had been given the information about the specific circumstances at individual school sites necessary for an appropriate response to a school safety emergency.
11 781
Several districts and schools made lengthy CSSPs more useful by creating concise flip charts identifying key steps to be taken during a range of anficipated emergencies. Most schools using these flip charts posted them in classrooms, but only a few schools posted them in other rooms frequented by students, such as libraries, cafeterias, multipurpose rooms, and other school resource rooms. Many of these rooms are used by the general public during non- school hours, in accordance with the California Education Code.

Some districts keep the entire CSSP confidential. Others make public most of the CSSP but keep some portions of the plan confidential to avoid providing useful information to potential criminal perpetrators. A few districts make the entire CSSP public. As noted above, the California Education Code requires an updated file of all safety-related plans and materials to be readily available for inspection by the public, but school administrators are authorized to keep confidential the portions of safety plans that include tactical responses to criminal incidents. The Grand Jury considers the better practice is to keep these sensitive provisions confidential but to make the rest of the CSSP and other safety-related information readily available to the public and school employees.

The CSSP must include a clear description of incident command and communication roles, together with associated duties. It also must identify the individuals responsible to perform those roles as well as alternate individuals if the primary individual is not available to perform the role. Some of the CSSPs reviewed by the Grand Jury identified the incident command roles, but only a few of these identified the individuals responsible for those roles and the alternates who would assume those roles if the primary individual was not available. None of the CSSPs reviewed by the Grand Jury provided evidence that the individuals responsible for incident command roles had received appropriate training to properly perform those important roles.

Some districts include meaningful information about safety measures taken by the district and its schools through the district website and other communications with parents/ guardians. Other districts have little or no information about safety measures on their websites and appear to have only limited communication with parents/ guardians about safety measures.

The CSSP should describe the system to reunite parents/ guardians with their children in the event of a campus-wide evacuation or emergency and parents/ guardians must be made aware of how they can reunite with their children. Only some of the CSSPs reviewed by the Grand Jury contained a detailed description of the reunification system and how parents/ guardians will be advised of the relevant details of that system.

Findings
F2. 1 A review of CSSPs demonstrated many districts have failed to create a CSSP that addresses safety issues unique to the individual school sites, and rather use a template and/ or boilerplate language, leaving the school site unprepared in an emergency. 12 782
F2. 2 Many districts have not involved teachers, support staff, students, and parents/ guardians when updating each school site' s CSSP, missing an opportunity to create a culture of school safety.

F2. 3 Many districts have not collaborated with local law enforcement and other first responders during the annual process to update the CSSP, which could result in a prolonged and inefficient emergency response.

F2. 4 Many district CSSPs show a lack of ineaningful collaboration between districts and local law enforcement agencies, causing confusion and chaos during an emergency.

F2. 5 Many districts do not offer an opportunity for public input during the drafting or approval stages of the annual CSSP, which renders the districts out of compliance with State law.

F2. 6 Most districts do not include an assessment of the status of crime at the school and schoolrelated functions in their CSSPs, which renders the districts out of compliance with State law and causes potential harm and liability.

F2. 7 Many districts do not adequately address the unique needs of students with disabilities during emergencies. The lack of planning for the most vulnerable students can cause harm during a time of confusion and crisis.

F2. 8 A few districts do not make any part of the CSSPs available to the public, withholding important information about steps taken by the district to reduce the probability and impact of safety risks. Other districts post the CSSPs in their entirety, failing to keep confidential information about tactical responses, potentially revealing sensitive information to the public.

F2. 9 Many districts have CSSPs that fail to identify incident command roles and the individuals who are to perform those roles in case of an emergency, exposing students and staff to the potential for confusion and increased risks during an emergency.

F2. 10 Many districts have CSSPs that fail to describe the system to reunite parents/ guardians with their children in the event of a campus- wide evacuation, creating confusion and additional anxiety in the event of a safety emergency.

F2. 11 Many school site CSSPs do not account for specific dangers unique to the school site ( e. g., train tracks, flooding, freeways).

Recommendafions
The 2022- 2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Educafion, the 14 school districts, and law enforcement agencies in the County implement school safety programs that require the following actions:

R2. 1 By March 1, 2024, the annual updates for each school site' s CSSP address safety issues unique to the site.
13 783
R2. 2 By December 15, 2023, while updating the school' s CSSP, each school site collaborate and receive input from representatives of teachers, support staff, students, and parents/ guardians.

R2. 3 By December 15, 2023, while updating the school' s CSSP, each school site collaborate and receive input from the appropriate emergency response agencies.

R2. 4 By December 15, 2023, each law enforcement agency in San Joaquin County meaningfully collaborate and approve the updated CSSP for school sites within that agency' s jurisdiction.

R2. 5 By February 1, 2024, each school site council or safety planning committee hold an advertised public meeting at the school site to allow members of the community an opportunity to express an opinion about the school' s proposed CSSP as required by California Education Code Sections 32288( b)( 1) and ( 2).

R2. 6 By March 1, 2024, each school site' s CSSP include the State mandated assessment of the status of crime at the school and school- related functions.

R2. 7 By March 1, 2024, each school site consult with the appropriate professionals to address the unique needs of students with disabilifies when updating the CSSP.

R2. 8 By March 1, 2024, each school site's CSSP be available to the public with the excepfion of confidential information about tactical responses.

R2. 9 By March 1, 2024, each school site' s CSSP identify the incident command roles and the individuals who are to perform those roles and their alternate in cases of an emergency.

R2. 10 By March 1, 2024, each school site' s CSSP describe the system to reunify parents/ guardians with their student in the event of a campus-wide evacuation, including how parents/ guardians are informed of reunification details.

R2. 11 By March 1, 2024, each school site' s CSSPs account for dangers unique to the specific school site ( e. g., train tracks, flooding, freeways).

3. 0 Training
On November 11, 2022, the San Joaquin County Office of Educafion offered a free half- day School Safety Summit for the first time. The purpose of the summit was to bring stakeholders together in a forum that could address school safety Countywide. All but three of the 14 districts in San Joaquin County attended the event with one or more representatives. As one attendee noted on a feedback form, " Thank you for starting this conversation. Safety should be something we talk about more often. Consider making this a topic that gets revisited multiple times a year." Another attendee noted, " Thank you for taking the lead on this important topic." The Grand lury agrees.

The purpose of the summit was to try to bridge the service gap by bringing to light the differences and the similarities of need while at the same time illustrating the importance of school culture 14 784
insofar as school safety is concerned. As noted by a witness interviewed by the Grand Jury, San Joaquin County is unique in the districts that service the County students. Some districts have school resource officers ( SROs) or their own sworn law enforcement department, while more rural and smaller districts may have to wait an extended period of time for law enforcement response.

One of the experts interviewed by the Grand Jury observed, " The first and best line of defense is a well- trained, highly alert staff and student body in a school." Recent school tragedies in the news have received attention in the media that somefimes focuses on technology to make school sites more difficult to access rather than the failure to focus on the human factors and fundamentals of school safety. The same expert also noted a common thread across many, if not most of these tragedies, is " they involve allegations of failures of human factors, not allegations that some type of security hardware equipment failed. So we are moving and seeing this effort to have a skewed focus on target hardening. Physical security can play a tool, any type of technology is only as good as the weakest human link behind it:'
Repeated training for school staff and students is the best way to reduce the likelihood that people will " freeze" during an emergency. Not only is training required by State law, but it is also an important way to help make safety part of a school' s culture.

To be most effective, training of teachers, administrators, and support staff should include training at the beginning of each school year but also throughout the year during regular teacher and staff meetings. Tabletop exercises provide a cost-effective way to train in a variety of emergency scenarios. Appropriate training for substitute teachers is an important element of school safety, but few districts have taken steps to assure they have received emergency information in a timely, effective, and usable manner.

Training is best reinforced by drills. Drills are most effective if the types and fiming of the drills are varied throughout the school year including drills at times such as lunch, recess, or passing periods when students are not in a classroom. Students' involvement in drills, however, must be limited to age- appropriate activities and be designed to avoid the creafion of potentially harmful anxiety.

Special considerafion should be given to drills that reinforce training related to the needs of students with disabilities. Tabletop exercises are an efFective way for staff to drill and prepare for a variety of emergency scenarios.

Safety emergencies can be confusing and traumatic, making effective communication and incident command vitally important. Breakdowns in communications or response coordination can have catastrophic consequences. Schools and school districts will be responsible for notifying first responders and commanding the early stages of response to the emergency. They will be communicating with employees, students, and parents/ guardians during and after the emergency while also being confronted with demands for information from the media and concerned community members. When first responders arrive on the scene of the emergency, they typically will take over command of the incident response, but at many schools, especially in rural areas, 15 785
there may be an extended delay before appropriate professional responders can arrive at the scene. The school and the district must be prepared to command the response to the incident during this delay. The yearly schedule of drills should include drills that reinforce communication and incident command readiness.

The Incident Command System 100 ( ICS- 100) training is a course provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) that covers the basics of the Incident Command System ICS), which is a standardized system used by emergency response organizations to manage incidents and emergencies. The ICS- 100 course is designed to provide an introduction to the principles and structure of ICS, including key roles and responsibilities, and the process of establishing a unified command during an emergency. The focus of ICS- 100 training is fourfold:

1. Improving communicafion: ICS- 100 training teaches responders how to use a common language and communicafion system to ensure that everyone is on the same page during an emergency.

2. Enhancing coordination: ICS- 100 training clarifies how responders work together and coordinate their efforts to respond effectively to an emergency.

3. Promoting safety: ICS- 100 training emphasizes the importance of safety during an emergency and informs responders how to prioritize safety when responding to incidents.

4. Reducing confusion: ICS- 100 training provides a clear structure and framework for responding to emergencies, reducing confusion and ensuring that everyone knows their role in an emergency.

The Grand Jury discovered that within the County, while some schoo) districts utilize ICS- 100 training, many do not, causing a security gap. When the Grand Jury inquired about ICS training with expert witnesses, the answer was universally in support of such training, tailored to the specifics of school sites. " I think it' s useful. I think it' s useful to understand how it all works in the big picture;' said an expert.

While the Grand Jury recognizes that annual training can be overwhelming to school staff, not all school site personnel require ICS- 100 training as much as those personnel identified in the CSSP incident command roles on school campuses ( including classified employees).

While ICS- 100 training is focused on a school site, ICS- 402 training is directed towards executivelevel leadership ( district cabinet- level employees). ICS- 402 training is designed to provide education and training for those who may be responsible for managing large- scale incidents or emergencies.

ICS- 402 training for senior- level district staff members is important for several reasons:

1. Preparedness: School districts are responsible for the safety and well- being of students and staff members. In the event of an emergency, having trained staff members who understand 16 786
ICS and implement it effectively is crucial in minimizing damage, preventing injuries, and saving lives.

2. Coordination: Large- scale emergencies involve multiple agencies and organizations, making coordination and communication critical. ICS- 402 training helps school district staff members understand how to work with other agencies and organizations during an emergency, ensuring that everyone has the same understanding and that efforts are coordinated effectively.

3. Legal compliance: In some states or jurisdictions, ICS training is required for emergency responders and other people who may be involved in emergency management. Providing ICS- 402 training to school district executive staff members will ensure that the district is compliant with these regulations.

4. Flexibility: The ICS system is flexible and scalable, which means that it can be used to manage emergencies of various sizes and types. By providing ICS- 402 training to district executive staff members, districts ensure that they have a framework in place that can be adapted to different scenarios, from minor incidents to major disasters.

Overall, ICS- 402 training assists school district leadership to prepare for emergencies, coordinate response efforts effectively, comply with regulations, and be flexible in their response to emergencies.

Interviews with district administrators and discussions with school staff during site visits indicated a limited understanding of the material in a school' s CSSP. Many districts discuss safety at the beginning of the year during in- service training and rarely return to the topic.

All districts presented evidence of monthly drills involving teachers and students throughout the year. Few districts, however, included utilization of communication and incident command structure ICS) identified in their CSSPs during drills. Many districts informed the Grand Jury that they varied the day and time for scheduled safety drills, but only a few districts indicated they had intentionally scheduled drills during times such as lunch, recess, or passing periods when students were not in their classrooms. This is when incident command structures are most critical. Drills are made more effecfive by presenting unexpected complications during the drill. One cost-effective variation recommended by experts is for an administrator to stand in a doorway typically used during a fire evacuation and inform students that the exit is blocked, forcing them to find another exit.

Many districts time evacuation drills, but the Grand Jury found limited evidence that drills typically are followed by an analysis of what went well, what went wrong, and what needs to be changed in the future to improve plans and drills.

Findings
17 787
F3. 1 Feedback forms completed by attendees of the San Joaquin County Office of Education School Safety Summit and reviewed by the Grand Jury demonstrate the value and necessity of a Countywide School Safety Summit.

F3. 2 Some of the districts failed to send representatives to the 2022 School Safety Summit, thereby missing an opportunity to work together to make schools safer.

F3. 3 The Grand lury learned through interviews, surveys, and site tours that many districts fail to include safety topics during regular meetings with teachers and support staff throughout the school year, minimizing the importance of safety.

F3. 4 The Grand Jury learned through interviews, surveys, and site tours that many school sites fail to assure substitute staff receive the information they will need in the case of a school safety emergency, leaving the substitute staff ill- prepared for an emergency.

F3. 5 Many districts fail to include the utilization of communication and incident command protocols ( ICS- 100) during safety drills throughout the school year, causing miscommunication in an emergency.

F3. 6 Many district cabinet- level positions ( e. g., Superintendent, Chief Business Officer) are not trained in ICS protocols ( ICS- 402), causing a lack of unified response to districtwide emergencies.

F3. 7 Many school sites do not vary the time of day when routine safety drills are conducted or when students are not in classrooms, making drills predictable and leaving students unprepared for emergencies that may occur at time.

F3. 8 Many school sites fail to include support staff( classified personnel) in probable real- life roles during safety drills, leaving them unprepared to assist students in emergencies.

F3. 9 Most school sites fail to conduct a post- incident report after drills analyzing what went well, what went wrong, and what needs to be changed in the future to improve plans and drills, undermining the effectiveness of drills.

Recommendations
The 2022- 2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County Office of Education and the 14 school districts in the County implement school safety programs that require the following actions:

R3. 1 By December 1, 2023, the San Joaquin County Office of Education and the San Joaquin County Office of Education Board of Trustees develop, adopt, and host an annual School Safety Summit.

R3. 2 By December 1, 2023, each school district send one or more representatives to the annual School Safety Summit hosted by the San Joaquin County Office of Education. 18 788
R3. 3 By September 1, 2023, safety topics be an agenda item at all school site staff meetings with teachers and support staff throughout the school year.

R3. 4 By September 1, 2023, districts develop, adopt, and implement written procedures for school sites to provide substitute staff with the information they will need in case of a school emergency.

R3. 5 By October 1, 2023, personnel identified in the school CSSP for incident command roles be trained and certified in ICS- 100 protocols.

R3. 6 By October 1, 2023, ICS- 402 training be completed for all district-level executive leadership.

R3. 7 By October 1, 2023, scheduled safety drills be conducted on different days throughout the school year and at various times throughout the school day, including when students are not normally in their classrooms.

R3. 8 By October 1, 2023, scheduled safety drills include support staff( classified) in probable emergency roles during the year and document their participation.

R3. 9 By October 1, 2023, administrators create a post-incident report after all safety drills.

4. 0 School Site Visits
The Grand lury visited 15 school sites and observed and reviewed safety protocols. One school was chosen from each of the 14 districts and one dependent charter school from the San Joaquin County Office of Education. At each site, the following safety components were evaluated and observed:

Access Control - including entry procedures and perimeter fencing or barricades.

Classrooms- including door locks, window coverings, emergency procedures and evacuation route postings, and any emergency supplies.

Common Areas- evacuation routes posted at all entry/ exit doors.

Overall condition of the campus.

Special Considerations- including transportation corridors, train tracks, or topography.

Relationships between students, staff, and parents.

Access Control
Three schools utilized the Raptor system, which takes a picture of the visitor' s identification and prints the ID picture onto a customized name badge. The system also screens and tracks all visitors.

Only one of the three schools utilizing this system had the Grand Jury visitors return their badge at the end of the tour, which would prevent re- entry. Six schools performed some form of identification check, either with a driver' s license or the Grand Jury Identification, and/ or required a sign- in. Six schools did not ask for any identification and no sign- in was required. 19 789
Perimeter fencing at a school is a complicated issue. It is costly to install perimeter fencing around a school and it can make the campus seem and look like a prison. However, fencing can be an effective means of controlling who comes onto campus. It can also give a false sense of security and unless all gates are monitored and remain locked, the end result can be the same as if there were no fencing. Of the 15 sites visited, three did not have any or had very little perimeter fencing. One of those sites had conducted a parent survey regarding the issue and the results were closely divided between those who wanted the fencing and those who did not.

Commendations
Lincoln Unified utilized the Raptor system at the site visit and took our badges at the end of the tour, utilizing best practices in visitor sign- in procedures.

Banta Unified employed the best physical barrier system. Their check- in procedure involved being buzzed in through a half-door to a small waiting area where identification was checked and the sign- in form was completed with both time and date before being buzzed into the office.

Classrooms
At least one classroom was toured at each school. Evacuation routes were posted in all classrooms visited. Some maps were better than others. Some maps were too small, and one school posted a campus map in every classroom but didn' t mark the classroom' s location or what route to follow for evacuation.

There were inconsistencies across the school sites visited regarding door-locking procedures. The schools visited by the Grand Jury usually kept doors locked at all times. While one school said that it kept doors locked and closed, the Grand Jury observed a classroom door propped wide open. Many schools utilized a lock block system, which allowed the door to be opened while quickly returning to a locked position with a slide or flip of the switch. Some schools utilized a standard key system for locking doors.

Some schools used flip charts with summaries of what to do in different types of emergencies. The schools that do utilize this form of emergency procedures communication did not always post them in the same area of each classroom or notify all staff that they had them. One school' s Assistant Principal conducting the Grand Jury' s tour was unaware of the flip charts, what they were, or where they were located.

About one- half of the classrooms visited had some form of an emergency information packet folder/ binder) and a few classrooms had emergency backpacks or tubs with paperwork and supplies to be taken in the event of an emergency.

A majority of the schools visited had window coverings, consisting of vertical or horizontal blinds, but some were old and in disrepair. If the classroom had uncovered door windows, they would 20 790
need to be shielded in the event of a lockdown. Two of the schools utilized a magnetized shield that was the same size as the window to slide over to cover.

Commendations
New Hope Elementary School District covered its windows with magnets that had emergency procedures printed on them, serving two purposes.
lefferson Unified utilized very creative ways to obscure windows with the use of long roller shades installed above the double glass doors to the library. They also used emergency kits in the classrooms and found an inexpensive and effective way to use a magnet to allow the door to be open while still locked.

Common Areas
The Grand Jury considered the common areas ( cafeterias, gymnasiums, libraries, and multipurpose rooms) to be the most dangerous place to be during an emergency. The majority of the common areas lacked adequate evacuation route signs. Some schools had no evacuation route signs, some had one or two posted near a door, but not consistently at every door. Most had other safety equipment available, such as fire extinguishers and Automated External Defibrillators ( AEDs). One school' s AED box was open and empty. These observed deficiencies are particularly significant when the public is using the space during non- school hours.

Campuses Overall
One expert emphasized the importance of campus culture, "[ a] nd just looking at the overall climate of the school... school engagement, school ownership, school pride, school artwork and items that children make and contribute that are part and present in the overall school." Most schools visited were well- maintained and tidy. Whether they were built recently or decades ago, the majority of campuses toured showed the care and pride of the staff that worked there and the students who attended. Some were freshly painted, had newly planted landscaping, new bark spread out, new picnic tables, and new shade structures, or were very neatly maintained. One older campus desperately needed attention. The ramps to the portable classrooms were in disrepair, and the playground was in poor condition, with uneven surfaces creating puddles and tripping hazards.

However, the campus that was in this state of disrepair had the best and brightest bulletin boards scattered throughout campus, each with a different theme, showing pride in their campus.

Special Considerations
Of the school campuses toured, there were several special considerations that should be addressed in the individual site' s CSSP. Several school sites were rurally located, resulting in emergency responders having a much longer response time. One campus was located in an area prone to flooding. Another campus was located much lower than the adjacent interstate, and a vehicle accident on the interstate could become airborne, potentially landing on the field of the school. 21 791
One campus was located directly next to a major train track, and while the tour was being conducted, two trains went by. The Grand Jury asked the tour leader about planned emergency responses to train derailments and was informed that none existed.

Reladonships
The campuses visited represented a spectrum of relationship- based leadership and school culture.

A majority of the campuses visited appeared to have a positive school culture. Many administrators knew one or more children' s names and conversed with them, sincerely engaging with students. At one campus of 700 students, the Principal knew the staff, students, and parents/ guardians. At the other end of the relationship spectrum, an Assistant Principal leading the Grand Jury tour seemed disinterested and disengaged with both the tour and student interactions, only stopping to ask a student why she was out of class.

Findings
F4. 1 Not all school sites have check-in procedures in place that were followed consistently, posing serious security threats.

F4. 2 Perimeter fencing or an " open" campus each pose security challenges and require careful consideration to mitigate security shortcomings.

F4. 3 Evacuation maps that are posted inconsistently or do not adequately illustrate evacuation routes cause confusion and prolonged evacuation times, making staff and students vulnerable to harm in both classrooms and common areas.

F4. 4 Inconsistent door-locking policies and failure to follow policies create opportunities for perpetrators to enter classrooms and common areas.

F4. 5 Most school sites utilized flip charts that identify steps to be taken in case of emergencies, however, none of the sites posted them in all rooms used by students, staff, parents/ guardians, and the general public.

F4. 6 Insufficient window coverings give perpetrators a clear line of sight, creating risk for students and staff.

F4. 7 Most school sites, regardless of age, were well maintained and showed school pride. One school site demonstrated multiple maintenance shortcomings, which can negatively impact safety.

F4. 8 Good relationships among administrators, certificated and classified staff, parents, and students are vital to promptly identify and address areas of concern, particularly regarding student behavior. Relationships varied greatly from campus to campus.

F4. 9 The culture of safety is best developed by public transparency and involvement by all parties. Few of the school sites visited by the Grand lury demonstrated meaningful public engagement in safety planning.
22 792
Recommendations
The 2022- 2023 San Joaquin County Grand lury recommends that the County Office of Education and the 14 school districts in the County implement school safety programs that require the following actions:

R4. 1 By October 1, 2023, each school site implement an access control program that consistently includes verifying visitors' identity and collection of any issued badge before the visitor leaves the school site.

R4. 2 By March 1, 2024, districts develop, adopt, and implement a plan for effective perimeter control of access at all school sites.

R4. 3 By September 1, 2023, all school sites post evacuation maps clearly showing routes from the You Are Here" perspective be prominently posted at each entry or exit door location in both classrooms and common areas.

R4. 4 By March 1, 2024, districts develop, adopt, and implement a plan for door- locking policies to secure classroom and common area doors.

R4. 5 By March 1, 2024, all school sites post flip charts or similar summaries of emergency procedures be posted in all classrooms and common areas.

R4. 6 By March 1, 2024, all school sites ensure window coverings are provided for all windows, thereby not allowing a perpetrator a clear line of sight into a classroom or common area.

R4. 7 By October 1, 2023, the Board of Trustees, during a public meeting, review and discuss the findings and recommendations of the 2022- 2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report, Case 0322— School Safety in San Joaquin County: Developing a Culture of Safety.

Conclusion
The Grand lury appreciates the cooperation of all public school districts in San loaquin County, along with the San Joaquin County Office of Education.

School districts in San Joaquin County have taken important steps to make schools safer, but more can and should be done to reduce safety threats. While no one can predict an emergency, proper training, drills, plans, and creating a positive school culture, including a strong safety culture, can best mitigate tragic outcomes from those emergencies.

Parents/ guardians can help make schools safer by:

Asking if school emergency guidelines are tested and exercised.

Determining whether your school has policies and procedures on security and emergency preparedness.

Examining access to school campuses.
23 793
Making sure accurate and timely safety information is shared.

Disclaimers
Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge ( Penal Code Section 911, 924. 1( a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes ( Penal Code Sections 924. 2 and 929).

Response Requirements
California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933. 05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report.

Note: If the responder is an elected official, the response must be sent within 60 days of receipt.

Public School Boards and law Enforcement

RESPONDING AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
Superintendent, San Joaquin F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 1- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 County Office of Education R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 1- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7 Banta Unified School District F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7
Escalon Unified School District F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7
Jefferson School District F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7
Lammersville Unified School F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 District R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7 Lincoln Unified School District F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7
Linden Unified School District F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7
Lodi Unified School District F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4.9 R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7
Manteca Unified Schoo) F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 District R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7 24 794

RESPONDING AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
New Hope Elementary School F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 District R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7 New Jerusalem School District F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7
Oak View Elementary School F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 District R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7 Ripon Unified School District F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7
Stockton Unified School F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 District R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7 Tracy Unified Schoo) District F2. 1- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 9 R2. 1- 2. 3, 2. 5- 2. 11, 3. 2- 3. 9, & 4. 1- 4. 7
Escalon Police Department F2. 4
R2. 4
Lathrop Police Department F2. 4
R2. 4
Lodi Police Department F2. 4
R2. 4
Manteca Police Department F2. 4
R2. 4
Ripon Police Department F2. 4
R2. 4
Stockton Police Department F2. 4
R2. 4
Tracy Police Department F2. 4
R2. 4
San Joaquin County Sheriff F2. 4
R2. 4
25 795
Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to:

Honorable Michael D. Coughlan, Presiding Judge
San Joaquin County Superior Court
180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J
Stockton, California 95202
Also, please email a copy of the response to Mr. Irving Jimenez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@sjcourts. org_
26 796
Attachment B
t of
DRAFT
y
Of,fice ofthe City Attor'rtey 390 Towne Centre Drive
Lathrop, C 95330
Phone ( 209) 941- 7235
www.ci.lathrop. ca.us
September 12, 2023
Honorable Michael D. Coughlan, Presiding Judge
San Joaquin County Superior Court
180 East Weber Avenue, Suite 1306J
Stockton, CA 95202
Re: Response to Grand Jury Final Report Case No. 0322 ( 2022/ 2023).

Report received by the City of Lathrop on June 28, 2023 Honorable Michael D. Coughlan,
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933. 05, this letter is to inform you that on September 11, 2023 at a regularly scheduled City Council Meeting, the City Council of the City of Lathrop, as the responding agency, reviewed and approved the above referenced Grand Jury Final Report and directed me to write this letter of response on their behalf.

The 2022/ 2023 Grand Jury Final Report for case no. 0322 found that:

Grand Jury Findin: " Many district CSSP' s show a lack of meaningful collaboration between districts and local law enforcement agencies, causing confusing and chaos during an emergency."
Grand Jury Recommendation R2. 4: ` By December 15, 2023, each law enforcement agency in San Joaquin County meaningfully collaborate and approve the updated CSSP for school sites within that agency' s jurisdiction." City Council Response: The City of Lathrop City Council, as the responding agency, partially disagrees with Grand Jury Finding F2. 4 and Recommendation R2. 4 and would like to further clarify that staff confirmed that the Lathrop Police Department has four ( 4) School Resource Officers ( SROs) assigned to the seven ( 7) schools within the City' s
jurisdiction. The
recommendation by the Grand Jury has been implemented as all SROs work collaboratively with school administrators and the Lathrop Police Department has approved all Comprehensive School Safety Plans ( CSSP) for each of the seven ( 7) schools. All SROs are required to be familiar with and regularly work with school personnel pursuant to said CSSP. Table-top exercises and practice drills by SROs pursuant to said CSSP are scheduled for completion at each school site by December 15, 2023.
797
Respectfully submitted,
Salvador V. Navarrete
City Attorney
S VN/ trb
Cc: Irving Jimenez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, via email gra [email protected] 2 798
ITEM 5. 4

CITY MANAGER' S REPORT
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
ITEM: PROVIDE DIRECTION ON LATHROP ROAD

RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION AND
CREATE CIP GG 24- 27
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution Creating CIP GG 24- 27 Lathrop Road Residential Driveway Reconstruction and
Approve Budget Amendment
SUMMARY:

City Council created CIP GG- 24- 27 for the widening of Lathrop Road from two ( 2) lanes to four ( 4) lanes between Harlan Road and 5th Street/ Woodfield Drive.

Construction on this project began in the summer of 2017 and was completed in the summer of 2018.

On August 14, 2023 City Council requested that an item be brought back to discuss the installation of a residential driveway at 570 Lathrop Road. Staff visited the property, held a meeting with the owner, and identified the scope of work required to construct a new transition. Staff estimates that the construction cost for this project will be $ 20, 000.

Staff is requesting that City Council provide direction and approve the creation of CIP GG 24- 27, Lathrop Road Residential Driveway Reconstruction. Staff is also requesting the approval of a budget amendment allocating $ 20, 000 for construction purposes utilizing General Fund Streets Reserves.

BACKGROUND:

Prior to, and during, construction staff coordinated with all adjacent property owners to transition the new roadway improvements to their existing driveway improvements. These transitions were performed by the City' s contractor and were included in the project cost authorized by Council. Most transitions occurred on private property and required the property owner to sign a Right of Entry" Agreement. The Agreement is needed to enter the property, describe the scope of the work, define the duration, and rights and responsibilities of both parties.

The property owner of 570 Lathrop Road refused to sign the Agreement multiple times. As a result, the City contractor was unable to transition from the roadway to the existing driveway. The transition was constructed entirely on City property and was limited in space due to Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) requirements. 799
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 2
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CREATE CIP GG 24- 27 LATHROP ROAD RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY

RECONSTRUCTION
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:

Approving the creation of CIP GG 24- 27 will allow the City to begin construction efforts including bid solicitation, contract execution and construction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff is requesting the approval of a budget amendment allocating $ 20, 000 for construction purposes utilizing General Fund Streets Reserves as follows:

Decrease Street Reserves 20, 000
1010- 251- 03- 00
Increase Transfer Out
1010- 9900- 990- 9010 20, 000
Increase Transfer In
3010- 9900- 393- 0000 GG 24- 27 20, 000
Increase Expenditures
3010- 8000- 420- 12- 00 GG 24- 27 20, 000
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution Creating CIP GG 24- 27 Lathrop Road Residential Driveway Reconstruction and Approving Related Budget Amendment
B. Exhibit - 570 Lathrop Road
800
CITY MANAGER' S REPORT PAGE 3
SEPTEMBER li, 2023 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CREATE CIP GG 24- 27: LATHROP ROAD RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY

RECONSTRUCTION
APPROVALS:
9/Sa
Cari James Date
Finance Di ctor
q - 5 • ZoZ3
Michael King Date
Assistant City Manager
51 Salvador Navarrete Date
City Attorney
i•s •Z3
S en J. Salvatore Date
City Manager
801
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LATHROP CREATING CIP GG 24- 27 LATHROP ROAD RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION

AND APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, City Council created CIP PS 02- 24 for the widening of Lathrop Road from two ( 2) lanes to four ( 4) lanes between Harlan Road and 5th Street/ Woodfield Drive; and
WHEREAS, construction on this project began in the summer of 2017 and was completed in the summer of 2018; and
WHEREAS, prior to, and during, construction staff coordinated with all adjacent property owners to transition the new roadway improvements to their existing driveway improvements; and
WHEREAS, the property owner of 570 Lathrop Road refused to sign a Right of Entry Agreement on multiple occasions which would have allowed the City contractor to construct transition improvements; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2023 City Council requested that an item be brought back to discuss the installation of a residential driveway at 570 Lathrop Road; and
WHEREAS, staff is requesting that City Council approve the creation of CIP GG 24- 27 Lathrop Road Residential Driveway Reconstruction; and WHEREAS, to initiate construction efforts staff is requesting the approval of a budget amendment allocating $ 20, 000 for construction purposes utilizing General Fund Streets Reserves as follows:

Decrease Street Reserves:
1010- 251- 03- 00 20, 000
Increase Transfer Out
1010- 9900- 990- 9010 20, 000
Increase Transfer In
3010- 9900- 393- 0000 GG 24- 27 20, 000
Increase Expenditures
3010- 8000- 420- 12- 00 GG 24- 27 20, 000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lathrop hereby approves the creation of Capital Improvement Project ( CIP) GG 24- 27 Lathrop Road Residential Driveway Reconstruction; and 802
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of September, 2023, by the following vote of the City Council, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Sonny Dhaliwal, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROV AS TO FORM:

Teresa Vargas, City Clerk Salvador Navarrete, City Attorney 803

ATTACHMENT
r. s
v:_
a
u.:
b
r„r
p , ,,$..

Proposed area
of work
r
F
t
F
p. y_`.. s
y ;
h
r,
w .
r':''
r:
t
570 Lathrop Road m ''
x ., *
v _
v : x #, x :
t
x
v
d , .
m
Ii
804