Agenda packet — Modesto City Council, March 10, 2026 (part 6 of 6)

Proposition 218 requires that a public agency mail a notice of the proposed rate and fee increase(s) to all affected property owners or ratepayers at least 45 days before conducting a public hearing to consider the proposed increase(s). The notice must include the proposed rate and fee amounts, state how the rates and fees were calculated, the reason for the rates and fees, and the date, time and location of the public hearing in which the agency will consider adopting the increase(s). The notice must also inform affected property owners or ratepayers that the increase(s) is subject to a majority protest, meaning that if more than 50% of affected property owners or ratepayers submit written protests against the proposed increase(s), the increase(s) will not be adopted.

Proposition 218 further mandates that any property-related fee imposed by a public agency cannot exceed the proportional cost of providing service attributable to that customer by placing certain restrictions on the rate and fee amounts to be charged and limiting what costs can be funded by the revenue generated by the proposed rates and fees.

On January 28, 2020, by Resolution No. 2020-055, Council approved the 2016 Wastewater Master Plan (Master Plan) prepared by Carollo Engineers (Carollo) as complete. The Master Plan is the basis for the Wastewater Engineer’s Report and its associated updates.

On December 7, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-478, Council approved the Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update prepared by Carollo as complete.

On December 7, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-479, Council approved the Wastewater Rate and Fee Study prepared by Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) as complete.

On December 7, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-480, Council authorized staff to initiate the Proposition 218 process to adjust the City’s wastewater rates beginning in Fiscal Year 2022-23 through Fiscal Year 2026-27.

On April 12, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-196, Council adopted wastewater service rates, effective July 1, 2022 for Fiscal Years 2022-23 through 2026-27 in accordance with Proposition 218.

DISCUSSION:

The current wastewater rate and fee structure will not adequately fund the enterprise’s activities which includes addressing regulatory updates, operational costs and necessary capital improvement projects. Therefore, staff is recommending the use of a financial advisory and utility rate consulting firm to complete a rate and fee study to fund current and future expenses insuring a consistent and reliable level of service is provided to our customers.

The Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update will evaluate the costs of sustaining the enterprise, along with analyzing and reprioritizing schedules of all required wastewater system improvement projects to meet both present and future growth demands and projected regulatory and permitting requirements. The results of the Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update will be incorporated into the Wastewater Rate and Fee Study.

Modesto Municipal Code (MMC) Section 8-3.203 generally requires all purchases, which meet or exceed $100,000 for material, equipment, or contractual services to follow formal bid #21..
- 1193 -
City Council, March 10, 2026
Agreements for Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update and Rate and Fee Study

Page 3 of 4 ends

procedures. However, exceptions to the formal bidding process are granted in MMC Section 8-

3.204(d) “Where the Purchasing Manager, in his or her discretion, determines that a process other than the formal bid procedure set forth in MMC Section 8-3.203 will result in procurement for the City at the lowest possible cost commensurate with the desired quality”.

The proposed effort will be an update to the wastewater rates using the 2016 Wastewater Master Plan as the basis of the analysis. This analysis will re-prioritize and update costs for master planned identified capital improvement projects, as well as incorporate any regulatorymandated projects and operational changes. Retaining Carollo and BWA ensures continuity, reduces costs and delays and maintains a consistent level of professional service based on their experience and project-related expertise. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Agreements with Carollo and BWA should be exempt from the formal bidding procedures in accordance with MMC 8-3.204(d).

FISCAL IMPACT:

Expenses associated with this effort will be housed in the following Non-Capital Project:
101720 - 2026 WW Eng Report/Rate Study

ANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES
Carollo Agreement - Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update $136,668 Additional Services (if needed) $13,667
BWA Agreement - Wastewater Rate and Fee Study $188,600
Additional Services (if needed) $18,860
Engineering/Design/Administration - City Staff $50,000
TOTAL $407,795
A budget adjustment in the amount of $407,795 will be necessary from Wastewater Fund Reserves to establish the expense budget for this Project.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

This item was considered by the Finance Committee at the meeting held on February 23, 2026, where it was recommended that it be forwarded to Council.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Staff Recommendations:

Resolution approving an Agreement with Carollo Engineers, of Walnut Creek, CA, for the Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update in the amount of $136,668, plus $13,667 in Additional Services, if needed, for an Agreement total amount not to exceed $150,335 and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Agreement.

Resolution approving an Agreement with Bartle Wells Associates, of Berkeley, CA, for the Wastewater Rate and Fee Study in the amount of $188,600, plus $18,860 in Additional Services, if needed, for an Agreement total amount not to exceed $207,460 and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Agreement.

Resolution approving an Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Multi-Year Program Budget in the amount of $407,795 to fund the Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update and Rate Study #21..
- 1194 -
City Council, March 10, 2026
Agreements for Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update and Rate and Fee Study

Page 4 of 4 ends

Project and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to implement the provisions of the Resolution.

Approved by:

William Wong, Utilities Director
Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolutions (3)

2. Carollo Engineers - Agreement & Exhibits

3. Carollo Engineers - Bid Waiver

4. Bartle Wells Associates - Agreement & Exhibits

5. Bartle Wells Associates - Bid Waiver
#21..
- 1195 -
3/10/2026/Utilities/JAlves/Item X 1 2026-XX

MODESTO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO

ENGINEERS, OF WALNUT CREEK, CA, FOR THE WASTEWATER
ENGINEER’S REPORT UPDATE IN THE AMOUNT OF $136,668, PLUS $13,667

IN ADDITIONAL SERVICES, IF NEEDED, FOR AN AGREEMENT TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $150,335 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the current wastewater rate and fee structure will not adequately fund the enterprise’s activities; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending the use of a financial advisory and utility rate consulting firm to complete a rate and fee study to fund current and future expenses insuring a consistent and reliable level of service is provided to our customers; and WHERAS, the Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update will evaluate the costs of sustaining the enterprise, along with analyzing and reprioritizing schedules of all required wastewater system improvement projects to meet both present and future growth demands and projected regulatory and permitting requirements; and WHERAS, the results of the Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update will be incorporated into the Wastewater Rate and Fee Study; and WHEREAS, Modesto Municipal Code (MMC) Section 8-3.203 generally requires all purchases, which meet or exceed $100,000 for material, equipment, or contractual services to follow formal bid procedures, and
WHEREAS, exceptions to the formal bidding process are granted in MMC Section 8-3.204(d) “Where the Purchasing Manager, in his or her discretion, determines that a process other than the formal bid procedure set forth in MMC Section 8-3.203 will #21..
- 1196 -
3/10/2026/Utilities/JAlves/Item X 2 2026-XX
result in procurement for the City at the lowest possible cost commensurate with the desired quality”; and
WHEREAS, retaining Carollo Engineers ensures continuity, reduces costs and delays and maintains a consistent level of professional service based on their experience and project related expertise; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the Agreement with Carollo Engineers should be exempt from the formal bidding procedures in accordance with MMC 8-

3.204(d).

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that it hereby approves an Agreement with Carollo Engineers, for the Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update in the amount of $136,668, plus $13,667 in Additional Services, if needed, for an Agreement total amount not to exceed $150,335.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute the agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. #21..
- 1197 -
3/10/2026/Utilities/JAlves/Item X 3 2026-XX
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 10th day of March 2026, by Councilmember _______________, who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember _______________, was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ATTEST:

DIANA NAYARES-PEREZ, CMC,
City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ____________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#21..
- 1198 -
3/10/2026/Utilities/JAlves/Item X 1 2026-XX

MODESTO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH BARTLE WELLS

ASSOCIATES, OF BERKELEY, CA, FOR THE WASTEWATER RATE AND FEE STUDY IN THE AMOUNT OF $188,600, PLUS $18,860 IN ADDITIONAL

SERVICES, IF NEEDED, FOR AN AGREEMENT TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $207,460 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS

DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the current wastewater rate and fee structure will not adequately fund the enterprise’s activities; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending the use of a financial advisory and utility rate consulting firm to complete a rate and fee study to fund current and future expenses insuring a consistent and reliable level of service is provided to our customers; and WHEREAS, Modesto Municipal Code (MMC) Section 8-3.203 generally requires all purchases, which meet or exceed $100,000 for material, equipment, or contractual services to follow formal bid procedures, and
WHEREAS, exceptions to the formal bidding process are granted in MMC Section 8-3.204(d) “Where the Purchasing Manager, in his or her discretion, determines that a process other than the formal bid procedure set forth in MMC Section 8-3.203 will result in procurement for the City at the lowest possible cost commensurate with the desired quality”; and
WHEREAS, retaining Bartle Wells Associates ensures continuity, reduces costs and delays and maintains a consistent level of professional service based on their experience and project related expertise; and
#21..
- 1199 -
3/10/2026/Utilities/JAlves/Item X 2 2026-XX
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the Agreement with Bartle Wells Associates should be exempt from the formal bidding procedures in accordance with MMC 8-3.204(d).

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that it hereby approves an Agreement with Bartle Wells Associates, for the Wastewater Rate and Fee Study in the amount of $188,600, plus $18,860 in Additional Services, if needed, for an Agreement total amount not to exceed $207,460.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute the agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. #21..
- 1200 -
3/10/2026/Utilities/JAlves/Item X 3 2026-XX
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 10th day of March 2026, by Councilmember _______________, who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember _______________, was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ATTEST:

DIANA NAYARES-PEREZ, CMC,
City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ____________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#21..
- 1201 -
03/10/2026/Utilities/JAlves/Item X 1 2026-XX

MODESTO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025- 26 MULTI-YEAR PROGRAM BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $407,795 TO FUND THE WASTEWATER ENGINEER’S REPORT UPDATE AND RATE

STUDY PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS

DESIGNEE, TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, certain budgetary transactions are necessary in the amount of $407,795, in order to fund the Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update and Rate Study Project; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Multi-Year Program Budget must be amended.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that it hereby approves the amendment of the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Multi-Year Program Budget in the amount of $407,795.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to implement the provisions of this resolution. #21..
- 1202 -
03/10/2026/Utilities/JAlves/Item X 2 2026-XX
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 10th day of March 2026, by Councilmember _______________, who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember _______________, was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ATTEST:

DIANA NAYARES-PEREZ, CMC
City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ____________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#21..
- 1203 -
-1-

ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
WASTEWATER ENGINEER’S REPORT UPDATE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in the City of Modesto, State of California, this day of , 2026, (“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF MODESTO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City", and CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC., a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant".

This Agreement is made with regard to the following recitals:

A. The City has determined that Engineering Services are necessary for the Wastewater Engineer’s Report Update.

B. CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified, willing and able to provide said services.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of this agreement, and the mutual promises, covenants, and stipulations hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

Consultant shall undertake and complete the preparation of the scope of work as set forth and described in the documents attached hereto and referred to as Exhibit "A" or "project". The Consultant shall perform the services as described in Exhibit "A" in a manner compatible with the standards of its profession and shall produce a fully complete project that is acceptable to City.

2. TERM OF AGREEMENT.

This Agreement is effective as of the date first written above and will continue in effect until City's acceptance of and payment for all services authorized by City and #21..
- 1204 -
-2-
performed by Consultant unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of the termination clause in this Agreement.

Consultant shall undertake and complete the preparation of the scope of work as set forth and described in the documents commonly referred to as “project” attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. City hereby gives Consultant notice to proceed with the preparation of the project in the manner described in Exhibit "A", as of the Effective Date of this agreement. Consultant shall diligently proceed with the preparation of the project and agrees to complete said preparation within the time period set forth in Exhibit "A".

3. COMPENSATION.

Consultant agrees to accept a sum not to exceed ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($136,668) (maximum compensation) as full remuneration for performing all services and furnishing all staffing and materials for Modesto in accordance with Exhibit "A" attached hereto and for performance by Consultant of all of its duties and obligations under this Agreement, except that additional services may be compensated as described below.

The Compensation shall be paid pursuant in the manner and at the times set forth below:

City shall pay Consultant on a time and materials basis for Consultant’s actual costs for all work called for in Exhibit “A” to this Agreement. All work to be performed under this Agreement shall be billed at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto, Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City which include detailed tasks, hours worked, and billable rates for all work completed, and detailed receipts for any out-of-pocket costs paid by Consultant in connection with work performed on this project. Expenses for travel #21..
- 1205 -
-3-
reimbursement shall comply with the City’s Administrative Directive 1.2 (AD 1.2), as amended periodically. The City’s AD 1.2 is available at the link below:
https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/24156/Citys-Administrative-Directive-12 Additional services may be authorized by the City Manager in an amount up to, but not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the agreed maximum compensation, or THIRTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($13,667). In the event that additional services are deemed necessary, the Consultant shall provide a written request to the City Manager indicating the reason for additional work, scope and cost of such work. The City Manager shall provide a written response to the request, either approving or denying the additional expenditure. If additional services are requested and approved, they will be billed at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit “B” and may not exceed the amount requested and approved in writing by the City Manager. In that event, the new total compensation shall not exceed ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($150,335). If additional services in excess of this amount are deemed necessary by City Staff, an amendment to this Agreement will be required and must be approved by the City Council prior to commencing the work, as provided in Paragraph 9 of this agreement.

4. OBLIGATIONS OF CONSULTANT.

Throughout the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall possess, or secure all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals legally required to conduct business.

Consultant warrants that it has all of the necessary professional capabilities and experience, as well as all tools, instrumentalities, facilities and other resources necessary to provide the City with the services contemplated by this Agreement. Consultant further warrants that it will follow the best current, generally accepted and professional practices to make findings, render opinions, #21..
- 1206 -
-4-
prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding this project.

In providing opinions of cost, financial analyses, economic feasibility projections, and schedules for potential projects, Consultant has no control over cost or price of labor and material; unknown or latent conditions of existing equipment or structures that may affect operation and maintenance costs; competitive bidding procedures and market conditions; time or quality of performance of third parties; quality, type, management, or direction of operating personnel; and other economic and operational factors that may materially affect the ultimate project cost or schedule. Therefore, Consultant makes no warranty that the City’s actual project costs, financial aspects, economic feasibility, or schedules will not vary from Consultant’s opinions, analyses, projections, or estimates.

Consultant is not responsible for damage or delay in performance caused by events beyond the reasonable control of Consultant. In the event Consultant’s services are suspended, delayed or interrupted for the convenience of the City or delays occur beyond the reasonable control of Consultant, an equitable adjustment in Consultant’s time of performance and cost of Consultant’s personnel and subcontractors may be made.

5. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY.

The City shall furnish Consultant available studies, reports, and other data pertinent to Consultant’s services; obtain or authorize Consultant to obtain or provide additional reports and data as required; furnish to Consultant services of others required for the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder, and Consultant shall be entitled to use and rely upon all such information and services provided by the City or others in performing Consultant’s services under this agreement.
#21..
- 1207 -
-5-

6. PERFORMANCE BY KEY EMPLOYEE.

Consultant has represented to City that, Ryan Sellman will be the person primarily responsible for the performance of the services referred to in this Agreement. City has entered into this Agreement in reliance on that representation by Consultant. Consultant therefore agrees that ten percent (10%) or more of the time to be devoted to the project that is the subject of this Agreement will be that of the above-named person.

7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS/TITLE TO DATA.

Ownership of Documents
All reports, drawings, designs, graphics, working papers and other incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall become and remain the property of the City, and may be used by City as it may require without any additional cost to City. No reports shall be used by the Consultant for purposes other than this contract without the express prior written consent of City.

Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this assignment are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by the City or others for this Project or on any other project. Any reuse of completed documents or use of partially completed documents without written verification or concurrence by Consultant for the specific purpose intended will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant.

Title to Data
If, as a part of the agreement, Consultant is required to produce data such as, but not limited to, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, models, flow diagrams, visual aids and other related materials, the originals of all such data generated under this agreement will be delivered to City upon the completion or termination of services under the contract. #21..
- 1208 -
-6-
All materials, documents, data or information obtained from the City data files or any City medium furnished to Consultant in the performance of this Agreement will at all times remain the property of the City. Such data or information may not be used or copied for direct or indirect use by Consultant after termination of this Agreement without written consent of the City.

8. NEWS AND INFORMATION RELEASE.

Consultant agrees that it will not issue any news releases in connection with either the award of this Agreement, or any subsequent amendment of or efforts under this Agreement, without first obtaining review and approval of said news releases from City through the City Manager.

9. INTEREST OF CONTRACTOR.

Consultant warrants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant warrants that, in performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not employ any person having any such interest. Consultant agrees to file a Statement of Economic Interests with the City Clerk at the start and end of this contract if so required at the option of City.

10. AMENDMENTS.

Both parties to this Agreement understand that it may become desirable or necessary during the execution of this Agreement, for City or Consultant to modify the scope of services provided for under this Agreement. Any material extension or change in the scope of work shall be discussed with City and the change and cost shall be memorialized in a written amendment to the original contract prior to the performance of the additional work. #21..
- 1209 -
-7-
Until a change order is so executed, City will not be responsible to pay any charges Consultant may incur in performing such additional services, and Consultant shall not be required to perform any such additional services.

11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

All acts of Consultant, its agents, officers, and employees and all others acting on behalf of Consultant relating to the performance of this Agreement, shall be performed as independent contractors and not as agents, officers, or employees of City. Consultant, by virtue of this Agreement, has no authority to bind or incur any obligation on behalf of City.

Consultant has no authority or responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in the City.

No agent, officer, or employee of the City is to be considered an employee of Consultant. It is understood by both Consultant and City that this Agreement shall not under any circumstances be construed or considered to create an employer-employee relationship or a joint venture.

Consultant, its agents, officers and employees are and, at all times during the terms of this Agreement, shall represent and conduct themselves as independent contractors and not as employees of City.

Consultant shall determine the method, details and means of performing the work and services to be provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall be responsible to City only for the requirements and results specified in this Agreement, and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, shall not be subjected to City's control with respect to the physical action or activities of the Consultant in fulfillment of this Agreement. Consultant has control over the manner and means of performing the services under this Agreement.

Consultant is permitted to provide services to others during the same period service is provided to City under this Agreement. If necessary, Consultant has the responsibility for employing #21..
- 1210 -
-8-
other persons or firms to assist Consultant in fulfilling the terms and obligations under this Agreement.

If in the performance of this Agreement any third persons are employed by Consultant, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of Consultant. All terms of employment including hours, wages, working conditions, discipline, hiring, and discharging or any other term of employment or requirement of law shall be determined by the Consultant.

It is understood and agreed that as an independent contractor and not an employee of City neither the Consultant or Consultant's assigned personnel shall have any entitlement as a City employee, right to act on behalf of the City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent, or to bind the City to any obligation whatsoever.

It is further understood and agreed that Consultant must issue W-2 forms or other forms as required by law for income and employment tax purposes for all of Consultant's personnel.

As an independent contractor, Consultant hereby indemnifies and holds City harmless from any and all claims that may be made against City based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Agreement.

12. ASSIGNMENT.

Neither this Agreement nor any portion thereof shall be subcontracted or assigned without the express prior written consent of the City in each and every instance.

13. PATENT/COPYRIGHT MATERIALS.

Unless otherwise expressly provided in the contract, Consultant shall be solely responsible for obtaining the right to use any patented or copyrighted materials in the #21..
- 1211 -
-9-
performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall furnish a warranty of such right to use to City at the request of City.

14. NOTICES.

Notice required by this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be deemed given and effective upon receipt provided that such are delivered in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Notices shall be delivered either by: (a) personal delivery (including delivery by an overnight courier service which obtains confirmation of receipt); or (b) by facsimile, provided that such transmission is followed by delivery by an overnight courier service which obtains confirmation of receipt; or (c) postage prepaid, return receipt requested, certified mail; or (d) by electronic transmission subject to reasonable proof that the notice was both transmitted and received. Each such notice shall be sent to the parties at the address respectively set forth below or to such other address as a party may designate by written notice given in accordance with the provisions of this Section:

FOR CONSULTANT: Name: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Address: 2795 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Attention: Ryan Sellman
Phone: (925) 932-1710
Email: [email protected]
FOR CITY: Name: City of Modesto
Address: 1010 10th Street
Suite 4600
Modesto, CA 95354
Attention: Jim Alves
Phone: (209) 571-5557
Email: [email protected]
#21..
- 1212 -
-10-

15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

During the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain in full force and effect at its own cost and expense the insurance coverage as set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein, and shall otherwise comply with the other provisions of Exhibit C. CONSULTANT is responsible for uploading updated insurance documentation to the City’s “PINS Advantage” program.

16. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.

Termination by City for Default of Consultant
Should Consultant default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its provisions, at its option, City may terminate this Agreement by giving written notification to Consultant. The termination date shall be the effective date of the notice. For the purposes of this section, material breach of this Agreement shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following: failure to perform required services or duties, willful destruction of City's property by Consultant, dishonesty or theft.

Termination by City for Convenience
The City may also terminate the Consultant's performance under the Agreement, either in whole or in part, at its own discretion, or when conditions encountered during the Work make it impossible or impracticable to proceed, or when the City is prevented from proceeding with the Agreement by act of God, by law, or by official action of a public authority, or upon a determination by the City that such termination is in the best interest and convenience of the City, or whenever the City is prohibited from completing the Work for any reason. The City shall provide no less than ten (10) calendar days written notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement for convenience, and shall endeavor to provide the Consultant with consultation with the City prior to termination.
#21..
- 1213 -
-11-
Post-Termination Procedure
Upon receipt of a written notice of termination pursuant to either of the foregoing paragraphs, the Consultant shall:
a. Cease its work as directed in the notice of termination as of the termination date and see to it that its employees, subconsultants and agents are notified of such termination and act as specified in the notice of termination;
b. Terminate all orders and Subcontractors except as necessary to complete any portion of the Work that is not terminated; c. If directed in writing by the City to do so, assign all right, title and interest in subcontracts and materials in progress to City, in which case the City will have the right at its discretion to settle, or pay any or all claims arising out of the termination of such subconsultants, but in no event shall recovery by any Consultant or subconsultant include lost profits for portions of the Work not completed or undertaken, including materials not delivered; d. Deliver or otherwise make available to the City all data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries and such other information and material as may have been accumulated by the Consultant in performing the Work whether completed or in process; e. Settle outstanding liabilities and claims, subject to the approval of City;
f. Complete performance of such part of the Work as has not been terminated;
#21..
- 1214 -
-12-
g. Take such other actions as may be necessary, or as may be directed by the City for the protection and preservation of the Work and/or property related to the Work;
h. If City so requests, and at City's cost, Consultant shall provide sufficient oral or written status reports to make City reasonably aware of the status of Consultant's work on the project. i. The Consultant understands and agrees that City may, in City's sole discretion, refuse to pay Consultant for that portion of Consultant's services which were performed by Consultant on the project prior to the termination date and which remain
unacceptable and/or not useful to City as of the termination date.

City will pay Consultant an amount based on the percentage of satisfactory work completed in accordance with the notice of termination. The final payment to the Consultant after termination for convenience shall be limited to amounts due and owing under the Agreement at time of termination, including the following:
a. The cost of settling and paying valid claims arising out of the termination of the Work such as subconsultant agreements or contracts for materials;
b. The Agreement price allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed or goods supplied to the work site by the Consultant as of the date of termination, as determined in accordance with the notice of termination, reduced by any sums previously paid to the Consultant.

Authorization to Terminate Agreement
#21..
- 1215 -
-13-
Termination of the Agreement may be invoked by the City Manager, or his/her designee, subject to the right of the Consultant to appeal the City Manager, or his/her designee’s, decision to the City Council. The Consultant shall appeal by notifying the City Clerk in writing within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of written notification from City of termination of the Agreement. In the event that termination of this Agreement is upheld by the City Council, any cessation of payment of delay claims, extended claims, Eichleay claims, or any other claims for delay shall be retroactive to the date of termination selected by the City Manager, or his/her designee.

17. CERTIFIED PAYROLL REQUIREMENT.

For consultants performing field work on public works contracts on which prevailing wages are required. The Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Section 1776 of the California Labor Code, regarding payroll records, and shall require its subconsultants and subcontractors to comply with that section as may be required by law.

18. INDEMNITY.

The Consultant shall hold the City, its agents, officers, employees, and volunteers, harmless from and save, defend and indemnify them against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, judgments or damages from every cause, including but not limited to injury to person or property or wrongful death, including reasonable costs and expenses of defense of any judicial or administrative action, arising directly or indirectly out of any negligent or intentional act or omission of Consultant, or its agents, officers, employees, or volunteers relating to or during the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to the Consultant exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

However, notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its #21..
- 1216 -
-14-
share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs.

Consultant's obligation to defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its agents, officers, and employees harmless under the provisions of this paragraph is not limited to or restricted by any requirement in this Agreement for Consultant to procure and maintain a policy of insurance.

19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

All claims, controversies, or disputes arising out of, or relating to the formation of this Agreement, or the breach, termination execution, enforcement, interpretation, or validity of this Agreement, including the determination of the scope or applicability of this contract provision shall be determined by binding arbitration in Modesto, California by one arbitrator, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The American Arbitration Association shall administer the arbitration under its Arbitration Rules then in effect, subject to the modifications of those rules contained in this paragraph. This agreement to arbitrate shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing law of any court having jurisdiction, and the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The appropriate venue for any arbitration or court proceeding relating to or arising out of this provision shall be in Stanislaus County, California.

This paragraph is not intended to and does not waive the claim filing requirements found in California Government Code section 900 et seq. In the event that a timely and legally sufficient, arbitrable claim is filed by Consultant with City, and the claim is rejected in whole or in part by City, this paragraph shall result in the conclusive, final, and binding resolution of all the issues presented in the claim by Consultant so long as any issues presented by the claim are arbitrable. Claims rejected by City or by operation of law, shall be submitted by #21..
- 1217 -
-15-
Consultant to arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association within ninety (90) days after mailing of the written rejection by City to Consultant.

Otherwise, the claim or claims shall be deemed waived in their entirety.

The “fast track’ rules of the American Arbitration Association shall apply to any claim or counterclaim less than ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($150,000.00) DOLLARS. In arbitration not proceeding under the “fast track” rules, the arbitrator shall have the power to order that depositions be taken and other discovery be made.

Both City and Consultant shall have the right, upon written notice, to take no more than three (3) depositions of the other as a matter of right in an arbitration proceeding under the “fast track” rules.

Whether or not City and Consultant may be engaged in interstate commerce, any controversy or dispute mentioned above shall be determined by, and the parties shall be bound by, the substantive law of the State of California, and not the Federal Arbitration Act at 9 USC Section 1 et seq.

The arbitrator may grant any remedy or relief deemed by the arbitrator just and equitable under the circumstances, whether or not such relief could be awarded in a court of law. The arbitrator shall be empowered to award monetary sanctions against a party for failure of cooperation in the arbitration. The arbitrator shall, in written award, allocate all the costs of the arbitration, including the fees of the arbitrator and the reasonable attorney fees of the prevailing party, against the party who did not prevail. The prevailing party shall be the party in whose favor the majority of the central issues in the case are resolved.

Notwithstanding anything in this provision to the contrary, the arbitrator shall have no power to award punitive damages or other damages not measured by the party’s actual damages (excluding litigation costs and fees) against any party. This limitation of the #21..
- 1218 -
-16-
arbitrator’s powers under this Agreement shall not operate as an exclusion of the issue of punitive damages from this Agreement to Arbitrate sufficient to vest jurisdiction in a court with respect to that issue.

Consultant shall include in all subcontracts a specification whereby the subcontractor consents to being joined in an arbitration between City and Consultant involving the work of the subcontractor to be joined. Consultant’s failure to do so shall be a breach of this Agreement.

The parties hereby waive any rights provided by Title 9.2 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1296. The arbitrator’s award shall be deemed final, conclusive and binding to the fullest extent allowed by California law.

20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.

This Agreement and its exhibits contain the entire understanding between Consultant and City. Additional or new terms contained in this Agreement which vary from Consultant's proposal are controlling and are deemed accepted by Consultant by shipment of any article or other commencement of performance hereunder. All previous proposals, offers and communications relative to this Agreement, whether oral or written, are hereby superseded except to the extent that they have been incorporated into this Agreement. No future waiver of or exception to any of the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall be considered valid unless specifically agreed to in writing by all the parties.

21. PARTIAL INVALIDITY.

If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. #21..
- 1219 -
-17-

22. WAIVER.

The waiver by any party to this Agreement of a breach of any provision hereof shall be in writing and shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any other or subsequent breach hereof unless specifically stated in writing.

23. AUDIT.

The City's duly authorized representative shall have access at all reasonable times to all reports, contract records, contract documents, contract files, and personnel necessary to audit and verify Consultant's charges to City under this Agreement.

Consultant agrees to retain reports, records, documents, and files related to charges under this Agreement for a period of four (4) years following the date of final payment for Consultant services. City's representative shall have the right to reproduce any of the aforesaid documents.

24. GOVERNING LAW.

This Agreement shall be governed according to the laws of the State of California.

25. HEADINGS NOT CONTROLLING.

Headings used in the Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement.

26. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS.

Consultant shall insure compliance with all safety and hourly requirements for employees, in accordance with federal, state, and county safety and health regulations and laws. Consultant shall fully comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, regulations and permits.
#21..
- 1220 -
-18-

27. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE.

Consultant will have a City of Modesto business license.

28. THIRD PARTIES.

The services to be performed by Consultant are intended solely for the benefit of the City. No person or entity not a signatory to this Agreement shall be entitled to rely on Consultant’s performance of its services hereunder, and no right to assert a claim against Consultant by assignment or indemnity rights or otherwise shall accrue to a third party as a result of this Agreement or the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Modesto, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attestation by its City Clerk under authority of Resolution No. 2026- __ , adopted by the Council of the City of Modesto on the day of , 2026, and CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC. has caused this agreement to be duly executed in duplicate as of the Effective Date. (Signatures on Next Page)
#21..
- 1221 -

SCOPE OF SERVICES
2025 - Update of Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facilities Engineer’s Report Purpose and Background
The previous Engineer’s Report (Report) update was completed in November 2021. It provided justification and cost allocation for proposed wastewater collection system and treatment plant improvements identified in the Wastewater Master Plan (Master Plan) and the Engineer’s Report that was completed in 2016, and served as a basis for the establishment sewer service charges and connection fees to fund the wastewater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Report is again in need of an update to reflect completed CIP projects as well as the need to address revised priorities and capital project needs resulting from changing wastewater flows and loads operating conditions, and applicable regulations. The updated report will support the development of new sewer rates and fees.

Task 1 – Project Management and Meetings
CONSULTANT shall provide project administration and management necessary for all tasks required for the scope of services described herein.

CONSULTANT shall prepare for and conduct four (4) meetings during the course of the work to solicit input and decisions from the CITY. These shall include a project kickoff meeting to review project goals and collect background data, a workshop to review the draft report, a presentation to a Council Committee, and a presentation to the full City Council. The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes and summarize key decisions.

Task 2 – Review Background Information
CONSULATANT shall review related background information including the Sutter Campus Master Plan Relocation Project (that is currently underway), November 2021 Updated Engineer’s Report, January 2016 Final Engineer’s Report, December 2016 Final Draft Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Plant Master Plans, information pertaining to completed CIP projects, as well wastewater studies and reports completed since 2021.

Task 3 – Update CIP Project Descriptions and Costs
CONSULTANT shall update CIP project descriptions and costs based on changes to the Engineer’s Report since November 2021; projects that have been completed or are currently underway; as well as adjustments that may be required as a result of changes in wastewater flows and loads, current operating data, and/or the findings of recent studies. Where existing project cost estimates are available, updates will be based exclusively on adjustments to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI). Projects that are listed in the Sutter Campus Master Plan Relocation Project will be used for this update. Flows and load information will not be updated from the Sutter Campus Master Plan Relocation Study. Updated figures for collections projects will be provided to show new or revised projects as required.

Task 4 – Update Wastewater CIP and Implementation Schedule Based on the results of Task 3, CONSULTANT shall update the wastewater CIP, project priorities, phasing, overall implementation schedule, and projected cash flow.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1222 -
Task 5 – Review and Update Cost Allocations
CONSULATANT shall review the cost allocation methodology between existing and future customers, domestic and cannery customers, as well as to the parameters of flow, BOD, and TSS presented in the 2021 Updated Engineer’s Report and update, if necessary.

Task 6 – Prepare Draft Updated Engineer’s Report
CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft report presenting the analysis and findings of Tasks 2 through 5 described herein.

Task 7 – Prepare Final Updated Engineer’s Report
Upon acceptance of the draft report by the CITY, CONSULTANT shall prepare a Final Updated Engineer’s Report incorporating comments and edits requested by the CITY.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1223 -
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Notice to Proceed 1 day Mon 3/16/26Mon 3/16/26
2 Project Management 6 mons Tue 3/17/26 Mon 8/31/263 Kickoff Meeting 1 day Tue 3/24/26 Tue 3/24/264 Review Background Info 14 days Tue 3/17/26 Fri 4/3/265 Update CIP Descriptions and Costs 4 wks Mon 4/6/26 Fri 5/1/266 City Review of CIP Descriptions and Costs
2 wks Mon 5/4/26 Fri 5/15/26
7 Update Wastewater CIP and
Impementation Schedule
3 wks Mon
5/18/26
Fri 6/5/26
8 City Review of CIP List and Schedule 2 wks Mon 6/8/26 Fri 6/19/269 Review and Update Cost allocations 3 wks Mon 6/22/26Fri 7/10/26 10 City Review of Cost Allocations 2 wks Mon 7/13/26Fri 7/24/2611 Prepare Draft Engineer's Report 3 wks Mon 7/27/26Fri 8/14/2612 City Review of DRAFT Engineers Report 2 wks Mon 8/17/26
Fri 8/28/26
13 Prepare Final Engineer's Report 2 wks Mon 8/31/26Fri 9/11/26 3/16
3/24
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
TaskSplitMilestoneSummary
Project SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive Summary Manual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual Summary Start-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal Milestone
DeadlineProgressManual Progress

Page 1 ends

Project: Modesto Engineers RepDate: Thu 11/20/25
EXHIBIT A #21..
- 1224 -
City of Modesto
Update of Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facilities Engineer's ReportUpdated 11/8/2025 Task
Principal-In-Charge
Project Manager
Senior Engineer
Staff Engineer
Senior Technical Advisor
QA/QC
Document Processing Total Hours Total Labor Costs Technology Charges (PECE) Other Direct Costs Total Costs 1 Project Management and Meetings 16 40 12 32 0 0 4 104 $30,192 $1,664 $1,666 $33,5222 Review Background Information 4 4 6 6 0 0 0 20 $5,712 $320 $0 $6,0323 Update CIP Project Descriptions and Cost 6 12 20 30 4 4 2 78 $21,446 $1,248 $0 $22,6944 Update Wastewater CIP and Implementation Schedule 6 8 16 26 2 2 0 60 $16,328 $960 $0 $17,2885 Review and Update Cost Allocations 4 8 15 24 4 2 0 57 $15,657 $912 $0 $16,5696 Prepare Draft Updated Engineers Report 7 8 20 40 10 4 12 101 $26,335 $1,616 $238 $28,1897 Prepare Final Updated Engineer's Report 4 4 4 16 4 2 12 46 $11,400 $736 $238 $12,374 TOTAL HOURS 47 84 93 174 24 14 30 466TOTAL COST $16,215 $28,980 $25,575 $37,758 $8,736 $5,096 $4,710 $127,070 $7,456 $2,142 $136,668HOURLY RATE $345 $345 $275 $217 $364 $364 $157 EXHIBIT B #21..
- 1225 -
EXHIBIT C – Insurance Requirement for Professional Services Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. 1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(Not required if consultant provides written verification, it has no employees)

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriates to the Consultant’s profession, with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.

If the consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Modesto requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Modesto.

Umbrella or Excess Coverage
The Consultant may use Umbrella or Excess Policies to provide the liability limits as required in this agreement. This form of insurance will be acceptable provided that all of the Primary and Umbrella or Excess Policies shall provide all of the insurance coverages herein required, including, but not limited to, primary and non-contributory, additional insured, Self-Insured Retentions (SIRs), indemnity, and defense requirements. The Umbrella or Excess policies shall be provided on a true “following form” or broader coverage basis, with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying Commercial General Liability insurance. No insurance policies maintained by the Additional Insureds, whether primary or excess, and which also apply #21..
- 1226 -
to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until the Consultant’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted.

The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City of Modesto, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance with coverage equal to ISO form CG 2010. If Completed Operations endorsement is required, a separate endorsement equal to ISO form CG 2037 is required.

Primary Coverage
The Additional Insured coverage under the Consultant’s policy shall be “primary and noncontributory” and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13. The City of Modesto does not accept endorsements limiting the Consultant’s insurance coverage to the sole negligence of the Named Insured.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City of Modesto.

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to City of Modesto a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City of Modesto by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Modesto has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Self-Insured Retentions
All Self-insured retentions must be disclosed to Risk Management for approval and shall not reduce the limits of liability. The City of Modesto may require the Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of the ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. Any and all deductibles and SIRs shall be the sole responsibility of consultant or subconsultant who procured such insurance and shall not apply to the Indemnified Additional Insured Parties.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Modesto.

Claims Made Policies (applicable to Professional Liability only) If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:
#21..
- 1227 -

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

If coverage is canceled or non-renewed and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City of Modesto with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language affecting coverage required by this clause and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsements Pages of the CGL and any Excess policies listing all policy endorsements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Modesto Risk Services before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City of Modesto reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. City reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements. Failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of right to exercise later.

Subconsultants
Consultants shall require and verify that all subconsultants, or other parties hired for this work, purchase and maintain coverage for indemnity and insurance requirements as least as broad as specified in this agreement to the extent they apply to the scope of the subconsultant’s work with the same certificate of insurance requirements and naming as additional insureds all parties to this contract.

Special Risks or Circumstances
City of Modesto reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Certificate Holder Address
Proper address for mailing certificates, endorsements and notices shall be:

City of Modesto
Attn: Risk Management
1010 10th Street
Modesto, CA 95354
#21..
- 1228 -
#21..
- 1229 -
#21..
- 1230 -
#21..
- 1231 -
#21..
- 1232 -
#21..
- 1233 -
#21..
- 1234 -
#21..
- 1235 -
#21..
- 1236 -
#21..
- 1237 -
-1-

CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT

WASTEWATER RATE AND FEE STUDY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in the City of Modesto, State of California, this day of , 2026, (“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF MODESTO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT".

This Agreement is made with regard to the following recitals:

A. The CITY has determined that consultant services are necessary for the preparation of the Wastewater Rate and Fee Study.

B. CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified, willing and able to provide the services to prepare said document(s).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of this agreement, and the mutual promises, covenants, and stipulations hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

CONSULTANT shall undertake and complete the preparation of the scope of work as set forth and described in the documents attached hereto and referred to as Exhibit "A" or "project". The CONSULTANT shall perform the services as described in Exhibit "A" in a manner compatible with the standards of its profession, and shall produce a fully complete project that is acceptable to CITY.

2. TERM OF AGREEMENT.

This Agreement is effective as of the date first written above and will continue in effect until CITY’s acceptance of and payment for all services authorized by CITY #21..
- 1238 -
-2-
and performed by CONSULTANT, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of the termination clause in this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall undertake and complete the preparation of the scope of work as set forth and described in the documents commonly referred to as “project” attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. CITY hereby gives CONSULTANT notice to proceed with the preparation of the project in the manner described in Exhibit "A", as of the Effective Date of this agreement. CONSULTANT shall diligently proceed with the preparation of the project and agrees to complete said preparation within the time period set forth in Exhibit "A".

3. COMPENSATION.

CONSULTANT agrees to accept a sum not to exceed ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($188,600) (maximum compensation) as full remuneration for performing all services and furnishing all staffing and materials for CITY in accordance with Exhibit "A" attached hereto and for performance by CONSULTANT of all of its duties and obligations under this Agreement, except that additional services may be compensated as described below.

The Compensation shall be paid pursuant in the manner and at the times set forth below:

CITY shall pay CONSULTANT on a time and materials basis for CONSULTANT’s actual costs for all work called for in Exhibit “A” to this Agreement. All work to be performed under this Agreement shall be billed at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to City which include detailed tasks, hours worked, and billable rates for all work completed, and detailed receipts for #21..
- 1239 -
-3-
any out-of-pocket costs paid by CONSULTANT in connection with work performed on this project. Expenses for travel reimbursement shall comply with the City's Administrative Directive 1.2 (AD 1.2), as amended periodically. The City's AD 1.2 is available at the link below:
https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/24156/Citys-Administrative-Directive-12.

Additional services may be authorized by the City Manager in an amount up to, but not to exceed 10% of the agreed maximum compensation, or EIGHTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($18,860). In the event that additional services are deemed necessary, the CONSULTANT shall provide a written request to the City Manager indicating the reason for additional work, scope and cost of such work. The City Manager shall provide a written response to the request, either approving or denying the additional expenditure. If additional services are requested and approved, they will be billed at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit “B” and may not exceed the amount requested and approved in writing by the City Manager. In that event, the new total compensation shall not exceed TWO HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($207,460). If additional services in excess of this amount are deemed necessary by City Staff, an amendment to this Agreement will be required and must be approved by the City Council prior to commencing the work, as provided in Paragraph 9 of this agreement.

4. OBLIGATIONS OF CONSULTANT.

Throughout the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall possess, or secure all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals legally required to conduct business.

CONSULTANT warrants that it has all of the necessary professional capabilities and experience, as well as all tools, instrumentalities, facilities and other resources necessary to provide the CITY with the services contemplated by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further warrants that it will #21..
- 1240 -
-4-
follow the best current, generally accepted and professional practices to make findings, render opinions, prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding this project.

5. PERFORMANCE BY KEY EMPLOYEE.

CONSULTANT has represented to CITY that Erik Helgeson, will be the person primarily responsible for the performance of the services referred to in this Agreement.

CITY has entered into this Agreement in reliance on that representation by CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANT therefore agrees that ten percent (10%) or more of the time to be devoted to the project that is the subject of this Agreement will be that of the above-named person.

6. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS/TITLE TO DATA.

Ownership of Documents
All reports, drawings, designs, graphics, working papers and other incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall become and remain the property of the CITY, and may be used by CITY as it may require without any additional cost to CITY. No reports shall be used by the CONSULTANT for purposes other than this contract without the express prior written consent of CITY.

Title to Data
If, as a part of the agreement, CONSULTANT is required to produce data such as, but not limited to, drawings, plans, specifications, calculations, models, flow diagrams, visual aids and other related materials, the originals of all such data generated under this agreement will be delivered to CITY upon the completion or termination of services under the Agreement.

All materials, documents, data or information obtained from the CITY data files or any CITY medium furnished to CONSULTANT in the performance of this #21..
- 1241 -
-5-
Agreement will at all times remain the property of the CITY. Such data or information may not be used or copied for direct or indirect use by CONSULTANT after termination of this Agreement without written consent of the CITY.

7. NEWS AND INFORMATION RELEASE.

CONSULTANT agrees that it will not issue any news releases in connection with either the award of this Agreement, or any subsequent amendment of or efforts under this Agreement, without first obtaining review and approval of said news releases from CITY through the City Manager.

8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

CONSULTANT warrants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would create a “conflict of interest”, as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act (Gov. Code § 81000 et seq), for the CONSULTANT in the performance of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT warrants that, in performance of this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall not employ any person having any such interest.

CONSULTANT understands that, if this AGREEMENT is made in violation of Government Code § 1090 et seq., the entire AGREEMENT is void and CONSULTANT will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed. CONSULTANT agrees to file a Statement of Economic Interests with the City Clerk at the start and end of this AGREEMENT if so, required at the option of CITY.

9. AMENDMENTS.

Both parties to this Agreement understand that it may become desirable or necessary during the execution of this Agreement, for CITY or CONSULTANT to modify the scope of services provided for under this Agreement. Any material extension or change in the #21..
- 1242 -
-6-
scope of work shall be discussed with CITY and the change and cost shall be memorialized in a written amendment to the original contract prior to the performance of the additional work.

Until a change order is so executed, CITY will not be responsible to pay any charges CONSULTANT may incur in performing such additional services, and CONSULTANT shall not be required to perform any such additional services.

10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

All acts of CONSULTANT, its agents, officers, and employees and all others acting on behalf of CONSULTANT relating to the performance of this Agreement, shall be performed as independent contractors and not as agents, officers, or employees of CITY.

CONSULTANT, by virtue of this Agreement, has no authority to bind or incur any obligation on behalf of City. CONSULTANT has no authority or responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in the CITY. No agent, officer, or employee of the CITY is to be considered an employee of CONSULTANT. It is understood by both CONSULTANT and CITY that this Agreement shall not under any circumstances be construed or considered to create an employeremployee relationship or a joint venture.

CONSULTANT, its agents, officers and employees are and, at all times during the terms of this Agreement, shall represent and conduct themselves as independent contractors and not as employees of CITY.

CONSULTANT shall determine the method, details and means of performing the work and services to be provided by CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible to CITY only for the requirements and results specified in this Agreement, and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, shall not be subjected to CITY's control with respect to the physical action or activities of the CONSULTANT in fulfillment of this Agreement. CONSULTANT has control over the manner and means of #21..
- 1243 -
-7-
performing the services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT is permitted to provide services to others during the same period service is provided to City under this Agreement. If necessary, CONSULTANT has the responsibility for employing other persons or firms to assist CONSULTANT in fulfilling the terms and obligations under this Agreement.

If in the performance of this Agreement any third persons are employed by CONSULTANT, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of Consultant. All terms of employment including hours, wages, working conditions, discipline, hiring, and discharging or any other term of employment or requirement of law shall be determined by the CONSULTANT.

It is understood and agreed that as an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY neither the CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT 's assigned personnel shall have any entitlement as a CITY employee, right to act on behalf of the CITY in any capacity whatsoever as an agent, or to bind the CITY to any obligation whatsoever.

It is further understood and agreed that CONSULTANT must issue W-2 forms or other forms as required by law for income and employment tax purposes for all of CONSULTANT's personnel.

As an independent contractor, CONSULTANT hereby indemnifies and holds CITY harmless from any and all claims that may be made against CITY based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Agreement.

11. ASSIGNMENT.

Neither this Agreement nor any portion thereof shall be subcontracted or assigned without the express prior written consent of the CITY in each and every instance. #21..
- 1244 -
-8-

12. PATENT/COPYRIGHT MATERIALS.

Unless otherwise expressly provided in the Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for obtaining the right to use any patented or copyrighted materials in the performance of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall furnish a warranty of such right to use to CITY at the request of CITY.

13. NOTICES.

FOR CONSULTANT: Name: Bartle Wells Associates
Address: 2625 Alcatraz Avenue
#602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Attention: Erik Helgeson
Phone: (510) 653-3399
E-mail: [email protected]
FOR CITY: Name: City of Modesto
Address: 1010 10th Street
Suite 4600
Modesto, CA 95354
Attention: Jim Alves
Phone: (209) 571-5557
E-mail: [email protected]
#21..
- 1245 -
-9-

14. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

15. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.

Termination by CITY for Default of CONSULTANT
Should CONSULTANT default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its provisions, at its option, CITY may terminate this Agreement by giving written notification to CONSULTANT. The termination date shall be the effective date of the notice. For the purposes of this section, material breach of this Agreement shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following: failure to perform required services or duties, willful destruction of CITY's property by CONSULTANT, dishonesty or theft.

Termination by City for Convenience
The CITY may also terminate the CONSULTANT 's performance under the Agreement, either in whole or in part, at its own discretion, or when conditions encountered during the Work make it impossible or impracticable to proceed, or when the CITY is prevented from proceeding with the Agreement by act of God, by law, or by official action of a public authority, or upon a determination by the CITY that such termination is in the best interest and convenience of the CITY, or whenever the CITY is prohibited from completing the Work for any reason. The CITY shall provide no less than ten (10) calendar days written notice of its intent to terminate the Agreement for convenience, and shall endeavor to provide the CONSULTANT with consultation with the CITY prior to termination.
#21..
- 1246 -
-10-
Post-Termination Procedure
Upon receipt of a written notice of termination pursuant to either of the foregoing paragraphs, the CONSULTANT shall:
a. Cease its work as directed in the notice of termination as of the termination date and see to it that its employees, subconsultants and agents are notified of such termination and act as specified in the notice of termination;
b. Terminate all orders and Subconsultants except as necessary to complete any portion of the Work that is not terminated; c. If directed in writing by the CITY to do so, assign all right, title and interest in subcontracts and materials in progress to CITY, in which case the CITY will have the right at its discretion to settle, or pay any or all claims arising out of the termination of such subconsultants, but in no event shall recovery by any CONSULTANT or subconsultant include lost profits for portions of the Work not completed or undertaken, including materials not delivered;
d. Deliver or otherwise make available to the CITY all data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries and such other information and material as may have been accumulated by the CONSULTANT in performing the Work whether completed or in process;
e. Settle outstanding liabilities and claims, subject to the approval of CITY;
#21..
- 1247 -
-11-
f. Complete performance of such part of the Work as has not been terminated;
g. Take such other actions as may be necessary, or as may be directed by the CITY for the protection and preservation of the Work and/or property related to the Work;
h. If CITY so requests, and at CITY's cost, CONSULTANT shall provide sufficient oral or written status reports to make CITY reasonably aware of the status of CONSULTANT 's work on the project.
i. The CONSULTANT understands and agrees that CITY may, in CITY's sole discretion, refuse to pay CONSULTANT for that portion of CONSULTANT's services which were performed by CONSULTANT on the project prior to the termination date and which remain unacceptable and/or not useful to CITY as of the termination date.

CITY will pay CONSULTANT an amount based on the percentage of satisfactory work completed in accordance with the notice of termination. The final payment to the CONSULTANT after termination for convenience shall be limited to amounts due and owing under the Agreement at time of termination, including the following:
a. The cost of settling and paying valid claims arising out of the termination of the Work such as subconsultant agreements or contracts for materials;
b. The Agreement price allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed or goods supplied to the work site by the #21..
- 1248 -
-12-
CONSULTANT as of the date of termination, as determined in accordance with the notice of termination, reduced by any sums previously paid to the CONSULTANT.

Authorization to Terminate Agreement
Termination of the Agreement may be invoked by the City Manager, or his/her designee, subject to the right of the CONSULTANT to appeal the City Manager, or his/her designee’s, decision to the City Council. The CONSULTANT shall appeal by notifying the City Clerk in writing within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of written notification from City of termination of the Agreement. In the event that termination of this Agreement is upheld by the City Council, any cessation of payment of delay claims, extended claims, Eichleay claims, or any other claims for delay shall be retroactive to the date of termination selected by the City Manager, or his/her designee.

16. CERTIFIED PAYROLL REQUIREMENT.

If CONSULTANT is performing “public works” as defined in Labor Code section 1720(a), CONSULTANT shall pay all workers, and shall ensure its subcontractors pay all of their workers, engaged in performing the services described in Exhibit “A” not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the services described in Exhibit “A” are to be performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work as provided in the California Labor Code.

In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1773.2, the City has obtained the general prevailing wages in the locality in which the services described in Exhibit A are to be performed for each craft or type of work needed to be as published by the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, a copy of which is on file in the CITY’s Purchasing Department and shall be made available on request. CONSULTANT must #21..
- 1249 -
-13-
comply with all applicable laws and regulations that apply to wages earned in performance of the services described in Exhibit “A”, including those set forth in Labor Code section 1770 et. seq.

17. INDEMNITY.

If CONSULTANT is Design Professional performing design professional services, as defined in California Civil Code section2782.8, CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY, its agents, officers, officials, employees and volunteers, rom and against any and all claims, demands, costs, or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT and its employees, officials, officers, agents or agents in the performance of services under this Agreement, but this indemnity does not apply to liability for damages arising from the sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the CITY. The CITY agrees that in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the CONSULTANT exceed that CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the CONSULTANT shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs. This duty to indemnify shall not be waived or modified by contractual Agreement or acts of the parties.

If CONSULTANT is not a Design Professional performing Design Professional Services, the CONSULTANT shall hold the CITY, its agents, officers, employees, and volunteers harmless from and save, defend and indemnify them against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, judgments or damages from every cause, including but not limited to injury to person or property or wrongful death, including reasonable costs and expenses of defense of any judicial or administrative action, arising directly or indirectly out of any negligent or intentional act or omission of CONSULTANT, or its agents, officers, officials, employees, or volunteers relating #21..
- 1250 -
-14-
to or during the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, except for claims arising from the sole negligence of the CITY.

CONSULTANT's obligation to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its agents, officers, and employees harmless under the provisions of this paragraph is not limited to or restricted by any requirement in this Agreement for CONSULTANT to procure and maintain a policy of insurance.

In the event that CONSULTANT or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of CONSULTANT providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of CITY, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of CONSULTANT or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of CITY.

18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

Venue for all claims, controversies, or disputes arising out of, or relating to the formation of this Agreement, or the breach, termination execution, enforcement, interpretation, or validity of this Agreement, including the determination of the scope or applicability of this contract provision shall be in the Superior Court of Stanislaus County or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

19. ATTORNEY’S FEES.

If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be #21..
- 1251 -
-15-
entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.

19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.

This Agreement and its exhibits contain the entire understanding between CONSULTANT and CITY. Additional or new terms contained in this Agreement which vary from CONSULTANT's proposal are controlling and are deemed accepted by CONSULTANT by shipment of any article or other commencement of performance hereunder. All previous proposals, offers and communications relative to this Agreement, whether oral or written, are hereby superseded except to the extent that they have been incorporated into this Agreement. No future waiver of or exception to any of the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall be considered valid unless specifically agreed to in writing by all the parties.

20. PARTIAL INVALIDITY.

21. WAIVER.

22. AUDIT.

The CITY's duly authorized representative shall have access at all reasonable times to all reports, contract records, contract documents, contract files, and personnel necessary to audit and verify CONSULTANT's charges to City under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to retain reports, records, documents, and files related to charges under this Agreement for a period of four (4) years following the date of final payment for CONSULTANT services. CITY's representative shall have the right to reproduce any of the aforesaid documents.

23. GOVERNING LAW.

This Agreement shall be governed according to the laws of the State of California.

24. HEADINGS NOT CONTROLLING.

Headings used in the Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement.

25. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS.

CONSULTANT shall insure compliance with all safety and hourly requirements for employees, in accordance with federal, state, and county safety and health regulations and laws. CONSULTANT shall fully comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, regulations and permits.

26. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE.

Consultant will have a City of Modesto business license. #21..
- 1253 -
-17-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Modesto, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attestation by its City Clerk under authority of Resolution No. 2026- , adopted by the Council of the City of Modesto on the day of , 2026, and BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES has caused this agreement to be duly executed in duplicate as of the Effective Date. (Signatures on next page)
#21..
- 1254 -
Proposal for a Wastewater
Rate and Fee Study
December 3, 2025

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1255 -
November 14, 2025
William Wong
Utilities Department, City of Modesto
1010 Tenth Street, 4th Floor, Suite 4600
Modesto, CA 95354
Re: Proposal for a Wastewater Cost-of-Service Rate Study Dear William:

Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) is pleased to submit this proposal to develop a Wastewater Cost-of-Service Rate Study for the City of Modesto. For more than 60 years, our firm has specialized in providing independent financial and utility rate consulting services to California water and wastewater agencies. We offer an unmatched level of financial planning expertise and are the only firm in California to provide both financial advisory services for project financing as well as utility rate consulting services.

Bartle Wells Associates is a leader in California utility finance having served over 600 public agencies throughout California. As a Northern California company, we are proud to have served the City of Modesto and many local agencies including the Cities of Tracy, Patterson, Hughson, Clovis, Davis, Vacaville, Antioch, Placerville, and American Canyon, as well as Modesto Irrigation District, San Luis Water District, Madera County Special Districts and Mariposa County.

BWA is deeply familiar with the City’s financial systems, goals, and rate structures, having worked closely with the City on multiple initiatives over the years. Our team has already developed ADA-compliant models, reports, and Proposition 218 notice templates for the City. We continue to provide ongoing support to the City in reviewing stormwater discharge methodologies and wholesale rate design, which aligns and overlaps with the scope of this project. This continuity allows us to build on existing work and deliver efficient, informed recommendations.

Throughout the engagement, BWA will work in close partnership with the City’s project team to clarify objectives, incorporate feedback, evaluate alternatives, and develop rate structures that reflect the City’s priorities. Our familiarity with the City’s operational context and our proven track record of responsive, collaborative service make us the ideal partner for this effort We enjoyed working with the City and appreciate the opportunity to work with the City again. We are available to start working at the City’s direction. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,
Erik Helgeson, MBA
Principal / Partner
510.671.8669
[email protected]
2625 Alcatraz Ave, #602
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel 510 653 3399
www.bartlewells.com

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1256 -
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1 Project Understanding & Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1 Collaborative Project Approach & Process.............................................................................................. 1 SECTION 1: FIRM ORGANIZATION AND PROJECT TEAM..................................... 2 BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES..................................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT TEAM......................................................................................................................................... 4 RESUMES.................................................................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 2: WASTEWATER RATE STUDY .............................................................. 9 Task 1. Project Initiation & Data Collection .......................................................................................... 9 Task 2. 10-Year Financial Plans.............................................................................................................. 9 Task 3. Cost of Service Rate Analysis ................................................................................................... 11 Task 4. Capacity Fee Analysis............................................................................................................... 12 Task 5. Wastewater Miscellaneous Fee Analysis.................................................................................. 13 Task 6. Meetings, Reports, Presentations, Model and Rate Implementation..................................... 13 SECTION 3: PROJECT SCHEDULE ........................................................................ 15 SECTION 4: COST PROPOSAL ............................................................................. 16 AVAILABILITY & FEES.............................................................................................................................. 17 INSURANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 19

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1257 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 1
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal Executive Summary
Project Understanding & Objectives
• Wastewater Rate Study: BWA will develop a comprehensive wastewater utility rate and fee study with the goal of helping the City implement a series of rates for upcoming years that a) fund the City’s projected costs of providing service, b) maintain financial stability, and c) are fair to all customers. Our general rate study process is summarized in the following graphic:
• Build Consensus for Final Recommendations: BWA has a strong track record of building consensus and public acceptance for final recommendations. Rate and fee adjustments can be controversial. We have found that ratepayers are more accepting of rate increases when they both understand the need for the increases and believe they are being treated fairly. BWA will draft the required Proposition 218 rate notice, present a summary of recommendations at the required Public Rate Hearing, and can assist with public outreach efforts. Our goal will be to build consensus and public acceptance for final recommendations.

Collaborative Project Approach & Process
BWA uses a collaborative project approach to ensure final recommendations reflect the policy preferences and objectives of the agencies we serve. Our general approach will be to work closely with the City’s project team to identify objectives, evaluate alternatives and their impacts, gain ongoing input, and remain flexible to resolve unanticipated issues.

BWA will assist the City in all phases of the study, from project initiation through final adoption and implementation. Rate and fee increases can be controversial. BWA has extensive experience helping agencies build consensus for final recommendations and has assisted many agencies with public outreach efforts aimed at fostering understanding and acceptance for rate and fee increases. BWA also has substantial experience working with citizen advisory groups, community groups, and other stakeholders, and has a long track record of completing projects on time and on budget. We have helped many agencies successfully adopt rate increases in challenging political environments.

Project Initiation 10-Year Financial
Plan
Cost of Service
Rate Design
Outreach &
Adoption
Rate Study Process
Clarify Objectives
Establish Process/Schedule
Review Data & Assumptions
Financial Projections
Financing Alternatives
Evaluate Scenarios
Analyze Billing Data
Evaluate Rate Alternatives
Cost Allocation & Rate Design
Build Consensus
Public Education
Proposition 218 Process

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1258 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 2
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal Section 1: Firm Organization and Project Team

BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
Leaders in Water, Wastewater & Stormwater Rates and Finance Since 1964 Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) is an independent financial advisory firm with expertise in the areas of water, wastewater, and stormwater finance. BWA was established in 1964 and has over 60 years of experience advising cities, special districts, and other agencies on the complexities and challenges in public finance. We have advised over 600 public agency clients throughout California and the western United States. We have a diversity of abilities and experience to evaluate all types of financial issues faced by local governments and to recommend the best and most-practical solutions.

Bartle Wells Associates has a highly qualified professional team of consultants. Our educational backgrounds include finance, civil engineering, business, public administration, public policy, and economics.

BWA specializes in three professional services: utility cost-of-service rate and fee studies, financial plans, and project financing. We are one of the few independent financial advisors providing all three of these interrelated services to public agencies.

RATE AND FEE STUDIES Our rate studies employ a cost-of-service approach and are designed to maintain the long-term financial health of a utility enterprise while being fair to all customers. We develop practical recommendations that are easy to implement and often phase in rate adjustments over time to minimize the impact on ratepayers. We also have extensive experience developing impact fees that equitably recover the costs of infrastructure required to serve new development. BWA has completed hundreds of utility rate and fee studies. We have helped communities implement a wide range of rate structures and are knowledgeable about the legal requirements governing rates and impact fees. We develop clear, effective presentations and have represented public agencies at hundreds of public hearings to build consensus for our recommendations.

FINANCIAL PLANS Our financial plans provide agencies with a flexible roadmap for funding long-term operating and capital needs. We evaluate the wide range of financing options available, develop a plan that recommends the best financing approach, and clearly identify the sources of revenue for funding projects and repaying any debt. We also help agencies develop prudent financial policies, such as fund reserve targets, to support sound financial management. BWA has developed over 2,000 utility enterprise financial plansto help public agencies fund their operating and capital programs, meet debt service requirements, and maintain long-term financial health.

PROJECT FINANCING Our project financing experience includes over 300 bond sales and numerous bank loans, lines of credit, and a range of state and federal grant and loan programs. We generally recommend issuing debt via a competitive sale process to achieve the lowest cost financing possible. To date, we have helped California agencies obtain over $5 billion of financing via bonds, bank loans/private BWA Key Services
Rate & Fee Studies
Financial Plans
Project Financing

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1259 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 3
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal placements, lines of credit, low-rate State Revolving Fund Loans, and other funding programs. We work only for public agencies; we are independent financial advisors and do not buy, trade, or resell bonds. Our work is concentrated on providing independent advice that enables our clients to finance their projects on the most favorable terms—lowest interest rates, smallest issue size, and greatest flexibility.

Bartle Wells Associates is a charter member of the National Association of Municipal Advisors (NAMA), which establishes strict criteria for independent advisory firms. All of our lead consultants are Certified Independent Professional Municipal Advisors and are Registered Municipal Advisors.

Bartle Wells Associates is committed to providing value and the best advice to our clients. Our strength is quality—the quality of advice, service, and work we do for all our clients.

EXPERIENCE BWA has extensive experience developing long-term financial plans, utility rates, and capacity fees for public agencies from all areas of California and the western U.S. In recent years, we have completed assignments for many agencies including:

Sample Cities Sample Water/Wastewater/ Stormwater Districts  City of Modesto  Modesto Irrigation District
 City of Santa Cruz  Marin Municipal Water District
 City of Riverbank  Rio Alto Water District
 City of Lindsay  Monterey One Water
 City of Davis  Alameda County Water District
 City of Santa Barbara  Madera County Special Districts  City of Santa Cruz  Sonoma County Water Agency
 City of Morro Bay  Fallbrook Public Utility District  City of Arcata  Silicon Valley Clean Water
 City of San Carlos  Napa Sanitation District
 City of Monterey  East Bay Municipal Utility District  City of Patterson  Sausalito-Marin City Sanitary District  City of Willits  Union Sanitary District
 City of Vacaville  Novato Sanitary District
 City of Santa Clara  Montara Water & Sanitary District  City of Glendale  West Valley Sanitation District
 City of Paso Robles  Joshua Basin Water District
 City of Calistoga  Ramona Municipal Water District
 City of San Mateo  South San Luis Obispo County San District  City of Mountain View  San Francisco Public Utilities Commission BWA has served
over 550 public
agencies
throughout
California and
the western
United
States.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1260 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 4
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

PROJECT TEAM
BWA uses a team approach for most projects, typically assigning two consultants to each assignment, including at least one principal consultant. Our general project approach is to work closely with staff and other members of the project team, identify objectives, set milestones, have frequent communication, and remain flexible to resolve unanticipated issues.

Bartle Wells Associates has a highly qualified professional team. Our education and backgrounds include finance, civil engineering, business, public administration, public policy, and economics. Bartle Wells Associates has a long track record of completing projects on time and on or under budget.

Bartle Wells Associates will perform all work related to this assignment and does not plan to use any subcontractors for this project. Our consulting staff has availability to assist on this project as needed to ensure all project work and deliverables are completed on schedule.

Erik Helgeson, Principal/Partner
Erik Helgeson is a Principal and Vice President of BWA with 15 years of experience.

He specializes in developing long-term financial models and utility rates based on a cost-of-service approach. His experience includes working as a senior finance analyst for Denver Water in the rates and charges group and as a utility rate consultant in Colorado and California. His prior experience working for a utility gives him a unique perspective on the internal challenges a utility faces when implementing a study’s recommendations. He currently serves on American Water Works Association’s Rates and Charges Committee.

Kim Boehler, Principal
Kim Boehler is a principal with Bartle Wells where she manages financial planning, cost of service analyses, rate design and capacity fee studies for water, recycled water, and wastewater utilities. Kim brings 20 years of experience in performing this work for public utilities and has completed approximately 150 of these studies throughout her career. She has a broad understanding of public agency funding needs from her work in various revenue streams, which includes special financing district administration, overhead cost allocation analysis, user fee studies, and utility financial management.

Ashli Wong, Financial Analyst
Ashli Wong is a financial analyst for Bartle Wells and will provide analytical support for this assignment. She has experience working on water, wastewater, and solid waste rate and capacity fee studies and has prior experience working in the internal audit office of a public agency.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1261 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 5
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

RESUMES
ERIK W. HELGESON, MBA
Principal Consultant
Erik Helgeson is a principal and vice president of Bartle Wells and Associates with fifteen years of utility finance experience. His areas of expertise include the development of financial plans, ratemaking, and policy solutions for water, wastewater, recycled water, stormwater and solid waste utilities. His experience includes both working for a utility as a senior finance analyst for Denver Water and now as a utility rate consultant helping agencies develop strong financial plans and equitable rates aligned with their objectives. Erik has extensive expertise in working with executive level staff and assisting in strategic decisions. He serves on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Rates and Charges Committee and has presented at the Utility Management Conference.

Education
M.B.A., Entrepreneurship – University of Colorado, Denver B.A., Business Administration – Gonzaga University
Representative Projects
 Marin Municipal Water District, Marin, CA: Project manager for 2022 water and recycled water rate study and 2025 capacity charge study. Analyst supporting the rate study update in 2016.  Fallbrook PUD, CA: Project manager for a water, sewer and recycled water rate study  Pico Water District, CA: Project manager for a water financial plan and cost-of-service rate study  Big Bear City CSD, CA: Project manager for a water, sewer and solid waste cost-of-service rate studies
 City of Modesto, CA: Project manager for water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies  Madera County, CA: Project manager providing rate studies for twenty-three of the county’s water and sewer special service districts
 Modesto Irrigation District: Designed an allocation methodology between the district’s domestic water, irrigation, and electric enterprises.
 City of Hemet, CA: Water budget rate design and cost of service study  City Lindsay, CA: Project manager for water and sewer rate studies and infrastructure use fee study  City of Imperial, CA: Lead consultant providing water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies
 City of Vacaville, CA: Water and wastewater capacity fee studies  Union Sanitary District, CA: Wastewater capacity fee study  City of Riverbank, CA: Project Manager for solid waste rate and sewer rate and connection fee studies
 City of Placerville, CA: Analytical support for water financial plans and rate studies.  San Luis Water District, CA: Prop. 218 Assessment Election  Panoche Water District, CA: Prop. 218 Assessment Election  City of Patterson, CA: Solid waste rate study
 San Miguel Community Services District, CA: Project manager providing water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies. The District was nearing insolvency and large rate increases were needed to save the District.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1262 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 6
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal  Alameda County, CA Reviewed proposed wheeling charges on behalf of the local agency partners working on the Los Vaqueros Dam expansion project.
 Carlsbad, CA: Played a key role in completing the 2016 water cost of service study. Created a supplybased cost allocation and supply layered, tiered, water rate design  City of Paso Robles, CA: Water and wastewater rate studies  King City, CA: Wastewater financial plan and rate study  Castle Pines North Metropolitan District, CO: Lead consultant providing annual water and wastewater financial plans and rate study updates
 City of Benicia, CA: Water and wastewater rate and connection fee studies  Arapahoe Parks and Recreation District, CO: Reviewed water rates for fairness  City of San Juan Bautista, CA: Water and Wastewater rate and capacity fee studies  Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, CA: Support for annual budget process  Tres Pinos CSD, CA: Project manager for water and sewer rate studies  Leland Meadows CSD, CA: Project manager for water and sewer rate studies  City of Willits, CA: Lead consultant providing water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies  The Cities of Pinole and Hercules, CA: Assisted the cities with the co-financing of a wastewater project with SRF loans. This included the design of the payment and reimbursement process, the administration of the process, and navigating the State requirements.  Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, CA: Lead consultant providing 10-year financial plan update  Sacramento County Water Authority, Sacramento, CA: Lead analyst supporting water financial plan and rate study
Public Utility Experience
Denver Water, Denver, CO:

Senior Finance Analyst- Assisted with the annual cost of service study and financial plan, provided regular revenue reports, and oversaw the gathering and reporting of metrics to support Denver Water’s organizational improvement initiatives. As the lead analyst on the initiative to change the rate design he facilitated research (customer survey and affordability study), performed rate design analysis, and assisted with stakeholder outreach (municipalities, customers, business representatives, non-profits, and Denver Water executives and Board) which led to the adoption of new rate structures. He coordinated the implementation efforts between various business units to ensure a successful rollout of the new rates and rate structures.

Professional Memberships
American Water Works Association – Member of Rates and Charges Committee Certifications
MSRB-Registered Municipal Advisor (Series 50)

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1263 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 7
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

KIM BOEHLER
Principal Consultant
Ms. Kim Boehler is a principal of Bartle Wells where she manages financial planning, cost of service analyses, rate design and capacity fee studies for water, recycled water and wastewater utilities. Kim brings 20 years of experience in performing this work for public utilities and has completed approximately 150 of these studies throughout her career. She has a broad understanding of public agency funding needs from her work in various revenue streams, which includes special financing district administration, overhead cost allocation analysis, user fee studies and utility financial management.

Education
B.S., Finance – California State University San Bernardino Representative Projects
Project experience that follows is prior to Bartle Wells.  Arvin Community Services District, CA: Water Rate Study  City of Arvin, CA: Sewer Rate Study
 Aqua, North Carolina: Capital Investment Plan Analysis and Documentation  Avila Beach Community Services District, CA: Water and Sewer Rate and Connection Fee Study  Azusa Light and Water, CA: Water Rate Study
 City of Beaumont, CA: Sewer Rate and Capacity Fee Study  Bellflower Mutual Water Company, CA: Water Rate Study  Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency, CA: Water Rate and Capacity Fee Study  Calaveras County Water District, CA: Water and Sewer Rate Study  Citrus Heights Water District, CA: Water Rate Study
 City of Colton, CA: Water Rate and Connection Fee Study  Clean Water Services, Hillsboro, OR: Wastewater and Stormwater Strategic Financial Planning  City of Colton and Grand Terrace, CA: Sewer Rate Study  Cucamonga Valley Water District, CA: Water and Recycled Water Connection Fee Study  Cucamonga Valley Water District, CA: Water Rate Study  Culver City, CA: Sewer Rate Study
 Desert Water Agency, CA: Water, Sewer and Recycled Water Rate Study  Desert Water Agency, CA: Water Rate Analysis to Address Tribal/Non-Tribal Rates  Dixon-Solano Water Authority, CA: Water Rate Study
 East Valley Water District, CA: Water and Sewer Financial Plans  City of Fort Bragg, CA: Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Rate Study  City of Greenfield, CA: Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Requirement Analysis  City of Hesperia, CA: Water, Sewer and Recycled Water Rate Study  Hidden Valley Lakes Community Services District, CA: Water and Sewer Rate Study  Ironhouse Sanitary District, CA: Sewer Rate and Capacity Fee Study  City of Livermore, CA: Water Rate and Connection Fee Study

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1264 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 8
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

ASHLI WONG
Financial Analyst
Ashli Wong is a financial analyst with Bartle Wells Associates. She works closely with agency staff, engineers, lawyers, and other consultants to develop long-range financial plans, cost analyses and utility rate structures.

Education
B.A., Economics – University of California, Santa Barbara Representative Projects
 City of Simi Valley, CA: Water and sewer rate and capacity fee study.  City of San Leandro, CA: Sewer rate study.
 City of Davis, CA: Analyst supporting the wastewater rate study.  City of Monterey, CA: Analyst supporting the wastewater rate and capacity fee study.  Oro Loma Sanitary District, CA: Analytical support for wastewater financial plan and rate studies.  South Feather Water and Power Agency, CA: Analyst supporting the water rate study.  Fresno County Waterworks District #18, CA: Analytical support for water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies.
 City of Oroville, CA: Analytical support for water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies.  Madera County, CA: Analyst supporting financial plans and rate studies.  City of Modesto, CA: Analytical support for water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies  Malaga County Water District, CA: Analytical support for water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies.
 Mariposa County, CA: Analytical support for water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies.  Eastern Sierra CSD, CA: Analyst supporting the wastewater rate and capacity fee study.  City of Willits, CA: Analytical support for water and wastewater financial plans and rate studies.  Sewerage Commission – Oroville Region, CA: Analyst supporting the wastewater rate and capacity fee study.

Public Agency Experience
Auditor-Controller, Santa Barbara, CA:

Internal Audit Intern – Prior to joining Bartle Wells, Ashli spent a year working at the Auditor-Controller’s Office at the County of Santa Barbara as an intern in the Internal Audit department. She assisted in audit reviews and reconciliations on financial accounts for Santa Barbara public departments to minimize risks and ensure financial accuracy. By evaluating business practices, she consulted several agencies through suggesting internal controls to improve operational effectiveness. She also analyzed and interpreted business data to discover information that may be of use to administration to support their decisionmaking.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1265 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 9
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal Section 2: Wastewater Rate Study
This section presents a draft work plan and scope of services that we believe forms a sound basis for completing a comprehensive Wastewater Cost of Service Rate and Fee Study. Bartle Wells Associates can work with the City to finalize a scope of services that meets the City's objectives. Our general project approach is to work closely with staff and other members of the project team, identify objectives, set milestones, have frequent communication, and remain flexible to resolve unanticipated issues.

Task 1. Project Initiation & Data Collection

1. Project Team Orientation
To initiate our work, hold a meeting with City staff and others as appropriate, to accomplish the following:
 Identify members of City staff, City Council, engineering consultants, and others who will participate in the project.
 Determine the roles and responsibilities of all project participants.  Identify other parties that may a significant interest in the project, such as community groups, business organizations, developers, and large customers.  Establish project schedule and key milestone dates.
 Confirm the key goals and expectations of the project team.

BWA recommends holding the kickoff meeting after we have reviewed preliminary information. This will enable the kickoff meeting to be more substantive and facilitate more in-depth discussion of key issues and preliminary observations and potential alternatives.

2. Investigation and Data Collection
Assemble the information necessary to understand the City’s wastewater systems, finances, customers and usage, rate and fee structures, capital improvement needs and alternatives, and legal agreements. Assistance and cooperation of City staff will be needed to assemble the relevant background information. The objectives of investigation and data collection are to develop a complete understanding of the City’s utilities and finances, and to reach an agreement on basic assumptions to be used in the study as well as key alternatives for evaluation.

Task 2. 10-Year Financial Plans

1. Develop Forecasts and Projections
Based on evaluation of the data assembled and input provided by the City, prepare forecasts and projections to be used in the development of financial models for the City’s wastewater utilities. Develop projections for the following areas (and others as appropriate). Review projections and alternatives with City staff for agreements on assumptions, interpretation of data, and completeness of approach.

Task 1 Deliverables Include:
 Project kickoff meeting
 Identification of project goals and objectives
 Identification of key issues impacting the study
 Project schedule and budget
 Information Needs List
 Project team contact list

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1266 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 10
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal  Capital Improvements Including Long-Term Repairs
& Replacements: Based on input from City staff,
identify future capital improvement program costs
or alternatives to include in the financial analysis and determine a reasonable amount to include for
future, ongoing capital repairs and replacements.

BWA often recommends that agencies phase in
funding for long-term system rehabilitation.
 Projected Wastewater Demand: With City input,
forecast wastewater demand and identify future
demand scenarios for evaluation.
 Growth & New Development: Work with the City to
identify levels of growth to incorporate in the
financial projections. Evaluate financial impacts
under different levels of growth.
 Cost Escalation Factors: Review historical cost trends and work with project team to develop reasonable cost escalation factors for both operating and capital expenditures. Work with City staff to identify any anticipated changes in future staffing, benefits, and/or other operating costs.

2. Evaluate Financing Alternatives for Capital Improvements Evaluate options for financing capital improvement projects. Our evaluation will:
 Allocate capital improvement costs to existing customers and new development based on the share of each project benefitting current vs. future customers.  Estimate the amount and timing of any debt, if needed, to finance capital projects.  Evaluate the alternative borrowing methods available including bonds, COPs, state and federal loan programs (including the State Revolving Fund Financing Program), bank loans and lines of credit, and other options.
 Recommend the appropriate type of debt, its term and structure.  As needed, develop debt service estimates to incorporate in the financial projections.

3. Establish Prudent Minimum Fund Reserve Targets
Evaluate the adequacy of the City’s current utility fund reserves. Establish prudent minimum fund reserve targets based on the City’s operating and capital funding projections. Develop an implementation plan for achieving and maintaining the recommended reserve fund levels.

4. Develop 10-Year Financial Projections & Evaluate Scenarios Develop 10-year cash flow projections showing the financial position of the utility over the next 10 years.

The cash flows will project fund balances, revenues, expenses, and debt service coverage, and will incorporate the forecasts developed with staff input. After developing a base-case cash flow scenario, we can model alternatives for additional evaluation such as capital improvement alternatives, project financing alternatives, the impacts of various levels of demand, etc. During this phase, BWA will work closely with the project team to evaluate financial and rate projections under alternative scenarios.

5. Evaluate Rate Increase Options
Based on the cash flow projections, determine future annual revenue requirements from rates and project the overall level of required rate increases. Evaluate rate adjustment alternatives, such as gradually phasing in required rate increases over a number of years. If appropriate, evaluate different levels of rate increases and their impacts on the City’s ability to fund future operating and capital needs.

The 10-year financial plans will
serve as financial roadmaps for
funding future operating and
capital programs while supporting
long-term financial stability.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1267 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 11
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal Task 3. Cost of Service Rate Analysis

1. Identify & Evaluate Rate Structure Alternatives
Review the City’s current wastewater rate structures and discuss advantages and disadvantages compared to other
rate approaches. Identify potential alternatives and
modifications that could help improve rate equity, address City concerns, or help achieve other City objectives. Discuss pros and cons of different rate structure options and their general impacts on different types of customers. Rate
structure options can be refined as the study progresses based on input from the project team.

2. Conduct Survey of Regional Utility Rates
Review and summarize rates of other regional agencies.

Summarize results in easily understandable tables and/or charts.

3. Analyze Consumption & Utility Billing Data
Analyze current and historical usage and utility billing data to determine reasonable and conservative estimates of demand to use in developing financial projections and rates. Water use can fluctuate from year to year depending on various factors such as weather and local and regional conservation efforts.

Ideally, we would prefer to analyze multiple years of utility billing data in order to determine slightly conservative demand projections.

4. Cost of Service Rate Derivation
BWA has helped many agencies develop utility rates designed to reflect the costs of providing service, be fair and equitable to all customers, and comply with Proposition 218 and other legal requirements. In recent years, we have worked collaboratively with a number of legal experts to ensure our recommendations account for the latest legal understanding of Proposition 218. For this task, we will derive proposed rates based on a defensible cost of service methodology. A key component of this task includes allocating operating, maintenance, capital, and debt service expenses for cost recovery from appropriate rate components. Wastewater rates will be based on cost allocations to wastewater flow and strength (as measured by BOD and SS) to develop underlying unit costs for flow, BOD and SS. These unit costs are then applied to the wastewater discharge characteristics of each customer class to ensure rates reflect the proportional cost of providing service to each class.

5. Develop Preliminary & Final Rate Recommendations with City Input Based on evaluation of rate structure alternatives and the overall level of rate increases identified in the financial plans, develop draft rate recommendations for City input. The recommendations may include a multi-year phase-in of both overall rate increases and proposed rate structure adjustments to help Task 2 Deliverables Include:
 Minimum fund reserve target recommendations
 10-year financial projections with supporting tables
 Evaluation of alternative scenarios as needed
 Evaluation of rate increase options
 Call with the City’s project team to present findings, discuss alternatives, and gain input Rates will be developed based
on a cost-of-service approach
designed to equitably recover
the cost of providing service to
all customers and comply with
Proposition 218.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1268 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 12
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal mitigate the annual impact on ratepayers. Review preliminary recommendations and key alternatives with the City Council and others as directed. Revise recommendations based on input received. Final rate recommendations will be designed to:
a) fund each utility’s long-term costs of providing service, including operating, capital, and debt service funding needs
b) be fair and equitable to all customers,
c) provide a prudent balance of conservation incentive and revenue stability, d) be easy to understand and administer, and
e) comply with the substantive requirements of Proposition 218.

6. Evaluate Use of Automatic Rate Pass-Throughs
Identify and evaluate the potential for implementing automatic pass-throughs for future wholesale rate increase and/or ongoing cost inflation. BWA has helped many agencies implement pass-through provisions to protect agencies against unanticipated wholesale cost increases and keep rates aligned with the cost of providing service.

7. Evaluate Rate Impacts on a Range of City Customers
Calculate the impacts of each rate alternative on a range of City customers Discuss additional rate structure adjustments that may reduce the impact on certain customers if warranted.

Task 4. Capacity Fee Analysis

1. Project Team/Progress Meetings (online meetings as needed) Attend Project Team/Progress Meetings to present findings, discuss alternatives and preliminary recommendations, and gain ongoing input. BWA will participate in conference calls and online meetings as needed to the extent allowable within the project budget.

2. Review Current Capacity Fees & Procedures for Applying Fees Review the City’s current capacity fees as well as related policies and procedures for applying the fees to new development. As appropriate, identify potential modifications to the fees, fee structure, or how fees are applied. BWA has developed capacity charges under a wide range of methodologies and has assisted many agencies in improving fee equity and administration.

3. Conduct Survey of Regional Capacity Charges
Review and summarize capacity charges of other regional and comparable agencies. Summarize results in easily understandable tables and/or charts.

4. Evaluate Alternative Capacity Charge Methodologies
Identify and evaluate alternative methods for calculating capacity charges for new development. Discuss advantages and disadvantages with the City’s project team and determine a recommended approach.

Task 3 Deliverables Include:
 Evaluation of current utility rates and potential rate structure modifications  Regional utility rate surveys
 Analysis of historical consumption and utility billing data  Cost of service analysis to support equitable and legally-defensible rates  Development of draft rate alternatives for City evaluation and input  Call with the City’s project team to present findings, discuss alternatives, and gain input

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1269 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 13
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

5. Develop Preliminary Capacity Charge Recommendations
Based on appropriate and technically sound methodology, and evaluation of alternative approaches, recommend updated capacity charges. Updated fees will be designed to comply with Government Code Section 66013 (established by AB1600).

6. Recommend a Method for Future Fee Updates
Recommend a method to annually or periodically adjust capacity charges to keep the fees aligned with future costs. For example, capacity charges can be adjusted annually based on the change in the Engineering News-Record’s Construction Cost Index, a widely used measure of construction cost inflation.

Task 5. Wastewater Miscellaneous Fee Analysis

1. Investigation and Data Collection
Assemble the information necessary to understand the City’s current wastewater fees and costs. The objectives of the investigation and data collection are to develop a complete understanding of City funds and their finances, and to reach an agreement on basic assumptions to be used in evaluating fee allocation methods and alternatives.

2. Review Current Miscellaneous Fees
Review the City’s current wastewater miscellaneous fees and charges. Prepare and evaluate alternatives based on the data assembled and input provided by the City. Review alternatives with City staff for agreements on assumptions, interpretations of data, and completeness of approach.

3. Update Miscellaneous Fees:

Update the City’s miscellaneous fees and charges. Miscellaneous fees will be developed based on cost of service approach to recover the cost of time and materials needed to provide each service. As part of this task, BWA will review conceptual fee methodologies and develop new fees and charges designed to equitably recover the costs of providing each service for which each fee is levied.

4. Prepare Draft and Final Reports
Prepare a draft report to summarize summarizing findings and draft recommendations. The report will provide and administrative record supporting the proposed charges. The report will be written for a nontechnical audience and will clearly explain the rationale for recommendations and key alternatives when applicable. Submit a draft report for City review and feedback. Incorporate input into a revised report and ultimately provide the City with printed and electronic copies as needed. The report will be provided in PDF format and can also be provided in editable Word and Excel files.

Task 6. Meetings, Reports, Presentations, Model and Rate Implementation

1. City Council Meetings/Rate Workshop (Up to 2 City Council Meetings and 1 Public Workshop) Attend a City Council Meeting to present findings, recommendations and alternatives, as well as to receive input. Incorporate input as warranted to ensure final recommendations reflect Council preferences.

Present revised recommendations at a subsequent Council Meeting with the goal of gaining Council approval to move forward with the Proposition 218 process to adopt rate increases.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1270 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 14
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

2. Prepare Draft & Final Reports
Develop a draft report summarizing study objectives, findings, and draft recommendations. The report will provide an administrative record supporting the proposed utility rates and capacity charges and will be developed to demonstrate compliance with applicable legal requirements of Proposition 218, Proposition 26, and Government Code 66013. The report will be written for a non-technical audience and will clearly explain the rationale for recommendations and key alternatives when applicable. Submit a draft report for City review and feedback. Incorporate input into a revised report and ultimately provide the City with printed and electronic copies as needed. The report will be provided in PDF format and can also be provided in editable Word and Excel files.

3. Proposition 218 Rate Notice Assistance
Develop a draft Proposition 218 notice for City review. Incorporate revisions and develop a final notice.

BWA recommends the notice go beyond the minimum legal requirements and provide clear and concise explanation of the reasons for any rate adjustments. BWA has helped many agencies adopt rates via the Proposition 218 process. We have found that ratepayers are generally much more accepting of rate increases or rate structure modification when they understand the reasons underlying the adjustments.

BWA will coordinate the Proposition 218 notice translation, printing and mailing. BWA will also assist the City with compiling the mailing database.

4. Proposition 218 Rate Hearing
Attend the Proposition 218 Public Rate Hearing and remain available to present a summary of findings and recommendations and respond to Council and public comments. BWA has extensive experience presenting financial and rate recommendations to non-technical audiences, dealing with challenging questions, and building acceptance for final recommendations.

5. Public Education and Consensus-Building
Rate and fee adjustments are often controversial. BWA has helped many agencies with their public education and outreach efforts regarding rate and fee increases. We understand the importance of building consensus and public acceptance for our recommendations and can assist the City in any outreach and public education efforts.

Task 6 Deliverables Include:
 (2) City Council Meetings / Rate Workshops
 Draft and final reports summarizing key findings and recommendations and demonstrating compliance with legal requirements for rates
 Draft of the required Proposition 218 Notice of proposed rate increases  (1) Public Hearing

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1271 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 15
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal Section 3: Project Schedule
Provided below is a high-level draft timeframe for completion of the Project. BWA will work with the City to develop a final schedule designed to meet the City’s objectives.

Draft Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Timeline:
- April 2026: Wastewater Study Kickoff
- April – August 2026: Capacity Charge Analysis
- April – August 2026: Miscellaneous Fee Analysis
- July – October 2026: Update Financial Plan and Rate Model - November – December 2026: Draft Rate Study Report
- January 2027: Completion of All Reports, Models
- Spring 2027: Proposition 218 Process (mailing, public hearing) - July 1, 2027: Wastewater Rates Implemented

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1272 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 16
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal Section 4: Cost Proposal
Provided below is a draft breakdown of our budget by task. We remain available to work with the City to refine the scope and budget to meet the City’s objectives and expectations.

Cost for Prop. 218 mailing is based on sending 70,000 notices of the same length and formatting as the previous Prop. 218 mailing. Not to exceed cost estimates are based on a current quote. BWA will pass through mailing costs directly with no mark-up.

Erik Helgeson Kim Boehler Ashli Wong Total Project
Project Manager Expert Review Financial Analyst Hours Cost $285/hr $285/hr $150/hr
Wastewater Cost of Service Study 65 65 215 345 $69,300

1. Develop Financial Plans

2. Cost of Service Rate Design

3. Rate Survey

4. Project Team Meetings

5. Board Meetings & Public Hearing

6. Prepare Draft & Final Reports
Wastewater Connection Fee Study 25 25 80 130 $26,250

1. Project Team Meetings

2. Fee Survey

3. Develop Connection Fee Recommendations

4. Prepare Draft & Final Reports
Prop. 218 Mailing

1. BWA Coordination and Data Support 10 30 40 $7,350

2. Estimate for Translation Service (Subcontracted) $1,000

3. Estimate for Printing Service (Subcontracted, 70,000 notices) $21,000

4. Estimate for Postage ($0.70 x 70,000 notices) $49,000 Miscellaneous Fee Study 10 10 40 60 $11,700

1. Project Team Meetings

2. Develop Fee Recommendations

3. Prepare Draft & Final Reports
TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS 110 100 365 575 $185,600
ESTIMATED EXPENSES $3,000
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $188,600

PROJECT TASK

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1273 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 17
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

AVAILABILITY & FEES

1. Bartle Wells Associates is prepared to begin work upon authorization to proceed.

2. During the project development period, Bartle Wells Associates will be available at all reasonable times and on reasonable notice for meetings and for consultation with staff, attorneys, consulting engineers, and others, as necessary.

3. Bartle Wells Associates will perform all work related to the assignment. Erik Helgeson, a firm principal and vice-president, will be assigned as project manager on this assignment. He will serve as the lead contact person for BWA and will be involved with the project a day-to-day basis. Erik will be assisted by Kim Boehler as expert review. This project team may be assisted by other BWA analysts as needed.

4. The fees for services outlined in this proposal will not exceed $188,600 for the Wastewater Cost of Service Rate and Capacity Fee Study. The fee is based on the following assumptions:
a. All necessary information will be provided by the City in a timely manner. b. Development of a draft, final draft, and final versions of tables, presentations, and reports. Time and expenses involved in revising tables and assumptions may constitute additional services if not achievable within the budget.
c. Three trips to the City for meetings and/or presentations. Additional meetings or presentations may constitute additional services if not achievable within the budget.

5. Progress payments and direct expenses are payable monthly on a time and materials basis as the work proceeds as provided in our Billing Rate Schedule 2025, which will remain in effect through the duration of this assignment.

6. Bartle Wells Associates will maintain in force, during the full term of the assignment, insurance as provided in the Certificate of Insurance attached.

7. If the project is terminated for any reason, we are to be reimbursed for professional services and direct expenses incurred up to the time we receive notification of such termination.

8. This proposal may be withdrawn or amended if not accepted within 90 days of its date.

9. We will not require a formal contract of employment and will consider a letter or e-mail from an appropriate official as sufficient authority to proceed.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1274 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 18
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES
BILLING RATE SCHEDULE 2025
Rates Effective 1/1/2025
Professional Services
Financial Analyst I ................................................................................................. $130 per hour Financial Analyst II ................................................................................................$150 per hour Associate Consultant.............................................................................................$170 per hour Consultant ............................................................................................................ $195 per hour Senior Consultant.................................................................................................. $220 per hour Project Manager/Technical Expert .......................................................................$250 per hour Principal Consultant .............................................................................................$285 per hour The hourly rates for professional services include all overhead and indirect expenses. Bartle Wells Associates (“BWA”) does not charge for administrative support services. Expert witness, legal testimony, or other special limited assignments will be billed at one and one-half times the consultant’s hourly rate.

The above rates will remain in effect through December 31, 2025, at which point they will be subject to adjustment.

Direct Expenses
Subconsultants will be billed at cost. Other reimbursable direct expenses incurred on behalf of the agency will be billed at cost.

Payment
Fees are typically billed monthly or bi-monthly for the preceding work period and are due and payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice. A late charge of 1.0 percent per month may be applied to balances unpaid after 60 days.

Insurance
BWA maintains insurance in the amounts and coverage as provided in the attached schedule of insurance.

Additional or special insurance, licensing, or permit requirements beyond what is shown on the schedule of insurance are billed in addition to the contract amount. BWA’sliability for defense costs, including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and other legal expenses, shall be no greater than that of a "design professional" as defined under California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c). BWA shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City Parties only to the extent that any liability, damages, or claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to BWA’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In no event shall BWA be required to provide a duty to defend beyond BWAs proportionate percentage of fault as ultimately determined by a court of law or through mutual agreement.

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1275 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 19
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

INSURANCE

EXHIBIT A
#21..
- 1276 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 16
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal Section 4: Cost Proposal
Provided below is a draft breakdown of our budget by task. We remain available to work with the City to refine the scope and budget to meet the City’s objectives and expectations.

Erik Helgeson Kim Boehler Ashli Wong Total Project
Project Manager Expert Review Financial Analyst Hours Cost $285/hr $285/hr $150/hr
Wastewater Cost of Service Study 65 65 215 345 $69,300

1. Develop Financial Plans

2. Cost of Service Rate Design

3. Rate Survey

4. Project Team Meetings

5. Board Meetings & Public Hearing

6. Prepare Draft & Final Reports
Wastewater Connection Fee Study 25 25 80 130 $26,250

1. Project Team Meetings

2. Fee Survey

3. Develop Connection Fee Recommendations

4. Prepare Draft & Final Reports
Prop. 218 Mailing

1. BWA Coordination and Data Support 10 30 40 $7,350

2. Estimate for Translation Service (Subcontracted) $1,000

3. Estimate for Printing Service (Subcontracted, 70,000 notices) $21,000

4. Estimate for Postage ($0.70 x 70,000 notices) $49,000 Miscellaneous Fee Study 10 10 40 60 $11,700

1. Project Team Meetings

2. Develop Fee Recommendations

3. Prepare Draft & Final Reports
TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS 110 100 365 575 $185,600
ESTIMATED EXPENSES $3,000
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $188,600

PROJECT TASK

EXHIBIT B
#21..
- 1277 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 17
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

AVAILABILITY & FEES

1. Bartle Wells Associates is prepared to begin work upon authorization to proceed.

6. Bartle Wells Associates will maintain in force, during the full term of the assignment, insurance as provided in the Certificate of Insurance attached.

7. If the project is terminated for any reason, we are to be reimbursed for professional services and direct expenses incurred up to the time we receive notification of such termination.

8. This proposal may be withdrawn or amended if not accepted within 90 days of its date.

9. We will not require a formal contract of employment and will consider a letter or e-mail from an appropriate official as sufficient authority to proceed.

EXHIBIT B
#21..
- 1278 -
BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES Page 18
City of Modesto – Wastewater Rate and Fee Study Proposal

The above rates will remain in effect through December 31, 2025, at which point they will be subject to adjustment.

Direct Expenses
Subconsultants will be billed at cost. Other reimbursable direct expenses incurred on behalf of the agency will be billed at cost.

Insurance
BWA maintains insurance in the amounts and coverage as provided in the attached schedule of insurance.

EXHIBIT B
#21..
- 1279 -
EXHIBIT C – Insurance Requirement for Professional Services Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriates to the Consultant’s profession, with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.

Umbrella or Excess Coverage
The Consultant may use Umbrella or Excess Policies to provide the liability limits as required in this agreement. This form of insurance will be acceptable provided that all of the Primary and Umbrella or Excess Policies shall provide all of the insurance coverages herein required, including, but not limited to, primary and non-contributory, additional insured, Self-Insured Retentions (SIRs), indemnity, and defense requirements. The Umbrella or Excess policies shall be provided on a true “following form” or broader coverage basis, with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying Commercial General Liability insurance. No insurance policies maintained by the Additional Insureds, whether primary or excess, and which also apply #21..
- 1280 -
to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until the Consultant’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted.

The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City of Modesto.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Modesto.

Claims Made Policies (applicable to Professional Liability only) If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:
#21..
- 1281 -

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

Certificate Holder Address
Proper address for mailing certificates, endorsements and notices shall be:

City of Modesto
Attn: Risk Management
1010 10th Street
Modesto, CA 95354
#21..
- 1282 -
#21..
- 1283 -
#21..
- 1284 -
#21..
- 1285 -
#21..
- 1286 -
#21..
- 1287 -
#21..
- 1288 -
#21..
- 1289 -
#21..
- 1290 -
#21..
- 1291 -
#21..
- 1292 -
#21..
- 1293 -
#21..
- 1294 -
#21..
- 1295 -
#21..
- 1296 -
#21..
- 1297 -
#21..
- 1298 -
#21..
- 1299 -
#21..
- 1300 -
#21..
- 1301 -
#21..
- 1302 -
#21..
- 1303 -
#21..
- 1304 -
#21..
- 1305 -
#21..
- 1306 -
#21..
- 1307 -
#21..
- 1308 -

CITY OF MODESTO

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:

March 10, 2026
Date: January 30,2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Hill, Director of Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Rezone from P-O to R-2 for property located at, 3213 Coffee Road CONTACT: Katharine Martin, Senior Planner,
[email protected], 209-577-5267
DESCRIPTION:

Hearing to consider approving an application to rezone 1.35 acres at 3213 Coffee Road, west of Thorsen Avenue, from Professional Office (P-O) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone. (Funding Source: Application Fees) STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:

This proposal is consistent with the 2025-2026 Strategic Plan Element’s Area of Focus related to Quality of Life, Economic Vitality: to retain and attract residential, commercial, and industrial development to meet the community’s needs today and for the next generation, specifically Goal C, Strategy 2: Encourage and foster development of affordable and new housing units.

BACKGROUND:

The subject property is located at 3213 Coffee Road, opposite Thorsen Avenue and is currently zoned as Professional Office (P-O). The General Plan designation of this parcel is Mixed Use (MU) allowing for a mix of uses that include commercial and/or residential uses in general.

The site is vacant, and has curb, gutter, and sidewalk street improvements. The parcel is adjacent to property to the west that is zoned R-1 with single-family residential development. The property to the north is also zoned R-1 and is occupied by a pre-school.

To the east is an unincorporated county island that is developed with single-family residences. The property to the south is zoned R-2 and is developed with duplex and triplex residences. The site was annexed to the City on April 24,1963 as part of the Walnut Acres Addition to the City of Modesto and was originally zoned for Medium-Density Residential (R-2) uses.
#22..
- 1309 -
City Council, March 10, 2026
Rezone from P-O to R-2 for property located at, 3213 Coffee Road

Page 2 of 6 ends

Figure 1: Location Map
Figure 2: Area Map
#22..
- 1310 -
City Council, March 10, 2026
Rezone from P-O to R-2 for property located at, 3213 Coffee Road

Page 3 of 6 ends

Figure 3: Existing Zoning
#22..
- 1311 -
City Council, March 10, 2026
Rezone from P-O to R-2 for property located at, 3213 Coffee Road

Page 4 of 6 ends

DISCUSSION:
#22..
- 1312 -
City Council, March 10, 2026
Rezone from P-O to R-2 for property located at, 3213 Coffee Road

Page 5 of 6 ends

In August of 2012, the site was rezoned from R-2 to Professional Office (P-O) Zone at the request of the property owner, Lyn Bright, in order to facilitate new office development.

Since rezoning to Professional Office in 2012, no office development occurred, and the site has remained vacant and undeveloped.

On July 31, 2025, Mr. Bright applied to rezone the parcel again, from Professional Office (P-O) back to Medium Density Residential (R-2) as it had been up until August of 2012.

No physical development is proposed with this rezone at this time.

The purpose of the rezone is to facilitate development of Medium Density Residential (R2) uses, at the allowed density of between 10.9 and 22 dwelling units per acre. If rezoned, any future development would be subject to administrative Development Plan Review with determination by the Director of Community and Economic Development, or a Conditional Use Permit by the Board of Zoning Adjustment for Conditional uses of the zone.

Development standards would be as required by Title 10, Chapter 4 of the Modesto Municipal Code (MMC), City of Modesto Standard Specifications, and other relevant codes and standards as applicable.

Among the applicable development standards are the following maximum building height and setback distances as provided by MMC Title 10, Chapter 4, Table 4.1-1 (Residential Building Standards):
 Maximum building height of two stories/30-feet
 Front and street-side yard building setback of 15-feet  Interior side yard building setbacks:
o 5-feet for the first story
o 10-feet for the second story (not adjacent to R-1 Zone) o 15-feet for the second story (adjacent to R-1 Zone)
 Rear yard building setbacks:
o 10-feet for the first story
o 15-feet for the second story
Garages, carports and parking spaces must maintain a five-foot interior side yard and rear yard setback, and front yard setbacks of 20-feet if front facing to the street, or 15-feet if side-facing the street.

All building setbacks are measured from the property line.

No physical development is proposed with this rezone. If a future development project proposes new two-story residences, the development would be subject to the Second Story Review process as provided by MMC §10-4.110(a), unless the project is determined to be exempt from such review if the standards of MMC §10-4.110(b) are met. #22..
- 1313 -
City Council, March 10, 2026
Rezone from P-O to R-2 for property located at, 3213 Coffee Road

Page 6 of 6 ends

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND OUTREACH
A public hearing notice of the item was mailed to property owners within 300-feet of the rezone site and published in the Modesto Bee newspaper, 20 days in advance of the City Council hearing date.

Staff recommended that the applicant’s representative, Mr. Ron West, conduct outreach to surrounding property owners within 1,000 feet of the rezone site. A letter to property owners explaining the nature and purpose of the rezone is attached (Attachment No. 4).

FISCAL IMPACT:

City expenditures related to the review of the project are funded by application fees provided by the applicant.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

This project was presented to the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled hearing on December 15, 2025, who unanimously recommended approval by Resolution No. 2025-45.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Staff Recommendations:

Resolution finding the Rezone from P-O to R-2 for the property located at 3213 Coffee Road conforms with the Modesto Urban Area General Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (SCH NO. 2024091127).

Motion introducing and waiving the first reading of an Ordinance amending Section 9-3-9 of the Zoning Map of the City of Modesto to rezone from Professional Office Zone, P-O, to Medium Density Residential Zone, R-2, for property located at 3213 Coffee Road, west of Thorsen Avenue.

Approved by:

Jessica Hill, Director of C&ED
Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
Attachments:

1. City Council Resolution CEQA

2. City Council Resolution Exhibit A, Initial Study

3. City Council Ordinance

4. Neighborhood Outreach Letter

5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-45

6. Financial Interest Disclosure Form

7. Levine Act Form Bright

8. Levine Act Form West
#22..
- 1314 -
03/010/26/C&EDD/Jhill/Item 1 2026-xx

MODESTO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
RESOLUTION FINDING THE REZONE FROM P-O TO R-2 FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3213 COFFEE ROAD CONFORMS WITH THE

MODESTO URBAN AREA GENERAL PLAN PROGRAMMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2024091127)
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025, by Resolution 2025-211, City Council of the City of Modesto certified the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (“Programmatic EIR”) (SCH No. 2024091127) for the Modesto Urban Area General Plan, and WHEREAS, Lyn Bright has proposed the rezone of 1.35 acres located at 3213 Coffee Road from Professional Office Zone, P-O, to Medium Density Residential Zone, (R-2), and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21157.1 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Modesto’s Community & Economic Development Department prepared an Environmental Assessment Initial Study EA/C&ED 2025-21 (“Initial Study”) which analyzed whether the subsequent project may cause any significant effect on the environment that was not examined in the Programmatic EIR and whether the subsequent project was described in the Programmatic EIR as being within the scope of the report, and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA guidelines beginning on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, the City caused to be published a 20-day notice in the Modesto Bee newspaper of the City’s intent to make a finding that the subsequent project conforms with the Programmatic EIR, and
WHEREAS, said matter was considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing which was held on March 10, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., in the Tenth Street Place Chambers located at 1010 Tenth Street, Modesto, California. #22..
- 1315 -
03/010/26/C&EDD/Jhill/Item 2 2026-xx
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that the Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study prepared for the proposed rezone, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated herein by reference, and based on substantial evidence in said Initial Study makes the following findings:

1. An Initial Study, Environmental Assessment No. EA/C&ED 2025-21, was prepared by the City of Modesto that analyzed whether the subsequent project may cause any significant effect on the environment that was not examined in the Programmatic EIR and whether the subsequent project was described in the Programmatic EIR as being within the scope of the report.

The Initial Study concluded that:
a. There are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or site;
b. The project is consistent with the Modesto Urban Area General Plan and is within the scope of the Programmatic EIR of the General Plan;
c. That pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 of the Public Resources Code, no further environmental review is required.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Modesto that the Community & Economic Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to file a notice of approval or determination within five (5) business days with the Stanislaus County Clerk pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. #22..
- 1316 -
03/010/26/C&EDD/Jhill/Item 3 2026-xx
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 10th day of March 2026, by Councilmember , who moved its adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember , was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ATTEST: ________________________________
DIANE NAYARES-PEREZ, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: ___________________________________________
JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
#22..
- 1317 -
03/010/26/C&EDD/Jhill/Item 4 2026-xx

EXHIBIT A
Initial Study
EA/C&ED 2025-21
#22..
- 1318 -
3213 Coffee Road
Rezone Consistency
with the UAGP EIR
15183 Exemption Checklist
#22..
- 1319 -
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .....................................................................................................................................................i General Plan Consistency Checklist........................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title .......................................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................................................1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................................1

4. Project Location.................................................................................................................................1

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address................................................................................................5

6. General Plan Designation ..................................................................................................................5

7. Zoning................................................................................................................................................6

8. Description of Project ........................................................................................................................7

9. Project Approvals ..............................................................................................................................8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...........................................................................................................9 Determination........................................................................................................................................................10 Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................................................12 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Exemption...............................................................................................12 Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR Analysis ..................................................................12 Project-Specific Environmental Review.......................................................................................................13 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................13 1 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................................15 2 Agricultural Resources ....................................................................................................................18 3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................21 4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................27 5 Cultural and Tribal Resources .........................................................................................................36 6 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources...........................................................................................42 7 Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy ...........................................................................48 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................58 9 Hydrology and Water Quality .........................................................................................................64 10 Land Use, Population, and Housing ................................................................................................69 11 Noise ................................................................................................................................................72 12 Public Services and Recreation .......................................................................................................76 13 Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................................................83 14 Utilities and Service Systems ..........................................................................................................86 15 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...............................................................................................94 References .............................................................................................................................................................97 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................97 List of Preparers............................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendices ............................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Tables
#22..
- 1320 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
ii
Table 1 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies..............................................................................51 Table 2 Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Update......................................................................52 Table 3 Project Consistency with StanCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS ....................................................................55 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2 Project Vicinity ................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3 Existing General Plan ......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 4 Existing Zoning................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 5 Proposed Site Plan ...........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 6 Proposed General Plan (If a GPA is proposed) ...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 7 Proposed Zoning (If a Zone Change is proposed) ...........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 8 Proposed Utilities.............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendices
Appendix A ______________
#22..
- 1321 -
General Plan Consistency Checklist
1 General Plan Consistency Checklist

1. Project Title
RZN2025-00004: Rezone of 1.35-acre vacant parcel from Professional Office (P-O) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone, property located at 3213 Coffee Road APN 013-070-067.

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Modesto
10th Street Place, 1010 10th St #3300
Modesto, California 95354

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Katharine Martin, Senior Planner
209-577-5267
[email protected]

4. Project Location
Location
The project site is located in Section 9-3-9 of the Zoning Map of the City of Modesto, at 3213 Coffee Road, west of Thorsen Avenue.

Assessor’s Parcel Number
The project site encompasses approximately 1.35 acres and comprises Assessor’s Parcel Number 013-070- 067.

Surrounding Uses
Existing land uses surrounding the rezone site:

To the north: Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone, existing preschool/daycare center.

To the south: Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone, existing residential duplexes and triplexes.

To the west: Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone, existing single-family residences.

To the east: Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone and County unincorporated area, existing single-family residences.
#22..
- 1322 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
2 Error! Reference source not found.: Site Map
#22..
- 1323 -
General Plan Consistency Checklist
1 #22..
- 1324 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
4 A Resolution finding that the following subsequent project is within the scope of the project covered by the Modesto Urban Area General Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024091127):

Rezone 1.35 acres from Professional Office (P-O) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone, property located at 3213 Coffee Road.
#22..
- 1325 -
General Plan Consistency Checklist
1 : Vicinity Map
#22..
- 1326 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
2 Existing Condition
Rezone site is vacant, undeveloped land, surrounded by residential uses and office uses further to the north and south. Aerial imagery shows the site has been vacant since the mid-1990’s.

Site History
The site was annexed in 1963 as part of the Walnut Acres Addition to the City of Modesto. In 2012 the site was rezoned from Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone to Professional Office (P-O) Zone to facilitate office development; however, no development has occurred since, and the site has remained vacant.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Mr. Lyn Bright
4918 Taylor Court, Turlock CA 95382

6. General Plan Designation
Mixed Use (MU)
The project site is designated as Mixed Use (MU) in the Land Use Element of the General Plan (see Figure 3). This designation provides for areas of mixed uses such as residential and commercial or office uses.

Medium Density Residential (R-2) uses are permitted in the MU designation.

Figure 3: General Plan Land Use
#22..
- 1327 -
General Plan Consistency Checklist
3 Baseline Developed Area
The project site is within the Baseline Developed Area. The General Plan defines the Baseline Developed Area as approximately 22,460 acres, excluding the Downtown Area, containing lands that are mostly developed with urban uses, which are not expected to change substantially during the time horizon of the General Plan. Also included within the Baseline Developed Area are vacant lands which have a clearly defined future.

7. Zoning
Current Zoning: Professional Office (P-O)
The project site is zoned as Professional Office (P-O) Zone (see Figure 4). The P-O zoning designation is intended to accommodate medical and professional office uses, business services and educational uses.

Figure 4: Existing Zoning Designation
#22..
- 1328 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
4 8. Description of Project
Proposed Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone
The proposed rezone is intended to restore the zoning back to the original R-2 zoning designation held until 2012, when the site was rezoned to P-O to facilitate medical office development. As no development has occurred, the applicant/owner proposes the rezone to facilitate multi-family residential uses as currently permitted under the R-2 zone (10.9-22 dwelling units per acre).

Figure 5: Proposed Zoning Designation
No development is proposed with this rezone. If approved, future development would be subject to administrative Development Plan Review as provided by Title 10, Chapter 9, Article 10 of the Modesto Municipal Code (MMC) or Conditional Use Permit by the Board of Zoning Adjustment for conditional uses within the R-2 zone (MMC Title 10, Chapter 9, Article 7). Development standards as required by the R-2 zone and City Standards would be applied to any future development. #22..
- 1329 -
General Plan Consistency Checklist
5 9. Project Approvals
The City of Modesto is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the project. The project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City of Modesto:

Recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council; A Motion by the City Council to introduce and waive the first reading of an Ordinance to amend Section 9-3-9 of the Zoning Map of the City of Modesto to rezone 1.35 acres from Professional Office (P-O) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone, property located at 3213 Coffee Road.

A Resolution finding that the following subsequent project is within the scope of the project covered by the Modesto Urban Area General Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024091127):

Rezone 1.35 acres from Professional Office (P-O) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone, property located at 3213 Coffee Road.
#22..
- 1330 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This Project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
#22..
- 1331 -
Determination
7 Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan and is EXEMPT from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15182. ■ I find that pursuant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Proposed Project is a Project consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, that there are no Project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site, and NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project that would result in new specific effects. However, these effects would be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. NO FURTHER REVIEW required.
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. A STREAMLINED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is recommended. □ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

Signature
Printed Name: Date:

Katharine Martin December 8, 2025
This report follows a checklist format that outlines performance standards for projects eligible for streamlined review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A consistency checklist is prepared by a lead agency to streamline the environmental review process for eligible projects by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of development have been addressed in a previous community plan. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, if the project would result #22..
- 1332 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
8 in new specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects are subject to CEQA. With respect to the effects that are subject to CEQA, the lead agency is to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if the written checklist shows that the effects of the infill project would be potentially significant.

The checklist concludes that the project would not have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094.5, such effects are exempt from CEQA regulations.

California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 also limits the application of CEQA to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report when projects are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183[a], also Public Resources Code, Section 21083.3[b]:

Exemption applies to “a development Project [that] is consistent with the general plan of a local agency [if] an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan.).

This CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Checklist has been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.
#22..
- 1333 -
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
9 Environmental Checklist
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Exemption
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, CEQA mandates that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified may not require additional review unless there may be project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or site that were not adequately addressed in the EIR for the General Plan. In approving a project meeting the requirements of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those the agency determines, in an Initial Study or other analysis:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent

3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR
The purpose of this checklist is to assess consistency between the proposed project and General Plan and to compare the proposed project with the effects above to determine if additional environmental review is required under CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR Analysis The City of Modesto certified the current Modesto Urban Area General Plan (General Plan) on June 24, 2025. The General Plan includes goals and policies that convey the City’s long-term vision and guide local decision-making to reach that vision. The Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the General Plan (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2024091127) assessed impacts from implementation of the General Plan. This 15183 Consistency Checklist focuses on impacts within the Baseline Urbanized Area discussed in the General Plan EIR, since the proposed project is located entirely within the Baseline Developed Area (see Figure 3 of the General Plan EIR).

Consistency of the Project with Adopted City Plans and Ordinances City of Modesto General Plan
The project site is located entirely in the General Plan’s Planning Area. The General Plan is the fundamental document governing land use development and includes goals and policies relating to economic development, land use, transportation, public health, open space, conservation, safety, noise, public facilities, and utilities. The project would be required to abide by all applicable goals and policies in the adopted General Plan.

The General Plan land use designation of the rezone site is Mixed Use (MU). The MU designation allows for a mixture of office, commercial and residential uses. No development is proposed with this rezone, and any future development would be required to adhere to relevant codes and standards of the City of Modesto #22..
- 1334 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
10 and be subject to, at minimum, an administrative Development Plan Review with consideration and determination on the project by the Director of Community and Economic Development, prior to issuance of a building permit.

City of Modesto Zoning Ordinance
The current zoning is Professional Office (P-O). The proposal is to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Modesto to change the zoning to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone.

Project-Specific Environmental Review
The attached Environmental Checklist includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar project- or sitespecific environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project, as well as any off-site or cumulative impacts, such that the previously certified General Plan EIR would be inadequate for purposes of consideration and approval of the proposed Project. The Environmental Checklist identifies the applicable City of Modesto development standards and policies as well as other relevant standards and requirements that would apply to the proposed Project during both the construction and operational phases, and explains how the application of these uniformly applied standards and policies would ensure that no peculiar project- or site-specific environmental impacts would occur.

Conclusion
As described above, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan, for which an EIR was certified on June 24, 2025 (SCH#2020019010) (General Plan EIR). All impacts associated with development of the Project site with the contemplated uses and related development density, as well as off-site and cumulative impacts associated therewith, as proposed, were fully addressed in the General Plan EIR (SCH# 2024091127), as detailed further herein. Since the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density established in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or any increase in severity of previously identified significant impacts beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR.

The analysis in this CEQA Environmental Checklist (and attached supporting materials) demonstrates that there is no peculiar project- or site-specific impacts associated with the proposed Project, and identifies uniformly applied standards and policies that would be applied as well as other Project Requirements to the proposed Project to ensure that no new significant impacts or an increase in previously identified significant impacts would occur. All Project Requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist shall be made enforceable conditions of project approval and shall be implemented within the timeframes identified. #22..
- 1335 -
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
11 1 Aesthetics
Significant
Impact
Less than Significant
or Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state 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 a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the
Project is in an 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 that
would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area?
□ □ □ ■ □
#22..
- 1336 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
12 Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
Impacts to aesthetics were analyzed on pages 3.1-7 through 3.1-9 of the General Plan EIR. Aesthetic impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, and light and glare were determined to be less than significant.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following General Plan policies would be applicable to the proposed project: none.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? There are no designated scenic vistas in the Planning Area, and thus no vistas would be visible from the project site. The impact of the proposed project to scenic vistas would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
b. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No adopted State scenic highway is in the City of Modesto. One section of Interstate-5 in Stanislaus County is listed as a Designated Scenic Highway; however, this officially designated scenic highway does not provide views of Modesto or the immediate surrounding areas, and there are no sections of highway in the Modesto vicinity eligible for Scenic Highway designation. The impacts of the proposed project to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
c. Would the Project, 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 a publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The proposed rezone would allow for Medium-Density Residential uses on the subject site, and would not conflict with policies involving scenic resources. The site is substantially surrounded by urban uses and while no development is proposed in conjunction with the rezone, future development would be required to adhere to all applicable codes and standards as a condition of project approval. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
#22..
- 1337 -
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
13 d. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The proposed rezone could lead to the introduction of additional light and glare at the project site, if approved and future development proposed. However, any future development would be required to adhere to the City’s Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Residential Development, which include standards for the design of outdoor lighting fixtures that limit the size of fixtures, and require that fixtures be designed to avoid light spill onto nearby properties. Adherence to the City’s applicable codes, standards and guidelines would reduce the potential for light and glare impacts from any future development. The impact of the proposed project to light and glare would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. While no development is proposed in conjunction with this rezone, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s codes, standards and Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Residential Development as conditions of approval, ensuring that future development would result in less than significant aesthetic impacts.

The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents. Therefore, no additional review is required. #22..
- 1338 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
14 2 Agricultural Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant or Less
than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated No Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Convert areas of Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses, impair the agricultural productivity of prime
agricultural land, or result in
substantial pesticide overspray, dust,
or noise at urban uses?
□ □ ■ □ □
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
□ □ ■ □ □
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land or
timberland?
□ □ ■ □ □
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
□ □ ■ □ □
e. Involve other changes to the
environment that could result in
conversion of farmland or forest
land?
□ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts on agricultural resources on pages 3.2-15 through 3.2-18. The General Plan EIR found that impacts related to conversion of Prime Farmland and conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use would be significant and unavoidable, that impacts related to other changes to the environment that could result in the conversion of farmland would be less than significant, and that no impacts to forest land would occur.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following General Plan policies would be applicable to the proposed project: AL-12. #22..
- 1339 -
Environmental Checklist
Agricultural Resources
15 Baseline Developed Area
 AL-12. If a subsequent project is within the Baseline Developed Area or Downtown Area as identified on the Urban Area General Plan Growth Strategy Diagram [Figure II-1], consider the project to have minimal effect on the conversion of agricultural lands, and no mitigation for that impact will be required. (UAGP Policy VII-D.3[a])
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project convert areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses, impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land, or result in substantial pesticide overspray, dust, or noise at urban uses? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland? d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Would the project involve other changes to the environment that could result in conversion of farmland or forest land?
The rezone site is surrounded by urbanized area consisting of primarily single-family and multi-family residential development and zoning. The site is not zoned for agricultural uses, nor is subject to a Williamson Act contract. There are no areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the project site, nor are there forestland or timberland on the site. The project site is currently zoned P-O for Professional Office uses. Therefore, there would be no impact.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts on agriculture and forestry resources, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents.

Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1340 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
16 3 Air Quality
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
□ □ □ ■ □
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to existing or
projected air quality violation?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations □ □ □ ■ □
e. Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people □ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
Impacts to air quality were analyzed on pages 3.3-40 through 3.3-50 of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR found that impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be significant and unavoidable, and that impacts related to conflict with implementation of an applicable air quality plan, violation of air quality standards, a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants, or creation of objectionable odors would be less than significant.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Air Quality Element Goals and Policies
 AQ-100. Reduce particulate emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. #22..
- 1341 -
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
17 Regulation VIII was adopted to reduce the amount of particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere as a result of emissions generated from anthropogenic (man-made) fugitive dust sources. (Policy VII.H.2.jj)
 AQ-103. Effectively stabilize dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer / suppressant, cover with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover, all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes. (Policy VII.H.2.mm)  AQ-104. Effectively stabilize dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer / suppressant, all onsite unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads. (Policy VII.H.2.nn)  AQ-105. Effectively control fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking all land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and demolition activities. (Policy VII.H.2.oo)
 AQ-107. When materials are transported off site, cover all materials, or effectively wet them to limit visible dust emissions, and maintain at least six inches of freeboard from top of container. (Policy VII.H.2.qq)
 AQ-108. Limit operations or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday (the use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) (Policy VII.H.2.rr)
 AQ-109. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, effectively stabilize said piles for fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer / suppressant. (Policy VII.H.2.ss)
 AQ-110. Within urban areas, immediately remove trackout when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday. (Policy VII.H.2.tt)  AQ-111. Prevent carryout and trackout for any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day. (Policy VII.H.2.uu)
 AQ-113. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent (1%). (Policy VII.H.2.ww)  AQ-114. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash all trucks and equipment leaving the site. (Policy VII.H.2.xx)
 AQ-115. Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. (Policy VII.H.2.yy)  AQ-116. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (regardless of windspeed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limit). (Policy VII.H.2.zz)
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) outlines goals and policies that general plans should adopt in their Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan would be consistent with the SJVACPD goals and policies. Upon development, the proposed project would be required to comply with policies AQ-100 through AQ-105, and AQ-107 through AQ-117 of the General Plan which aim to reduce construction and operational emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The impact #22..
- 1342 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
18 of the proposed project involving conflict with an applicable air quality plan would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).? As discussed in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan and the proposed project would result in short-term emissions from construction activities, including site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. The SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) emphasizes implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than requiring a detailed quantification of construction emissions.

SJVAPCD adopted a set of PM10 fugitive dust rules collectively called Regulation VIII, which prohibits the emissions of visible dust (limited to 20 percent opacity) and requires that disturbed areas or soils be stabilized. Future development consistent with the rezoning proposed by the project would be required to comply with Regulation VIII and would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan to the SJVAPCD prior to construction showing adherence to regulation requirements. Construction activities would not commence until SJVAPCD reviews and approves the Dust Control Plan.

In addition, future development consistent with the rezoning proposed by the project would be required to adhere to SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Review Rule (Rule 9510) which requires projects to reduce construction exhaust emissions by 20 percent for NOx and 45 percent for PM10. SJVAPCD encourages reductions through construction and operational measures that reduce NOx and/or PM10 emissions.

Future development consistent with the rezoning proposed by the project could include stationary sources of pollutants from distribution processes, and the project applicant would be required to obtain permits to operate in compliance with SJVAPCD rules. The permit process ensures that potentially stationary sources would be equipped with the required emission controls and that, individually, these sources would result in a less than significant impact.

Therefore, with implementation of SJVAPCD regulations, the impact of the proposed project involving a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
c. Violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, carbon monoxide (CO) is a localized air pollutant mainly from automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations, therefore, are usually only found near areas of high traffic volume and congestion. Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased greatly in recent years.

These improvements are due largely to the introduction of cleaner burning motor vehicles and reformulated motor vehicle fuels. No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at any of San Joaquin Valley’s monitoring stations and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has attained federal and State CO standards. Since the proposed project would be within buildout of the General Plan and was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, impacts related to CO would also be less than significant and would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR. #22..
- 1343 -
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
19  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No development is proposed with the rezone. At the time of development, construction activities for the proposed project would result in short-term emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a toxic air contaminant (TAC). DPM is generated from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. Nonetheless, construction activities would be temporary and would occur over a relatively large area. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with SJVACPD’s Regulation VIII and Rule 9510 as well as General Plan policies AQ-100 through AQ-105, and AQ-107 through AQ-117, which would reduce fugitive dust and PM10 emissions during construction. Therefore, construction-related TAC impacts would be less than significant and would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI considers exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutant levels that result in an unacceptable cancer risk or hazard, to be significant. For cancer risk, which is a concern with diesel particulate matter and other mobile-source TACs, the SJVAPCD considers an increased risk of contracting cancer that is 20 in one million chances or greater, to be significant risk for a single source. Non-cancer risk would be considered significant if the computed Hazard Index (HI) is greater than 1.0. No development is proposed in conjunction with the rezone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone. Any future development as a result of the rezone would be residential in nature, with the primary sources of pollution being by residential traffic which does not emit significant quantities of TACs. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant and would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No development is proposed with the rezone. At the time of development, construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust both during normal use and when idling. However, these odors would be temporary and transitory and would cease upon completion. Therefore, construction activities would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

SJVAPCD includes odor screening distances for land uses with the potential to generate substantial odor complaints. Those uses include wastewater treatment facilities, landfills including composting operations, asphalt batch plants, fiberglass manufacturing, feed lots/dairy, food processing facilities, and chemical and rendering plants. The proposed project does not propose odor-emitting uses and would not generate objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the project would not substantially cause new sources of odors and would not significantly expose sensitive receptors to existing odors, and impacts would be less than significant. Overall, impacts would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to air quality, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time #22..
- 1344 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
20 of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required. #22..
- 1345 -
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
21 4 Biological Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant or Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife 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, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal
wetlands, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
□ □ ■ □ □
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
□ □ ■ □ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
□ □ □ ■ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
□ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes biological resources impacts on pages 3.4-38 through 3.4-51. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, there is low potential for impacts on sensitive wildlife and plant habitats within the Baseline Developed Area, and impacts to special-status species, sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat, wetlands, wildlife movement, and conflict with biological resource ordinances or policies would be #22..
- 1346 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
22 less than significant. The General Plan EIR also found there would be no impacts involving conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in a previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.
#22..
- 1347 -
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
23 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.  SWPH-1. For proposed development consistent with the adopted Urban Area General Plan on lands within the Baseline Developed Area and Downtown, exclusive of lands within the Dry Creek and Tuolumne River Comprehensive Planning Districts, an assessment of whether any potential habitat for special-status species is present within proposed development areas shall be made. No further biological study is warranted unless habitat is present or if specific information concerning the known or potential presence of significant biological resources is identified in future updates of the California Natural Diversity Database, or through formal or informal input received from resource agencies or other qualified sources (UAGP Policy VII-E.2[a]).
 SWPH-3. Avoid and preserve all areas occupied or potentially occupied by special-status species, where feasible. Protect areas that can be avoided by fencing, signage, or establishment of buffer zones appropriate to the species and/or habitat involved. Design fencing to allow passage of small mammals and avoid impacts to wildlife movement or dispersal.

Generally, a minimum 100-foot buffer of undeveloped land from identified sensitive resources would be necessary. Improve this buffer area through sustainable habitat restoration. Require protected habitat to be managed to contribute to the long-term conservation of the species and ecosystems on which they depend.

Where it is determined that state and/or federally listed species are present, consult with the CDFW and/or USFWS in accordance with the California and/or federal Endangered Species Acts to determine mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts to those species. If other special-status species are determined to be present and cannot be avoided, implement species-specific mitigation measures to minimize impacts to those species through informal consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS.

Incorporate the mitigation measures and other recommendations of these agencies into the development plan. (UAGP Policy VII-E.3[b])
 SWPH-4. Additional measures to protect sensitive habitats may be implemented. Potential measures to be implemented may include measures listed in Table 3.4-4.

Table 3.4-4: Policies For Sensitive Biological Habitats a. Avoid disturbance in wetland areas, including vernal pools and riparian communities along rivers and streams. Avoidance of these areas would include implementing a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet from the high-water mark of channels that have no riparian vegetation and 250 feet from the outermost high-water edge of the marsh wetlands, vernal pools, and swales. Riparian vegetation shall be protected with a 200-foot wide no- disturbance buffer delineated from the high water mark of the surface water body. If complete avoidance is not possible, the disturbance to wetland areas shall be minimized to the maximum extent possible, with restoration of the disturbed area provided. The topsoil within the wetland shall be removed and kept separate from other spoils to be used in restoration. New vegetation should consist of similar native species to those removed.

Activities with the potential to impact wetlands shall occur only under permit (either individual or nationwide) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to development, wetland areas shall be delineated by a qualified biologist in accordance with the delineation standards of the Corps. b. Where wetlands or other sensitive habitats cannot be avoided, replacement habitat at a nearby off-site location shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the applicable federal or state agency.

The replacement habitat should be substantially equivalent to the nature of the habitat lost and should #22..
- 1348 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
24 be provided at a ratio suitable to assure that, at a minimum, there is no net loss of habitat acreage or value. The replacement habitat shall be set aside in perpetuity for habitat use. Typically, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife require a minimum of two replacement acres for every one acre of riparian or wetland habitat lost. c. Confine work in or near streams, wetlands, and vernal pools to the dry season between May 1 and October 15. Minimize road widths at stream or wetland crossings, and construct roads at right angles to reduce adverse impacts to riparian corridors.
d. Preserve existing and mature native trees to the extent feasible, except when such trees are diseased or otherwise constitute a hazard to persons or property. During construction, all activities and storage of equipment should occur outside the drip lines of any trees to be preserved. e. All areas within identified riparian corridors shall be maintained in a natural state, or limited to recreation and open space uses. Recreation should be limited to passive forms of recreation, with any facilities constructed to be non-intrusive to wildlife or sensitive species. f. New landscaping within or immediately adjacent to the identified riparian corridors should employ native species ecologically consistent with natural riparian habitats. g. Within the identified riparian corridors, environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses consistent with these values shall be allowed (e.g., nature education and research, fishing, habitat enhancement and protection). h. In accordance with the MBTA and CFGC and to avoid disturbance to active bird nests, any tree or shrub removal shall occur during the nonbreeding season for birds (September through January). If construction activities or tree removal must occur during the breeding season (February through August), surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction. A no- disturbance buffer determined by a qualified biologist and dependent upon species and nest location of up to 250 feet shall be delineated around active nests until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. i. The General Plan Area may contain elderberry shrubs. All projects within the General Plan Area should evaluate the project site conditions for the potential for removal of elderberry shrubs. If elderberry shrubs with one or more stems 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level are present, appropriate mitigation should be discussed and prior to any subsequent project approvals, early consultation with USFWS is recommended. The removal and trimming of elderberry shrubs are regulated by the USFWS. j. Burrowing owls are known to occur near the General Plan Area in agricultural and grassland habitats and vacant lots within developed habitats. Impacts to burrowing owls and their nest burrows must be avoided to comply with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Per CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), if any ground- disturbing activities occur in potential burrowing owl habitat during the nesting (February 1 through August 31) or non-nesting season (September 1 through January 31), implementation of avoidance measures is required. A burrowing owl habitat assessment is recommended for areas containing potentially suitable habitat: agricultural, grassland, and vacant parcels if at least 2.5 acres in size or contiguous with undeveloped habitat of at least 2.5 acres in size. #22..
- 1349 -
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
25 Agricultural habitat determined to be suitable includes pastureland, non-irrigated cropland, and ruderal or fallow fields; orchards, vineyards, and other active croplands with vegetation greater than 15 inches in height are not considered suitable habitat. Vacant or ruderal parcels are considered potentially suitable habitat if ground squirrels, debris piles, and/or pipes are present to provide burrows or burrow surrogates for burrowing owl to occupy.

If burrowing owl habitat is confirmed present within a maximum of 500 feet of the project site, no visual barriers are present between the project site and the burrowing owl habitat, and no owls were observed to occupy the habitat at the time of the assessment, then one preconstruction site survey (take avoidance survey) shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the onset of any ground-disturbing activities. Further, if the preconstruction survey determines that burrowing owls occupy the site and impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, then passive relocation shall be conducted as described below during the non-nesting season or if the burrowing owl(s) are determined to not be actively nesting. Prior to passive relocation, a burrowing owl exclusion, mitigation, and monitoring plan will be prepared in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) and submitted to the City for approval before any constructive activities can proceed that may impact the species.

The Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) recommends that impacts to occupied burrows during the nesting season be avoided by implementation of a no-disturbance buffer zone of a minimum of 250 feet, unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that either: 1) the burrowing owls have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied nest are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Failure to implement this buffer zone could cause adult burrowing owls to abandon nests, cause eggs or young to be directly impacted (crushed), and/or result in reproductive failure.

Burrowing owls may be passively relocated if the burrowing owls have been determined not to be actively nesting and the burrowing owl exclusion, mitigation, and monitoring plan has been approved by the City and CDFW.
k. The State-threatened Swainson’s hawk is known to nest within the General Plan Area in grassland, riparian, and agricultural habitats. Because of the loss of suitable foraging habitat and existing nesting habitat that may occur during area development, mitigation measures compensating for these potential losses of habitat shall be included. The CDFW considers the removal of known raptor nest trees, even outside of the nesting season, to be a significant impact under CEQA and, in the case of Swainson’s hawk, could also result in “take” under the CESA. This is especially true in species such as Swainson’s hawk, which exhibit high site fidelity to nest trees and nesting area year after year (CDFG 1994).

To avoid such impacts, surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk shall be conducted for projects within riparian, grassland, and agricultural habitats as mapped by Figures 3.4-2a through 3.4-2d or for projects within 0.25 mile of such habitats (see Figure V-7-2) and containing potential nest trees (trees greater than 20 feet in height). Surveys shall follow the methodology developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000) and survey potential nest trees within 0.25 mile of disturbance activities.

If ground disturbance is initiated during the nesting season (March 15 – July 31), two pre-construction surveys shall be conducted with surveys not recommended between April 20 and June 10 because of difficulty in detecting active Swainson’s hawk nests during the egg incubation period. The first survey may be conducted up to two months prior to initial activities. The second survey shall occur within 14 days of project initiation.
#22..
- 1350 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
26 If an active nest is observed, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be established in coordination with CDFW. No-disturbance buffers for new and intensive disturbances are typically 0.25 mile surrounding the nest location until the nest has been determined to no longer be active by a qualified biologist; however, the buffer may be reduced in consultation with CDFW and is dependent upon nest location, existing disturbance barriers, and baseline disturbance levels. • No surveys are required if ground disturbance is initiated outside of the nesting season; however, impacts to known nest trees should be avoided at all times of year. If avoidance of a known nest tree (documented nest site within the previous five years) is not feasible, consultation with the CDFW is warranted prior to taking any action, and a determination of “take” potential under CESA or under Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5 and 3513 will be made. Project-related “take” (as defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code) of Swainson’s hawk must be completely avoided or a State Incidental Take Permit, pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code, would be warranted.

In addition, the Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994) recommends that for projects impacting foraging habitat within one mile of an active nest tree, habitat be protected in perpetuity at a 1:1 ratio for each acre of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat impacted; for projects greater than one mile but within five miles of an active nest tree, 0.75 acre of habitat should be protected in perpetuity for every acre of foraging habitat impacted (0.75:1); and for projects greater than 5 miles but within ten miles of an active nest tree, 0.5 acre of habitat should be protected in perpetuity for every acre of foraging habitat impacted (0.5:1). Per the Staff Report (CDFG 1994), suitable foraging habitat includes annual grasslands, pasturelands, alfalfa and cereal cropland, fallow fields, and beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops.

Vineyards, orchards, and cotton fields are considered unsuitable foraging habitat because of vegetation height and/or density (CDFG 1994). The project sponsor should provide funding of a sufficient longterm endowment for the management of the protected properties.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
#22..
- 1351 -
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
27 The rezone site is a vacant 1.35-acre parcel with weedy, non-native vegetation and does not include sensitive species, riparian habitats, wetlands, or migratory wildlife corridors. The site is surrounded by urban area including single-family and multifamily residential development and has no use as habitat for special-status species.

Consistent with General Plan Policy SWPH-1, a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search was performed in July 2025 to determine the level of assessment warranted for special-status species. A CNDDB search revealed documented occurrences of three special status animal species within approximately 5 miles of the project site, including two invertebrate species and one fish species. Within the boundary of the project site, the two invertebrate species are identified within a 5-mile accuracy polygon.

Each are discussed below:
 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB): The VELB is federally listed as threatened and is a California special-status invertebrate. This species is found in riparian and wetland habitats below 3,000 feet on their host blue elderberry shrubs. Populations of this beetle are known to occur in Stanislaus County (CDFW 2024). As verified by a biological survey of the project site in July 2025, the project site does not contain blue elderberry, and does not support this species.  Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB): The CBB is state candidate for Endangered. This species is found in association with its food plant genera including Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. As verified by a biological survey of the project site in July 2025, the project site does not contain these food plants, and does not support this species.  Steelhead: Steelhead is federally listed as threatened. However, the project site does not contain aquatic habitat and thus cannot support this species.

Since the rezone site does not include sensitive habitat, or potential habitat for special-status species, no further biological study is warranted. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The City of Modesto is not located within an approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

There would be no impact. Impacts would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to biological resources, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1352 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
28 5 Cultural and Tribal Resources
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
□ □ ■ □ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. 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:

31. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, areas of high probability for archaeological resources are located within the riparian corridors along the Tuolumne River, Dry Creek, and the Stanislaus River. Development in these areas would be subject to environmental analysis and mitigation measures and impacts were found to be less than significant. The General Plan EIR determined that areas outside of riparian corridors where soils have been excavated have low probability for archaeological resources, and impacts were found to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies. The General Plan EIR found that demolition of a historically significant building would be significant and unavoidable, and that impacts related to human remains and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. #22..
- 1353 -
Environmental Checklist
Cultural and Tribal Resources
29 The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in a previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.  AH-9. If land designated or proposed to be designated for development is discovered through archival research, consultation or by chance, to contain a sacred or traditional place, consult with the NAHC and the appropriate Native American groups and individuals for the purpose of determining the level of confidentiality required to protect the cultural place and for the purpose of developing treatment with appropriate dignity of the cultural place in any corresponding management plan. Avoid and preserve sacred sites whenever feasible. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[i])  AH-12. Whenever possible, avoid disturbing or damaging archaeological resources. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifacts and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Preservation may be accomplished by:
 Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;
 Incorporating sites within parks, green space, or other open space;  Covering the sites with a layer of chemically stable soil; and/or,  Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

When in-place mitigation is not feasible, data recovery through excavation may be necessary. A data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information about the site, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken.

Such studies must be deposited with the Central California Information Center in Turlock, California.

Special rules apply to any archaeological sites known to contain human remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)).

Data recovery shall not be required if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the data have already been documented in another EIR and are available for review at the California Historical Resource Regional Information Center (Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)). (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[l])  AH-13. Allow reasonable time for the qualified archaeologist to notify the proper authorities for a more detailed inspection and examination of the exposed cultural resources. During this time, excavation and construction would not be allowed in the immediate vicinity of the find; however, those activities could continue in other areas of the project site. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[m])  AH-14. If any find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, representatives of the construction contractor and the City, the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Native American community (if the discovery is an aboriginal burial) will meet to determine the appropriate course of action. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[n])
 AH-15. All cultural materials recovered as part of a monitoring program are subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared according to current professional standards. (UAGP Policy VII.F.2[o])
#22..
- 1354 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
30  AH-16. Any project subject to CEQA that involves substantial earth-disturbing activities should require consultation by the applicant for the purposes of determining the potential for archaeological and cultural resources impacts and creating appropriate mitigation to address any such impacts. (UAGP Policy VII.F.3[a])
 AH-17. Any project that involves earth-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed soils in an area determined to be archaeologically or culturally sensitive by the City of Modesto through consultation with Native American tribes or bands and a qualified archaeologist should be subject to archaeological and Native American monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities. (UAGP Policy VII.F.3[b])
 AH-18. Any project that involves earth-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed soils in an area determined to be archaeologically or culturally sensitive by the City of Modesto through consultation with Native American tribes or bands and a qualified archaeologist should be required to carry out the following mitigation measures, at a minimum:
 If prehistoric archaeological remains are discovered during project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist should be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find should halt immediately and the area of the find should be protected and the project applicant immediately should notify the County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, including California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if applicable. If human remains are identified, the project sponsor should also retain a Native American monitor;  A qualified archaeological monitor should be present and should have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Native Americans and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any Native American archaeological resources discovered on the property;
 Native American monitors from the appropriate Native American Tribes, as determined by the NAHC should be allowed to monitor all groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological testing and data recovery excavations that are likely to affect Native American resources, as determined by a qualified archaeologist. The project proponent should be responsible for compensating Native American monitors. If human remains are discovered, the NAHC should assign a Most Likely Descendent (MLD); and,
 The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all Native American human remains and associated burial artifacts that are found within the project area, to the appropriate Native American MLD, as assigned by the NAHC, for proper treatment and disposition. The MLD will decide whether or not standard archaeological analysis will be allowed on human remains and associated artifacts from burials.
 If paleontological resources are discovered during earth-moving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find, and the City’s Planning Manager shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and prepare a proposed mitigation plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. The proposed mitigation plan may include a field survey of additional construction areas, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings.

Recommendations determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered. (UAGP Policy VII.F.3[c])
#22..
- 1355 -
Environmental Checklist
Cultural and Tribal Resources
31 Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The rezone site is a vacant 1.35-acre parcel and would not result in the change in significance or demolition of an eligible historic resource, or have an adverse effect on any structure more than 50 years old determined to have historical significance.

The project site is not located within a riparian corridor and therefore has low probability for archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project would be required to comply with General Plan policies AH-9 and AH12 through AH-18, which outline guidance for the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources and human remains. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e) (CEQA), which state the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains. Therefore, impacts related to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
d. 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:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? 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?
No development is proposed in conjunction with the rezone. Future development would include construction activities such as grading and excavation which could potentially lead to the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with policies AH-9 and AH-12 through AH-18, which outline guidance for the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, compliance with General Plan policies would ensure a less than significant impact related to the potential discovery or disturbance of tribal cultural resources accidentally unearthed during construction activities. This impact would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to cultural and tribal #22..
- 1356 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
32 cultural resources, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents.

1. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault?
□ □ □ ■ □

2. Strong seismic ground
shaking? □ □ □ ■ □

3. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
□ □ □ ■ □

4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ □ ■ □
#22..
- 1358 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
34 Significant
Impact
Less than Significant or
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applicable
Development Policies
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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 1-B of the
Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
□ □ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available
for the disposal of
wastewater?
□ □ ■ □ □
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
□ □ □ ■ □
g. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
□ □ □ ■ □
h. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
□ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses geology, soils, and mineral resources impacts on pages 3.6-13 through 3.6-

19. The General Plan EIR found that impacts related to exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR also found that impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, unstable soils, expansive soils, soil adequacy for wastewater disposal systems, paleontological resources, and mineral resources would be less than significant.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project: none.

Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No faults known to be active or zoned as active by the State of California under the Alquist-Priolo Act are within the Planning Area. Consequently, the risk of surface fault rupture in Modesto and at the project site is considered low. Implementation of General Plan Policies GSM-1 through GSM-6 and GSM-10 would commit the City to enforcing building standards and carrying out its enforcement responsibilities under the Alquist-Priolo Act such that earthquake risks to new development, including the proposed project, would be low. These policies also require all new structures to be designed and constructed to meet or exceed relevant building code requirements. The project site is in a generally flat area and not surrounded by substantial slopes. Therefore, impacts related to risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslide, as well as unstable soils would be less than significant. No impacts beyond those analyzed previously in the General Plan EIR would occur.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No development is proposed in conjunction with the rezone. Upon future development, construction of the site would involve activities such as stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving, and other earth-disturbing activities. Loose and disturbed soils are more prone to erosion and loss of topsoil by wind and water.

However, construction of the proposed project would adhere to General Plan Policies GSM-9 and GSM-10, which call for implementation of industry-standard best practices relative to erosion control and sediment containment, would minimize the potential for loss of topsoil due to grading and other earthwork activities.

Additionally, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The SWPPP would contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sediment and reduce erosion during construction. Therefore, impacts related to #22..
- 1360 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
36 substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No impacts beyond those analyzed previously in the General Plan EIR would occur.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The General Plan EIR analyzes the potential for expansive soils to create risks to life and property and finds this impact to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Policy GSM-1, which requires conformance with Universal Building Code standards. All new development, including the project, would be required to comply with General Plan Policy GSM-1, which would ensure that expansive soils are remediated or that foundations and structures are engineered to withstand the forces of expansive soil. In cases where soil remediation is not feasible, the Universal Building Code requires structural reinforcement of foundations to resist the forces of expansive soils. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. No impacts beyond those analyzed previously in the General Plan EIR would occur.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed rezone would not result in development requiring the placement of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR would occur.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No development is proposed concurrent with this rezone. Future development would have the potential to unearth paleontological resources during ground disturbance associated with project construction. However, such development would be required to comply with General Plan policies AH-15 through AH-21, which outline guidance for the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources. Compliance with these policies would ensure impacts to paleontological resources remain less than significant. No impacts beyond those analyzed previously in the General Plan EIR would occur.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
g. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
h. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The Modesto Planning Area has been classified by the California State Geologist as MRZ-3a for sand and gravel resources, which indicates the presence of resources of unknown significance. There are no other known mineral deposits or resources within the Modesto Planning Area that are of significant value to the region or the state. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to mineral resources. No impacts beyond those analyzed previously in the General Plan EIR would occur.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
#22..
- 1361 -
Environmental Checklist
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
37 Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to geology, soils, or mineral resources, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents.

Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1362 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
38 7 Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment
□ □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation
□ □ □ ■ □
d. Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency
□ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses greenhouse gas (GHG) and energy impacts on pages 3.7-35 through 3.7-

42. The General Plan EIR found impacts related to generation of greenhouse gases and conflict with a greenhouse gas reduction plan to be significant and unavoidable. The General Plan EIR found impacts related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, to be less than significant.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.  AQ-101. Require all access roads, driveways, and parking areas serving new commercial and industrial development to be constructed with materials that minimize particulate emissions in accordance with the requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII and are appropriate to the scale and intensity of use. (Policy VII.H.2.kk)
#22..
- 1363 -
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
39  AQ-103. Effectively stabilize dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer / suppressant, cover with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover, all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes. (Policy VII.H.2.mm)  AQ-104. Effectively stabilize dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer / suppressant, all onsite unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads. (Policy VII.H.2.nn)  AQ-105. Effectively control fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking all land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and demolition activities. (Policy VII.H.2.oo)
 AQ-107. When materials are transported off site, cover all materials, or effectively wet them to limit visible dust emissions, and maintain at least six inches of freeboard from top of container. (Policy VII.H.2.qq)
 AQ-108. Limit operations or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday (the use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) (Policy VII.H.2.rr)
 AQ-109. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, effectively stabilize said piles for fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer / suppressant. (Policy VII.H.2.ss)
 AQ-110. Within urban areas, immediately remove trackout when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday. (Policy VII.H.2.tt)  AQ-111. Prevent carryout and trackout for any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day. (Policy VII.H.2.uu)
 AQ-113. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent (1%). (Policy VII.H.2.ww)  AQ-114. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash all trucks and equipment leaving the site. (Policy VII.H.2.xx)
 AQ-115. Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. (Policy VII.H.2.yy)  AQ-116. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (regardless of windspeed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limit). (Policy VII.H.2.zz)
 AQ-117. Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. (Policy VII.H.2.aaa)
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No development is proposed in conjunction with this rezone. Any future development would be required to adhere to applicable codes and standards of the City and the above Mitigation Measures where feasible. The site is within the buildout envisioned in the General Plan EIR. According to the General Plan EIR, even with implementation of the goals, policies, and actions contained in the General Plan, there is no guarantee that the General Plan alone would be sufficient to limit GHGs to the extent required by federal and state regulations.
#22..
- 1364 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
40 The General Plan EIR does not establish a regional quantitative threshold of significance to perform a quantitative GHG emission analysis, and states that such an analysis at the program level is not feasible.

Instead, the General Plan EIR qualitatively evaluates policies related to GHGs that are adopted to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant effects (Policies AQ-1 through AQ-64). These policies address GHGs, efficient land use design, and transportation efficiency and transportation mode choice. However, the General Plan EIR concludes that impacts involving the generation of GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of these policies.

As discussed under Threshold (b), the project, including the off-site improvements, would be consistent with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the General Plan, California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update, and the Stanislaus County Council of Governments’(StanCOG) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Furthermore, because the project is consistent and does not conflict with these plans, policies, and regulations, the project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions would not result in a new significant impact or in a substantially greater impact than the General Plan EIR projected for buildout of the project site.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan would result in significant impacts if it were to conflict with Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 375, and Senate Bill 32, and implementation of the General Plan would generate greenhouse gas emissions that could conflict with these abovementioned regulations.

Several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the San Joaquin Valley region, including the City’s General Plan, California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update, and StanCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS, as described in the below subsections.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes policies designed to address GHGs, efficient land use design, and transportation efficiency and transportation mode choice. Table 1 provides a consistency analysis of the proposed project with applicable General Plan policies.

Table 1 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies
Policy Policy Summary Consistency Analysis
AQ-1 Promote complete, sustainable, highquality developmentConsistent. The project would support infill development, enhance economic activity, and utilize existing infrastructure, contributing to a complete and sustainable urban environment.

AQ-2 Facilitate infill development with
infrastructure and incentives
Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the project would use existing services and infrastructure, reducing sprawl and supporting compact growth.

AQ-3 Prioritize development within city limits Consistent. Located on vacant land within City limits, the project would maximize infrastructure efficiency.

AQ-33 Close gaps in pedestrian and bicycle
systems
Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the project would contribute to pedestrian infrastructure along its frontage and within the site.

AQ-76 Separate pollution sources from sensitive
receptors
Consistent. The proposed rezone would allow for residential uses, minimizing exposure risks.
#22..
- 1365 -
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
41 Policy Policy Summary Consistency Analysis
AQ-77 Mitigate construction air quality impacts Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, dust and construction emissions would be controlled per SJVAPCD guidelines, including watering and equipment standards.

AQ-85 Comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9510
(Indirect Source Review)
Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the project would comply with Rule 9510, incorporating emission-reducing design features.

AQ-89 Integrate air quality into land use and
transportation planning
Consistent. The project would support air quality goals through infill development and multimodal access.

AQ-100–
AQ-105
Control fugitive dust and particulate
emissions
Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would implement dust control measures during construction and use appropriate paving materials to minimize emissions.

AQ-107 Cover or wet materials during off-site
transport
Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would require covered or wetted loads with proper freeboard.

AQ-109 Stabilize outdoor storage piles Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would stabilize piles using water or chemical suppressants.

AQ-110 Remove trackout extending 50+ feet Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would remove trackout immediately and at end of each workday.

AQ-111 Prevent carryout/trackout for 150+
trips/day
Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would implement trackout control measures as required.

AQ-112 Limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would enforce speed limits on unpaved surfaces.

AQ-113 Prevent silt runoff from sloped sites Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would install erosion control measures like sandbags.

AQ-114 Install wheel washers or wash trucks Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would install wheel washers or wash stations for exiting vehicles.

AQ-115 Install wind breaks at construction sites Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would install wind breaks on windward sides of active areas.

AQ-116 Suspend grading when winds exceed 20
mph
Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would suspend activities during high winds and comply with opacity limits.

AQ-117 Limit active grading area Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the construction contractor would phase grading to limit disturbed area at any one time.

California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update The 2022 Scoping Plan Update provides a strategy that can reach the Executive Order S-3-05 and SB 32 emissions targets if the measures included in the plan are implemented and achieve reductions within the ranges expected. Under the Scoping Plan Update, local government plays a supporting role through its land use authority and control over local transportation infrastructure. Table 2 provides a consistency analysis of the proposed project with applicable 2022 Scoping Plan Update measures. #22..
- 1366 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
42 Table 2 Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Update Scoping Plan Measure Consistency Analysis
SCAQMD Rule 445 (Wood Burning Devices): Restricts the
installation of wood-burning devices in new development.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. The project would not include hearths (woodstove and fireplaces) as mandated by this rule.

California Renewables Portfolio Standard, Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) and Senate Bill 100 (SB 100): Increases the proportion of electricity from renewable sources to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. SB 350 requires 50 percent by 2030. SB 100 requires 44 percent by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. It also requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. Once a specific
development project is proposed, the project would utilize electricity provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), which is required to meet the 2030, 2045, and 2050 performance standards. In 2021, 48 percent of PG&E’s electricity came from renewable resources. By 2030 PG&E plans to achieve over 60 percent carbon-free energy.

All Electric Appliances for New Residential and Commercial Buildings (AB 197): All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial), contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed statewide by 2030.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. The proposed project would be consistent with this requirement.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Code: Requires compliance with energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. Once a specific
development project is proposed, the project would be
required to meet the applicable requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (or better).

California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code
Requirements: All bathroom exhaust fans are required to be ENERGY STAR compliant.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. Project-specific
construction plans would be required to demonstrate that energy efficiency appliances, including bathroom exhaust fans, and equipment are ENERGY STAR compliant.

California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code
Requirements: HVAC system designs are required to meet American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. Project-specific
construction plans would be required to demonstrate that the HVAC system meets the ASHRAE standards.

California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code
Requirements: Air filtration systems are required to meet a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) 8 or higher.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. Once a specific
development project is proposed, the project would be
required to install air filtration systems (MERV 8 or higher) as part of its compliance with the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code
Requirements: Refrigerants used in newly installed HVAC systems shall not contain any chlorofluorocarbons.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. Once a specific
development project is proposed, the project would be
required to meet this requirement as part of its compliance with the CALGreen Code.

California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code
Requirements: Parking spaces shall be designed for carpool or alternative fueled vehicles. Up to eight percent of total parking spaces is required for such vehicles, based on the land use.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. The proposed Project would be consistent with this requirement.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels): Reduce GHGs and other pollutants from the transportation sector through transition to zero-emission and low-emission vehicles, cleaner transit systems, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled.

Consistent. Once a specific development project is proposed, the project would be consistent with this strategy by
supporting the use of zero-emission and low-emission
vehicles through site design and infrastructure; refer to CALGreen Code discussion above.

Senate Bill (SB) 375: SB 375 establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle GHG emissions. Under SB 375, CARB is required, in consultation with the State’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations, to set regional GHG reduction targets for the passenger vehicle and light-duty truck sector for 2020 and 2035.

Consistent. As demonstrated in Table 3, the project would comply with the StanCOG 2022 RTP/SCS, and therefore, the project would be consistent with SB 375.
#22..
- 1367 -
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
43 Scoping Plan Measure Consistency Analysis
CCR, Title 24, Building Standards Code: Title 24 includes water efficiency requirements for new residential and non- residential uses.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. Refer to the discussion under 2022 Title 24 Building Standards Code and CALGreen Code, above.

Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7): The Water Conservation Act of 2009 sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20 percent by December 31, 2020. Each urban retail water supplier shall develop water use targets to meet this goal.

This is an implementing measure of the Water Sector of the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Reduction in water consumption directly reduces the energy necessary and the associated emissions to convene, treat, and distribute the water; it also reduces emissions from wastewater treatment.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. Refer to the discussion under 2022 Title 24 Building Standards Code and CALGreen Code, above.

California Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) of 1989 and Assembly Bill (AB) 341: The IWMA mandates that State agencies develop and implement an integrated waste management plan which outlines the steps to divert at least 50 percent of solid waste from disposal facilities. AB 341 directs the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling and sets a Statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.

No Conflict -Mandatory Compliance. Any specific
development project would be required to comply with AB 341 which requires commercial recycling services. This
would reduce the overall amount of solid waste disposed at landfills. The decrease in solid waste would in return
decrease the amount of methane released from decomposing solid waste.

Source: California Air Resources Board 2022
StanCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS
With the passage of SB 375 in 2008, Metropolitan Planning Organizations were required to develop an SCS, which must demonstrate an achievable approach to how land use development and transportation can work together to meet GHG emission reduction targets for cars and light trucks. These targets, set by the California Air Resources Board, call for the region to reduce per capita emissions. SB 375 and AB 32 are implemented with the StanCOG 2022 RTP/SCS. The 2022 RTP/SCS envisions an increase in development density that would encourage fewer and shorter trips and more trips by transit, walking, and bicycling in amounts sufficient to achieve the SB 375 targets. Table 3 provides a consistency analysis of the proposed project with applicable 2022 RTP/SCS measures.

Table 3 Project Consistency with StanCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS Scoping Plan Measure Consistency Analysis
Goal 1: Mobility and Accessibility Consistent. The proposed project would provide pedestrian facilities that link the rezone site and other nearby developments.

Goal 2: Social Equity Consistent. The proposed rezone would faciliate new residential development for residents, which is consistent with social equity directives aimed at creating opportunities for local residents.

Goal 3: Economic and Community Vitality Consistent. The proposed rezone would facilitate new residential development thereby promoting economic and community vitality.

Goal 4: Sustainable Development Pattern Consistent. The project site is located on infill land within an urbanized area, reducing pressure on agricultural and open space lands and supporting compact development.

Goal 5: Environmental Quality Consistent. Future development would implement SJVAPCD-compliant dust and emissions controls to reduce GHG emissions.

Goal 6: Safety and Health Consistent. There are no geometric safety concerns with the circulation system. The system includes pedestrian facilities which is consistent with the health policy directives aimed at active transportation. #22..
- 1368 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
44 Scoping Plan Measure Consistency Analysis
Goal 7: System Preservation Consistent. Future development would connect to a larger network of roadways, bicycle lanes, trails, and sidewalks.

Goal 8: Smart Infrastructure Not applicable.

Goal 9: Resiliency and Reliability Consistent. Future development would include resilient design features such as stormwater management, heat-resilient landscaping, and durable materials to adapt to changing climate conditions.

Goal 10: Congestion Management Consistent. The rezone site is located on infill land within an urbanized area, on an arterial street with Class II bike lanes and transit service.

Source: StanCOG 2022
Conclusion
Any future development project consistent with the proposed rezone would be constructed in conformance with the most recent iteration of CALGreen and Title 24, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with project operation. As described in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, the proposed project would be consistent with policies and measures within the City’s General Plan, the California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update, and StanCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate a significant impact involving GHGs. The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations. Impacts would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
c. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? d. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Upon future development, construction activities would involve the use of energy during construction and operation, including fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting; temporary grid power; permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas; and fuel consumption from increased vehicle trips associated with potential development. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan buildout, and therefore, energy conclusions from the General Plan EIR apply to the project.

Construction
In any future development, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated pursuant to the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which imposes limits on idling, requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricts the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requires fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits.

Compliance with the Regulation would improve fuel efficiency of construction vehicles.

Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would minimize inefficient fuel consumption. These construction equipment standards are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Electrical power would be consumed during construction activities, and the demand, to the extent required, would be supplied from existing electrical infrastructure in the region.
#22..
- 1369 -
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
45 Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use during construction of any future development would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. Any future development would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the site’s existing General Plan land use designation; thus, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.

Operation
Operation of any future development project would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity, gasoline, diesel, and potentially natural gas. Electricity would be used for lighting, appliances, and water and wastewater conveyance, among other purposes. Gasoline and diesel consumption would be associated with vehicle trips generated by residents and visitors. Natural gas could be utilized for heating and cooling systems, and other purposes.

The project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the California Building Standards Code, including the CalGreen standards, which would ensure that proposed structure would consume energy efficiently. Through compliance with the State’s Building Standards Code, as well as applicable General Plan policies, the project would implement all necessary energy efficiency regulations.

There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to greenhouse gas emissions or energy, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents.

0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
□ □ ■ □ □
#22..
- 1371 -
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
47 Significant
Impact
Less than Significant or
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applicable
Development Policies
e. For a project located in 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
excessive noise for people
residing or working in the
project area?
□ □ ■ □ □
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
□ □ □ ■ □
g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to
a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
□ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses hazardous materials impacts on pages 3.8-38 through 3.8-45. The General Plan EIR found impacts involving the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials, to be less than significant.

Impacts related to the handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school and the location of development on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962 were also found to be less than significant. The General Plan EIR found less than significant impacts involving airport safety hazards, interference with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan, and wildland fires.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.  HM-5. In the event that site inspection or construction activities uncover chemical contamination, underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials or wastes at a parcel, the inspection report preparer shall so notify the City. The City shall notify the County Health Services Department. Under the direction of these agencies, a site remediation plan would be prepared by the project applicant.
#22..
- 1372 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
48 The plan would (1) specify measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards and (2) certify that the proposed remediation measures would clean up the wastes, dispose the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements.

Permitting or work in the areas of potential hazard shall not proceed until the site remediation plan is on file with the City.

If a parcel is found to be contaminated to a level that prohibits the proposed use, the potential for reduction of the hazard should be evaluated. Site remediation is theoretically capable of removing hazards to levels sufficiently low to allow any use at the site. In practice, both the technical feasibility of the remediation and its cost (financial feasibility) should be evaluated in order to determine the overall feasibility of locating a specific use on a specific site. In some cases, it may require restriction to industrial use or a use that involves complete paving and covering of the parcel.

In accordance with OSHA requirements, any activity performed at a contaminated site shall be preceded by preparation of a separate site health and safety plan (prepared by the project applicant and filed with the City) for the protection of workers and the public. All reports, plans, and other documentation shall be added to the administrative record. (UAGP Policy VI.M.3)  HM-7. Prior to the issuance of all building permits, identify the site in relation to all Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System sites and to known or suspected uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. All projects within 2,000 feet of these facilities should conduct hazardous materials studies as necessary to identify the type and extent of contamination, if any, and the extent of risk to human health and public safety. If necessary, a remedial action program should be developed and implemented as in UAGP Policy VI.M.3. (UAGP Policy VI.M.5)
 HM-8. Applicants for building permits should determine that a site containing or formerly containing residences or farm buildings / structures has been fully investigated for the presence of hazardous materials or wastes prior to issuance of the permit. Investigation should consist of, at minimum, a Phase I environmental site assessment and a Phase II site assessment, if found necessary as a result of the Phase I assessment. The findings of the site assessment should be reported to the City and the County’s Department of Environmental Resources. The appropriate remediation should occur prior to final occupancy of the approved development. (UAGP Policy VI.M.6) Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? No development is proposed in conjunction with this rezone. Upon future development, potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents would be used by heavy machinery during construction. However, such development would be required to comply with goals and policies in the General Plan, including HM-3 and HM-4, to eliminate potential significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Development would also be required to adhere to federal, state, and local regulations regarding hazardous materials. During grading and construction activities, it is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, #22..
- 1373 -
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
49 such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, would be brought onto the site.

Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable federal and state environmental and workplace safety laws. Additionally, the construction SWPPP would include BMPs to control accidental spills of equipment fluids and measures for cleanup. Adherence to these regulatory requirements and the SWPPP would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

The nearest school to the project site is Sylvan Elementary School, located approximately 0.25 miles to the south of the site. Exposure of people to hazardous materials could occur in the following ways: improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous waste during construction or operation of future developments, particularly by untrained personnel; transportation accident; environmentally unsound disposal methods; or fire, explosion, or other emergencies. However, any future development on the project site would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the USEPA, State, and City of Modesto related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as included in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, with compliance with state, federal, and local regulations as well as General Plan policies, no impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR would occur.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The subject parcel is not included on a list of hazardous material sites (GC 65962.5); therefore, there is no impact. (Site search: envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov)
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
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 excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The nearest airport is the Modesto City-County Airport approximately 3.5 miles north of the project site.

The project site is not located within the Modesto City-County Airport’s Airport Influence Area but outside of the noise contours and safety zones (Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission n.d.). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working in the project area. No impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR would occur.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed rezone would not remove or impede any established evacuation routes within the City or region and would not conflict with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. The project would not alter travel lanes on roadways carrying emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicles would have access to the subject property via Coffee Road. Therefore, any future development and use of the site would not directly impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, or involve the development of structures that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation. The project would not block access or permanently constrain evacuation routes adopted in an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. No impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR would occur.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
#22..
- 1374 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
50 g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is not within or near State Responsibility Areas (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ). The project site is generally flat and surrounded by numerous firebreaks such as roads and urban development. Therefore, the risk of wildfire on the project site would be low. No impact would occur, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed rezone is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The rezone to residential uses would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1375 -
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
51 9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Significan
t Impact
Less than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impac
t
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
□ □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable 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
addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation onor off-site;
(ii) Substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site;
(iii) Create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
(iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
□ □ ■ □ □
#22..
- 1376 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
52 Significan
t Impact
Less than
Significant or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impac
t
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
□ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts on hydrology and water quality on pages 3.9-28 through 3.9-39.

The General Plan EIR found that impacts related to violation of water quality standards, groundwater supply and recharge, alteration of existing drainage patterns, release of pollutants due to inundation, and conflict with water quality or groundwater plans would be less than significant.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.  FWQ-11. Construction activities shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Management Plan under its municipal NPDES stormwater permit, and the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. (UAGP Policy VI.G.3)
 FWQ-13. Ensure that new development complies with the City of Modesto’s Stormwater Management Program: Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures. (UAGP Policy VI.G.5)
 FWQ-14. Require new development to implement an appropriate selection of permanent pollution control measures in accordance with the City’s implementation policies for the municipal NPDES stormwater permit. (UAGP Policy VI.G.6)
 FWQ-16. Integrate Low Impact Development principles into proposed development projects’ design.

Low Impact Development is a storm water management and land development strategy that promotes conservation and use of natural on-site features combined with engineered small-scale hydrologic devices. In designing development projects, minimize the amount of impervious surface in order to maximize on-site infiltration of stormwater runoff and minimize the potential for storm water runoff from the site. (UAGP Policy VI.G.8)
#22..
- 1377 -
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
53 Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No development is proposed in conjunction with this rezone. Any future development as a result of the rezone could adversely affect surface water quality and groundwater quality through short-term construction-related discharges of wastes, long-term soil erosion from construction and increased discharges of stormwater to drainage channels, and increased long-term discharges of urban pollutants. Nonetheless, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, General Plan policies FWQ-9 through FWQ-13 would minimize discharges of urban pollutants to natural waterways and require new development to prepare drainage plans and implement urban runoff control measures. In addition, General Plan policy FWQ-14 would require implementation of permanent pollution control measures such as seeding and planting vegetation for new cut-and-fill slopes, directing runoff through vegetation, and reducing offsite discharge of particulates and sediment to control offsite discharge of urban pollutants. Therefore, impacts on surface water quality and groundwater quality would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation and future buildout of the proposed General Plan would not appreciably add to the volume of imperious surfaces in Modesto, when compared to the overall size of the regional groundwater basin recharge area, and that there are adequate water supplies (including groundwater) to serve the projected buildout demand of the General Plan. Development under the project would not include installation of new groundwater wells or use of groundwater from existing wells.

Although the project may increase impervious surfaces on the site, development of the project site was anticipated under the General Plan and the project would not use water or prevent recharge at a rate beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, the project would have no impacts beyond those previously identified in the prior environmental document, and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
c.(i) Would the project 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 addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? c.(ii) Would the project 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 addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
c.(iii) Would the project 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 addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
c.(iv) Would the project 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 addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? #22..
- 1378 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
54 The project site is currently vacant and unpaved. No development is proposed with the rezone; however any future development would be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Management Program and Construction General Permit requirements; incorporation of Low Impact Development design measures that restrict the amount of post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions; and implementation of post-construction erosion control and stormwater control measures. Therefore, with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project site is not located in a tsunami inundation area, nor is there a water body near the project site capable of seiche. The proposed project would be located outside of the 100-year floodplain and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. There would be no impact. Impacts would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The City of Modesto is under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB requires permits for projects that may affect surface waters and groundwater locally and is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. The Basin Plan serves as the basis for the Central Valley RWQCB’s regulatory programs and incorporates an implementation plan for achieving water quality objectives. The proposed project would not interfere with the objectives and goals in the Basin Plan.

Impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed rezone is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The rezone would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts on hydrology and water quality, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1379 -
Environmental Checklist
Land Use, Population, and Housing
55 10 Land Use, Population, and Housing
Significant
Impact
Less than Significant or
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an
established community? □ □ ■ □ □
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
environmental effect?
□ □ ■ □ □
c. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere?
□ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR addresses impacts to land use, population, and housing on pages 3.10-11 through

3.10-19. The General Plan EIR found that impacts involving physical division of an established community, conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, substantial population growth, and displacement of people or housing would be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and also provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in a previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.  LUP-16: Preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods by providing sensitive transitions between and among adjoining neighborhoods, and by requiring new development – both private and public – to respect and respond to those existing physical characteristics, buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban form that contribute to the overall character and livability of the neighborhood. (UAGP Policy III.C.2)
#22..
- 1380 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
56  LUP-18: Development along major transportation corridors that occurs pursuant to an adopted corridor study should be compact, mixed-use, transit- / bicycle- / pedestrian-friendly, and scaled appropriately to match the context and transition to existing nearby neighborhoods. (UAGP Goal III.E) Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No development is proposed concurrently with this rezone. Future development would involve infill multifamily residential uses consistent with the Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone and would not result in new obstructions or divisions between established communities. Any future development would be limited to the project site and would not include linear or other features that could impede access between or within neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
b. Would the project 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 environmental effect? The proposal is to rezone the parcel only; no development is proposed with the rezone. The rezone would be for Medium Density Residential (R-2) uses which would conform to the existing Mixed Use (MU) land use designation in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact involving conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
c. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposal is to rezone 1.35 gross acres from Professional Office (P-O) Zone to the Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone. No development is proposed in conjunction with the rezone. Any future development would be infill in nature and allow for between 10.9 and 22 units per acre. The project would have less than significant impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
d. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
“Substantial” displacement would occur if the proposed project would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth facilitated by the project. The project site is currently vacant and contains no existing residences. Therefore, construction and development of the site would not displace people or residences. The project would have no impact and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
#22..
- 1381 -
Environmental Checklist
Land Use, Population, and Housing
57 Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to land use, population and housing, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents.

Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1382 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
58 11 Noise
Significant
Impact
Less than Significant or
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards
established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
□ □ □ ■ □
b. A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without
the project?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. 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, expose people
residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport?
□ □ ■ □ □
e. For a project within the
vicinity of a private airstrip,
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
□ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes noise impacts on pages 3.11-17 through 3.11-28. The General Plan EIR found that impacts involving the generation of traffic noise, exposure to railroad noise and groundborne vibration, generation of excessive stationary noise sources, and increases in construction noise and vibration would be significant and unavoidable.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.  Noise-1. Construction activities are to comply with Modesto Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 9.  Noise-2. Implement noise-reducing construction practices as conditions of approval where substantial construction-related noise impacts would be likely to occur, such as with extended periods of pile driving, or where construction is expected to continue or where sensitive receptors would be affected by construction noise. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
 Require construction equipment, including air compressors and pneumatic equipment to have properly maintained mufflers;
 Require impact tools to be equipped with shrouds or shields;  Require that the quietest equipment available be used; and,  Require selection of haul routes that affect the fewest number of people. (UAGP Policy VII-G.3.b)  Noise-5: Incorporate construction practices and acoustic treatment in new residential construction to reduce typical indoor noise levels to 45 dB. Developers of residential buildings within the 65 dBA contours shown in the General Plan Program EIR shall demonstrate that interior noise has been reduced to 45 dB. Other types of development should be protected against noise intrusion at least to the levels indicated on UAGP Table VII-2. (UAGP Policy VII-G.3.e)
City of Modesto Municipal Code Noise Ordinance
 Generally, the Modesto Municipal Code prohibits any noise that can be deemed “loud and raucous.” Determining what noises are “loud and raucous” depends on several factors, such as its volume and duration, whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual, when the noise occurs, and whether it is recurrent, intermittent, or constant. The Municipal Code prohibits “loud and raucous” constructionrelated noise before 7:00 am or after 9:00 pm daily. It also forbids the loud and raucous operation of many specific types of construction equipment. For example, it prohibits loud and raucous noise from exhaust of any stationary internal combustion engine.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
c. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project is a proposed rezone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) uses and would result in future development of multi-family residential uses. Future development of the site would not generate excessive ground-borne noise or vibration levels, or lead to a permanent increase in ambient noise level. Future development projects resulting in any increase in noise would be construction-related and temporary, and less than significant impact with mitigation measures applied. Subsequent development would be required #22..
- 1384 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
60 to adhere to the City’s noise ordinance. Overall, impacts would be less than significant and would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
d. 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 project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? e. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The rezone site is 1.35 acres at the intersection of Coffee Road and Thorsen Avenue, and is not within the vicinity of a public or private airport/airstrip. Therefore, there would be no impact.  NO IMPACT
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts involving noise, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1385 -
Environmental Checklist
Public Services and Recreation
61 12 Public Services and Recreation
Significant
Impact
Less than Significant or
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applicable
Development Policies
a. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental
facilities, or the 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:
1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■ □
b. Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
□ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts to public services and recreation on pages 3.12-22 through 3.12-27.

The General Plan EIR found that impacts to public services and recreational facilities would be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the #22..
- 1386 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
62 parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in a previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Fire
 FS-1. Maintain adequate fire flows in relation to structure size, design, and requirements for construction and/or built-in fire protection systems in accordance with the California Fire Code and adopted local ordinances. Determination of adequate fire flows includes factors such as storage capacity, system gridding, hydrant spacing, and spacing and sizing of water mains. (UAGP Policy VI.K.1)
 FS-2. Ensure adequate ingress and egress to all structures for firefighting and rescue purposes independent of privately owned and maintained driveways. Provide protection of life and property through the use of engineered fire protection systems, including roof systems. (UAGP Policy VI.K.2) Police
The following UAGP policies apply in the Baseline Developed Area and, where relevant, in the Planned Urbanizing Area. In general, however, the Modesto Police Department is only authorized to provide services within the incorporated Modesto city limits.
 PS-7. Review proposed projects in order to evaluate security features, encourage Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), and evaluate traffic flow with respect to speed and collision mitigation. Ensure that the following CPTED principles, as modified by periodic amendments thereto, are incorporated in specific sites and situations, including new development.  Territoriality is a design concept that clearly delineates private space from semi- public and public spaces and also creates a sense of ownership. Ownership thereby creates an environment where appearances of such strangers and intruders stand out and are more easily identified through:
 The enhanced feeling of legitimate ownership by reinforcing existing natural surveillance and natural access control strategies with additional symbolic or social ones;  The design of space to allow for its continued use and intended purpose; and,  The use of pavement treatments, landscaping, art, signage, screening and fences define and outline ownership of space.
 Natural surveillance is a design concept directed primarily at keeping intruders under observation.

Provision of natural surveillance helps to create environments where there is sufficient opportunity for people engaged in their normal behavior to observe the space around them. Areas can be designed so they are more easily observed through:
 Design and placement of physical features to maximize visibility. This may include:
building orientation, windows, entrances and exits, parking lots, refuse containers, walkways, guard gates, landscape trees and shrubs, use of wrought iron fences or walls, signage and other physical obstructions;
#22..
- 1387 -
Environmental Checklist
Public Services and Recreation
63  Placement of persons or activities to maximize surveillance possibilities; and,  Minimum maintained lighting standards that provide for nighttime illumination of parking lots, walkways, entrances, exits, and related areas to promote a safe environment.  Access control is a design concept directed primarily at decreasing criminal accessibility. Provision of natural access control limits access and increases natural surveillance to restrict criminal intrusion, especially into areas where they will not be easily observed. Intruders are more readily recognized through:
 The use of sidewalks, pavement, gates, lighting and landscaping to clearly guide the public to and from entrances and exits; and,
 The use of gates, fences, walls, landscaping and lighting to prevent or discourage public access to or from dark or unmonitored areas.
 Activity support is the presence of activity planned for the space, and involves placing activity where the individuals engaged in an activity will become part of the natural surveillance system.

Examples include:
 Place safe activities in areas that will discourage would-be offenders, to increase the natural surveillance of these activities and the perception of safety for normal users, and the perception of risk for offenders;
 Place high-risk activities in safer locations to overcome the vulnerability of these activities by using natural surveillance and access control of the safe area;  Locate gathering areas in locations that provide for natural surveillance and access control or in locations away from the view of would-be offenders; and,  Improve the scheduling of space to allow for effective use and appropriate intensity of accepted behaviors.
 Proper maintenance of landscaping, lighting treatment, and other features can facilitate the principles of CPTED. Functions include:
 Proper maintenance of lighting fixtures to prescribed standards;  Landscaping that is maintained at prescribed standards; and,  Minimizing the conflicts between surveillance and landscaping as groundcover, shrubs and trees mature. (UAGP Policy VI.J.6)
Parks and Open Space
 POS-40. Historical and archaeological resources will be preserved and protected, when feasible. The locations of archaeological resources will not be disclosed to the public. (UAGP Policy VII-B.7[u]) Schools
An objective of the UAGP is to place a hierarchy of schools near the residential areas that they may serve, to maximize the opportunity for children to walk or bike to school, minimize the extent of busing, reduce the use of private vehicles, and maximize the use of adjoining school and park facilities. #22..
- 1388 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
64 The UAGP has the following policies relating to schools:
 S-3. Continue to require that developers pay, prior to issuance of any building permit, the maximum residential, commercial, and industrial development school fees in effect. This requirement is in accordance with the provisions of State law. (UAGP Policy VI.I.2) Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the 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? No development is proposed in conjunction with this rezone. Any future development as a result would be required to comply with the California Fire Code pursuant to Title 3, Chapter 1 of the MCO, as well as fire safety requirements pursuant to Title 9, Chapter 8, Article 27 of the MCO. Future development would also be required to comply with General Plan policies FS-1 and FS-2, which require adequate fire flows and ingress/egress for fire protection vehicles for new development.

The closest fire station to the project site is Fire Station 7 located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the site at 1800 Mable Avenue. The proposed project would be consistent with the buildout assumed in the General Plan EIR and would be in an urbanized area already served by existing Modesto Fire Department facilities. The proposed project would not create excessive demand for fire services or introduce development to areas outside of normal service range that would necessitate new or substantially physically altered fire police protection facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? No development is proposed in conjunction with this rezone. Future development of multi-family residential uses would be required to enroll in the City’s Crime-Free Multi-Family Housing Program as administered by the Modesto Police Department. Future development at the allowed density of the MediumDensity (R-2) Zone would be consistent with the buildout assumed in the General Plan EIR and would be in an urbanized area already served by existing Modesto Police Department facilities. The proposed project would not create excessive demand for police services or introduce development to areas outside of normal service range that would necessitate new or substantially physically altered police protection facilities. The proposal was referred to the Modesto City Police Department, who indicated no concerns with the rezone.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
#22..
- 1389 -
Environmental Checklist
Public Services and Recreation
65 The proposed rezone, if approved would facilitate the development of new multi-family residential uses to a maximum of 22 units per acre on a site of 1.35 acres gross. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, existing schools could not sufficiently accommodate the increase in new students generated by development under the General Plan. Nonetheless, future development, including the proposed project, would be required to pay school impact fees pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 to mitigate impacts to schools. The proposal was referred to the Modesto City Schools and Sylvan Elementary School Districts, who indicated no concerns with the rezone. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Refer to thresholds b and c.
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 other public facilities?
The proposed project does not include and would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed rezone, if approved would facilitate the development of new multi-family residential uses to a maximum of 22 units per acre on a site of 1.35 acres gross. The project would not induce population growth that could substantially increase the use of existing recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The proposal was referred to the City’s Parks Planning Department, who indicated no concerns with the rezone. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed rezone is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to public services and recreation, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact #22..
- 1390 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
66 than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1391 -
Environmental Checklist
Transportation and Circulation
67 13 Transportation and Circulation
Significant
Impact
Less than Significant or
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
□ □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access? □ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses transportation and circulation impacts on pages 3.13-32 through 3.13-38.

The General Plan EIR found impacts involving increases in VMT to be significant and unavoidable. The General Plan EIR found impacts involving conflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance addressing the circulation system, transportation hazards, and inadequate emergency access to be less than significant.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The purpose of Modesto’s transportation system is to move people and goods safely, conveniently, and efficiently. The system should provide transportation choices that are safe, reliable, effective, and economical for all users to decrease household transportation costs, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health.

The following policies are applicable to the proposed project:
#22..
- 1392 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
68  TC-59: ADA Compliance. Construct or modify curb-ramps and sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. (UAGP Policy V.D.5)
 TC-61: Street Trees. Plant and maintain large species trees along streets to separate pedestrians from moving traffic for safety and to create an inviting walking environment. (UAGP Policy V.D.7) Project-Specific Impacts
The proposed rezone was referred to the City’s Transportation Engineering and Design (TED) staff for review and comment, who indicated no concerns with the proposal. Future development would be evaluated for traffic and transit mitigation needs upon submittal of an application for multi-family residential development. The full Transportation Analysis can be found attached as Appendix C. a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? No development is proposed in conjunction with this rezone. Future development would be required to provide for new roadway improvements if new streets are proposed, including curb, gutter and sidewalks.

New sidewalks would be required to meet the City’s sidewalk requirements pursuant to Title 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Modesto Municipal Code and applicable City Standard Specifications. Therefore, impacts to traffic and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant and would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Class II bike lanes are striped on both sides of Coffee Road in the vicinity of the rezone site. Impacts to bicycle facilities would be less than significant and would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

The Coffee Road frontage of the site has an existing bus stop opposite of Thorsen Avenue, served by the Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority’s bus route 32. Additional routes 60 and 37 run on Floyd Avenue approximately one-half mile from the site. Therefore, impacts to transit facilities would be less than significant and would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?? The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in VMT that would be greater than 85 percent of baseline conditions; additionally, General Plan implementation would not cause the total VMT in the Planning Area to decrease. Therefore, impacts from implementation of the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable. Any increase in VMT generated by future residential development as a result of the rezone is considered in the General Plan EIR, and future development would be consistent with the current land use designation of Mixed Uses in the General Plan. Therefore, impacts involving VMT would not be substantially greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No development is proposed in conjunction with this rezone. Any future development would be required to demonstrate adherence to relevant City codes and standards, and at minimum be subject to administrative Development Plan Review per Modesto Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 9, Article 10 prior to issuance of a building permit. Therefore, the proposed rezone would not substantially increase hazards due to a #22..
- 1393 -
Environmental Checklist
Transportation and Circulation
69 geometric design feature or incompatible use and impacts would be less than significant. Impacts would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Emergency vehicles would have access to the rezone site via Coffee Road. The rezone would not impair implementation of an emergency plan or physically interfere with an emergency access, nor would it result in the blockage of access routes or evacuation routes adopted within an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. This impact is less than significant and impacts would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts concerning transportation, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1394 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
70 14 Utilities and Service Systems
Significant
Impact
Less than Significant or
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater, or stormwater
drainage facilities, the
construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
□ □ □ ■ □
b. Have insufficient water
supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during normal,
single dry and multiple dry
years?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it does
not have adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s 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 of solid waste
reduction goals?
□ □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state,
and local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
□ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts to utilities and service systems on pages 3.14-19 through 3.14-22,

3.14-31 through 3.14-34; 3.14-46 through 3.14-48; and 3.14-56 and 3.14-57. The General Plan EIR found that impacts involving water supplies and water treatment facilities would be less than significant; impacts involving wastewater capacity and wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant; impacts involving stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant; and impacts involving solid waste would be less than significant.

The following describes the analysis included in the General Plan EIR and provides a streamlined review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the #22..
- 1395 -
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
71 parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in a previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan
The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Water
 WS-14. All new connections to the public water system are to have meters installed. In addition, on or before January 1, 2025, all existing municipal and industrial service connections are to have water meters installed. (UAGP Policy VI.A.3)
Wastewater
 SS-13. Individual development projects are subject to review by the City for adequate wastewater collection service and treatment. (UAGP Policy VI.E.3)
 SS-23. Require each new development project to be served with public sanitary sewers. Utilities located in private streets shall be part of the public sewerage system and shall be connected to a sewer lateral. (UAGP Policy VI.E.14)
Storm Drainage
 SD-10. Construction activities shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Stormwater Management Plan under its municipal NPDES stormwater permit, and the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. (UAGP Policy VI.G.3)
 SD-12. Ensure that new development complies with the City of Modesto’s Stormwater Management Program: Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures. (UAGP Policy VI.G.5)
 SD-13. Require new development to implement an appropriate selection of permanent pollution control measures in accordance with the City’s implementation policies for the municipal NPDES stormwater permit. (UAGP Policy VI.G.6)
 SD-14. Design development projects to preserve and, where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and buffers. Minimize disturbance of natural water bodies or natural drainage systems that might result from development, including road construction. (UAGP Policy VI.G.7) SD-15: Integrate Low Impact Development principles into proposed development projects’ design. Low Impact Development is a storm water management and land development strategy that promotes conservation and use of natural on-site features combined with engineered small-scale hydrologic devices. In designing development projects, minimize the amount of impervious surface in order to maximize on-site infiltration of stormwater runoff and minimize the potential for storm water runoff from the site. (UAGP Policy VI.G.8) The following tables identify standards referenced in the UAGP that will apply to future development.

Table 3.14-13: Requirements for Drainage Plans
Order Requirement
#22..
- 1396 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
72 A
The plan shall be based on a drainage study prepared by a qualified engineer and shall be implemented in all construction projects where the drainage study indicates a need.

B
The drainage study shall identify 100-year flood elevations before and after development, location and available capacity of any existing drainage systems, and the volume and rate of water flows created by the proposed project during a 100-year storm.

C
The study shall also provide the location and capacity of retention/detention basins and/or drainage channels to accommodate the increment in water flows and siltation created by the project.

D
The plan shall include water quality control measures to ensure that minimal contaminants get discharged to surface streams or percolated into the ground.

E The water quality control measures shall address both construction and operation periods.

F
The plan shall be implemented as part of a proposed project prior to occupancy permit issuance and during the life of the project.

G
Fluvial erosion related to construction is controlled by a construction erosion control program that shall be filed with the City Utilities Department and kept current throughout any site development phase.

H
The erosion control program shall include BMPs as appropriate, given the specific circumstances of the site and/or project. The City shall consult Table V-9-2 in the Master EIR for examples of BMPs.

I
Sediment control basins that capture and contain eroded sediments on project sites shall incorporate design criteria listed in Table V-9-3 in the Master EIR.

J
A stormwater management program (SWMP) shall be prepared for the operation of all proposed land development projects and shall be utilized to obtain an NPDES permit and be incorporated into the Drainage Plan. The SWMP shall utilize measures selected from Table V-9-4 in the Master EIR.

Notes: This table does not use the standard nomenclature found elsewhere in this document in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the UAGP.

Table 3.14-14: Examples of Construction Site Best Management Practices Order Requirement
A
Implement effective erosion control measures, such as minimizing long, unbroken flow paths by placing transverse gravel bag lines or installing transverse straw wattle lines across flow paths.

B Make drainage swales broad and flat to reduce hydraulic efficiency.

C Control offsite drainage and route it around disturbed areas, including newly graded areas.

D
Provide a system of berms along the tops of slopes, combined with properly designed swales or other conveyance measures, to prevent water from running uncontrolled down the slopes.

E Collect the water in these berms and take it down the slopes in a non-erosive manner.

F Provide energy dissipaters and erosion control pads at the bottom of downdrains.

G
Implement effective sediment control measures, such as directing site drainage into a sediment control basin before releasing it from the site.

H Install permanent landscaping, as soon as practical, after the completion of grading.

I Maintain facilities, including stormwater best management practices, in operable condition at all times.

J Inspect facilities at the end of each workday to ensure they are ready for service.

Notes: This table does not use the standard nomenclature found elsewhere in this document in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the UAGP.

Table 3.14-15: Design Criteria for Sediment Control Basins Order Requirement
A Provide 15 cubic yards of sediment storage per acre of tributary drainage area.

B Provide an erosion-proof spillway from the basin to a protected outlet.

C Do not provide a drain in the basin since this would allow some sediment to escape.

D If site conditions permit, build an oversize basin so it will not have to be cleaned out during the life of the grading project.

E Maintain and clean out basin as necessary.
#22..
- 1397 -
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
73 F Inspect the basin at end of each work day to assure it is in working order.

Notes: This table does not use the standard nomenclature found elsewhere in this document in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the UAGP.

Table 3.14-16: Measures That Can Be Incorporated into a SWMP Order Requirement
A
Educate the public regarding the problem of contaminants in urban runoff and solutions they can utilize to reduce the number of contaminants in urban runoff.

B Design projects to direct runoff from impervious surfaces to areas of landscaping, where feasible.

C
Promote efficient and safe housekeeping practices when handling fertilizers, pesticides, cleaning solutions, paint products, automotive products, and swimming pool chemicals. These substances should be utilized and stored according to labels and instructions and should not be disposed of in a manner that will allow them to contaminate storm flows.

D
Minimize the use of and utilize the least harmful fertilizers, pesticides, cleaning solutions, automotive and paint products where alternatives exist.

E
Hazardous materials shall be stored as follows: in the minimum amount necessary; in designated areas; utilizing secondary containment; and shall be subject to regular inspections.

F Employees and contractors shall be trained in appropriate storage methods and procedures for spill cleanup.

G
Discourage illegal dumping by identifying elements of the drainage system with a sign prohibiting dumping and indicating the reason for the sign.

H Coordinate with private industry to establish used oil disposal facilities for recycling of bulk used oil.

I
Project operators shall ensure that vehicle maintenance occurs in appropriate facilities and that spills are reduced, contained, and cleaned up before they contaminate urban runoff.

J
Discharge of pollutants to storm water from above ground storage tanks shall be minimized by installation of secondary containment, regular inspections, and training in spill cleanup techniques.

K
Prevent unwarranted physical connections to the storm drain system from sanitary sewer, and floor drains through regulation, inspection, testing, and education.

L
Identify and repair sewer blockages, infiltration, inflow, and wet weather overflows from sanitary sewers to the stormwater drain system.

M Reduce the discharges of pollutants from roadway and parking lot surfaces by conducting street cleaning on a regular basis.

N
Maintain catch basins and stormwater inlets on a regular basis to remove pollutants and restore basin sediment trapping capacity.

O Regularly remove illegally dumped items and materials from storm drainage canals and creeks.

P
Identify low impact development facilities, such as bioretention areas, as facilities to utilize in drainage systems where conditions permit.

Q
Wet ponds (i.e., permanent water pools used to treat incoming stormwater) or constructed wetlands shall be utilized where warranted and conditions permit.

R Vegetated channels and strips shall be incorporated into drainage plans.

S
Media filtration should be utilized where sediment is a problem and there is no other adequate alternative sediment-control method available.

T
Oil/water separators shall be installed and maintained in all facilities where automotive maintenance or industrial facilities result in oil release.

U
Vehicle fueling and washing facilities, including steam cleaning, shall utilize concrete floors, protected from the rain and drained to a sump to assure contaminants are contained.

V
Outdoor container storage of liquids and outdoor equipment shall include a dike to contain spills and storm water and be covered to minimize storm water in the area.

W Outdoor storage shall be covered, have secondary equipment and be designed to prevent stormwater runoff.

Notes: This table does not use the standard nomenclature found elsewhere in this document in order to be consistent with the reference contained in the UAGP.
#22..
- 1398 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
74 Solid Waste
No policies/mitigation related to solid waste are applicable to the rezone as no concurrent development is proposed; however, future development will be required to adhere to the City’s codes and standards related to handling of solid waste.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater, or stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, single dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Water
No development is proposed in conjunction with the rezone. If approved, the rezone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone would allow for the development of at maximum 22 units per acre at the 1.35-gross acre site, which would be within the buildout and consistent with the land use assumed in the General Plan EIR. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, there would be sufficient water supplies from existing entitlements as well as sufficient groundwater supplies to serve development under the General Plan EIR.

According to the General Plan EIR, the City has sufficient water supply to meet demand in normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years through 2045 with water conservation. In addition, the City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan which identifies the necessary steps to take and conservation measures to implement in the event of a water shortage, as well as several groundwater supply management programs and infrastructure projects to ensure long-term function of its wells and availability of its groundwater supplies. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with General Plan policy WS-14 which would require installation of meters for new connections to the public water system. Therefore, like what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new water treatment facilities or exceed or require expansion of existing water supply entitlements. Impacts would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Wastewater
No development is proposed in conjunction with the rezone. If approved, the rezone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone would allow for the development of a maximum 22 units per acre at the 1.35-gross acre site, which would be within the buildout and consistent with the land use assumed in the General Plan EIR. Since the project site is vacant, any future development would increase demand for sanitary sewer service. However, the demand is expected to be fairly low and consistent with similar residential development in Modesto. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the City mandates periodic updates to the Wastewater Master Plan which ensures the City’s wastewater treatment facilities have adequate capacity to serve future development. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with General Plan policies SS-13 and SS-23, which require review by the City for adequate wastewater collection service and treatment; and service by public sanitary sewers. Since the proposed rezone would facilitate development within the buildout assumed in the General Plan EIR, similar to what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposal would not result in the expansion or construction of new wastewater facilities; would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley RWQCB; and would not result in a finding that the wastewater treatment facilities do not have adequate capacity to serve the #22..
- 1399 -
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
75 project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Stormwater Drainage
The project site is currently vacant and unpaved. The proposed rezone would, if approved, facilitate multifamily residential development which would increase impervious surfaces on the site. Nonetheless, the proposed project would include construction of stormwater drainage facilities such as curbs and gutters along any proposed new street within the development, as well as landscaped areas to reduce surface runoff.

In addition, any future development would be required to comply with General Plan policies FWQ-9 through FWQ-16, which would require compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Program and Construction General Permit requirements; installation of stormwater drainage facilities; incorporation of Low Impact Development design measures that restrict the amount of post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions; and implementation of post-construction erosion control and stormwater control measures. This impact would be less than significant and would be less than significant and would not be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan Master EIR.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Modesto’s solid waste goes to the Flink Road Landfill and Forward Sanitary Landfill. According to the General Plan EIR, the solid waste capacity of these landfills is sufficient to meet the needs of projected growth. The General Plan EIR also finds that impacts would be less than significant, as projected population growth under the General Plan is not anticipated to generate significant additional solid waste demand.

Furthermore, continued compliance with the City’s General Plan policies, including SW-6 and SW-8 through SW-10, would ensure any development complies with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would lead to increased recycling and waste diversion. The proposed rezone would have no impacts beyond those analyzed previously. The proposed rezone would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to utilities and service systems, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.
#22..
- 1400 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
76 15 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Significant
Impact
Less than Significant or
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Analyzed in
the Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applicable
Development Policies
Does the project:
a. 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,
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. Have impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects)?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects
which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?
□ □ □ ■ □
Project-Specific Impacts
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, 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? Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 4, Biological Resources, the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. #22..
- 1401 -
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
77 As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5, Cultural and Tribal Resources, the project would not impact or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, including archaeological resources. As such, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Conformance with General Plan policies would ensure that potential impacts are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending and planned development projects. As part of the General Plan EIR, cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the City were analyzed. The project is consistent with the General Plan EIR and land use designation of the site.

The General Plan is a planning document that establishes a land use scenario and goals, policies, and objectives for development and growth throughout the City. Thus, the impact analyses in the General Plan EIR effectively constitute cumulative analyses of the approved land uses in the planning boundaries. The project would not result in significant impacts peculiar to the project area, as indicated in Sections 1 through 14 above. Nearby development would be required to be consistent with the local planning documents, or mitigation would be required to assess the impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR.

Therefore, the project’s consistency with the General Plan and analysis above in Sections 1 through 14 indicate that the project would not result in significant cumulative impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR.
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, noise, and traffic safety. As detailed in the preceding responses, the project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in substantial adverse impacts related to these issue areas. The project’s effects on regional air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, noise, and transportation/traffic would be less than significant or analyzed in prior environmental review documents.

Therefore, the project would not have substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Conclusion
The proposed rezone would, if approved, facilitate development consistent with the development density established by the Medium Density (R-2) Zone, the Mixed Use land use designation, and General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified. Accordingly, based on the assessments presented the environmental checklist, the project does not require additional environmental review as the impacts:

1. Are not peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,

2. Were analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, and specific plan, with which the project is consistent where applicable,

3. Are not potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan and specific plan, and #22..
- 1402 -
City of Modesto General Plan PEIR September 18, 2025
RZN2025-00004 IS EA No. C&ED 2025-21
78 4. Are not previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

Furthermore, impacts would be reduced by compliance with General Plan policies. Accordingly, implementation of the project complies with Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further environmental review is required.
#22..
- 1403 -
References
Mandatory Findings of Significance
79 References
Bibliography
California Air Resources Board. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf (accessed June 2025).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025. California Natural Diversity Database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB (accessed June 2025).

Modesto, City of. 2025a. Modesto Urban Area General Plan Environmental Impact Report. February 2025. https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/306771-
2/attachment/wQdkgUw_jeMzh66XJqPsh3EDHFvRutX5KFnvROaSS4rIAdulEFFwcVT_aE2ur1 Aijp4QBW0_AQYxalnz0 (accessed June 2025).
______. 2025b. Modesto Urban Area General Plan. https://www.modestogov.com/2069/General-Plan (accessed June 2025).
______. 2025c. City of Modesto Zoning Code.
https://library.municode.com/ca/modesto/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10ZORE (accessed June 2025).

Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission. No date. Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.stancounty.com/planning/agenda-aluc/2016/10-06-16/EX_B.pdf (accessed May 2025).

Stanislaus County Council of Governments. 2022. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. https://stancog.org/DocumentCenter/View/1473/Final-2022-RegionalTransportation-PlanSustainable-Communities-Strategy-RTPSCS (accessed June 2025).

State Water Resources Control Board. 2025. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=SL185742938 (accessed May 2025).
#22..
- 1404 -
–1–
ORDINANCE NO. -C.S.

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-3-9 OF THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF

MODESTO TO REZONE FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE, P-O, TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, R-2, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3213 COFFEE

ROAD, WEST OF THORSEN AVENUE
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to Section 9-3-9 of the Zoning Map was filed by Lyn Bright on July 31, 2025, to rezone from Professional Office Zone (P-O) to Medium High Density Residential Zone (R-2), for property located at 3213 Coffee Road, west of Thorsen Avenue; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing held on December 15, 2025, it was found and determined by the Planning Commission that the requested zone change will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because the proposed rezone will make possible future development of multi-family residential uses, subject to Development Plan Review or Conditional Use Permit prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure adherence to applicable City Codes and Standards at the time of development, the requested zone change will result in an orderly planned use of land because the proposed rezone is consistent with the adjacent Medium Density Residential Zone (R-2) to the south and east, and the requested zone change is in accordance with the community objectives as set forth in the Modesto Urban Area General Plan and any applicable specific plan(s) because the proposed rezone conforms to the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use (MU) which allows for residential uses; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2025-45, adopted on December 15, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended to the Council that the application of Mr. Bright to amend Section 9-3-9 of the Zoning Map to rezone the hereinafter described property from Professional Office Zone (P-O) to Medium High Density Residential Zone (R-2) be approved. #22..
- 1405 -
–2–
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Modesto does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. After a public hearing held on March 10, 2026, in the Tenth Street Place Chambers located at 1010 10th Street, Modesto, California, this Council finds and determines as follows:

1. The requested change will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because the proposed rezone will make possible future development of multi-family residential uses, subject to Development Plan Review or Conditional Use Permit prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure adherence to applicable City Codes and Standards at the time of development.

2. The requested change will result in an orderly planned use of land because the proposed rezone is consistent with the adjacent Medium Density Residential Zone (R-2) to the south and east.

3. The requested change is in accordance with the community’s objectives as set forth in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan(s) because the proposed rezone conforms to the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use (MU) which allows for residential uses.

SECTION 2. ZONING CHANGE. Section 9-3-9 of the Zoning Map is hereby amended to rezone the property described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference, from Professional Office Zone, (P-O), to Medium High Density Residential Zone, (R-2).

SECTION 3. ZONING MAP. Section 9-3-9 of the Zoning Map of the City of Modesto is amended to appear as set forth on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. #22..
- 1406 -
–3–
SECTION 5. PUBLICATION. At least two (2) days prior to its final adoption, copies of this ordinance shall be posted in at least three (3) prominent and distinct locations in the City; and a notice shall be published once in The Modesto Bee, the official newspaper of the City of Modesto, setting forth the title of this ordinance, the date of its introduction and the places where this ordinance is posted.
#22..
- 1407 -
–4–
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the 10th day of March, 2026, by Councilmember , who moved its introduction and passage to print, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember , was upon roll call carried and ordered printed and published by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

SUE ZWAHLEN, Mayor
ATTEST:

By:

DIANE NAYARES, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

JOSE M. SANCHEZ, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO DESCRIPTION:

By:

Community & Economic Development
Department, Planning Division
#22..
- 1408 -
–5–

FINAL ADOPTION CLAUSE
The foregoing ordinance, having been published as required by the Charter of the City of Modesto, and coming on for final consideration at the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Modesto held on the , 2026, Councilmember ______________moved its final adoption, which motion being duly seconded by Councilmember ________________, was upon roll call carried and the ordinance adopted by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

MAYOR, SUE ZWAHLEN
ATTEST: ____________________________
DIANE NAYARES, CMC, City Clerk
Effective Date: _________________, 2026
#22..
- 1409 -
–6–
EXHBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REZONE AREA
P-O to R-2
Real property situated in the City of Modesto, County of Stanislaus, State of California, more particularly described as follows:

All that portion of the East half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 South, Range 9 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows:

Commencing at a point on the West line of a 40-foot road known as Coffee Road, lying North 89° 37’ West 20 feet and North 0° 30” West 25 feet from the Southeast corner of said Section 9, said point being the Northeast corner of the property conveyed to James D. High by Deed recorded March 1, 1950, in Volume 991 of Official Records, Page 243;
Thence continue North 0° 50’ 30” West along the West line of said Coffee Road a distance of 1082.38 feet to the True Point of Beginning of this description; Thence North 89° 37’ West, a distance of 278 feet to a point on the East line of Sherwood Manor No. 3, as per Map thereof filed June 21, 1966, in Volume 21 of Maps, Page 50, Stanislaus County Records;
Thence North 0° 50’ 30” West along the East line of said Sherwood Manor No. 3, a distance of 232.62 feet to the Northeast corner of said Sherwood Manor No. 3; Thence South 89° 24’ 10” East along the Easterly prolongation of the North line of said Sherwood Manor No. 3, a distance of 278 feet to a point on the West line of said Coffee Road;
Thence South 0° 50’ 30” East along the West line of said Coffee Road, a distance of 232.62 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

Except that portion deeded to the City of Modesto in a Deed recorded June 11, 1990, as Instrument No. 1990-51427, Official Records of Stanislaus County.

Including also the westerly half of the right-of-way of Coffee Road, being immediately adjacent to the above-described property.

APN 013-070-067

1.35 Acres, more or less.
#22..
- 1410 -
–7–
EXHBIT “B”

ZONING MAP
#22..
- 1411 -
–8–
#22..
- 1412 -
Ron West & Associates
Land Planning and Entitlements
P.O. Box 1166 Patterson, Calif. 95363 (209) 985-8895 [email protected] January 30, 2026
TO: Neighbors within a 1,000 foot radius of 3213 Coffee Road (APN 013-070-067) RE: Additional Outreach Notice concerning future City Council Hearing on Rezoning Dear Neighbor,
As part of an ongoing rezoning we have been asked to make an additional extra effort to communicate with residents in a large area. You may be some distance away, but we all want to make sure everyone who may be interested is included in the notice processes. Below is a summary of the situation. If you have any questions you can contact me or the Modesto City Planning Department.

BACKGROUND & ONGOING PROCESS:

This 1.35-acre parcel was originally zoned R-2 residential, like the adjacent residential cul-de-sac project, developed and built by my client and still owns units there. Several years ago we rezoned the subject site to Professional Office (P.O.), but the pandemic significantly reduced demand for offices. Today, residential is the overwhelming need, so we have applied to rezone it back to its original use. We have been working with the City Planners since last June, and have already received unanimous Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council, for approval of the request. Standard radius notices to neighbors were sent for the Planning Commission hearing and will be for the Council meeting, but this extra effort with a larger outreach is now being added, due to area neighbors’ concerns about a recent three- story building in the area.

BUILDING HEIGHT & SET BACKS:

Fortunately this should not be an issue here, as 30 foot height and two-story construction maximums apply to both the existing P.O. and previous and proposed R-2 zones.

Either future use will require a Second Story Review “focused on 3 issues: *Potential views to neighboring property owner private rear yard areas. *Massing of the proposed second story in relation to neighboring residences. * Potential for blocking solar access or shading of rear yard pools on neighboring properties.” Also, the width of the parcel will not allow the same center cul-de-sac design as the applicants’ larger adjacent project. Putting parking, instead of units, on the edges around a center building, should help accommodate setbacks and neighbor privacy.

FUTURE PLANS
The applicant has not developed or submitted plans to develop the site, so any future project will require specific approval and Second Story Review. Meanwhile, the site will remain open at this time. A City Council hearing will be scheduled, likely in early March, and standard notices to neighbors will be sent by the City. It may be the standard smaller radius list, and any interested neighbors are encouraged to contact Modesto Senior Planner Katharine Martin at (209) 577-5465 with questions, or me at the above contacts. Have a great day. #22..
- 1413 -
#22..
- 1414 -
#22..
- 1415 -
#22..
- 1416 -
#22..
- 1417 -
#22..
- 1418 -
#22..
- 1419 -
#22..
- 1420 -
#22..
- 1421 -
#22..
- 1422 -
#22..
- 1423 -
#22..
- 1424 -
#22..
- 1425 -
#22..
- 1426 -
#22..
- 1427 -
#22..
- 1428 -
#22..
- 1429 -
#22..
- 1430 -
#22..
- 1431 -
#22..
- 1432 -
#22..
- 1433 -
#22..
- 1434 -
#22..
- 1435 -

Modesto City CouncilMarch 10, 2026

Modesto City Council
March 10, 2026