Patterson City Council
April 1, 2025

City of Patterson Page 2 Updated 3/27/2025 7:28 PM
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (209) 895-8012. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II] The City Council agenda and supporting public documents are available for viewing in City Hall, Administration Department, 1 Plaza, 2nd Floor, Patterson, California, during normal business hours. The City Council agenda and supporting public documents are also available online on the City web site pattersonca.gov listed under Popular Links “City Council Agendas” or please call or email the City Clerk at (209) 895-8012 or [email protected] If you wish to be notified of future City Council Meetings, please visit our web site pattersonca.gov go to Popular Links “City Council Agendas” and Subscribe to “RSS” ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Statements of Conflict

4. Proclamation

4.1. Proclamation - Donate Life Month

5. Items from the Public
Any member of the audience desiring to address the Council regarding a matter not on the agenda, please raise your hand or step to the podium, or if using the zoom app by pressing *9 on your cell phone at the time the item is announced by the Mayor. The public wishing to address the Council on items that do not appear on the agenda may do so; however, Council will take no action other than referring the item to staff for study and analysis and may place the item on a future agenda (Resolution 92-25)
In order that all interested parties have an opportunity to speak, any person addressing the Council will be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes unless the Mayor grants a longer period of time (Resolution 2025-11)
Please State Your Name and City for the Record.

6. Consent Calendar
All items are approved by a single action. Any item may be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion upon request from a member of the Public, Staff and/or Councilmember.

6.1. Motion to Waive Readings - All Readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, Except by Title are hereby waived.

6.2. Approve Minutes of Special Meeting/Closed Session - March 18, 2025 (6:00 PM)

6.3. Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting - March 18, 2025 (7:00 PM)

6.4. Approve Street Closure Request for Love Patterson Event, Scheduled April 26, 2025, downtown at North Park.

City of Patterson Page 3 Updated 3/27/2025 7:28 PM

6.5. Approve Street Closure Request for the Patterson Apricot Fiesta, Scheduled for May 29 - June 1, 2025.

6.6. Approve Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Program Supplemental Agreement No. F039 for the Sperry Avenue Bike and Pedestrian Improvements: on Sperry Avenue from American Eagle and Baldwin Road Project No. CML-5244(044), and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement and all Future Documents for this Project on the City’s Behalf.

6.7. Approve Resolution No. 2025-16 Appointing Cynthia Homen to Serve on the Stanislaus County Animal Services Agency (SASA) Advisory Committee for a 2- Year Term.

7. Presentation

7.1. Planning Department - Informational Item regarding Patterson Irrigation District, et al. v. City of Patterson, et al. Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. 23CV028091) Settlement Agreement terms.

8. Public Hearing

8.1. Planning Department - Adopt Resolution No. 2025-17, of the City Council of the City of Patterson, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”, and the associated Conditions of Approval, over 95.08 Acres of Land, consisting of 506 Lots, one High-Density Parcel, and Multiple Remainder Parcels for Public Dedication, Also Known as the Keystone Ranch Development Area.

Staff Report: Community Development Director Stice
Mayor: Open/Close Public Hearing
Council: Motion to Adopt Resolution No. 2025-17, of the City Council of the City of Patterson, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”, and the associated Conditions of Approval, over 95.08 Acres of Land, consisting of 506 Lots, one HighDensity Parcel, and Multiple Remainder Parcels for Public Dedication, Also Known as the Keystone Ranch Development Area.

8.2. Public Works Department – (Continued to April 15, 2025 Council Meeting) Approve Resolution No. 2025-xx, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Patterson Providing for the Addition of Territory to Future Annexation Area of Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2013-01 (Non-Residential Maintenance Services); and Approve Resolution No. 2025-xx, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Patterson Providing for the Addition of Territory to Future City of Patterson Page 4 Updated 3/27/2025 7:28 PM
Annexation Area of Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2018-02 (Residential Maintenance Services); and Approve Resolution No. 2025-xx, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Patterson Providing for the Addition of Territory to Future Annexation Area of Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2022-01 (Public Safety Services).

Staff Report: Assistant City Manager Willett
Mayor: Open/Close Public Hearing

9. City Council Reports
A. Councilmember Hernandez
. Stanislaus Homeless Alliance (Councilmember Mora alternate) . Stanislaus County Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee (Councilmember Mora alternate)
B. Councilmember Romero
. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Mayor Pro Tem roque alternante)
C. Councilmember Mora
. Workforce Development Board (Mayor Pro Tem Roque alternante) D. Mayor Pro Tem Roque
. (EDAC) Stanislaus County Economic Development Action Committee (Councilmember Romero alternate)
E. Mayor Clauzel
. Stanislaus County Mayor's Meeting
. StanCOG (Mayor Pro Tem Roque alternate)
. League of California Cities (Mayor Pro Tem Roque 1st alternate, Councilmember Romer 2nd alternate)

10. Other Matters

11. Adjournment
City of Patterson Page 5 Updated 3/27/2025 7:28 PM

DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Aracely Alegre, City Clerk of the City of Patterson, California do hereby declare that the foregoing notice was posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, 1 Plaza, Patterson, California on March 27, 2025.

The Agenda is also posted for public view on the Bulletin Board of the Patterson Branch Library, 46 N. Salado Avenue, Patterson, and the City of Patterson City Web Site www.pattersonca.gov Dated this 27th day of March 2025
/s/ Aracely Alegre, CMC
City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Aracely Alegre, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: April 1, 2025
ITEM NO: 4.1
SUBJECT: Proclamation - Donate Life Month
This item is informational. No action needed.

4.1 Packet Pg. 6
Proclamation
A Proclamation of the City Council
of the City of Patterson Declaring April as
“Donate Life Month”
WHEREAS, For over 35 years, Donor Network West, the federally designated organ procurement organization for Northern California and Northern Nevada, has been working to save and heal lives through organ and tissue donation for transplantation and research; and
WHEREAS, In 2024, 493 organ donors and 2,590 tissue donors made 1,390 transplantations possible, each one saving and healing a life. Despite our progress, we continue to face a critical shortage of organ donors and the number of people in need of a transplant remains high; and
WHEREAS, Nationwide, there are more than 105,000 people waiting for a lifesaving organ transplant. In California, there are more than 20,000 people waiting to get that life-saving call and a second chance at life; In Stanislaus County, there are 324 people waiting for a lifesaving organ, and
WHEREAS, Donate Life Month is an opportunity to educate citizens about organ and tissue donation and transplantation, and is also a time to honor organ and tissue donors and families who inspire our community. Anyone can be an organ donor by registering at your local DMV or visiting the Donor Network West website. On behalf of Donor Network West, I’d like thank the City of Patterson for their continued support for organ and tissue donation and for joining us in observing National Donate Life Month; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I, Michael Clauzel, by virtue of authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of Patterson, do hereby officially proclaim April as “Donate Life Month” in the City of Patterson.

IN WITNESS, HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Patterson to be affixed this 1
st day of April 2025.

__________________________
Michael Clauzel, Mayor

4.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Donor Network - Proclamation Donate Life Month (Proclamation - Donate Life Month)

City of Patterson Page 2 Updated 3/20/2025 9:16 AM
Negotiating Parties: Yadira Arteaga
Property: 131-006-029 (Located on B Street between S. 3rd and S. 4th Street Patterson).

Under Negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment.
c. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Gov. Code, § 54956.9) Name of Case: (Keystone Ranch LLC v. City of Patterson, et al.,
Stanislaus County Superior Court, Case No.: CV-24-003269) d. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Gov. Code, § 54956.9) Name of Case: (Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley, et al. v. City of Patterson, et al., Stanislaus County Superior Court, Case No.: CV-24-010405)

2. Statements of Conflict
Councilmember Hernandez recused herself from Item 1.d.

3. Items from the Public
None.

4. Adjourn to Closed Session
At 6:02 p.m. there being no items from the public, the Patterson City Council adjourned to Closed Session.

5. Report from Closed Session (if any)
At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Clauzel announced that, regarding Items 1.a through 1.d, the City Council had provided direction to staff.

6. Adjournment
There being no further business, the special (Closed Session) meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson of March 18, 2024 was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

Approved by the Patterson City Council on (date pending).

6.2 Packet Pg. 9
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 18, 2025 6:00 PM (Consent Calendar)

City of Patterson Page 2 Updated 3/20/2025 1:14 PM

4. Items from the Public
Justin Farkas, Field Representative with the Office of Senator Juan Alanis - Provided a legislative update.

Mr. Gonzales - Expressed concerns about law enforcement issues, citing a lack of transparency in reports and the need for better training.

Martha Fleming - Raised concerns regarding attorney fees.

Jessica Wilkinson, Patterson Irrigator - Addressed private advertisements related to Keystone fees.

Yolanda Magana - Opposed the three-minute public comment time, stating it was insufficient.

Kandace Weyhrauch, Vice President for the Patterson-Westley Chamber of Commerce and Love Patterson Director - Opposed the three-minute public comment time. Provided updates on chamber events and the Love Patterson event.

City Clerk Alegre read an emailed public comment from Bekah into the record.

Martha Flemming - Expressed concern about a senior needing medical assistance and a delayed firefighter response time.

5. Consent Calendar
Mayor Pro Tem Roque motioned to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 5.1 through 5.7. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mora and approved by a 4-0 roll call vote.

RESULT: ADOPTED
MOVER: Roque
SECONDER: Mora
AYES: Clauzel, Hernandez, Mora, Roque
EXCUSED: Romero

5.1. Motion to Waive Readings - All Readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, Except by Title are hereby waived.

5.2. Approve Minutes of Special Meeting/Closed Session - March 4, 2025 (6:00 PM)

5.3. Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting - March 4, 2025 (7:00 PM)

5.4. Approve City Department Reports for the Month of February 2025 (Public Works, and Fire).

5.5. Approve City Commission Reports for the Month of February 2025 (Parks Recreation & Beautification Commission).

5.6. Informational Item - Results of 2024 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) Cycle Visit.

5.7. Approve Resolution Nos. 2025-12 and 2025-13 Declaring the City Council's Intention to Initiate Proceedings for the Annual Levy of Assessments and Ordering the Preparation of Engineer’s Reports for the Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs) and County Service Area (CSA) No. 15 for FY 2025/26.

6. Presentation/Action Item

6.3 Packet Pg. 11
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 18, 2025 7:00 PM (Consent Calendar) City of Patterson Page 3 Updated 3/20/2025 1:14 PM

6.1. Finance - Adopt Resolution No. 2025-14 Approving the City of Patterson MidYear Adjustments to the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 and Authorize the Finance Department to make the necessary budget adjustments.

Interim Finance Director Williams reviewed his report.

Council – Expressed gratitude for staff's efforts in achieving salary savings over six months.

At 7:40 p.m., Mayor Clauzel opened the item for public comments. There were no comments.

City Manager Ulloa – Provided remarks on the efforts to achieve salary savings.

Councilmember Hernandez motioned to Adopt Resolution No. 2025-14 Approving the City of Patterson Mid-Year Adjustments to the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 and Authorize the Finance Department to make the necessary budget adjustments. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roque and approved by a 4-0 roll call vote.

RESULT: APPROVED
MOVER: Hernandez
SECONDER: Roque
AYES: Clauzel, Hernandez, Mora, Roque
EXCUSED: Romero

7. City Council Reports
A. Councilmember Hernandez
. Westside Healthcare Task Force (Councilmember Romero alternate) Inactive committee. Councilmember Hernandez has requested to be removed from future agendas. . Stanislaus Homeless Alliance (Councilmember Mora alternate) Provided a meeting update regarding Naomi's House and H.O.S.T. House funding. . Stanislaus County Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee (Councilmember Mora alternate)
Nothing to report.

B. Councilmember Romero
. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Mayor Pro Tem roque alternate)
C. Councilmember Mora
. Workforce Development Board (Mayor Pro Tem Roque alternate)

6.3 Packet Pg. 12
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 18, 2025 7:00 PM (Consent Calendar) City of Patterson Page 4 Updated 3/20/2025 1:14 PM
Nothing to report.

D. Mayor Pro Tem Roque
. (EDAC) Stanislaus County Economic Development Action Committee (Councilmember Romero alternate)
Provided a meeting update regarding bylaws updates.

E. Mayor Clauzel
. Stanislaus County Mayor's Meeting
Mayor's Meeting was held in Oakdale.
. StanCOG (Mayor Pro Tem Roque alternate)
Nothing to report.
. League of California Cities (Mayor Pro Tem Roque 1st alternate, Councilmember Romer 2nd alternate)
Nothing to report.

8. Other Matters
Councilmember Roque – Expressed appreciation for Chief Hill and the police force's presence in the community.

Mayor Clauzel – Announced the opening of a new restaurant, Old Water Office. Raised concerns about safety issues on Baldwin and Sperry roads leading out of town.

9. Adjournment
There being no further business, the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson of March 18, 2025 was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.

Approved by the Patterson City Council on (date pending).

6.3 Packet Pg. 13
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 18, 2025 7:00 PM (Consent Calendar)

Labor : $1,072 (4 Crew @ $134/HR x 2HRs)
($134/HR per person for any additional time spent working the event) Equipment:
-Barricades (8): $384 ($3/HR x 12HRs)
-Large Blocking Devices (2): $288 ($12/HR x 12HRs)
-Arrow Board (2): 175($/HR x 12HRs)
-Safety Cones(50): $0 ($/HR x 12HRs)no fee
Delivery: $90.00 Barricade delivery/pick up charge in the current fee schedule Encroachment Permit: $198 Standard Permit
SUB-TOTAL: $2,530+ Arrow Board Charge + Cone Charge
One Street Opening:

Labor: $1,072 (4 Crew @ $134/HR x 2HRs)
Equipment: $52.00
(No Street Sweeper Necessary)
SUB-TOTAL: $1,124
Other: $473.40 (15%) Administrative Fee
TOTAL: $3,804.40

FISCAL IMPACT
This is a community event co-sponsored by the City of Patterson, and the city's costs associated with the event are included in the annual budget, and are primarily related to staff time spent to support the event.

6.4 Packet Pg. 15

City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Ashley Weaver, Director of Recreation & Community Services MEETING DATE: April 1, 2025
ITEM NO: 6.5
SUBJECT: Approve Street Closure Request for the Patterson Apricot Fiesta, Scheduled for May 29 - June 1, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Approve Street Closure for the Patterson Apricot Fiesta, Scheduled for May 29-June 1, 2025.

BACKGROUND
The Apricot Fiesta is requesting approval for street closures for its annual downtown event.

The request for street closures is as follows:

EVENT
South Salado - Center Circle - Hwy 33 5/29-6/1 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Plaza Circle - Center Circle to S. Salado 5/29-6/1 7:00 am - 10:00 pm E. Las Palmas - Center Circle - Hwy 33 5/30-6/1 7:00 am - 10:00 pm All Streets from the Center Circle - Alleyways 5/30-6/1 7:00 am - 10:00 pm All Streets from the Center Circle - El Circulo 5/30-6/1 12:00 pm - 10:00 pm Street affected are:

West Las Palmas Avenue
East Las Palmas Avenue - Between North & South Park
South 3rd Street
North 3rd Street
South Del Puerto
North Del Puerto

6.5 Packet Pg. 38
North Salado
5k
Closure starting at 6am
9 th St. from Ward Ave to W. Las Palmas Ave.

W. Las Palmas Ave from 9th St. to Plaza Cir.

Plaza Cir.

N. 3rd St. from Plaza Cir. to K St. (route reverses)
Back down N. 3rd St. to Plaza Cir.

Plaza Cir.

W. Las Palmas Ave. From Plaza Cir. to N. 7th St.

North 7th St. from W. Las Palmas Ave. to N. Salado Ave.

Parade Route
Staging on both S. 9th St. and N. 9th St.

West Las Palmas Ave from 9th St. to Plaza Cir.

Plaza Cir.

N. 3rd St. from Plaza Cir. to K St.

N. 7th St. Closure starting at 6am for horse trailers
S.9th St Closure from E St. to W. Las Palmas Ave. for Parade staging starting at 7am N.9th St. closure from Ward Ave. to W. Las Palmas for Parade staging Fireworks Closure
Beginning at 7pm
Ward Ave (between W. Las Palmas Ave. and N. 9th St.)
W. Las Palmas Ave. (between Ward Ave. and N. 9th St.)
N. 9th St. (between W. Las Palmas and Ward Ave.)
Closure remains in effect until safety clearance at fireworks launch site.

ANALYSIS
This is a City Co-Sponsored Event:

Patterson Apricot Fiesta has complied with submitting the following information:
* Completed Application
Items Pending:
* CalTrans Encroachment Permit
* Liability Insurance Coverage and Additional Insured Endorsement * ABC License
* 2025 Schedule of Events
Street Closure Cost- Public Works
Labor : $1,072 (4 Crew @ $134/HR x 2HRs)
($134/HR per person for any additional time spent working the event)

6.5 Packet Pg. 39
Equipment: Forklift Rental (2): $3,384 ($47/HR x 12HRs x 3 Days); Arrow Board (2): $ ($/HR x 12HRS x 3Days) 498.00;Barricade(42): $ ($/HR x 12HRS x 3Days) no fee Delivery: $90.00 Barricade delivery/pick up charge in the current fee schedule Encroachment Permit: $198 Standard Permit
TOTAL: $ 4,919 + Arrow Board Charge + Barricade Charge
Full Circle Opening:

Labor: $ 1,072
Equipment: $ 52.00
Street Sweeper: $686.00 ($49/HR x 14HRS Total for Fri/Sat/Sun) SUB-TOTAL: $1,810
OPEN/CLOSE SUB-TOTALS: $6,554
Other: $983.1 (15%) Administrative Fee
TOTAL: $8,035.10

FISCAL IMPACT
City of Patterson is a Co-Sponsor for the Apricot Fiesta event: costs are transferred from City Promotion-Apricot Fiesta Account - 100-120-6607a

6.5 Packet Pg. 40

continuous bike path that will enables bicyclists to access major destinations such as job sites, schools, parks, and commercial areas/grocery stores.

However, in order to receive funds from Caltrans, the City Council must authorize an official to execute a Program Supplemental Agreement. This agreement sets forth the requirements for use of the Federal funds. Caltrans requires that this type of agreement be executed for each project by the agency receiving the funds. Once the agreement is signed, Caltrans will issue an “Authorization to Proceed” which allows the City to proceed with the work for the project.

ANALYSIS
Attached for review and approval are the Program Supplemental Agreement and the Resolution that will need to be approved by the City Council. If approved, the City Manager would execute the agreement and submit it along with the resolution to Caltrans.

FISCAL IMPACT
This item does not carry any fiscal impacts with it. Each phase of work will be brought before the Council at a later date with a clear financial breakdown and request for contract approval.

6.6 Packet Pg. 86
1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-15
2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON, 4 APPROVING THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) 5 PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. F039 SPERRY AVENUE BIKE & 6 PEDESTRIANS IMPROVEMENTS: BETWEEN AMERICAN EAGLE AVENUE AND 7 BALDWIN ROAD PROJECT, FEDERAL PROJECT NUMBER CML-5244(044), AND 8 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND ALL 9 FUTURE DOCUMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT ON THE CITY’S BEHALF 10 WHEREAS, the City of Patterson has been approved to receive $109,000. of funding 11 through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) for Sperry 12 Avenue Bike & Pedestrian Improvements Project.
13 WHEREAS, this new Class I Bike Path is part of a continuous effort to increase pedestrian 14 safety and reduce emissions within the City of Patterson; and 15 WHEREAS, in order to receive funds from Caltrans, the City Council must authorize an 16 official to execute a Program Supplemental Agreement. This agreement sets forth the 17 requirements for use of the Federal funds. Caltrans requires that this type of agreement be 18 executed for each project by the agency receiving the funds; and 19 WHEREAS, once the agreement is signed, Caltrans will issue an “Authorization to 20 Proceed” which allows the City to proceed with the work for the project. 21 WHEREAS, this item does not carry any fiscal impacts with it. The total federal 22 funding for the project is currently $109,000. Each phase of work will be brought before the 23 Council at a later date with a clear financial breakdown and request for contract approval. 24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Patterson 25 does hereby:
26 1. Approve the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Program Supplemental 27 Agreement No. F039 for Sperry Avenue Bike and Pedestrian Improvements; between 28 Sperry Avenue from American Eagle to Baldwin Road Project. Authorizes the City 29 Manager to execute the agreement, conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all 30 documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, reports, insurance, 31 payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the

6.6.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Resolution No 2025-15 - CML-5244 (044) Consent PSA (Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving Caltrans PSA Sperry CML-5244(044)) 2 1 aforementioned project on behalf of the City. The foregoing resolution was passed by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 1
st 2 day of April 2025, _____________ who
3 moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by ______________and the 4 resolution adopted by the following roll call vote:
5 6 AYES:
7 NOES:
8 EXCUSED:
9 APPROVED:
10 11
12 ___________________________
13 Michael Clauzel
14 Mayor of the City of Patterson
15 16 ATTEST:
17 18 ___________________________
19 Aracely Alegre
20 City Clerk of the City of Patterson
21 22
23 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, correct, and true copy of a resolution passed by the City 24 Council of the City of Patterson, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Stanislaus, State of California, at a regular meeting held on the 1
st 25 day of April 2025, and I further certify that said 26 resolution is in full force and effect and has never been rescinded or modified. 27 DATED:
28 29
30 ____________________________
31 City Clerk of the City of Patterson

6.6.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Resolution No 2025-15 - CML-5244 (044) Consent PSA (Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving Caltrans PSA Sperry CML-5244(044)) F039
FOR FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS NO 10-5244F15
1024000124
March 13, 2025
10-STA-0-PAT
CML-5244(044)
5244
This Program Supplement hereby adopts and incorporates the Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid which was entered into between the Administering Agency and the State on 11/08/2016 and is subject to all the terms and conditions thereof. This Program Supplement is executed in accordance with Article I of the aforementioned Master Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by the Administering Agency on (See copy attached).

The Administering Agency further stipulates that as a condition to the payment by the State of any funds derived from sources noted below obligated to this PROJECT, the Administering Agency accepts and will comply with the special covenants or remarks set forth on the following pages.

SPERRY AVENUE BETWEEN AMERICAN EAGLE AVENUE AND BALDWIN ROAD Class 1 Bike Path 0.0(MILES)
Estimated Cost Federal Funds Matching Funds
M003 $109,000.00

CITY OF PATTERSON
By ________________________________ By ________________________________ Title _______________________________
Date _______________________________
Attest _______________________________ Date _______________________________ Division of Local Assistance
I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance:

Accounting Officer _______________________ Date _______________ PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO.
to

ADMINISTERING AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT
Adv. Project ID Date:

Location:

Project Number:

E.A. Number:

Locode:

PROJECT LOCATION:

TYPE OF WORK: LENGTH:

LOCAL OTHER
$109,000.00 $0.00 $0.

Chief, Office of Project Management Oversight

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
$109,000.00
Program Supplement 10-5244F15-F039- ISTEA 1Page of 7
03/13/2025

6.6.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: CML-5244044 PSA (Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving Caltrans PSA Sperry CML-5244(044))

SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
10-STA-0-PAT
CML-5244(044)

1. A. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY will advertise, award and administer this project in accordance with the current published Local Assistance Procedures Manual.

B. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that it will only proceed with work authorized for specific phase(s) with an "Authorization to Proceed" and will not proceed with future phase(s) of this project prior to receiving an "Authorization to Proceed" from the STATE for that phase(s) unless no further State or Federal funds are needed for those future phase(s).

C. STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY agree that any additional funds which might be made available by future Federal obligations will be encumbered on this PROJECT by use of a STATE-approved "Authorization to Proceed" and Finance Letter. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that Federal funds available for reimbursement will be limited to the amounts obligated by the Federal Highway Administration.

D. Award information shall be submitted by the ADMINISTERING AGENCY to the District Local Assistance Engineer within 60 days of project contract award and prior to the submittal of the ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S first invoice for the construction contract.

Failure to do so will cause a delay in the State processing invoices for the construction phase.

Attention is directed to Section 15.6 "Award Package" of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual.

E. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees, as a minimum, to submit invoices at least once every six months commencing after the funds are encumbered for each phase by the execution of this Project Program Supplement Agreement, or by STATE's approval of an applicable Finance Letter. STATE reserves the right to suspend future authorizations/obligations for Federal aid projects, or encumbrances for State funded projects, as well as to suspend invoice payments for any on-going or future project by ADMINISTERING AGENCY if PROJECT costs have not been invoiced by ADMINISTERING AGENCY for a six-month period.

If no costs have been invoiced for a six-month period, ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to submit for each phase a written explanation of the absence of PROJECT activity along with target billing date and target billing amount.

ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to submit the final report documents that collectively constitute a "Report of Expenditures" within one hundred eighty (180) days of PROJECT completion. Failure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY to submit a "Final Report of Expenditures" within 180 days of PROJECT completion will result in STATE imposing sanctions upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY in accordance with the current Local Assistance Procedures Manual.

Program Supplement 10-5244F15-F039- ISTEA 2Page of 7

6.6.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: CML-5244044 PSA (Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving Caltrans PSA Sperry CML-5244(044))

SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
10-STA-0-PAT
CML-5244(044)
F. Administering Agency shall not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, disability, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any Federal-assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE Program Implementation Agreement. The Administering Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of Federal-assisted contracts. The Administering Agency's DBE Implementation Agreement is incorporated by reference in this Agreement. Implementation of the DBE Implementation Agreement, including but not limited to timely reporting of DBE commitments and utilization, is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this Agreement. Upon notification to the Administering Agency of its failure to carry out its DBE Implementation Agreement, the State may impose sanctions as provided for under 49 CFR Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).

G. Any State and Federal funds that may have been encumbered for this project are available for disbursement for limited periods of time. For each fund encumbrance the limited period is from the start of the fiscal year that the specific fund was appropriated within the State Budget Act to the applicable fund Reversion Date shown on the State approved project finance letter. Per Government Code Section 16304, all project funds not liquidated within these periods will revert unless an executed Cooperative Work Agreement extending these dates is requested by the ADMINISTERING AGENCY and approved by the California Department of Finance.

ADMINISTERING AGENCY should ensure that invoices are submitted to the District Local Assistance Engineer at least 75 days prior to the applicable fund Reversion Date to avoid the lapse of applicable funds. Pursuant to a directive from the State Controller's Office and the Department of Finance; in order for payment to be made, the last date the District Local Assistance Engineer can forward an invoice for payment to the Department's Local Programs Accounting Office for reimbursable work for funds that are going to revert at the end of a particular fiscal year is May 15th of the particular fiscal year. Notwithstanding the unliquidated sums of project specific State and Federal funding remaining and available to fund project work, any invoice for reimbursement involving applicable funds that is not received by the Department's Local Programs Accounting Office at least 45 days prior to the applicable fixed fund Reversion Date will not be paid. These unexpended funds will be irrevocably reverted by the Department's Division of Accounting on the applicable fund Reversion Date.

H. As a condition for receiving federal-aid highway funds for the PROJECT, the Administering Agency certifies that NO members of the elected board, council, or other key decision makers are on the Federal Government Exclusion List. Exclusions can be found at www.sam.gov.

Program Supplement 10-5244F15-F039- ISTEA 3Page of 7

6.6.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: CML-5244044 PSA (Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving Caltrans PSA Sperry CML-5244(044))

SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
10-STA-0-PAT
CML-5244(044)

2. A. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall conform to all State statutes, regulations and procedures (including those set forth in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and the Local Assistance Program Guidelines, hereafter collectively referred to as "LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES") relating to the federal-aid program, all Title 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) and 2 CFR Part 200 federal requirements, and all applicable federal laws, regulations, and policy and procedural or instructional memoranda, unless otherwise specifically waived as designated in the executed project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT.

B. Invoices shall be formatted in accordance with LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES.

C. ADMINISTERING AGENCY must have at least one copy of supporting backup documentation for costs incurred and claimed for reimbursement by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to submit supporting backup documentation with invoices if requested by State. Acceptable backup documentation includes, but is not limited to, agency's progress payment to the contractors, copies of cancelled checks showing amounts made payable to vendors and contractors, and/or a computerized summary of PROJECT costs.

D. Indirect Cost Allocation Plan/Indirect Cost Rate Proposals (ICAP/ICRP), Central Service Cost Allocation Plans and related documentation are to be prepared and provided to STATE (Caltrans Audits & Investigations) for review and approval prior to ADMINISTERING AGENCY seeking reimbursement of indirect costs incurred within each fiscal year being claimed for State and federal reimbursement. ICAPs/ICRPs must be prepared in accordance with the requirements set forth in 2 CFR, Part 200, Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedural Manual, and the ICAP/ICRP approval procedures established by STATE.

E. STATE will withhold the greater of either two (2) percent of the total of all federal funds encumbered for each PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT or $40,000 until ADMINISTERING AGENCY submits the Final Report of Expenditures for each completed PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT PROJECT.

F. Payments to ADMINISTERING AGENCY for PROJECT-related travel and subsistence (per diem) expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its contractors and subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid rank and file STATE employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced by ADMINISTERING AGENCY are in excess of DPA rates, ADMINISTERING AGENCY is responsible for the cost difference, and any overpayments inadvertently paid by STATE shall be reimbursed to STATE by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on demand within thirty (30) days of such invoice.

Program Supplement 10-5244F15-F039- ISTEA 4Page of 7

6.6.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: CML-5244044 PSA (Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving Caltrans PSA Sperry CML-5244(044))

SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
10-STA-0-PAT
CML-5244(044)
G. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirement for Federal Awards.

H. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees, and will assure that its contractors and subcontractors will be obligated to agree, that Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items.

I. Every sub-recipient receiving PROJECT funds under this AGREEMENT shall comply with 2 CFR, Part 200, 23 CFR, 48 CFR Chapter 1, Part 31, Local Assistance Procedures, Public Contract Code (PCC) 10300-10334 (procurement of goods), PCC 10335-10381 (non-A&E services), and other applicable STATE and FEDERAL regulations.

J. Any PROJECT costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200, 23 CFR, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, and other applicable STATE and FEDERAL regulations, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE.

K. STATE reserves the right to conduct technical and financial audits of PROJECT WORK and records and ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees, and shall require its contractors and subcontractors to agree, to cooperate with STATE by making all appropriate and relevant PROJECT records available for audit and copying as required by the following paragraph:

ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S contractors and subcontractors, and STATE shall each maintain and make available for inspection and audit by STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested.

All of the above referenced parties shall make such AGREEMENT, PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, and contract materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the entire PROJECT period and for three (3) years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report by the STATE to the FHWA.

L. ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain a financial management system and records that properly accumulate and segregate reasonable, allowable, and allocable incurred PROJECT costs and matching funds by line item for the PROJECT. The financial management system
Program Supplement 10-5244F15-F039- ISTEA 5Page of 7

6.6.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: CML-5244044 PSA (Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving Caltrans PSA Sperry CML-5244(044))

SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
10-STA-0-PAT
CML-5244(044)
of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices set to or paid by STATE.

M. ADMINISTERING AGENCY is required to have an audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 2 CFR 200 if it expends $750,000 or more in Federal Funds in a single fiscal year of the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance.

N. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to include all PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS adopting the terms of this AGREEMENT in the schedule of projects to be examined in ADMINISTERING AGENCY's annual audit and in the schedule of projects to be examined under its single audit prepared in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200.

O. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a non-A&E contract over $5,000, construction contracts over $10,000, or other contracts over $25,000 [excluding professional service contracts of the type which are required to be procured in accordance with Government Code sections 4525 (d), (e) and (f)] on the basis of a noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed under this AGREEMENT without the prior written approval of STATE. Contracts awarded by ADMINISTERING AGENCY, if intended as local match credit, must meet the requirements set forth in this AGREEMENT regarding local match funds.

P. Any subcontract entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of this AGREEMENT shall contain provisions B, C, F, H, I, K, and L under Section 2 of this agreement.

3. In the event that construction of this project of the initial federal authorization for right of way is not started by the close of the twentieth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the right of way is authorized, the ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall repay the Federal Highway Administration through Caltrans the sum of Federal funds paid under the terms of this agreement.

Authorizing the ROW phase of a project as Advance Construction does not exempt the project from the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 108(a)(2), and 23 CFR 630.112(c)(1).

4. Appendix E of the Title VI Assurances (US DOT Order 1050.2A) During the performance of this agreement, the ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S contractors and subcontractor, (hereinafter referred to as the "contractor") agrees to comply with the following nondiscrimination statutes and authorities; including but not limited to:

Pertinent Nondiscrimination Authorities:

A. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Program Supplement 10-5244F15-F039- ISTEA 6Page of 7

6.6.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: CML-5244044 PSA (Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving Caltrans PSA Sperry CML-5244(044))

SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
10-STA-0-PAT
CML-5244(044)
Part 21.

B. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects); C. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. 324 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex);
D. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR Part 27; E. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
F. Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. 4 71, Section 4 7123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); G. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms "programs or
activities" to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid recipients, subrecipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not);
H. Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. 12131-12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; I. The Federal Aviation Administration's Nondiscrimination statute (49 U.S.C. 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures nondiscrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; K. Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100);
L. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq).

Program Supplement 10-5244F15-F039- ISTEA 7Page of 7

6.6.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: CML-5244044 PSA (Resolution No. 2025-15, Approving Caltrans PSA Sperry CML-5244(044))

The SASA Animal Advisory Committee was established to protect and enhance the quality of life for animals and residents of Stanislaus County. Responsibilities include educating the community on animal care; public relations; and serving as a resource. • Serve as an advisor to the SASA Board and Executive Director • Promote a public awareness of the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency • Develop methods to promote adoption of animals at the shelter. • Develop methods to decrease the number of animals entering shelter. ▪ Continue efforts to increase and encourage volunteer participation at the shelter.

At this time, the city is recommending approval of the attached resolution assigning Cynthia Homen to be on the SASA Committee for the term of two years. If approved, the item would be presented to the SASA Board who would confirm this appointment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

6.7 Packet Pg. 97
1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-16
2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON 4 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF CYNTHIA HOMEN TO THE STANISLAUS 5 ANIMAL SERVICES AGENCY (SASA) COMMITTEE FOR A 2-YEAR TERM 6 7 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Patterson acknowledges the current needs of 8 the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency (SASA) Advisory Committee; and 9 10 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Patterson has determined that Cynthia 11 Homes is qualified to serve and represent the City of Patterson on the SASA Advisory 12 Committee; and
13 14 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Patterson has received a staff report 15 recommending the appointment of Cynthia Homen to the SASA Advisory Committee, a copy of 16 which is attached hereto; and
17 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of 19 Patterson hereby recommends the appointment of Cynthia Homen to the Stanislaus Animal 20 Services Agency (SASA) Advisory Committee, effective immediately; and 21 22 BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Patterson 23 acknowledges and approves the appointment of Cynthia Homes to the SASA Advisory 24 Committee for a 2-year term.
25 26 The foregoing resolution of the City Council of the City of Patterson was passed by the City Council at a special meeting held on the 1
st 27 day of April 2025, by ______________, who moved
28 its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by _______________, and the resolution adopted 29 by the following roll call vote:
30 31 AYES:
32 NOES:
33 EXCUSED:
34 35
36 APPROVED:
37 38
39 ______________________________
40 Michael Clauzel
41 Mayor of the City of Patterson
42 43
44 45
46 6.7.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-16 APPOINTING CYNTHIA HOMEN TO SASA COMMITTEE FOR 2 YEAR TERM 4-1-25 (Resolution No. 2025-16 2 1 ATTEST:
2 3
4 ___________________________________
5 Aracely Alegre
6 City Clerk of the City of Patterson
7 8
9 10 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, correct and true copy of a resolution passed by the 11 City Council of the City of Patterson, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Stanislaus, State of California, at a special meeting held on the 1
st 12 day of April 2025, and I further certify that said 13 resolution is in full force and effect and has never been rescinded or modified. 14 15 DATED:
16 17 ___________________________________
18 City Clerk of the City of Patterson
19 6.7.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-16 APPOINTING CYNTHIA HOMEN TO SASA COMMITTEE FOR 2 YEAR TERM 4-1-25 (Resolution No. 2025-16 1 STANISLAUS ANIMAL SERVICES AGENCY

ADVISORY COMMMITTEE
BYLAWS
Adopted June 21, 2012
Amended November 20, 2014
ARTICLE 1-NAME
The name of this committee shall be the “Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Advisory Committee. Whenever the term “Committee” is used in these Bylaws, it shall mean Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Advisory Committee.

ARTICLE 2 - AUTHORITY
The authority for the formation and operation of this Committee is set forth in the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency (“SASA”) dated October 27, 2009, paragraph 3.3 (j) and Government Code section 6500. The SASA Board approved formation of this Committee at its meeting on September 15, 2011.

ARTICLE 3-PURPOSE
The Committee is established to protect and enhance the quality of life for animals and residents of Stanislaus County. Responsibilities include educating the community on animal care; public relations; and serving as a resource. • Serve as an advisor to the SASA Board and Executive Director • Promote a public awareness of the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency • Develop methods to promote adoption of animals at the shelter. • Develop methods to decrease the number of animals entering the shelter. ▪ Continue efforts to increase and encourage volunteer participation at the shelter.

ARTICLE 4-MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. Composition. The composition of this Committee shall be comprised of seven (7) members: six (6) members-Each member of the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Board shall appoint a member to the Committee who shall reside in that member’s jurisdiction; and one (1) member who shall be a licensed veterinarian appointed by the SASA Board. The licensed veterinarian must reside and maintain a physical location for their practice within County of Stanislaus or any of its cities.

6.7.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Advisory Committee By Laws amended 11-20-2014 (Resolution No. 2025-16 Appointing Cyntha 2 The Committee will draw on consultation of California Licensed Veterinarians, kennel owner/operators, animal groups, and others, as needed. The consultants will provide their expertise in a non-voting capacity.

Section 2. Subcommittees. There shall be standing, ad hoc sub-committees.

The Chairperson shall recommend members for appointment to these subcommittees, subject the approval of the Committee. No more than three (3) Committee members may serve on each subcommittee. Each subcommittee shall select a chairperson who may or may not be a member of the Committee.

Section 3. Other. The Chairperson shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. All plans and/or recommendations from a subcommittee shall be (a) presented by the sub-committee chairperson, or designee, to the Committee for action and (b) acted upon at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Committee.

ARTICLE 5-MEETINGS
Section 1. Date and Location of Meetings. The regular meetings of this Committee shall be held on the first Thursday of January, February, April, May, July, August, October and November at 3647 Cornucopia Way, at 6:00pm.

All meetings of the Committee shall be conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. The Chair or a majority of the Committee members may call a special meeting to conduct business outside of the regularly scheduled meeting dates, as needed.

Section 2. Cancellation of Meetings. The Chair of the Committee may cancel a meeting with 72 hours notice. In the event of a meeting cancellation, the Secretary shall provide a notice stating the date, time, and place of the next meeting of the Committee.

Section 3. Public Comment. Every agenda for regular and special meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the Committee on any item of interest concerning the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency.

Section 4. Agenda. At least five days before each regular meeting the Secretary shall post and send by email a copy of the agenda of the meeting to each Committee member and member of the public who has requested in writing to receive the agendas of Committee meetings. Committee members shall also receive the printed materials referenced in the agenda, provided they are a reasonable size. In addition, all printed materials referenced in the agenda of the Committee shall be available for public review at the offices of SASA.

6.7.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Advisory Committee By Laws amended 11-20-2014 (Resolution No. 2025-16 Appointing Cyntha 3 ARTICLE 6 - PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
Section 1. Parliamentary Authority. The rules of parliamentary practice set forth in Robert's Rules of Order shall govern all meetings of the Committee.

Section 2. Quorum. A quorum shall consist of a simple majority of the members of the Committee. In the absence of a quorum, the Committee may adjourn or may reschedule the meeting to a specific date and time.

Section 3. Voting. Each of the seven members shall be a voting member of the Committee. The affirmative vote of a majority of a quorum of the Committee shall constitute the vote required for action.

Section 4- Attendance at Meetings. Members are expected to attend all meetings of the Committee and those meetings of the sub-committees on which the member sits. A member who is unable to attend a meeting shall give advance notice of his/her inability to attend the meeting to the chairperson or secretary. A roll call shall be taken at the beginning of each meeting. A member who arrives late (after roll call) has the responsibility to notify the secretary taking minutes of his/her arrival before or by the end of the meeting.

ARTICLE 7-OFFICERS
Section 1-Terms of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. The officers of the Committee shall be a Chairperson (“Chair”) and a Vice-Chairperson (“Vice Chair”). At the first regular meeting of the Committee in January of each calendar year, the members of the Committee shall elect officers from among them. The officers shall take office on the date of their election. Officers shall be elected to serve for one year (1) year or until their successor is elected.

Section 2- Chair Responsibilities. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Committee, shall preserve order and decorum, shall decide all questions of order raised by any member, and shall determine the agenda for each meeting in consultation with SASA Executive Director. The Chair shall have the right to participate in the proceedings of the Committee. The Chair shall represent the Committee before the SASA Agency Board. In the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair shall preside until such time as the Chair returns or until the next scheduled election. In the absence of both the Chair and the Vice-Chair, the members shall select by motion a member to preside over the meeting.

Section 3-Secretary.

The SASA Executive Director shall appoint a staff person to serve as Secretary.

The Secretary is not a member of the Committee and has no vote. The duties of the Secretary are to act as custodian of the records of the Committee, to make a complete record of the proceedings of the Committee, and to perform other functions directed by the Committee or by these Bylaws

6.7.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Advisory Committee By Laws amended 11-20-2014 (Resolution No. 2025-16 Appointing Cyntha 4 ARTICLE 8-ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Section 1-Term of Office. Each SASA Board member shall recommend an individual for appointment to the Committee in accordance with its local rules, and then subject to the SASA Board’s approval. All Committee members shall serve a term of two (2) years, and may be re-appointed for a second term with the approval of the SASA Board. After sitting out one term, a Committee member may re-apply for appointment. Members shall serve without compensation.

Section 2-Removal. Committee members may be removed for good cause by the SASA Board. Upon removal, the SASA Board shall appoint a suitable person, from the same jurisdiction as the removed member, to serve the remaining term of a Committee member. The person appointed to fill this unexpired term shall not be considered to have served a term.

Section 3-Vacancy. When a vacancy occurs for any reason the Committee Secretary shall notify SASA Board. The SASA Board shall appoint a suitable person from the same jurisdiction until the end of the unexpired term. The person appointed to complete the unexpired term shall not be considered to have served a term.

Section 4-Conflict of Interest. When a matter is discussed, considered or voted on by the Committee or a sub-committee that involves potential financial benefit, or other conflicting concern, to a Committee member, that member shall abstain from such discussion, consideration, and vote on that matter.

ARTICLE 9: ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT
Section 1-Adoption. These Bylaws shall become effective immediately upon approval by a majority of the membership of the Committee and approval by the Stanislaus Animal Service Agency Board.

Section 2-Amendment. These Bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of a quorum of the Committee provided that fifteen (15) days before the meeting, the full Committee is notified of the language of such change(s) and of the time, date and place of the intended vote on such change(s). The amendment will not be effective until approved by the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Board.

6.7.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Stanislaus Animal Services Agency Advisory Committee By Laws amended 11-20-2014 (Resolution No. 2025-16 Appointing Cyntha City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Bryan Stice, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: April 1, 2025
ITEM NO: 7.1
SUBJECT: Informational Item regarding Patterson Irrigation District, et al. v. City of Patterson, et al. Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. 23CV028091) Settlement Agreement terms.

RECOMMENDATION
This informational agenda item provides explanation and background for terms from the settlement agreement in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) litigation regarding the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR”) for the Zacharias / Baldwin Ranch Master Plan (the “Master Plan”). Specifically, the settlement terms discussed in this item relate to the Del Puerto Creek Capture and Recharge Project and water supply to offset demand from new development.

BACKGROUND
Zacharias/Baldwin Ranch Master Plan & Environmental Impact Report On August 16, 2022, the City of Patterson City Council approved the Master Plan which comprehensively planned, designed, and prescribed development of residential, commercial, mixed-use, industrial, and public/education land uses over approximately 1,297 acres, comprising the City’s northern future growth area. At the same meeting, the City Council certified the Master Plan EIR and amended the City of Patterson General Plan land use map to correspond with those land uses established within the Master Plan.

The Master Plan EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR, dated December 3, 2020, and the Final EIR, dated July 1, 2021. Notably, the Master Plan EIR (hereinafter “EIR”), analyzed the following hydrologic impacts:

Impact HYD-2: Would buildout of the project substantially decrease

7.1 Packet Pg. 104
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Impact HYD-5: Buildout of the Master Plans would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

In analyzing Impacts HYD-2 and HYD-5, the EIR made presumptions regarding water availability and water use based on the City’s 2018 Water Management Plan, the project’s 2020 Water Supply Assessment, and the 2019 Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The EIR’s analysis of HYD-2, identified that the Master Plan would have the following effects:
· Increased demand for potable water of 1,560-acre feet per year, which would be met by increased groundwater pumping from the lower aquifer; and · The increased groundwater demands are within the “safe” yield based on the 2018 Water Management Plan; and
· The Recharge Basin Facility would recharge the lower aquifer and help offset the increased potable water demand and meet sustainability goals pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

Accordingly, the EIR concluded that Impact HYD-2 and HYD-5 were less than significant, and no mitigation was required.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In August 2014, the California Legislature passed, and in September 2014 the Governor signed, legislation creating the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) “to provide local groundwater sustainability agencies with the authority and technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater” (Wat. Code, § 10720.1). In adopting SGMA, the California Legislature declared the following:
(1) The people of the state have a primary interest in the protection, management, and reasonable beneficial use of the water resources of the state, both surface and underground, and that the integrated management of the state’s water resources is essential to meeting its water management goals.
(2) Groundwater provides a significant portion of California’s water supply.

Groundwater accounts for more than one-third of the water used by Californians in an average year and more than one-half of the water used by Californians in a drought year when other sources are unavailable.
(3) Excessive groundwater extraction can cause overdraft, failed wells, deteriorated water quality, environmental damage, and irreversible land subsidence that damages infrastructure and diminishes the capacity of aquifers to store water for the future. (4) When properly managed, groundwater resources will help protect communities, farms, and the environment against prolonged dry periods and climate change,

7.1 Packet Pg. 105
preserving water supplies for existing and potential beneficial use. (Legislative Preamble to SGMA, Water Code §10720 et seq.) SGMA requires sustainable management of groundwater consistent with the California Constitution (Water Code § 10720.5), which mandates that conservation of water resources, “be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.” (Cal. Const. Art. 10, § 2.).

Under SGMA, sustainable management is achieved through the development of groundwater sustainability plans (“GSP”), which can be a single plan developed by one or more groundwater sustainability agencies (“GSAs”) or multiple coordinated plans within a basin or subbasin (Wat.

Code, § 10727). The City formed the City of Patterson GSP, which is one of twenty three GSAs that have been formed in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. The GSAs submitted six separate GSPs in 2019, before the Master Plan EIR was certified. Separate GSPs are permitted under SGMA, but SGMA and state Regulations still require a degree of consistency and coordination between the GSPs.

In its March 2, 2023, Determination Letter, DWR deemed the GSPs “Inadequate.” (Attachment 1) The main concern of DWR was that the six GSPs were not truly coordinated by not using the same data and methodologies. Following the “Inadequate” determination, state intervention was triggered, and primary oversight of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin was transferred to the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) to conduct a hearing and determine whether the Subbasin should be placed on probationary status. This hearing has not yet occurred and, in the interim, the GSPs were encouraged to continue to try and bring the GSP into compliance.

In response to the Inadequate Determination Letter, the Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSAs worked collectively to prepare one unified GSP for the Subbasin. In June 2024, the Coordination Committee posted a draft of the 2024 GSP on the Subbasin’s website for public comment and held public workshops regarding the revisions to the GSP. After considering public comments and upon further discussion, on July 22, 2024, the Coordination Committee unanimously recommended that all GSAs in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin adopt the 2024 GSP. On November 19, 2024, Patterson City Council voted to approve Resolution No. 2024-62, adopting the 2024 Single GSP for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin.
2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan & Pumping Reduction Plan The 2024 GSP includes a major key change from the 2019 GSP, which affects the City’s groundwater supply planning and changes some of the circumstances that existed when the Master Plan EIR was prepared. The key change is through the introduction of a subbasin-wide Pumping Reduction Plan (“PRP”). The PRP requires the basin to reduce groundwater pumping by 42,000-acre feet per year (“AFY”) by 2030 to achieve sustainable conditions based on historical overdraft. This reduction applies predominantly to pumping from the lower aquifer which supplies essentially all of the City’s potable water supply. This overdraft calculation is based on historic groundwater pumping records from the period of 2002 - 2023, which was before Master Plan Area was annexed into the City and, of course, before any of the Master Plan

7.1 Packet Pg. 106
area is constructed and the increased water demand is present.

Effective January 1, 2025, the City is responsible for implementing the first step in an incremental groundwater pumping reduction by reducing its 2025 groundwater pumping from the lower aquifer by 92 AFY. This target will increase gradually over the next five years to reach a lower aquifer pumping reduction of 460 AFY by 2030. The 2024 GSP identifies two primary methods for the City to achieve its allotted pumping reductions. (1) Implementation of the Recharge Basin Facility, which was contemplated in the Master Plan EIR. This facility would be located in an area that would allow recharge to the lower aquifer, from which the City almost exclusively pumps its potable water supply.
(2) Implementation of a water supply portfolio with a reduced reliance on groundwater.

This portfolio was detailed in the City’s 2018 Water Management Plan, where it is referred to as Supply Portfolio No. 4, and achieves a low reliance on groundwater through purchase of a long-term surface water transfer agreement, conservation efforts, the Recharge Basin Facility, and use of recycled water for non-potable reuse.

DISCUSSION
Patterson Irrigation District, et al. v. City of Patterson, et al. Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. 23CV028091).

On September 19, 2022, Patterson Irrigation District (“PID”), and West Stanislaus Irrigation District (“WSID”), filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s approval of the Master Plan EIR. The principally challenged the presumptions and analysis regarding the Master Plan’s effect on the water supply, specifically:
(1) The EIR failed to adequately describe the project’s increased demand on the local water supply; and
(2) The inaccurate project description caused the analysis of the Project’s hydrologic impacts to be incorrectly analyzed, rendering them moot; and (3) The EIR failed to adequately evaluate the Master Plan’s consistency with the GSP and mitigate any inconsistencies with the GSP’s groundwater sustainability mandates.

While the lawsuit was pending, the GSP was being revised in an attempt to bring the basin into compliance and avoid further state intervention. However, once the 2024 GSP was adopted, it changed the water supply circumstances applicable to the Master Plan.

Settlement Options
Following drafting of the 2024 GSP, the City and Petitioners discussed settlement provisions

7.1 Packet Pg. 107
regarding implementation of the Master Plan consistent with the new requirements under the 2024 GSP. One key issue with the legal challenge to the sufficiency of the Master Plan EIR was that the 2024 GSP altered the presumptions underlying the EIR, notably:
· Increased potable water demand cannot be met by increased groundwater pumping from the lower aquifer because the Pumping Reduction Plan requires groundwater pumping to decrease.
· The Recharge Basin Facility will need to be constructed before water demands increase from the Master Plan in order to offset groundwater reliance and comply with the Pumping Reduction Plan.
· The EIR’s reliance on the 2019 Groundwater Sustainability Plan is irrelevant because this GSP is moot and has been replaced.
· EIR’s reliance on 2020 Water Availability Analysis is moot because GSP’ Changed circumstances could require an existing EIR to be supplemented with a Supplemental EIR (“SEIR”) that addresses those changed circumstances. However, this would delay any pending projects, including Keystone Ranch, until an SEIR could be prepared. As an alternative, the City worked with PID and WSID to agree on settlement agreement terms which obligated the City to enforce the Master Plan EIR in a way that was consistent with the 2024 GSP and which avoided additional environmental impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR.

Settlement Agreement Terms
The Settlement Agreement was executed on March 18, 2025, and includes the following terms regarding implementation of the Master Plan EIR:
· The City will require developers of the Master Plan Area to fully fund and construct the Del Puerto Creek Capture and Recharge Project (“Recharge Project”) before building permits are issued for the Master Plan Project (Settlement Agreement, hereinafter “SA,” section 4(A)(i).);
· Developers must purchase surface water deliveries for the Recharge Project to offset the increased water demands of their projects (SA section 4(A)(ii).); · The City will use best efforts to ensure completion of the Recharge Project by 2030 (consistent with the timeline for the 2024 GSP’s pumping reduction targets) (SA section 4(A)(iii).);
· The City will recharge the total amount of purchased and delivered surface water to meet increase in demand on basin from new development, including the Master Plan Project (SA section 4(A)(iv).); and
· The City will require all development projects which increase potable water demand to contribute to an evaluation of revisions to the existing storm drain system to divert the

7.1 Packet Pg. 108
captured storm water for recharge (SA section 4(B).).

These Settlement Agreement terms allow the City to continue permitting additional development projects, while maintaining compliance with the 2024 GSP’s pumping reduction targets and implementation of the Recharge Project and the Low-Reliance on Groundwater Water Portfolio.

FISCAL IMPACT
This item is informational only and therefore there is no new fiscal impact.

7.1 Packet Pg. 109
ATTACHMENT 1

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA | GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR | CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY 10728; 23 CCR § 356.2), conduct periodic updates to the plan at least every five years (Water Code § 10728.2; 23 CCR § 356.4), and submit this information to DWR’s SGMA Portal (23 CCR § 354.40). The Department also encourages GSAs to continue implementation efforts on project and management actions that will support the Subbasin’s progress towards achieving sustainability.

Prior to this determination, the Department consulted with the State Board as required by SGMA (Water Code § 10735.2(a)(3)). Moving forward, for questions related to state intervention, please send a request to [email protected]. For any questions related to assessments, the State Board will coordinate with the Department.

For any other questions, please contact Sustainable Groundwater Management staff by emailing [email protected].

Thank You,
________________________________
Paul Gosselin
Deputy Director
Sustainable Groundwater Management
Attachment:

1. Statement of Findings Regarding the Inadequate Determination of the San Joaquin Valley Basin - Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans
DocuSign Envelope ID: A7E5473C-FA44-4E20-B943-AE54B47E3933

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE

DETERMINATION OF INADEQUATE STATUS OF THE
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY – DELTA-MENDOTA SUBBASIN

GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
The Department of Water Resources (Department) is required to evaluate whether a submitted groundwater sustainability plan (GSP or Plan) conforms to specific requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA or Act), is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin covered by the Plan, and whether the Plan adversely affects the ability of an adjacent basin to implement its GSP or impedes achievement of sustainability goals in an adjacent basin. (Water Code § 10733.) The Department is directed to issue an assessment of the Plan within two years of its submission. (Water Code § 10733.4.) If a Plan is determined to be incomplete, the Department identifies deficiencies that preclude approval of the Plan and identifies corrective actions required to make the Plan compliant with SGMA and the GSP Regulations. The groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) have up to 180 days from the date the Department issues its assessment to make the necessary corrections and submit a revised Plan. (23 CCR § 355.2(e)(2).)
This Statement of Findings explains the Department’s decision regarding the resubmitted Plan, comprised of six (6) individual GSPs and a Coordination Agreement prepared and submitted respectfully, by the following twenty-three (23) GSAs: Aliso Water District GSA, Farmers Water District GSA, County of Fresno GSA (Management Areas A and B), Grasslands GSA, County of Merced GSA, Oro Loma GSA, DM-II GSA, Patterson Irrigation District GSA, Widren Water District GSA, City of Patterson GSA, Northwestern Delta-Mendota GSA, West Stanislaus Irrigation District GSA, Central Delta-Mendota GSA, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSA, City of Firebaugh GSA, City of Los Banos GSA, City of Newman GSA, City of Dos Palos GSA, City of Guistine GSA, City of Mendota GSA, County of Madera GSA, and Turner Island Water District GSA (GSAs or Agencies) for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07).

Department management has discussed the Subbasin’s Plan with staff and has reviewed the Department Staff Report, entitled Groundwater Sustainability Plan Assessment Staff Report – San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin, as enclosed, recommending an inadequate determination of the Plan collectively prepared for the Subbasin. Department management is satisfied that staff have conducted a thorough evaluation and assessment of the revised Plan and concurs with staff’s recommendation. The Department therefore finds the revised Plan INADEQUATE and makes the following findings:

A. The initial Plan for the Subbasin submitted by the GSAs for the Department’s evaluation satisfied the required conditions as outlined in § 355.4(a) of the DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F277EBE-FABE-4222-8EC4-52C3B8310929

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) Statement of Findings
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources Page 2 of 5
GSP Regulations (23 CCR § 350 et seq.), and Department Staff therefore evaluated the initial Plan.

B. On January 23, 2022, the Department issued a Staff Report and Findings determining the initial Plan submitted by the Agencies in the Subbasin to be incomplete, because the Plan did not satisfy the requirements of SGMA, nor did it substantially comply with the GSP Regulations. At that time, the Department provided required corrective actions in the Staff Report that were intended to address the deficiencies that precluded approval.

Consistent with the GSP Regulations, the Department provided the Agencies with up to 180 days to address the deficiencies detailed in the Staff Report. On July 20, 2022, within the 180 days provided to remedy the deficiencies identified in the Staff Report related to the Department’s initial incomplete determination, the Agencies resubmitted a revised Plan to the Department for evaluation. When evaluating a revised Plan that was initially determined to be incomplete, the Department reviews the materials (e.g., revised or amended GSPs) that were submitted within the 180-day deadline and does not review or rely on materials that were submitted to the Department by the GSAs after the resubmission deadline. Furthermore, the Department does not conduct a full evaluation of all components of a revised Plan, but instead focuses on how the Agencies have addressed the previously identified deficiencies that precluded approval of the initially submitted Plan. The Department shall find a Plan previously determined to be incomplete to be inadequate if, after consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board, the Agencies have not taken sufficient actions to correct the deficiencies previously identified by the Department. (23 CCR § 355.2(e)(3)(C).)
C. The Department’s initial Staff Report identified the deficiencies that precluded approval of the initially submitted Plan. After staff’s thorough evaluation of the revised Plan, the Department makes the following findings regarding the sufficiency of the actions taken by the Agencies to correct those deficiencies:

1. Deficiency 1: The corrective action advised the Agencies to better address and demonstrate that the multiple, individual GSPs comprising the Plan use the same data and methodologies for various Plan components as required by SGMA and the GSP Regulations. Although the revised GSPs included revisions intended to respond to the corrective action, the Agencies did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate or support a conclusion that numerous components of the six GSPs, including water budget, change in storage, and sustainable yield, are or will use the same data or methodologies as required. Staff noted that the coordination DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F277EBE-FABE-4222-8EC4-52C3B8310929

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) Statement of Findings
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources Page 3 of 5
agreement and various technical memoranda that are part of the proposed management program remain unchanged, making it unclear how or whether certain revisions in some GSPs would be carried through on a basinwide scale. The Staff Report indicates the Agencies did not take sufficient actions to correct this deficiency, which materially affects the ability of the Agencies to achieve sustainability and the ability of the Department to evaluate the likelihood of the Plan to achieve sustainability.

2. Deficiency 2: The corrective action advised the Agencies to develop and establish common definitions of undesirable results for the entire Subbasin. Although the revised Plan included revisions intended to respond to the corrective action, the Plan does not describe or demonstrate that common definitions for undesirable results will be used throughout the Subbasin. While the new undesirable result definitions for each of the five applicable sustainability indicators seem to be aligned across the Subbasin’s six GSPs, the coordination agreement and the associated technical memoranda reflect the old definitions that allows each GSP group to locally define sustainability, and no new supporting information is provided to justify the new groundwater management approach. The Plan does not explain what are now considered to be significant and unreasonable conditions for each of the sustainability indicators. The Staff Report indicates that the Agencies did not take sufficient actions to correct this deficiency, which materially affects the ability of the Agencies to achieve sustainability and the ability of the Department to evaluate the likelihood of the Plan to achieve sustainability.

3. Deficiency 3: The corrective action advised the Agencies to set sustainable management criteria in accordance with the GSP Regulations, particularly identifying a need for the various individual GSPs to demonstrate coordinated and consistent criteria for each undesirable result under SGMA. Although the revised Plan included revisions intended to respond to the corrective action, the GSPs do not describe or demonstrate that common definitions for undesirable results and related sustainable management criteria will be used throughout the Subbasin.

Additionally, sustainable management criteria was not developed consistent with the GSP Regulations. The Staff Report indicates that the Agencies did not take sufficient actions to correct this deficiency, which materially affects the ability of the Agencies to achieve sustainability and the ability of the Department to evaluate the likelihood of the Plan to achieve sustainability.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F277EBE-FABE-4222-8EC4-52C3B8310929

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) Statement of Findings
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources Page 4 of 5

4. Deficiency 4: The corrective action advised the Agencies to better describe and support the creation of numerous formal management areas within the Subbasin as required by the GSP Regulations. The revised GSP has eliminated the use of the formal term management areas in the Plan.

The Staff Report indicates that the Agencies did take sufficient action to correct this deficiency, but Department staff remain concerned that mere elimination of the term “management area” without concurrent and commensurate revisions to the individual GSPs may continue to complicate or impede basin management towards sustainability goals.

The Department will track this issue during Plan implementation and, if needed, revisit this issue in future periodic Plan evaluations.

D. In addition to the grounds listed above, the Department also finds that:

1. The Department developed its GSP Regulations consistent with and intending to further the state policy regarding the human right to water (Water Code § 106.3) through implementation of SGMA and the Regulations, primarily by achieving sustainable groundwater management in a basin. By ensuring substantial compliance with the GSP Regulations the Department has considered the state policy regarding the human right to water in its evaluation of the Plan. (23 CCR § 350.4(g).)

2. The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) does not apply to the Department’s evaluation and assessment of the Plan.

SGMA requires basins to achieve sustainability within 20 years of Plan implementation and requires local GSAs and the Department to continually evaluate a basin’s progress towards achieving its sustainability goals. SGMA also requires GSAs to encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within each basin prior to and during development and implementation of Plans. Under SGMA, the GSP is the primary document disclosing and informing the Department, local GSA boards, other local and state agencies, and interested or affected parties of the intended management program for the basin and the potential physical or regulatory impacts or changes that may occur within the basin during decades of Plan implementation. It is therefore essential that each basin begin with a Plan that adequately analyzes, discloses, and informs and that each Plan conform with certain requirements of SGMA and substantially comply with the GSP Regulations. For the reasons stated here and further discussed in the Staff Report, the revised Plan for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is hereby determined to be INADEQUATE.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F277EBE-FABE-4222-8EC4-52C3B8310929

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) Statement of Findings
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources Page 5 of 5
Signed:
_________________________________
Karla Nemeth, Director
Date: March 2, 2023
Enclosure: Groundwater Sustainability Plan Assessment Staff Report – San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F277EBE-FABE-4222-8EC4-52C3B8310929

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 1 of 47 State of California
Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Assessment
Staff Report
Groundwater Basin Name: San Joaquin Valley Basin – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (No. 5-022.07)
Number of GSPs:

Number of GSAs:

Submittal Type:

Submittal Date:
6 (see list below)
23 (see list below)
Revised Plan in Response to Incomplete Determination
July 20, 2022
Recommendation: Inadequate
Date: March 2, 2023
On July 20, 2022 multiple groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) submitted multiple groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) for the entire Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Subbasin) which are coordinated pursuant to a required coordination agreement, to the Department of Water Resources (Department) in response to the Department’s incomplete determination on January 23, 2022, 1 for evaluation and assessment as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) 2 and GSP Regulations.3 In total, six GSPs have been revised, adopted, and implemented by 23 GSAs.4 Collectively, all six GSPs and the coordination agreement are, for evaluation and assessment purposes, treated and referred to as the Plan for the Subbasin. Individually, the revised GSPs include the following:
• Aliso Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Aliso GSP), revised July 2022. The Aliso GSP is implemented by a single GSA, the Aliso Water District GSA.5
1 Water Code § 10733.4(b); 23 CCR § 355.4(a)(4);
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/service/gspdocument/download/6154. 2 Water Code § 10720 et seq. 3 23 CCR § 350 et seq. 4 This staff report is limited to providing an independent, technical evaluation and assessment of the submitted Plan, as required of the Department under SGMA and the GSP Regulations. It is not intended as a statement of the Department’s position or views regarding any SGMA- or groundwater-related litigation involving the subject Plan, GSAs, or groundwater basin or the merits of any factual or legal claims or allegations made by parties in such litigation.
5 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/7.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 2 of 47 • Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Delta-Mendota Subbasin, Farmers Water District (Farmers GSP), revised July 2022. The Farmers GSP is implemented by a single GSA, the Farmers Water District GSA.6
• Groundwater Sustainability Plan for County of Fresno GSA Management Area A & Management Area B – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Fresno County GSP), revised July 2022. The Fresno County GSP is implemented by a single GSA, the County of Fresno GSA.7
• Grassland Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Grassland GSP), revised July 2022. The Grassland GSP is implemented by two GSAs, the Grasslands GSA and the County of Merced GSA.8 • Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Northern and Central Delta-Mendota Regions (Northern and Central GSP), revised June 2022. The Northern and Central GSP is implemented by the following eight GSAs: Oro Loma GSA, DM-II GSA, Patterson Irrigation District GSA, Widren Water District GSA, City of Patterson GSA, Northwestern Delta-Mendota GSA, West Stanislaus Irrigation District GSA, and Central Delta-Mendota GSA.9
• Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Group in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (SJREC GSP), revised June 2022.

The SJREC GSP is implemented by the following 11 GSAs: San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSA; City of Firebaugh GSA, City of Los Banos GSA, City of Newman GSA, City of Dos Palos GSA, City of Guistine GSA, City of Mendota GSA, County of Merced GSA, County of Madera GSA, and Turner Island Water District GSA, as well as a portion of the County of Fresno Management Area B GSA.
10 The Subbasin’s coordination agreement was not revised as part of the July 2022 Plan resubmittal and is still dated August 2019. The Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Agreement (Coordination Agreement) is included as Appendix A to the Common Chapter for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Common Chapter), which was significantly revised in June 2022. The Common Chapter also includes eight Common Technical Memoranda (Technical Memoranda) in Appendix B that coordinate and guide various aspects of the Subbasin’s groundwater sustainability program. The Technical Memoranda were also not revised as part of the July 2022 Plan resubmittal and are still dated July 2019. The Technical Memoranda referenced in this Staff Report include, but are not limited to, the following: Technical Memorandum #1 – Common Datasets and Assumptions used in the Delta-Mendota GSPs; Technical Memorandum #3 6 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/14. 7 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/20. 8 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/38. 9 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/38. 10 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/15.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 3 of 47 – Assumptions for the Historic, Current and Projected Water Budgets of the DeltaMendota Subbasin, Change in Storage Cross-Check and Sustainable Yield; and Technical Memorandum #4 – Assumptions for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Management Areas, Sustainable Management Criteria. Because the Technical Memoranda no longer align with the Common Chapter there are numerous inconsistencies throughout the Subbasin’s resubmitted Plan.

After evaluation and assessment, Department staff conclude the revised Plan continues to use different data and methodologies for some aspects of the Plan, has not justified or explained what is considered to be significant and unreasonable for the new basinwide definitions of undesirable results, has not set sustainable management criteria in accordance with the GSP Regulations, and, while eliminating the use of management areas in the individual GSPs, has not made revisions that align with a non-management area approach. After evaluation and assessment, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not taken sufficient actions to address some of the deficiencies identified in the Department’s incomplete determination.11
• Based on the evaluation of the Plan, Department staff recommend the Plan for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin be determined inadequate.

This assessment includes five sections and an appendix:
• Section 1 – Summary: Provides an overview of the Department staff’s assessment.
• Section 2 – Evaluation Criteria: Describes the legislative requirements and the Department’s evaluation criteria.
• Section 3 – Required Conditions: Describes the submission requirements of an incomplete resubmittal to be evaluated by the Department. • Section 4 – Deficiency Evaluation: Provides an assessment of whether and how the contents included in the GSP resubmittal addressed the deficiencies identified by the Department in the initial incomplete determination. • Section 5 – Staff Recommendation: Includes the staff recommendation for the Plan.
• Appendix A – Summary of Individual GSP Revisions: Provides brief summarized details of changes made to the six revised GSPs. 11 23 CCR § 355.2(e)(3)(C).

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 4 of 47 1 SUMMARY
Department staff recommend the Plan for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin be determined INADEQUATE because three of the four deficiencies were not sufficiently addressed.

After considering the changes made to the Subbasin’s Plan, Department staff concluded that sufficient action was taken to correct the following deficiency. However, by removing the use of management areas throughout the Plan and not concurrently restructuring the GSPs themselves to reflect the revisions, this change has resulted in GSPs that remain fragmented and potentially inconsistent with the Subbasin’s new groundwater management approach.
• Deficiency 4 – The management areas established in the Plan have not sufficiently addressed the requirements specified in 23 CCR § 354.20.

In the evaluation of the revised Plan, Department staff conclude the GSAs did not take sufficient action to correct the following deficiencies identified in the incomplete determination:
• Deficiency 1 – The GSPs do not use the same data and methodologies. • Deficiency 2 – The GSPs have not established common definitions of undesirable results in the Subbasin.
• Deficiency 3 – The GSPs in the Subbasin have not set sustainable management criteria in accordance with the GSP Regulations.

Generally, while the GSAs have put forth a great amount of effort to respond to the Department’s corrective actions identified in the incomplete determination staff report, Department staff conclude that the information provided was not sufficiently detailed and the analysis was not sufficiently thorough and reasonable to correct the deficiencies identified by the Department. These deficiencies have been found to materially affect the ability of the Department to evaluate the likelihood of the Plan to attain sustainability. 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Department evaluates whether a Plan conforms to the statutory requirements of SGMA12 and is likely to achieve the basin’s sustainability goal,13 whether evaluating a basin’s first Plan,
14 a Plan previously determined incomplete,15 an amended Plan,16 or a GSA’s periodic update to an approved Plan.17 To achieve the sustainability goal, each version of the Plan must demonstrate that implementation will lead to sustainable 12 Water Code §§ 10727.2, 10727.4, 10727.6.
13 Water Code § 10733; 23 CCR § 354.24. 14 Water Code § 10720.7. 15 23 CCR § 355.2(e)(2).
16 23 CCR § 355.10.
17 23 CCR § 355.6.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 5 of 47 groundwater management, which means the management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results. 18 The Department is also required to evaluate, on an ongoing basis, whether the Plan will adversely affect the ability of an adjacent basin to implement its groundwater sustainability program or achieve its sustainability goal.19 The Plan evaluated in this Staff Report was previously determined to be incomplete. An incomplete Plan is one which had one or more deficiencies that precluded its initial approval, may not have had supporting information that was sufficiently detailed or analyses that were sufficiently thorough and reasonable, or Department staff determined it was unlikely the GSAs in the basin could achieve the sustainability goal. After a GSA has been afforded up to 180 days to address the deficiencies and based on the GSA’s efforts, the Department can either approve20 the Plan or determine the Plan inadequate.21 The Department’s reevaluation and reassessment of a Plan previously determined to be incomplete, as presented in this Staff Report, continues to follow Article 6 of the GSP Regulations22 to determine whether the Plan, with revisions or additions prepared by the GSA, complies with SGMA and substantially complies with the GSP Regulations.23 As stated in the GSP Regulations, “substantial compliance means that the supporting information is sufficiently detailed and the analyses sufficiently thorough and reasonable, in the judgment of the Department, to evaluate the Plan, and the Department determines that any discrepancy would not materially affect the ability of the Agency to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin, or the ability of the Department to evaluate the likelihood of the Plan to attain that goal.”24
The recommendation to approve a Plan previously determined to be incomplete does not signify that Department staff, were they to exercise the professional judgment required to develop a Plan for the basin, would make the same assumptions and interpretations as those contained in the revised Plan, but simply that Department staff have determined that the modified assumptions and interpretations relied upon by the submitting GSA(s) are supported by adequate, credible evidence, and are scientifically reasonable. The reassessment of a Plan previously determined to be incomplete may involve the review of new information presented by the GSA(s), including models and assumptions, and a reevaluation of that information based on scientific reasonableness. In conducting its reassessment, Department staff does not recalculate or reevaluate technical information or perform its own geologic or engineering analysis of that information.

The recommendation that a Plan previously determined to be incomplete be determined to be inadequate is based on staff’s conclusion that the GSAs have not taken sufficient 18 Water Code § 10721(v).
19 Water Code § 10733(c).
20 23 CCR §§ 355.2(e)(1). 21 23 CCR §§ 355.2(e)(3).
22 23 CCR § 355 et seq. 23 23 CCR § 350 et seq. 24 23 CCR § 355.4(b).

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 6 of 47 actions to correct the deficiencies previously identified by the Department when it found the Plan incomplete.25
3 REQUIRED CONDITIONS
For a Plan that the Department determined to be incomplete, the Department identifies corrective actions to address those deficiencies that preclude approval of the Plan as initially submitted. The GSAs in a basin, whether developing a single GSP covering the basin or multiple GSPs, must attempt to sufficiently address those corrective actions within the time provided, not to exceed 180 days, for the Plan to be reevaluated by the Department.

3.1 INCOMPLETE RESUBMITTAL
The GSP Regulations specify that the Department shall evaluate a resubmitted GSP in which the GSAs have taken corrective actions within 180 days from the date the Department issued an incomplete determination to address deficiencies.26 The Department issued its incomplete determination on January 20, 2022. The revised GSPs and the original Coordination Agreement, the collective Plan, was resubmitted on July 20, 2022, in compliance with the 180-day deadline. 4 DEFICIENCY EVALUATION
As stated in Section 355.4 of the GSP Regulations, a basin “shall be sustainably managed within 20 years of the applicable statutory deadline consistent with the objectives of the Act.” The Department’s assessment is based on a number of related factors including whether the elements of a GSP were developed in the manner required by the GSP Regulations, whether the GSP was developed using appropriate data and methodologies and whether its conclusions are scientifically reasonable, and whether the GSP, through the implementation of clearly defined and technically feasible projects and management actions, is likely to achieve a tenable sustainability goal for the basin.

In its initial incomplete determination, the Department identified four principal deficiencies in the Plan related to the use of same data and methodologies, undesirable results, sustainable management criteria, and management areas, which precluded the Plan’s approval in January 2022.27 The GSAs were given 180 days to take corrective actions to remedy the identified deficiencies. Consistent with the GSP Regulations, Department staff 25 23 CCR 355.2(e)(3)(C). 26 23 CCR § 355.4(a)(4).
27 SGMA Portal, California Department of Water Resources, https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/service/gspdocument/download/6154.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 7 of 47 are providing an evaluation of the revised Plan to determine if the GSAs have taken sufficient actions to correct the deficiencies.

This section describes the corrective actions recommended by the Department related to each deficiency, followed by Department staff’s evaluation on the actions taken by the GSAs to address the deficiencies.
28 4.1 DEFICIENCY 1. THE GSPS DO NOT USE THE SAME DATA AND METHODOLOGIES The January 2022 Staff Report concluded, “The Plan makes general statements that the collection and presentation of data are coordinated throughout the Subbasin, but the Plan lacks detail and confirmation that the six GSPs not only consider the other GSPs within and adjacent to the Subbasin but have addressed the regulatory aspects of SGMA in a manner that substantially complies with the GSP Regulations. A statement that the GSPs are coordinated without accompanying explanation is not sufficient coordination.

Department staff find that the Plan for the Subbasin does not utilize same data and methodologies to support the various water budget, change in storage, and sustainable yield approaches; therefore, it is unclear how the GSAs will reach, let alone track, sustainability throughout the Subbasin in a coordinated manner.”

4.1.1 Corrective Action
Department staff identified the following corrective action for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin in the GSP Assessment Staff Report released in January 2022:
“The Common Chapter and the Technical Memoranda do not provide sufficient explanation to confirm that the GSPs have been developed using the same data and methodologies and that elements of the GSPs have been based upon consistent interpretations of the Subbasin’s setting. As presented, the GSPs use different data and different methodologies that rely upon multiple versions of the Subbasin setting, with many of the GSPs defining their own version of a hydrogeological conceptual model, often for very small areas of the Subbasin. The 23 GSAs developing the six GSPs should provide supporting information that is sufficiently detailed and provide explanations that are sufficiently thorough and reasonable to explain how the various components of each GSP will together achieve the Subbasin’s common sustainability goal. The explanation should describe how the sustainable management criteria established for each GSP (including the management areas if applicable) relate to each other and how they are collectively informed by the basin setting, including the water budget, change in groundwater storage, and sustainable yield, on the Subbasin-wide level.” 28 Appendix A contains additional details noted by staff related to revisions made to each GSP for each deficiency.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 8 of 47

4.1.2 Evaluation
The following sections highlight information applicable to Deficiency 1 that was found during the evaluation of the revised Plan.

4.1.2.1 Water Budget
The revised Common Chapter states “[a]ll common coordinated assumptions agreed upon and utilized by each GSP…are presented in Technical Memoranda #3 (Assumptions for the Historical, Current, and Projected Water Budgets of the DeltaMendota Subbasin) …”29 However, neither Technical Memorandum #3 which discusses water budgets and sustainable yield calculations, nor Technical Memorandum #1 (Common Datasets and Assumptions used in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSPs) which presents other common datasets and assumptions, were revised to reflect the GSAs’ revised approach for developing a Subbasin-wide water budget. Department staff have not been able to identify efforts to amend the Technical Memoranda by the Technical Working Group or the Subbasin’s Coordination Committee, which calls into question the adequacy of the required Coordination Agreement prepared for the Subbasin and the ability of the 23 GSAs to implement six separate GSP areas using coordinated data and methodologies.

In response to the corrective action, a significant portion of the coordinated assumptions addressing the water budget methodology were replaced in the revised Common Chapter, 30 but no revisions were made to the Coordination Agreement. 31 As a consequence, the water budget revisions made to the Plan no longer align with the Technical Memoranda or Coordination Agreement and numerous inconsistencies exist throughout the Subbasin’s six GSPs. Additionally, the Common Chapter now states that “significant additional detail is presented in the six underlying GSPs,” but that detail, in the judgement of Department staff, is lacking, with many of the GSPs simply referring back to the language provided in the Common Chapter. These inconsistencies are problematic in Department staff evaluating the Plan for consistency with the GSP Regulations and understanding how management of the Subbasin will be conducted.

The “Coordinated Water Budget” discussion in the revised Common Chapter states, “…the Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSAs acknowledge additional detail was needed to demonstrate that all water budget components across the six Subbasin GSPs utilize the same data and methodologies. As such, subsequent to receipt of the [Department’s Consultation Initiation Letter (CIL)], the Technical Working Group and Coordination Committee met to identify the specific data used and to develop a consistent terminology for the various water budget components. Additionally, the Technical Working Group attempted to simplify the presentation of the Subbasin water budgets through a reduction in the number of water budget components.”32 While Department staff appreciate the 29 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.1, p. 672. 30 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3, pp. 671-696. 31 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Appendix A, pp. 814-815. 32 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.3, p. 682.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 9 of 47 efforts to present standardized water budget components and better explain data sources for the purposes of addressing the required corrective action, the revisions seem to be temporary as the Plan states, “a full reconciliation of water budget nomenclature will be conducted as part of the 2025 GSP updates, as well as updates to the datasets and methodologies employed.”33 It is unclear to Department staff why the methodologies for establishing a water budget have not been solidified for the Subbasin in this Plan revision and what impacts these changes would have, or have had, in the establishment of the new sustainable management criteria.

As stated by Department staff in the January 2022 Staff Report, “some of the GSP groups used numerical models to calculate the inflows and outflows from the respective GSP areas while others used non-numerical and spreadsheet models – there was no explanation in the Common Chapter that indicated how these differing modeling approaches used the same data or methodology.” Each of the revised GSPs still rely upon separate water budgets and use a variety of modeling approaches that rely upon GSP-specific hydrogeologic conceptual models. The January 2022 Staff Report also criticized the GSA’s lack of recent data used in the Subbasin’s water budget calculations.

Department staff appreciate the use of measured data from water years 2014-2017 in the revised projected water budget; however, the Plan has not provided an explanation for the continued use of water year 2013 as the Subbasin’s current water year, especially since the projected components of the water budget have substantially changed, as discussed below.

Numerous additions and/or clarifications were made to the land surface and groundwater water budget content of the revised Common Chapter, which seem to address some of the Department’s concerns about the use of same data and methodology and the need for additional explanation. However, as part of the editing and/or clarification process, the inflow and outflow numbers in the water budget tables have changed significantly because the individual GSP areas “mapped their prior water budget components to the new common definitions.”34 The water budget changes reflected in the revised Common Chapter conflict with the statement made in the revised Plan’s accompanying cover letter which states, “No water budget data were modified during this mapping process.”35 Below are some examples of the changes which warrant some additional explanation and/or reconciliation.
• The revised Table CC-10 (formerly CC-8) shows far greater inflows and outflows for the historical land surface water budget, which generates different change in storage estimates for the historical groundwater budget shown on Table CC-11 (formerly CC-9). Similar differences are observed in Table CC-14 (formerly CC12) which present the projected land surface water budget.36 33 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.1, p. 672. 34 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.3, p. 682. 35 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Appendix B, p. 292. 36 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Table CC-10 and CC-11, pp. 684-685.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 10 of 47 • For the revised land surface water budget presenting the “current water year” (2013), now shown on Table CC-12, the updated inflows and outflows (in acrefeet) are 3,436,000 and 3,459,000 compared to the original estimates of 2,308,000 and 2,328,000, respectively, which were formerly included in Table CC-10. 37 • For the revised groundwater water budget presenting the “current water year” (2013), now shown on Table CC-13, the inflows and outflows (in acre-feet) are 752,000 and 942,000 compared to the original estimates of 739,000 and 917,000, respectively, which were formally included in Table CC-11.38 • As already indicated, the revised Plan uses measured data from water years 2014- 2017 in its water budget. Originally, for years 2014-2017 the estimated change in storage was projected to be (in acre-feet) -556,000, -537,000, -141,000, and 128,000.39 The revised Plan now presents the change in storage for the same water years as -662,000, -642,000, -219,000, and 120,000 in Table CC-15. For additional context, Table CC-15 now shows a positive (projected) change in storage of 162,000 acre-feet for water year 2021 while the annual report submitted by the Subbasin’s GSAs indicated a loss of groundwater in storage of 289,700 acre-feet. This discrepancy seems to cast doubt upon the ability, or demonstrates the inability, of the GSA’s fragmented water budget approach to reasonably project change in storage estimates and sustainably manage groundwater in the Subbasin. Department staff support the GSA’s plan to provide “a full reconciliation of water budget nomenclature…, as well as updates to the datasets and methodologies employed.”
It is unclear why the inflows and outflows in the Subbasin have changed so much if the water budget components were only simplified and more concisely organized. It is also unclear how these efforts were coordinated or if the various modeling efforts were rerun since the Subbasin’s Coordination Agreement was not updated. Because of the unexplained discrepancies between the original water budget and the revised water budget, as well as the change in storage most recently reported in the water year 2021 annual report, Department staff continue to have concerns regarding the accuracy of the water budget assumptions in the revised Plan. Additionally, as discussed below, there does not seem to be a quantification of overdraft in the Subbasin, which is based on the water budget which Department staff have concluded has not been prepared consistently with the GSP Regulations.

Based on a review of the information included in the revised Plan, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not sufficiently addressed and corrected the issues identified in Deficiency 1 related to the water budget failing to utilize the same data and methodologies.
37 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Table CC-12, p. 686. 38 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Table CC-13, p. 686. 39 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Table CC-15, pp. 691-694.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 11 of 47

4.1.2.2 Change in Groundwater Storage
The January 2022 Staff Report criticized the “sum-of-the-parts” methodology for calculating groundwater storage changes differently in the Subbasin’s six GSPs. Among other concerns related to change in storage information Department staff wrote, “Cumulative change in storage declined more rapidly in the Upper Aquifer compared to the Lower Aquifer, declining by about 1,300,000 acre-feet in the Upper Aquifer and 678,000 acre-feet in the Lower Aquifer (a total of 1,978,000 acre-feet). However, when “rolling-up” the water budget information in Tables CC-9 and CC-11, which reflect the Subbasin’s historical and current water budgets, the cumulative change in storage in the Upper Aquifer reflects a loss of 624,000 acre-feet and a loss of 375,000 acre-feet in the Lower Aquifer, with a total loss of storage within the Subbasin of 1,003,000 acre-feet.” To address the Department’s concerns, the revised Common Chapter states “[c]umulative change in storage declined more rapidly in the Upper Aquifer compared to the Lower Aquifer, declining by about 624,0000 AF in the Upper Aquifer and 375,000 AF in the Lower Aquifer between WY2003 to 2013.”40 With all of the revisions made to the historical, current, and projected water budget tables (new Common Chapter Tables CC10 through CC-15) as previously described, it is unclear how the revised numbers (624,000 and 375,000) were determined since those numbers were compiled using data from the old tables (former Tables CC-8 through CC-13). Manual calculations by Department staff of data reported in revised Tables CC-11 and CC-13 indicate that, between 2003 and 2013, there was a loss of 673,000 acre-feet in the Upper Aquifer and a loss of 371,000 acre-feet in the Lower Aquifer, for a total change in storage of 1,044,000 acre-feet. The volume discrepancies in the water budgets and how groundwater storage is calculated remain unexplained and unclear to Department staff and, absent an explanation, do not support a conclusion that the same data and methodology was consistently used.

Additionally, Figure CC-64, which relies upon the updated water budget information in Tables CC-14 and CC-15, has significantly changed.41 Where the cumulative change in Lower Aquifer storage was approximately -50,000 acre-feet in 2070 before the water budget revisions were applied, it now suggests the cumulative Lower Aquifer change in storage in 2070 is approximately -600,000 acre-feet. The original 2040 projection estimate for the Lower Aquifer’s cumulative change in storage was approximately -200,000 acre-feet while the revised estimate is approximately -750,000 acre-feet. In the Upper Aquifer, former estimates indicated cumulative change in storage in 2040 was approximately -50,000 acre-feet and revised estimates appear to be similar. The resubmitted materials provide insufficient explanation as to how these change in storage data were computed and why they differ so significantly from the original calculations.

Importantly, there still does not appear to be a straightforward quantification of overdraft in the Subbasin’s Plan and no discussion of how it will be mitigated. Some additional 40 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.2.3, p. 636. 41 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Figure CC-64, pp. 695-696.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 12 of 47 explanation is required throughout the Plan and its Coordination Agreement to acknowledge overdraft and better identify projects and management actions that could mitigate it. There also does not appear to be a discussion regarding how the loss of storage and planned groundwater elevation declines will affect the drinking water wells in the Subbasin, which is a concern because minimum thresholds established for groundwater levels are now set at historical low elevations. And while Department staff previously identified multiple methods used to calculate change in groundwater storage, Department staff note the methodology for calculating change in storage, as described in Technical Memorandum #1, has not been revised; therefore, there still remains uncertainty how the Subbasin’s change in storage is being calculated in a coordinated fashion throughout the six GSPs. Given that the Plan has revised the “Coordinated Assumptions” section of the revised Common Chapter, this is another example of how the Common Chapter no longer aligns with the Technical Memoranda. And it is important to note that the Lower Aquifer is now using the sustainable management criteria set for inelastic land subsidence to determine undesirable results associated with groundwater storage, which is not an option provided for in the GSP Regulations. Additional details are presented in the Deficiency 3 discussion.

Based on a review of the information included in the Plan resubmittal, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not addressed and corrected the issues identified in Deficiency 1 related to the change in storage calculations utilizing the same data and methodologies.

4.1.2.3 Sustainable Yield
The January 2022 Staff Report identified the inconsistent application of a basinwide sustainable yield estimate where “of the six GSPs, three provide a sustainable yield specifically for the GSP area while the other three rely upon the estimate for the entire Subbasin” and “the sustainable yield is determined independent of sustainability criteria and is provided as a guide for water budget planning purposes.” To address the Department’s deficiency related to the inconsistent establishment of a sustainable yield for the Subbasin, the GSAs revised the Common Chapter to provide a new sustainable yield for each aquifer. 42 However, the information in Technical Memoranda #1 (Common Datasets and Assumptions used in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSPs) and #3 (Assumptions for the Historic, Current and Projected Water Budgets of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, Change in Storage Cross-Check and Sustainable Yield) which present agreed-upon sustainable yield assumptions and methodology were not updated. Where the sustainable yield for the Upper Aquifer was initially given a range of 325,000 to 480,000 acre-feet per year with a +/- 10 percent factor to account for uncertainties, the Upper Aquifer sustainable yield is now set at 403,000 acre-feet per year, which is simply the middle of the initial range. The sustainable yield in the Upper Aquifer is now reportedly based on the revised change in storage numbers from the historic water budget (2003-2012) and a slightly revised formula that specifies 42 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.4, pp. 697-701.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 13 of 47 subsurface outflow and subsurface inflow. This new formula and a coordinated approach should be reflected, and more importantly explained and justified, in the Coordination Agreement and its associated Technical Memoranda. The sustainable yield discussion in the Plan also does not appear to account for the maximum quantity of water that can be withdrawn annually from the Subbasin without causing an undesirable result.43 In the Lower Aquifer, now acknowledging that (an unspecified amount of) land subsidence is continuing to occur, the sustainable yield estimate was lowered from 250,000 acre-feet per year to 101,000 acre-feet per year. In the original Common Chapter, the calculation of the Lower Aquifer sustainable yield was based on a study conducted in the adjacent Westside Subbasin; however, as stated in the revised Plan, based on undefined extractions from the Lower Aquifer from water year 2015, the Coordination Committee refined the sustainable yield calculation, which it states is consistent with the new definitions of undesirable results established across the Subbasin for all sustainable management criteria. Technical Memorandum #1 and #3, which present the agreed-upon methodologies for determining the Subbasin’s sustainable yield, were not revised. No information is provided in the revised Common Chapter that discusses continued subsidence rates in the Subbasin or the extractions observed in 2015.

Department staff have observed that the groundwater extraction volumes provided in the revised historical groundwater budget (2003-2012) and the projected water budget (2014- 2070) are different than the original values.44 Additionally, it should be noted that the projected amount of groundwater extraction from the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer in water year 2021, as indicated on the updated water budget tables, is 224,000 acre-feet and 39,000 acre-feet, respectively, for a total extraction volume of 263,000 acre-feet.

However, the water year 2021 annual report submitted for the Subbasin in April 2022 indicated a total of 562,300 acre-feet of groundwater was extracted, which is more than double the projected amount. This calls into question the accuracy and usefulness of the Plan’s fragmented water budget methodology to track sustainable groundwater conditions.

Based on a review of the information included the Plan resubmittal, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not addressed and corrected the issues identified in Deficiency 1 related to the sustainable yield utilizing the same data and methodologies.

4.1.3 Conclusion
Based on the review of information included in the revised Plan, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not adequately addressed or corrected the issues related to using the same data and methodologies identified as a deficiency that initially precluded Plan approval. Department staff conclude the revised Plan for the Subbasin still does not 43 Water Code § 10721(w).
44 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Table CC-11 (formerly CC-9), pp. 684-685; Table CC-15 (formerly CC-13), pp. 691-694.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 14 of 47 utilize same data and methodologies to support the various water budget, change in storage, and sustainable yield approaches.
• Information in the Common Chapter was modified significantly but neither Technical Memorandum #3 nor Technical Memorandum #1 were revised and are still dated July 25, 2019, as are the other six memoranda that coordinate the Subbasin’s six GSPs. As a consequence, the water budget, change in storage, and sustainable yield revisions made to multiple sections of the Common Chapter and, in some fashion, the six GSPs no longer align with the Technical Memoranda and the Coordination Agreement which is still dated December 12, 2018.

Numerous inconsistencies exist throughout the Subbasin’s six GSPs when compared to the required coordination materials.
• Each of the GSPs still rely upon separate water budgets compiled for the individual GSP areas and still use a variety of modeling approaches built around localized hydrogeologic conceptual models, which calls into question the accuracy and usefulness of the Plan’s fragmented methodology to track sustainable conditions on a Subbasin-wide scale.
• There still does not appear to be a straightforward quantification of overdraft in the Subbasin and no discussion of how it will be mitigated. • There does not appear to be a discussion regarding how the continued loss of storage and groundwater elevation declines will affect drinking water wells in the Subbasin or the other beneficial uses and users of groundwater.

Department staff conclude the GSAs have not taken sufficient action to address Deficiency 1 related to utilizing the same data and methodologies. While the Common Chapter has been significantly revised, those revisions are not reflected in the Technical Memoranda or the Coordination Agreement. By maintaining the original Coordination Agreement (including the Technical Memoranda), the GSAs continue to utilize different data and methodologies and, by doing so, have not thoroughly explained or demonstrated how each GSP will together achieve the Subbasin’s common sustainability goal.

4.2 DEFICIENCY 2. THE GSPS HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED COMMON DEFINITIONS OF

UNDESIRABLE RESULTS IN THE SUBBASIN
The January 2022 Staff Report concluded, “Because each of the six GSPs prepared in the Subbasin defined its own sustainable management criteria, each applicable sustainability indicator has up to six different definitions of what are considered significant and unreasonable conditions. While this approach was agreed upon by the 23 GSAs in the Subbasin using the required Coordination Agreement, by approaching the sustainability indicators in such an individualistic and isolated manner, Department staff do not believe that the Plan satisfies the SGMA requirement to the use of same data and

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 15 of 47 methodologies.45 Department staff also believe that this approach does not achieve a coordinated Plan for the Subbasin, and that this approach fragments the Department’s ability to track sustainable conditions that are common throughout the Subbasin.”

4.2.1 Corrective Action
Department staff identified the following corrective action for the Subbasin in the GSP Assessment Staff Report released in January 2022:
“The GSAs in the Subbasin should modify each of their respective GSPs, as well as any applicable coordination materials, to substantially comply with the GSP Regulations and define undesirable results in a manner that addresses groundwater conditions occurring throughout the Subbasin, not for only the small portion of the Subbasin represented by the respective GSPs. One way for this deficiency to be remedied is for each of the six separate GSPs to use the same quantitative minimum thresholds, or the same methodology to develop the thresholds, and explicit criteria for undesirable results. Alternatively, if the GSAs believe it is not possible, or for some other reason still desire to use different definitions and metrics for undesirable results within each of the Subbasin’s six GSP areas, the Plan must specifically explain how any differences do not affect the requirement to utilize the same data and methodologies for the assumed sustainable yield of the Subbasin. Additionally, if a GSP determines that a sustainability indicator is not applicable within the defined GSP area, then that information must be supported by the best available information and best available science.”

4.2.2 Evaluation
In reviewing the revised Plan, Department staff found conflicting or incomplete information applicable to Deficiency 2. Provided below is a description of the original definition of undesirable results (found in Technical Memorandum #4 – Assumptions for DeltaMendota Subbasin Management Areas, Sustainability Management Criteria) and the revised definition of undesirable results and significant and unreasonable conditions in the Subbasin (found in the revised Common Chapter and within the six GSPs).

4.2.2.1 Chronic lowering of groundwater levels
• Original Definition: Significant and unreasonable chronic change in water levels, as defined by each GSP Group, that has an impact on the beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin through either intra- and/or inter-basin actions. • Revised Definition: Chronic changes in groundwater levels that diminish access to groundwater, causing significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater.
45 23 CCR § 357.4(a).

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 16 of 47 • Revised Significant and Unreasonable: Significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater are substantially increased costs associated with higher total pumping lift, lowering pumps, drilling deeper wells, or otherwise modifying wells to access groundwater, securing alternative water sources, or required mitigation of groundwater dependent ecosystems. Significant and unreasonable is quantitatively defined as exceeding the MT at more than 50% of representative monitoring sites by aquifer in a GSP area.

4.2.2.2 Reduction in groundwater storage
• Original Definition: Significant and unreasonable chronic decrease in groundwater storage, as defined by each GSP Group, that has an impact on the beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin through either intra- and/or inter-basin actions. • Revised Definition: A chronic decrease in groundwater storage that causes a significant and unreasonable impact to the beneficial uses and users of groundwater.
• Revised Significant and Unreasonable: A significant and unreasonable impact to beneficial uses and users of groundwater is insufficient water storage to maintain beneficial uses and natural resource areas in the Subbasin, including the conjunctive use of groundwater.

4.2.2.3 Degraded water quality
• Original Definition: Significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality, as defined by each GSP Group, that has an impact on the beneficial users of groundwater in the Subbasin through either intra- and/or inter-basin actions and/or activities.
• Revised Definition: Degradation of groundwater quality as a result of groundwater management activities that causes significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater.
• Revised Significant and Unreasonable: Significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater as a result of groundwater management activities are the migration of contaminant plumes or elevated concentrations of constituents of concern that reduce groundwater availability, and the degradation of surface water quality as a result of groundwater migration that substantially impair an existing beneficial use. Significant and unreasonable is quantitatively defined as exceeding the MT at more than 50% of representative monitoring sites by aquifer in a GSP area where current groundwater quality (as established in the Subbasins GSPs) does not exceed 1,000 mg/L TDS.

4.2.2.4 Land subsidence
• Original Definition: Changes in ground surface elevation that cause damage to critical infrastructure that would cause significant and unreasonable reductions of

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 17 of 47 conveyance capacity, damage to personal property, impacts to natural resources or create conditions that threaten public health and safety. • Revised Definition: Changes in ground surface elevation that cause damage to critical infrastructure, including significant and unreasonable reductions of conveyance capacity, impacts to natural resource areas, or conditions that threaten public health and safety.
• Revised Significant and Unreasonable: Significant and unreasonable damage to conveyance capacity from inelastic land subsidence is structural damage that creates an unmitigated and unmanageable reduction of design capacity or freeboard. Significant and unreasonable impacts to natural resource areas from inelastic land subsidence are unmitigated decreases in the ability to flood or drain such areas by gravity. Significant and unreasonable threats to public health and safety from inelastic land subsidence are those that cause an unmitigated reduction of freeboard that allows for flooding, or unmitigated damage to roads and bridges.

4.2.2.5 Depletions of interconnected surface water
• Original Definition: Depletions of interconnected surface water, as defined by each GSP Group, that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on the beneficial uses of surface water.
• Revised Definition: Depletions of interconnected surface water as a direct result of groundwater pumping that cause significant and unreasonable impacts on natural resources or downstream beneficial uses and users.
• Revised Significant and Unreasonable: Significant and unreasonable impacts on natural resources or downstream beneficial uses and users of groundwater are a reduction in available surface water supplies for natural resource areas, and reductions in downstream water availability as a result of increased streamflow depletions along the San Joaquin River when compared to similar historic water year types.

While the new undesirable result definitions for each of the five applicable sustainability indicators seem to be aligned across the Subbasin’s six GSPs, Technical Memorandum #4 still reflects the original definitions that allows each GSP group to locally define sustainable conditions within their individual areas, and no new supporting information is provided within the Common Chapter or within the revised GSPs to justify the new groundwater management approach. Also, the significant revisions to the Common Chapter, which still reference Technical Memorandum #4, do not explain what are now considered to be significant and unreasonable conditions for each of the sustainability indicators. For example, no justification for setting a 50 percent threshold for groundwater levels or water quality is provided, details regarding modifying wells and pumps are absent from the resubmitted material, what is considered insufficient water storage is not quantified, and no examples of what are considered an unmitigated and unmanageable

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 18 of 47 reduction of design capacity for conveyance structures are discussed. The lack of specific, quantitative details, or a more defined and transparent decision-making process for establishing definitions of sustainability, causes uncertainty, ambiguity, potential conflict, and an inability for the Department and other interested parties to understand the proposed sustainable management program.

4.2.3 Conclusion
Overall, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not taken sufficient action to address Deficiency 2.
• To address Deficiency 2, the GSAs revised the definition of undesirable results for each of the five applicable sustainability indicators in the Common Chapter and, as a result, nearly all of the associated sustainable management criteria. 46 • While Department staff acknowledge the considerable effort taken by the Subbasin’s GSAs to establish common definitions of undesirable results in the Subbasin, the resubmitted effort was not sufficient because the Coordination Agreement and its associated technical components were not updated, and numerous inconsistencies exist throughout the six GSPs. Many of the details in the revised GSPs still reflect the intent of the Subbasin’s original groundwater management structure, which was to establish a range of sustainable management criteria that focused on the individual GSP area and was based on tailored hydrogeologic conceptual models, not the Subbasin as a whole. • By not updating the definitions of undesirable results in Technical Memorandum #4, which present the original coordinated assumptions for the Subbasin’s sustainable management criteria, this creates an inconsistency in the definitions that should be rectified to ensure there is clear understanding of how the Subbasin will be managed.

Based on a review of the information included in the Plan resubmittal, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not adequately addressed or corrected the issues related to establishing common definitions of undesirable results in the Subbasin.

4.3 DEFICIENCY 3. THE GSPS IN THE SUBBASIN HAVE NOT SET SUSTAINABLE

MANAGEMENT CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GSP REGULATIONS The January 2022 Staff Report identified deficiencies associated with almost all aspects of the Subbasin’s sustainable management criteria. Details associated with the Subbasin’s modified sustainability goal, redefined undesirable results, and new minimum thresholds and measurable objectives are presented below. 46 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.2, p. 703.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 19 of 47

4.3.1 Corrective Action
Department staff identified the following corrective action for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin in the GSP Assessment Staff Report released in January 2022:
“The GSAs in the Subbasin should adhere to Subarticle 3 of the GSP Regulations which describes sustainable management criteria. The Plan should explain the coordinated criteria by which the GSAs define conditions occurring throughout the Subbasin that constitute sustainable groundwater management, including the process or processes by which the GSAs characterize undesirable results, establish minimum thresholds, and set measurable objectives for each applicable sustainability indicator. Undesirable results should be coordinated and should define when significant and unreasonable effects for any of the sustainable indicators are caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the Subbasin, not only in small GSP areas or even smaller management areas. The minimum thresholds must set numeric values that, if exceeded, may cause undesirable results, and must be defined in accordance with 23 CCR § 354.28(c).

The supporting information must be sufficiently detailed and the analyses sufficiently thorough and reasonable, and any effort to disregard the applicability of a sustainability indicator in a GSP must be supported by the best available information and best available science. Additionally, if management areas will continue to be used throughout the Subbasin, the management areas must comply with 23 CCR § 354.20, as discussed in Deficiency 4.”

4.3.2 Evaluation
This section provides an evaluation of the GSAs’ efforts to address Deficiency 3 as it relates to the sustainability goal, undesirable results, minimum thresholds, and measurable objectives.

4.3.2.1 Sustainability Goal
In the original Plan, even though a coordinated sustainability goal was established for the Subbasin, each sustainability indicator had its own “sustainability goal” defined, and some of the Subbasin’s GSPs further developed a definition of what the “sustainability goal” was for its own GSP area. In the January 2022 Staff Report, Department staff concluded “While this is the agreed upon sustainability goal for the Subbasin, each of the six GSPs includes its own version of what its GSP-area goal is and does not correlate those goals with the Subbasin’s sustainable yield…[and] the Subbasin appears to have multiple definitions of its sustainability goal depending upon which GSP is referenced.” The coordinated sustainability goal established for the Subbasin in the original Plan has been maintained in the revised Plan.47 However, some of the GSPs continue to further define sustainability goals set for the five applicable sustainability indicators which continues to present a fragmented groundwater management approach. Management of 47 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.2, pp. 702-703.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 20 of 47 the Subbasin by multiple GSPs requires a common sustainability goal to ensure the Subbasin collectively reaches sustainability – with the continued fragmented approach apparent in the Subbasin, Department staff are unclear how the GSAs will move forward with implementing a common groundwater sustainability program.

Based on a review of the information included the Plan resubmittal, Department staff conclude that all GSAs in the Subbasin have not adequately addressed or corrected the issues related to establishing a common sustainability goal in accordance with the GSP Regulations.

4.3.2.2 Undesirable Results
In the context of Deficiency 3, Department staff concluded in the January 2022 Staff Report “[a]s demonstrated by the review of each specific GSP’s definition of undesirable results, the Plan, while purporting to be coordinated, actually presents a very complicated and disparate range of definitions for what constitutes an undesirable result for each category, such that whether or not something is considered an undesirable result depends on where in the Subbasin the condition is occurring. Department staff find that this methodology does not conform to the requirement of Water Code Section 10727.6 that individual [GSPs] utilize the same data and methodologies for the assumed sustainable yield in developing a Plan.”
The manner in which deficiencies related to undesirable results were addressed in the revised Plan are presented in the Department’s evaluation and response to Deficiency 2.

While Department staff acknowledge the considerable effort taken by the Subbasin’s GSAs to establish common definitions of undesirable results in the Subbasin and restructure the Subbasin’s sustainable management criteria, the resubmitted effort is not complete, nor is Department staff clear on how the new criteria will be used in basin management, because the Coordination Agreement and its associated technical components were not updated and numerous inconsistencies exist throughout the six GSPs. Many of the details in the revised GSPs still reflect the intent of the Subbasin’s original groundwater management structure which was to establish a range of sustainable management criteria that benefited an individual GSP area based on tailored hydrogeologic conceptual models, not the Subbasin as a whole. Furthermore, no explanation was provided to explain the process used to develop or to justify the new definitions of what are considered significant and unreasonable conditions in the Subbasin.

As previously stated in Section 4.2.3 of this staff report, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not adequately addressed or corrected the issues related to establishing undesirable results in accordance with the GSP Regulations.

4.3.2.3 Minimum Thresholds and Measurable Objectives
In the January 2022 Staff Report, Department staff concluded “[t]he establishment of minimum thresholds and measurable objectives in the Subbasin are not coordinated, nor are they supported by information that is sufficiently detailed.” And “[s]ection 5.4 of the

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 21 of 47 Common Chapter provides, in Tables CC-14 through CC-18, a summary of the Subbasinwide definition of an undesirable result, GSP-level definition of significant and unreasonable, sustainability goals, 5-year interim goals, minimum thresholds, and measurable objectives. However, as shown in the tables, each GSP generally contains a wide variety of what are considered significant and unreasonable conditions, sets different interim goals, minimum thresholds, and measurable objectives, often with different units of measurement, or determines that a particular sustainability indicator is not applicable to its GSP area without providing sufficient justification.” The new language in the Common Chapter states “[s]ubsequent to this submittal, the Technical Working Group and Coordination Committee met to develop consistent definitions and methodologies for establishing numeric metrics for each applicable sustainability indicator.” 48 The original Plan relied upon Technical Memorandum #4, which presented the assumptions for sustainable management criteria in the Subbasin; however, as previously stated, the Technical Memoranda were not updated as part of the revised Plan. Because the GSPs expressly incorporated and refer to the Technical Memoranda as part of the Subbasin’s groundwater management program, the fact that no concurrent amendments were made to them causes Department staff to question how or whether the changes will be clearly or consistently implemented throughout the Subbasin.

To address Deficiency 3 in the revised Common Chapter, Tables CC-14 through CC-18 have been modified and are now shown as Tables CC-16 through CC-23. 49 The Department’s staff have evaluated the revisions made to the minimum thresholds and measurable objectives in the Plan.

Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
The revised Common Chapter states “[t]he Subbasin GSAs are committed to maintaining groundwater levels above historic low conditions in order to avoid undesirable results to beneficial uses and users of groundwater and to prevent further decrease of groundwater levels due to groundwater management actions performed within the Subbasin.”50 The GSAs relied upon “readily available historic records of groundwater level data for 61 of the 75 representative monitoring sites (RMS)” and state that bi-annual groundwater monitoring will track progress towards sustainability at those 75 RMS.51 The Plan does not indicate when these historic low groundwater levels were observed within the Subbasin, but Department staff note many of them appear to be prior to SGMA’s implementation date of 2015.
48 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.3, p. 704. 49 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Tables CC-16 through CC-23, pp. 731-732, 733-735, 739, 741-742, 742-744, 747-748, 750-751, and 753-755.
50 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.4.1, p. 704. 51 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Table CC-16 and CC-17, pp. 731-732 and pp. 733-735.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 22 of 47 • Former minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for chronic lowering of groundwater levels were initially based on a 100-foot buffer zone above the Corcoran Clay, various assumptions based on seasonal highs and lows, and trigger levels to not allow groundwater to be transferred out of management areas. • Revised Minimum Threshold: “The groundwater elevation indicating a chronic lowering of groundwater levels that may lead to undesirable results is an elevation that is lower than the historical seasonal low. The historic seasonal low is a fixed elevation at each site, based on available groundwater level data prior to the end of Water Year 2016. To account for future year-to-year variations in hydrology, compliance with the fixed historic seasonal low threshold will be compared with a 4-year rolling average of annual groundwater level measurements. Shorter-term (“acute”) groundwater elevation thresholds will also be established at each representative monitoring site by 2025 using a coordinated methodology. Acute thresholds will be established at levels that are intended to avoid short-term undesirable results, particularly for domestic water wells, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and interconnected surface waters where present in the Upper Aquifer, and for subsidence in the Lower Aquifer. Each year, both the historic seasonal low and the acute groundwater elevation thresholds will apply, whichever is more protective. For any RMS without data prior to Water Year 2016, MTs and acute thresholds will be established using the aforementioned methodologies and the data resulting from the first five years of monitoring following Water Year 2016 or following construction of the well.”
• Revised Measurable Objective: “Maintain seasonal high groundwater levels at an elevation that is at or above the Water Year 2015 seasonal high at more than 50% of representative monitoring sites in a GSP area. The Water Year 2015 seasonal high is a fixed elevation at each site, based on available groundwater level data. If data are unavailable for Water Year 2015 at a representative monitoring site, either a Water Year 2014 or Water Year 2016 Seasonal High will be used. To account for future year-to-year variations in hydrology, compliance with the fixed seasonal high threshold will be compared with a 4-year rolling average of annual groundwater level measurements. Each GSP area includes multiple representative monitoring sites (RMS) to which the measurable objective applies.

For any RMS without data prior to Water Year 2016, Measurable Objectives will be established using the aforementioned methodology and the data resulting from the first five years of monitoring following Water Year 2016 or following the construction of the well.”
• Revised Interim Milestones:
o “Year 5: Gather data and complete the establishment of seasonal low and seasonal high elevations at representative monitoring sites in the Lower Aquifer for the Grassland GSP area. Develop a coordinated methodology and complete the establishment of acute groundwater elevation thresholds.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 23 of 47 Identify chronic lowering of groundwater levels caused by pumping outside the Subbasin.
o Year 10: Maintain groundwater levels at measurable objectives. Where chronic lowering of groundwater levels is caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.
o Year 15: Maintain groundwater levels at measurable objectives. Where chronic lowering of groundwater levels is caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.”
The minimum threshold for groundwater levels has been revised to reflect the historic seasonal low, which is a fixed elevation at each of the representative monitoring sites, based on available groundwater level data prior to the end of Water Year 2016. An undesirable result is not stated to occur unless more than 50 percent of the wells within one of the six GSP areas has exceeded its minimum threshold. No analysis was provided explaining or justifying why 50 percent was chosen as the threshold or what impacts would occur to the Subbasin’s pumping wells or the beneficial uses and users of groundwater if that threshold is approached or exceeded. Additionally, most of the six GSPs do not identify the year when historical groundwater elevations were observed.

As shown in the respective GSPs, in almost all of the Subbasin’s RMS wells, the minimum threshold for groundwater elevation has been raised by several feet to almost 150 feet to now reflect historical low levels rather than the original approach where elevations were much lower. Department staff appreciate the acknowledgement by the Subbasin’s GSAs that the original minimum thresholds were unreasonable. What is not discussed in the Plan, however, are the related effects of managing the Subbasin to the newly established historic low levels – there is no discussion in the Plan related to continued overdraft or subsidence, migration of contamination plumes, degradation of water quality, or depletions of interconnected surface water if groundwater levels approach or exceed the new minimum thresholds, especially for those wells located near the San Joaquin River.

While Department staff appreciate the use of a common methodology for determining undesirable results associated with groundwater levels, the revised Plan does not provide an explanation how the GSAs have determined that managing the Subbasin to near historical low groundwater elevations would avoid undesirable results for the other applicable sustainability indicators. Based on information provided in the Subbasin’s six GSPs, when groundwater levels were at or near historic low levels there was increased pumping to account for lack of surface water supplies which decreased storage, increased rates of subsidence, and an unknown effect on interconnected surface water and groundwater. The revised Plan does not recognize or account for these conditions or circumstances, and without such an analysis or discussion, Department staff cannot determine if this is a reasonable approach for managing the Subbasin. It is unclear if the minimum thresholds have been selected to avoid undesirable results. It is important to

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 24 of 47 note that the sustainable management criteria set for groundwater levels are now being used to track undesirable results associated with groundwater storage in the Upper Aquifer (the Lower Aquifer is using the thresholds set for subsidence) and temporarily for depletions of interconnected surface water.

Based on a review of the information included in the revised Plan, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not adequately addressed or corrected the issues related to establishing sustainable management criteria for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels in accordance with the GSP Regulations.

Reduction in Groundwater Storage
The revised Common Chapter states “[t]he GSAs intend to maintain groundwater storage at volumes that will continue to meet the demands of beneficial uses and users of groundwater, provide a three-year drought buffer, and minimize reductions in groundwater storage during extended dry periods. Further, the GSAs will coordinate with neighboring subbasins to address reductions in groundwater storage caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin.”52
The revised approach to monitor the groundwater storage sustainability indicator is to use groundwater levels, as well as subsidence data, as a proxy. The revised Common Chapter states “[b]ecause the [sustainable management criteria] established for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels are designed to maintain groundwater levels above historic low conditions, they are protective of the Reduction of Groundwater Storage Sustainability indicator and local beneficial uses and users of the Upper Aquifer, as the [sustainable management criteria] maintain sufficient water storage to maintain beneficial uses, including the conjunctive use of groundwater.” For the Lower Aquifer, “the [sustainable management criteria] set for Land Subsidence (which are designed to reduce subsidence caused by groundwater extraction in the Subbasin, with no additional subsidence after 2040) are reasonably protective and used as a tool to calculate the Reduction of Groundwater Storage Sustainability Indicator [sustainable management criteria] in the Lower Aquifer.”53
• Former minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for reduction in groundwater storage were initially based on groundwater levels as a proxy (which had a variety of assumptions) and various calculated volumes from the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer.
• Revised Minimum Threshold: “For the Upper Aquifer, as a reasonable proxy for an individual groundwater storage threshold, maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the minimum threshold set for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. For the Lower Aquifer, correlate the [sustainable management criteria] for inelastic land subsidence with the reduction in groundwater storage that would 52 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.4.2, p. 738. 53 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Table CC-18, p. 739.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 25 of 47 cause undesirable results, estimated to be 1.1 million acre-feet of storage loss by 2040 attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin.” • Revised Measurable Objective: “For the Upper Aquifer, maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the measurable objectives set for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. For the Lower Aquifer, minimize loss of groundwater storage caused by inelastic land subsidence.”
• Revised Interim Milestones:
o “Year 5: Maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the measurable objectives. Identify reduction in groundwater storage caused by pumping outside the Subbasin.
o Year 10: Maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the measurable objectives. Where reduction in groundwater storage is caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.
o Year 15: Maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the measurable objectives. Where reduction in groundwater storage is caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.”
Groundwater levels are proposed as a proxy for determining undesirable results associated with reduction in groundwater storage in the Upper Aquifer. The Lower Aquifer is now using the sustainable management criteria established for land subsidence, which is a total of two feet of additional subsidence and an estimated additional loss of 1,100,000 acre-feet of storage. The use of land subsidence as a proxy for groundwater storage is not consistent with the GSP Regulations, and it is important to note that the timeframe for the two additional feet of subsidence is not defined in the Plan.

While Department staff acknowledge the efforts taken by the Subbasin’s GSAs to simplify the methodology used to assess changes in groundwater storage, there still does not appear to be a straightforward quantification of overdraft in the Subbasin and no discussion of how the overdraft will be mitigated seems to exist in the Common Chapter or in any of the Subbasin’s GSPs. Some additional coordinated explanation is required throughout the Plan to quantify overdraft and better identify projects and management actions that could mitigate it. There also does not appear to be a discussion regarding how the loss of storage and groundwater elevation declines will affect the drinking water wells in the Subbasin, which is a concern because minimum thresholds established for groundwater levels are now set at historical low elevations.

Based on a review of the information included in the Plan resubmittal, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not adequately addressed or corrected the issues related to establishing sustainable management criteria for reduction in groundwater storage in accordance with the GSP Regulations.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 26 of 47 Degraded Water Quality
The revised Common Chapter states “[t]he GSP groups within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin are committed to preventing the migration or elevated concentrations of constituents of concern due to groundwater management activities. The primary constituent of concern in the Subbasin is salinity, frequently reported as total dissolved solids (TDS).”54 The revised information explains that “California has three secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) standards for TDS, all based on aesthetic considerations such as taste and odor, not public health concerns. These are 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (recommended limit), 1,000 mg/L (upper limit), and 1,500 mg/L (short-term limit). To reflect the Subbasin’s designation as a Municipal (MUN) beneficial use, as established in the Central Valley Water Control Plans (often referred to as Basin Plans), the Subbasin has selected the upper limit of 1,000 mg/L as the Minimum Threshold.”55
• Former minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for degraded water quality initially used a variety of constituents with a variety of concentrations, such as electrical conductivity, chloride, nitrate as nitrogen, TDS, boron, and “poor quality groundwater”.
• Revised Minimum Threshold: “The minimum threshold for salinity is 1,000 mg/L TDS. For representative monitoring sites that currently exceed the minimum threshold, existing regulatory water quality compliance and remediation programs will apply, including but not limited to, the CV-SALTS Salt Control Program, the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, the County Drought Plan requirements for State Small Water Systems and Domestic Wells (SB 552), and the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) program. For any RMS without data prior to the end of Water Year 2016, current (ambient) groundwater quality will be established using data collected during the first five years of monitoring following Water Year 2016 or following construction of the well. For representative monitoring sites that do not currently exceed the minimum threshold but are found to exceed minimum thresholds in the future, the applicable GSP group will conduct and publish an assessment of the effect of groundwater management activities on the documented exceedance, and propose timely actions to manage groundwater differently, if needed, to avoid exacerbating the exceedance. The applicable GSP group will also coordinate with the appropriate regulatory program to address the impact.”
• Revised Measurable Objective: “The measurable objective for salinity will be concentrations less than 1,000 mg/L TDS. Each GSP group will participate in, provide data for, and track and report on compliance with orders and objectives adopted by the State and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards 54 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.4.3, p. 739. 55 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Tables CC-19 and CC-20, pp. 741-744.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 27 of 47 and similar regulatory agencies, in coordination with the Central Valley Groundwater Monitoring Collaborative.”
• Revised Interim Milestones:
o Year 5: Maintain salinity consistent with measurable objectives. Participate in, provide data for, and track and report on compliance with orders and objectives adopted by the State Water Resources and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards and similar regulatory agencies, in coordination with the Central Valley Groundwater Monitoring Collaborative.

Develop correlation between groundwater quality and groundwater levels in order to establish methodology for the use of groundwater levels as a proxy for groundwater quality.
o Year 10: Maintain water quality consistent with measurable objectives.

Continue monitoring and publishing groundwater quality data, and tracking and reporting on compliance with regulatory orders and objectives. Where water quality impairments are caused by activities outside the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs. Utilizing the methodology developed by the Year 5 Interim Milestone, develop minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater quality that utilize groundwater elevations as a proxy for monitoring.
o Year 15: Maintain water quality consistent with measurable objectives.

Continue monitoring and publishing groundwater quality data, and tracking and reporting on compliance with regulatory orders and objectives. Where water quality impairments are caused by activities outside the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.

Only TDS is indicated to be a groundwater quality constituent of concern in the Subbasin, and the minimum threshold is set at 1,000 mg/L; however, the Plan indicates that significant and unreasonable conditions would not be considered to occur until more than 50 percent of RMS wells have exceeded the threshold in a particular GSP area. No analysis has been conducted to justify the use of 50 percent as a threshold. As indicated in the Subbasin’s six GSPs, water quality already exceeds 1,000 mg/L in many areas.

The Common Chapter refers wells that have already exceeded the threshold concentration to existing regulatory programs such as the CV-SALTS Program, Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, the SAFER Program, and others. Minimum thresholds associated with other constituents of concern, such as boron, nitrate as nitrogen, and unquantified “poor quality groundwater” have been removed from the revised Plan and no justification for the removal of these constituents has been provided. The Department's corrective action did not advise or recommend eliminating these constituents of concern from the Subbasin’s groundwater management program. No details are provided in the

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 28 of 47 revised Common Chapter nor the six GSPs as to how the updated minimum threshold would impact the beneficial uses or users of groundwater.

Based on a review of the information included the revised Plan, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not adequately addressed or corrected the issues related to establishing sustainable management criteria for degraded water quality in accordance with the GSP Regulations as identified in the deficiency.

Land Subsidence
The revised Common Chapter states the “GSAs are committed to ramping down the amount of allowable subsidence caused by groundwater extraction in the Subbasin and eliminating additional subsidence within the Subbasin by 2040. Further, the GSAs will coordinate with neighboring subbasins to address inelastic land subsidence caused by groundwater management activities that occur outside of the Subbasin.” Additionally, “[t]he [sustainable management criteria] for Land Subsidence were coordinated at the Subbasin level and are designed to be protective of critical infrastructure, including significant and unreasonable reductions of conveyance capacity (i.e., structural damage that creates an unmanageable reduction of design capacity), impacts to natural resource areas (i.e., unmitigated decreases in the ability to irrigate or drain these areas by gravity), or conditions that threaten public health and safety (i.e., unmitigated reduction of freeboard that allows for flooding, or unmitigated damage to roads and bridges). The Subbasin-wide [minimum threshold] is set to prevent subsidence that exceeds the corrective design standards or established triggers for critical infrastructure, including the Delta-Mendota Canal and California Aqueduct.”56
• Former minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for inelastic land subsidence were set at 0.2 feet per year or a total of 4.0 feet, various compaction rates of the Corcoran Clay, other compactions rates monitoring the Lower Aquifer, or no rates at all.
• Revised Minimum Threshold: “At representative monitoring sites, the change in ground surface elevation that would cause undesirable results is up to 2 feet of additional inelastic land subsidence attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin. Prevent subsidence caused by groundwater extractions in the DeltaMendota Subbasin that exceeds corrective design standards or established triggers for critical infrastructure including the Delta-Mendota Canal, California Aqueduct, and roads and bridges.”
o It is important to note that this revised minimum threshold is not a rate of subsidence but a total amount of subsidence, and the threshold does not indicate an extent of subsidence as required by the GSP Regulations. The Plan does not indicate when the period for calculating a total of two feet of additional subsidence begins, causing uncertainty or ambiguity in the 56 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Tables CC-21 and CC-22, pp. 747-748 and 750-751.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 29 of 47 proposed management program and the Department’s ability to assess the Subbasin’s progress towards achieving sustainability.
• Revised Measurable Objective: “Minimize inelastic land subsidence attributable to groundwater extraction within the Subbasin, with no additional subsidence after 2040.”
• Revised Interim Milestones: “The [interim milestones] allow for no more than 1.0 foot of additional subsidence by 2025, 0.5 feet of additional subsidence by 2030 (1.5 feet of cumulative subsidence), 0.25 feet of additional subsidence by 2035 (1.75 feet of cumulative subsidence), and 0.25 feet of additional subsidence by 2040 (2.0 feet of cumulative subsidence).”
A rate and extent of subsidence is the metric required by the GSP Regulations, but the revised Common Plan only provides a total amount of subsidence, which is “up to two feet of additional inelastic subsidence attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin.” Many of the GSPs provide statements that, should subsidence occur within the Subbasin, it is the result of groundwater management actions occurring in adjacent Subbasins. Department staff determine the revised approach to managing land subsidence in the Subbasin is not consistent with the GSP Regulations, which require the minimum threshold to be expressed as a rate and extent of subsidence and the new minimum threshold is only expressed as a total amount of subsidence.

Based on a review of the information included in the Plan resubmittal, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not adequately addressed or corrected the issues related to establishing sustainable management criteria for land subsidence in accordance with the GSP Regulations as identified in the deficiency that initially precluded Plan approval.

Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water
The revised Common Chapter states “[t]he GSAs are committed to managing groundwater within the Subbasin to maintain interconnected surface waters comparable to existing conditions and prevent a trend of increasing interconnected surface water losses from the San Joaquin River. The GSAs will coordinate with neighboring subbasins to address interconnected surface water losses caused by groundwater management activities that occur outside of the Subbasin.” 57 Additionally, “[t]he Depletion of Interconnected Surface Water Sustainability Indicator is identified as a data gap within the Subbasin. Until the GSAs are able to collect the additional data necessary to set quantitative [sustainable management criteria] for this Sustainability Indicator, the [sustainable management criteria] for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels serve as a proxy in the Upper Aquifer.”58
• Former minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for the depletion of interconnected surface water were either not established at all, were based on a 57 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.4.5, p. 753. 58 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Table CC-23, pp. 753-755.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 30 of 47 groundwater gradient between two wells, were based on the historic decline in stage values in the Mendota Pool and Fresno Slough, groundwater elevations as a proxy, or an “X percent in surface water depletions” along interconnected reaches of surface water.
• Revised Minimum Threshold: “Interconnected Surface Water is an identified data gap in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. As an interim minimum threshold, use the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Level Minimum Threshold as a proxy for impacts to interconnected surface waters.”
• Revised Measurable Objective: “Interconnected Surface Water is an identified data gap in the Subbasin. As an interim measurable objective, use the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Level Measurable Objective as a proxy for interconnected surface waters.”
• Revised Interim Milestones:
o “Year 5: Fill data gaps, establish, and manage groundwater use to avoid the rate or volume of surface water depletions that have adverse impacts on beneficial uses and users and may lead to undesirable results. The Subbasin will complete a monitoring network of Interconnected Surface Water sites that will include six existing sites and datasets. GSP groups will complete the monitoring network with additional sites installed with SGMA Implementation Grant funding awarded to the Subbasin. The existing nine sites are part of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program and are located along the San Joaquin River at the southern end of the Subbasin. These nine sites, and the associated datasets, will continue to be utilized by the Subbasin as part of its monitoring network. Additional representative monitoring network sites for Interconnected Surface Water will focus on the Northern & Central Delta-Mendota and Grassland GSP areas along the San Joaquin River.
o Year 10: Gather and analyze data from Subbasin’s established representative monitoring network sites. Also gather and analyze available data in cooperation with neighboring subbasins, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s San Joaquin River Restoration Program, the U.S. Geological Survey, and DWR’s California Data Exchange Center (CDEC), to estimate the influence of groundwater on gains and losses in the San Joaquin River.

Establish minimum thresholds and measurable objectives as a rate or volume of surface water depletions that have adverse impacts on beneficial uses and users and may lead to undesirable results.
o Year 15: Monitor and maintain interconnected surface waters in accordance with revised minimum thresholds and measurable objectives. Where increased interconnected surface water losses are caused by pumping outside of the Subbasin, seek remedies in coordination with the Department of Water Resources and neighboring GSAs.”

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 31 of 47 Each of the Subbasin’s six GSPs has identified depletions of interconnected surface water as a data gap and has not established sustainable management criteria in accordance with the GSP Regulations. Minimum thresholds and measurable objectives are not expected to be established until Year 10 or Year 15, as indicated in the Plan’s revised interim milestones, which is significant because the Subbasin is located adjacent to the San Joaquin River and adjacent basins have set sustainable management criteria for this indicator. In the interim, the Plan proposes to use groundwater levels as a proxy for determining undesirable results “until the GSAs are able to collect the additional data necessary to set quantitative [sustainable management criteria] for this Sustainability Indicator.”59 However, as stated in the GSP Regulations, groundwater elevations cannot be used as a proxy unless “the Agency can demonstrate that the representative value [for groundwater elevations] is a reasonable proxy…as supported by adequate evidence.”60 Although some of the GSPs in the Subbasin have some details regarding interconnected reaches of the San Joaquin River and could have presented an interim value for stream depletion based on available data, the Plan does not propose to set rates and volumes of surface water depletions until at least 2030.61 A table in the Common Chapter provides the estimated quantity of gains and losses for interconnected reaches of the San Joaquin River, but this table does not appear to have been incorporated into the GSA’s decision to identify surface water and groundwater interaction as a data gap. 62 Department staff
conclude establishing sustainable management criteria consistent with the GSP Regulations by 2030 to not be reasonable, could risk undesirable results for the Subbasin or in adjacent basins, and could impact the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the Subbasin and in adjacent basins. The beneficial uses and users, as they pertain to the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator, are briefly defined in the Common Chapter as “San Joaquin River surface water diverters and groundwater dependent ecosystems.”63 In the Subbasin’s six GSPs, the beneficial uses and users are identified in general terms and are not necessarily associated with specific sustainability indicators.64
Department staff understand that quantifying depletions of interconnected surface water from groundwater extractions is a complex task that likely requires developing new, specialized tools, models, and methods to understand local hydrogeologic conditions, interactions, and responses. During the initial review of GSPs, Department staff have observed that most GSAs have struggled with this requirement of SGMA. However, staff believe that most GSAs will more fully comply with regulatory requirements after several 59 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.4.5, pp. 753-755. 60 23 CCR § 354.28(d).
61 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.4.5, p. 753. 62 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Table CC-6, pp. 655-656. 63 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.2.7, p. 653. 64 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 2.5.1, p. 69; Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section

2.5.1, p. 51; Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 2.5.1, p. 67; Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 2.6.1, p. 84-85; Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.1, pp. 200-203; SJREC GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 2.1.5, pp. 73-75.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 32 of 47 years of Plan implementation that includes projects and management actions to address the data gaps and other issues necessary to understand, quantify, and manage depletions of interconnected surface waters. Department staff further advise that, at this stage in SGMA implementation, GSAs address deficiencies related to interconnected surface water depletion where GSAs are still working to fill data gaps related to interconnected surface water and where these data will be used to inform and establish sustainable management criteria based on timing, volume, and depletion as required by the GSP Regulations.

The Department will continue to support GSAs in this regard by providing, as appropriate, financial and technical assistance to GSAs, including the development of guidance describing appropriate methods and approaches to evaluate the rate, timing, and volume of depletions of interconnected surface water caused by groundwater extractions. Once the Department’s guidance related to depletions of interconnected surface water is publicly available, GSAs, where applicable, should consider incorporating appropriate guidance approaches into their future periodic updates to the GSP. GSAs should consider availing themselves of the Department’s financial or technical assistance, but in any event must continue to fill data gaps, collect additional monitoring data, and implement strategies to better understand and manage depletions of interconnected surface water caused by groundwater extractions and define segments of interconnectivity and timing within their jurisdictional area. Furthermore, GSAs should coordinate with local, state, and federal resources agencies as well as interested parties to better understand the full suite of beneficial uses and users that may be impacted by pumping induced surface water depletion.

4.3.3 Conclusion
Overall, Department staff conclude the GSAs have not taken sufficient action to address Deficiency 3.

As previously concluded, Deficiency 2 associated with undesirable results was not sufficiently addressed. The revised Plan relies upon the collective Coordination Agreement, Technical Memoranda, Common Chapter, and the six GSPs; however, the revisions are not consistent throughout the revised Plan and numerous inconsistencies present unclear management of the Subbasin. Sustainable management criteria for all sustainability indicators have not been prepared in a manner consistent with the GSP Regulations.

4.4 DEFICIENCY 4. THE MANAGEMENT AREAS ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAN HAVE NOT SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN 23 CCR § 354.20.

As stated in the January 2022 Staff Report, “Technical Memorandum #4 addresses the use of management areas with the following statement: The Coordination Committee left management areas and management of their respective GSPs to the six GSP Groups.”

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 33 of 47 In the Subbasin’s original Plan, four of the six GSPs had a total of 17 management areas, none of which adhered to the GSP Regulations (the Aliso GSP and Grassland GSP did not use management areas). Department staff concluded, “While the use of management areas is technically allowed in a basin if the GSAs determine that the creation of management areas will facilitate implementation of their GSPs, the use of management areas in a basin that is already managed under six separate GSPs significantly complicates the Subbasin’s implementation of SGMA. It also impedes the ability of Department staff to determine if the sustainability goal established for the Subbasin is being met, especially if established management areas do not have monitoring points and it is uncertain what sustainable management criteria apply to each area.”

4.4.1 Corrective Action
Department staff identified the following corrective action for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin in the GSP Assessment Staff Report released in January 2022:
“The Common Chapter and coordination materials prepared for the Subbasin should describe all the management areas established in each of the six GSPs and clearly define the applicable minimum thresholds and measurable objectives and indicate where the monitoring points are within each of the management areas for all applicable sustainability indicators. Also, because many of the defined management areas follow GSA boundaries, additional information related to legal authority and financial resources necessary to implement the respective GSPs should be explained. If details specific to the management areas are not available or the GSAs cannot justify, in accordance with the GSP Regulations, the use of management areas, then the GSAs in the Subbasin should reconsider the use of management areas in the Subbasin’s Plan.”

4.4.2 Evaluation
Overall, Department staff conclude that Deficiency 4 was sufficiently addressed by the Subbasin’s GSAs. In response to the Department’s required corrective action, all GSPs removed the use of management areas or simply renamed them monitoring zones.

Department staff appreciate the recognition that the previous development and use of management areas was not consistent with the GSP Regulations. However, while this revision is considered a sufficient action to correct the issues related to the use of management areas identified in the January 2022 Staff Report, Department staff continue to have concerns about the structure of the individual GSPs for use in guiding future management of the Subbasin. Simply removing the use of management areas and not concurrently restructuring the GSPs themselves to reflect this change has resulted in GSPs that remain fragmented and potentially inconsistent with the new groundwater management program. The four GSPs that previously established management areas are still organized around the use of those management areas and many of the explanations that remain in the revised GSPs are meant to justify the use of those discarded management areas. Given the elimination of these management areas in the revised Plan, Department staff conclude sufficient action has been taken to address the

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 34 of 47 management area deficiency; however, Department staff believe the individual GSPs should be reconciled to be consistent with the new management approach to avoid confusion among the public, the Department, and managers in adjacent basins. 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Department staff conclude that sufficient action has not been taken by the GSAs in the Subbasin to remedy the deficiencies previously identified. Department staff, therefore, recommend the Plan be determined inadequate.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 35 of 47

APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL GSP REVISIONS
This section provides a summary of certain changes in the Subbasin’s six GSPs. These details are not considered exhaustive of the Plan’s inconsistencies but are provided to support the conclusions made by Department Staff and the recommendation the Plan be determined inadequate.

DEFICIENCY 1: SUMMARY OF PLAN REVISIONS
The following briefly describes revisions to water budget, change in groundwater storage, and sustainable yield components of the Subbasin’s six GSPs to address Deficiency 1. • Aliso GSP.
o To make the water budgets comparable a “crosswalk” figure was developed to capture the recategorization of data for current and projected conditions.

The water budget discussions were explained in the revised Common Chapter but few text changes were made to the revised Aliso GSP.65 The Aliso GSP does not quantify overdraft in its water budget information. o The Aliso GSP relies upon information in Appendix A (Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Groundwater Conditions) and the Common Chapter to discuss groundwater storage. No revisions were made to Appendix A and very basic revisions were made to the Common Chapter.66 o Methods calculating sustainable yield were changed and the Aliso GSP now only references the estimates for the Subbasin rather than its small GSP area.67 The former sustainable yield for the small Aliso GSP area, which considered the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer to act as a single system, was 83,600 acre-feet per year.
• Farmers GSP.
o Basic revisions were made to the water budget discussion in the Farmers GSP to reflect the changes made to the Common Chapter.68 The Farmers GSP does not quantity overdraft in its water budget discussions. o As a result of the changes made to the water budget assumptions, the change in storage estimates for the Farmers GSP area also changed. For example, the total change in storage between 2003-2013 now shows a loss of approximately 600 acre-feet per year rather than a gain of 80 acre-feet 65 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.4, pp. 93-106. 66 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.2, p. 73; Appendix A, pp. 232-288; Common Chapter Section 4.3.4 p. 636. 67 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.3, pp. 89-92. 68 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3, pp. 76-85.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 36 of 47 per year, and the yearly change in storage values (in acre-feet per year) now range from +5,000 to -6,000 rather than +3,000 to -3,000.69 o Instead of calculating a sustainable yield for the small Farmers GSP area as originally done, the GSP provided a re-labeled table presenting historic pumping volumes and updated the sustainable yield to reflect that revised for the Subbasin.70
• Fresno County GSP.
o Revisions were made to the water budget discussions in the Fresno County GSP. The GSP continues to state, “Overdraft in the form of long‐term decline in storage of a significant amount (change in storage greater than five percent of groundwater pumping) has not occurred in the FCMA in the Upper Aquifer. Nor is overdraft projected to occur under the Projected Baseline with Climate Change Factors presented in Table 3‐6” and “Overdraft conditions were only determined for the Upper Aquifer as there is no known pumping in the FCMA from the Lower Aquifer, therefore any change in storage or overdraft conditions that may exist in the Lower Aquifer are due to regional influences out of the control of the FCMA.”71 Some of the statements made in the Fresno County GSP do not align with the modifications made the Common Chapter.
o Minimal changes were made to the Fresno County GSP Change in Storage.72 The details remain specific to the small GSP area and do not reference the Subbasin’s conditions. Estimated annual change in storage volumes are presented in Table 3-8 and 3-10 for the Fresno County GSP area.
o A paragraph in the Fresno County GSP was revised to reflect the new sustainable yield estimates set for the Subbasin.73
• Grassland GSP.
o A crosswalk of the reorganization of components from the initial Grassland GSP water budget and the revised Subbasin water budget of the amended Grassland GSP. The GSP has been revised to reflect some of the new terminology.74
69 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.2.4, p. 72. 70 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.3 and 3.3.4, pp. 83-84. 71 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.4, p. 150. 72 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.2.2, p. 111. 73 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.5, p. 150. 74 Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.2, Figures 3-27(a) and 3-27(b), pp. 138-148.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 37 of 47 o No substantive changes were made to the groundwater storage sections in the Grassland GSP.
75 o A paragraph in the Grassland GSP was revised to reflect the new sustainable yield estimates set for the Subbasin.76
• Northern and Central GSP.
o No substantive changes were made to the water budget section in the Northern and Central GSP, but a new section was added that briefly describes how the GSP area water budget was mapped to the categories revised in the Common Chapter. The GSP references the Common Chapter for explanation.77
o No substantive changes were made to the groundwater storage sections in the Northern and Central GSP.78
o The sustainable yield section of the Northern and Central GSP was revised to reflect the updated methodology for determining sustainable yield estimates.
• SJREC GSP.
o Other than eliminating the use of management areas and calling them monitoring zones, the SJREC GSP was not significantly revised. Most of the modifications were done as part of the revisions to the Common Chapter.

DEFICIENCY 2: SUMMARY OF PLAN REVISIONS
In general, each of the six GSPs have incorporated, in some fashion, the updated definitions of undesirable results. However, none of the coordination materials, neither the Coordination Agreement nor the eight Technical Memoranda, were updated, and explanations are lacking throughout the Plan to justify the new approach to defining significant and unreasonable for each of the five applicable sustainability indicators.79 75 Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.3.1, pp. 149-152. 76 Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.3.2, p. 152. 77 Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.4.6, p. 411. 78 Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.3.3, p. 330-332. 79 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Executive Summary and Section 4.3.1, pp. 18 and 114-115; Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.4, pp. 152-156; Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Sections 4.1 and 4.4, pp. 161-162 and 186-189; Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.1, pp. 167-171; Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 6.3, pp. 474-529; SJREC GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.4, pp. 137-139.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 38 of 47 DEFICIENCY 3: SUMMARY OF PLAN REVISIONS
The following briefly describes what was revised in the Subbasin’s six GSPs to address Deficiency 3. It should be noted that some of the GSPs in the Subbasin have also modified the RMS wells within their respective monitoring networks.

Sustainability Goal
• Aliso GSP. Basic changes were made to the Aliso GSP to reflect a coordinated sustainability goal for the Subbasin.80
• Farmers GSP. The Subbasin’s coordinated sustainability goal was added to the Farmers GSP.81
• Fresno County GSP. The Subbasin’s coordinated sustainability goal was added to the Fresno County GSP.
82 • Grassland GSP. No changes were made to the sustainability goal section of the Grassland GSP as it already included the coordinated sustainability goal set for the Subbasin. However, the GSP continues to reflect the original management intent of the Subbasin by stating, “The success of the GSP is reflected in the avoidance of undesirable results as described in section 4.3 Undesirable Results.

This allows a significant amount of flexibility in defining and implementing Sustainable Management Criteria in the absence of undesirable results.”83 • Northern and Central GSP. No changes were made to the sustainability goal section of the Northern and Central GSP as it already included the coordinated sustainability goal set for the Subbasin. However, the Northern and Central GSP added text in the GSP to reflect “sustainability goals for each applicable sustainability indicator” which suggests there could be multiple sustainability goals in the Subbasin.84
• SJREC GSP. The sustainability goal for the Subbasin is not found in the SJREC GSP, but the GSP does include the new “sustainability goals” for each of the applicable sustainability indicators.85 The SJREC GSP references the sustainable management criteria section of the revised Common Chapter where the Subbasin’s sustainability goal is presented.
80 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.1, pp. 107-109. 81 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.1, pp. 132-133. 82 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.1, p. 161. 83 Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.1, pp. 165-166. 84 Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.1, pp. 472-474. 85 SJREC GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.0, pp. 120-121.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 39 of 47 Minimum Thresholds and Measurable Objectives
Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
The following briefly describes what was revised in the Subbasin’s six GSPs to address Deficiency 3 as it pertains to chronic lowering of groundwater levels. • Aliso GSP. The original minimum threshold in four RMS wells was to provide a 100-foot buffer above the Corcoran Clay. The new minimum threshold has been coordinated as described in this Staff Report to reflect historical low groundwater levels. 86 As indicated in the Aliso GSP, the minimum thresholds have been modified to be approximately 50 to 150 feet higher in elevation. No analysis has been conducted to determine how the threshold change would impact wells in the small GSP area or the other applicable sustainability indicators. • Farmers GSP. The original minimum threshold considered the annual maximum groundwater elevations for each year. The new minimum threshold has been coordinated as described in this Staff Report to reflect historical low groundwater levels.
87 No analysis has been conducted to determine how the threshold change would impact wells in the small GSP area or the other applicable sustainability indicators. It is important to note that significant and unreasonable lowering of groundwater levels is quantitatively defined as exceeding the minimum threshold at more than 50 percent of representative monitoring sites by aquifer in a GSP area. In the Farmers GSP area there is only one RMS well in each aquifer. • Fresno County GSP. The original minimum threshold considered the annual maximum groundwater elevations for each year. The new minimum threshold has been coordinated as described in this Staff Report to reflect historical low groundwater levels. 88 No analysis has been conducted to determine how the threshold change would impact wells in the small GSP area or the other applicable sustainability indicators.
• Grassland GSP. The original minimum threshold in the Upper Aquifer was set at an elevation that was 20 percent lower than the lowest groundwater elevation observed between 2000 to “present.” No minimum thresholds were originally set for the Lower Aquifer because “no historical data exists.”89 The new minimum threshold is set “at a fixed elevation…equivalent to the historic seasonal low prior to the end of Water Year 2016.” However, the GSP does not indicate when these elevations were observed since the original minimum threshold only considered data prior to 2000. No minimum thresholds were set for the Lower Aquifer. • Northern and Central GSP. The original minimum thresholds were set as the hydrologic low for wells perforated in the Upper Aquifer and 95 percent of the 86 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.4.1, pp. 121-125. 87 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.1, pp. 144-145. 88 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.1, pp. 174-175. 89 Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.4.1, pp. 182-186.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 40 of 47 hydrologic low for wells perforated in the Lower Aquifer. 90 The new minimum threshold has been coordinated as described in this Staff Report to reflect historical low groundwater levels; however, the Lower Aquifer still does not have a threshold assigned due to lack of data.
• SJREC GSP. The first sentence of Section 3.3.1 of the revised SJREC GSP has not been modified and still reflects the original GSP area definition of a minimum threshold.91 New language reflecting the updated approach to defining minimum thresholds has been added to this section. As such, there is conflicting information in the revised SJREC GSP.

Reduction in Groundwater Storage
The following briefly describes what was revised in the Subbasin’s six GSPs to address Deficiency 3 as it pertains to the reduction of groundwater storage. • Aliso GSP. The original Aliso GSP used groundwater elevations as a proxy for determining undesirable results for groundwater storage in the Upper Aquifer and did not establish sustainable management criteria for the Lower Aquifer “due to a considerable lack of deep wells” despite the use of composite wells screened in both aquifers (40 percent of the wells). The revised Aliso GSP continues to use groundwater elevations as a proxy for the Upper Aquifer but now uses the minimum thresholds for subsidence to determine undesirable results in the Lower Aquifer.92 It should be noted that the revised minimum thresholds for groundwater levels are now approximately 100 to 150 feet higher in elevation when compared to the original levels and the Aliso GSP formerly considered the Upper and Lower aquifers to be a single system. The Aliso GSP indicates that the average annual change in storge is negative 2,200 acre-feet per year in the Upper Aquifer (time period not defined) and negative 4,400 acre-feet per year in the Lower Aquifer (time period not defined).93
• Farmers GSP. The original Farmers GSP calculated change in storage using the difference between the “current [did not define what current is] groundwater elevation level to MT level for all representative sites.” The revised Farmers GSP uses groundwater elevations as a proxy for the Upper Aquifer and the sustainable management criteria established for the subsidence sustainability indicator for the Lower Aquifer.94 The revised Table 4-8 indicates the total storage change for the Upper Aquifer in the Farmers GSP area is 30,000 acre-feet (previously 11,000 acre-feet) and the total storage change for the Subbasin’s entire Lower Aquifer is 90 Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 6.3.1.2, pp. 476-485. 91 SJREC GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.1, pp. 124-128. 92 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.4.1, pp. 125-127. 93 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.3.1.1 and Table 3-4, p. 92. 94 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.2.1 and Table 4-8, pp. 146-147.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 41 of 47 1,100,000 acre-feet (previously 4,400 acre-feet for the GSP area only). This information conflicts with the data presented on Figures 3-26 and 3-27.95 • Fresno County GSP. The original Fresno County GSP took an approach similar to the Farmers GSP and revised its GSP to use groundwater levels as a proxy for the Upper Aquifer. The revised Table 4-8 indicates the total storage change for the Upper Aquifer is 120,000 acre-feet (time period not defined) for the Fresno County GSP area. Per the revised Fresno County GSP, “A GSP specific volume of water was only determined for the Upper Aquifer as FCMA does not pump from the Lower Aquifer [and] thus does not contribute to decline in Lower Aquifer storage.”96 This information does not align with the data provided in the GSP which indicates the cumulative change in storage between 2003-2013 in the Upper Aquifer was zero acre-feet and negative 19,000 acre-feet in the Lower Aquifer (-1,700 acrefeet per year average).97 • Grassland GSP. The Grassland GSP was revised to reflect the continued use of groundwater elevations as a proxy for addressing groundwater storage in the Upper Aquifer and the updated approach to using the sustainable management criteria for subsidence in the Lower Aquifer.98 The GSP continues to state, “Most of the upper aquifer representative monitoring wells have only three years’ worth of groundwater levels and have conflicting temporal measurement periods. None of the lower aquifer representative monitoring wells have adequate historical data to develop a meaningful volumetric minimum threshold…” Change in storge information is provided in the GSP for what is defined as the “Northern Division” and the “Southern Division.”99 During the 1987-1993 drought the loss of storage was estimated to be 12,000 acre-feet per year in the Northern Division and a loss of 6,500 acre-feet per year in the Southern Division. • Northern and Central GSP. The Northern and Central GSP was modified to reflect the revised approach for the Subbasin. The revised GSP states, “This GSP uses the minimum thresholds for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels as a proxy for the reduction of groundwater storage sustainability indicator for the Upper Aquifer, and correlates minimum thresholds for inelastic land subsidence with the reduction in groundwater storage that would case un undesirable result for the Lower Aquifer.”100 The groundwater conditions section of the GSP indicates that “Cumulative change in storage declined more rapidly in the Upper Aquifer compared to the Lower Aquifer, declining by about 830,000 acre-feet (AF) in the 95 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Figures 3-26 and 3-27, pp. 112-113. 96 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.2, p. 177. 97 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.2.2 and Figures 3-27 and 3-28, pp. 111 and 132- 133.
98 Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.4.1.1, p. 187. 99 Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.2.6, pp. 124-125. 100 Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 6.3.2.2, p. 491.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 42 of 47 Upper Aquifer and 160,000 AF in the Lower Aquifer between WY2003 and WY2018.”101
• SJREC GSP. The brief discussion of groundwater storage minimum thresholds in the SJREC GSP has been revised to reflect the changed approach to using groundwater elevations as a proxy for the Upper Aquifer and the minimum thresholds for subsidence in the Lower Aquifer.102 Change in storage information is provide in Appendix I, which organizes data into what were originally identified as management areas and revised to be monitoring zones. 103 The combined decrease in storage from these areas between 2003-2012 was 11,950 acre-feet per year.

Degraded Water Quality
The following briefly describes what was revised in the Subbasin’s six GSPs to address Deficiency 3 as it pertains to degraded water quality.
• Aliso GSP. The original Aliso GSP used minimum thresholds set for electrical conductivity (4.5 dS/m), chloride (13.3 meq/L), and nitrate as nitrogen (30 mg/L) following Food and Agriculture Organization guidelines. The revised GSP now uses only TDS as a minimum threshold at a concentration of 1,000 mg/L. • Farmers GSP. The original Farmers GSP created a water quality management area due to the Steffens Plume and established “an annual rate of degradation of 60 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS) for the saline front.” The original water quality threshold was set in five wells at 1,200 mg/L for TDS – the original Farmers GSP acknowledged that the EPA secondary standard for TDS in drinking water is 500 mg/L, but stated it is a non-enforceable guideline. The amended Farmers GSP eliminated the use of management areas. The revised GSP now uses only TDS as a minimum threshold at a concentration of 1,000 mg/L. • Fresno County GSP. The minimum thresholds for degraded water quality in the original Fresno County GSP were set by two different methods depending on the cause of degraded groundwater. Wells along the west side of the Fresno Sough affected by naturally occurring saline water had values set based on the maximum annual change in TDS concentration, and wells in areas where groundwater quality is affected by the Steffens Plume were set at a fixed concentration of TDS. The revised GSP now uses only TDS as a minimum threshold at a concentration of 1,000 mg/L.
• Grassland GSP. The original Grassland GSP stated, “The minimum threshold for water quality is set to a TDS measurement of 2500 mg/L for all representative 101 Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 5.3.3, p. 330. 102 SJREC GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.2, p. 129. 103 SJREC GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Appendix I and Figure 41, pp. 1009-1012 and 1013.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 43 of 47 monitoring wells in both the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer.” The revised GSP now uses only TDS as a minimum threshold at a concentration of 1,000 mg/L. • Northern and Central GSP. In the original Northern and Central GSP, minimum thresholds for water quality were “set as the upper Secondary MCL for TDS (1,000 mg/L), the Primary MCL for nitrate (10 mg/L as N), and the agricultural WQO for irrigation for boron (0.7 mg/L) or current groundwater quality as of December 2018 for both the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer if the listed MCL or WQO is already exceeded.” The minimum thresholds formerly assigned to the Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer in the Northern and Central GSP for TDS ranged from 1,000 mg/L to 4,000 mg/L. The revised GSP now uses only TDS as a minimum threshold at a concentration of 1,000 mg/L.
• SJREC GSP. In the original SJREC GSP the minimum threshold was simply defined as the amount of poor-quality groundwater that is greater than what can be successfully managed through the management actions. The revised GSP now uses only TDS as a minimum threshold at a concentration of 1,000 mg/L.

Land Subsidence
The following briefly describes what was revised in the Subbasin’s six GSPs to address Deficiency 3 as it pertains to land subsidence.
• Aliso GSP. The Aliso GSP states the land within its GSP area is subsiding at a rate of approximately 0.2 feet per year, which was its original minimum threshold.104 At this rate, which was observed between 2012-2018, the Aliso GSP area could reach two feet of total subsidence in approximately 10 years. Because minimum thresholds for groundwater levels are set at historical lows, it is likely that subsidence in the Aliso GSP area will not stop after 2040. • Farmers GSP. The Farmers GSP discusses subsidence in two ways – compaction of the Upper Aquifer and total subsidence.105 Two of the subsidence monitoring sites (Fordel and Yearout Ranch) measure Upper Aquifer compaction and one site (P304) measures total subsidence. Historical (1999-2018?) amounts of total compaction are reported to range between 0.02 and 0.08 feet. Historical (2004- 2011?) amounts of total subsidence are reported to be 0.3 feet. This information does not necessarily correspond to the data presented on Figures 3-32 through 3- 34 and conflicts with the minimum thresholds set on Table 4-9.106 • Fresno County GSP. The Fresno County GSP takes an approach similar to the Farmers GSP and uses the Fordel and P304 monitoring points.107 104 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.3, p.119. 105 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.2.7, pp. 73-74. 106 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Figures 3-32 to 3-34 and Table 4-9, pp.118-120 and 148. 107 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.3, pp. 179-180.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 44 of 47 • Grassland GSP. The Grassland GSP states that the average subsidence rate in its GSP area between 2011-2017 is 0.075 feet per year.108 The minimum threshold is stated to be two additional feet of subsidence by 2040 and additional details are included in the Common Chapter, not in the Grassland GSP. • Northern and Central GSP. The Northern and Central GSP initially established subsidence management areas. 109 In the WSID-PID Management Area the minimum threshold was set as the acceptable loss in distribution capacity as a result of subsidence resulting from groundwater pumping as based on future capacity study. In the TRID Management Area the minimum threshold was set as four (4) feet additional subsidence compared to 2019 benchmark elevation. In the remaining GSP area, the minimum threshold was set as target rate/goal by monitoring subregion, based on the average 2014-2016 elevation change from recent DMC surveys. Subsidence threshold rates in the original GSP were generally between -0.13 and -0.26 ft/year.
• SJREC GSP. Current and historical subsidence information is presented in an appendix and is still organized by what are now called “monitoring zones” which are rebranded management areas. The SJREC GSP originally did not set a minimum threshold for land subsidence but has indicated that the new threshold is up to two feet of additional subsidence by 2040. The SJREC GSP continues to state that “most, if not all, of the land subsidence observed is a result of groundwater extractions from outside of the SJREC GSA boundary.”110 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water
The following briefly describes what was revised in the Subbasin’s six GSPs to address Deficiency 3 as it pertains to depletions of interconnected surface water. • Aliso GSP. The original Aliso GSP did not establish sustainable management criteria for interconnected surface water because of an existing legal agreement, despite the GSP area being located adjacent to the San Joaquin River. The hydrogeologic conceptual model prepared for the Aliso GSP identified locations in the GSP area where there are direct hydraulic connections between surface water and groundwater. The revised Aliso GSP does not consider interconnected surface water to be an issue and has indicated this sustainability indicator to be a data gap.111 No details are provided in the Aliso GSP regarding the referenced legal agreement.
• Farmers GSP. The original Farmers GSP acknowledged interaction between surface water and groundwater and set a minimum threshold as a gradient 108 Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.4.1.2, pp. 188-189. 109 Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 6.3.5.2 and Table 6-5, pp. 512-514 and 519. 110 SJREC GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.5, p. 131-134. 111 Aliso GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 4.3.7, pp. 122-123.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 45 of 47 between two wells. The Farmers GSP continues to state, “No surface water features are present in FWD, but the SJR flows along its northern boundary.”112 The revised Farmers GSP considers interconnected surface water to be a data gap.
• Fresno County GSP. The Fresno County GSP identifies the Fresno Slough to be interconnected with groundwater and initially set its minimum threshold “based on the historic decline in stage values in the Mendota Pool and Fresno Slough.” The revised Fresno County GSP considers interconnected surface water to be a data gap.113
• Grassland GSP. The Grassland GSP identified a nine-mile long stretch of the San Joaquin River to be in direct hydraulic connection with groundwater and initially proposed to use groundwater elevation as a proxy and stated, “If a twenty percent or greater decrease from the recent historical (2000 to 2019) upper aquifer groundwater level lows are experienced or exceeded at more than fifty percent of the representative monitoring network wells for three consecutive years, then it can be assumed that significant and unreasonable undesirable results have occurred.” The revised Grassland GSP now considers this sustainability indicator to be a data gap.114
• Northern and Central GSP. The original Northern and Central GSP did not establish sustainable management criteria for interconnected surface water despite including detailed information about interconnected surface water systems. The original GSP stated, “At the time of GSP development, there are insufficient data available to set numeric values for minimum thresholds for the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator in a manner that is not subjective.” The revised Northern and Central GSP continues to consider this sustainability indicator as a data gap.115
• SJREC GSP. The original SJREC GSP did not set numerical sustainable management criteria for interconnected surface water but instead set a qualitative minimum threshold which was, “Observed increase in seepage from the San Joaquin River due to groundwater extractions in the SJREC GSP Group area. The SJREC plan to work with the counties to restrict perforating wells above the first encountered restrictive clay layer (near the San Joaquin River) to prevent induced seepage similar to the established operations defined in the Herminghaus Agreement on Reach 2 of the San Joaquin River.” The revised SJREC GSP now considers this sustainability indicator to be a data gap. 116
112 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.2.8, pp. 74-75. 113 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Sections 4.2.5 and 4.3.5, pp. 141-142 and 150-151. 114 Grassland GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Sections 3.2.9 and 4.4.1.1, pp. 130 and 187. 115 Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Sections 5.3.7 and 6.3.6, pp. 384-386 and 523- 526.
116 SJREC GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.3.6, p. 135.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 46 of 47 DEFICIENCY 4: SUMMARY OF PLAN REVISIONS
The following briefly describes what was revised in the Subbasin’s GSPs to address Deficiency 4. No management areas were used in the original Aliso GSP or the Grassland GSP.
• Farmers GSP. The Farmers GSP originally stated, “FWD elected to become a management area for two of the five applicable sustainability indicators, Degraded Water Quality and Interconnected Surface Waters. A management area was created for these sustainability indicators due to their high sensitivity to the management actions of surrounding areas.” In response to the Department’s required corrective action, the Farmers GSP no longer utilizes management areas.
117 As a result, a significant portion of the GSP’s sustainable management criteria components were revised. Because the Farmers GSP was originally structured to be a management area and only covers approximately 0.3 percent of the Subbasin’s total area, Department staff question the appropriateness of this small area having its own GSP, especially since the original Farmers GSP was created “to represent the interest of local landowners within the [Farmers Water] District.”118 Department staff note that with the elimination of management areas, the GSP is now not clear in describing how the GSA will manage water quality or depletions of interconnected surface water, especially since the interconnected surface water sustainability indicator is now identified as a data gap in the Subbasin.
• Fresno County GSP. The Fresno County GSP originally stated, “A management area was created for degraded water quality due to the existing contamination and Regional Board regulatory requirements for the Steffens plume in MAA. A management area for interconnected surface waters for MAB was developed because levels in the Fresno Slough are managed by SJREC, SLDMWA and USBR and not a function of naturally occurring conditions.”119 Most references to management areas within the small (three percent of the Subbasin area) Fresno County GSP were removed. 120 As a result, a significant portion of the GSP’s sustainable management criteria components, previously managed as management areas, were revised and no details were provided as to how Fresno County would manage water quality with the Regional Water Quality Control Board or depletions of interconnected surface water with the other regional entities, especially since the interconnected surface water sustainability indicator is now identified as a data gap in the Subbasin.
• Northern and Central GSP. Previously, two management areas were established for land subsidence in the Northern and Central GSP. The West Stanislaus 117 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.4, pp. 86 and 130-131. 118 Farmers GSP (Revised 2022) (redline) Executive Summary, p. 14. 119 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.4, p. 158. 120 Fresno County GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 3.4, pp. 158-159.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) GSP Assessment Staff Report March 2, 2023
San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.07) California Department of Water Resources
Sustainable Groundwater Management Program Page 47 of 47 Irrigation District and Patterson Irrigation District (WSID-PID) Management Area and the Tranquility Irrigation District (TRID) Management Area were “established to better manage progress toward sustainability through sustainable management criteria for the land subsidence sustainability indicator.” Each of these management areas had their own defined thresholds and measurable objectives and versions of what conditions are considered undesirable results. The management area section and the reasons for creating those management areas have been deleted from the GSP.121
• SJREC GSP. As stated in the revised SJREC GSP, “For the purposes of this plan, the historic reference to management areas originally established in 1997, will now be renamed and in the future referred to as “monitoring zone(s)”.122 The structure of the revised SJREC GSP remains the same but the 11 management areas are now called monitoring zones. Each of the “monitoring zones” still have individual water budgets and customized hydrogeologic conceptual models and basin setting definitions.
121 Northern and Central GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), pp. 452-454. 122 SJREC GSP (Revised 2022) (redline), Section 2.2.4, pp. 113-115.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment 1 DWR Inadequate Determination (CEQA Informational Presentation) City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Bryan Stice, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: April 1, 2025
ITEM NO: 8.1
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-17, of the City Council of the City of Patterson, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”, and the associated Conditions of Approval, over 95.08 Acres of Land, consisting of 506 Lots, one High-Density Parcel, and Multiple Remainder Parcels for Public Dedication, Also Known as the Keystone Ranch Development Area.

RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Adopt Resolution No. 2025-17, approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”, and the associated Conditions of Approval, over 95.08 acres of land, consisting of 506 lots, one high-density parcel, and multiple remainder parcels for public dedication, also known as the Keystone Ranch Development Area.

BACKGROUND
On August 16, 2022, the City of Patterson City Council approved the Zacharias / Baldwin Ranch Master Plan (the “Master Plan”), which comprehensively planned, designed, and prescribed development of residential, commercial, mixed-use, industrial, and public land uses over approximately 1,297 acres, comprising the City’s northern future growth area. At the same meeting, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006032043), for the Zacharias / Baldwin Ranch Master Plan and amended the City of Patterson General Plan land use map to correspond with those land uses established within the Master Plan.

In November 2023, Keystone Ranch, LLC (the “Applicant”) submitted an SB-330 preliminary development, which is further discussed below. The Applicant subsequently filed a tentative map application on April 26, 2024. City staff expressed various concerns of map / plan deficiency and

8.1 Packet Pg. 165
application incompleteness. City staff met in person on multiple occasions with the Applicant and their engineering consultant to collaborate and consider each other’s positions concerning the design of the Project. Keystone representatives were actively involved in the development of the Master Plan, and it was City staff’s hope to reach an agreement with regard to Project features.

In May of 2024, the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (“Stanislaus LAFCO”) recorded a Certificate of Completion formally annexing the Master Plan area into the City of Patterson, culminating several years of deliberations and study to bring the Master Plan area into the City of Patterson.

The Applicant filed another SB-330 preliminary development application in September 2024, followed by another formal development application for Vesting Tentative Maps “A” and “B” with the City over 95.08 acres (the “Site”), with Map “A” creating 12 “maxi-parcels,” and Map “B” creating 506 single-family-residential medium-density lots, one 12.09-acre parcel for highdensity residential development, and multiple remainder parcels for streets, park, drainage, irrigation, utilities, pathways, and other related improvements (collectively, the “Tentative Map”).

On February 20, 2025, the City of Patterson Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a vesting tentative subdivision application to subdivide two parcels (021-023-026, and - 027) totaling approximately 95 acres, on property located along the east side of Baldwin Road north of Keystone Pacific Parkway, into 506 single-family medium-density residential lots, and one approximately 12-acre parcel for high-density residential development of approximately

17.1 units per acre, plus new streets, parks, storm basin, and utility infrastructure (the “Project”).

The location, characteristics, and development of the Project were previously reviewed in the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006032043) for the Zacharias / Baldwin Ranch Master Plan.

In this subdivision application, the applicant has filed two vesting tentative subdivision maps: (1) Map “A” creating 12 “maxi-parcels,” and (2) Map “B” creating the 506 lots described above.

The review and recommendations described in this report apply to both Map “A” and Map “B.” Project Site
The Project site, Assessor Parcel Numbers 021-023-026 and 021-023-027, is bounded by Baldwin Road to the west, a low-density residential subdivision to the south, agriculture to the north, and a Patterson Irrigation District (PID) canal to the east. The current General Plan designation is MR, Medium Density Residential and HR, High Density Residential. The zoning designation is currently Zacharias/Baldwin Ranch Master Plan Area Medium Density Residential and
High Density Residential.

The Project site is currently used for agricultural production situated in an area of transition from urban to rural land uses, located immediately adjacent to the Creekside neighborhood. Park sites within Creekside are indirectly accessible from Cliff Swallow Drive further to the south of the Project. There are no stubbed roadways from the Creekside neighborhood to which the Project

8.1 Packet Pg. 166
would connect. The northwest 12 acres of the Project site is designated for high-density residential development.

8.1 Packet Pg. 167
Tentative Map Overview
The proposed Tentative Map comprises the two following parts:

Map A
Map A would subdivide the site into 12 parcels ranging from 0.23 acres to 17.58 acres. The eight largest parcels are planned as “super pads” that – if approved – could be sold off as preliminarily planned, yet smaller portions of the greater subdivision.

Each super pad was planned by the Applicant to accommodate future residential neighborhoods with access to infrastructure and the roadway identified as “Keystone Ranch Parkway.” Roadway access into the site would be provided off Baldwin Road via Keystone Ranch Parkway.

Future secondary access is illustrated along the site’s northern boundary, although the full rightof-way section is not proposed for construction with this Tentative Map, as discussed more below.

Map B
Map B would subdivide the site into 506 single-family lots with one 12-acre site for high-density housing and includes details of the specific lotting and local roadway plan throughout the site, as well as remainder parcels (“Parcels A through O”). Of these remainder parcels, “Parcel G” is a proposed stormwater basin and labeled as a park; however, no plans are available yet to illustrate park designs.

As to lot design, rectangular and smaller lots predominate the site, ranging from approximately 3,124 square feet to 5,615 square feet. There are 18 larger “radial” lots ranging from 4,913 square feet to 9,675 square feet dispersed throughout the Site, where proposed roadways curve 90 degrees.

Typical lots are between 46 and 54 feet wide, and 80 to 95 feet deep.

Deeper lots ranging from approximately 100-107 feet in depth are planned along the Project’s southern boundary, where it borders similar-sized lots within the Creekside neighborhood.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) SB-330 Preliminary Application
As noted above, the Applicant filed multiple SB-330 “preliminary applications” with the City beginning in 2023. SB 330 was a bill passed in 2019, that enacted and amended a number of California’s housing statutes (including the Housing Accountability Act (codified at Government Code § 65589.5), and the Housing Crisis Act (codified at Government Code § 66300)). SB 330 aims to address the housing crisis in California by streamlining the approval process and limiting local agency discretion when reviewing housing development projects. Specifically, SB 330 intends to limit local governments' ability to reject or delay housing projects, particularly affordable housing.

One effect of the preliminary application filed by the Applicant is that the Tentative Map is subject to the “ordinances, policies, and standards” in effect at the time the preliminary application was submitted. This allows the Applicant to acquire a form of early vested rights, so they can proceed under the rules in effect at the time of filing the preliminary application. SB 330 also functions by limiting the City’s discretion to deny a project if it otherwise complies with applicable objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards. (Government Code § 65589.5.) However, SB 330 does enable cities to enact policies, standards and other measures beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted when necessary to: 1) mitigate or avoid a specific adverse impact on the public health or safety or 2) to substantially lessen an impact of the project under CEQA.

As further described in this report, there are several areas of concern with the Tentative Map application that City staff identified and discussed with the Applicant in an effort to reach consensus on specific design and subdivision features. The Applicant elected to move forward with its application as presented to the Planning Commission and now to the City Council for approval.

Staff Recommendation and Issues Identified with the Tentative Map Application City staff is responsible for evaluating the Tentative Map and related infrastructure in relation to applicable plans and standards, the findings required under the Subdivision Map Act, impacts to Citywide facilities and infrastructure systems, and potential liabilities that accompany the application.

During the application review and processing, staff documented its concerns with the design of the Tentative Map and lack of accompanying application materials. At the Applicant’s request, the application moved forward to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Tentative Map as conditioned, and despite the preferred items of staff not included in this Tentative Map, staff is also recommending approval of the Tentative Map.

The Master Plan was a substantial action taken by the Planning Commission and City Council to expand the City’s boundaries and accommodate further residential and industrial development, in accordance with the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan. Although staff identified specific design and subdivision features it would have preferred with this application, this is the first tentative map filed to advance development of the Master Plan. The Tentative Map involves new development of medium-density and high-density housing and includes the park site designated in the Master Plan. Despite the points of concern highlighted below, this application is a substantial step toward the buildout of the Master Plan.

In addition, considering the Master Plan will be implemented by four major developers, the

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) required backbone infrastructure must be phased appropriately (including the ultimate sewer and storm drainage connections as required in the Master Plan). Conditions of approval are included to address the infrastructure requirements of Keystone’s development area in relation to buildout of the entire Master Plan.

Roadway Access
Absent permission from the landowner to the north, access into the Site would be available solely through Keystone Ranch Parkway. Keystone Ranch Parkway is the interior collector that runs eastwest through the Site. If the Applicant is unable to construct its portion of “Collector F-F,” the Applicant’s entire Project would funnel through Keystone Ranch Parkway only, giving rise to traffic burden concerns on the nearest Baldwin Road.

City staff has requested, though not received, a written statement or permission from the neighboring landowner to the north as to their willingness to allow construction of “Collector FF.” At this time, staff is unaware of any legal access that might be available to the Applicant to construct the proposed segment of “Collector F-F.”
Roadway Safety
In addition, City staff believes that the lots fronting Keystone Ranch Parkway, closest to Baldwin Road present an increase in risk to safety of children. The western-most segments of Keystone Ranch Parkway will incur the highest volumes of traffic. A different design with lots, not facing Keystone Ranch Parkway could have reduced this risk. This is further compounded by the lack of demonstrated secondary access into the Site, as discussed above.

As stated, “Collector F-F” is planned for construction by the Applicant, but not actually under the ownership of the Applicant. The timing of that secondary access could therefore linger for years following potential buildout of the Project. As a result, staff advocated that driveways not front this portion of Keystone Ranch Parkway to avoid potential circulation difficulties.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) Lot Dimensions and Blocks
There are at least 24 corner lots that are less than the 4,900-square-foot minimum lot size as required by the Master Plan development standards (see Table 1 in the Master Plan). The Planning Commission or City Council may allow a smaller lot size, however.

Blocks proposed within the Tentative Map are arranged rectangularly and around cul-de-sacs.

According to the Master Plan (see Table 1 in the Master Plan), maximum block lengths are allowed up to 400 feet in length. However, as shown below, at least six of the proposed blocks exceed this development standard maximum, at 500 to over 1000 feet in length.

Housing Diversity
The Master Plan requires diverse housing types to accommodate different lifestyles, household sizes, ages, and income levels, particularly in the medium-density areas.

87.4% of the Keystone Ranch Planning Area is designated for medium-density residential development. The Tentative Map plans illustrate only one standard lot type for the medium-density planning areas, which will take the form of single-family homes. The standard lots are unlikely to achieve the desired diversity of housing types in the medium-density areas of the Master Plan.

Transitioning / Interfacing with Ranchettes to the East The Tentative Map does not include context-sensitive transition areas that preserve existing and proposed uses, including the proposed residential to existing ranchettes to the east. Over 50% of

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) the Project area adjacent to the planned paseo does not provide an open land area. The Master Plan envisioned the area between the Ivy Rose Planning Area and the adjacent development areas to be a transition area, which extends beyond the area of only the planned paseo. The area between the Ivy Rose Development Area and the Keystone Ranch Development Area was intended to be developed as a transition area in compliance with this standard. The Tentative Map proposes to develop this area as standard residential lots directly abutting the paseo, which conflicts with the required transition area.

Treatment of Greenways and Open Spaces
Master Plan Section 2.2.A.4.a requires that where neighborhoods face open spaces, including parks and greenways, structures (housing) shall be oriented towards common open spaces in order to provide “eyes on the space.” “Homes backing on to open spaces should be avoided wherever possible...”
Most of the Tentative Map area immediately adjacent to the paseo would not be developed with homes facing towards the paseo (as the Master Plan calls for) but would be constructed facing away from the paseo and facing the interior roadways, which is contrary to this design standard.

Limited / Minimal Frontage Roadway Along the Planned Paseo The Tentative Map does not provide a local street paralleling the paseo, as envisioned within Section 2.2.A.4.c and Section 2.7.E of the Master Plan. Although the Master Plan does allow for an alternative, the parallel street was staff’s preferred design. Less than 50% of the Tentative Map’s paseo frontage features a parallel street, as envisioned by the Master Plan. Staff was supportive of a frontage road along the paseo during the application process.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) Insufficient Road Right-of-Way
The Tentative Map proposes a 46’ Right-of-Way for “Collector F-F,” as illustrated on Sheets 3 and 4 of the Vesting Tentative Map. This right-of-way design is not a recognized street section in the Master Plan. The required right-of-way section is supposed to be at least 58 feet (see Section

3.7 of the Master Plan).

Roadway Encroaching into PID Paseo Area
The Tentative Map as designed encroaches onto PID property and the planned paseo (as shown on Sheets 1 and 4 of the Tentative Map). “Street 14 (D-D)” of the Tentative Map encroaches into PID’s canal right-of-way, which will be undergrounded and become the planned paseo. The encroachment would limit the full width of the paseo in this area. Also, in written correspondence received from PID (dated January 6, 2025), PID will not allow a roadway or roundabout located on PID property.

Site and Architecture Planning Application Not Included In Section 6.1.E. of the Master Plan, design / site plan review and architectural elements were contemplated to happen concurrently with submittal of each subdivision. The Planning Commission may defer review of architectural elements of proposed homes to a later stage of the process, however, in accordance with established design review procedures.

The Applicant did not file an architectural and site plan review application and accompanying materials for a planned development. The Master Plan contemplated that such applications would occur together to better enable the City to ensure that all stages of development would follow the requirements of the Master Plan (including roadway standards, design standards, parks and open

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) space, development of the paseos, inclusionary housing, and housing diversity.) Without architectural and site plan review at this stage, staff and the City’s legislative bodies are limited in evaluating how this area will develop consistent with the Master Plan.

No Plans for Masonry Wall, Parks, or Paseo
Plans were not provided upfront by the Applicant for the sound wall/masonry wall required along Baldwin Road, the park site, or the paseo. Staff would prefer to have plans for development of these improvements and amenities presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, instead of having plan review occur later during construction at an administrative level.

Realignment of Street 1 and Street 6A
Street 1 (D-D) is the local street in the Tentative Map located just east of Baldwin Road. Staff would have preferred to see this street moved west toward the center of Parcel K (planned for highdensity development), to avoid traffic entering Keystone Ranch Parkway so close to Baldwin Road.

Staff also would have preferred Street 6A to have a more perpendicular alignment with Parcel J, which will be dedicated to the City.

Conditions of Approval
When reviewing a vesting tentative map, the City can impose specific conditions of approval that a developer must comply with to obtain final map approval and proceed with development. These conditions align with state laws, local zoning ordinances, and public safety requirements. The proposed conditions help balance the interests of Applicant with public concerns about safety, infrastructure, and environmental protection. The proposed conditions of approval for the Tentative Map address the standard requirements for construction of residential projects, as well as the necessary mitigation to avoid adverse impacts on the public health and safety and to lessen the impact of the Project under CEQA.

Temporary Sewer Connection
The Master Plan provides that all development in the Zacharias development area will eventually be connected to the North Patterson Trunk Sewer Line (Master Plan, Section 5.5.A). The Master Plan provides that the initial sewer connection for the Keystone Ranch Development Area, will be a temporary connection, routed through Vicki Lynn Lane and connecting into the existing sewer line on M Street. In between Roxanne Drive and Salado Creek, there is an existing 10-inch sewer line that runs through two private parcels (418 Roxanne Drive and 412 Roxanne Drive). The Master Plan had previously envisioned that this line would need to be upsized to a 12-inch diameter sewer line and extended along Salado Creek; however, following field verification and subsequent discussions with the developer, it is now confirmed that the existing 10-inch sewer line will be used without construction of new pipeline segments through private parcels or beneath Salado Creek. This connection will remain temporary until the North Patterson Trunk Sewer (“NTPS”) is constructed, at which point connection to the NPTS will be required and the temporary line will be disconnected.

In accordance with the City’s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (“SSMP”), City staff has conducted a detailed evaluation of the proposed temporary connection. With the understanding that no new infrastructure will be constructed beneath Salado Creek, or adjacent private property,

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) previous concerns related to excavation, easements, and creekbank stability have been removed from the City’s analysis. Current staff concerns are focused solely on verifying the capacity of the existing system, ensuring flow-based monitoring, and establishing operational safeguards to protect the public sewer system.

The hydraulic capacity of the existing 10-inch sewer line has not been validated through real-time flow monitoring or field-calibrated modeling. While preliminary, desktop-level analyses suggest that the line may be able to accommodate interim flows, the City cannot base long-term service decisions on assumed conditions or pipe diameter alone.

There is currently no verifiable data confirming that the existing system can support all 1,182 units through a temporary connection. The City’s primary concern is inadvertently validating full buildout capacity based on a high-level estimate—only to later encounter real-world constraints that lead to downstream backups, sanitary sewer overflows, or regulatory violations, with no enforceable mechanism to halt additional connections. To avoid this outcome, capacity determinations must be based on actual monitored flows. Triggers must be established—such as a defined threshold of system loading (e.g., 70% capacity)—to ensure that development phasing aligns with real infrastructure performance. This will allow the City to retain control over future connections and ensure that any decision to use the temporary connection remains data-driven, protective of public health, and consistent with SSMP compliance.

It is recommended that the applicant be required to proceed with the following conditions as part of any temporary sewer service arrangement:
• Pre-construction condition assessment and cleaning of the sewer line to verify structural integrity and unobstructed capacity.
• Installation of flow monitoring equipment to measure real-time peak and average flows during early development phases.
• Update of the City’s hydraulic model using monitored data to evaluate cumulative system impacts downstream of Vicki Lynn Lane and M Street.
• Establishment of a flow-based capacity threshold (e.g., 70% of peak hydraulic capacity) beyond which no further development may connect to the line without constructing the permanent NPTS connection.
• Regular reporting and monitoring coordination to track load impacts as units are added over time. This will allow both the city and developer to monitor the capacity and plan accordingly. This is recommended to be done with a third, neutral, party for transparency.

Additionally, City staff has identified that the dead-end segment of the existing line on Vicki Lynn Lane may be susceptible to overcharging during peak lift station operation. This condition must be closely monitored and factored into the hydraulic model.

These requirements are intended to ensure that the temporary connection can be utilized safely and within operational limits, without compromising downstream infrastructure or violating the City’s SSMP obligations. Should any of the above conditions indicate that the system is approaching capacity, the Applicant will be responsible for implementing or funding the necessary improvements—either by accelerating the NPTS connection or other mitigation measures approved by the City. The applicant should be regularly informed of the current capacity so they can responsibly plan for the eventual stop order, at capacity.

To address the concerns associated with private ownership rights and access to the sewer line, the Applicant will be required to obtain the necessary permissions from affected landowners for the construction and long-term operation of the improvements. City shall have no obligation to initiate condemnation of the necessary easements, or property acquisitions to allow the improvements to

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) proceed. If condemnation by the City is required to allow the construction and long-term operation of the sewer line improvements, the City may refuse to initiate condemnation and decide not to accept or operate the improvements.

This approach preserves flexibility for interim development while upholding the City’s responsibility to protect public health, environmental quality, and long-term infrastructure integrity.

Compliance with CEQA Settlement Agreement
On September 19, 2022, Patterson Irrigation District (“PID”) and West Stanislaus Irrigation District (“WSID”) filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City’s approval of the Master Plan EIR. During the time this lawsuit has been pending, the City has needed to address significant changes in state law pertaining to water management. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) requires local groundwater sustainability agencies (“GSAs”) in the state’s high and medium priority basins to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (“GSPs”) or alternatives to GSPs. These GSPs and Alternatives provide roadmaps for how groundwater basins will reach long-term sustainability.

PID, WSID, and the City have been working on GSP updates with the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”), and with the other GSAs in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin pursuant to SGMA’s state intervention proceedings following DWR’s determination that the existing Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSPs were “Inadequate”. However, it wasn’t until the updated GSP terms regarding groundwater pumping reduction targets were formulated that the parties could meaningfully discuss settlement provisions.

Following the updates of the GSP in 2014, the City, PID and WSID discussed settlement provisions regarding implementation of the Master Plan consistent with the new requirements under the 2024 GSP. One key issue with the legal challenge to the sufficiency of the Master Plan EIR under CEQA was that the 2024 GSP altered the presumption underlying the EIR. The revised GSP could require an existing EIR to be supplemented with a Supplemental EIR (“SEIR”) that addresses those changes. However, this would delay any pending projects until an SEIR could be prepared, which includes the Keystone Ranch Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. As an alternative, the City worked with PID and WSID to agree on settlement agreement terms which obligated the City to enforce the Master Plan EIR in a way that was consistent with the 2024 GSP and which avoided additional environmental impacts beyond those addressed in the EIR.

The Settlement Agreement was executed on March 18, 2025, and includes the following terms regarding implementation of the Master Plan EIR:
• The City will require developers of the Master Plan Area to fully fund and construct the Del Puerto Creek Capture and Recharge Project (“Recharge Project”) before building permits are issued for the Master Plan Project (Settlement Agreement, hereinafter “Settlement Agreement,” section 4(A)(i).);
• Developers must purchase surface water deliveries for the Recharge Project to offset the increased water demands of their projects (Settlement Agreement section 4(A)(ii).);

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) • The City will use its best efforts to ensure completion of the Recharge Project by 2030 (consistent with the timeline for the 2024 GSP’s pumping reduction targets) (Settlement Agreement section 4(A)(iii).);
• The City will recharge the total amount of purchased and delivered surface water to meet increase in demand on basin from new development, including the Master Plan Project (Settlement Agreement section 4(A)(iv).); and
• The City will require all development projects which increase potable water demand to contribute to an evaluation of revisions to the existing storm drain system to divert the captured storm water for recharge (Settlement Agreement section 4(B).).

These Settlement Agreement terms allow the City to continue permitting additional development projects, while maintaining compliance with the 2024 GSP’s pumping reduction targets and implementation of the Recharge Project and the Low-Reliance on Groundwater Water Portfolio.

Consistent with the City’s obligations under the Settlement Agreement, the following terms were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map to ensure compliance with the 2024 GSP, and avoid additional environmental impacts:
• The Applicant is subject to the City’s implementation of the 2024 GSP; • The Applicant is responsible for its fair share obligation for the funding of the Recharge Project;
• The Recharge Project must be funded and constructed prior to the issuance of building permits;
• The Applicant must purchase surface water to offset the water demands of the development; and
• The Applicant must contribute funding to an evaluation of existing stormwater infrastructure associated with the Black Gulch drainage area for potential recapture and recharge.

Transportation Fees
Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a through TRANS-1z in the EIR identify specific infrastructure improvements, including improvements at several main intersections, that are necessary to address the Master Plan’s significant traffic impacts. As provided in the EIR, the costs associated with these infrastructure improvement are contemplated for inclusion in a community facilities district or other financing mechanism. Several of the identified infrastructure improvements included in Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a through TRANS-1z are outside the City’s jurisdiction. Those improvements would be subject to Stanislaus County or Caltrans oversight for implementation.

Where that is the case, as noted in the EIR, the City would transfer the fees collected as part of the mitigation measures to the County or Caltrans subject to an agreement with that agency.

Separate and apart from the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the City also administers a Regional Traffic Impact Fee under the Patterson Municipal Code. That impact fee program is a

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) one-time charge for new development that the City collects to address the cost of impacts on capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new development. Included in that fee are road improvements that are necessary to serve the project. These fees are not duplicative of the ones identified in the EIR. Rather, they are necessary to ensure that new development continues to pay its fair share of its impact to the City.

For example, the 2024 Regional Traffic Impact Fee Study, which was completed as part of the City’s Regional Traffic Impact Fee program, identifies improvement of a 2.65-mile segment of Baldwin Road between Keystone Pacific Way and State Route 33 for inclusion in the costs underlying the Regional Traffic Impact Fee. Meanwhile in the EIR, Mitigation Measure TRANS1l requires that project applicants pay their fair share fees for the improvements to the intersection of Baldwin Road / Zacharias Road. The costs associated with the Mitigation Measure TRANS-1l are contemplated for inclusion in a community facilities district or other financing mechanism.

The costs associated with the improvements to the 2.65-mile segment of Baldwin Road between Keystone Pacific Way and State Route 33 are included in the City’s Regional Traffic Impact Fee program and would not necessarily be included in a community facilities district or other financing mechanism.

To ensure that the project addresses both the requirements under the EIR through the Mitigation Measures and the City’s requirements under its Regional Traffic Impact Fee program, the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map include the following conditions:
• As part of the project’s requirement to comply with the MMRP and the EIR, prior to recordation of the final map, the Applicant and the City shall establish a Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism to fund the required transportation improvements for the Master Plan. Applicant shall be responsible for its fair share of the costs for the necessary improvements at the time building permits are sought, through participation in the Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism. This includes, but is not limited to, paying for the project’s fair share of traffic mitigation in accordance with Transportation Mitigation Measures 1a through 1z. • The project shall be subject to fair share traffic improvement impact fees as outlined in the traffic study and EIR mitigation measures
• The Applicant shall pay all appropriate fees due prior to recordation of each final map • The Applicant shall pay all applicable AB 1600 impact fees charged by the City to new development, except as modified in accordance with the SB-330 preliminary application filed by the Applicant on September 11, 2024, or by other agreement executed between the City and the Applicant.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Chapter 18.86 of Patterson’s Municipal Code was passed in 2013. The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (“Ordinance”) requires at least 15% of all newly constructed dwellings in a residential project to be sold or rented to very low income, low income, and moderate incomes. If the Planning Director determines onsite units are infeasible, a developer may apply for one of the following equivalencies: (1) off-site affordable housing or rehabilitation of substandard units; (2) dedication of land for affordable housing; or in exceptional cases, (3) payment of an in-lieu fee where inclusionary housing, offsite housing, rehabilitation or dedication of land for affordable housing is infeasible.

A developer’s application for equivalency must show (1) why compliance with the inclusionary percentage is financially or otherwise infeasible and (2) how the equivalency furthers affordable

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) housing in the City to an equal or greater extent than compliance with the on-site affordability requirements. All findings must be memorialized in a resolution adopted by the City Council that documents the reasons and support for infeasibility and how the equivalency will further, affordable housing to an equal or greater extent.

Of further significance, the City has submitted its 6th Cycle Housing Element Submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The Keystone Ranch Development Area is included in the site inventory for the City’s updated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Without specific information about how this Tentative Map will comply with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, the City is unable to make no-net loss findings, as required by Housing Element Law (Government Code § 65863), to ensure and maintain a sufficient supply of adequate sites in its Housing Element at all times throughout the planning period to meet City’s RHNA.

To date, the Applicant has failed to include in its application, communication, or correspondence with the City a demonstration of how the Project will comply with Chapter 18.86. As required by the Master Plan, the inclusionary housing plan is required at the time of the Subdivision Map and does not provide for deferral to site plan / architectural review. The Application is devoid of the 15% requirement and for that matter, any delineation of affordable units that will be constructed, sold or rented to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Accordingly, the Planning Commission has conditioned the Applicant’s Tentative Map Approval on the documentation of compliance with Chapter 18.86.

FINDINGS
Despite the concerns pertaining to the Tentative Map described in this report, staff is recommending approval of the Tentative Map. By the filing of an SB-330 preliminary application, the City’s discretion to deny or condition the Tentative Map is limited. Further review of the development would occur with subsequent application filings, including compliance with the inclusionary housing ordinance and the site plan / architecture review.

The following findings for approval are included in the resolution:

1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.

The planned uses, lots, roadway layout, and improvements of the Tentative Map are overall consistent with the standards of the Master Plan, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

The design of the Tentative Map and public improvements described therein are consistent with the standards of the Master Plan, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The Tentative Map has been comprehensively planned and evaluated under the Master Plan and Final EIR. All mitigation measures under the Final EIR will apply to development of the Site.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”)

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The Tentative Map has been comprehensively planned and evaluated under the Master Plan and Final EIR. This Tentative Map Application only involves the review and approval of the Tentative Map. Future development of the lots will be subject to the standards of the General Plan, Master Plan, Patterson Municipal Code, and all other requirements, as may be applicable.

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The Tentative Map has been comprehensively planned and evaluated under the Master Plan and Final EIR. All mitigation measures under the Final EIR will apply to development of the Site.

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

The Tentative Map has been comprehensively planned and evaluated under the Master Plan and Final EIR. All mitigation measures under the Final EIR will apply to development of the Site.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

There is no conflict with public easements for access through or use of the site.

Upon undergrounding of the Patterson Irrigation Canal (PID), PID will retain all necessary easements for operation of the canal.

Further, regarding the temporary sewer connection along Roxanne Drive and N. 4th Street (described in Section 5.5.A of the Master Plan), the Applicant will be responsible for acquisition of the necessary easements for construction and long-term operation of the sewer line, if necessary. The City shall have no obligation to initiate condemnation of the area required for construction and operation of the planned sewer improvements.

8. That as required through the Conditions of Approval, the Applicant shall be required to design and install the temporary sewer connection along Roxanne Drive and N. 4th Street (described in Section 5.5.A of the Master Plan) in order to mitigate or avoid impacts on public health and safety by providing adequate and necessary sewer lines to connect to the site and that there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid adverse impacts

9. That as required through the Conditions of Approval and pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(2)(C), the interpretation and application of the Final EIR is subject to the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement and that such interpretation and application is necessary in order to find that the Project is fully within the scope of the Final EIR, and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines § 15162 have occurred which would require

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) the preparation of a subsequent environmental document.

10. That as required through the Conditions of Approval and pursuant to Government Code § 65589.5(o)(2)(C), the interpretation and application of the Final EIR subject to the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement is further necessary in order to avoid or substantially lessen impacts of the project under CEQA.

11. That as required through the Conditions of Approval and pursuant to Government Code § 65589.5(o)(2)(C), the Project must be subject to the requirements of the 2024 GSP as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/CEQA COMPLIANCE
An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 018122052) (“EIR”) was prepared and certified for the Master Plan in August 2022. The EIR concluded that buildout of the area could result in a number of significant adverse impacts. All development in the Master Plan is subject to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the EIR.

The proposed Project was reviewed for consistency with the EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15168. CEQA Guidelines § 15162 provides that no further review is required under CEQA when there are no new or more severe environmental impacts caused by substantial changes in the project, substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and/or new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time of EIR certification.

The Tentative Map implements a residential subdivision contemplated under the Master Plan. The uses, design, and improvements under the Tentative Map are overall consistent with the Master Plan. There are no substantial changes to the Master Plan being proposed. The Tentative Map has been reviewed and the map, as conditioned through the Conditions of Approval to address significant impacts related to water, wastewater, and transportation, is within the scope of the Final EIR (SCH#: 2018122052), with accompanying findings regarding Significant Environmental Impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program applicable to development of the Zacharias /Baldwin Rach Master Plan area.

Based on that review, staff determined that the Project, as conditioned through the Conditions of Approval and the MMRP to address significant impacts that would result from the Tentative Map, is within the scope of the EIR.

FISCAL IMPACT
This item will include minor administrative costs similar to other public hearings, but implementation of the required Conditions of Approval will be the responsibility of the Applicant.

ATTACHMENTS
City Council Resolution No. 2025-17
Conditions of Approval

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Approving Vesting Tentative Maps (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPS “A” AND “B” OVER 95.08 ACRES OF LAND, CONSISTING OF 506 LOTS, ONE HIGH-DENSITY PARCEL, AND

MULTIPLE REMAINDER PARCELS FOR PUBLIC DEDICATION,

ALSO KNOWN AS THE KEYSTONE RANCH DEVELOPMENT AREA
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, the City of Patterson (“City”) City Council adopted Resolution 2022-60 approving the Zacharias / Baldwin Ranch Master Plan (the “Master Plan”), which comprehensively planned, designed, and prescribed development of residential, commercial, mixed-use, industrial, and public dedication land uses over approximately 1,297 acres, comprising the City’s northernmost future growth area; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, the City of Patterson City Council adopted Resolution 2022-62, certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) (SCH#: 2018122052), with accompanying findings regarding Significant Environmental Impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program applicable to development of the Master Plan area, and in support of its eventual annexation; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2023, Keystone Ranch, LLC (the “Applicant”) filed a Senate Bill (“SB”) 330 Preliminary Application with the City, prior to a formal annexation of the Master Plan area into City limits; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2024, the Applicant filed an application with the City, for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map over 95.08 acres (APNs: 021-023-026, 021-023-027), for 503 single-family-residential medium-density lots, one parcel designated for high-density residential dwellings, and multiple remainder parcels for streets, park, drainage, irrigation, pathways, and related improvements; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2024, the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (“Stanislaus LAFCO”) recorded a Certificate of Completion formally annexing the Master Plan area into the City; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2024, the City delivered a Letter of Incompleteness to the Applicant indicating specific deficiencies with the project application filed, including incomplete application materials and inconsistencies with various City requirements and standards; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2024, the Applicant filed another SB 330 Preliminary Application with the City; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2024, the Applicant filed an application for Vesting Tentative Maps “A” and “B” with the City over 95.08 acres (APNs: 021-023-026, 021-023-027) (hereafter, the “Site”), with Map “A” creating 12 lots, and Map “B” creating 506 single-family-residential medium-density lots, one 12.09-acre parcel for high-density residential development, and multiple remainder parcels for streets, park, drainage, irrigation, pathways and other related improvements (collectively, the “Tentative Map”); and

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-17 Vesting Tentative Map - Keystone Ranch (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative WHEREAS, City staff conducted a thorough analysis of the Tentative Map, and evaluated it for compliance with the City’s General Plan, the Master Plan, the Patterson Municipal Code, the Patterson Zoning Code, Patterson’s Subdivision Ordinance, and other applicable laws, regulations, and standards; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2024, City staff deemed the Tentative Map application complete; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed the Tentative Map application to other responsible agencies to solicit their comments as required under the Subdivision Map Act and the Patterson Municipal Code, which are hereby incorporated into the record of proceedings; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Tentative Map application for recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-01, recommending the City Council approve the Tentative Map Application along with enumerated conditions of approval (the “Conditions of Approval”); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Subdivision Map Act § 66474, the legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.

This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-17 Vesting Tentative Map - Keystone Ranch (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative WHEREAS, the City hereby finds that none of the conditions described in Government Code § 66474 exist, subject to the Applicant’s compliance with the Conditions of Approval attached and incorporated hereto, and that the findings can be made for conditional approval of the Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) declares that the people of the state have a primary interest in the protection and management of water resources and that properly managed groundwater resources will help protect communities, and mandates the sustainable management of groundwater resources through the development and implementation of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (“GSP”) (Water Code §10720 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the City and the Site are located within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin which is designated as a critically-over drafted groundwater basin, by the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), and therefore required to be sustainably managed by a GSP pursuant to SGMA; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR relied upon the 2022 Delta-Mendota North-Central GSP (“2022 GSP”), which was in effect at the time the Final EIR was being prepared, in evaluating the following hydrologic impacts associated with the Master Plan:

Impact HYD-2: Would buildout of the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact HYD-5: Buildout of the Master Plans would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan; and WHEREAS, the Department of Water Resources adopted regulations for the evaluation of GSPs, which the California Legislature has declared to be “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, or general welfare” (Water Code § 10733.2); and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2023, DWR issued a statement of factual findings and determination that, pursuant to DWR regulations for the evaluation of GSPs, that the Plan for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, including the 2022 GSP, was “Inadequate” and initiated state intervention proceedings pursuant to Water Code § 10735 et seq.; and WHEREAS, in an effort to avoid the Delta-Mendota Subbasin being placed on Probationary Status pursuant to Water Code § 10735.2(a) an updated, single GSP was developed for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin and adopted in 2024 (the “2024 GSP”); and WHEREAS, the 2024 GSP, compared to the 2022 GSP, introduced additional and updated measures for achieving sustainable management, including a basin-wide pumping reduction plan which requires the basin to reduce groundwater pumping by 42,000 acre feet per year (“AFY”), by 2030 to achieve sustainable conditions based on historical overdraft; and

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-17 Vesting Tentative Map - Keystone Ranch (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2024 GSP, the City will be required to implement the following measures:
(1) Effective January 1, 2025, the City is responsible for implementing the pumping reduction pumping plan by incrementally reducing its groundwater pumping from the lower aquifer by 92 AFY in 2025 and increasing that reduction to 460 AFY by 2030. (2) Construction of a Recharge Basin Facility to capture stormwater and recharge it to the lower aquifer to offset groundwater pumping.
(3) Implementation of Supply Portfolio No. 4 from City’s 2018 Water Management Plan which achieves a low reliance on groundwater through purchase of a long-term surface water transfer agreement, conservation efforts, the Recharge Basin Facility, and use of recycled water for non-potable reuse; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was the subject of litigation in Patterson Irrigation District, et al. v. City of Patterson, et al. Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. 23CV028091) in which petitioners challenged the Final EIR’s analysis of the Master Plan’s increased groundwater demand, its consistency with the GSP, and the adequacy of the hydrologic impacts; and WHEREAS, a settlement agreement for Patterson Irrigation District, et al. v. City of Patterson, et al. was executed by the City on March 18, 2025 (“Settlement Agreement”), and said Settlement Agreement requires the City to implement the Master Plan and the Final EIR as follows:
• The City will require developers of the Master Plan Area to fully fund and construct the Del Puerto Creek Capture and Recharge Project (“Recharge Project”) before building permits are issued for the Master Plan Project (Settlement Agreement, hereinafter “Settlement Agreement,” section 4(A)(i).);
• Developers must purchase surface water deliveries for the Recharge Project to offset the increased water demands of their projects (Settlement Agreement section 4(A)(ii).); • The City will use best efforts to ensure completion of the Recharge Project by 2030 (consistent with the timeline for the 2024 GSP’s pumping reduction targets) (Settlement Agreement section 4(A)(iii).);
• The City will recharge the total amount of purchased and delivered surface water to meet increase in demand on basin from new development in the City, including the Master Plan Project (Settlement Agreement section 4(A)(iv).);
• The City will require all development projects which increase potable water demand to contribute to an evaluation of revisions to the existing storm drain system to divert the captured storm water for recharge (Settlement Agreement section 4(B).); and WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement terms and corresponding 2024 GSP requirements have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval; and

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-17 Vesting Tentative Map - Keystone Ranch (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative WHEREAS, the California Legislature has declared that properly managed groundwater resources will help protect communities and that DWR’s regulations regarding GSP sufficiency are necessary for the protection of health and safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the Tentative Map has been reviewed, and the map as conditioned through the Conditions of Approval to address significant impacts related to water, wastewater, and transportation, is within the scope of the Final EIR (SCH#: 2018122052), with accompanying findings regarding Significant Environmental Impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program applicable to development of the Zacharias /Baldwin Rach Master Plan area.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, based on its independent review, analysis, oral and written testimony, and all documents and materials in the record, and after due study and deliberation, hereby approves Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 2024-01 (Keystone Ranch), consisting of Vesting Tentative Maps “A” and “B” attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit B, based on the following findings:

1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.

The planned uses, lots, roadway layout, and improvements of the Tentative Map are overall consistent with the standards of the Master Plan, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

The design of the Tentative Map and public improvements described therein are consistent with the standards of the Master Plan, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The Tentative Map has been comprehensively planned and evaluated under the Master Plan and Final EIR. All mitigation measures under the Final EIR, and as set forth in the conditions of approval will apply to development of the site.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The Tentative Map has been comprehensively planned and evaluated under the Master Plan and Final EIR. This Tentative Map Application only involves the review and approval of the Tentative Map. Future development of the lots will be subject to the standards of the General Plan, Master Plan, Patterson Municipal Code, state laws and regulations, and all other requirements, as may be applicable.

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The Tentative Map has been comprehensively planned and evaluated under the Master Plan and Final EIR. All mitigation measures under the Final EIR, and as set forth in the conditions of approval will apply to development of the site.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-17 Vesting Tentative Map - Keystone Ranch (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

The Tentative Map has been comprehensively planned and evaluated under the Master Plan and Final EIR. All mitigation measures under the Final EIR, and the conditions necessary to address serious public health concerns related to groundwater as set forth in the Conditions of Approval will apply to development of the site.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

There is no conflict with public easements for access through or use of the site.

Upon undergrounding of the Patterson Irrigation Canal (PID), PID will retain all necessary easements for operation of the canal.

Further, regarding the temporary sewer connection along Roxanne Drive and N. 4th Street (described in Section 5.5.A the Master Plan), the Applicant will be responsible for acquisition of the necessary easements for construction and long-term operation of the sewer line. The City shall have no obligation to initiate condemnation of the area required for construction and operation of the planned sewer improvements.

8. That as required through the Conditions of Approval and pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(2)(C), the City finds that interpretation and application of the Final EIR is subject to the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement and that such interpretation and application is necessary in order to find that the Project is fully within the scope of the Final EIR, and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines § 15162 have occurred which would require the preparation of a subsequent environmental document.

9. That as required through the Conditions of Approval and pursuant to Government Code § 65589.5(o)(2)(C) the City hereby finds that interpretation and application of the Final EIR subject to the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement is further necessary in order to avoid or substantially lessen impacts of the project under CEQA.

10. That as required through the Conditions of Approval and pursuant to Government Code § 65589.5(o)(2)(C), the Project must be subject to the requirements of the 2024 GSP as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson held on the 1st day of April 2025, by ______________, who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by __________________, and it was upon roll call carried and the resolution adopted by the following roll call vote:

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-17 Vesting Tentative Map - Keystone Ranch (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative AYES:

NOES:

EXCUSED:

APPROVED:

Michael Clauzel
Mayor of the City of Patterson
ATTEST:

Aracely Alegre
City Clerk of the City of Patterson
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, correct and true copy of a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Patterson, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Stanislaus, State of California, at a regular meeting held on the 1 st day of April 2025, and I further certify
that said resolution is in full force and effect and has never been rescinded or modified.

DATED:
______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Patterson

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-17 Vesting Tentative Map - Keystone Ranch (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative

EXHIBIT A
Vesting Tentative Maps “A” and “B”

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-17 Vesting Tentative Map - Keystone Ranch (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative

EXHIBIT B
Conditions of Approval

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Resolution No. 2025-17 Vesting Tentative Map - Keystone Ranch (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative

1 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Keystone Ranch Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps “A” and “B”

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. The development of the project shall be in accordance with the approved Tentative Map, as modified by these conditions.

2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Patterson which shall specify the improvements to be installed to serve the applicable phase of the development, in accordance with the approved improvement phasing plan.

3. The Applicant shall pay all applicable AB 1600 impact fees charged by the City to new development, except as modified in accordance with the SB-330 preliminary application filed by the Applicant on September 11, 2024, or by other agreement executed between the City and the Applicant.

4. The project shall be subject to the then-applicable impact fees of the Del Puerto Healthcare District, Stanislaus County, and any other applicable special district development impact fees.

5. Prior to building permit issuance for any dwelling, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the City full compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65995 et seq. as amended by the Leroy R. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998.

6. Applicant shall be responsible for its fair share obligations for the backbone infrastructure required for development of the Master Plan, whether constructed by City or other developers of the Master Plan (including, but not limited to, water, sewer, stormwater, transportation, parks, and recreational facilities). Applicant’s fair share obligations may take the form of a Plan Area Fee Program for the Master Plan, Reimbursement Agreements, or any combination thereof, subject to the approval of the City Manager. Applicant shall further be responsible for its fair share costs incurred by City during the study and formation of any Plan Area Fee program established to finance the backbone infrastructure required for the Master Plan.

7. The Applicant shall provide ongoing funding for project impacts to City services relating to public safety, maintenance of public facilities, and any other fiscal impact of the project to City services. This condition may be satisfied by participation/annexation into the City’s existing CFDs for Public Safety/Fire (CFD 2022-1); Residential Maintenance (CFD 2018-2); nonresidential maintenance; and any other services district formed to offset the fiscal impact of the project; as may be applicable. All costs associated with the annexation/formation must be paid by the Applicant. The Unanimous Approvals/Waivers for all CFDs must be signed and recorded prior to permit issuance.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 2 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

8. Applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions contained in the “Zacharias Project Agreement for the Ivy Rose Area” between the City of Patterson, Zacharias Ranch, TPF Development, Lakeside Hills, and Keystone Ranch (effective as of April 9, 2024).

9. Applicant may file a written request for City to initiate proceedings to form a Community Facilities District pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), for financing of the backbone infrastructure required for development of the Master Plan. City reserves any and all discretion under the Act to deny formation of the financing district, determine the facilities to be funded under the financing district, and determine the repayment schedule for any reimbursable costs associated with the infrastructure required for development of the project. All costs associated with formation of the financing district shall be the obligation of Applicant. Any formation of a financing district pursuant to this condition shall require an agreement between the Applicant and the City, prior to initiation of efforts to form a financing district.

10. Applicant shall be subject to all requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, in accordance with Chapter 18.86 of the Patterson Municipal Code. Prior to final map approval, and per Master Plan Section 2.3, the Applicant shall submit a strategy to demonstrate compliance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, in accordance with Chapter 18.86 of the Patterson Municipal Code. If it is determined that the Applicant is allowed to satisfy its inclusionary housing requirement through an in-lieu fee, the in-lieu fee applicable to Applicant’s project shall be memorialized by written agreement between the Applicant and the City.

11. Vertical development of the project area shall be subject to all requirements of the General Plan, Master Plan, and Patterson Municipal Code, as may be applicable, including but not limited to, Architectural and Site Plan Review before the Planning Commission.

12. All subdivision improvements shall be constructed in conformity with the City of Patterson Standards and Subdivision Improvements Specifications, unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.

13. If Applicant wishes to defer any conditions to a later time or transfer conditions to a successor-in-interest, such request shall be made in writing to the Community Development Director and be subject to City’s approval.

14. Unless otherwise modified in these conditions, the project shall be subject to all applicable City regulations, standards, conditions or other development requirements, including but not limited to those set forth in the General Plan, Master Plan, or Patterson Municipal Code existing at the time of Applicant’s SB 330 preliminary application.

15. Applicant agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct operations of the

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 3 4921-4826-4747, v. 3
Applicant or those of its contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees or other persons acting on its behalf with respect to the project. The Applicant agrees to and shall defend the City and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Applicant’s activities in connection with the project. This hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to above, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved plans or specifications or both for the project. Applicant may elect to, but shall not be obligated to, pay for a separate defense for City if City elects to retain independent legal counsel.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZACHARIAS / BALDWIN RANCH FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

1. The project shall be subject to all applicable mitigation measures found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the Zacharias / Baldwin Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as adopted by the City Council August 22, 2022.

2. As part of the project’s requirement to comply with the MMRP and the EIR, prior to recordation of the final map, the Applicant and the City shall establish a Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism to fund the required transportation improvements for the Master Plan. Applicant shall be responsible for its fair share of the costs for the necessary improvements at the time building permits are sought, through participation in the Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism. This includes, but is not limited to, paying for the project’s fair share of traffic mitigation in accordance with Transportation Mitigation Measures 1a through 1z.

TEMPORARY SEWER CONNECTION (BETWEEN VICKI LYNN LANE, ROXANNE DRIVE, AND M

STREET)

1. The Applicant shall design, and construct at its own cost, off-site sewer line improvements consistent with the Master Plan Section 5.5.A for temporary use. Prior to construction, the Applicant at its expense, or reimbursement to City, shall conduct the following: (A) condition assessment (including CCTV and summary report), (B) flow monitoring to verify existing peak and average flows in downstream pipes, and (C) updating the City’s hydraulic model with the latest flow monitoring data, in order to evaluate impacts of the proposed sewer line improvements and to provide recommendations if adjustments to the sewer line improvements and other existing deficiencies are needed to maintain the operation of the sewer system in compliance with regulatory requirements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The offsite sewer line improvement plans shall be based on the hydraulic model update and condition assessment recommendations.

2. Construction of the temporary sewer line may proceed following: (A) approval of improvement plans; (B) approval of an improvement agreement, providing for surety bonds, warranty, and indemnifying the City from all liabilities relating to construction and operation

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 4 4921-4826-4747, v. 3
of the sewer line, including but not limited to, damage to adjacent parcels and structures, claims of inverse condemnation, and sewage spills or contamination of Salado Creek; and (C) all permit approvals by the public agencies having jurisdiction over these improvements.

3. The off-site sewer line improvements described in Section 5.5.A of the Master Plan shall be contingent on the Applicant acquiring the necessary permissions from affected landowners for the construction and long-term operation of the improvements. City shall have no obligation to initiate condemnation of the necessary easements or property acquisitions to allow the improvements to proceed. If condemnation by the City is required to allow the construction and long-term operation of the sewer line improvements, City in its sole discretion may refuse to initiate condemnation and decide not to accept or operate the improvements.

4. Applicant at its sole expense shall be responsible for construction of the ultimate connection of the project area to the North Patterson Trunk Line. Upon written notice from City that the North Patterson Trunk Line is available for connection, Applicant shall disconnect and abandon the temporary sewer connection and be responsible for connection to the North Patterson Trunk Line, all in accordance with City standards and requirements. City shall have no obligation to provide funding toward or reimburse Applicant for the ultimate connection to the North Patterson Trunk Line.

In the alternative, if the North Patterson Trunk Line is not available for connection prior to 50% of the project area receiving building permits, Applicant shall pay to City the full cost of disconnecting the temporary connection and connecting the project to the North Patterson Trunk Line. The payment provided to the City shall be based on an estimate approved by the City Engineer.

Applicant at anytime may satisfy this condition by entering into an agreement with the City ensuring connection of the project area to the North Patterson Trunk Line.

DELTA-MENDOTA GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN; SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT;

PURCHASE OF SURFACE WATER

1. The Developer shall be subject to all terms and conditions, as may be applicable, of the City’s implementation of the Delta-Mendota Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSA).

2. Applicant shall be responsible for its fair share obligation under any final ruling issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or as set forth in any settlement agreement reached between the City, the West Stanislaus Irrigation District, and the Patterson Irrigation District in the matter entitled Patterson Irrigation District, et al. v. City of Patterson, et al. Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. 23CV028091) (the “Settlement Agreement”). Unless otherwise agreed to by City in its sole and absolute discretion, Applicant shall be responsible for its fair share obligation to fully fund land acquisition, design and construction costs of the recharge

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 5 4921-4826-4747, v. 3
basin for the Del Puerto Creek Project prior to issuance of any building permit in the Master Plan project area.

3. To address the pumping reduction requirement under the GSA and offset the potable water demand of the project, and comply with its fair share obligation under the settlement agreement, Applicant or their successor shall:

A. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, fully fund its fair share of the land acquisition, design, and construction costs of the recharge basins for the Percolation Ponds for Stormwater Capture and Recharge from Del Puerto Creek.

B. Establish an agreement to purchase surface water required to offset the demand of the Keystone Ranch Development Area.

C. Provide funding to contribute to an evaluation of existing stormwater infrastructure associated with the Black Gulch drainage area for potential recapture and recharge.

4. Prior to issuance of the first building permit in the Master Plan project area, the Del Puerto Creek Project shall be sufficiently completed for the delivery of water for recharge at the Del Puerto Creek Project location. This requirement may be implemented as a mitigation measure as part of the EIR for the Master Plan.

5. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall fund its fair share of surface water in the amount required to meet the water demand of Applicant’s project. This requirement may be implemented as a mitigation measure as part of the EIR for the Master Plan.

6. As an alternative to the conditions set forth above, in the event Applicant disputes that the conditions are required to comply with the GSP or the Settlement Agreement, Applicant may at its sole cost, elect to proceed with a supplemental EIR to further evaluate any environmental impacts caused by the project as a result of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin’s 2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

GRADING, CONSTRUCTION, AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

1. Improvements required for project development will include street paving, curb, gutter, street lights, sidewalks, landscaping, the required utilities, grading and drainage.

2. All required public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Patterson Standard Specifications and Drawings, at the time of submittal to the Engineering Department.

3. At the time of Public Improvement Plan review, plans shall be submitted to all applicable public utility companies for review. Comments from the utilities regarding required

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 6 4921-4826-4747, v. 3
easements, transformer locations, etc. shall be forwarded to Engineering Department for review and approval.

4. Entryway, roundabout, common landscaping, parkway, pathways, lighting, and wall designs shall be uniformly planned by the Applicant, prior to final map approval, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director.

5. Soundwallsshall be designed (for the Project’s entire Baldwin Road frontage) and constructed by the Applicant to be seven (7) feet in height, have pilasters/columns evenly spaced, and have a 45-degree angle wall segment at all applicable entry streets, consistent with Master Plan Section 2.8.D. Keystone Ranch Parkway shall have primary entry monuments subject to same review and approval as above.

6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase of construction, the Applicant shall fully design and construct landscaping and masonry wall improvements consistent with the above condition and the Master Plan, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

7. The Applicant at its expense shall be responsible for development of the park sites included on the Tentative Map. Final park plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to construction and shall be consistent with the City of Patterson Park Design Guidelines & Standards.

8. The Applicant shall offer to dedicate to the City land for parks in the size and location as generally illustrated in the Tentative Map, as may be amended by these conditions. Said offers of dedication shall be required to be recorded concurrent with the recordation of final tract maps which encompass, or are adjacent to, a park site.

9. A water infrastructure improvement phasing plan, as reasonably needed to meet the requirements of the project area and the Master Plan, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall contain at minimum: (A) a layout of the complete system; (B) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (C) construction phasing; and (D) construction cost estimates. In the event that groundwater characteristics prohibit well capacities as planned in the City's Master Plan, alternative well sites and a modified distribution system (if applicable) will be required.

10. A sewage infrastructure improvement phasing plan, as reasonably needed to meet the requirements of the project area and the Master Plan, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall contain at minimum: (A) a layout of the complete system; (B) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (C) construction phasing; and (D) construction cost estimates.

11. The Applicant shall install or pay for the installation of facilities required to expand the sewage treatment capacity of the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant as needed to serve each phase. The Applicant may proceed with the initial phase(s) of the project, provided that

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 7 4921-4826-4747, v. 3
the City Manager and City Engineer determine that there is available treatment capacity in the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.

12. Project site stormwater runoff shall drain in compliance with the Master Plan, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A storm drainage infrastructure improvement phasing plan, as reasonably needed to meet the requirements of the project area and the Master Plan, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall contain at minimum: (A) a layout of the complete system; (B) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (C) construction phasing; and (D) construction cost estimates.

13. Applicant shall be responsible for installing the required stormwater improvements to the stormwater basin (identified as “Parcel G”) for future connection to the Lakeside Hills Development Area of the Master Plan, to allow for stormwater to drain in accordance with the Master Plan. The design and scope of the required improvements for future connection to the Lakeside Hills Area shall be determined by the City Engineer.

14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, sufficient water pressure and capacity to serve the portion of the project area where such development is proposed shall be assured and demonstrated.

15. The City shall not issue any building permits for new construction, within a phase, without the demonstrated assurance of an adequate water supply, adequate sewage collection and treatment capacity, and adequate storm drainage capacity to support such development.

16. Design of the proposed project facilities shall include provisions to minimize water consumption.

17. Applicant shall provide and determine a maintenance program in cooperation with the City of Patterson for landscaped areas between all roads and any approved noise walls, other walls, street trees, and bicycle lanes, subject to review and approval of the City.

18. All grading and vegetation removal/landscaping plans shall require a grading permit which shall be reviewed by the City of Patterson for consistency with applicable landscaping standards, Stormwater Regulations, and City Standards.

19. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in compliance with AB 1881 on all front yards, and side yards of lots when visible from public streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

20. A deposit shall be required to cover the installation of irrigation, landscaping, and plant materials for public improvements based upon the estimate of costs to be paid for and provided by the Applicant.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 8 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

21. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall design and construct stormwater system and storage consistent with the Master Plan, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

22. Public utilities easements shall be granted to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer.

23. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for all work conducted within the public right-of-way.

24. Prior to concrete pour inspection, compaction tests are required for all footings.

25. Electrical conduit shall have a separate ground wire installed.

26. Prior to approval of grading and improvement plans, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of said improvements.

27. The Applicant shall install sewer laterals to each building at a size appropriate for proposed use to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The minimum size shall be calculated.

28. The Applicant shall be responsible during construction for cleaning city streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the subject site. The flushing of dirt and debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer facilities shall not be permitted. The cleaning shall be done after each day's work or as directed by the Director of Public Works.

29. Backflow prevention devices shall be installed by the Applicant on all water services as required by the Public Works Director and County Health Officer or their representatives as necessary for the safety of the water system. Examples of the types of uses requiring backflow prevention include medical uses, landscape services, on-site plumbing which incorporates pumps, etc.

30. The project shall include provisions for the sharing of parking and driveway access, and shall incorporate easements necessary for all utilities to the approval of the City.

31. All construction activities, including the warming of construction vehicle engines, shall be limited to Monday through Saturday only between the hours of 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. and on Sunday if construction activities are no closer than 300 feet to occupied residences. The potential for construction activities will be disclosed in writing to all future residents of the project. At the discretion of the Public Works Director, these hours may be extended, and these distances may be reduced.

32. In the event of the unforeseen encounter of subsurface materials suspected to be of an archaeological or paleontological nature, all grading, excavation and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find left untouched until the Native American Heritage

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 9 4921-4826-4747, v. 3
Commission is contacted and a qualified professional archeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is retained to evaluate and make recommendations as to disposition, mitigation, and/or salvage.

33. The Applicantshall prepare a plan for on-site signage and exterior treatments associated with model homes, including landscaping and sales office for approval of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. A Master Sign Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director, for the commercial project area.

34. The Applicant shall ensure that the project does not impact existing utility services (i.e., water meter box, sewer clean-out, etc.).

35. Any easements of record shall remain in effect and shall be recorded on the new deeds.

36. Capacity calculations for all project storm, sewer and water improvements will be required to submit for review and approval with the submittal of improvement plans.

37. Sewer system designs for on- and off-site collections shall be approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.

38. Sewer lift pumping station (if required by City) shall be approved by City Engineer and Public Works Director’s to be fully operational through SCADA system and all materials and pumps to meet City requirements.

39. Self-contained temporary restroom and sanitation facilities shall be on the jobsite and be properly maintained until finish of all construction. Connection to sanitary sewer system for temporary restroom and sanitation facilities is prohibited.

40. All street lighting shall be LED. For further details regarding LED requirements/ specifications, please contact Engineering at (209) 895-8076.

41. Landscape plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and shall comply with AB1881 (Water Use Efficiency)/MWELO requirements. Once the landscaping is complete an audit must be completed, and the Certificate of Completion/Landscape Document Package sent into the City. The City will require passing audits for the Landscaping.

42. Projects shall submit a Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan to the Public Works Department. The City will require a final package prior to obtaining a final, including disposal tickets, to be submitted to ensure 60% diversion rate has been achieved. For further information regarding this item, please contact Xavier Guluarte at (209) 895-8068 or via email at [email protected]

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 10 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

43. The City shall require the Applicant to enter into a Landscape and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) & Access Agreement which holds the Applicant responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all private landscaping and stormwater treatment control measures installed on the project for any areas that will be owned and maintained privately. The City will require an Operations and Maintenance Plan to be submitted and attached as an Exhibit to this agreement. The agreement must be signed and recorded prior to inspections.

44. Drainage facilities, to service any phase of the project, shall be provided and constructed to satisfy all Federal, State, and Local standards/regulations and as directed and approved by the Public Works Director and City Engineer, prior to acceptance of tract improvements by the City Council.

45. No construction shall commence, and no grading shall be performed prior to the recording of the final map, unless permission is granted by the City Engineer.

46. Applicant shall provide notice to all buyers of homes within 200 feet of existing agricultural operations the existence and applicability of the City’s Right-to-Farm ordinance.

47. There shall be no occupancy of dwelling units within any phase of the project until public improvements are accepted by the City for that phase as shown on the Final Map or Improvement Plans for that phase. Improvements shall include parks, landscape areas, roundabouts and other similar areas within the Final Map or Improvement Plans for that phase. No request for occupancy shall be approved until all conditions are completed and accepted or approved, or are in suitable condition satisfactory to the City Engineer.

48. The reasonable cost of all inspections related to on-site and off-site improvements shall be borne by the Applicant.

49. The Applicant shall be responsible to the City for all actions of his/her contractors and subcontractors until such time as the improvements have been accepted by the City.

50. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall submit three copies of a landscaping plan for all newly created slope banks, common areas, public rights-of-way and for all street trees for that phase. Said plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The plan shall include:

A. The location, type and size of all plant materials; native and low water use and drought resistant species shall be emphasized.

B. The extent and method of irrigation, emphasizing low-water use techniques wherever feasible.

C. Erosion control systems during the period when plants are becoming established.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 11 4921-4826-4747, v. 3
D. Soil preparation, staking techniques and planting methods for all trees.

E. Street trees provided at a rate of one tree per lot and 3 per corner lot, as well as one tree per 50 feet of street frontage for both public and private streets which have no houses fronting them. Street trees should be planted 3.5 to 5 feet behind the back of sidewalk (except where a planter strip is provided between the sidewalk and curb) to avoid future sidewalk damage. Underground utility locations shall be considered in the location of such street trees. A root barrier shall be included. All street trees shall be installed per the City street tree planting standard and approved Street Tree Master Plan.

51. The Applicant shall install all common area signs, fences, street trees and landscaping materials according to the approved plans and in conjunction with other subdivision improvements, unless an alternative schedule is approved by the Community Development Director and adequate security for same has been deposited in a manner approved by the City Attorney. The Applicant shall maintain and replace, when necessary, all plantings and fencing until a CFD is in place or some other similar mechanism approved by the City.

52. A street tree deposit will be required by the City at building permit phase. All street tree types shall comply with the City’s Approved Street Tree Plan and species list, as approved by the Public Works Director.

53. Unless and until the City explicitly accepts the responsibility, maintenance and replacement of street trees and landscaping on any City right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance and replacement of street trees and landscaping for a period of one year following City Council acceptance.

54. Complete grading and drainage plans and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to grading or the recordation of the final map.

55. Where the difference in average elevations between adjacent lots is in excess of six inches, slope shall not exceed 2 to 1 grade or a grade found reasonable in the soils report, or a retaining wall shall be required consistent with the City Standard Improvements.

56. Prior to any site grading or construction, an erosion & sediment control plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), WDID#, and Dust Control Permit shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. Said plan and program shall address specific temporary and permanent erosion & sediment control measures associated with the project. The project must comply with the Stormwater Post-Construction/LID standards.

57. It is the contractor’s responsibility to use watering, dust fences, or other methods as directed by the City, to control dust throughout the construction operation. The Applicant shall use all reasonable efforts to obtain non-potable water for construction or dust control purposes.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 12 4921-4826-4747, v. 3
This condition shall not be interpreted as prohibiting the use of City water supplies for the irrigation of street lines and landscaping required in common areas.

58. All grading construction debris materials shall be removed and disposed into an approved dump site prior to any excavation or fill operations and/or as directed by the City and shall comply with all SWPPP and Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plans.

59. The Applicant or his/her agents or employees shall be responsible for removal and clean-up of any spill on public streets during his entire grading operations.

60. In the event phased grading is permitted by the City Council, the Applicant shall install the required drainage facilities concurrently with the rough grading operations or provide an interim drainage and erosion control plan, and construct interim improvements, with prior approval from the City Engineer, for mitigating any potential flooding and erosion that may adversely affect adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.

61. Lots shall drain into a street or approved drain in such a manner that there will be no undrained depressions. The design of all such drains shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.

62. The Applicant shall procure easements or consents from all affected landowners for any diversion of historical flow, changes in drainage conditions, or acceptance of any additional water flowing over their property, as determined by the City Engineer and according to law.

63. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, final right-of-way width and routes for drainage channels, pipelines, and service roads needed to serve each phase shall be established.

64. Measures to control erosion during construction shall be incorporated into the grading plans, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

65. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a soils report, prepared by a registered geologist or qualified civil engineer, concerning soil conditions for grading, excavations, slope stabilization and revegetation, and footing and foundation construction.

66. The Applicant shall obtain a grading permit for on-site excavation and fill prior to construction.

67. Future drainage system discharges shall comply with applicable local, state and federal pollutant discharge requirements.

68. Final inspection of the sewer and storm drain system shall be by televised inspection device as approved by the City Engineer at Applicant’s expense.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 13 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

69. All on-site utilities shall be underground. All existing overhead utilities adjacent to the property or within the property shall be placed underground by the applicable phase prior to issuance of building permits for that phase. All utility boxes including electrical, telephone, cable T.V., etc., shall be underground.

70. The Applicant is to be responsible for all damage to existing and new telephone facilities caused by workers or subcontractors under the direction of the Applicant.

71. All new telecommunications facilities shall be underground except where indicated by the telephone company upon engineering of the development.

72. The Applicant shall provide all necessary on-site easements for streets, sewers, water facilities, utilities, drainage facilities, and other facilities as required by the City, prior to or in conjunction with the final map. Said easements shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the City Attorney.

73. All water, gas, sewer, underground electrical power, cable T.V., or telephone lines, or conduits, or underground drain lines shall be installed before any paving is placed. Utility stub connections to property boundaries of each lot may be omitted only with the express and written permission of the City Engineer.

74. The Applicant shall install adequately sized utility services and laterals, if appropriate, to each lot prior to final acceptance of tract improvements by phase.

75. Except as the utility companies may otherwise agree, the Applicant shall provide cable T.V., without charge, the reasonable opportunity to utilize and jointly occupy for the same purpose and trench provided by the Applicant to a utility for the purpose of connecting the utility to service the development.

76. All final conditions of approval of this project shall be printed on or attached to the building plans and/or improvement plans. These shall be in the form of a photocopy of the final action letter of the decision maker (preferably printed as a separate numbered sheet) submitted to the City for all applications on the subject property.

77. All Water/Sewer/Storm mainline pipes shall be within the street pavement area, per City Standard Detail G-6. No water mains and sewer mains shall be allowed to be installed outside street pavement area as such water and sewer mains will be compromised.

STREETS AND ROADWAYS

1. In the interest of public safety and for the purpose of having two points of access through the project area, prior to occupancy of any unit within the project, Applicant shall design and construct “Collector F-F” as shown on Sheet 4 of the Tentative Map, in accordance with the

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 14 4921-4826-4747, v. 3
standards of the Master Plan and City of Patterson Standard Specifications. Any request for deferral to a later time shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Fire Chief.

2. Roadway transition for Baldwin Road at the north side of the westerly Project limits shall be properly designed and installed. Road width transition barricade shall be installed per City Standards TC-9, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

3. Along the Project frontage, Baldwin Road shall be fully constructed on the east side of the street, and adjacent ground to be graded so that no stormwater runoff creates ponding and consistent with the Master Plan, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

4. All public streets shall be designed to meet the applicable minimum Master Plan and/or City Standards and have a uniform 2% cross-slope from street crown or median to lip of gutter, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

5. Traffic control and flow analysis at the new Baldwin/Project Site intersections will be required prior to final map approval, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

6. A photometrics plan may be required by the City Engineer to assure the placement of streetlights has the minimum lumen requirement coverage prior to final map approval, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

7. Applicant shall provide design details (or vendor specifications) for all streetscape items (planters, waste containers, benches, bicycle racks etc.) with first building permit applications.

8. All frontage streets and medians shall have complete landscaping and irrigation.

9. The project shall be subject to fair share traffic improvement impact fees as outlined in the traffic study and EIR mitigation measures.

10. Applicant shall dedicate and improve all existing bordering streets and roadways in accordance with the map to City standards and to the approval of the City Engineer.

11. All sight distances for all corners shall conform to the City’s sight distance requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

12. All public street improvements shall be as required in the Master Plan, Patterson City Code, and/or as outlined in the Tentative Map, or in any duly adopted sections of the General Plan, and shall be constructed as directed by the City Engineer. The location and design of all private streets and alleys shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.

All street names are to be approved as specific by the City’s street naming policies.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 15 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

13. That the minimum curb to curb distance shall be 36’ for any street cross section, or as approved by the City Engineer.

14. That driveway approaches and sidewalk interface shall meet ADA requirements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. Driveway approaches to be per City Standard 3-S and driveway to be a minimum of 20’ in length from the back of sidewalk.

15. All streets, alleys, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters adjacent to the subdivision shall be improved as necessary to provide safe vertical and horizontal transitions to connect improvements constructed within this subdivision to existing improvements, as directed by the City Engineer. Any street, alley, sidewalk, or curb damaged by the Applicant or its agents or employees shall be repaired, prior to final acceptance of tract improvements by the City Council or sooner at the discretion of the City Engineer.

16. The Applicant shall install street frontage improvements per ordinance to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the City Engineer. These improvements may include, but are not limited necessarily to, grading, curb and gutter, sidewalk, paving, storm drain, sanitary sewer, and water facilities.

17. The stub ends of all streets planned for future continuation shall be temporarily protected with warning barricades, redwood headers or equivalent, and bars, as required by the City Engineer.

18. The Applicant shall furnish and install to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, street name signs, traffic regulatory and warning signs, and any necessary street striping and markings as required by the City Engineer consistent with City Standards. The signs shall conform to the City’s requirements and shall be purchased by the Applicant. Striping and signing shall be paid for by the Applicant subject to review and approval of the City and made a part of the improvement plans.

19. The paving sections for the public and private streets shall be designed on the basis of an R Value Test, and Traffic Index to carry the anticipated traffic loads, but shall be no less than 3" of AC over 8" CL2/Base for local streets and 4" AC over 12" CL2/Base for collectors. This design shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

20. Street lights shall be provided and installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The type, height, and design of street lights shall be subject to review and approval by the City and will direct lighting downward, shielding to the greatest extent practical, light exposure beyond that needed for proper intersection lighting.

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 16 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

1. All buildings shall be uniformly numbered with numbers visible from the street and internally illuminated, consistent with California Building and Fire Code requirements.

2. That proposed fire hydrants at cul-de-sacs shall be located as required by the State Fire Code, subject to review and approval by the City Fire Chief or their designee and the City Engineer.

3. That all proposed fire hydrants shall be adequately spaced per California Fire Code.

4. Fire lanes and access roads must be installed prior to construction of the first building to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief and the Public Works Department.

5. All fire lanes shall be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines.

6. Prior to placement of lumber or other combustible materials on the site, the domestic water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and tested and all-weather roads shall allow access to all areas of the site, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards.

7. Fire hydrants shall be installed along all public streets and on site with intervals and placement subject to approval of the Fire Chief.

8. No air conditioning or similar mechanical equipment shall be installed on roofs of dwellings or within any setback area of 5 feet or less, unless approved by the Fire Chief.

9. If construction water will be obtained from the City’s Fire Hydrant(s), a Fire Hydrant Use Permit Application shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. Fees, Deposits, and Water Rates are listed on the permit application.

10. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first dwelling unit, the Applicant shall provide mail receptacles for the units as required by the Postmaster of the City of Patterson.

IMPROVEMENT PLANS, SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, FINAL MAP

1. The Applicant shall file one copy of the Tentative Map to be used for assigning addresses.

2. The Applicant shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement for each phase of the project with the City for Applicant to perform the installation and construction of all improvements as contained in the conditions of approval of the subdivision and those required by the subdivision sections of the Patterson City Code; and shall post bond, cash deposit, instrument of credit, or such other security which conforms with State law and as approved by the City Attorney, guaranteeing the installation and construction of all required improvements within 24 months from recordation of the final map or within an approved time extension in accordance with the provisions of the Patterson City Code.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 17 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

3. The Applicant shall pay all appropriate fees due prior to recordation of each final map.

4. The Applicant shall set all monuments required by the Subdivision Map Act before subdivision improvement bond or security is released.

5. Each final map shall include bicycle trip support infrastructure, including bike lanes on major roadways, as appropriate.

6. Any deed of trust encumbering the parcels of land shall be properly referenced with the recordation of a final map.

7. A Geotechnical Soils Report must be submitted as part of the improvement plans with required recommendations for all structural elements of this project, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

8. Prior to recordation of any Final Map within the project, Applicant shall dedicate any land required as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EIR, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.

9. Prior to map recordation, the Applicant shall submit a set of Improvement Plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer for construction of improvements. The improvements shall include but shall not be limited to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, underground utilities, streetlights with underground wiring, appropriate directional and regulatory traffic control signs, sewer system, water system, and adequate positive drainage.

10. Improvement Plans shall include, but shall not be limited to, grading, sediment & erosion control, streets, drainage, sewer, water, and appurtenant improvements and shall be submitted concurrently for the tract unless otherwise permitted by the City Engineer. In addition, a master utility plan for the tract shall be submitted showing the layout and location of all on-site and off-site utility facility improvements. This plan must bear the approval signatures by appropriate representatives from each utility company unless otherwise permitted by the City Engineer. The plan submittal shall also include construction cost estimates, plan check fees, soils and geologic reports (as necessary) and all pertinent engineering design calculations. The final map may not be recorded unless all said improvement plans and utility Master Plan have been approved by the City Engineer.

11. Faithful performance and labor and material bonds (each to be 100% of the Engineer’s Estimate, as approved by the City Engineer) shall be posted with the City to cover all public improvements, onsite grading, and retaining walls prior to the issuance of building permit.

12. The Applicant shall provide the original mylars and electronic copies of the public improvement plans, modified to reflect the field changes made during construction. The plans shall be stamped "Record Drawings" and submitted to the City prior to occupancy clearance.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 18 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

13. Applicant shall provide the City with one set of mylar, and three sets of blue line prints of the Record Drawings of the Improvement Plans before any final of dwelling units.

14. An engineering cost estimate shall be submitted with the grading and improvement plans.

The Applicant's engineer shall sign and stamp the calculation and cost estimates prior to issuance of building permits.

PATTERSON IRRIGATION DISTRICT (PID) CONDITIONS
(see comment letter dated January 23, 2025)
All conditions provided in this section must be completed prior to final map, unless agreed to otherwise.

1. The Applicant shall submit plans to underground the PID canal along the Project’s easterly boundary, prior to Project grading and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the PID.

2. The PID canal shall be relocated in one phase, so as not to continuously disrupt PID’s operations.

3. No permanent infrastructure, including but not limited to, buildings, streets, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities shall be placed by the Applicant over PID facilities, including the relocated canal.

4. The undercrossing of Salado Creek and subsequent connection to the proposed pipeline needs to be evaluated and engineered to prevent the potential of a leaking crossing that may cause flooding on upstream properties from the development.

5. The Applicant must enter into a Letter of Agreement providing a non-refundable deposit to cover PID’s legal and engineering costs for the development of agreements and design review of the proposed plans.

6. The Applicant must enter into an Agreement to Relocate Irrigation Facilities and Establish Public Utility Easement with PID, that will require, among other things, all engineered plans to be approved by PID’s General Manager prior to construction. This Agreement must be executed prior to PID approving relocation of the canal.

7. The Applicant must enter into a Perpetual Agreement for Annual Sediment Clean-Up with PID (and the City, as may be necessary), for cleaning of the relocated canal. This agreement must be executed prior to PID approving relocation of the canal.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative 19 4921-4826-4747, v. 3

8. Relocation of any PID facilities must be accompanied by a new agreement establishing ownership of the space occupied by the PID facility. Plans must be reviewed and approved by PID’s General Manager prior to construction related to any such relocation.

CONDITIONS FROM OTHER RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES

1. Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with any and all conditions and requirements of requirements of other responsible agencies, special districts, or public agencies having jurisdiction over any component of the project.

2. Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all conditions and requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, as may be applicable to any and all components of the project. (See comment letter, dated January 23, 2025).

3. Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all conditions and requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, as may be applicable to any and all components of the project. (See comment letter, dated January 28, 2025).

4. Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all conditions and requirements of the Turlock Irrigation District, as may be applicable to any and all components of the project. (See comment letter, dated January 28, 2025).

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (Keystone Tentative Map), 4921-4826-4747.3 (Resolution No. 2025-17, Approving Vesting Tentative