RESPONSE BY INCIDENT TYPE
Fire Response (structure fires, vehicle fires, vegetation fires) 5 Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat (overpressure rupture, explosion with no fire) 0 Emergency Medical Service and Rescue (medical aid, vehicle accident, rescue) 127 Hazardous Conditions (combustible/flammable spills, chemical release, power line down) 5 Public Service Calls (public assists, agency assist, unauthorized burning) 20 Good Intent (cancelled, no incident) 25
False Alarm (false alarm, system or detector malfunction, unintentional system activation) 11 TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE 193
RESPONSE BY STATION
Station 51 137
Station 52 56
TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE 193
TRAINING HOURS 504.50
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Public education, community events, etc. 9
COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION ACTIVITIES
Business License Inspections 3
Development Inspections (new construction, tenant improvements, fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems) 44 Special Inspections (special events, public fireworks displays, etc.) 2 Graffiti Abatements 85
Public Works Council Reports
September 2026
September 2026 Service Requests
Division Total
Received
Open
Requests
Closed
Requests
% Closed
Requests
Building 24 3 21 87.50%
Collections 5 3 2 40.00%
Electrical 19 19 0 0.00%
Parks Infrastructure 2 0 2 100.00%
Parks Maintenance 12 5 7 58.33%
Streets 18 7 11 61.11%
Urban Forestry 54 17 39 72.22%
Water 25 3 22 88.00%
This month, PW Operations & Maintenance staff continued maintenance routes and began preparation for projects that will be underway at the end of this year. Pictured above, the Collections Division performs storm drain maintenance near Walnut and Hartley Avenue.
While the Electrical Division works hard to resolve issues, 19 service requests regarding streetlights remained open at the end of the month. PW Operations & Maintenance coordinates with contractors to complete these repairs in a timely manner.
At the Sports Park, the Streets Division completed
road repairs and resurfacing of the access road for PW
Operations & Maintenance staff. Over time, frequent
use of this road by large trucks and heavy machinery
caused potholes to form. During heavy rains, this
became a safety hazard for drivers which has now
been addressed.
Passersby may have noticed an increase in PW presence along N 2nd Street between E Las Palmas and Walnut Avenue. Staff in the Streets, Collections, Parks, and Urban Forestry Divisions worked together to complete regular Oleander maintenance and removal. With collaboration between Divisions, the project was completed within one work week.
Recreation &Community Services
Department Monthly Staff Report
September 2026
C
September was a busy and successful month for the Recreation Department, with staff continuing to support community programs, facility rentals, and daily recreation operations. A major highlight of the month was the successful Farm to Fork event, which brought the community together for an evening of food, entertainment, and local celebration. Staff worked diligently behind the scenes and throughout the event to coordinate logistics, assist vendors and guests, and help ensure a welcoming and enjoyable experience for everyone. The department also continued preparing for upcoming programs, events, and facility activities while providing quality service to the community.
Aquatics
The fall aquatics season concluded on September 24 with the completion of water aerobics classes and swimming lessons.
The annual Cardboard Boat Race was held on September 19, with 12 teams participating in this creative community tradition. Upcoming aquatic events include the Floating Pumpkin Patch on October 17 and Dog Day Out on October 24.
Adult Sports
Pickleball leagues continued throughout September and will conclude on October 8.
Following the league season, programming will transition to biweekly pickleball tournaments and monthly glow-in-the-dark tournaments.
Drop-in sports at Walnut Grove continued to draw strong participation, with average weekly attendance of 20 participants for basketball, 25 for pickleball, and 15 for volleyball.
Community Events
Farm to Fork was held on September 26 and welcomed a record crowd of 216 attendees.
The event raised additional funds for the Recreation Scholarship Program, helping expand access to recreational opportunities for eligible Patterson residents.
Staff coordinated a neighborhood event at Spider Park and presented the movie Cars. Staff has since added movie nights in each district of Patterson.
September 18 – Cars at Spider Park (approximately 80 people) September 25 – Encanto at Sungiant Park (approximately 65 people) Upcoming Events:
• October 2 – Goonies at Autumn Royal Park
• October 9 – Hocus Pocus at Red Park
• October 17 – Floating Pumpkin Patch: A seasonal favorite at the Patterson Aquatic Center.
• October 24 – Dog Day Out: An opportunity for dogs and their owners to enjoy the Aquatic Center.
• November 7 – Autumn at the Park: A celebration of fall in Patterson highlighting the harvest season, Día de los Muertos, and Halloween.
• December 12 – Breakfast with Santa: A festive holiday gathering for local families.
Youth Sports
Youth Soccer
Youth Soccer began August 17 and will run through October 10. This season, 247 players ages 5 to 13 are participating, supported by 43 volunteer coaches, assistant coaches, and team parents. The program provides a fun and inclusive environment for players of all skill levels to learn and develop soccer fundamentals, including dribbling, passing, shooting, ball control, and teamwork. Practice and games give players opportunities to build skills, confidence, and sportsmanship throughout the season.
Start Smart Football
Start Smart Soccer began August 21 and ran through September 25, with 24 participants ages 3 to 5. The six-week program introduced young players to basic football skills through fun, age-appropriate activities while developing coordination, confidence, teamwork, and fundamental movement skills.
Teen Activities
Youth Action Committee Meetings
YAC continues to hold weekly meetings. YAC meetings average between 10-15 teens each week. On September 30th, YAC hosted a booth in place of the meeting at the Patterson Farmers Market. This included making crafts and providing Recreation program and event information.
Friday Night Live Mentoring (FNLM)
FNLM recruitment continues. Staff has been communicating with both counselors and admin staff from Creekside Middle School to coordinate recruitment days for proteges.
Staff are also reaching out to past mentors and hosting recruitment days at Patterson High School.
Contract Classes
H-Art Therapy was cancelled due to lack of registration. Self Defense continues at a steady pace. Staff are seeking new instructors and have spoken to a potential volunteer who is interested in offering an acting class.
Youth Volunteer Corp
YVC continues to meet bi-weekly with the entire group, and on the off week with the group leaders. YVC hosted a butterfly release with HSC participants, and in October will be hosting an event for HSC members “Boots and Boogie”. This is an intergenerational event that will consist of line dancing, food, music and interactions with teens.
Teen Career Prep Program
Staff have identified guest speakers for all 16 weeks. Speakers include recreation staff, healthcare professionals, finance and more. The timeline for this program will allow participants to take advantage of the training and apply for our summer recruitment this coming year.
Seniors
Staff hosted a Football themed Taste of Patterson event, a Table Tennis & Pool Tournament, and introduced a new exercise class in partnership with the Promotoras. HICAP, the Mobile Mental Health unit, and blood pressure check appointments continued.
In September 3,572 members participated in daily activities and 1,162 members were served lunch. The program gained 24 new members.
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:
October 20, 2026
ITEM: 6.4
SUBJECT : Approve City Commission Reports for the Month of September 2026 (Economic Strategic, Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission and Senior Commission).
RECOMMENDATION
Approve City Commission Reports for the Month of September 2026 (Economic Strategic, Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission and Senior Commission).
City of Patterson
Economic Strategic Commission
Monthly Report July 2026
Donna Thompson
Special Meeting held on July 8, 2026, 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance plus two (2) City of Patterson Employees • Marco Ahumada
• Donna Thompson
• Vanessa Marks (excused)
• Marco Ahumada
• Faith Arano
• Lisa Ochoa, (City of Patterson)
• Bryan Stice (City of Patterson)
Discussion
Below is discussion from the July 8, 2026 Special meeting (topics highlighted in BLUE will be tabled for future discussions and not on next meeting’s agenda) Funding/Grants for the I-5/Sperry Exit
• A new $6M grant to the Dept of Transportation was submitted end of May • StanCog was not approved.
ESC Budget
• How to stimulate downtown economy
Commissioner Marco Ahumada presented the ESC with a preliminary proposal • Titled Patterson Downtown Activation Fund
• To design and create city-funded grant program that helps the community organizers activate downtown Patterson through small events that would increase foot traffic and support downtown businesses
• This proposal is the in the planning stages and continued discussion • Somes ideas include Concerts in the Park, Trick or Treat events. • Public had ideas as well, Halloween Witch Night. Wondering how reimbursement under this planned proposal would work.
• Commissioner Ahumada’s proposal would be required to meet City special event permit processes and requirements, submit quotes/invoices etc. • First year funding request would be approx. $15K with a $2.5K match per activation and a $500 minimum activation cost.
• McDonald’s - Timeline end of August 2026
• Jersey Mike’s - Timeline approx. 6 weeks out
• Grocery Outlet Building - Landowner working with prospective applications Downtown Enhancements
• City had originally requested $100K. They have now requested an additional $60K. • City Council will discuss it in the December timeframe when new budget discussions are reviewed.
Newsom’ s Housing Mandate
• City Council has approved to rezone areas for high density housing. State should approve
• Sperry & Haggerty – Build out, First building in process. Landowner working with potential businesses
Downtown Master Plan
Discussions relating to the open lot across from the Post Office. Not prudent to discuss • Apricot Fiesta/LOVE Patterson/Weekly Farmers Market. An idea to have an ESC booth at the Apricot Fiesta and/or LOVE Patterson in 2027 • Set up a City booth at the summer Farmers Market. Community Development Director Stice suggested possibly the 1st week in August
Food Court – Las Palmas & Hwy 33
• Project timeline completion Fall 2026
Industrial Area
• Inquiries about a potential data center in the industrial area • Inquiries from the public with strong opinions relating to the danger aspects of a data center within the city
• Public is asking for a moratorium on any decision based on further inquiry by the City Council and City Attorney
• Public was asked to go to their City Council member for further discussion. • Special City Council meeting to be held on Thursday, July 16, 2026 Project Zach
• Structural consulting being worked
• Building permits are approximately 3 to 4 weeks out
Concrete Batch Plant
• Proposed to be built at the end of 1st St
• Currently property has been a truck storage
• Permit of the site for the initial start-up and small equipment.
Next Meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 17, 2026, 6:00 p.m.
Recreation &Community Services
Department Monthly Staff Report
September 2026
C
September was a busy and successful month for the Recreation Department, with staff continuing to support community programs, facility rentals, and daily recreation operations. A major highlight of the month was the successful Farm to Fork event, which brought the community together for an evening of food, entertainment, and local celebration. Staff worked diligently behind the scenes and throughout the event to coordinate logistics, assist vendors and guests, and help ensure a welcoming and enjoyable experience for everyone. The department also continued preparing for upcoming programs, events, and facility activities while providing quality service to the community.
Aquatics
The fall aquatics season concluded on September 24 with the completion of water aerobics classes and swimming lessons.
The annual Cardboard Boat Race was held on September 19, with 12 teams participating in this creative community tradition. Upcoming aquatic events include the Floating Pumpkin Patch on October 17 and Dog Day Out on October 24.
Adult Sports
Pickleball leagues continued throughout September and will conclude on October 8.
Following the league season, programming will transition to biweekly pickleball tournaments and monthly glow-in-the-dark tournaments.
Drop-in sports at Walnut Grove continued to draw strong participation, with average weekly attendance of 20 participants for basketball, 25 for pickleball, and 15 for volleyball.
Community Events
Farm to Fork was held on September 26 and welcomed a record crowd of 216 attendees.
The event raised additional funds for the Recreation Scholarship Program, helping expand access to recreational opportunities for eligible Patterson residents.
Staff coordinated a neighborhood event at Spider Park and presented the movie Cars. Staff has since added movie nights in each district of Patterson.
September 18 – Cars at Spider Park (approximately 80 people) September 25 – Encanto at Sungiant Park (approximately 65 people) Upcoming Events:
• October 2 – Goonies at Autumn Royal Park
• October 9 – Hocus Pocus at Red Park
• October 17 – Floating Pumpkin Patch: A seasonal favorite at the Patterson Aquatic Center.
• October 24 – Dog Day Out: An opportunity for dogs and their owners to enjoy the Aquatic Center.
• November 7 – Autumn at the Park: A celebration of fall in Patterson highlighting the harvest season, Día de los Muertos, and Halloween.
• December 12 – Breakfast with Santa: A festive holiday gathering for local families.
Youth Sports
Youth Soccer
Youth Soccer began August 17 and will run through October 10. This season, 247 players ages 5 to 13 are participating, supported by 43 volunteer coaches, assistant coaches, and team parents. The program provides a fun and inclusive environment for players of all skill levels to learn and develop soccer fundamentals, including dribbling, passing, shooting, ball control, and teamwork. Practice and games give players opportunities to build skills, confidence, and sportsmanship throughout the season.
Start Smart Football
Start Smart Soccer began August 21 and ran through September 25, with 24 participants ages 3 to 5. The six-week program introduced young players to basic football skills through fun, age-appropriate activities while developing coordination, confidence, teamwork, and fundamental movement skills.
Teen Activities
Youth Action Committee Meetings
YAC continues to hold weekly meetings. YAC meetings average between 10-15 teens each week. On September 30th, YAC hosted a booth in place of the meeting at the Patterson Farmers Market. This included making crafts and providing Recreation program and event information.
Friday Night Live Mentoring (FNLM)
FNLM recruitment continues. Staff has been communicating with both counselors and admin staff from Creekside Middle School to coordinate recruitment days for proteges.
Staff are also reaching out to past mentors and hosting recruitment days at Patterson High School.
Contract Classes
H-Art Therapy was cancelled due to lack of registration. Self Defense continues at a steady pace. Staff are seeking new instructors and have spoken to a potential volunteer who is interested in offering an acting class.
Youth Volunteer Corp
YVC continues to meet bi-weekly with the entire group, and on the off week with the group leaders. YVC hosted a butterfly release with HSC participants, and in October will be hosting an event for HSC members “Boots and Boogie”. This is an intergenerational event that will consist of line dancing, food, music and interactions with teens.
Teen Career Prep Program
Staff have identified guest speakers for all 16 weeks. Speakers include recreation staff, healthcare professionals, finance and more. The timeline for this program will allow participants to take advantage of the training and apply for our summer recruitment this coming year.
Seniors
Staff hosted a Football themed Taste of Patterson event, a Table Tennis & Pool Tournament, and introduced a new exercise class in partnership with the Promotoras. HICAP, the Mobile Mental Health unit, and blood pressure check appointments continued.
In September 3,572 members participated in daily activities and 1,162 members were served lunch. The program gained 24 new members.
City of Patterson
Senior Commission
Monthly Report
September 2026
The following information is provided as an update regarding the Senior Commission meeting activities during the month of September.
Senior Commission meetings are held on the 3rd Tuesday of every month at 10:00am alternating between the City Hall Chambers and the Hammon Senior Center. 5-Member Commission:
Chair Cynthia Homen Term: October 2024-2026
Vice-Chair Richard Reiller Term: October 2024-2026
Commissioner Marcine Reed Term: October 2025-2026
Commissioner Albert Lopez Term: October 2025-2026
Commissioner Sherril Lex Term: October 2024-2026
Senior Commission Meeting:
The regular meeting scheduled for September 15, 2026, was held in person at the City Hall Council Chambers at 10:00am. Agenda Items are listed below.
Item 1: Presentation: Sandy Howell with HICAP
Agendas & Minutes can be located on the city website under the agenda center.
The next regular meeting will be scheduled for October 20, 2026. The meeting will be held in person at the Hammon Senior Center.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Christina M. Pritchard, City Attorney
MEETING
DATE:
October 20, 2026
ITEM: 6.5
SUBJECT : Approve Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 891 Reading by Title only, Waiving Further Reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Patterson approving the Amended and Restated Development Agreement Between the City of Patterson and Central Valley-Sierra Associates and South Cord Management LLC for Catalyst Cannabis Dispensary.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 891 Reading by Title only, Waiving Further Reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Patterson approving the Amended and Restated Development Agreement Between the City of Patterson and Central Valley-Sierra Associates and South Cord Management LLC for Catalyst Cannabis Dispensary.
BACKGROUND
As detailed below, the City of Patterson (“City”), Central Valley-Sierra Associates (“CVSA”) and South Cord Management LLC (“South Cord”) have engaged in protracted discussions regarding CVSA’s operation of a cannabis dispensary in the City. These discussions eventually resulted in CVSA suing the City over disagreements for the operation of Catalyst Cannabis Dispensary.
Together, this item and the settlement agreement among the City, CVSA, and South Cord, approved by the City Council on October 8, 2026, are intended to resolve that litigation.
Following consideration and recommendations from the Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”), on December 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 812 approving a development agreement (the “Original Development Agreement”) for the operation of a cannabis dispensary business located at 100 West Las Palmas Avenue, Suite H, Patterson CA 95363, Assessor’s Parcel Number 131-003-015 (the “Site”). On December 21, 2017, the Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution 2017-14, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 17-21 (the “CUP”), associated with CVSA’s application for a cannabis dispensary (the “Project”) to be located at the Site.
Section 4.2 of the Original Development Agreement required CVSA to pay to the City certain amounts to offset the impacts to City infrastructure, services, and neighborhoods, commensurate with the private benefits conferred on CVSA (the “Public Benefit Amount”), pursuant to the terms stated in Section 4.2 of the Original Development Agreement.
Between 2018 and 2022, CVSA did not comply with Section 4.2 of the Original Development Agreement’s requirement to make the Public Benefit Amount payments (the “Delinquent Public Benefit Amount”) by the agreed-upon terms, resulting in a default of the Original Development Agreement, pursuant to Sections 4.3 and 8.1(a). Discussions ensued between CVSA and the City in an attempt to resolve the Delinquent Public Benefit Amount. The parties were unable to reach an agreement before the Original Development Agreement expired by its own terms on January 4, 2022.
On or around January 2023, CVSA engaged a new company Catalyst Cannabis Company, owned by South Cord Management LLC to assist with operation and management of the Project. The City and South Cord engaged in further discussions regarding the Delinquent Public Benefit Amount or extension of the Original Development Agreement but again were unable to reach a resolution.
On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission passed Resolution 2023-07 revoking the CUP for failure to comply with conditions of approval and Resolution 2023-06 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance confirming the termination of the Original Development Agreement.
On July 14, 2023, CVSA timely appealed both resolutions of the Planning Commission.
On August 15, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing on CVSA’s appeal of the Planning Commission resolutions and a public hearing on the first reading of an Ordinance to confirm the termination of the Original Development Agreement. Both items were continued to the September 19, 2023, City Council meeting. During the September 19, 2023, meeting, the City Council resolved to deny CVSA’s appeal, approved the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the CUP, and gave first reading of Ordinance 870 to confirm termination of the Original Development Agreement.
On September 20, 2023, CVSA filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint in the Superior Court, Stanislaus County, titled Central Valley – Sierra Associates v. City of Patterson, Case No. CV-23-005444, against the City challenging the City’s revocation of CVSA’s CUP and the legality of the Public Benefit Amount payments (the “Action”).
In the Action, CVSA applied to the court for a preliminary injunction and the City filed a motion seeking to compel binding arbitration of the Action. The court granted both motions on the terms and conditions set forth in the respective orders issued thereon, including ordering CVSA to post a bond with the court in the amount of $100,000. Due to the preliminary injunction, the City could not perform the second reading of the ordinance terminating the development agreement.
However, the Original Development Agreement had already expired by its own terms.
DISCUSSION
On October 8, 2026, the City Council approved a settlement agreement among the City, CVSA, and South Cord to resolve the claims asserted in the Action (the “Settlement Agreement”), as described in the staff report for that meeting.
As part of the Settlement Agreement, at the same regular meeting, by a 5-0 vote, the City Council introduced and held first reading of an ordinance approving an amended and restated development agreement with CVSA and South Cord for the operation of Catalyst Cannabis Dispensary (the “Development Agreement”). This item is the second reading and adoption of that ordinance. No changes have been made to the ordinance since its introduction.
A. Terms of the Development Agreement
On September 10, 2026, following a public hearing, the Planning Commission passed a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to approve the Development Agreement.
The Development Agreement is similar to the most recent development agreements executed for cannabis businesses in the City. The primary distinction is that this Development Agreement is integral to the global settlement of the Action, as its execution is mandated by the Settlement Agreement.
The major elements of the Development Agreement are summarized below:
• Term of the Agreement is ten (10) years.
• Developers will operate under a Type 10 Retailer license and will continue to operate the cannabis dispensary in substantially the same manner as they have been operating. • Developers may seek a Cannabis Event Organizer License with the State. • Developers must maintain their CUP.
• Developers agree to pay the City Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00) for the delinquent public benefit amount due prior to the effective date of the Development Agreement. • In lieu of a public benefit fee, the Project will be subject to the City’s Cannabis Business Tax which is currently set at seven percent (7%) of gross receipts from retail operations each month. Any Changes to this rate made by resolution of the City Council will apply to the Development Agreement.
• Development Agreement will automatically expire if Developers become six months in arrears on any payments required by the agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Settlement Agreement and subsequent Development Agreement represent the culmination of significant administrative and legal costs for the City. Approval of this ordinance will allow the Development Agreement to take effect 30 days after adoption, at which point the City will begin receiving monthly payments from the Developers for their cannabis operations, providing revenue to offset the expenses incurred through the Action and its settlement.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The City Council may:
1. Waive full reading, read by title only, and adopt Ordinance No. 891 Approving the Development Agreement between the City and Developers; or
2. Reject the proposed Ordinance No 891; or
3. Continue the consideration of the Ordinance No 891 to a future meeting of the City Council and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-05
2. City Council Ordinance No. 891
EXHIBIT A: Amended and Restated Development Agreement
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-05
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY OF PATTERSON CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE TO APPROVE AN AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PATTERSON AND CENTRAL VALLEYSIERRA ASSOCIATES AND SOUTH CORD MANAGEMENT LLC FOR THE
CATALYST CANNABIS DISPENSARY
WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the California Legislature adopted Government Code section 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes the City and an individual with an interest in real property to enter into a development agreement that establishes certain development rights in real property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 6.56 of the Patterson Municipal Code, all cannabis businesses operating in the City are required to enter into a development agreement with the City; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017, the City adopted Ordinance No. 812 approving a development agreement (the “Original Development Agreement”) between the City of Patterson (the “City”) and Central Valley–Sierra Associates (“CVSA”) for the operation of a cannabis dispensary business located at 100 West Las Palmas Avenue, Suite H, Patterson CA 95363, Assessor’s Parcel Number 131-003-018 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement required CVSA to pay to the City certain amounts to offset the impacts to City infrastructure, services, and neighborhoods, commensurate with the private benefits conferred on CVSA (the “Public Benefit Amount”), pursuant to the terms stated in Section 4.2 of the Original Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, between 2018 and 2022, CVSA did not comply with the requirements of the Original Development Agreement to make required Public Benefit Amount payments (the “Delinquent Public Benefit Amount”) by the agreed-upon terms, resulting in a default of the Original Development Agreement, pursuant to Sections 4.3 and 8.1(a) of that agreement; and WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement expired by its own terms on January 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on or around January 2023, CVSA engaged a new company, Catalyst Cannabis Company, owned by South Cord Management LLC (“South Cord”) to assist with operation and management of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission passed Resolution 2023-07 revoking the CUP for failure to comply with conditions of approval and Resolution 2023-06 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance confirming the termination of the Original 2 4908-9071-1140, v. 9
Development Agreement. On July 14, 2023, CVSA timely appealed both Planning Commission resolutions; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council denied CVSA’s appeal of the Planning Commission resolutions, confirmed the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the CUP, and gave first reading of Ordinance 870 to confirm termination of the Original Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2023, CVSA filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint in the Superior Court, Stanislaus County, titled Central Valley – Sierra Associates v. City of Patterson, Case No. CV-23-005444, against the City challenging the City’s revocation of CVSA’s CUP and the legality of the Public Benefit Amount payments (the “Action”); and
WHEREAS, due to the Action, the City was not able to complete the second reading of the Ordinance to terminate the Original Development Agreement; however, the Original Development Agreement has expired by its own terms; and WHEREAS, the City and CVSA have negotiated a settlement of the Action through execution of a settlement agreement between the City, CVSA, and South Cord (the “Settlement Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, as part of the Settlement Agreement, the City, CVSA, and South Cord have negotiated an amended and restated development agreement for Catalyst Cannabis Dispensary (the “Development Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement allows CVSA and South Cord to continue to operate the Catalyst Cannabis Dispensary in substantially the same manner as they have been operating, except that in lieu of the Public Benefit Amount, the project will be subject to the City’s Cannabis Business Tax; and
WHEREAS, CVSA’s existing operation will not change in conjunction with this Development Agreement. Approval of the Development Agreement is exempt from CEQA under the Existing Facilities exemption (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301) and the common sense exemption (CEQA Guidelines, § 15061, subd. (b)(3)), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following findings for recommendation of the Development Agreement:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City’s General Plan. The Development Agreement allows for development and operation of the Project consistent with the existing General Plan designation and policies (Heavy Industrial).
3 4908-9071-1140, v. 9
2. The Development Agreement is consistent with the zoning for the Property. The Development Agreement would allow for development and operation of the Project consistent with current zoning district applied to the Property (Heavy Industrial).
3. The Development Agreement will provide for the orderly development of the Property; will preserve surrounding property values; conforms to the public convenience and good land use practices; will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing in the immediate area nor detrimental to the general welfare of the residents of the City as a whole; and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
4. The Development Agreement provides sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into the Development Agreement, which includes receipt of City fees and infrastructure and public benefit contributions from the Developer.
5. The Development Agreement contains an adequate legal description of the Property and is in all other respects consistent with the provisions of Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5 (the Development Agreement Statute).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Patterson hereby finds and determines that the Recitals set forth above are true and correct, are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and are incorporated herein by reference as findings of the Planning Commission.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that approval of the Development Agreement is exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. ___, Approving the Development Agreement By and Between the City of Patterson and Central Valley-Sierra Associates and South Cord Management LLC.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Patterson, held on the 10th day of September, 2026, by Vice Chairperson Bendix, who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Commissioner Sidhu, and the resolution adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Chairperson West, Vice Chairperson Bendix, Commissioner Sidhu, Commissioner Apland
NOES: None
EXCUSED: Commissioner Alexander
APPROVED:
____________________________
Ron West, Chairperson,
City of Patterson Planning Commission
4 4908-9071-1140, v. 9
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lisa Ochoa, Secretary
City of Patterson Planning Commission
1 ORDINANCE NO. 891
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON
APPROVING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PATTERSON AND CENTRAL VALLEY-SIERRA
ASSOCIATES AND SOUTH CORD MANAGEMENT LLC FOR THE CATALYST
CANNABIS DISPENSARY
WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the California Legislature adopted Government Code section 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes the City and individuals with an interest in real property to enter into a development agreement that establishes certain development rights in real property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 6.56 of the Patterson Municipal Code, all cannabis businesses operating in the City are required to enter into a development agreement with the City; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017, the City adopted Ordinance No. 812 approving the Development Agreement (the “Original Development Agreement”) between the City of Patterson (the “City”) and Central Valley–Sierra Associates (“CVSA”) for the operation of a cannabis dispensary business located at 100 West Las Palmas Avenue, Suite H, Patterson CA 95363, Assessor’s Parcel Number 131-003-018 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, Section 4.2 of the Original Development Agreement required CVSA to pay to the City certain amounts to offset the impacts to City infrastructure, services, and neighborhoods, commensurate with the private benefits conferred on CVSA (the “Public Benefit Amount”); and
WHEREAS, between 2018 and 2022, CVSA did not meet its obligation under Section 4.2 of the Original Development Agreement to pay the City the required Public Benefit Amount payments (the “Delinquent Public Benefit Amount”) by the agreed-upon terms, resulting in a default of the Original Development Agreement, pursuant to Section 4.3 and 8.1(a) of that agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement expired by its own terms on January 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, On or around January 2023, CVSA engaged a new company, Catalyst Cannabis Company, owned by South Cord Management LLC (“South Cord”) to assist with operation and management of the Project; and
WHEREAS, On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission passed Resolution 2023-07 revoking the CUP for failure to comply with conditions of approval and Resolution 2023-06 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance confirming the termination of the Original 2 Development Agreement. On July 14, 2023, CVSA timely appealed both Planning Commission resolutions; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council denied CVSA’s appeal of the Planning Commission resolutions, adopted a resolution to revoke the CUP contingent on termination of the Original Development Agreement, and gave first reading of Ordinance 870 to confirm termination of the Original Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2023, CVSA filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint in the Superior Court, Stanislaus County, titled Central Valley – Sierra Associates v. City of Patterson, Case No. CV-23-005444, against the City challenging the City’s revocation of CVSA’s CUP and the legality of the Public Benefit Amount payments (the “Action”); and
WHEREAS, due to the Action, the City was not able to complete the second reading of the Ordinance to terminate the Original Development Agreement; however, the Original Development Agreement has expired by its own terms; and WHEREAS, the City and CVSA have negotiated a settlement of the Action through execution of a settlement agreement between the City, CVSA, and South Cord (the “Settlement Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, as part of the Settlement Agreement, the City, CVSA, and South Cord have negotiated an amended and restated development agreement for Catalyst Cannabis Dispensary (the “Development Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement allows CVSA and South Cord to continue to operate the Catalyst Cannabis Dispensary in substantially the same manner as they have been operating, except that in lieu of the Public Benefit Fee, the project will be subject to the City’s Cannabis Business Tax; and
WHEREAS, CVSA’s existing operation will not change in conjunction with this Development Agreement. Approval of the Development Agreement is exempt from CEQA under the Existing Facilities exemption (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301) and the common sense exemption (CEQA Guidelines, § 15061, subd. (b)(3)), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2026, following a public hearing, the Planning Commission passed Resolution No. 2026-05 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to approve the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, based on its independent review and analysis of City staff’s recommendations, oral and written testimony, and the record as a whole, finds after due study, deliberation, and public hearing, and based on its independent judgment, that the following circumstances exist:
3 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City’s General Plan. The Development Agreement allows for development and operation of the Project consistent with the existing General Plan designation and policies (Heavy Industrial).
2. The Development Agreement is consistent with the zoning for the Property. The Development Agreement would allow for development and operation of the Project consistent with current zoning district applied to the Property (Heavy Industrial).
3. The Development Agreement will provide for the orderly development of the Property; will preserve surrounding property values; conforms to the public convenience and good land use practices; will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing in the immediate area nor detrimental to the general welfare of the residents of the City as a whole; and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
4. The Development Agreement provides sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into the Development Agreement, which includes receipt of City fees and infrastructure and public benefit contributions from the Developer.
5. The Development Agreement contains an adequate legal description of the Property and is in all other respects consistent with the provisions of Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5 (the Development Agreement Statute).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing Recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference and made part of this Ordinance, are true and correct.
SECTION 2. Annual Review. The City Manager or his or her designee shall review the Development Agreement for compliance with its terms and conditions not less than once every twelve (12) months from the effective date of the Development Agreement.
SECTION 3. Approval of Development Agreement. The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to execute the Development Agreement attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A, subject to final revisions as required and approved by the City Attorney. Upon execution, the City Clerk shall cause the Development Agreement to be recorded in the Official Records of Stanislaus County promptly after this Ordinance is legally effective (thirty (30) days after the second reading of this Ordinance).
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage by the City Council and following the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the City Council. Within fifteen (15) days of its adoption, a summary of the Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Patterson, State of California, which summary shall include the names of those Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance.
A certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk.
4 The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson held on the 6th day of October 2026, by __________, who moved its introduction, which motion being duly seconded by _______________. Said Ordinance was given a second reading at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of October 2026, and after such reading, ____________ moved its adoption, seconded by ________________, and said Ordinance was thereupon adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Michael Clauzel,
Mayor of the City of Patterson
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Aracely Alegre,
City Clerk of the City of Patterson
1 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL
TO:
City of Patterson
P.O. Box 667
1 Plaza
Patterson, CA 95363
Attention: City Clerk
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Recording Fee Exempt per Government Code §6103
APN:
AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ______________________, 2026, by and between the CITY OF PATTERSON, a municipal corporation of the State of California (“City”), and EAGLE VALLEY INVESTMENTS INC., a California corporation (“Owner”) and CENTRAL VALLEY -- SIERRA ASSOCIATES, a California corporation, and SOUTH CORD MANAGEMENT LLC, a California limited liability company (collectively, “Tenant”).
Owner and Tenant are referred to herein collectively as “Developer.” City, Owner, or Tenant may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.” There are no other parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed three bills into law (Assembly Bill 266, Assembly Bill 243, and Senate Bill 643) which are collectively referred to as the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”). MCRSA establishes a statewide regulatory system for the cultivation, processing, transportation, testing, manufacturing, and distribution of medical marijuana to qualified patients and their primary caregivers.
B. On November 8, 2016, California voters enacted Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, also known as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”), which establishes a comprehensive system to legalize, control, and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical cannabis, including cannabis products, for use by adults 21 years and older, and to tax the growth and retail sale of cannabis for nonmedical use.
C. On June 27, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Medicinal and AdultUse Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”), which creates a single regulatory scheme for both medicinal and adult-use cannabis businesses.
MAUCRSA retains the provisions in MCRSA and AUMA that granted local jurisdictions control over whether businesses engaged in Commercial Cannabis 2 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Activity, as defined in Section 1.4 of this Agreement, may operate in a particular jurisdiction.
D. On November 7, 2017, the City of Patterson City Council adopted Ordinance No. 806 to revise Patterson Municipal Code 6.56 to establish a Cannabis Business Program to regulate all cannabis businesses within the City, as may be updated from time to time.
E. Pursuant to Chapter 6.56 of the Patterson Municipal Code, all cannabis businesses operating within City must enter into a Development Agreement with City.
F. Developer proposes to improve, develop, and use real property located in the City of Patterson to operate a cannabis dispensary, in strict accordance with California Cannabis Laws, as defined in Section 1.4, and the Municipal Code of the City of Patterson, as each may be amended from time to time (the “Project”).
G. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the California Legislature adopted Government Code section 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes City and an individual with an interest in real property to enter into a development agreement that establishes certain development rights in real property that is subject to a development agreement application.
H. Consistent with the requirements of the Development Agreement Statute, City adopted Patterson Municipal Code Chapter 18.20 et seq. (“City Development Agreement Ordinance”), authorizing the use of and establishing the procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements within the City.
I. Government Code section 65865 requires that an applicant for a development agreement hold a legal or equitable interest in the real property that is the subject of the development agreement.
J. Owner is the fee title owner to the property located at 100 West Las Palmas Avenue, Suite H, Patterson, California (APN 131-003-012) (the “Property”), as more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A.
K. Tenant has leased the Property from Owner for the purpose of operating a Cannabis Dispensary. Owner is aware of, and agrees to, Tenant operating the Project at the Property.
L. On December 5, 2017, Developer and City first entered into a Development Agreement prior to the Project commencing operation. There was a dispute as to the obligations established by the original Development Agreement and this Agreement is being entered into as part of the settlement of that dispute. This Agreement shall supersede and take the place of the original Development Agreement, which shall no longer have any force or effect. 3 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
M. On __________, 2026, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt an ordinance to approve this Agreement.
N. On ____________, 2026, the City Council reviewed, considered, adopted, and entered into this Agreement pursuant to Ordinance No. _____.
O. City and Developer desire to enter into this Agreement to (i) facilitate the orderly development of the Property; (ii) create a physical environment that is consistent with and complements City’s goals and visions; (iii) protect natural resources from adverse impacts; (iv) improve, upgrade, and create additional community facilities and infrastructure, enhance services, and assist in implementing the goals of the General Plan; (v) reduce the economic risk of development of the Property to both City and Developer; (vi) establish public benefits that will be provided to City through operation of the Project; and (vii) resolve a lawsuit filed by Developer against the City regarding this project.
P. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute and the Patterson Municipal Code. The Parties intend through this Agreement to allow Developer to develop and operate the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Q. The City Council has determined that this Agreement is consistent with City’s General Plan and have conducted all necessary proceedings in accordance with the Patterson Municipal Code for the approval of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
ARTICLE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.1. Findings. City hereby finds and determines that entering into this Agreement furthers the public health, safety, and general welfare and is consistent with City’s General Plan, including all text and maps in the General Plan.
Section 1.2. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the Recitals and the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions shall prevail.
Section 1.3. Exhibits. The following “Exhibits” are attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement:
4 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Designation Description
Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property
Exhibit B Notice of Non-Performance Penalty
Exhibit C Indemnification Agreement
Exhibit D Development Agreement Ordinance
Exhibit E Settlement Agreement
Section 1.4. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms below have the following meaning:
(a) “Adult-use cannabis” means a product containing cannabis, including, but not limited to, concentrates and extractions, intended for use by adults 21 years of age or older in California pursuant to the California Cannabis Laws. (b) “Agreement” means this Development Agreement, inclusive of all Exhibits attached hereto and all amendments hereto.
(c) “AUMA” means the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Proposition 64) approved by California voters on November 8, 2016.
(d) “Authorized Licenses” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3. (e) “California Cannabis Laws” includes AUMA, MAUCRSA, CUA (as defined below), the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 codified as Health and Safety Code sections 11362.7 through 11362.85, and any other applicable laws that may be enacted or approved.
(f) “Cannabis” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. “Cannabis” also means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from cannabis. “Cannabis” does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. For the purpose of this division, “cannabis” does not mean “industrial hemp” as defined by Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Cannabis and the term “marijuana” may be used interchangeably.
5 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
(g) “Cannabis Business Program” means the cannabis business program established and authorized by Patterson Municipal Code Chapter 6.56. (h) “Cannabis Business Tax” means tax on every person engaged in a cannabis business as contemplated in Patterson Municipal Code Chapter 5.14, as may be amended from time to time.
(i) “Cannabis product” means cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the plant material has been transformed into a concentrate, including, but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing cannabis or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients.
(j) “CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act, as set forth in Division 13 (Commencing with Section 21000) of the California Public Resources Code, and the CEQA Guidelines, as set forth in Title 14 (Commencing with Section 15000) of the California Code of Regulations.
(k) “City” means the City of Patterson, a municipal corporation having general police powers.
(l) “Commercial Cannabis Activity” includes cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, delivery, or sale of cannabis or a cannabis product that requires a state license pursuant to MAUCRSA.
(m) “Conditional Use Permit” means a conditional use permit issued by City pursuant to Patterson Municipal Code.
(n) “CUA” means the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) approved by California voters on November 5, 1996.
(o) "Gross Receipts from Operations" means the total amounts actually received or receivable from operation of the Project from whatever source derived, including but not limited to: amounts derived from sales, services, dealings in tangible personal property, interest, rent, royalties, licensing fees, other fees, commissions, or other remunerations however designated. Included in "gross receipts" shall be all receipts, cash, credits, and property of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom of costs, losses or other expenses whatsoever. The following exceptions shall be excluded therefrom:
1. Cash discounts allowed and taken on sales;
2. Credit allowed on property accepted as part of the purchase price and which property may later be sold, at which time the sales price shall be included as "gross receipts";
3. Any tax required by law to be included in or added to the purchase price and collected from the consumer or purchaser;
6 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
4. Such part of the sale price of property returned by purchasers upon rescission of a contract of sale as is refunded either in cash or by credit;
5. Receipts of refundable deposits, except that such deposits when forfeited and taken into income of the business shall not be excluded.
The intent of this definition is to ensure that in calculating the payment required under Section 4.2, all sales of cannabis products through the Project are captured. This definition shall therefore be given the broadest possible interpretation consistent with this intent.
(p) “Marijuana” has the same meaning as cannabis and those terms may be used interchangeably.
(q) “MAUCRSA” means the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, codified as Business and Professions Code section 26000 et seq., as may be amended from time to time.
(r) “Settlement Agreement” means the agreement entered into between the City and CVSA on ___________, 2026 that resolved the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint in Superior Court, Stanislaus County, titled Central Valley – Sierra Associates v. City of Patterson, Case No. CV-23-005444. (s) “State Licensing Authority” means the state agency responsible for the issuance, renewal, or reinstatement of a state cannabis license, or the state agency authorized to take disciplinary action against a business licensed under the California Cannabis Laws.
(t) “State Cannabis Retail Regulations” means the regulations related to the retail sale of cannabis issued by the Bureau in accordance with Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 26070) of Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code, which may be amended from time to time.
(u) “State Cannabis Regulations” means the regulations promulgated by the State Licensing Authority pursuant to the California Cannabis Laws. (v) “Subsequent City Approvals” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.1.
Section 1.5. Project is a Private Undertaking. The Parties agree that the Project is a private development and that City has no interest therein, except as authorized in the exercise of its governmental functions. City shall not for any purpose be considered an agent of Developer or the Project.
Section 1.6. Effective Date of Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date that the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective (the “Effective Date”).
7 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Section 1.7. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be ten (10) years from the Effective Date, unless terminated or extended earlier, as set forth in this Agreement (the “Initial Term”). After the Initial Term, the City Manager shall perform a review of Developer’s performance under this Agreement to verify that Developer is in compliance with this Agreement, the California Cannabis Laws, the Conditional Use Permit, and all applicable Subsequent City Approvals. If the City Manager determines Developer is in compliance with the Agreement, the California Cannabis Laws, the Conditional Use Permit, and applicable Subsequent City Approvals, the City Manager in his or her sole discretion may extend the term of this Agreement in increments of six (6) months (individually, a “Conditionally Extended Term”, or collectively, the “Conditionally Extended Terms”), for a maximum of four (4) Conditionally Extended Terms. Collectively, the Initial Term and the Conditionally Extended Terms, if granted, shall not exceed twelve (12) years, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Initial Term and any Conditionally Extended Terms shall collectively be referred to as the “Term”. Any extension of this Agreement beyond the Term shall be subject to approval by the City Council. The City Manager’s review of the Agreement for purposes of this Section 1.7 shall be a Minor Amendment, as defined in Section 1.9, of this Agreement. The City Manager in his or her sole discretion may decide that any extension beyond the Initial Term shall be subject to the approval of City Council.
(a) Government Tolling or Termination. City may provide written notice to Developer to cease all Commercial Cannabis Activity, upon which Developer shall immediately comply, if City is required, directed, or believes, in its sole and absolute discretion, it must temporarily halt or terminate Commercial Cannabis Activity within the City to comply with federal or state law. If City temporarily halts this Agreement to comply with federal or state law, this Agreement shall be tolled for no longer than one (1) calendar year. This Agreement shall automatically terminate, without recourse by any Party, if tolled for more than one (1) calendar year to comply with federal or state law. (b) Developer Tolling or Termination. Developer may not temporarily halt or terminate this Agreement for any purpose without causing a default of this Agreement, except as otherwise allowed by this Agreement or by mutual agreement of the Parties. (c) Developer Termination. Developer may provide written notice to City of intent to cease all Commercial Cannabis Activity, if Developer is required or directed, it must temporarily halt or terminate Commercial Cannabis Activity. In such an event, Developer obligations under this Development Agreement shall terminate as of the date that Developer has completed all of its obligations under Article 4 of this Agreement. Any resumption of Commercial Cannabis Activity shall be subject to approval by the City Manager.
Section 1.8. Priority of Enactment. In the event of a conflict between the various land use documents referenced in this Agreement, the Parties agree that the following sequence of approvals establishes the relative priority of the approvals, each approval superior to the approvals listed thereafter: (a) General Plan, (b) this Agreement, (c) Conditional Use Permit, (d) Indemnification Agreement, and (e) Subsequent City Approvals.
8 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Section 1.9. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement shall be amended only by mutual consent of the Parties. All amendments shall be in writing. The City Council hereby expressly authorizes the City Manager to approve a minor amendment to this Agreement, upon notification of the City Council (“Minor Amendment”). A major amendment to this Agreement shall be approved by the City Council (“Major Amendment”). The City Manager shall, on behalf of City, have sole discretion for City to determine if an amendment is a Minor Amendment or a Major Amendment, except that any change in the majority ownership of Developer’s business shall be deemed a Major Amendment.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring a noticed public hearing, unless required by law.
Section 1.10. Recordation of Development Agreement. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be recorded against the title of the Property promptly after the Ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective.
Section 1.11. Funding Agreement for Processing Costs. Developer recognizes that City incurs actual fees and expenses that are related to the preparation, processing, and administration of this Agreement and the Project, including recording fees, publishing fees, City staff time, and consultant and attorney fees and costs (collectively, “Processing Costs”). Developer shall maintain a funding agreement for Processing Costs at all times during the time that the Project is operational.
(a) Apportionment of Processing Costs. Developer shall deposit with City such funds necessary to pay for all Processing Costs within thirty (30) days. The failure to timely pay any such amounts requested by City shall be considered a material default of this Agreement and City may terminate this Agreement. (b) Accounting. Developer may request, and City shall issue within a reasonable time not to exceed thirty (30) days, an accounting and written acknowledgement of Processing Costs paid to City.
Section 1.12 Review of Agreement. The City will review this Agreement at least once every twelve (12) months, at which time Developer shall demonstrate good-faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. If, as a result of that review, the City finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City may terminate or modify this Agreement.
ARTICLE 2
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY
Section 2.1. Vested Right of Developer. During the Term, in developing the Project described herein, Developer is assured that the development rights, obligation terms, and conditions specified in this Agreement, including, without limitation, the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the Exhibits, are fully vested in Developer and may not be modified or terminated by City except as set forth in this Agreement or with Developer’s written consent.
9 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Section 2.2. Vested Right to Develop. In accordance with Section 2.1, Developer shall have the vested right to develop and use the Project consistent with this Agreement, the Conditional Use Permit, and Subsequent City Approvals.
Section 2.3. Permitted Uses and Development Standards. Developer shall be authorized to develop, construct, and use the Property for Commercial Cannabis Activity consistent with the following license types (the “Authorized Licenses”):
Type 10 Retailer
(a) State License Required. Developer shall be permitted to use the Property consistent with the Authorized Licenses for the Term of this Agreement. Developer is required to maintain the Authorized Licenses from the State of California. If Developer’s Authorized Licenses are revoked or suspended, Developer shall immediately cease Commercial Cannabis Activity on the Property and this Agreement shall terminate immediately. Developer shall also, within thirty (30) days of receiving notice from the State Licensing Authority, notify City of the State Licensing Authority’s, revocation or suspension of any Authorized License.
(b) Cannabis Event Organizer. Developer may seek a Cannabis Event Organizer license with the State Licensing Authority for the purpose of conducting and carrying out temporary cannabis events at the Property, subject to all applicable California Cannabis Laws, including but not limited to the applicable cannabis regulations issued by the State Licensing Authority, which may be amended from time to time (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 4, §§ 15600 - 15604.), and subject to any and all applicable event permit requirements imposed by the City. Developer may not conduct any events at the Property, or within City limits, that include any on-Property cannabis consumption.
Section 2.4. Major Amendment to Permitted Uses. Developer may request to add to the Authorized License one or more additional license types once that license is applied for or obtained from the appropriate State Licensing Authority (the “Additional Licenses”).
Section 2.5. Conditional Use Permit. Developer shall obtain and maintain a Conditional Use Permit and any applicable Subsequent City Approvals to continue operating a Commercial Cannabis Activity on the Property. Developer shall be required to comply with all conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. If Developer’s Conditional Use Permit is revoked by the City, Developer shall immediately cease Commercial Cannabis Activity on the Property and this Agreement shall terminate immediately. Developer shall be required to comply with all provisions of the Patterson Municipal Code and any City rules and administrative guidelines associated with implementation of the Cannabis Business Program. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting the ability of City to amend the Patterson Municipal Code or issue rules or administrative guidelines associated with implementation of the Cannabis Business Program or Developer’s obligation to strictly comply with the same. 10 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Section 2.6. Subsequent Entitlements, Approvals, and Permits. Successful implementation of the Project may require Developer to obtain additional approvals and permits from City and other local and state agencies. City shall comply with CEQA in the administration of all Subsequent City Approvals. In acting upon any Subsequent City Approvals, City’s exercise of discretion and permit authority shall conform to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the course of taking action on the Subsequent City Approvals, City will exercise discretion in adopting mitigation measures as part of the Conditional Use Permit. The exercise of this discretion is not prohibited or limited in any way by this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the evaluation of impacts or consideration of mitigation measures or alternatives, as required by CEQA.
(a) Contemplated City Rules and Guidelines. City anticipates that it may issue additional rules and administrative guidelines associated with implementation of the Cannabis Business Program. City may establish requirements that are identical to or place a higher standard of care as existing provisions of the California Cannabis Laws, State Cannabis Regulations, or any amendments thereto. City reserves the right to adopt additional categories of rules or guidelines that are not listed in this section as part of the Cannabis Business Program. Developer will be required to comply with any and all administrative guidelines adopted by City that govern or pertain to the Project. Should new administrative guidelines conflict with this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
Section 2.7. Initiatives and Referenda. If any City ordinance, rule or regulation, or addition to the Patterson Municipal Code is enacted or imposed by a citizen-sponsored initiative or referendum after the Effective Date that would conflict with this Agreement, an associated Conditional Use Permit, Subsequent City Approvals, or reduce the development rights or assurances provided to Developer in this Agreement, such Patterson Municipal Code changes shall not be applied to the Property or Project; provided, however, the Parties acknowledge that City’s approval of this Agreement is a legislative action subject to referendum. City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such reasonable actions as may be appropriate to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect and is implemented in accordance with its terms to the fullest extent permitted by state or federal law.
Section 2.8. Regulation by Other Government Entities. Developer acknowledges that City does not have authority or jurisdiction over any other government entities’ ability to grant governmental approvals or permits or to impose a moratorium or other limitations that may negatively affect the Project or the ability of City to issue a permit to Developer or comply with the terms of this Agreement. Any moratorium imposed by another government entity, including the State Licensing Authority, on City shall not cause City to be in breach of this Agreement.
Section 2.9. Developer’s Right to Rebuild. Developer may renovate portions of the Project any time within the Term of this Agreement consistent with the Patterson Municipal Code. Any such renovation or rebuild shall be subject to all design, building code, and other requirements imposed on the Project by this Agreement. 11 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Section 2.10. Changes Mandated by Federal or State Law. The Project shall be subject to subsequently enacted state or federal laws or regulations that may preempt the Patterson Municipal Code, or mandate the adoption or amendment of local regulations, or are in conflict with this Agreement or local rules or guidelines associated with the Cannabis Business Pilot Program. As provided in Section 65869.5 of the Development Agreement Statute, in the event state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations. Upon discovery of a subsequently enacted federal or state law meeting the requirements of this Section, City or Developer shall provide the other Party with written notice of the state or federal law or regulation, and a written statement of the conflicts thereby raised with the provisions of the Patterson Municipal Code or this Agreement. Promptly thereafter, City and Developer shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement, as necessary, to comply with such federal or state law or regulation provided City shall not be obligated to agree to any modification materially increasing its obligations or materially adversely affecting its rights and benefits hereunder. In such discussions, City and Developer will attempt to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of Developer derived from this Agreement to the maximum feasible extent while resolving the conflict. If City, in its judgment, determines it necessary to modify this Agreement to address such conflict, City shall have the right and responsibility to do so, and shall not have any liability to Developer for doing so or be considered in breach or default of this Agreement. City also agrees to process, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, Developer’s proposed changes to the Project that are necessary to comply with such federal or state law and that such proposed changes shall be conclusively deemed to be consistent with this Agreement without further need for any amendment to this Agreement.
Section 2.11. Health and Safety Emergencies. In the event that any future public health and safety emergencies arise with respect to the development contemplated by this Agreement, City agrees that it shall attempt, if reasonably possible as determined by City in its discretion, to address such emergency in a way that does not have a material adverse impact on the Project. If City determines, in its discretion, that it is not reasonably possible to so address such health and safety emergency in a way that does not have a material adverse impact on the Project, City may select an option which, in its discretion, minimizes, so far as reasonably possible, the impact on development and use of the Project in accordance with this Agreement, while still addressing such health and safety emergency in a manner acceptable to City.
ARTICLE 3
ENTITLEMENT AND PERMIT PROCESSING, INSPECTIONS
Section 3.1. Subsequent City Approvals. City shall permit the development, construction, and conditionally permitted use contemplated in this Agreement. City agrees to timely grant, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the Patterson Municipal Code, and any Subsequent City Approvals reasonably necessary to complete the goals, objectives, policies, standards, and plans described in this Agreement. The Subsequent City Approvals shall include any applications, permits, and approvals required to complete 12 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
the improvements necessary to develop the Project, in general accordance with this Agreement (“Subsequent City Approvals”). Nothing herein shall require City to provide Developer with Subsequent City Approvals prior to, or without complying with, all of the requirements in this Agreement, the Patterson Municipal Code, and any applicable state law.
Section 3.2. Timely Processing. City shall use its reasonable best efforts to process and approve, within a reasonable time, any Subsequent City Approvals or environmental review requested by Developer during the Term of this Agreement.
Section 3.3. Cooperation Between City and Developer. Consistent with the terms set forth herein, City agrees to cooperate with Developer, on a timely basis, in securing all permits or licenses that may be required by City or any other government entity with permitting or licensing jurisdiction over the Project.
Section 3.4. Further Consistent Discretionary Actions. The exercise of City's authority and independent judgment is recognized under this Agreement, and nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as limiting City’s discretion or obligation to hold legally required public hearings. Except as otherwise set forth herein, such discretion and action taken by City shall, however, be consistent with the terms of this Agreement and not prevent, hinder or compromise development or use of the Project as contemplated by the Parties in this Agreement.
ARTICLE 4
PUBLIC BENEFIT, PROCESSING, AND OVERSIGHT
Section 4.1. Processing Fees and Charges. Developer shall pay to City those processing, inspection, plan checking, and monitoring fees and charges required by City which are in force and effect at the time those fees and charges are incurred (including any post-Effective Date increases in such fees and charges) for processing applications and requests for building permits, inspections, other permits, approvals and actions, and monitoring compliance with any permits issued or approvals granted or the performance of any conditions (each a “Ministerial Fee” and collectively, the “Ministerial Fees”).
Section 4.2. Public Benefit.
(a) Public Benefit Requirement. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers substantial private benefits upon Developer that will place burden upon City infrastructure, services, and neighborhoods. Accordingly, the Parties intend to provide consideration to City to offset these impacts that commensurate with the private benefits conferred upon Developer. Developer’s consideration to the City consist of the Adjusted Public Benefit payment as defined in this section, payment of the City’s Cannabis Business Tax, and payment of past taxes owed by the Developer to the City. (b) Outstanding Public Benefit Payment. Developer hereby agrees to pay to City a fixed sum of Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00) to offset the entire outstanding Public Benefit amount due and owed to City arising before the Effective Date 13 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
(“Adjusted Public Benefit”). Payment shall be due to City pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
Section 4.3. Project Subject to Citywide Cannabis Business Tax. (a) Cannabis Business Tax. The Project shall be subject to the City’s Cannabis Business Tax as applicable to the monthly Gross Receipts generated by the Project. As of the effective date of this agreement, the Cannabis Business Tax rate is 7% of Gross Receipts from retail operations each month (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2021-44). The Cannabis Business Tax rate is subject to change by decision of the City Council. Developer shall pay the Cannabis Business Tax rate as determined by the City Council. Changes to the Cannabis Business Tax rate will become effective on the first day of the month following any final decision by the City Council approving a change to the Cannabis Business Tax rate.
(b) Cannabis Business Tax Payment. As of the Effective Date, the Developer’s payment of the City’s Cannabis Business Tax shall be due and payable to City on the first business day of each month going forward. (c) Method of Payment. On the due date for the Cannabis Business Tax, Developer shall submit both the payment of the Cannabis Business Tax as well as a completed Cannabis Business Tax Form to the City.
(d) Tax Obligation Upon Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement Developer will be subject to the tax rate for retail cannabis businesses set by the City Council. Termination of this agreement shall not be construed as relieving Developer from the City’s Cannabis Business Tax.
(e) Filing of Tax Statement. Developer shall file an applicable statement that complies with the California State Board of Equalization, California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, or either’s successor agency (the “State Taxing Authority”) for sales tax purposes showing the true and correct amount of Gross Receipts from Operations of the Project during the applicable time period. Developer shall provide a copy of such statement to City upon request by City.
(f) Tax Does Not Authorize Illegal Business. The payment of the cannabis business tax shall not be construed as authorizing the conduct or continuance of any illegal business or of a legal business in an illegal manner.
Section 4.4. Payment of Past Taxes. For the time period of February 8, 2024 through the Effective Date of this Agreement, Developer shall pay City past due taxes on cannabis operations pursuant to the promissory note as provided by the Settlement Agreement.
Section 4.5. Reporting. Developer shall provide City with copies of any reports provided to a State Licensing Authority within forty-five (45) days of that submission.
Any failure or refusal of Developer to provide any statement or report to City, the State Taxing Authority, or any other State Licensing Authority as required within the time required, or to pay such sums due hereunder when the same are due and payable in 14 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, may constitute full and sufficient grounds for the termination of this agreement.
Section 4.6. Records. Developer shall keep records of all Commercial Cannabis Activity in accordance with Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 26160) of Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code and the applicable State Cannabis Regulations.
All records required by this Section shall be maintained and made available for City’s examination and duplication (physical or electronic) at the Property or at an alternate facility as approved in writing by the City Manager or his or her designee. Developer further agrees to provide a copy of the lease between Owner and Tenant, at City’s request.
Section 4.7. Penalty. Developer acknowledges that to ensure proper compliance with the terms of this Agreement and any applicable laws, City must engage in costly compliance review, inspections, and, if necessary, enforcement actions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents. Penalty and interest provisions are necessary to assist City in compliance review and enforcement actions. If Developer fails to make any payment when due as required by this Agreement, City may impose a “NonPerformance Penalty.” A Non-Performance Penalty of one percent (1%) shall be applied to all past due payments. City shall deliver to Developer a “Notice of Non-Performance Penalty,” attached hereto as Exhibit B. Payment of the Non-Performance Penalty shall be in a single installment due on or before a date fifteen (15) days following delivery of the Notice of Non-Performance Penalty.
Section 4.8. Interest on Unpaid Non-Performance Penalty. If Developer fails to pay the Non-Performance Penalty after City has delivered the Notice of Non-Performance Penalty, then, in addition to the principal amount of the Non-Performance Penalty, Developer shall pay City interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum, computed on the principal amount of the Non-Performance Penalty, from a date fifteen (15) days following delivery of the Notice of Non-Performance Penalty.
Section 4.9. Termination for Non-Payment: If Developer becomes six months in arrears on any payment as required by this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the City’s Cannabis Business Tax or the payment on the Promissory Note for Past Taxes, this Agreement shall terminate. Developer may appeal the termination to the City Council.
Section 4.10. No Payment Challenge. Developer agrees that they shall not challenge, contest, or seek to invalidate any payments as required by this Agreement including, but not limited to, the Adjusted Public Benefit Payment, the Cannabis Business Tax or the payment of past taxes.
Section 4.11. Taxes by Other Public Agencies. Developer and the Project shall be subject to any and all taxes, assessments, or similar charges or fees of general applicability enacted by the federal government, state government, or County of Stanislaus, including any tax applicable to an area greater than the City limits to which City may be a party (i.e., county tax sharing agreement). 15 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
ARTICLE 5
INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY
Section 5.1. Insurance. Developer shall require all persons doing work on the Project, including its contractors and subcontractors (collectively, “Developer” for purposes of this Article 5 only), to obtain and maintain insurance of the types and in the amounts described in this Article with carriers reasonably satisfactory to City. (a) General Liability Insurance. Developer shall maintain commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a limit of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) (or as otherwise approved, in writing, by City) per claim and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) each occurrence. Such insurance shall also:
(i) Name City, its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives as “Additional Insureds” by endorsement with respect to performance of this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection afforded to the above-listed additional insured.
(ii) Be primary with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs covering City, its officials, employees, agents, and representatives. (iii) Contain standard separation of insured provisions. (b) Automotive Liability Insurance. If the Developer owns or operates any vehicles that are made part of the Project, Developer shall maintain business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each accident. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles. Such insurance shall also:
(i) Name City, its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives as Additional Insureds by endorsement with respect to performance of this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection afforded to the above-listed Additional Insureds. (ii) Be primary with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs covering City, its officials, employees, agents, and representatives. (iii) Contain standard separation of insured provisions. (c) Workers’ Compensation Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain during the Term of this Agreement, workers’ compensation insurance for all of Developer’s employees employed at or on the Project and, should any of the work be subcontracted, Developer shall require any general contractor or subcontractor similarly to provide workers’ compensation insurance for such contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees, unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded by Developer.
In case any class of employee engaged in work on the Project is not protected under any workers’ compensation law, Developer shall provide and shall cause each contractor and 16 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
subcontractor to provide adequate insurance for the protection of employees not otherwise protected. Developer hereby indemnifies City for any damage resulting from failure of Developer, its agents, employees, contractors, or subcontractors to take out or maintain such insurance. Workers’ compensation insurance with statutory limits and employer’s liability insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each accident shall be maintained by Developer.
Section 5.2. Other Insurance Requirements. Developer shall do all of the following:
(a) Prior to taking any actions under this Agreement, furnish City with properly executed certificates of insurance that clearly evidence all insurance required in this Article, including evidence that such insurance will not be canceled, allowed to expire, or materially reduced in coverage without thirty (30) days prior written notice to City. (b) Provide to City, upon request, and within seven (7) days of said request, certified copies of endorsements and policies, and properly executed certificates of insurance evidencing the insurance required herein.
(c) Replace or require the replacement of certificates, policies, and endorsements for any insurance required herein expiring prior to the termination of this Agreement.
(d) Maintain all insurance required herein from the Effective Date of this Agreement to the earlier of the expiration of the Term or the mutual written termination of this Agreement.
(e) Place all insurance required herein with insurers licensed to do business in California with a current Best’s Key Rating Guide reasonably acceptable to City.
Section 5.3. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its agents, elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, and volunteers (collectively, “City’s Agents”) from any and all liability arising out of a claim, action, or proceeding against City, or City’s Agents, to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval concerning the Project, this Agreement, any applicable Conditional Use Permit, or Subsequent City Approvals. Developer shall acknowledge its indemnification obligations by execution of the form included as Exhibit C attached hereto (“Indemnification Agreement”). Pursuant to Section 5.4, Developer shall also defend City and City’s Agents from any and all liability arising out of a claim, action, or proceeding against City, or City’s Agents, to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval concerning the Project, this Agreement, any applicable Conditional Use Permit, or Subsequent City Approvals.
Section 5.4. Failure to Indemnify and Defend.
(a) Failure to Indemnify; Waiver. Failure by Developer to indemnify City, when required by this Agreement and the Indemnification Agreement, shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and of any applicable Conditional Use Permit and Subsequent City Approvals, which shall entitle City to all remedies available under law, 17 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
including, but not limited to, specific performance and damages. Failure to indemnify shall constitute grounds upon which City may rescind its approval of any applicable Conditional Use Permit. Developer’s failure to indemnify City shall be a waiver by Developer of any right to proceed with the Project, or any portion thereof, and a waiver of Developer’s right to file a claim, action or proceeding against City or City’s Agents based on City’s rescission or revocation of any Conditional Use Permit, Subsequent City Approvals, or City’s failure to defend any claim, action, or proceeding based on Developer’s failure to indemnify City.
(b) Failure to Defend; Waiver. Developer shall have the option to defend City and City’s Agents from any and all liability arising out of a claim, action, or proceeding against City, or City’s Agents, to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval concerning the Project, this Agreement, any applicable Conditional Use Permit, or Subsequent City Approvals. Developer’s failure to defend City or City’s Agents shall be a waiver by Developer of any right to proceed with the Project, or any portion thereof, and a waiver of Developer’s right to file a claim, action or proceeding against City or City’s Agents based on City’s rescission or revocation of any Conditional Use Permit, Subsequent City Approvals, or City’s failure to defend any claim, action, or proceeding based on Developer’s failure to defend City.
Section 5.5. Waiver of Damages. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it was exposed to liability from the Developer for any indirect, incidental, consequential, or special damages and therefore, Developer hereby waives any and all claims for indirect, incidental, consequential, or special damages against the City arising out of or relating to this Agreement. Developer further acknowledges that under the Development Agreement Statute, land use approvals (including development agreements) must be approved by the City Council and that, under law, the City Council's discretion to vote in any particular way may not be constrained by contract. Developer therefore waives all claims for damages against City in the event that this Agreement or any Project approval is: (1) not approved by the City Council or (2) is approved by the City Council, but with new changes, amendments, conditions, or deletions to which Developer is opposed. Developer further acknowledges that, as an instrument which must be approved by ordinance, a development agreement is subject to referendum; and that, under law, the City Council's discretion to avoid a referendum by rescinding its approval of the underlying ordinance may not be constrained by contract, and Developer waives all claims for damages against City in this regard.
ARTICLE 6
MORTGAGEE PROTECTION
This Agreement, once executed and recorded, shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property or any portion thereof following recording of this Agreement, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage (“Mortgage”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. This Agreement shall immediately be deemed in default and immediately terminate upon the foreclosure or transfer of any interest in the Property or Project, whether by operation of law or any other method of interest change 18 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
or transfer, unless the City Manager has authorized such change or transfer in advance, in writing. City agrees to not unreasonably withhold its authorization.
ARTICLE 7
DEFAULT
Section 7.1. Default. Failure or unreasonable delay by either Party to perform any term or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event of default, the Party alleging such default or breach shall give the other Party not less than thirty (30) days’ notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During any such 30-day period, the Party charged shall not be considered in default for purposes of termination of this Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. After notice and expiration of the 30-day period, if such default has not been cured or cure is not being diligently pursued in the manner set forth in the notice, the charging Party may at its option: (i) terminate this Agreement, in which event neither Party shall have any further rights against or liability to the other with respect to this Agreement, or (ii) institute legal or equitable action to cure or remedy any default.
Section 7.2. Annual Review. City shall, at least every twelve (12) months during the Term of this Agreement, review the extent of good faith, substantial compliance of Developer and City with the terms of this Agreement. Such periodic review by City shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code section 65865.1. City shall deposit in the mail or fax to Developer a copy of all staff reports and, to the extent practical, related exhibits concerning this Agreement or the Project’s performance, at least seven (7) days prior to such periodic review. Developer shall be entitled to appeal a determination of City or the City Manager to the City Council. Any appeal must be filed within ten (10) days of the decision of City or the City Manager, respectively. Developer shall be permitted an opportunity to be heard orally or in writing regarding its performance under this Agreement before City, the City Manager, or the City Council, as applicable. The reasonable cost for City's annual review of this Agreement shall be paid by Developer, not to exceed the actual costs incurred by City in connection with the review.
Section 7.3. Estoppel Certificates.
(a) City shall, with at least twenty (20) days prior written notice, execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Developer, Developer’s lender, potential investors, or assignees an Estoppel Certificate in writing which certifies that this Agreement is in full force and effect, that there are no breaches or defaults under the Agreement, and that the Agreement has not been modified or terminated and is enforceable in accordance with its terms and conditions.
(b) At Developer’s option, City’s failure to deliver such Estoppel Certificate within the stated time period shall be conclusive evidence that the Agreement is in full force and effect, that there are no uncured breaches or defaults in Developer’s performance of the Agreement or violation of any City ordinances, regulations, and 19 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
policies regulating the use and development of the Property or the Project subject to this Agreement.
Section 7.4. Cumulative Remedies of Parties. In addition to any other rights or remedies, City or Developer may institute legal or equitable proceedings to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant, or enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of the provisions of this Agreement.
Section 7.5. Forced Delay, Extension of Times of Performance. Delays in performance, by either Party, shall not be deemed a default if such delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, governmental restrictions imposed where mandated by governmental entities other than City, enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, new or supplementary environmental regulations enacted by the state or federal government, litigation, or other force majeure events. An extension of time for such cause shall be in effect for the period of forced delay or longer, as may be mutually agreed upon.
Section 7.6. Appeals. Developer may appeal any adverse decision or action of City pursuant to Patterson Municipal Code Chapter 1.36.
ARTICLE 8
TERMINATION
Section 8.1. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration of the Term, unless it is terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, City agrees to provide Developer with a release or such other document as may be required to remove this Agreement as an encumbrance on the title of the Property.
Section 8.2. Effect of Termination. Termination of this Agreement shall eliminate any further obligation of any Party to comply with this Agreement, or some portion thereof (if such termination relates to only part of the Property or Project). Termination of this Agreement, in whole or in part, shall not, however, eliminate the rights of either Party to seek any applicable and available remedies or damages based upon acts or omissions occurring before termination. Any existing Conditional Use Permit may be terminated as provided by the terms of the permit or applicable law.
Section 8.3. Survival After Termination. Any right or obligation of the Parties in this Agreement which, by its express terms or nature and context is intended to survive termination of this Agreement, will survive any such termination.
ARTICLE 9
OTHER GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 9.1. Assignment and Assumption. Developer shall not have the right to sell, assign, or transfer all or any part of its rights, title, and interests in all or a portion of the Project, subject to or a part of this Agreement, to any person, firm, corporation, or entity during the Term of this Agreement without the advance written consent of the City 20 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Manager, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. This assignment prohibition applies to the corporate and business entities of Developer that are a Party to this Agreement. Any assignment or transfer prohibited by this Agreement will be considered an immediate breach of this Agreement and City may elect to immediately terminate this Agreement. If the City Manager approves an assignment or transfer of any interest detailed in this Section 9.1, City and Developer shall execute an “Assignment and Assumption Agreement” to be recorded on the title to the Property.
Section 9.2. Covenants Running with the Land. This Agreement is an instrument affecting title to the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto. All terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein shall run with the land and be binding on all parties having or acquiring any legal title or interest in the lands described in Exhibit A or any part thereof. Developer shall provide any successors to any part of the Property with a copy of this Agreement. The failure of Developer to provide a copy of this Agreement to any successor to any part of the Property shall in no way affect the rights of City to require performance of the obligations under this Agreement.
Section 9.3. Notices. Any and all notices or other communications related to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received when: (a) personally delivered to the Party to whom they are directed; or (b) the earlier of actual receipt or five (5) days following delivery by registered or certified U.S. mail (return receipt requested); or (c) if given by Federal Express or similar courier, on the date delivered, as shown on a receipt issued by the courier; or (d) delivered by email, based on the date shown on the sent email (provided that in the event of default or a Non-Performance Penalty, such notice shall also be provided by one of the other methods specified herein). Either Party may change its address information by giving ten (10) days advance written notice of such change to the other Party. Notices and communications will be addressed to the Parties as follows:
If to City: City of Patterson
1 Plaza
Patterson, California 95363
Attention: City Manager
Email: [email protected]
and White Brenner LLP
1608 T Street
Sacramento, California 95811
Attention: Nubia Goldstein, Esq.
Email: [email protected]
If to Owner: Eagle Valley Investments Inc.
515 Keystone Blvd.
Patterson, CA 95363
If to Tenant: Central Valley – Sierra Associates
100 West Las Palmas Avenue, Suite H
21 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Patterson, CA 95363
Attn: Sadie Schut
Email:
and South Cord Management LLC
401 Pine Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90802
Attn:
Email:
Section 9.4. Governing Law and Binding Arbitration. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed pursuant to the laws of the State of California. Any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation, or validity thereof, including the determination of the scope or applicability of this Agreement to arbitrate, shall be determined by binding arbitration in Sacramento, California, before one arbitrator.
The arbitration shall proceed pursuant to the Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”). Judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
Section 9.5. Invalidity of Agreement / Severability. If this Agreement in its entirety is determined by an arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, this Agreement shall automatically terminate as of the date of final entry of judgment. If any term or provision of this Agreement shall be determined by an arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid and unenforceable, or if any term or provision of this Agreement is rendered invalid or unenforceable according to the terms of any federal or state statute, any provisions that are not invalid or unenforceable shall continue in full force and effect and shall be construed to give effect to the intent of this Agreement. The Parties expressly agree that each Party is strictly prohibited from failing to perform any and all obligations under this Agreement on the basis that this Agreement is invalid, unenforceable, or illegal. By entering into this Agreement, each Party disclaims any right to tender an affirmative defense in any arbitration or court of competent jurisdiction, that performance under this Agreement is not required because the Agreement is invalid, unenforceable, or illegal.
Section 9.6. Cumulative Remedies. In addition to any other rights or remedies, City and Developer may institute legal or equitable proceedings to cure, correct, or remedy any default, to specifically enforce any covenant or agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of the provisions of this Agreement. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provision of this Agreement, in the event of City default under this Agreement, Developer agrees that Developer may not seek, and shall forever waive any right to, monetary damages against City, but excluding therefrom the right to recover any fees or charges paid by Developer in excess of those permitted hereunder.
22 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Section 9.7. Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who, after the Effective Date and recording of this Agreement, owns or acquires any right, title, or interest to any portion of the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Property, and all rights and interests of such person in the Property shall be subject to the terms, requirements, and provisions of this Agreement.
Section 9.8. Statute of Limitations and Laches. City and Developer agree that each Party will undergo a change in position in detrimental reliance upon this Agreement from the time of its execution and subsequently. The Parties agree that section 65009(c)(1)(D) of the California Government Code, which provides for a ninety (90) day statute of limitations to challenge the adoption of this Agreement, is applicable to this Agreement.
In addition, any person who may challenge the validity of this Agreement is hereby put on notice that, should the legality or validity of this Agreement be challenged by any third party in litigation, which is filed and served more than ninety (90) days after the execution of this Agreement, City and Developer shall each assert the affirmative defense of laches with respect to such challenge, in addition to all other available defenses. This Section in no way limits the right of a Party, claiming that the other Party breached the terms of this Agreement, to bring a claim against the other Party within the four (4) year statute of limitations set forth in Section 337 of the California Civil Code.
Section 9.9. Joint and Several Liability. Developer shall be jointly and severally liable for any amount due under this Agreement, and any breach of this Agreement or failure to pay by one Party shall also constitute a breach of this Agreement by the other Party.
Developer agree that City may impose a lien and seek foreclosure on any parcel of the Property due to any default by Developer.
Section 9.10. Change in State Regulations. In no event shall Developer operate the Project in violation of this Agreement, or State Cannabis Regulations, as may be amended from time to time.
Section 9.11. Standard Terms and Conditions.
(a) Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings shall be the JAMS Resolution Center in Sacramento, California.
(b) Waiver. A waiver by any Party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition herein contained or a waiver of any right or remedy of such Party available hereunder, at law or in equity, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition herein contained or of any continued or subsequent right to the same right or remedy. No Party shall be deemed to have made any such waiver unless it is in writing and signed by the Party so waiving. 23 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
(c) Completeness of Instrument. This Agreement, together with its specific references, attachments, and Exhibits, constitutes all of the agreements, understandings, representations, conditions, warranties, and covenants made by and between the Parties hereto. Unless set forth herein, no Party to this Agreement shall be liable for any representations made, express or implied.
(d) Supersedes Prior Agreement. It is the intention of the Parties hereto that this Agreement shall supersede any prior agreements, discussions, commitments, or representations, written, electronic, or oral, between the Parties hereto with respect to the Property and the Project.
(e) Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement.
(f) Number and Gender. In this Agreement, the neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and the singular includes the plural, and the word “person” includes corporations, partnerships, firms, or associations, wherever the context requires. (g) Mandatory and Permissive. “Shall” and “will” and “agrees” are mandatory. “May” or “can” are permissive.
(h) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously and in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
(i) Other Documents. The Parties agree that they shall cooperate in good faith to accomplish the objectives of this Agreement and, to that end, agree to execute and deliver such other instruments or documents as may be necessary and convenient to fulfill the purposes and intentions of this Agreement. (j) Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement in each covenant, term, and condition herein.
(k) Authority. All Parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement and the names, titles, and capacities herein stated on behalf of any entities, persons, states, or firms represented or purported to be represented by such entities, persons, states, or firms and that all former requirements necessary or required by state or federal law in order to enter into this Agreement had been fully complied with. Further, by entering into this Agreement, no Party hereto shall have breached the terms or conditions of any other contract or agreement to which such Party is obligated, which such breach would have a material effect hereon.
(l) Document Preparation. This Agreement will not be construed against the Party preparing it, but will be construed as if prepared by all Parties. 24 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
(m) Advice of Legal Counsel. Each Party acknowledges that it has reviewed this Agreement with its own legal counsel and, based upon the advice of that counsel, freely entered into this Agreement.
(n) Attorney’s Fees and Costs. If any action at law or in equity, including action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which such Party may be entitled. (o) Calculation of Time Periods. All time referenced in this Agreement shall be calendar days, unless the last day falls on a legal holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, in which case the last day shall be the next business day.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the Effective Date of the Agreement, as defined above. “CITY”
Date: , 2026
CITY OF PATTERSON, CA
a California Municipal Corporation
By: __________________________
Fernando Ulloa
City Manager
Attest:
By: ___________________________
Aracely Alegre
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
By: _________________________
Nubia Goldstein
City Attorney
“OWNER”
Date: , 2026
EAGLE VALLEY INVESTMENTS INC.,
a California Corporation
By: _________________________
Its: _________________________
“TENANT”
Date: , 2026
CENTRAL VALLEY – SIERRA ASSOCIATES,
a California corporation
By:
Sadie A. Schut,
President/Secretary/Chief Financial Officer
25 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
Date: , 2026
SOUTH CORD MANAGEMENT LLC, a
California limited liability company
By:
Its: _________________________
4909-7736-2578, v. 1
California All-Purpose Acknowledgment
State of California )
)
County of )
On , before me , a Notary
Public, personally appeared who
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Signature)
(Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Property
4909-7736-2578, v. 1
EXHIBIT B
Notice of Non-Performance Penalty
DATE: _________________, 20___
PARTIES: CITY OF PATTERSON, a California municipal corporation P.O. Box 667
1 Plaza
Patterson, California 95363
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
THIS NOTICE OF NON-PERFORMANCE PENALTY (“Penalty Notice”) is being executed by the City of Patterson, a California municipal corporation (“City”), with reference to the following.
A. By Instrument No. _____________, which was recorded in the Official Records of Stanislaus County, California on ________________, 20___, City recorded a development agreement between City and _____________________ dated ______________, 20__ (the “Development Agreement”), relating to the development and operation of a cannabis dispensary.
B. Pursuant to Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of the Development Agreement, Developer is obligated to make certain payments to City, including the Adjusted Public Benefit, the City's Cannabis Business Tax, and payments on the Promissory Note for past due taxes.
C. On ________, 20__, a payment in the amount of $__ was due to City by Developer under Section ____ of the Development Agreement. City did not receive payment.
D. Pursuant to Section 4.7 of the Development Agreement, if Developer fails to make payment when it is due, City may impose a penalty of one percent (1%) of the total of the past due amounts (“Penalty”). As of ____________, 20__, the past due amount equals $_________.
The Penalty owed by Developer equals $____________ (“Penalty Amount”).
E. Pursuant to Section 4.7 of the Development Agreement, Developer shall make payment of the Penalty Amount in a single installment due within fifteen (15) days of delivery of this Penalty Notice (“Penalty Due Date”).
F. Pursuant to Section 4.8 of the Development Agreement, if Developer fails to pay the Penalty Amount before the Penalty Due Date, then in addition to the Penalty Amount 4909-7736-2578, v. 1
specified in subdivision (D), Developer shall pay City interest on the Penalty Amount, at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum (“Penalty Interest Payment”), computed from the Penalty Due Date specified in subdivision (E). As of ____________, 20__, the Penalty Interest Payment amount equals $_________.
G. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of City’s future claims for any payments due under the Development Agreement, the Penalty, or interest on the Penalty.
NOW, THEREFORE, City hereby provides Developer the Penalty Notice required by Section 4.7 of the Development Agreement. This Penalty Notice shall be effective upon notice pursuant to Section 9.3 of the Development Agreement.
CITY OF PATTERSON,
a California municipal corporation
By:
____________________, City Manager
4909-7736-2578, v. 1
EXHIBIT C
Indemnification Obligations of Developer
1. Indemnification for Project Approvals. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Developer shall indemnify, and hold harmless City and its agents, elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, and volunteers (collectively, “City’s Agents”) from any and all liability arising out of a claim, action, or proceeding against the City, or City’s Agents, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, any approval concerning the Project by reason of the action or inaction of City or City’s Agents. Developer’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not extend to any claim, action or proceeding arising from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, or City’s Agents.
Developer’s obligations under this Agreement to indemnify City shall apply to any claim, lawsuit or challenge against City brought against the Project, specifically including, but not limited to, any legal challenge based on the California Environmental Quality Act, codified in California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.; actions or proceedings brought to challenge the validity of environmental documents prepared in conjunction with the approval of the Project; the Development Agreement; or the requirements of any other federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, general plan, specific plan, and zoning requirements.
2. Tender of Defense. Upon receiving notice of a claim, Developer shall assume the defense of the claim, action, or proceeding through the prompt payment of all attorneys’ fees and costs, incurred in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable discretion, of City’s counsel in defending such an action. City shall have the absolute and sole authority to control the litigation and make litigation decisions, including, but not limited to, selecting counsel to defend City and settlement or other disposition of the matter.
3. Deposit for Costs. Developer shall make a refundable deposit to the City within thirty (30) days of written notification from the City (“Cost Deposit”), to cover the estimated fees and costs associated with the City’s defense of any claim, action or proceeding. Developer shall make any and all additional payments to City to replenish the Cost Deposit within thirty (30) days of written notice from City.
4. Failure to Indemnify; Waiver. Failure to indemnify City, when required by this Agreement, shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement, which shall entitle City to all remedies available under law including, but not limited to, specific performance and damages.
Failure to indemnify shall constitute grounds upon which City may rescind any approval concerning the Project. Developer’s failure to indemnify City shall be a waiver by Developer of any right to proceed with the Project, or any portion thereof, and a waiver of Developer’s right to file a claim, action or proceeding against City or City’s Agents based on City’s rescission or revocation of the Project, or City’s failure to defend any claim, action or proceeding based on Developer’s failure to indemnify City.
4909-7736-2578, v. 1
5. Satisfaction of Judgment. With respect to any claims, demands, acts, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses, settlements, losses or liabilities which Developer has indemnified City against, Developer shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award, settlement or decree that may be rendered or agreed against City and City’s Agents arising out of any final, nonappealable judicial or administrative action.
6. Payment of Costs and Fees. Developer’s obligations under this Agreement to defend and indemnify City shall include, but are not be limited to, payment of all court costs and attorneys’ fees, all litigation-related costs, all costs of any judgments or awards against City, or all settlement costs which arise out of City’s processing or approval of the Project.
7. Continuing Obligation. Developer shall be and remain personally obligated to all of the terms of this Agreement, notwithstanding any attempt to assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or any of the rights or obligations of this Agreement, and notwithstanding a change in or transfer of ownership of the real property upon which the Project is located (or any interest therein). However, Developer may be released from such indemnification obligations if Developer obtains City’s written consent to such release, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
CENTRAL VALLEY – SIERRA ASSOCIATES,
a California corporation
By:
Print:
Its: _____________________________
Date: _______________
SOUTH CORD MANAGEMENT LLC, a California limited liability company By:
Print:
Its: _____________________________
Date: _______________
4909-7736-2578, v. 1
EXHIBIT D
Development Agreement Ordinance
4909-7736-2578, v. 1
EXHIBIT E
Settlement Agreement
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Will Barrera, Interim Director of Public Works
MEETING
DATE:
October 20, 2026
ITEM: 7.1
SUBJECT : Approve a Professional Engineering Services Agreement with West Yost for the Chromium-6 Treatment Feasibility Study Peer Review in an Amount Not to Exceed $36,750; Authorize Staff to Execute the Agreement; and Authorize the Finance Department to Make the Necessary Budget Adjustment for an Additional Appropriation of $36,750 from the Water Enterprise Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Approve a Professional Engineering Services Agreement with West Yost for the Chromium-6 Treatment Feasibility Study Peer Review in an Amount Not to Exceed $36,750; Authorize Staff to Execute the Agreement; and Authorize the Finance Department to Make the Necessary Budget Adjustment for an Additional Appropriation of $36,750 from the Water Enterprise Fund.
BACKGROUND
The City of Patterson (City) is currently advancing improvements necessary to comply with the State's Chromium-6 drinking water standard. As part of this effort, the city retained Woodard & Curran to prepare a Chromium-6 Treatment Feasibility Study evaluating available treatment technologies and configurations.
Based on the feasibility study and subsequent supporting information, the city selected individual wellhead, slab-mounted Weak Base Anion (WBA) ion exchange treatment as the preferred alternative. The City Council subsequently authorized preliminary engineering services to further develop the selected approach.
During Council consideration of the preliminary engineering services, a technical peer review of the feasibility study was requested. The purpose of the peer review is to provide an independent assessment of whether the feasibility study and subsequent supporting information provide a reasonable technical basis for the selected treatment approach and to identify any material issues that should be considered as preliminary engineering progresses. The peer review is not intended to repeat the feasibility study, conduct a new alternatives analysis or redesign the project.
Following Council's request, staff developed a Scope of Work and solicited proposals from five engineering firms with experience in Chromium-6 treatment. The firms contacted included Trussell Technologies, Hazen and Sawyer, West Yost, Provost & Pritchard and Carollo Engineers.
One proposal was received by the October 5, 2026 deadline. The proposal was submitted by West Yost in partnership with Trussell Technologies.
Although only one proposal was received, personnel from the Engineering and Public Works Departments reviewed and evaluated the proposal against all six established evaluation criteria, including understanding of the scope, Chromium-6 and WBA experience, relevant project experience, technical approach, cost and materiality review and schedule and staffing.
Based on this evaluation, staff determined that the proposed consultant team meets the City's requirements and has the qualifications and technical experience necessary to complete the peer review. The evaluation considered the proposal on its own merits rather than solely on the number of proposals received. Staff also determined that the proposal was responsive to the City's established Scope of Work and that soliciting additional proposals was not necessary to proceed with the requested review.
West Yost and Trussell Technologies bring experience evaluating Chromium-6 treatment alternatives for California water systems, including ion exchange treatment, treatment configurations, groundwater considerations and planning-level costs. The proposed team also includes groundwater expertise to evaluate the City's anticipated pumping reductions under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
Woodard & Curran prepared the feasibility study being reviewed. Although West Yost is currently assisting the City with a separate Well 6 treatment effort, its proposed partnership with Trussell Technologies provides additional specialized expertise and a separate technical perspective for the peer review.
The peer review will focus on the following:
1. Evaluating the reasonableness of the feasibility study's technical assumptions and treatment recommendations.
2. Assessing whether anticipated groundwater pumping reductions were adequately considered.
3. Reviewing the evaluation of treatment technologies and centralized versus individual wellhead configurations.
4. Determining whether the subsequent slab-mounted WBA configuration and revised planning-level costs are reasonably supported.
5. Identifying material issues that could affect the selected treatment approach or should be addressed during preliminary engineering.
The consultant will prepare a technical memorandum documenting its findings and recommendations. The memorandum will distinguish between issues that could materially affect the selected treatment approach and those that can reasonably be addressed during preliminary or final design.
West Yost has committed to completing the peer review within four weeks of receiving Notice to Proceed. The limited scope and accelerated schedule are intended to provide the City with an additional technical assessment while minimizing impacts to the ongoing preliminary engineering effort and Chromium-6 compliance schedule.
FISCAL IMPACT
West Yost has proposed a total not-to-exceed fee of $36,750 to complete the Chromium-6 Treatment Feasibility Study Peer Review, including services provided by Trussell Technologies.
Staff requests authorization for the Finance Department to appropriate $36,750 from the Water Enterprise Fund (Fund 611) to increase the Chromium-6 Treatment Project budget to cover the cost of the peer review services.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Chromium-6 Feasibility Study Peer Review Scope of Work
2. West Yost Proposal dated October 5, 2026
3. Consultant Evaluation Summary
SCOPE OF WORK
Chromium-6 Feasibility Study Peer Review
1. Purpose
The City of Patterson (City) is seeking a technical peer review of its Chromium-6 Treatment Feasibility Study and supporting information.
The City has selected individual wellhead, slab-mounted Weak Base Anion (WBA) treatment as the preferred alternative and has initiated preliminary engineering. The City Council subsequently requested a peer review of the feasibility study.
The purpose of the review is to determine whether the feasibility study and subsequent supporting information provide a reasonable technical basis for the selected treatment approach and to identify any material issues that should be considered during preliminary engineering.
The peer review is not intended to duplicate the feasibility study, perform a new alternatives analysis or redesign the project.
2. Scope of Review
The Peer Reviewer shall evaluate the feasibility study and available supporting documentation and provide an assessment of:
A. Technical Basis and Assumptions
Determine whether the key assumptions related to water quality, well capacity, treatment flows, system demands, and other assumptions material to the treatment recommendation are reasonable for a feasibility -level evaluation.
B. Groundwater Pumping Constraints
Determine whether the City's anticipated groundwater pumping reductions associated with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) were reasonably incorporated into the analysis, including potential impacts on well utilization, treatment capacity, operational flexibility, and redundancy.
C. Treatment Alternatives
Determine whether SBA, WBA, RCF and Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment technologies were evaluated on a reasonable basis that supports advancement of WBA treatment.
Determine whether centralized versus individual wellhead treatment configurations were evaluated on a reasonable basis that supports advancement of the selected treatment approach.
D. Slab-Mounted WBA Refinement
Review post-feasibility study information, including vendor correspondence and planninglevel cost data, to determine whether:
• The proposed slab-mounted, lease-to-own WBA configuration is consistent with the feasibility study recommendations.
• Revised planning-level costs are reasonably supported. • Any material omissions or inconsistencies in the available planning-level cost information could affect the reasonableness of the cost comparison. • Any significant technical or cost issues should be addressed during preliminary engineering.
The reviewer may identify other material issues within the existing technical record that could affect the conclusions of the feasibility study but is not required to perform a new alternatives analysis or develop additional treatment alternatives.
3. Deliverable
Within four weeks of Notice to Proceed, the Peer Reviewer shall provide a concise technical memorandum addressing:
1. Whether the feasibility study or subsequent work provides a reasonable technical basis for the City's selected treatment approach;
2. Whether SGMA-related pumping constraints were reasonably considered;
3. Whether the subsequent slab-mounted WBA configuration is consistent with the feasibility study's technical conclusions;
4. Whether the available information reasonably supports the revised planning-level cost; and
5. Any material issues or recommendations that should be addressed during preliminary engineering.
The memorandum shall distinguish between material issues that could affect the selected treatment approach and those appropriately addressed during design, including whether any identified assumptions, inconsistencies, omissions, or subsequent information would materially affect the treatment recommendation or can reasonably be addressed during preliminary or final design.
The scope includes one meeting with City staff and the City's engineering consultant, if needed, to obtain clarification before completion of the memorandum.
4. Scope Limitations
The peer review does not include preparation of a new feasibility study, new alternatives analysis, independent SGMA or water-supply analysis, detailed cost estimate, pilot testing, new sampling or field investigations or preliminary/final design.
The review shall be based on existing information provided by the City and is intended to be completed within the four-week review period.
5. Consultant Qualifications
The consultant's proposed technical lead shall demonstrate experience evaluating chromium-6 treatment for California public water systems, including ion exchange treatment. Experience with WBA treatment and feasibility-level cost evaluation is preferred.
The consultant shall disclose any direct involvement in preparing the feasibility study or subsequent technical information being reviewed.
The peer review is a limited technical review of existing information and does not include preparation of preliminary or final design documents. Nothing in this scope is intended to restrict the consultant from pursuing future phases of the City's Chromium-6 Treatment Project.
100 Howe Avenue
Suite 110S
Sacramento CA 95825
916.306.2250 phone
530.756.5991 fax
westyost.com
October 5, 2026 SENT VIA: EMAIL
Maria Encinas, CFM
Water Resources Program Manager
City of Patterson
1 Plaza
Patterson, CA 95363
SUBJECT: Proposal for Engineering Services for the City of Patterson to Perform a Peer Review of the Chromium-6 Treatment Feasibility Study
Dear Maria:
West Yost is pleased to provide this letter proposal to the City of Patterson (City) for the Chromium-6 (Cr6) Treatment Feasibility Study Peer Review. We understand that the City is seeking an independent assessment of whether the technical work completed to date provides a reasonable basis for proceeding with the selected approach. We also understand the importance of completing this review quickly so the City can maintain progress on the improvements needed to achieve Cr6 compliance. Our focus will be on providing clear answers to the questions identified in the City’s Scope of Work within the required fourweek schedule.
West Yost has teamed with Trussell Technologies to provide the City with a focused team that combines current working knowledge of Patterson with complementary expertise in Cr6 treatment, water chemistry, groundwater, and water supply planning. Bobby Vera, PE, and Andy Smith, PE, bring continuity from our ongoing work with the City and can begin the review with an established understanding of Patterson’s Cr6 treatment considerations and the technical questions that require attention. Andy will lead the Cr6 treatment review, supplemented with Trussell’s specialized water chemistry and treatment expertise and additional objective technical perspective. Ken Loy, PG, CEG, CHG, will lead the groundwater and SGMA review. Bobby will serve as Project Manager, bringing these perspectives together and keeping the review focused on the questions the City needs answered and the decisions necessary to keep the Cr6 compliance program moving forward.
Through our ongoing work with the City, West Yost already has the background information and system understanding needed to begin the review upon receipt of Notice to Proceed (NTP). Trussell adds extensive treatment and water chemistry experience and another objective perspective from which to evaluate the work completed to date. West Yost and Trussell also have an established working relationship on complex water supply projects, including Stanislaus Regional Water Authority (SRWA) and RiverArc, with our combined experience extending from planning and treatment evaluation through design and implementation. This combination allows the team to focus the four-week review on the technical questions that matter most to the City while providing insights specific to Patterson and its broader Cr6 compliance program.
Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review We understand the challenge before the City: obtaining the independent technical perspective requested while continuing to advance the right improvements on the schedule needed for Cr6 compliance. The West Yost and Trussell team is committed to providing this peer review within the required four-week schedule and to developing practical findings and recommendations that help the City confidently move forward with implementation.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The City has reached an important point in its Cr6 compliance program. Woodard & Curran has completed the feasibility evaluation, the City has selected individual slab-mounted wellhead weak base anion (WBA) ion exchange treatment, and preliminary engineering is underway. The City is now seeking an independent technical review of the work completed to date to assess whether there is a reasonable basis for continuing with the selected approach.
West Yost understands that this is a focused peer review of the feasibility study and subsequent supporting information prepared for the City. We will conduct the review consistent with the scope established by the City and focus our effort on providing clear answers to the questions identified in the Scope of Work. We do not intend to repeat the feasibility study or develop a separate alternatives analysis, as the City's scope establishes that the assessment is to be based on the existing record and excludes a new feasibility study, alternatives analysis, independent SGMA or water supply analysis, detailed cost estimate, pilot testing, and design.
Immediately Ready to Deploy Knowledge-Based Effort to Complete a Timely Review The four-week schedule requires a team that can quickly understand the significance of the information being reviewed and focus its effort on the issues most critical to the City’s decision-making. Through our ongoing Well 6 evaluation and broader water supply planning efforts, West Yost already has working knowledge of the City’s water system, groundwater constraints, water quality considerations, Cr6 treatment planning, treatment costs, and long-term water supply strategy. We have also spent time considering how treatment configurations and near-term investments may fit within the City’s broader Cr6 compliance program.
This working knowledge will allow us to provide insight that goes beyond observations that can be made from the documents alone. As we review the work prepared by Woodard & Curran, our team will be able to consider the assumptions, conclusions, and recommendations in the context of what we already know about Patterson’s wells, water quality, supply constraints, and treatment objectives.
Because we already have the necessary background and context, we can begin the technical review upon receipt of NTP. This will allow the four-week effort to be devoted to evaluating the City’s five questions rather than first developing an understanding of Patterson and its Cr6 compliance program. This existing knowledge also provides the context needed for the combined West Yost and Trussell team to focus its specialized technical review on the issues most meaningful to the City.
Experience that Aligns with the Review
The City's questions require an informed assessment of whether the treatment technologies have been reasonably evaluated, whether the selected configuration follows from that evaluation, whether the groundwater quantity and quality assumptions appropriately inform the treatment program, and whether the planning-level costs reasonably represent the proposed improvements.
Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review The West Yost and Trussell team brings relevant experience and two distinct technical perspectives to these questions. West Yost has firsthand experience developing the type of Cr6 treatment analysis we are now being asked to review. For Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), West Yost completed a detailed Cr6 treatment evaluation that considered WBA ion exchange, regenerable and non-regenerable strong base anion (SBA) ion exchange, and reduction-coagulation-filtration (RCF), including treatment performance, source water quality, operations, residuals, implementation considerations, and cost.
West Yost also developed individual and clustered treatment configurations and capital, O&M, and lifecycle costs so the alternatives could be compared on a consistent basis. Trussell has recently conducted a similar Cr6 treatment evaluation for the County of San Bernardino.
Trussell provides specialized expertise in water chemistry and treatment process evaluation. This additional perspective is particularly valuable for an independent peer review because source water chemistry can influence treatment performance, technology selection, and operating requirements.
Together, the two firms can evaluate the treatment-related conclusions from distinct but complementary technical perspectives and bring those findings together into a single coordinated response to the City’s questions.
Ken Loy, PG, CEG, CHG, will add the groundwater and SGMA perspective needed to evaluate how assumed groundwater pumping constraints affect well utilization, treatment capacity, flexibility, and redundancy.
Together, the combined team can review the Woodard & Curran work from the treatment process, water chemistry, groundwater, system configuration, cost, and broader water supply perspectives needed to determine whether the individual components of the evaluation are reasonable and collectively support the selected approach.
Focused Review with an Understanding of What Comes Next Our review will remain focused on the work prepared by Woodard & Curran and the questions identified by the City. At the same time, we understand that the value of the peer review is ultimately in helping the City decide how to proceed.
For significant issues identified, we will evaluate whether it affects the basis for the City's selected approach or whether it is an issue that can reasonably be addressed during preliminary and final design.
This distinction will keep the review focused on matters that are important to the City's decision and avoid allowing normal design development issues to unnecessarily delay the program.
West Yost and Trussell’s experience in implementing similar projects will help inform the recommendations we provide through the peer review. We will not expand the assignment into a new planning or alternatives evaluation. Where the review identifies an issue that does not change the selected approach but requires attention during implementation, we will clearly identify it as such and provide practical direction for consideration as preliminary engineering proceeds. Where an issue could materially affect the selected approach, we will identify it clearly and explain the technical basis for that conclusion.
This approach is intended to give the City both things it needs from the peer review: independent assessment of the work completed to date and practical direction that allows the appropriate Cr6 improvements to continue advancing on schedule. In addition, our understanding of the City’s broader Cr6 compliance program will allow us to identify opportunities for more efficient implementation where they become apparent through the review. These may include opportunities to coordinate improvements across facilities, avoid duplicative investments, preserve operational flexibility, or better align near-term Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review improvements with the City’s longer-term water supply strategy. While these considerations will not expand the scope of the peer review, we will bring them to the City’s attention where they could help streamline implementation, reduce cost, or otherwise improve delivery of the broader Cr6 compliance program.
PROJECT TEAM
West Yost and Trussell Technologies have assembled a focused team specifically around the expertise needed to answer the City’s questions. The team combines West Yost’s current working knowledge of Patterson and Cr6 alternatives evaluation experience with Trussell’s specialized water chemistry and treatment expertise and additional objective technical perspective. Ken Loy adds the groundwater and SGMA expertise needed to evaluate the supply assumptions underlying the treatment program. West Yost and Trussell have successfully worked together on previous water supply projects, allowing the combined team to begin the four-week review with established working relationships.
Together, this gives the City two distinct bodies of Cr6 treatment experience within one coordinated team, supported by groundwater expertise and current, firsthand knowledge of Patterson. Full resumes for the proposed team are included in Attachment A.
Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review Bobby Vera, PE | Project Manager
Bobby will serve as the City’s primary point of contact and will be responsible for coordinating the technical review, maintaining the schedule, and bringing the individual treatment, groundwater, cost, and implementation findings together into clear answers to the City’s five questions.
Bobby brings continuity from West Yost’s current work with Patterson. He is managing the City’s ongoing Well 6 evaluation and previously managed the regional water supply feasibility evaluation that included Patterson. He enters the peer review with an understanding of the City’s water system, broader supply constraints, and current Cr6 treatment considerations.
Bobby also brings directly relevant Cr6 alternatives evaluation experience. For CVWD, he developed infrastructure alternatives for individual and clustered Cr6 treatment systems with capacities ranging from 2,000 to 6,000 gpm, led the hydraulic design, and performed the alternatives analysis.
Andy Smith, PE | Cr6 Treatment Lead
Andy will lead the treatment portion of the peer review, working closely with Trussell’s treatment specialists to review the proposed Cr6 treatment processes, including the treatment assumptions, technology evaluation, proposed WBA configuration, water chemistry considerations, and planning-level cost basis. He is also currently supporting the City’s Well 6 evaluation and brings current familiarity with the treatment and cost considerations being evaluated within Patterson’s system.
Andy served as the lead treatment engineer and author for West Yost’s CVWD Cr6 Treatment Study. His responsibilities included development of conceptual design criteria, site layouts, and cost estimates for multiple Cr6 treatment technologies and clustered wellhead facilities. His broader experience includes treatment planning, preliminary design, detailed design, and cost estimating for groundwater and surface water treatment facilities.
David R. Hokanson, Ph.D., PE, BCEE | Senior Treatment Advisor, Trussell Technologies David will provide senior technical review of the water chemistry and treatment considerations that influence Cr6 treatment performance and technology selection, and will provide an additional objective perspective on the treatment-related findings. David has more than 25 years of experience in physical and chemical water treatment processes and brings recent experience evaluating WBA, SBA, and RCF for Cr6 treatment.
Jacob Newman, PE | Treatment Engineer, Trussell Technologies Jacob will support the detailed review of source water quality, treatment processes, and implementation considerations. Jacob is Trussell’s Drinking Water Emerging Issues Specialist and currently serves as Project Engineer for San Bernardino County’s Cr6 Treatment Evaluation, where he has supported evaluation of IX and RCF alternatives, design of the selected treatment facilities, and DDW compliance planning.
Ken Loy, PG, CEG, CHG | Groundwater and SGMA Lead
Ken will lead the review of the groundwater and SGMA considerations underlying the feasibility study. His focus will be on whether the groundwater assumptions used in the evaluation are reasonable and whether their implications for well utilization, treatment capacity, operational flexibility, and redundancy have been appropriately considered.
Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review Ken is a Certified Hydrogeologist and Engineering Geologist with experience in hydrogeologic and water quality characterization, groundwater modeling, conjunctive use evaluations, groundwater supply planning, and SGMA. His experience includes development and revision of Groundwater Sustainability Plans, including basin characterization, monitoring, modeling, and agency coordination.
RELEVANT AND SELECT EXPERIENCE
The West Yost and Trussell Technologies teams bring project experience directly relevant to the City’s peer review. The following projects demonstrate West Yost’s experience evaluating Cr6 treatment technologies and configurations, Trussell’s specialized treatment and water chemistry experience, and the combined team’s ability to apply that experience to the technical questions before the City.
References are available upon request.
Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Study | Coachella Valley Water District West Yost prepared a Cr6 treatment and compliance evaluation for Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The study evaluated the technical and economic merits of available Cr6 treatment technologies and developed treatment strategies for a groundwater system with numerous wells requiring compliance improvements.
West Yost evaluated WBA ion exchange, regenerable and non-regenerable SBA ion exchange, and RCF treatment technologies. Rather than considering treatment performance alone, the evaluation considered the factors that ultimately influence whether a technology represents a reasonable solution for a public water system, including:
• Source water quality and treatment performance
• Treatment capacity and process requirements
• Operational complexity and staffing requirements
• Residuals generation and management
• Water efficiency
• Permitting and technology maturity
• Site and implementation considerations
• Capital and O&M costs
• Lifecycle costs
• Individual wellhead and clustered treatment configurations West Yost developed conceptual design criteria and layouts for the treatment alternatives and prepared planning-level capital and O&M costs. Individual wellhead and clustered treatment configurations were developed so that differences in treatment approach, infrastructure requirements, operations, and cost could be evaluated on a consistent basis.
The study then brought these considerations together through an alternatives evaluation that considered both cost and non-cost criteria. This allowed CVWD to understand not only the cost of the available approaches, but also the relative merits and limitations that could affect implementation and long-term operation.
This experience is directly applicable to Patterson because West Yost has developed the type of Cr6 feasibility analysis we are now being asked to independently review. We understand how source water Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review quality affects treatment selection, how treatment criteria and individual or clustered configurations are developed, how planning-level capital and O&M costs are established, and how cost and non-cost considerations are brought together to support a treatment recommendation.
The relevance also extends to the proposed team. Andy Smith, PE, served as lead treatment engineer and author for the CVWD study, with responsibility for conceptual design criteria, layouts, and cost estimates for multiple Cr6 treatment technologies and clustered wellhead facilities. Bobby Vera, PE, developed infrastructure alternatives for individual and clustered treatment systems ranging from 2,000 to 6,000 gpm, led the hydraulic design, and performed the alternatives analysis.
For Patterson, this means the West Yost team will approach the Woodard & Curran evaluation with firsthand knowledge of the technical judgments that go into developing a Cr6 treatment feasibility study.
We know where the consequential assumptions are, how the treatment technologies and configurations should be compared, and what information is needed to determine whether the selected approach and associated costs are reasonably supported.
Grayson Water Infrastructure Project | City of Modesto
West Yost is supporting the City of Modesto in evaluating and implementing long-term water supply and treatment
improvements for the Grayson water system. The system
relies on groundwater with challenging water quality,
including elevated Cr6, nitrate, sulfate, and TDS. West Yost led an alternatives evaluation that considered both
treatment and non-treatment solutions and evaluated
finished water quality, treatment reliability and flexibility, waste management, site constraints, capital costs, and
lifecycle costs. The evaluation considered multiple treatment processes capable of addressing Cr6 and the other water quality constituents, including regenerable and nonregenerable SBA ion exchange, biological treatment, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis.
This experience is particularly relevant to Patterson because Grayson presents many of the same water chemistry considerations that influence Cr6 treatment selection and performance. West Yost evaluated the interaction between Cr6, nitrate, sulfate, TDS, and other constituents rather than considering Cr6 treatment in isolation. The evaluation included SBA ion exchange, which can address both nitrate and Cr6, and considered how competing constituents and broader water quality objectives affect whether an individual treatment technology provides a practical overall solution. West Yost has also carried this work beyond treatment evaluation into broader supply planning and implementation, including consideration of conveyance and regional supply alternatives as potential long-term solutions to Grayson’s water quality challenges.
Grayson Tank 9
Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review Engineering Design Support Area 70J Chromium-6 Treatment Works County Service Area | County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works (Trussell) Hexavalent chromium (Cr6) has been detected in five
drinking water wells in the County Service Area 70J (CSA 70J) of San Bernardino County (SBC). Along with partner Albert A.
Webb Associates (WEBB), Trussell was tasked with reviewing and analyzing available water quality data in preparation for treatment design and performing an alternatives analysis to determine the optimum treatment solution to address Cr6 at these wells. Technologies considered included weak base anion exchange, strong base anion exchange, and reduction coagulation filtration. Factors considered include capital and life cycle costs, footprint and configuration, ability to achieve treatment targets, construction and permitting challenges, operations and maintenance implications, and waste
generation. After looking at these ion exchange (IX) and reduction/coagulation/filtration (RCF) technologies, Trussell recommended moving forward with regenerable strong base anion exchange (SBA) treatment at three consolidated facilities servicing the five wells. Trussell and Webb subsequently developed a Basis of Design Report and proceeded through the design. Trussell developed specifications for the treatment system selected. Trussell was also tasked with preparing a preliminary Compliance Plan to be submitted to DDW on behalf of SBC CSA 70J. As required by DDW, the Compliance Plan described the proposed method of compliance (i.e., providing treatment at the wells) and how the proposed treatment facilities were selected. Trussell will also develop a Hexavalent Chromium Operations Plan will be completed and submitted to DDW.
San Gabriel Basin Well Treatment Desktop Study | Three Valleys Municipal Water District (Trussell)
Trussell Technologies evaluated treatment needs for three groundwater wells as part of Three Valleys Municipal Water District’s Groundwater Improvement Project, which is intended to restore drinking water production from shuttered wells in the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. The wells presented complex water quality challenges, including elevated Cr6, perchlorate, nitrate, and VOCs. Trussell reviewed historical water quality, identified treatment needs, coordinated with treatment equipment vendors, and developed a centralized treatment train based on the project treatment objectives. The recommended approach included GAC followed by single-use ion exchange and regenerable ion exchange, with Class 5 cost estimates developed using vendor information.
This experience is particularly relevant to Patterson because it demonstrates Trussell’s experience evaluating Cr6 treatment in groundwater where multiple constituents and the overall source water chemistry influence treatment selection and configuration. The work required the team to look beyond Cr6 alone and determine how multiple treatment processes could be combined into an implementable treatment train. David Hokanson served as Project Manager, with Jacob Newman supporting the historical water quality review, vendor coordination, preliminary treatment configuration, and cost development.
Well 5 of SBC CSA 70J
Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review
SCOPE OF SERVICES
West Yost will conduct a focused peer review of the Cr6 Treatment Feasibility Study and subsequent supporting information prepared for the City. Our work will remain focused on the existing technical record and the questions identified by the City. We propose the following three tasks. • Task 1. Review Background Information
• Task 2. Conduct Technical Peer Review
• Task 3. Prepare Technical Memorandum
Task 1. Review Background Information
West Yost will review the Cr6 Treatment Feasibility Study and subsequent supporting information provided by the City. While our ongoing work has already provided familiarity with much of this information, we will revisit the materials specifically for this peer review to evaluate the assumptions, technical details, and supporting information relevant to the City’s five questions.
West Yost will participate in one meeting with City staff and the City’s engineering consultant, if needed, to clarify information identified during our review.
Task 1 Assumptions
• West Yost assumes the City will provide all materials to be reviewed for this project in response to an RFI requesting the information.
Task 1 Deliverables
• No deliverable will be provided for this task. Findings will be incorporated into Task 3.
Task 2. Conduct Technical Peer Review
West Yost will conduct an independent technical review of the information evaluated under Task 1. Our review will focus on the assumptions, technical judgments, and cost information that are material to answering the City’s five questions:
Does the selected approach have a reasonable technical basis? Were SGMA-related groundwater pumping constraints adequately considered? Is the proposed slab-mounted WBA configuration consistent with the feasibility study? Is the revised planning level cost reasonably supported? What material issues or recommendations should be addressed during preliminary engineering?
The review will draw on the expertise of West Yost and Trussell. Andy will lead the treatment review, supported by Trussell’s specialized water chemistry and treatment expertise, to review the treatment technologies, process assumptions, selected configuration, water chemistry considerations, and planninglevel costs. This approach will provide two distinct technical perspectives on the treatment-related questions. Ken will lead the groundwater and SGMA review, while Bobby will integrate these findings with West Yost’s existing understanding of the City’s water system and broader supply considerations to develop a coordinated conclusion for each question.
Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review The combined team will focus on matters that are meaningful to the City’s decision. Both West Yost and Trussell will review significant treatment findings, with complementary areas of focus, before incorporating conclusions into the technical memorandum, giving the City the benefit of both firms’ experience and technical perspectives. We will distinguish issues that could materially affect the selected approach from those that can reasonably be addressed as preliminary and final design proceed. Where opportunities to improve coordination or efficiency of the broader Cr6 compliance program become apparent through the review, we will also identify those considerations for the City.
Task 2 Assumptions
• West Yost will rely on the source data and supporting information provided by the City and will not independently reproduce the analyses or calculations.
• Planning level costs will be reviewed for reasonableness. An independent detailed cost estimate is not included.
• Broader Cr6 program recommendations will be limited to observations arising from the peer review.
Additional evaluation or design is not included.
Task 2 Deliverables
• No deliverable will be provided for this task. Findings will be incorporated into Task 3.
Task 3. Prepare Technical Memorandum
West Yost will prepare a concise technical memorandum documenting the results of the peer review. The memorandum will be organized around the City’s five questions and will provide a clear conclusion and supporting basis for each.
The memorandum will distinguish issues that could materially affect the selected approach from those that can reasonably be addressed as preliminary and final design proceed. Where appropriate, we will also identify practical recommendations or implementation efficiencies that may benefit the City as it advances the broader Cr6 compliance program.
To maintain the City’s schedule, the technical memorandum will be developed concurrently with the review so that findings are documented, and significant questions are resolved as the work progresses.
Task 3 Assumptions
• One technical memorandum submittal is assumed. West Yost will address minor revisions requested by the City following submittal, if applicable.
Task 3 Deliverables
• Peer Review Technical Memorandum will be submitted within four weeks of NTP.
PROJECT BUDGET
West Yost’s proposed level of effort and budget for each of the tasks described above is shown in Table 1.
West Yost will perform the scope of services described above on a time-and-expenses basis at West Yost’s and Trussell’s standard billing rates. Our current Billing Rate Schedule is attached. Fees will be limited to a not-to-exceed budget as shown in Table 1. Additional services not included in this scope of services will be performed only after receiving written authorization and a corresponding budget augmentation.
Maria Encinas, CFM
October 5, 2026
N-M-C-City of Patterson-LP-2026 Cr6 Feasibility Study Peer Review Table 1. Estimated Project Hours and Budget
Task
West Yost Level
of Effort, hours
Trussell Budget,
dollars
Total Estimated
Budget, dollars
Task 1. Review Background Information 13 - $4,350
Task 2. Conduct Technical Peer Review 56 7,700 $26,500
Task 3. Prepare Technical Memorandum 18 - $5,900
Total Project Hours and Budget 87 7,700 $36,750
SCHEDULE
West Yost understands the urgency of this peer review and is committed to meeting the City’s required schedule. West Yost and Trussell also have an established working relationship from previous water supply projects, allowing the combined team to begin working together immediately without the coordination period typically associated with a new teaming arrangement. Our team is available to begin immediately upon NTP and already has the background information and working knowledge of Patterson needed to start the review. This allows our treatment and groundwater specialists to focus immediately on the technical questions rather than spending the early portion of the schedule becoming familiar with the City’s system and Cr6 program.
West Yost will submit the Peer Review Technical Memorandum within four weeks of NTP, providing the City with the independent assurance needed to maintain progress on the appropriate improvements for Cr6 compliance.
Thank you for providing the West Yost and Trussell Technologies team the opportunity to support the City of Patterson on this important assignment. We believe we have assembled the right team for this peer review and, more broadly, to help the City navigate the treatment, water supply, and implementation decisions that will follow as it advances its Cr6 compliance program. We look forward to continuing to support the City on this important effort. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
WEST YOST
Roberto Vera, PE
Principal Engineer / Project Manager
RCE #83500
cc:
Attachment(s): Attachment A. Resumes
Attachment B. Billing Rates
Resumes
Attachment A
Bobby Vera, PE
PROJECT MANAGER
1 Bobby Vera is a civil engineer specializing in water resources, water supply and facilities planning, and wastewater collection system master planning. He is proficient in a variety of hydraulic modeling (pressure and gravity systems) and Geographical Information System (GIS) software. Bobby also has experience in water facilities design of groundwater wells, storage and pumping stations, hydraulic transient analyses, and sizing and design of surge mitigation devices (hydropneumatic tanks, air-vacuum valves, etc.).
Bobby primarily supports clients throughout California and Oregon.
EXPERIENCE
Chromium 6+ Evaluation, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella, CA: Project engineering leading the non-treatment, hydraulic evaluations, and alternatives analysis portions of the Study. The study aimed to update the 2015 study performed by the District and develop a comprehensive, system-wide approach to mitigate impacts on groundwater supplies. It evaluated both treatment and non-treatment approaches. Nontreatment approaches included identifying blending clusters to re-establish supply, blending clusters for future treatment, and evaluating the conveyance of excess stranded supplies to pressure zones impacted by Cr6+. The alternatives analysis portion of the study assessed cost and non-cost factors to screen alternatives and guide the selection process. The study recommended approximately $350 million in capital improvements, including drilling new wells, adding four treatment plants, and potentially using existing conveyance to improve redundancy.
Grayson Water Infrastructure Project, Modesto, CA: Deputy Project Manager responsible for planning and design of water infrastructure improvements to provide the community of Grayson with a safe and reliable drinking water supply. The project includes evaluation of groundwater treatment alternatives to address multiple water quality challenges, with a particular focus on hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)), as well as nitrate, total dissolved solids, and other constituents affecting the community’s groundwater supply. Work includes evaluating treatment technologies and developing a preferred treatment approach to meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, designing new treatment, storage, and pumping facilities, and evaluating treatment residuals and waste disposal requirements. The project also includes evaluating the feasibility of constructing a pipeline to connect Grayson to the City of Modesto’s South Modesto service area as an alternative to continued on-site groundwater treatment, along with associated environmental studies and public outreach.
Grayson and Westley Surface Water Supply Feasibility Evaluation, Modesto, CA: Project Manager for assessing the feasibility of developing surface water supplies for the Grayson, Westley, and surrounding disadvantaged communities. This study builds on the Grayson Water Infrastructure Project, which evaluated groundwater treatment and import of surface water from the City’s contiguous area, and identified Infrastructure needs and associated capital costs for both options. Capital costs for both options were relatively high; therefore, a new surface water supply option was evaluated. The City was approached by a confidential party that was looking to sell a property that has an associated water right that the City could potentially develop. Tasks included reviewing available water rights documentation, assessing available monthly diversion rates, site visit and assessment, and feasibility of developing the offered water right.
Staff Title: Principal Engineer II
Office Location: Sacramento, CA
Years of Experience: 15
Years with West Yost: 13
Professional Registrations
Professional Civil Engineer, California
No. 83500; Oregon No. 95681PE
Grade II Water Distribution System
Operator, California No. 48180
Education
MS, Engineering Science, Civil &
Water Resource Engineering,
University of the Pacific, Stockton,
California
BS (cum laude), Civil Engineering,
University of the Pacific, Stockton,
California
Water Education Foundation Water
Leader, Class of 2017
Professional Affiliations
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Water Works Association
Sacramento Area Water Works
Association
Bobby Vera, PE
2 Del Rio Replacement Well 271, City of Modesto, CA: Project Manager responsible for preparation of plans and specifications for the above-grade facilities and well equipment to replace Del Rio Well 271 on a new parcel. Facilities include a vertical turbine well pump, masonry block well building, 12-foot tall masonry wall, tablet chlorinator in a separate fiberglass enclosure, generator with sub-base fuel tank, flushing main and air gap structure, electrical and instrumentation improvements, and site work. Work included initial site layout so West Yost well design staff could complete design of the below-grade structures (test boring and well), and working with City staff to develop concept plans, preliminary design report, and final design of the facility.
Del Rio Well 70 GAC Treatment Improvements, City of Modesto, CA: Project Manager responsible for evaluation and design of treatment improvements for Del Rio Well 70, which West Yost previously designed as the replacement for Del Rio Well 271.
Following commissioning of the well, subsequent sampling identified DBCP concentrations above the drinking water maximum contaminant level, and the City retained West Yost to evaluate treatment alternatives and design improvements to return the well to service. Work included a treatment alternatives analysis, development of the Basis of Design, and preparation of plans and specifications for a 1,000-gpm granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment system. Improvements include two 12-foot-diameter GAC vessels operated in a lead-lag configuration, process and yard piping, vessel foundations, relocation of the existing standby generator, site expansion and access improvements, modifications to the existing flushing and air gap structure, and electrical, instrumentation, controls, and SCADA improvements.
TCP Settlement Wells Capital Improvement Plan, City of Modesto, CA: Project Manager responsible for development of a capital improvement plan for 14 groundwater wells included in the City’s $50 million 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) settlement. Work included evaluating existing well condition, water quality, remaining useful life, site constraints, treatment requirements, truck access, and pump-to-waste and backwash requirements to determine the feasibility of returning inactive wells to service.
Developed preliminary GAC treatment concepts, site layouts, and planning-level construction cost estimates for feasible improvements. The evaluation identified Wells 61 and 277 for advancement, including a 1,500-gpm GAC treatment system and associated facility upgrades at Well 61, and an on-site replacement well, GAC treatment system, and associated facility upgrades at Well 277.
San Jacinto Valley Water Supply Study, Eastern Municipal Water District, Perris, CA: Project Engineer and technical lead for the study. This update builds on a study prepared in 2018. The District is implementing its Groundwater Reliability Plus Program, which is intended to enhance water supplies by recharging imported and/or treated recycled water into the San Jacinto Basin. The program includes extraction wells so that banked water can be extracted during drought periods, when imported supplies may be curtailed. Since the completion of the 2018, the timing of certain key supply and transmission facilities has been delayed, and overall system demands have significantly dropped. In addition, District testing found that transmission conveyance is more limited than previously modeling efforts estimated. This resulted in a larger export potential (due to decreased demands) but with reduced conveyance. Key tasks included: preparing mass balance estimates during different development scenarios to determine how much water could be exported, a model calibration to adjust the hydraulic model to reflect the District’s distribution system testing results, hydraulic evaluation of different export scenarios to assess the sizing of transmission pipeline needed to export supplies, preparation of capital costs estimates and potential phasing of conveyance recommendations.
Groundwater Well Strategy Plan, City of Modesto, CA: Project Manager and Project Engineer for preparing a groundwater well strategy, which identifies which wells have the highest likelihood of failure and consequence of failure pairs to focus the City’s capital improvement projects. The City has approximately 85 wells, and recently approximately 13 mgd of well production capacity has been abandoned due to well age and water quality concerns. System demands have also dropped, so the need to reestablish production capacity is not as urgent. This strategy was prepared to identify which active wells the City should perform focused assessments on to reduce its overall risk. Tasks included: preparing consequence and likelihood of failure factors, preparing risk assessment tables and figures, workshops with city staff, preparing recommended rehabilitation action plans, and budget-level cost estimates.
Andy Smith, PE
TREATMENT LEAD
1 Andy Smith has performed a wide variety of planning and design work for numerous water and wastewater treatment facilities for agencies in California and Oregon. His treatment facility experience includes master planning and predesign, detailed design and cost estimating, and engineering services during construction. His treatment expertise includes preliminary treatment, clarification, filtration, disinfection, chemical storage and metering, pumping stations, solids handling, and dewatering. He has worked on treatment facilities with capacities ranging from <1 mgd to 40 mgd.
EXPERIENCE
Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Study, Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella, CA:
Andy served as a lead author of CVWD’s Cr6 study and led development of conceptual design criteria, layouts, and cost estimates for wellhead treatment facilities using Reduction-Coagulation-Filtration (RCF), Weak Base Anion Exchange (WBA-IX), and Strong Base Anion Exchange (SBA-IX). His work focused on integrating treatment technologies into a wide range of site conditions, optimizing for constructability, footprint, and lifecycle cost. Andy developed representative site designs for both individual and clustered treatment systems with capacities ranging from 2,000 to 6,000 gpm, and led facility layout, hydraulic design, and preliminary mechanical configuration efforts. His work provided CVWD with a practical, scalable design basis for more than 30 Cr6- impacted wells and informed the District’s strategy for phased implementation and communication with DDW. Andy’s treatment design concepts and layout refinements are now serving as the foundation for pilot testing and detailed design of CVWD’s initial wellhead treatment installations.
Grayson Water Infrastructure Project, Modesto, CA: Treatment System Design Lead for the Grayson Water Infrastructure Project to evaluate available groundwater treatment options; select a preferred alternative; and design new treatment, storage, and pumping facilities to provide the community of Grayson with a safe and reliable drinking water supply. Tasks include developing a treatment alternatives study to evaluate available treatment strategies to meet both primary and secondary drinking water standards per Division of Drinking Water requirements, designing on-site water storage and pumping facilities, and providing associated environmental studies and public outreach. As an alternative to on-site treatment, the feasibility of constructing a pipeline to connect to the City’s South Modesto service area is also being evaluated, along with alternatives for treating and disposing of the waste stream from the groundwater treatment process.
Del Rio Well 70 GAC Treatment Improvements, City of Modesto, CA: Process Design Lead responsible for development and design of a new 1,000-gpm granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment system to return Del Rio Well 70 to service following detection of DBCP above the drinking water maximum contaminant level. Responsibilities include development of the treatment design criteria, evaluation and sizing of GAC vessels, coordination with GAC equipment suppliers, and development of the process configuration, process piping, sampling, backwash, and waste handling requirements. The treatment system includes two 12-foot-diameter, 30,000-pound GAC vessels operated in a lead-lag configuration and integrated with the existing well pumping, chlorination, distribution, flushing, electrical, instrumentation, controls, and SCADA systems. Work Staff Title: Principal Engineer II
Office Location: Sacramento, CA
Years of Experience: 20
Years with West Yost: 17
Professional Registrations
Professional Civil Engineer, California
No. 74673
Education
BS, Civil Engineering, University of
California, Davis
Professional Affiliations
California Water Environment
Association
Central Valley Clean Water
Association
American Water Works Association
Andy Smith, PE
2 included preparation of the Basis of Design and process design support through final design.
North Bay Regional Water Treatment Plant Expansion Program Management and Planning, Cities of Fairfield and Vacaville, CA:
Andy is leading the treatment planning and conceptual design elements of the Cities’ joint effort to expand the NBRWTP and diversify Vacaville’s long-term water supply portfolio. He is overseeing raw and treated water quality sampling, facility performance assessments, and challenge testing of pretreatment and filtration systems. Additionally, Andy is guiding development of treatment goals, cost estimates, and facility layout alternatives to support long-term capacity and regulatory objectives. His work supports the Cities’ evaluation of future surface water supply and treatment strategies and is closely tied to Vacaville’s Cr6 compliance efforts.
NBRWTP and Waterman WTP Ozone System Improvements, City of Fairfield, CA: For two related projects at Fairfield’s surface water treatment plants, Andy served as Project Manager (NBRWTP) and Design Lead (Waterman WTP) for improvements that included new ozone generators, modifications to the ozone gas diffuser grids, replacement of aging residual ozone destruct units, replacement of a LOX storage tank and vaporizers, replacement of existing power supply units (PSUs), and installation of new closed-loop cooling water systems. To compress the construction schedule for work at the Waterman WTP, the design team worked with the City and major equipment manufacturers to execute a pre-procurement agreement that locked in pricing and allowed the manufacturer to begin the shop submittal process ahead of bidding the project.
Program Management and Design Services for Surface Water Supply Project, Stanislaus Regional Water Authority (SRWA), Ceres, CA: Pre-Design Task Lead and Assistant Program Manager for a project to define and manage implementation of a $278 million project to deliver a new treated surface water supply to serve the Cities of Turlock and Ceres. West Yost was selected in 2016 to manage development of a regional Surface Water Supply Project that will include raw water conveyance facilities, a treatment plant, and treated water transmission mains to bring water to each City’s distribution system. Andy’s responsibilities included source water quality characterization, evaluation of treatment process alternatives, planning for a new water quality laboratory, planning for the development of and testing of an existing infiltration gallery facility, design of pumping and distribution facilities, engineering support of SRWA’s environmental consultant, permitting and utilities coordination, construction cost estimating, bidability and constructability reviews, preparation of life-cycle cost evaluations, and development of detailed technical procurement documents for the solicitation and evaluation of design-build proposals. Andy’s responsibilities during the design-build period included overall coordination of design deliverable reviews, review of key equipment and material submittals, weekly coordination with on-site CM and resident engineers, and planning and oversight of commissioning and acceptance testing.
Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project, Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, CA: Staff Engineer for a large regional water supply project serving the cities of Davis and Woodland. Responsibilities include planning and pre-design for an 80 cfs raw water intake facility on the Sacramento River; hydraulic and present worth analyses of alternative large diameter raw and treated water transmission mains; predesign and site layout for a new 30 mgd water treatment facility; development of detailed construction and life cycle project cost estimates for all project facilities; development of preliminary PG&E electric service requirements for raw water intake and regional treatment facility; coordination of geotechnical investigations for intake and pipeline facilities; and development of technical documents for RFP of design-build-operate proposals for an estimated $270 million project. Andy also served as owner liaison during all phases of the new WTP’s acceptance testing period prior to and during initial delivery of treated water to the Cities.
Ken Loy, PG, CEG, CHG
GROUNDWATER AND SGMA LEAD
1 Ken Loy is a Certified Hydrogeologist and Engineering Geologist with experience in engineering consulting emphasizing hydrogeologic and water quality characterization, data analysis, and modeling. Ken has characterized hydrogeologic conditions, assessed land and water use practices, and applied numerical groundwater flow models in conjunctive use evaluations, groundwater impacts analyses, and water supply planning efforts. He has performed numerous water quality evaluations and has used numerical flow and transport models to evaluate the movement of groundwater contaminants. He has been involved in several land subsidence evaluations, designed wells, and provided design services during the construction of wells.
EXPERIENCE
Design and Construction of Well 68 Grogan Park Production Well/Tivoli Well (Below Ground Well Facility), City of Modesto, CA: Principal Hydrogeologist and Task Manager for the design and construction of a new municipal supply well with desired production capacity of 1,000 gpm or more without the need for wellhead treatment. The project included development of technical plans and specifications (P&S) for the bidding, design, and construction of the below-grade facilities for the municipal well. The effort included planning and implementing logging and sampling approaches to verify that groundwater of sufficient quantity and quality could be found at the site, and providing hydrogeologic services during the pilot hole drilling, collection and logging of representative cutting samples, discrete aquifer zone sampling, geophysical logging of the borehole, well design adjustment, well bore reaming and well construction, well development, and pump testing. Assessed and recommended pump requirements for a range of hydrologic conditions. The completed well had a tested efficiency of 93 percent at a flow rate of 3,000 gpm, and the water quality met all Title 22 drinking water standards.
Design and Construction of the Del Rio Replacement Well 70 (formerly Well 271), City of Modesto, CA: Principal Hydrogeologist and Task Manager for the design and construction of a replacement municipal supply well that exceeded the desired production capacity of 1,000 gpm. The project included the development of technical plans and specifications for the bidding, design, and construction of the below-grade facilities for this well. The below-grade technical specifications focused on determining if groundwater of sufficient quantity and quality could be found at this site. The work included providing hydrogeologic services during the pilot hole drilling, collection and logging of representative cutting samples, discrete aquifer zone sampling, geophysical logging of the borehole, well design adjustment, well bore reaming and well construction, well development, and pump testing. Successfully negotiated resolution of out-of-compliance issues with the drilling contractor. Developed and implemented the permitting approach for discharge of water to an adjacent landowner’s property during the development and testing of the well. Assessed and recommended pump requirements for a range of hydrologic conditions. The well can sustain a pumping rate of 1,600 gpm, which exceeds the target capacity of 1,000 gpm.
Staff Title: Principal Hydrogeologist II
Office Location: Davis, CA
Years of Experience: 35
Years with West Yost: 22
Professional Registrations
Professional Geologist,
California No. 7008
Arizona No. 67038
Texas No. 10653
Utah No. 7477627-2250
Certified Hydrogeologist,
California No. 720
Certified Engineering Geologist,
California No. 2214
Education
MS, Geohydrology, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
BS, Geophysics, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona
Master’s Certificate in Project
Management, The George
Washington University, Washington,
DC
Professional Affiliations
National Groundwater Association
Association of Engineering Geologists
Groundwater Resources Association
Association of California Water
Agencies
American Water Works Association
Ken Loy, PG, CEG, CHG
2 On-Call Well Evaluation and Rehabilitation Services and Municipal Well Siting, Sacramento Suburban Water District (SSWD), CA:
Project Manager to provide Geographic Information System (GIS) and hydrogeologic services for the development and implementation of a GIS-based Municipal Well Site Evaluation, Ranking, and Selection Methodology (Well Site Selection Methodology). Working with the District, West Yost identified site selection criteria and information needed to identify, evaluate, screen, rank, and select potential well sites; developed GIS tools needed for methodology implementation; provided technical support to District for public meetings and internal meetings; and provided GIS files, geodatabases, and documentation of GIS procedures supporting future well site selection efforts.
Conjunctive Use Study, California Water Service Company, Chico District: Principal Hydrogeologist. Responsible for developing and implementing the numerical groundwater flow scenarios to evaluate the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water available through Butte County’s area of origin water entitlement. Ken used the Butte County integrated water flow model (IWFM) to assess groundwater conditions in the City of Chico and surrounding areas under current and projected future demand conditions, with and without conjunctive use. The model results showed conjunctive use stabilized groundwater levels in Chico but had minimal effect in outlying agricultural areas, where groundwater is the predominant supply.
Yolo County Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model Updates and Refinement, Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA): Principal Hydrogeologist responsible for developing the ASR component of the WDCWA’s DWWSP. Project included updating the WRA’s Yolo County IGSM model with an updated simulation of agricultural consumptive use, refined layering, and updated agricultural and urban supply and demand information. This effort required a very comprehensive understanding of the Yolo County groundwater system and the land and water use conditions that affect the groundwater system, because the model simulates land and water use practices, including agricultural processes, root zone processes, groundwater processes, and streamflow. The work was conducted collaboratively with input from the staff of Yolo County stakeholders, other consultants, and DWR.
Hydrogeologic Support Services, Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency (YSGA): Principal Hydrogeologist providing hydrogeologic support to the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency (YSGA) to implement updated well permitting processes pursuant to the requirements of Executive Orders N-7-22 and N-3-23. Worked with YGSA staff and participated in public meetings with the YGSA Drought Contingency Planning Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Board to provide an assessment of current groundwater conditions, identify and map focus areas with characteristics needing consideration during the application review process, and develop a tiered approach for evaluating well permit applications. Supporting tasks included evaluating groundwater level and land subsidence data collected after adoption of the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), and developing analytical tools for YGSA staff’s use in reviewing well permit applications.
Colusa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Adoption and Revision, Colusa Groundwater Authority and Glenn Groundwater Authority, Colusa and Glenn Counties, CA: Principal Hydrogeologist and West Yost’s project manager for development of the Colusa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Glenn and Colusa Groundwater Agencies (GSAs). Ken was involved in all aspects of plan development, including the basin setting, monitoring networks, sustainable management criteria, evaluating and selecting the Integrated Water Flow Model, advising on model calibration, and communication with GSA technical advisory committees, Boards, stakeholders, and the public, and production of the GSP. Subsequent to the adoption of the GSP, Ken was part of the team hired by the GSAs to address deficiencies the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) identified in the GSP and successfully revised the GSP within the required timeframe.
Lindsay Smith, PE
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE
1 Lindsay Smith is a Vice President and leads our program and procurement management team at West Yost. Lindsay has served as program manager on multiple large-scale water supply projects involving owner’s advisory services, program management, and alternative contract delivery. Lindsay has also served as project manager and engineer for the planning, procurement, and design of water and wastewater facilities.
EXPERIENCE
Program Manager for Regional Surface Water Supply Project, Stanislaus Regional Water Authority, Turlock, CA: Program Manager for the Regional Surface Water Supply Project that is currently operational. The constructed regional facilities include a raw water pump station and pipelines, a water treatment plant, treated water transmission mains, and an interconnection with the Cities of Ceres’ and Turlock’s (Cities) local systems. Lindsay also took the lead in the development of procurement documents and project delivery method recommendations for the different projects under this large regional program.
West Yost currently serves in the role of the Owner’s Representative for the oversight of the design-build (DB) contract. The DB contract value for this state-of-the-art treatment facility is $195 million. As the program manager, Lindsay is responsible for engaging West Yost technical experts to support the Authority in pre-design, design criteria development, DB contract oversight, design review, permitting, and start-up and testing.
West Yost is currently implementing the Computerized Maintenance Management System and training O&M staff on its use.
Owner’s Representative, Davis Woodland Water Supply Project (DWWSP), WoodlandDavis Clean Water Agency, CA: Lindsay served as Program Manager for DWWSP, which has provided the Cities of Davis and Woodland, California, and the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) with a new surface water supply source to supplement their previous groundwater-only supplies since 2016. This cutting- edge project involved a $278 million design-build-operate (DBO) program to provide a sustainable, regional conjunctive use solution to the communities of Davis and Woodland and UC Davis. As Program Manager, Lindsay was responsible for leading the procurement process for this alternative delivery project, managing client communications, ensuring compliance with the DBO contract, and overseeing and managing the activities of 13 subconsultants. The DWWSP included construction of a new intake on the Sacramento River, over 14 miles of transmission pipelines, a new 30 mgd water treatment plant, and local transmission facilities to effectively distribute the water to the customers. The first program phases included project alternative evaluations, project delivery alternative evaluations, preliminary design, project budgeting, scheduling, grant and State loan funding, procurement document development, and contract negotiations. Phase 2, project delivery, encompassed the final design and construction of the planned facilities using the DBO delivery approach. Lindsay continues to serve the Agency as the Agency Engineer.
Well 80, Wells 81 A, B, C, and Well 82 Owner’s Representative Services, Sacramento Suburban Water District (SSWD), Sacramento, CA: Lindsay is consulting the Owner’s Representative team for the construction of up to four new monitoring wells and four new groundwater wells and associated pumping and treatment facilities. The projects will be constructed under progressive design-build delivery. As the Owner’s Representative, West Yost is representing the District in the contracting and management of the Staff Title: Vice President
Office Location: Davis, CA
Years of Experience: 24
Years with West Yost: 20
Professional Registrations
Professional Civil Engineer
California No. 72996
Oregon No. 91823PE
Education
BS, Civil Engineering, Santa Clara
University
Professional Affiliations
Design Build Institute of America
Lindsay Smith, PE
2 progressive design-build team and will also be providing construction management and inspection services. Lindsay provided education and advice to SSWD regarding project delivery options and how those options align with the goals of the client and the specifics of the project.
RiverArc Regional Water Supply Project, Placer County Water Agency, Auburn, CA: Lindsay serves as the Project Manager for a multi-agency study and planning effort involving stakeholders in Sacramento and Placer Counties. The goal of the project is to regionally enhance water supply diversity and reliability, increase the sustainability of regional groundwater supplies, and increase environmental protection in the American River watershed. The current scope includes planning for implementation and funding of the project. RiverArc was successful in receiving funding to complete initial design and environmental efforts. The next phase will include procurement to begin design and construction.
Alternative Delivery, West Side Water Storage Project, City of Roseville, CA: Lindsay led the alternative delivery analysis and strategy for determining the optimal delivery method for water storage and pumping facilities to support new development within the West Roseville Specific Plan Area. She was responsible for evaluating traditional and alternative project delivery methods to assist the City in selecting the approach that best meets its overall objectives and project-specific concerns. Considerations included impacts on overall schedule, design and construction costs; risk transfer; price certainty; owner involvement and control; and change order potential. As part of the effort, Lindsay developed a detailed enumeration of weighted advantages and disadvantages and a proposed risk allocation and implementation approach for each project delivery method.
Sacramento River Water Reliability Study, Phase I, Placer County Water Agency, Auburn, CA: Lindsay served as Deputy Project Manager for a multi-agency study involving stakeholders throughout the Sacramento area. The goal of the project is to regionally enhance water supply diversity and reliability, increase sustainability of regional groundwater supplies, and increase environmental protection in the American River watershed. The Phase I Study is a conceptual plan for the implementation and funding of the project and includes project phasing, project alternatives, and estimated planning-level costs.
Well 28 Pre-Design, City of Woodland, CA: Lindsay served as Project Manager for City of Woodland Well 28 pre-design. This project met tight schedule constraints in order to receive state funding assistance and involved replacement of an existing well prior to demolition due to the construction of a new Yolo County Courthouse. The project included preliminary design of an ASRcompatible well, a well siting evaluation, and completion of construction schedules and cost estimates. The project included a siting alternatives analysis in coordination with multiple City departments.
Well 25 Pre-Design, City of Woodland, CA: Lindsay served as Project Manager for City of Woodland Well 25 design. The project included a siting alternatives analysis in coordination with multiple City departments. The well pre-design included a building to house the well pump, chlorine addition facilities, a nitrate analyzer, and a backup generator.
One-Million-Gallon (MG) K Street Reservoir, City of Columbia City, OR: Lindsay served as Project Engineer for the design of a 1- MG potable water prestressed concrete reservoir. Design work included hydraulic modeling, system planning, and site work associated with the reservoir. The hydraulic modeling and system planning element involved evaluation of storage capacity requirements, pumping needs, and transmission main sizing.
TRUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. | David R. Hokanson, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Resume David R. Hokanson, Ph.D., P.E,
BCEE
EDUCATION
• Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, Michigan
Tech University
• M.S., Civil Engineering, Michigan Tech
University
• B.S., Environmental Engineering, Michigan
Tech University
REGISTRATION
Civil Engineer, State of California – No. 70254
Professional Engineer, State of Michigan –
No. 6201052273
CERTIFICATIONS
Board Certified Environmental Engineer,
American Academy of Environmental
Engineers – No. 09-10037
SUMMARY
Dr. Hokanson is an expert on physical and
chemical processes applied to water treatment
and potable reuse, with over 25 years of
experience and more than 75 publications. Dr.
Hokanson specializes in groundwater
treatment for removal of contaminants such as
PFAS, perchlorate, and PCE. Recent project
work includes GAC treatment facilities for the
City of Monterey Park, Fallbrook Public Utilities
District, and Puente Valley. Additionally, Dr.
Hokanson has developed models for GAC and
ion exchange treatment technologies and set
up the RSSCT capabilities in Trussell’s lab. Dr.
Hokanson currently serves as the Chair of the
CA-NV Section of the American Water Works
Association. Dr. Hokanson maintains a strong
working relationship with the regulators in
Southern California helping to smooth the
permitting process for challenging drinking
water treatment projects.
SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
San Bernardino County / Albert A. Webb
Associates
Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Evaluation
Year: 2025-Present
Hexavalent chromium has been detected at
levels exceeding California’s MCL in all five
groundwater wells serving San Bernardino
County’s Service Area 70J community.
Working with Albert A. Webb Associates,
Trussell was hired to evaluate and design
treatment solutions to address hexavalent
chromium before the MCL compliance
deadline. Trussell led an alternatives analysis
of best available technologies for removing
hexavalent chromium, including ion exchange
(IX) and reduction coagulation filtration (RCF).
Largely based on site constraints that limited
the ability to manage residual treatment solids,
Trussell recommended treatment using a
regenerable strong base anion exchange resin
compatible with a Roll Up Regeneration
service. Trussell is supporting Webb in the
design of three separate treatment facilities
utilizing this technology. Trussell is also leading
permitting efforts with DDW, including the
development of a hexavalent chromium
Compliance Plan and an Operation Plan for the
future treatment facilities.
Role: Technical Advisor
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
San Gabriel Basin Well Treatment Desktop
Study
Year: 2024-2025
Trussell has been retained by Three Valleys
Municipal Water District (TVMWD) as a
technical consultant for the Groundwater
Improvement Project (GRIP) to restore drinking
water production from shuttered groundwater
wells in the Main San Gabriel Groundwater
Basin. Trussell evaluated the treatment
technology needs for three wells with elevated
levels of hexavalent chromium, perchlorate,
nitrate, and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The desktop study included an
TRUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. | David R. Hokanson, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Resume analysis of historic well water quality and
contacting treatment equipment vendors to
support a preliminary design for a centralized
treatment train based on the project treatment
objectives. The recommended design
comprised treatment by granular activated
carbon (GAC), followed by single-use ion
exchange (IX), and finally regenerable IX. The
treatment recommendations were summarized
in a technical memorandum (TM), including
Class 5 cost estimates based on information
from the vendors. Trussell continues to support
the GRIP project by providing technical support
for future pilot testing.
Role: Project Manager
Alameda County Water District
Evaluation and Design of PFAS Treatment
Facility
Year: 2022-2025
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
have recently been detected in select
groundwater wells of the Alameda County
Water District (ACWD) in Fremont, CA. The
levels of some PFAS compounds exceed the
California notification levels and response
levels, which limits the utility’s groundwater
production capacity. ACWD retained Trussell to
evaluate different treatment options for PFAS,
which included bench testing of granular
activated carbon (GAC) and ion exchange (IX)
media. Based on Trussell’s alternatives
analysis, ACWD decided to proceed with the
design and construction of a 6 mgd IX
treatment facility. Dr. Hokanson served as a
Technical Advisor and provided expert
guidance on Rapid Small Scale Column
Testing (RSSCT) with both GAC and Ion
Exchange Media. Dr. Hokanson also reviewed
the project at various stages of design.
Role: Technical Advisor
Fallbrook Public Utilities District
Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Project
Year: 2014-2022
The Fallbrook Public Utility District is
integrating a new potable water supply into
their portfolio through the Santa Margarita
River Conjunctive Use Project, where FPUD
will receive infiltrated Santa Margarita River
water from Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton. The 8-mgd facilities include iron
and manganese treatment, reverse osmosis,
granular activated carbon for PFAS removal,
stabilization and disinfection. Dr. Hokanson
was the technical advisor for the design,
procurement, RSSCT for PFAS, and permitting
of the GAC treatment system.
Role: Technical Advisor
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Hexavalent Chromium Technical Assessment
and Cost Estimate for the 2025 Public Health
Goals Report
Year: 2025
Trussell was retained by the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to identify
Best Available Technologies (BATs) for
hexavalent chromium removal below the Public
Health Goal (PHG) of 0.02 ug/L and provide
preliminary cost estimates for each technology.
This effort will be incorporated into SFPUC’s
2025 PHG Report. Trussell completed a
literature review on three BATs: reduction,
coagulation, filtration (RCF), weak base anion
ion exchange (WBA), and strong base anion
ion exchange (SBA); and updated performance
efficiencies and cost estimates from the 2019
PHG report. Dr. Hokanson served as a
Technical Advisor and provided expert
guidance on hexavalent chromium treatment
among many other topics.
Role: Technical Advisor
TRUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. | Jacob Newman, PE Resume
Jacob Newman, PE
EDUCATION
• M.S., Environmental Engineering, University
of California, Berkeley
• B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis
REGISTRATION
Civil Engineer, State of California – No. 99204
SUMMARY
Jacob Newman has 6 years of experience in
drinking water, recycled water, and wastewater
treatment engineering, with expertise in water
quality assessment, data analysis, bench-scale
treatment evaluations, and preparing
regulatory documents. His select project
experience with Trussell includes design and
permitting support for an ion exchange (IX)
facility for PFAS removal, rapid small-scale
column testing for PFAS removal, a
performance evaluation for a seawater
desalination facility, technical support for
manganese removal from groundwater, and
preparation of Title 22 Engineering Reports and
Operations Plans for several recycled water
and indirect potable reuse (IPR) projects.
Additional experience includes pipe loop
testing and water quality assessment for a
corrosion integration study and preparation of
training materials for drinking water treatment
operators. Mr. Newman currently serves as
Trussell’s Drinking Water Emerging Issues
Specialist.
SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
San Bernardino County / Albert A. Webb
Associates
Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Evaluation
Year: 2025-Present
Hexavalent chromium has been detected at
levels exceeding California’s MCL in all five
groundwater wells serving San Bernardino
County’s Service Area 70J community.
Working with Albert A. Webb Associates,
Trussell was hired to evaluate and design
treatment solutions to address hexavalent
chromium before the MCL compliance
deadline. Trussell led an alternatives analysis
of best available technologies for removing
hexavalent chromium, including ion exchange
(IX) and reduction coagulation filtration (RCF).
Largely based on site constraints that limited
the ability to manage residual treatment solids,
Trussell recommended treatment using a
regenerable strong base anion exchange resin
compatible with a Roll Up Regeneration
service. Trussell is supporting Webb in the
design of three separate treatment facilities
utilizing this technology. Trussell is also leading
permitting efforts with DDW, including the
development of a hexavalent chromium
Compliance Plan and an Operation Plan for the
future treatment facilities.
Role: Project Engineer
Alameda County Water District (ACWD)
Evaluation and Design of PFAS Treatment
Facility
Year: 2022-2025
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
have recently been detected in select
groundwater wells of the Alameda County
Water District (ACWD) in Fremont, CA. The
levels of some PFAS compounds exceed the
California notification levels and response
levels, which limits the utility’s groundwater
production capacity. ACWD retained Trussell to
evaluate different treatment options for PFAS,
which included bench testing of granular
activated carbon (GAC) and ion exchange (IX)
media. Based on Trussell’s alternatives
analysis, ACWD decided to proceed with the
design and construction of a 6 mgd IX
treatment facility. Mr. Newman was extensively
TRUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. | Jacob Newman, PE Resume
involved in bench testing different treatment
media, preparing the Basis of Design Report for
the IX treatment facility, developing equipment
specs for the project, reviewing equipment
submittals, and preparing an Operations Plan
with standard operating procedures (SOPs).
Trussell supported the startup and
commissioning efforts for the facility, which fully
came online in spring 2025.
Role: Project Engineer
Endyna/Southern Indian Health Council
PFAS Treatment For Tribal Community
Year: 2024-Present
The Southern Indian Health Council recently
detected per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) in the private groundwater well serving
the Alpine Clinic medical complex on Tribal
sovereign land near Alpine, CA. Trussell was
retained by Endyna to develop a Preliminary
Engineering Report (PER) to assess alternative
treatment technologies for the removal of PFAS
at the Alpine Clinic to support future federal
funding efforts. Trussell collected water quality
samples, communicated with treatment
vendors, and developed a preliminary
recommendation for a small-scale IX treatment
system to address PFAS from the well. Trussell
was retained to evaluate bids from equipment
vendors to furnish and construct the treatment
system. Trussell continues to provide technical
support through the design, construction, and
start-up phases of the project.
Role: Project Engineer
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
San Gabriel Basin Well Treatment Desktop
Study
Year: 2024-2025
Trussell has been retained by Three Valleys
Municipal Water District (TVMWD) as a
technical consultant for the Groundwater
Improvement Project (GRIP) to restore drinking
water production from shuttered groundwater
wells in the Main San Gabriel Groundwater
Basin. Trussell evaluated the treatment
technology needs for three wells with elevated
levels of hexavalent chromium, perchlorate,
nitrate, and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Mr. Newman supported the analysis of
historic well water quality and helped develop a
follow-up monitoring plan to fill in data gaps.
Trussell contacted treatment equipment
vendors to provide information to support a
preliminary design for a centralized treatment
train based on the project treatment objectives.
Mr. Newman supported vendor interactions
and the writing of a summary technical
memorandum (TM), including Class 5 cost
estimates based on information from the
vendors. The recommended design comprised
treatment by granular activated carbon (GAC),
followed by single-use ion exchange (IX), and
finally regenerable IX.
Role: Project Engineer
Rubidoux Community Services District
Regulatory and Operational Support for
Drinking Water Facilities
Year: 2021-2025
Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD)
has recently implemented several major
treatment facility upgrades. These include a
granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment
system for PFAS and 1,2,3-TCP removal at the
Anita B. Smith Water Treatment Facility (WTF)
as well as manganese removal via greensandlike media and an ion exchange (IX) treatment system for PFAS removal at the Leland
Thompson WTF. Trussell previously developed
a treatment plan for RCSD to address
operational issues at the Smith WTF, provided
support for regulatory approval of this plan, and
created Operations Plans for both the Smith
and Thompson WTFs. Mr. Newman was a part
of a Trussell team that developed Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Operator
Training workshops to ensure optimal
operation of the facilities and compliance with
new regulatory requirements. Mr. Newman
continued to support RCSD by providing
technical guidance for the manganese
treatment system and expansion design.
Role: Project Engineer
Billing Rates
Attachment B
(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)*
POSITIONS
ENGINEERING
Principal/Vice President $392
Engineer/Scientist/Geologist Manager I / II $370 / $387 Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $333 / $355 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $297 / $312
Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $246 / $265 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II / III $191 / $221 / $231 Engineering Aide $117
Field Monitoring Services $145
Administrative I / II / III / IV $107 / $133 / $160 / $176
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
Engineering Tech Manager I / II $384 / $387
Principal Tech Specialist I / II $353 / $365
Senior Tech Specialist I / II $320 / $334
Senior GIS Analyst $292
GIS Analyst $277
Technical Specialist I / II / III / IV $206 / $231 / $261 / $291 Technical Analyst I / II $148 / $176
Technical Analyst Intern $119
Cross-Connection Control Specialist I / II / III / IV $154 / $167 / $188 / $208 CAD Manager $233
CAD Designer I / II $181 / $204
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Senior Construction Manager $373
Construction Manager I / II / III / IV $222 / $237 / $251 / $318 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 4 / 3 / 2 / 1) $200 / $222 / $247 / $256 Apprentice Inspector $181
CM Administrative I / II $96 / $130
Field Services $256
2026 Billing Rate Schedule
LABOR CHARGES (DOLLARS PER HOUR)
■ Hourly rates include charges for technology and communication, such as general and CAD computer software, telephone calls, routine in-house copies/prints, postage, miscellaneous supplies, and other incidental project expenses. ■ Outside services, such as vendor reproductions, prints, and shipping; major West Yost reproduction efforts; as well as engineering supplies, etc., will be billed at the actual cost plus 15%. ■ The Federal Mileage Rate will be used for mileage charges and will be based on the Federal Mileage Rate applicable to when the mileage costs were incurred. Travel other than mileage will be billed at cost. ■ Subconsultants will be billed at actual cost plus 10%. ■ Expert witness services, research, technical review, analysis, preparation, and meetings will be billed at 150% of standard hourly rates. Expert witness testimony and depositions will be billed at 200% of standard hourly rates. ■ A finance charge of 1.5% per month (an annual rate of 18%) on the unpaid balance will be added to invoice amounts if not paid within 45 days from the date of the invoice. * This schedule is updated annually Page 1 of 2
(Effective January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026)* Equipment Charges
EQUIPMENT
2" Purge Pump & Control Box $300 / day
Aquacalc / Pygmy or AA Flow Meter $28 / day
Emergency SCADA System $35 / day
Field Vehicles (Groundwater) $200 / day
Gas Detector $80 / day
Generator $60 / day
Hydrant Pressure Gauge $10 / day
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Impulse (Transient) $55 / day Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Standard $40 / day
Low Flow Pump Back Pack $135 / day
Low Flow Pump Controller $200 / day
Powers Water Level Meter $32 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 300ft $30 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 500ft $40 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 700ft $45 / day
QED Sample Pro Bladder Pump $65 / day
Skydio 2+ Drone (2 hour minimum) $100 / hour
Storage Tank $20 / day
Sump Pump $24 / day
Transducer Communications Cable $10 / day
Transducer Components (per installation) $23 / day
Trimble GPS – Geo 7x $220 / day
Tube Length Counter $22 / day
Turbidity Meter $30 / day
Turbidity Meter (2100Q Portable) $35 / day
Vehicle (Construction Management) $18.75 / hour
Water Flow Probe Meter $20 / day
Water Quality Meter $50 / day
Water Quality Multimeter $185 / day
Well Sounder $30 / day
BILLING RATES
2026 Billing Rate Schedule
* This schedule is updated annually Page 2 of 2
Normal
Hourly
Rate1
Expert
Daily
Rate2
Senior Company Officer $ 400 $4,800
Principal Engineer III $ 390 $4,680
Principal Engineer II $ 370 $4,440
Principal Engineer I $ 360 $4,320
Supervising Engineer III $ 340 -
Supervising Engineer II $ 320 -
Supervising Engineer I $ 300 -
Senior Engineer III $ 280 -
Senior Engineer II $ 260 -
Senior Engineer I $ 250 -
Engineer II $ 230 -
Engineer I $ 210 -
Senior Drafter I $ 210 -
Associate Engineer II $ 190 -
Associate Engineer I $ 185 -
Assistant Engineer II $ 175 -
Assistant Engineer I $ 155 -
Lab Assistant II $ 145 -
Lab Assistant I $ 125 -
Senior Office Manager II $ 210 -
Senior Office Manager I $ 190 -
Office Manager III $ 185 -
Office Manager II $ 175 -
Office Manager I $ 155 -
Office Assistant II $ 145 -
Office Assistant I $ 125 -
Other Direct Costs
Mileage for vehicle use to be reimbursed at current IRS rate.
Travel, equipment rental and other direct costs to be
reimbursed at actual cost plus 5%.
Outside Professional Services:
Outside professional services to be reimbursed at actual cost plus 15%
Trussell Technologies respectfully requests the ability to update billing rates at a frequency of every twelve (12) months, based on CPI and other cost increases. Justification for the request would be provided for review, comment, and approval. 9/26/25
TRUSSELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
HOURLY BILLING RATES
Billing Rate
1. Time will be billed in 15 minute increments
2. Time will be billed in increments of one day
City of Patterson
1 Plaza
Patterson , CA 95363
Phone (209) 895- 8033
PEER REVIEW FOR CHROMIUM 6 FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUMMARY OF SCORES
CONSULTANT/FIRM NAME: MAX POINTS
West Yost
CRITERIA
Understanding of Scope 20 Points 20
Cr(VI) & WBA Experience 25 Points 24
Relevant Project Experience 15 Points 15
Technical Review Approach 20 Points 19
Cost & Materiality Review 15 Points 14
Schedule & Staffing 5 Points
5 TOTAL 100 Points 97
0000
CONSULTANT/FIRM NAME: MAX POINTS
West Yost
CRITERIA
Understanding of Scope 20 Points 18
Cr(VI) & WBA Experience 25 Points 20
Relevant Project Experience 15 Points 12
Technical Review Approach 20 Points 16
Cost & Materiality Review 15 Points 13
Schedule & Staffing 5 Points
5 TOTAL 100 Points 84
0000
CONSULTANT/FIRM NAME: MAX POINTS
West Yost
FINAL RANKINGS (IN ORDER) Score
CRITERIA SCALE 1-10 Max Points 300
Understanding of Scope 20 Points 18 West Yost 267
Cr(VI) & WBA Experience 25 Points 23
Relevant Project Experience 15 Points 13
Technical Review Approach 20 Points 16
Cost & Materiality Review 15 Points 11
Schedule & Staffing 5 Points
5 TOTAL 10 Points 86
0000
TOTAL 300 Points 267
PROJECT NO. 2026-C-0003
Reviewed by: MR Reviewed by: WAV Reviewed by: KS
Hexavalent
Chromium
Feasibility
Study
Peer Review
October 20, 2026
Purpose of
Peer Review
Council requested a technical peer review of the
Chromium-6 feasibility study
Preferred approach: individual wellhead, slabmounted WBA ion exchange Independent assessment of technical basis and
material issues
Not a new feasibility study or redesign
Consultant
Selection
Five experienced engineering firms were solicited
One proposal received by the deadline: West Yost
with Trussell Technologies
Public Works and Engineering evaluated six
established criteria
Staff determined the team is qualified and
responsive to the scope
Review Scope
& Schedule
1) Validate assumptions, treatment
recommendations and pumping constraints
2) Review technologies and centralized versus
wellhead configurations
3) Assess slab-mounted WBA approach and updated
planning-level costs
4) Identify material issues in a technical
memorandum
5) Completion within four weeks of Notice to Proceed
Fiscal Impact
& Council
Action
Agreement with West Yost, including Trussell: not to
exceed $36,750
Additional appropriation from Water Enterprise Fund
(Fund 611)
Authorize staff to execute the agreement
Authorize Finance to make the necessary budget
adjustment
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Christina M. Pritchard, City Attorney
MEETING
DATE:
October 20, 2026
ITEM: 8.1
SUBJECT : Approve First Reading ans Introduction of Ordinance No.893 reading by Title Only, Waiving Further Reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Patterson amending Sections 2.40.030, 2.48.030, and 2.50.040 of the Patterson Municipal Code to remove fingerprint screening requirements for commission and committee members
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Approve First Reading Introduction of Ordinance No. 893 reading by Title Only, Waiving Further Reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Patterson amending Sections 2.40.030, 2.48.030,and 2.50.040 of the Patterson Municipal Code to remove fingerprint screening requirements for commissions and committee members.
BACKGROUND
In 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 718, which required members of the Planning Commission, Economic Strategic Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Beautification Committee to pass a Department of Justice fingerprint screening before appointment or reappointment. Each requirement cited Public Resources Code section 5164.
The Parks and Recreation Commission and Beautification Committee chapters were later repealed by Ordinance No. 781. Their functions are now addressed through the combined Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission in Chapter 2.50. Its membership provision also requires fingerprint screening and states that screenings are valid for two years. The proposed ordinance addresses all three current code provisions containing these requirements. The Senior Commission membership provisions in Section 2.70.030 contain no corresponding fingerprint screening requirement.
ANALYSIS
Public Resources Code section 5164 requires criminal background screening for specified prospective employees and volunteers serving at agency-operated parks, playgrounds, recreational centers or recreational beaches in positions having supervisory or disciplinary authority over minors. Appointments to the City commissions at issue do not involve supervision or discipline of minors. Section 5164 therefore does not require screening for those membership appointments.
The current Municipal Code separately imposes fingerprint screening as a local appointment requirement. Council action is needed to repeal that requirement. Staff recommends repeal because the statutory requirement cited in the code does not apply to these commission memberships and; therefore, there is no legal reason for limiting commission and committee appointments on that basis.
The proposed ordinance removes the fingerprint screening language from the following provisions:
Section 2.40.030(A), Planning Commission.
Section 2.48.030(A), Economic Strategic Commission.
Section 2.50.040(A), Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission, including the sentence establishing a two-year screening validity period.
The amendments retain the existing five-member composition of each commission. Other eligibility requirements, application and interview procedures, terms, and powers and duties remain unchanged. The ordinance also directs staff to update application materials and administrative appointment procedures when the ordinance takes effect. Screening requirements imposed by law for any separately assigned employment or volunteer duties continue to apply.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impacts are limited to staff and legal time preparing the ordinance and revising the application materials, as well as codification into the Municipal Code if approved. Removing the screening requirement is expected to reduce administrative work associated with commission appointments and reappointments.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (14 Cal.
Code Regs., §§ 15060, subd. (c)(3), 15378, subd. (b)(5).) Even if the ordinance were a project, it would be exempt under the common sense exemption because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15061, subd. (b)(3).)
POLICY ALTERNATIVES:
1. Motion to waive first reading, read by title only, and introduce the proposed ordinance; or
2. The City Council may continue introduction of the proposed ordinance to a later City Council meeting, with direction to staff to provide changes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 893
ORDINANCE NO. 893
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON AMENDING SECTIONS 2.40.030, 2.48.030, AND 2.50.040 OF THE PATTERSON
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE FINGERPRINT SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
FOR COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 718 established Department of Justice fingerprint screening requirements for appointments and reappointments to the Planning Commission, Economic Strategic Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Beautification Committee, citing Public Resources Code section 5164; and
WHEREAS, Chapters 2.52 and 2.54 were subsequently repealed by Ordinance No. 781.
The current Parks, Recreation and Beautification Commission is established in Chapter 2.50, which includes a corresponding fingerprint screening requirement and a two-year screening validity provision; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 5164 applies to specified employment and volunteer positions at public recreational facilities that have supervisory or disciplinary authority over minors. Membership on the City commissions addressed by this ordinance does not confer such authority. Accordingly, section 5164 does not require fingerprint screening as a condition of these membership appointments or reappointments; and
WHEREAS, The City Council desires to remove the local fingerprint screening requirements for these commission memberships and the related screening validity provision..
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Planning Commission. Subsection A of Section 2.40.030 of the Patterson Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
A. Said commission shall consist of five members.
Section 2. Economic Strategic Commission. Subsection A of Section 2.48.030 of the Patterson Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
A. Said commission shall consist of five members serving without pay.
Section 3. Parks Recreation and Beautification Commission. Subsection A of Section
2.50.040 of the Patterson Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
A. The commission shall consist of five members.
Section 4. Scope and Implementation. All other provisions of Sections 2.40.030, 2.48.030 and
2.50.040 remain unchanged. Nothing in this ordinance excuses compliance with criminal background screening requirements imposed by state or federal law for separately assigned employment or volunteer duties. The City Manager and City Clerk shall conform commission application materials and administrative appointment procedures to this ordinance upon its effective date.
Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance and the application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each provision independently of any provision held invalid.
Section 7. Publication and Effective Date
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published in accordance with Government Code section 36933. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage pursuant to Government Code section 36937.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson held on the 20th day of October 2026, by __________, who moved its introduction, which motion being duly seconded by _______________. Said Ordinance was given a second reading at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of November 2026, and after such reading, ____________ moved its adoption, seconded by ________________, and said Ordinance was thereupon adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
APPROVED:
_________________________
Michael Clauzel
Mayor of the City of Patterson
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Aracely Alegre
City Clerk of the City of Patterson
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Christina M. Pritchard, City Attorney
MEETING
DATE:
October 20, 2026
ITEM: 8.2
SUBJECT : Approve First Reading ans Introduction of Ordinance No.892 reading by Title Only, Waiving Further Reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Patterson Repealing Section 2.16.090 of Chapter 2.16, City Manager, of Title 2, Administration and Personnel of the Patterson Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Approve First Reading ans Introduction of Ordinance No. 892 reading by Title Only, Waiving Further Reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Patterson Repealing Section 2.16.090 of Chapter 2.16, City Manager, of Title 2, Administration and Personnel of the Patterson Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
The City of Patterson currently has a residency requirement for the City Manager, as outlined in Section 2.16.090 of Chapter 2.16, City Manager, of Title 2, Administration and Personnel, which is in violation of California law.
ANALYSIS
Chapter 2.16.090 of the Patterson Municipal Code currently states that residence in the city at the time of appointment shall not be required as a condition of employment; however, residence in the city shall be established within a reasonable time after the acceptance of an appointment to this position.
However, Article XI, Section 10(b) of the California Constitution provides:
“A city …, including any chartered city …, may not require that its employees be residents of such city …; except that such employees may be required to reside within a reasonable and specific distance of their place of employment or other designated location.”
Furthermore, California Government Code Section 50083 states that “[n]o local agency or district shall require that its employees be residents of such local agency or district.” The City Attorney is recommending repealing the residency requirement in Section 2.16.090 to comply with the California Constitution and state statute. The proposed ordinance repeals Section 2.16.090 in its entirety, to eliminate any residency requirement for the City Manager.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impacts are limited to staff and legal time preparing the ordinance and codification into the Municipal Code if approved.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (14 Cal.
Code Regs., §§ 15060, subd. (c)(3), 15378, subd. (b)(5).) Even if the ordinance were a project, it would be exempt under the common sense exemption because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15061, subd. (b)(3).)
POLICY ALTERNATIVES
1. Motion to waive first reading, read by title only, and introduce the proposed Ordinance No. 892; or
2. The City Council may continue introduction of the proposed Ordinance No. 892 to a later City Council meeting, with direction to staff to provide changes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 892
ORDINANCE NO. 892
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON TO REPEAL SECTION 2.16.090 OF CHAPTER 2.16, CITY MANAGER, OF TITLE 2,
ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL, OF THE PATTERSON MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Chapter 2.16, City Manager, of Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the Patterson Municipal Code (“PMC”) regulates the creation, establishment, and responsibilities of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.16, “City Manager,” of Title 2 establishes the office of the City Manager of the City of Patterson to be an appointed position solely based on executive and administrative qualifications; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.16.090 of Chapter 2.16, “City Manager,” of Title 2 sets forth a residency requirement within a reasonable time after the acceptance of an appointment to the City Manager position; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.16.090 of Chapter 2.16 is inconsistent with Article XI, Section 10(b) of the California Constitution and Government Code Section 50083, and should be repealed to ensure compliance with applicable state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Repeal. Section 2.16.090 of Chapter 2.16, “City Manager,” of Title 2 of the Patterson Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 2. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance and the application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each provision independently of any provision held invalid.
Section 7. Publication and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published in accordance with Government Code section 36933. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage pursuant to Government Code section 36937.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson held on the 20th day of October 2026, by __________, who moved its introduction, which motion being duly seconded by _______________. Said Ordinance was given a second reading at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of November 2026, and after such reading, ____________ moved its adoption, seconded by ________________, and said Ordinance was thereupon adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
APPROVED:
_________________________
Michael Clauzel
Mayor of the City of Patterson
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Aracely Alegre
City Clerk of the City of Patterson
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Christina M. Pritchard, City Attorney
MEETING
DATE:
October 20, 2026
ITEM: 9.1
SUBJECT : Discussion and possible action regarding initiation of an independent third-party investigation concerning allegations related to the ABS project.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss whether the City should initiate an independent third-party investigation concerning allegations related to the ABS project that were mentioned, but not resolved, in the July 21, 2026 workplace investigation report. If the Council wishes to proceed, provide direction regarding the investigation's scope, retention authority, reporting format, and budget.
BACKGROUND
The City retained Liebert Cassidy Whitmore to investigate specified allegations made by an employee concerning the Mayor. The investigator issued a report dated July 21, 2026. As relevant to the proposed new investigation, the report records allegations that one or more Councilmembers may have:
• Participated in or influenced staff-level discussions concerning the ABS project; • Attempted to influence which alternatives staff presented to the City Council, including an alleged direction to remove two alternatives and present only an approval option;
• Became involved in operational or personnel matters; and • Participated in communications that may warrant review for compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
These statements were made in the course of the investigation into allegations against the Mayor.
They were not investigated or substantiated in the prior report. The investigator separately noted that witnesses had raised concerns about other Councilmembers' involvement in personnel or operational matters, but expressly stated that those matters were outside the investigation's scope.
During the Other Matters portion of the City Council's October 6, 2026 meeting, Councilmembers Roque and Mora requested that the Council consider a separate investigation into allegations concerning the ABS project referenced in the City's prior third-party investigation report. Because the request concerned a matter that was not separately listed on that agenda, the Council did not undertake a substantive discussion at that time. The matter is now presented as a separately agendized item for Council discussion and direction.
The prior investigation concerned allegations involving Mayor Michael Clauzel. During witness interviews, separate concerns were raised regarding conduct by other Councilmembers and the ABS project. The investigator did not make findings on those matters because they were outside the assigned scope. The report therefore provides notice of allegations, not proof that the alleged conduct occurred or that any law or City policy was violated.
ANALYSIS
Patterson Municipal Code section 2.16.040 provides that the Council and its members must deal with the City's administrative services through the City Manager and that individual Councilmembers may not give orders or instructions to the City Manager or subordinate staff.
Section 2.16.050 assigns the City Manager responsibility for administering City affairs and for employee appointment, discipline, suspension, and dismissal, subject to the provisions stated in that section. Chapter 9 of the City Officials’ Handbook similarly addresses City official interactions with staff and the Council-Manager form of government.
The purpose of a new investigation would be neutral fact-finding. Authorization of an investigation would not constitute a finding that misconduct occurred. If the investigation produces information suggesting a violation of the Handbook, Municipal Code, or other law, any further review or disciplinary process would occur separately and with the notice and procedural protections applicable at that time.
Government Code section 54954.2, subdivision (a)(3), permits a Councilmember or the Council, subject to the Council's procedures, to request that staff report back or place a matter on a future agenda. The earlier request under Other Matters served that limited agenda-setting purpose. This separately agendized item permits the Council to discuss the proposal and provide direction.
If the Council authorizes an investigation, there should be a defined scope focused on the ABS project rather than a general inquiry into political or policy disagreements. The scope could include the following questions:
1. What communications occurred among Councilmembers, the City Manager, City employees, consultants, or other persons concerning the ABS project, including communications about staff recommendations or agenda materials?
2. Did any individual Councilmember direct, pressure, or attempt to influence the City Manager or staff regarding the handling of the ABS project, the alternatives presented to the Council, or the wording of a staff recommendation?
3. Did any Councilmember participate in staff meetings or administrative processes concerning the ABS project in a manner inconsistent with the Council-Manager structure or applicable City policies?
4. Did any Councilmember seek or attempt to influence a personnel decision connected to the ABS project?
5. What communications occurred among Councilmembers concerning the ABS project, and what facts should be provided to the City Attorney for a separate legal assessment of Brown Act compliance?
6. What corrective or preventive measures, if any, should be considered based on the investigator’s factual findings?
The investigator should be authorized to interview relevant current and former officials, employees, consultants, and other witnesses; review emails, text messages, calendars, meeting materials, notes, and other relevant records; assess credibility when necessary; and apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to factual allegations. Any legal conclusions should be made or reviewed by independent legal counsel.
The investigator should have no prior involvement in the ABS project, the earlier investigation, or the underlying disputes and should complete an appropriate conflict review. Because the allegations may involve Councilmembers, the engagement should be structured to protect the investigator's independence from individual elected officials and potential witnesses. The investigator should protect confidential personnel information, attorney-client privileged communications, closed-session information, whistleblower information, and the identities of employees or witnesses to the extent required by law. Councilmembers and staff should avoid conducting parallel inquiries or discussing witness accounts outside the investigation process.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact will depend on the approved scope, number of witnesses, volume of records, and whether separate investigative and legal services are retained. If the Council authorizes an investigation, it may establish a not-to-exceed amount, authorize the City Attorney to negotiate an engagement within that amount, and require further Council approval before exceeding the authorized amount. If the Council instead directs staff to return with an engagement, there is no immediate fiscal impact beyond staff and legal time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ordinance is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15060, subd. (c)(3), 15378, subd. (b)(5).) Even if the ordinance were a project, it would be exempt under the common sense exemption because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15061, subd. (b)(3).)
POLICY ALTERNATIVES:
1. Authorize a defined investigation now: Approve a scope, authorize retention of an independent investigator, select a reporting approach, and establish a not-to-exceed budget.
2. Direct staff to return with an engagement: Approve the investigation in concept and direct the City Attorney to solicit proposals or identify a qualified investigator, refine the scope, and return with an engagement agreement and budget.
3. Request preliminary scoping: Authorize limited interviews or document review solely to determine whether a full investigation is warranted and what its scope should be.
4. Use non-investigative measures: Decline a new investigation and instead direct training, clarification of Council-staff protocols, or other prospective measures.
5. Take no further action: Determine that no additional inquiry or corrective measure is warranted at this time
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Will Barrera, Interim Public Works Director
MEETING
DATE:
October 20, 2026
ITEM: 9.2
SUBJECT : Third Quarter Update on Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium-6) Compliance and Treatment Projects- Informational Item
RECOMMENDATION
Third Quarter Update on Hexavalent Chromium(Chromium-6) Compliance and Treatment Projects- Informational Item.
BACKGROUND
The City of Patterson (City) relies entirely on groundwater from the Delta-Mendota Subbasin for its drinking water supply. Monitoring has identified naturally occurring Hexavalent Chromium (Chromium-6) concentrations exceeding the State Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.010 milligrams per liter (mg/L), or 10 parts per billion (ppb).
The State's Chromium-6 MCL became effective October 1, 2024. The City's Chromium-6 Compliance Plan was approved by the State Water Resources Control Board's Division of Drinking Water (DDW), establishing a compliance schedule extending through September 2030.
The City continues quarterly monitoring, evaluation of Well 6 improvements and preliminary engineering for Chromium-6 treatment at its potable wells.
1. Third Quarter Chromium-6 Monitoring Results and Public Notification The City continues quarterly Chromium-6 monitoring. Results collected between November 4, 2025 and August 4, 2026, identified concentrations of approximately 0.020 mg/L (20 ppb), exceeding the State MCL of 0.010 mg/L (10 ppb).
On October 1, 2026, the City distributed a public notice regarding the elevated concentrations. The notice was posted on the City's website, displayed at City Hall and the Stanislaus County Library, and distributed through customer utility bills. The notice explains that the exceedance does not constitute an emergency and that residents are not required to use an alternative drinking water source.
The City will continue monitoring, public notification and coordination with DDW while advancing treatment improvements.
2. Well 6 Mitigation and Clustered Treatment Alternative Well 6 is currently on standby due to water quality concerns involving 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP). The well qualifies for potential grant funding through the State Water Resources Control Board's Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) Emerging Contaminants (EC) funding program.
The City retained West Yost to assist with the grant application and develop the Basis of Design for Well 6 improvements. Initially, the City evaluated treating Well 6 independently for both 1,2,3- TCP and Chromium-6. Due to the high operating costs associated with individual treatment, West Yost evaluated a clustered facility incorporating Wells 6, 8 and 9. The proposed clustered facility would be located on City-owned property near Orange Avenue and 1st Street, with a combined production capacity of approximately 2,400 gallons per minute (gpm). Approximately 1,625 gpm would receive Weak Base Anion (WBA) ion exchange treatment for Chromium-6, with the remaining flow blended with treated water. Preliminary evaluations indicate that blending may also reduce 1,2,3-TCP below the MCL, potentially eliminating the need for separate treatment.
This approach remains subject to further engineering and regulatory review.
West Yost completed a preliminary cost comparison of three alternatives, including capital and long-term operating costs. Consistent with previous City Council and public discussions, the following comparison focuses on capital construction costs and potential grant eligibility. The City will further evaluate total cost of ownership as engineering advances.
Alt. Description Capital
Construction Cost
Potential GrantEligible Costs
1 Individual treatment at Wells 8 and 9; Well 6
remains on standby $8.1 million $0
2 Individual treatment at Wells 6, 8, and 9 $15.1 million $4.6 million 3 Clustered treatment at a single facility for
Wells 6, 8 and 9 $17.3 million $11.9 million
Although the clustered alternative has the highest initial capital cost, approximately $2.2 million more than individual treatment at all three wells, it also offers the greatest potential grant funding opportunity. For comparison purposes only, assuming full funding of eligible improvements, the remaining capital costs could be approximately $5.4 million under Alternative 3, compared with $10.5 million under Alternative 2. The clustered approach could also allow Well 6 to return to active service, providing additional groundwater production capacity. These estimates are preliminary and do not represent confirmed grant awards. The extent of grant eligibility, including improvements associated with the proposed blending approach, remains subject to DFA review and approval.
Moving forward, the City will evaluate the total cost of ownership, including both initial capital investment and long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, such as electricity, treatment media replacement, labor and equipment maintenance. This will provide a more complete understanding of the financial impacts on the Water Enterprise Fund and ratepayers. The alternatives remain under evaluation, and no final treatment configuration has been approved.
Expanded Environmental Review and Grant Application
The original Well 6 project was anticipated to qualify for a Notice of Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the proposed clustered alternative introduces additional environmental considerations, including new conveyance pipelines and related infrastructure. Although the clustered alternative has not been finalized, the City is advancing environmental review to support project development, meet grant application requirements and avoid potential delays. This includes preparation of an Initial Study to evaluate environmental impacts and determine the appropriate CEQA documentation, potentially including a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Supporting studies will address biological and cultural resources, air quality, noise and other applicable requirements, including federal funding requirements.
Advancing environmental work does not commit the City to the clustered alternative. The City will continue evaluating treatment options while completing the environmental and technical studies necessary to support project development and potential grant funding. The City will follow its established procurement policies to authorize the necessary professional services.
3. Chromium-6 Preliminary Engineering Update
The City Council previously authorized Woodard & Curran to perform preliminary engineering for Chromium-6 treatment at Wells 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14. The preferred approach identified after completion of the feasibility study consists of individual wellhead treatment using slab-mounted WBA ion exchange systems.
Site surveys, geotechnical investigations and onsite walkthroughs have been completed. Woodard & Curran is to refine project costs and identify permitting and construction requirements. An update on preliminary engineering findings is anticipated by the end of October 2026. Well 14 remains included in the evaluation but is not yet online pending DDW approval of its permit amendment.
The proposed clustered facility for the Well 6 effort may affect the final treatment configuration for Wells 8 and 9, which are currently included in Woodard & Curran's scope. The Well 6 evaluation was initiated separately due to its 1,2,3-TCP contamination and associated grant funding opportunity. Preliminary engineering continues as authorized while the City evaluates whether Wells 8 and 9 should instead be incorporated into the clustered facility.
The City is coordinating both consultants' efforts to minimize duplication and maintain progress toward Chromium-6 compliance.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this informational report.
The City has executed additional environmental and technical services agreements to support the expanded Well 6 evaluation and grant application, in accordance with its established procurement policies and authorization requirements, to maintain project progress and avoid potential delays in securing grant funding.
Final capital and O&M costs will depend on the selected treatment configuration, completion of engineering, and availability of grant funding or other financing. Any future agreements requiring City Council approval will be brought forward separately.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Third Quarter Chromium-6 Tier 2 Notification and Monitoring Results.
2. West Yost- Individual vs. Clustered Well Treatment Alternative Cost Evaluation (for reference only).
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING
WATER
City of Patterson Has Levels of Hexavalent Chromium
Above the Drinking Water Standard
Este informe contiene información muy importante sobre su agua potable. Tradúzcalo o hable con alguien que lo entienda bien.
This is not an emergency. As our customers, you have a right to know what you should do, what happened and what we are doing to correct this situation.
We routinely monitor the presence of drinking water contaminants. Water sample results received between November 4, 2025, and August 4, 2026, showed hexavalent chromium levels of 0.020 mg/L or 20 per billion (ppb). This is above the standard, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 0.010 milligrams per liter or 10 ppb. We are working with the State Water Resources Control Board to address this exceedance and comply with the MCL within a compliance timeline.
What should you do?
• You do not need to use an alternative water supply (e.g., bottled water). • This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified immediately. However, some people who drink water containing hexavalent chromium more than the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer. • If you have other health issues concerning the consumption of this water, you may wish to consult your doctor.
What happened? What is being done?
• A new Hexavalent Chromium MCL of 10 ppb became effective October 1, 2024. • Hexavalent chromium was detected at levels that exceed the MCL. However, a water system of our size is not considered in violation of the Hexavalent Chromium MCL until after October 1, 2027. • We have completed a Hexavalent Chromium Compliance Plan that has been approved by the State Water Resources Control Board.
• We are working with the State Water Resources Control Board to address this exceedance and comply with the MCL.
Specifically, the City of Patterson has completed a Chromium-6 feasibility study and evaluated alternative treatment and siting plans. The city is now preparing to begin the preliminary engineering studies needed to further evaluate and verify the preferred treatment technology and alternative siting approach. These studies will include site investigations, preliminary geotechnical and survey work and preliminary design to confirm the feasibility of the proposed treatment approach. • We anticipate resolving the problem by September 2030.
For more information, please contact Maria Encinas at (209) 895-8060 or via email at [email protected].
Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this public notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail If you are a school or school system, the owner or operator of residential rental property, or the owner or operator of a business property, then you are legally required to notify the following people of the information in this notice within ten days of your receipt of this notice:
• SCHOOLS: You must notify school employees, students, and parents (if the students are minors). • RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS OR MANAGERS (including nursing homes and care facilities): You must notify tenants.
• BUSINESS PROPERTY OWNERS, MANAGERS, OR OPERATORS: You must notify employees of businesses located on the property.
• If you fail to notify the above people, you may be civilly liable up to $1,000 per day for each day that you fail to notify them. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 116450, subd. (g); 116650, subd. (e).) This notice is being sent to you by the City of Patterson System ID# PWS 5010017
Date distributed: October 1, 2026
Individual vs Clustered Well Treatment
Alternative Cost Evaluation for Wells 6, 8, and 9
City of Patterson
Background and Objective
• The City currently has multiple wellhead treatment projects occurring simultaneously
• Wells 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are currently being evaluated for Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6) treatment (prepared by Woodard & Curran)
• Well 6 is being evaluated for 1,2,3-TCP and Cr6 treatment (prepared by West Yost) • West Yost has proposed the potential to cluster treatment for Wells 6, 8, and 9 • Cr6 treatment for all three wells would occur at a single facility • Blended well water will mitigate high levels of 1,2,3-TCP and other concerning contaminants (i.e., Nitrates)
• Capital cost for 1,2,3-TCP treatment at Well 6, including blending, is in progress for DFA grant funding.
This Presentation summarized our DRAFT life cycle cost analysis for individual wellhead treatment vs the clustered treatment concept
Treatment Alternatives Evaluated
Alternatives Evaluated
Alternative Description Primary Treatment Facilities
Alternative 1 Localized Wellhead Treatment for Wells 8 and 9 Well 8: WBA-IX (10-year lease) Well 9: WBA-IX (10-year lease)
Alternative 2 Localized Wellhead Treatment for Wells 6, 8, and 9 Well 6: GAC + SBA-IX
Well 8: WBA-IX (10-year lease)
Well 9: WBA-IX (10-year lease)
Alternative 3 Clustered Treatment for Wells 6, 8, and 9 All wells at single treatment site: WBA-IX Cost Estimating Approach
• Do not want/need to revisit cost estimates previously prepared • Maintained the same basis of estimates for Wells 8 and 9 • Developed a new conceptual cost for Well 6 improvements (localized treatment or not)
• Used same basis as W&C for Clustered Treatment, but scaled up estimates based on production/treatment rate
Resulting costs are appropriate for a comparative analysis Facility and Cost Estimating Assumptions
Wells 8 and 9 Localized Improvements
• Facility Assumptions
• No modifications from Woodard & Curran planning/design • Production capacity idealized at 1,000 gpm per well
• Cr6 treatment --- Single WBA-IX treatment train per site • Lead/lag operation with two 10-ft diameter vessels
• Estimating Assumptions
• Reference Estimate: Woodard & Curran 10-year WBA lease • Estimated using the total project estimate (i.e., total estimate for improvements at Wells 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11) and dividing by 5
• Capital costs for Well 8 and Well 9 assumed to be equivalent • O&M costs for Well 9 scaled down
Facility and Cost Estimating Assumptions
Well 6 Localized Improvements
• Facility Assumptions
• 1,2,3-TCP treatment --- Lead/lag GAC operation with two 12-ft vessels • Cr6 treatment --- Regenerable SBA-IX with two 12-ft vessels • Includes fresh brine tank and associated process piping for regeneration • Includes brine waste tank and associated process piping • Estimating Assumptions
• Where possible, unit costs are consistent with Woodard & Curran reference estimate • Treatment facility costs (i.e., GAC and SBA-IX) quoted from JBI Water and Wastewater • Other site-specific capital estimates were developed using known construction costs or planning documents for similar facilities.
• O&M assumes GAC media replacement every 5 years and annual costs for SBA-IX is 1.65 x annual costs for WBA-IX
Facility and Cost Estimating Assumptions
Wells 6, 8, and 9 Clustered Treatment
• Facility Assumptions
• Cr6 treatment --- Single WBA-IX treatment train with four 12-ft diameter vessels • 1,625 gpm required for WBA-IX treatment
• 775 gpm blended with treated product water
• Total treated water production = 2,400 gpm
• 1,2,3-TCP treatment --- blending utilized to decrease concentration below MCL (i.e., no treatment facilities necessary) • Treatment is centrally located at the City’s greenfield site near the corner of Orange Ave and 1st St • New raw water transmission mains are sized to meet future WTP capacity requirements • Maximum velocity assumed at 5 to 6 ft/s
• Estimating Assumptions
• Capital and O&M costs for treatment facilities reference Woodard & Curran WBA-IX estimate • Reference costs are scaled up to the proposed clustered treatment production capacity (i.e., 1,625 gpm) using the six tenths power rule for capital costs. Proportionately scaled for O&M costs. • Transmission main installation assumes open-cut construction (except for railroad and canal crossings, one of each)
General Cost Estimating Parameters
• Estimating adders (e.g., contingencies) consistent with Woodard & Curran estimates • Life Cycle Parameters
• 10-year life cycle
• Inflation = 3 percent (consistent with the 10-yr average CPI) • Discount Rate = 5 percent (consistent with the 10-yr Treasury Yield) Estimating Adders
Capital Cost Adders Applied Percentage
Construction Contingency 30%
Tax on Materials 9%
General Contractor Overhead and Profit 15%
Owner's Reserve for Change Orders 10%
Environmental Documents and Permitting 5%
Engineering Services (Design) 10%
Construction Management 8%
Engineering Services During Construction 7%
10-year Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Well Treatment
Treatment Alternative(a) Alternative Supply
Capacity, gpm(b)
Construction Capital
Cost
Present Worth of
Operation &
Maintenance
Costs(c,d)
Present Worth of
Total Capital and
O&M Costs(c,d)
Cost per Treated
Water Produced
($/gpm)
Total Well 6 Capital
Cost Eligible for EC
Grant Funding(e)
Present Worth of Total
Capital and O&M Costs less
Improvements Covered by EC
Grant Funding
Cost per Treated Water
Produced less Improvements
Covered by EC Grant Funding
($/gpm)
Alternative 1 1,800 $8,136,000 $8,741,000 $16,877,000 $9,400 $0 $16,877,000 $9,400 Alternative 2 2,400 $15,129,000 $16,736,000 $31,865,000 $13,300 $4,664,000 $27,201,000 $11,400 Alternative 3 2,400 $17,300,000 $7,897,000 $25,197,000 $10,500 $11,856,000 $13,341,000 $5,600 (a) Alternative 1: localized wellhead treatment at Wells 8 and 9. Alternative 2: localized wellhead treatment at Wells 6, 8, and 9. Alternative 3: clustered treatment of Wells 6, 8, and 9. (b) Well 6 capacity = 600 gpm. Well 8 capacity = 1,000 gpm. Well 9 capacity = 800 gpm. (c) Inflation is assumed to be 3 percent, consistent with the average inflation rate for urban consumers over the last 10 years, per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (d) The discount rate is assumed to be 5 percent, consistent with the current 10-year Treasury Yield, September 2026. (e) For this evaluation, it was assumed that 100 percent of capital costs associated with mitigating 1,2,3-TCP contamination at Well 6 will be covered by EC Grant Funding. While the total allocation of funding is to be determined by the Department of Financial Assistance, Alternative 3 appears to produce the highest probability of financial benefit for the City. 10-year Life Cycle Cost Comparison
Findings and Conclusions
• Total present worth of the clustered approach is approximately 21 percent less than the localized treatment approach
• Clustered approach maximizes the potential of the EC Grant covering capital costs ($11.8M vs $4.6M)
• The cost per gallon for clustered treatment is approximately 12 percent more, compared to just treating Wells 8 and 9, but realizes 33 percent more supply • Assuming 100-percent grant funding, the cost per gallon absorbed by the City for the clustered approach is approximately 51 percent less than treating each site (Wells 6, 8, & 9) individually
City of Patterson
Chromium-6
Compliance &
Treatment
Projects
3 rd Quarter 2026 Update
October 12, 2026
Introduction
❶Latest
Chrome-6
Monitoring
Results
❷Update On
Well 6
Treatment
Evaluations
❸Update On
Preliminary
Engineering
Work For All
Well Sites
Chromium-6 Compliance Background
Chromium-6
MCL: 10 parts
per billion
(ppb)
01 State MCL
effective
October 2024
02 DDWapproved
Compliance
Plan
03 Compliance
schedule
through Sep
2030
04 ❶
Third Quarter
Monitoring
Results
Monitoring Period: Nov 2025 – Aug 2026
Chromium -6 Running Annual Average
Well 5 17 ppb
Well 7 20 ppb
Well 8 19 ppb
Well 9 19 ppb
Well 11 16 ppb
Reporting: Based on the most recent four quarters of monitoring results for each well.
Public notification: Quarterly notices continue; latest issued October 1, 2026.
Highest Well
Running Average
20 ppb
State Chromium-6
Standard
10 ppb
❷
Well 6
Treatment
Evaluation
Well 6 on standby due
to 1,2,3-TCP
contamination.
Eligible for
consideration under
Emerging
Contaminants grant
program.
West Yost assisting
with grant application
and Basis of Design.
Evaluating treatment
configurations and
potential funding
opportunities.
❷
Well 6 Treatment
Alternatives
Alternative 1: Individual
treatment of Well 6 for
1,2,3-TCP and
Chromium-6.
Alternative 2: Clustered
treatment of Wells 6, 8,
and 9 only.
❷
Capital Cost
and Funding
Scenarios
Treatment Scenario Capital
Cost
Potential
grant
funding
Estimated
City Share
1- Individual
treatment-
Wells 8 & 9; Well 6
remains on standby
$8.1
million $0 $8.1 million
2- Individual
treatment-
Wells 6, 8 & 9
$15.1
million
*$4.6
million
$10.5
million
3- Clustered
treatment-
Wells 6, 8 & 9
$17.3
million
$11.9
million $5.4 million
❷
Capital Cost
and Funding
Scenarios
Clustered treatment has the highest capital cost but
lowest estimated City share.
Approximately $5.4 million in additional funding
needed; financing options under evaluation.
Possible capacity within existing water rates.
Future evaluation will consider total lifecycle costs, not just initial construction costs.
❷
Environmental
Review and
Grant
Application
Clustered approach requires expanded
environmental review.
Initial Study and supporting technical
studies underway.
Environmental work supports grant
application and helps prevent delays.
No final commitment to clustered
treatment alternative.
❸
Chromium-6
Preliminary
Engineering
Update
Woodard & Curran advancing preliminary
engineering for Wells 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14.
Preferred approach: Individual wellhead WBA
treatment.
Site surveys, geotechnical investigations, and
walkthroughs completed.
Preliminary engineering update anticipated by end
of October.
Project
Coordination
and Next
Steps
Continue quarterly monitoring and public
notification.
Advance Well 6 grant application and
environmental review.
Review preliminary engineering findings and
coordinate treatment plans for all affected sites.
Evaluate lifecycle costs and funding options;
return to Council as needed.
Questions?
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor Clauzel and Members of the City Council
FROM: Fernando Ulloa, City Manager
BY: Will Barrera, Interim Director of Public Works
MEETING
DATE:
October 20, 2026
ITEM: 9.3
SUBJECT : Adopt Resolution No. 2026-63 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cost-Sharing Agreement with Del Puerto Water District for the NVRRWP Expanded Regionalization Feasibility Study and Authorize the City's Contribution of Up to $43,000 Toward the Study Cost.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Adopt Resolution No. 2026-63 Authorizing the City Managerto Execute a Cost-Sharing Agreement with Del Puerto Water District for the NVRRWP Expanded Regionalization Feasibility Study and Authorize the City's Contribution of Up to $43,000 Toward the Study Cost.
BACKGROUND
The North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program (NVRRWP) is a regional partnership that delivers highly treated recycled water from the City of Modesto and City of Turlock wastewater treatment facilities to the Delta-Mendota Canal to Del Puerto Water District for beneficial reuse within the western San Joaquin Valley. The program was developed to improve water supply reliability, reduce groundwater dependence and maximize the beneficial reuse of recycled water through regional cooperation.
To build upon these regional efforts, Del Puerto Water District is proposing to undertake the NVRRWP Expanded Regionalization Feasibility Study to evaluate opportunities for expanding regional water management partnerships and the beneficial use of recycled water throughout the region. The study will assess regulatory and permitting considerations, governance structures, infrastructure requirements, regional partnerships, source supply opportunities, economic considerations and implementation strategies associated with expanded regionalization.
The proposed scope of work includes ten phases culminating in a recommended regionalization strategy and implementation plan. The estimated study cost is approximately $430,000. The City is proposing to contribute up to $43,000 toward the regional study. The City's participation and contribution are voluntary and provide an opportunity for Patterson's wastewater treatment needs and potential opportunities to be considered as part of the broader regional evaluation. Any additional analyses requested specifically for Patterson that are outside the regional study scope would be evaluated and funded separately by the City, as appropriate.
In March 2025, the City entered into a settlement agreement with Patterson Irrigation District and West Stanislaus Irrigation District related to CEQA litigation concerning the Baldwin Master Plan/Zacharias Master Plan Project. As part of that agreement, the City committed to working with neighboring agencies to maximize beneficial use of regional stormwater and develop collaborative regional solutions to address groundwater sustainability challenges.
Regional collaboration continues to be an important component of long-term water supply reliability and groundwater sustainability. The study will be facilitated and managed by Del Puerto Water District and conducted by a team of technical experts with experience in regional water planning, recycled water, permitting, infrastructure evaluation and governance. Participation will allow the City to evaluate regional opportunities for water recycling, infrastructure sharing and future water supply partnerships while leveraging the resources and expertise of multiple participating agencies.
The City's Water Master Plan identifies recycled water as a potential source of new water supply and a strategy for improving long-term water supply reliability. The City has also previously approved planning efforts related to expanding the beneficial use of recycled water. The settlement agreement specifically recognizes the opportunity to further treat wastewater from the City's Water Quality Control Facility for non-potable reuse or water transfer opportunities and requires the City to evaluate those options following completion of the facility expansion project.
Participation in the study will help the City better understand what participating in a regional recycled water program could look like for Patterson, including potential users, infrastructure requirements, treatment needs, partnership opportunities, regulatory considerations and implementation costs. The study will also help identify potential implications of future modifications to the City's Water Quality Control Facility Waste Discharge Requirements permit that may be necessary to support expanded recycled water production and non-potable reuse opportunities.
The regional study is intended to evaluate opportunities for regional cooperation on recycled water projects that could create new water supply sources for the City and reduce reliance on existing groundwater supplies. The study will assess potential partnerships and infrastructure needs to support the development, distribution, and use of recycled water within the region. Because the primary purpose of the City's participation is long-term water supply planning and the evaluation of potential new water supply sources, the City's contribution is proposed to be funded through the Water Enterprise Fund.
If subsequent Patterson-specific work involves wastewater treatment, Water Quality Control Facility improvements or other wastewater-related activities, the appropriate allocation of those costs to the Wastewater Enterprise Fund would be evaluated at that time.
Participation also provides a financial benefit by allowing the City to share the cost of a comprehensive regional evaluation with other participating agencies rather than independently funding the full cost of a comparable study. It also allows Patterson to participate in the regional planning process and evaluate potential partnerships and shared infrastructure that could not be fully evaluated through a City-only study.
The study will provide technical information for future policy decisions and capital improvement planning related to recycled water and long-term water supply reliability. Participation in the study does not commit the City to implement any project, construct infrastructure, enter into a water transfer agreement, dedicate or transfer City recycled water, or make any future financial contribution. Any future project, agreement or expenditure identified through the study would be evaluated separately and brought forward for City consideration and authorization, as applicable.
In addition, participation is consistent with and advances the City's commitments under the Zacharias/Baldwin settlement agreement by evaluating regional water management and recharge opportunities in coordination with neighboring agencies.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total estimated cost of the NVRRWP Expanded Regionalization Feasibility Study is approximately $430,000. The City's proposed contribution is up to $43,000 and would be funded through the Water Enterprise Fund (account no. 610-790-7586).
The City's contribution is for participation in the regional study and does not obligate the City to fund future phases, projects or infrastructure identified through the study. Any additional Patterson-specific analyses requested beyond the regional study scope would be evaluated separately, including the appropriate funding source, and would require additional budget authorization if necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Cost-Sharing Agreement between Del Puerto Water District and the City. 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATTERSON AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COST-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH DEL PUERTO WATER
DISTRICT FOR THE NORTH VALLEY REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM EXPANDED
REGIONALIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY AND AUTHORIZING A CITY CONTRIBUTION NOT TO EXCEED $43,000
WHEREAS, the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program (NVRRWP) is a regional partnership developed to improve water supply reliability, reduce groundwater dependence and maximize the beneficial reuse of recycled water; and
WHEREAS, Del Puerto Water District, in coordination with regional partners, is undertaking the NVRRWP Expanded Regionalization Feasibility Study to evaluate opportunities for expanded regional water management partnerships, recycled water use, infrastructure needs, regulatory considerations and implementation strategies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Patterson recognizes the importance of evaluating potential new water supply sources and regional partnerships to support long-term water supply reliability and groundwater sustainability; and
WHEREAS, the City's Water Master Plan identifies recycled water as a potential source of new water supply and participation in the feasibility study could provide information to support future planning and policy decisions; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously entered into a settlement agreement with Patterson Irrigation District and West Stanislaus Irrigation District that includes commitments related to regional collaboration and the beneficial use of water resources; and
WHEREAS, Del Puerto Water District will manage the feasibility study and associated consultant agreement, with the City participating through a cost-sharing agreement; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the feasibility study is approximately $430,000 and the City's proposed contribution shall not exceed $43,000; and
WHEREAS, participation in the feasibility study is for planning and evaluation purposes only and does not obligate the City to implement future projects, construct infrastructure, enter into water transfer agreements, dedicate or transfer recycled water or provide additional funding unless agreed to by the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Patterson as follows:
SECTION 1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the Cost-Sharing Agreement with Del Puerto Water District for the NVRRWP Expanded Regionalization Feasibility Study, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
SECTION 2. Authorizes the City's financial contribution in an amount not to exceed $43,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund, Account No. 610-790-7586, toward the cost of the feasibility study.
SECTION 3. Acknowledges that participation in the feasibility study does not constitute a commitment to any future project, infrastructure improvements, water transfer agreement, or additional financial contribution. Any 1 of 1
future agreements, projects, or expenditures shall be subject to separate City review and authorization, as applicable.
SECTION 4. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to take all necessary administrative actions to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Patterson at a regular meeting held on October 20, 2026, by the following roll call vote:
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 20th day of October 2026, 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
COST SHARING AGREEMENT TO DEFRAY
EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORTH VALLEY REGIONAL
RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM EXPANDED REGIONALIZATION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
The parties to this Agreement are the City of Patterson (City), a Municipal Corporation of the State of California and the Del Puerto Water District, a California water district organized under Division 13 of the California Water Code, individually “party” or collectively, “parties”. This Agreement is entered into this ______ day of __________, 2026 among the parties.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Del Puerto Water District, the City of Modesto, and the City of Turlock desire to update the Northern San Joaquin Valley Water Reclamation Project Feasibility Study Report – June 2005 (2005 Report), which was the initial study used to support the development of the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program (NVRRWP); and WHEREAS, the Del Puerto Water District, the City of Modesto, and the City of Turlock deem it in their best interest to employ consultants in the development of the updated study to evaluate the feasibility and economics of further regionalization of the NVRRWP; and WHEREAS, the City of Patterson has an interest in participating in the updated study; and WHEREAS, the parties have received a “not to exceed” cost quotation from Woodard and Curran in the amount of $415,815.00 relating to development of the updated study; and WHEREAS, Woodard & Curran (Consultant) are committed to have the study completed by January 15, 2027.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties on the terms and conditions herein set forth agree as follows:
1. The City of Patterson shall contribute $41,581 toward the feasibility study.
Notwithstanding any other contributions, the balance of the study - $374,234 – shall be funded equally by the Del Puerto Water District, the City of Modesto, and the City of Turlock.
2. The parties agree that Woodard & Curran shall be retained by means of the Standard Agreement for Consultant Services utilized by the Del Puerto Water District with the scope of work set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Such scope of work shall not be altered without the written authorization of the Parties.
In Accordance with the foregoing, the City agrees to fund its share within thirty (30) days after execution of this Agreement.
3. The Del Puerto Water District agrees to receive and maintain the funding from the City of Patterson, to manage the consulting agreement, and to do all the foregoing without charge. The Del Puerto Water District shall be solely responsible for managing Woodard & Curran and timely paying all invoices submitted by Woodard & Curran.
The Del Puerto Water District shall provide copies of Woodard & Curran’s invoices to the City upon request.
4. In the event that it appears to the Del Puerto Water District that there will be cost overruns, or that it would be prudent to fund additional services, then, in that event, the parties agree to meet and determine whether or not they should enter into an amendment with the consultant(s) to fund such additional costs. The City shall not be responsible for any cost overruns that occur without prior authorization through the execution of an amendment.
5. Each of the parties agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the others harmless from the consequences of their own tortuous, negligent, or intentional wrongdoing arising out of relating to its performance of this Cost Sharing Agreement.
6. Upon completion of the work to be performed by consultant, and upon payment therefore in full, the City shall be entitled to copies of all deliverable documents created by consultant within thirty (30) days of completion of the work by the consultan.
7. To the extent reasonably required, each party to this agreement, shall in good faith, cooperate and assist each other parties in meeting their obligations under this Agreement.
8. All notices permitted or required to be given hereunder shall be effective upon being delivered by hand or by facsimile transmission or five (5) days after delivery into the United States First Class Mail if such mail is registered or certified. Each such notice shall be sent to the parties at the address indicated below:
Anthea G. Hansen
General Manager
Del Puerto Water District
P.O. Box 1596
Patterson, CA 95363
Fernado Ulloa
City Manager
City of Patterson
P.O. Box 667
Patetrson, CA 95363
9. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties. All previous proposals, offers, and other communications relative to this Agreement, whether oral or written, are hereby superseded except to the extent that they have been incorporated into this Agreement.
10. No waiver of exception to any of the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall be considered valid unless specifically agreed to in writing by all the parties.
11. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court to be invalid, void, or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force.
12. This Agreement shall be governed according to the laws of the State of California.
13. Each of the parties represent to the other that the person or persons who have executed this document on their behalf have been authorized to do so in accordance with governing law, and that this Agreement is binding legal obligation on each of the parties upon its execution by them.
14. This Agreement may be modified only through a written amendment signed by all the parties.
15. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed an original.
16. So agreed as evidenced by the signatures below:
DEL PUERTO WATER DISTRICT
Date: _____________ By:__________________________
Its: __________________________
CITY OF PATTERSON
Date: _____________ By:___________________________
Its: ___________________________
ATTEST: _____________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________ City
Attorney
NVRRWP
Expanded
Regionalization
Feasibility
Study
October 20, 2026
Background &
Purpose
Existing regional program delivers treated recycled
water from Modesto and Turlock for beneficial reuse
Proposed study evaluates expanded regional
partnerships and recycled water opportunities
Review includes infrastructure, permitting,
governance, costs and implementation
Why Patterson
Should
Participate
Explores potential new water supplies and reduce
groundwater dependence
Evaluates recycled water partnerships and shared
infrastructure
Supports long-term Water Master Plan goals and
regional collaboration
Advances evaluation consistent with the
Zacharias/Baldwin settlement commitments
Cost, Limitations
& Requested
Action
Total estimated regional study: $430,000
Patterson contribution: Up to $43,000 from Water
Enterprise Fund
Study participation does not commit the City to
construction, water transfers or future funding
Requested action: Authorize City Manager to execute
cost-sharing agreement