Agenda, closed session, first session — City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority, December 13, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank. Page 1 of 7
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2022 – 6:00 P.M.
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTP://WWW.RIVERBANK.ORG/AGENDACENTER)

HOW TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. FLAG SALUTE

3. INVOCATION

4. ROLL CALL

5. AGENDA CHANGES

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any Council/Authority Member or Staff who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time.

7. PRESENTATIONS (Informational only)
Item 7.1 Presentation Mujeres en Accion, Women in Action Organization- It is recommended that City Council receive a presentation from Christina Avalos on a Special Event hosted by Mujeres en Accion.

CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and
Local Redevelopment Authority
Board Meetings
Council Chambers, 6707 Third St., Suite B
Riverbank, CA 95367

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
Mayor/Chair
Richard D. O’Brien
Vice Mayor/Chair (CM-D3) Cal Campbell
Council/Authority Members:

District 1 Luis Uribe
District 2 Rachel Hernandez
District 4 Darlene Barber-Martinez
NOTICE: THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 59453, SUBDIVISION (e) OF THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT (CALIFORNIA GC § 54950, ET SEQ.), THE FEDERAL AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES. WHILE

THIS MEETING WILL BE PHYSICALLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, GIVEN THE STATE OF EMERGENCY REGARDING THE THREAT OF COVID-19, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT VIA THE ZOOM VIRTUAL PLATFORM. REFER TO THE LAST PAGE OF THE AGENDA FOR PARTICIPATION INFORMATION.

Members of the Public who wish to provide comment during the meeting are encouraged and may do so, by Checking in and Completing a Comment Card at the front door entrance of the Council chambers. Comment cards need to be turned in to the City Clerk before the meeting or upon arrival. The Mayor will call on those wishing to comment, up to the podium when Public Comment on those items, is Open.

For Zoom and Telephone Comment procedures please refer to the last page of the Agenda.

City Council and LRA Board Meetings Agenda December 13, 2022 Next City Council Resolution: 2022-131 Next Ordinance: 2022-006 Next Local Redevelopment Authority Board Resolution 2022-003 Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

Page 2 of 7 ends

Item 7.2 Recognition of Public Works Director Michael Riddell- It is recommended that City Council recognize the dedication and years of service of Michael Riddell, Public Works Director.

Item 7.3 Presentation of New Public Works Director, Cody Bridgewater- It is recommended that City Council introduce the new Public Works Director, Cody Bridgewater to the community.

Item 7.4 Presentation Regarding Future Sewer Connection Fee Updates – It is recommended that City Council and residents receive a presentation on Future Sewer Connection Fee Updates.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council/LRA Board unless requested by an individual Council/Authority Member or member of the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by motion of the City Council/LRA Board.

Item 8.1 Waive Readings. All Readings of ordinances and resolutions, except by title, are waived.

Item 8.2 Approval of the November 8, 2022 City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes.

Item 8.3 Approval of the November 15, 2022 Special City Council Minutes.

Item 8.4 Acceptance of the Santa Fe Street between 5th & 7th Project and Authorization to File Notice of Completion.

Item 8.5 A Resolution Reciting the Fact of the Consolidated Riverbank General Municipal Election held on November 8, 2022, and Declaring the Results and Such Other Matters as Provided by Law.– It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution for the purpose of: 1) Declaring elected Incumbent, Luis Uribe as the person for whom the highest number of votes were cast for the office of Councilmember District 1; and 2) Declaring elected Leanne Jones Cruz as the person for whom the highest number of votes were cast for the office of Councilmember District 3.

Item 8.6 A Resolution Approving the Appointments of John Dinan, Taide Zamora, and Alternates Steve Link and Michael Halterman to the Planning Commission Effective January 2023- It is recommended the City Consider Mayor O’Brien’s applicant recommendations to fill the two (2) expired Planning Commissioner seats, the expired Alternate Planning Commissioner seat, and fill the additional Alternate Seat.

Page 3 of 7 ends

9. PUBLIC HEARING
The Public Notice for item 9.1 was mailed out to residents on October 21, 2022 and Published on October 26th, 2022 in the Riverbank News.

Item 9.1 Public Hearing for Proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rate Increase-(1) Open the Proposition 218 Public Hearing and Receive Written Protests to the Proposed Rate Increase for Wastewater (Sewer) Services, and (2) Adopt a Resolution Accepting and Closing the Proposition 218 Public Notification and Protest Process as it Relates to the Proposed Rate Increase for Wastewater (Sewer) Services, and (3) Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving the Proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rates (this item is contingent upon the Results of the Protest Process)- It is recommended that the City Council consider the following requests related to the publicly noticed Public Hearing regarding the proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rate increase:

1. Open the Proposition 218 public hearing and receive written protests to the proposed rate increase for Wastewater (Sewer) Services, and

2. Adopt a Resolution accepting and closing the Proposition 218 Public Notification and Protest Process as it relates to the proposed rate increase for Wastewater (Sewer) services, and

3. Adopt a Resolution approving the proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rates contingent upon the results of the protest process.

10. SPECIAL BUSINESS
Item 10.1 Recognition of Vice Mayor/Councilmember Cal Campbell- It is recommended that the Riverbank City Council recognize Vice Mayor Campbell for his dedication and years of public service to the city.

Item 10.2 Administration of the Oath of Office, Presentation of Certificates of Election to each Elected Officer and Reorganization of the City Council – It is recommended that Mayor Richard D. O’Brien do the honors of administering the Oath of Office to Councilmember District 1 Luis Uribe and Councilmember District 3 Leanne Jones Cruz.

Item 10.3 Administer the Oath of Office to Newly Appointed Planning Commissioners and Alternate Planning Commissioners- It is recommended Mayor O’Brien administer the Oath of Office and Certificate of Appointments presented to the newly appointed Planning Commissioners.

BRIEF RECESS Mayor/Chair O’Brien calls for a brief recess for refreshments and reorganization of the City Council.

11. NEW CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL:

Councilmember District 1 Luis Uribe
Councilmember District 2 Rachel Hernandez
Councilmember District 3 Leanne Jones Cruz
Councilmember District 4 Darlene Barber Martinez
Mayor Richard D. O’Brien
City Council and LRA Board Meetings Agenda December 13, 2022 Next City Council Resolution: 2022-131 Next Ordinance: 2022-006 Next Local Redevelopment Authority Board Resolution 2022-003 Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

Page 4 of 7 ends

12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any Council/Authority Member or Staff who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time.

13. PUBLIC COMMENTS (No action can be taken)
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda, and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/LRA Board. Individual comments will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes (or as stated by the presiding Officer) and time cannot be yielded to another person. Under State Law, matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon.

Refer to the last page of this agenda for the Public Comment Procedures via ZOOM.

14. CONSENT CALENDAR
Item 14.1 A Resolution to allocate funds for the Squire Wells Way Roundabout.

Item 14.2 A Resolution Approving the Appropriation of Funds and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract to Conduct a Cleanup at 3412 High Street.

Item 14.3 A Resolution Authorizing Expenditures from the Jacob Myers Park Fund.

Item 14.4 A Resolution Establishing A Capital Financing and Debt Policy.

Item 14.5 Authorization for Out of State Travel Request to have Sr. Construction Inspector Attend 2023 Slurry Systems Workshop in Las Vegas, NV Item 14.6 A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager, or His/her Designee, to Act as the Authorized Representative to Sign and File, for and on behalf of the City of Riverbank, A Financial Assistance Application for a Financing Agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the Planning, Design, and Construction of the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Item 14.7 A Reimbursement Resolution Declaring the City’s Intent to Expect Reimbursement of Expenditures Paid Prior to the Issuance of Obligations or the Approval by the State Water Board of Project Funds.

15. PUBLIC HEARING
The Public Notice for Item 15.1 was published on September 21, 2022 in the Modesto Bee.

Item 15.1 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (RRRWP) Council Consideration of Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project and Approving the Project.- It is recommend that City Council approve Resolution 2022- adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and approve the Project based on the analysis presented below and based on the findings in the published Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project.

Page 5 of 7 ends

16. NEW BUSINESS
Item 16.1 A Resolution Approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Riverbank and Riverbank Mid-Management Employees AssociationIt is recommended that City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Memorandum of understanding between the City of Riverbank and the Riverbank Mid-Management Employees Association.

Item 16.2 A Resolution to Approve an Employment Agreement Between the City of Riverbank and Tamera Alcantor as Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director and Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement- It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a Resolution which will approve an Employment Agreement with Tamera Alcantor as Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director.

17. COMMENTS/REPORTS
A brief report on notable attendance of a meeting or conference or other notable topics of City business shall be made. The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council/LRA Board during this time.

Item 17.1 Staff
Item 17.2 Council/Authority Member
Item 17.3 Mayor/Chair

18. CLOSED SESSION
The public will have a limit of 3 minutes to comment on Closed Session item(s) as set forth on the agenda prior to the City Council/LRA Board recessing to Closed Session.

Item 18.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- POTENTIAL LITIGATION (Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9)
Administrative Citation Appeal: 7060 Burneyville Road

19. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Item 19.1 Report from Closed Session Item 18.1

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- POTENTIAL LITIGATION
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9)
Administrative Citation Appeal: 7060 Burneyville Road

20. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular City Council meeting will be on January 10, 2023 at 6:00 p.m.

The meeting of December 27, 2022 is Canceled. Happy Holidays! City Council and LRA Board Meetings Agenda December 13, 2022 Next City Council Resolution: 2022-131 Next Ordinance: 2022-006 Next Local Redevelopment Authority Board Resolution 2022-003 Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

Page 6 of 7 ends

ADA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, the City will make every effort to make reasonable modifications or accommodations from individuals with disabilities. Contact the Administration Dept. at (209) 863-7122 or the City Clerk at [email protected] at least (48) hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility.

NOTICE REGARDING NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
Pursuant to California Constitution Article III, Section IV, establishing English as the official language for the State of California, and in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedures Section 185, which requires proceedings before any State Court to be in English, notice is hereby given that all proceedings before the City of Riverbank City Council/LRA Board shall be in English and anyone wishing to address the Council is required to have a translator present who will take an oath to make an accurate translation from any language not English into the English language.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted at the meeting location, on the North City Hall public exterior bulletin board, Riverbank Community Center exterior bulletin, and the City’s website 72 hours prior to the meeting in accordance to the California Ralph M. Brown Act.

Posted this 8
th Day of December, 2022.
/s/Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk

Page 7 of 7 ends

PUBLIC “LIVE” VIEWING
• Government Channels: Charter– 2 and AT&T U-VERSE – 99 • YouTube Live – is no longer available due to technical difficulties, which is being worked on. • Via ZOOM Platform (See instructions below)

SUBMITTING PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Written comments must be received before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting in order for them to be distributed to the Council prior to consideration of the matter. Written comments will not be read aloud at the meeting, but will be reported as received for the record. If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt within an hour of submission or by 5:00 pm, please call the City Clerk’s Office at (209) 863-7198 or the Administration Dept. at (209) 863-7122.

ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF SUBMITTING COMMENTS BEFORE THE 4:00 PM DEADLINE ● Via Mail Service: Mail comments to City of Riverbank, Attn. City Clerk, 6707 Third Street, Suite A, Riverbank, CA 95367. (Call 209-863-7198 / 209-863-7122 to ensure they were received.) ● Via Email: Mail to [email protected] (Note: This technology is not a guaranteed method.) • Indicate Agenda Item # in the subject line. (Call 209-863-7198 /209-863-7122 to ensure receipt) ● Oral Comments In-Person: The Mayor will ask the audience if anyone wishes to comment, at that time you may approach the podium. (A Spanish language interpreter is available for assistance.) ● Oral Comments Via Zoom: The Mayor will announce when public comments may be made for a limit of 3 minutes on the agenda item being considered, at which time you will:
(please make sure the volume on your video device or any nearby device is turned down.) o Using a computer – click on the “raise hand” feature in the webinar controls. This will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be unmuted.
o Using a Phone – press *9 to “raise the hand”. This will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be unmuted.

Teleconference Phone Number (This system is a backup for ZOOM technical difficulties only when providing oral comments.) If there are technical difficulties or disconnection with ZOOM while making oral comments, please immediately call the teleconference phone number (209) 863-7151 so that Council may receive your comments. Council will be waiting for your call. Thank you

JOIN THE MEETING VIA ZOOM PLATFORM
Join by this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87684231010 • Join by accessing website: https://zoom.us/join , enter Webinar ID: 876 8423 1010 • Join by telephone:1 669 444 9171 OR 1 669 900 9128, plus Webinar ID: 876 8423 1010 Learn about using ZOOM - Visit https://zoom.us/j/94943925973?status=success for a free account or to download the app.

TELECONFERENCE/VIRUAL PLATFORM PUBLIC PARTICIPATION COMMENT

PROCEDURES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN CONFORMANCE WITH

THE BROWN ACT

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 7.1 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.1
SECTION 7: PRESENTATIONS
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Special Event Approval Request by the Women of Action, Mujeres en Acción, Organization
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Sue Fitzpatrick, Director of Parks and Recreation

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council hear the presentation from the event organizer regarding the special event request submitted by the Women of Action, Mujeres en Accion.

SUMMARY
The Women of Action representative, Christina Avalos, has submitted a special event application to the City of Riverbank Parks and Recreation Department for a Cultural Event to take place at the community center and community center park for June 24th and June 25th of 2023. This item was presented at the November 8th City Council meeting and when presented, the City Council had some questions regarding the event. The event organizer will be present at tonight’s meeting to explain in more detail the event and answer questions.

BACKGROUND
The Women of Action, represented by Christina Avalos, held a similar festival this year at the community center and community center park. This event was only a one-day festival and did not include a beer garden at the community center park. This festival represented and celebrated two states in Mexico. The request recently submitted is for a two-day festival, June 24th and June 25th, 2023 with each day operating from 10am to 7pm. The request would involve a beer garden at the community center park and a stage with a band. This year the festival would represent and celebrate three states in Mexico. There would be no alcohol inside the community center.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 7.1 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
The festival is intended to celebrate the states in Mexico with a representation of their typical food, drinks, music, crafts, vendors and informational booths. There would be no street closures involved. The Parks and Recreation Director and the Sheriff Department have met with Christina Avalos at the community center and given her direction on what would be required for her request. The beer garden would need to be fenced off and the city would schedule security. The Women of Action will pay for all fees associated with the hall and park rental, fencing, security and city site monitors.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This item is related to the City of Riverbank Strategic Plan by Supporting communitydriven multi-cultural events.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact for this report.

ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments to this report.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 7.1 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.2
SECTION 7: PRESENTATIONS
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Recognition of Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works/Interim RLRA Director on His Retirement from the City of Riverbank From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a presentation of gifts in acknowledgment of the year of service provided by Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works/Interim RLRA Director and congratulating him on his retirement.

SUMMARY
Michael Riddell has been employed with the City of Riverbank since December of 2011.

Prior to his employment with the City of Riverbank Mr. Riddell was employed by the City of Ceres for 27 years as both as Supervisor and the Public Works Superintendent. Mr.

Riddell has over 35 years of experience in the public sector. In addition, Mr. Riddell holds numerous technical licenses including Water Treatment Grade 1, Distribution Grade 1, Wastewater Grade 3 and Collections Grade 3.

Over the past 11 years of service that Mr. Riddell has provided to the City, he has elevated the professionalism of the staff in the Public Works Department. He has initiated significant projects, such as the Regional Recycled Water Project, that will have lasting impacts on the City in the future.

The City of Riverbank City Council and City Staff congratulate Mr. Riddell on his retirement and wish him the best in all his travels.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 7.3 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.3
SECTION 7: PRESENTATIONS
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Introduction of Cody Bridgewater, Director of Public Works/Interim Riverbank Local Redevelopment Director
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
City Council to receive an introduction of Cody Bridgewater the City’s new Director of Public Works/Interim RLRA Director.

SUMMARY
After a successful recruitment by Mosaic Public Partners for the position of Director of Public Works Mr. Cody Bridgewater was offered, and accepted, the position. Mr.

Bridgewater’s background in public works, particularly his experience in wastewater, will be instrumental in allowing the City to move forward with several key projects including the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project. Mr. Bridgewater began his employment with the City on December 2, 2022.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS
None.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 7.4 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.4
SECTION 7: PRESENTATIONS
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Presentation Regarding Wastewater Capacity (Connection) Fees From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that that the City Council receive a presentation regarding proposed Wastewater Capacity (Connection) Fees to be charged to new development and provide feedback to staff.

SUMMARY
As part of the work being undertaken to prepare the City for the planning, design, and construction of the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project the City Council authorized the preparation of a Rate Study to ensure that there would be sufficient funding available for the future repayment of any funding sources (i.e. loans or bonds) associated with the project and its future operations. In addition to these rates, new development will be required to “buy” into our system via the payment of a Wastewater Capacity Fee.

These fees will also provide financing for our Regional Recycled Water Project. Tonight’s presentation will provide background information on the proposed Wastewater Capacity Fee. Any financing associated with the Regional Recycled Water Project will have the potential of decreasing the maximum allowable Wastewater (Sewer) Rates that have been proposed. Feedback on moving forward with formal adoption of these fees at a future meeting is requested.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This report has been prepared to accomplish the following Goal established during the August 10, 2021 Strategic Planning Session:
“Ensure the City’s Continued Financial Stability”

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 7.4 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this presentation. Should City Council provide feedback to move forward with refining and/or adopting the proposed rates, they will be brought forward at a future public hearing.

ATTACHMENTS
None.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 8.1 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.1
SECTION 8: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Waiver of Readings
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk/LRA Secretary

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council / LRA Board approve the waiver of readings of any proposed ordinances and resolutions for consideration, except by title.

SUMMARY
In lieu of reading the entire text of a proposed ordinance or resolution that is introduced for consideration for adoption and approval, by majority vote, the City Council/LRA Board may waive the reading of the text and introduce the ordinance or resolution by title only for the record.

The full text of the proposed ordinances and resolutions, and any related documents that are part of the agenda packet, are available for review by the public on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall (North) upon distribution to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board; typically 72 hours prior to the scheduled date and time of the meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to this item.

ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments to this report.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 8.2 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELPOMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.2
SECTION 8: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Approval of the November 8, 2022 City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk/LRA Secretary

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council / LRA Board approve the City Council/ Local Redevelopment Authority Board approve the City Council/LRA Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2022, as presented.

SUMMARY
The Draft Minutes of the City Council and the Local Redevelopment Authority Board meeting have been prepared for review and approval.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to this item.

ATTACHMENTS

1. The November 8, 2022 City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes.

Page 1 of 9 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/08/2022

MINUTES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022 – 6:00 P.M.
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTP://WWW.RIVERBANK.ORG/AGENDACENTER)

1. CALL TO ORDER - Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Cal Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:0 0P.M.

2. FLAG SALUTE – Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Cal Campbell led the pledge of allegiance.

3. INVOCATION – Reverend Randy Richardson provided the invocation.

4. ROLL CALL – A Roll Call of councilmembers was done by the City Clerk.

Members of City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority Board present in the Chamber:

Council Member / Authority Member District 1 Luis Uribe Council Member / Authority Member District 2 Rachel Hernandez Council Member / Authority Member District 4 Darlene Barber-Martinez Vice Mayor / Vice Chair (CM-D03) Cal Campbell
Mayor / Chair Richard D. O’Brien (ABSENT)

5. AGENDA CHANGES- No changes to the Agenda.

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Any Council/Authority Member or Staff who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time.

7. PRESENTATIONS (Informational only)
Item 7.1 Veteran’s Day Proclamation- It is recommended that City Council present a Veteran’s Day Proclamation to Duke Cooper with American Veterans First.

Vice Mayor Campbell presented the proclamation for Veterans Day and Honoring American Veteran’s First to Duke Cooper.

Item 7.2 Astro Foundation- Rescuing Animals- It is recommended that City Council receive a presentation on animal welfare from Jaydeen Vicente with Astro Foundation.

CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and
Local Redevelopment Authority
Board Meetings
Council Chambers, 6707 Third St., Suite B
Riverbank, CA 95367

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
Mayor/Chair
Richard D. O’Brien
Vice Mayor/Chair (CM-D3) Cal Campbell
Council/Authority Members:

District 1 Luis Uribe
District 2 Rachel Hernandez
District 4 Darlene Barber-Martinez

Page 2 of 9 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/08/2022
City Council received the presentation on the Astro Foundation-Rescuing Animals from Jaydeen Vicente, CEO of Astro Foundation.

Item 7.3 2022 Cheese & Wine Festival Evaluation- It is recommended that the City Council hear the presentation from the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding the evaluation
City Council received the presentation on the 2022 Cheese & Wine Festival from Sue Fitzpatrick, Director of Parks & Recreation.

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS (No action can be taken)
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda, and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/LRA Board. Individual comments will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes (or as stated by the presiding Officer) and time cannot be yielded to another person. Under State Law, matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon.

Vice Mayor Campbell Opened Public Comment at 6:39 p.m.

Residents who spoke in opposition of Riverwalk
Katherine Dicky Wells, Modesto Resident
Libby Longstren, Riverbank Resident
Karen Conrotto, Riverbank Resident
Jamie Aggers, Riverbank Resident
Barney Aggers, Riverbank Resident
Edward “Fast Eddy” Jones, Riverbank Resident spoke in opposition of the proposed Sewer Rate increase. He lives at Park Sierra Mobile Homes, everyone who lives there is on a fixed income such as social security, welfare, etc., it’s a great place to live, but the increase will hurt the older folks. Would appreciate if there was any help that can be provided for all of us folks and give us old folk a break.

Vicky Holt, Branch Manager, Riverbank Library spoke on the following items:
• This Story Time Session goes on until November 29th, we will be taking December off, and will resume in January.
• We have both Bilingual English/Spanish Story times and they alternate Tuesdays, you can sign up for Story Time on our website StanislausLibrary.org • The November Craft is tomorrow at 4:00pm we are making Pom Pom Turkeys, we do have a few more openings so they can sign up on our website or give us a call if they need help signing up.
• The Book Club is reading “Mr. Churchill’s Secretary” By Susan Aliyah McNeal the discussion is on Tuesday, November 29th at 4:00 p.m. we have a few extra copies at the library if anyone would like to join us.
• All of these programs are free to the Public, and that is because of the eighth of a cent sales tax that is dedicated to this that we can provide these services.

There being no further public comments, Vice Mayor Campbell closed the Public Comment period at 6:54 p.m.

Page 3 of 9 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/08/2022

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council/LRA Board unless requested by an individual Council/Authority Member or member of the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by motion of the City Council/LRA Board.

Item 9.1 Waive Readings. All Readings of ordinances and resolutions, except by title, are waived.

Item 9.2 Approval of the October 25, 2022 City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes.

Item 9.3 Special Event Request approval for Mujeres en Accion, Women in Action organization.

Item 9.4 A Resolution 2022-127 to Award Bid for the Roselle Avenue Sidewalk Project to Taylor Backhoe Service Inc. dba TBS Contractors and Authorize Execution of Future Change Orders
Item 9.5 A Resolution 2022-128 Authorizing an Additional appropriation of $150,000.00 for the installation of the new Public Works Office.

Councilmember, Barber-Martinez pulled Item 9.3 from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

Vice Mayor Campbell Opened Public Comment at 6:56 p.m.

Vice Mayor Campbell Closed Public Comment at 6:56 p.m.

There being no public comments, Vice Mayor Campbell brought the item back to City Council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Uribe / Hernandez 4/0) to approve the consent calendar as presented with the exception of Item 9.3.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Hernandez, Barber-Martinez, Campbell
NAYS: None / ABSENT: Mayor O’Brien / ABSTAINED: None
Item 9.3 Special Event Request approval for Mujeres en Accion, Women in Action organization.

Parks & Recreation Director Fitzpatrick, clarified details on the Special Event Request. The organizer Christina Avalos hosted a similar event this summer, a one-day event, this time around she would like to host a two-day event, on June 24 & 25 2023 from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. would be reserving both the Community Center and the Park, she would like to have alcohol served in a beer garden, hence why we have to come before Council to get a permit as Alcohol is not permitted on City Parks.

Councilmember Barber-Martinez suggested the event end at 6:00 p.m. instead of 7:00 p.m. on Sunday evening, as there will be a lot of clean up to do for City Staff.

Page 4 of 9 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/08/2022
Vice Mayor Campbell, posed a question regarding the Sheriff’s providing the security?
Director Fitzpatrick, clarified, the Sheriff’s would not provide the security, but they are aware of the event and have worked with the city on the parameters of what is needed for the event. The City would provide the Security staff that would be paid for by the event organizer.

Councilmember Uribe, inquired regarding the organizer is fully staffed for the two-day event, as the last event the organizer was pulling from City Staff. The City staff will have site monitors and make sure it is safe and within the parameters of keeping with City ordinances.

Vice Mayor suggested the event organizer attend another City Council meeting to discuss the details of the event further in another presentation.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Barber-Martinez / Uribe 4/0) to approve Item 9.3 from the Consent Calendar.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Hernandez, Barber-Martinez, Campbell
NAYS: None / ABSENT: Mayor O’Brien / ABSTAINED: None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Notice for this Public Hearing was Published on October 26th, 2022 in the Riverbank News.

Item 10.1 A Resolution Accepting the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Annual AB 1600 Report of System Development Fee Activity- It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Annual AB 1600 Report of System Development Fee Activity.

Assistant Finance Director Alcantor presented a comprehensive Staff Report & Power Point Presentation on the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Annual AB 1600 Report of System Development Fee Activity.

Vice Mayor Campbell opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m.

Vice Mayor Campbell closed Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m.

There being no public comments, Vice Mayor Campbell brought the item back to City Council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Uribe / Barber-Martinez 4/0) to approve Resolution 2022-129 accepting the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Annual AB 1600 Report of System Development Fee Activity.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Hernandez, Barber-Martinez, Campbell
NAYS: None / ABSENT: Mayor O’Brien / ABSTAINED: None

Page 5 of 9 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/08/2022

11. NEW BUSINESS
Item 11.1 A Resolution Approving the City of Riverbank Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update and Incorporation by Reference into the Safety Element of the City of Riverbank General Plan. - It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution Adopting the 2022 MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) update including Annex G:

City of Riverbank and as an Amendment to the City of Riverbank General Plan Safety Element by incorporation by reference.

Senior Management Analyst Torres-Manriquez presented a comprehensive staff report and Power Point Presentation on the 2022 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) update including Annex G: City of Riverbank and as an Amendment to the City of Riverbank General Plan Safety Element by incorporation by reference.

City Council discussed item with Staff.

Vice Mayor Campbell Opened Public Comment at 7:22 p.m.

Vice Mayor Campbell Closed Public Comment at 7:22 p.m.

There being no public comments, Vice Mayor Campbell brought the item back to the City Council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Uribe / Hernandez 4/0) to approve Resolution 2022-130 to adopt the 2022 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) update including Annex G: City of Riverbank and as an Amendment to the City of Riverbank General Plan Safety Element by incorporation by reference.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Hernandez, Barber-Martinez, Campbell
NAYS: None / ABSENT: Mayor O’Brien / ABSTAINED: None
Item 11.2 A Resolution for Thunderbolt Wood Treating Waiver Request for System Development Fees- It is recommended that Council review the materials and consider the request of the Lovalvo Family Trust, d.b.a.

Thunderbolt Wood Treating, to waive the payment of water and storm water system development fees on a new building permit.

Planning & Building Manager Kenney presented a Comprehensive Staff Report and Power Point Presentation consider the request of the Lovalvo Family Trust, d.b.a. Thunderbolt Wood Treating, to waive the payment of water and storm water system development fees on a new building permit.

City Council discussed item with Staff.

Vice Mayor Campbell Opened Public Comment at 7:28 p.m.

Page 6 of 9 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/08/2022
George Hartman, Attorney but was not retained by Thunderbolt Wood Treating, but instead has represented the Lovalvo Family in their businesses for over 40 years. As far as the legalities of this fee request, this is out of line.

There has a rough approximation of the fee to the impact. What is proposed here, is not a structure in the traditional sense, it is an awning to cover the storage area of treated lumber. The bill is over our hundred and fifty thousand dollars and the project all in is approximately eight hundred thousand dollars, facially that is a little off. We can understand permit fees being related to the project, but these fees are not close. Is this project going to have any impact, were not building a building, we are not adding to a building? Not only will it not have an impact, in a negative way, but it has positive impacts by way of keeping water off of treated product and catching rain water. Our request is not to reduce the fee to one hundred and fifty-eight thousand dollars, but to waive all impact fees of any kind, and to but to charge a fair permit fee, that is roughly proportion it to the nature of the project.

City Attorney, Hallinan stated that this was a major change to the request.

There are issues that need to be discussed before proceeding with this request.

City Manager Garcia clarified, that the reason for the request being brought forward was a specific letter written to our Building and Planning Department by Ms. Casey requesting only the storm and water fees to be waived. We feel that if the request is to waive all the System Development Fees based on the information provided, that we would bring this item back at a different time to discuss.

Ms. Casey, with Thunderbolt stated that she was only asked for her opinion on the project and did not ask for a specific amount to be waived in that letter.

City Manager Garcia and City Council discussed and decided to bring back the item for further discussion and once the request is clarified back before City Council.

Vice Mayor Campbell Closed Public Comment at 7:42 p.m.

There being no public comments, Vice Mayor Campbell brought the item back to the City Council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Campbell / Uribe 4/0) to deny the Resolution for Thunderbolt Wood Treating Waiver Request for Development Fees and bring back the item when clarified what Thunderbolt is requesting.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Hernandez, Barber-Martinez, Campbell
NAYS: None / ABSENT: Mayor O’Brien / ABSTAINED: None

12. COMMENTS/REPORTS
A brief report on notable attendance of a meeting or conference or other notable topics of City business shall be made.

The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council/LRA Board during this time.

Page 7 of 9 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/08/2022
Item 12.1 Staff
City Manager Garcia advised the City Council and the public on the following:
• City Offices will be closed this Thursday & Friday in observance of the Veteran’s Day Holiday.
• City offices will also be closed for the Thanksgiving Holiday between November 23rd and 25th.
• Everyone is invited to our Annual Christmas Parade which will be held on Saturday, December 10th with our Craft Fair at 12:00 p.m. here in Downtown and Parade at 5:30pm and Tree lighting to follow.

Item 12.2 Council/Authority Member
Councilmember Uribe reported on the following:
• Veterans Day Celebration AVF on November 11th a meet and Greet at 5:00 p.m. with special guest Robert M. Patterson $50 per ticket Dinner at 6:00pm. It is a fundraiser, it will be going to a good cause, they have done a great deal of things for the community. They’ve been working nationally with deported veterans with minor offenses and bringing them back, already sent a letter of support for HR1182 sent to the House Committee of Veteran Affairs hoping that passes. • Will be attending the Cal Cities Division Dinner on December 8th. • Hope everyone has nice Thanksgiving!
• Looking forward to seeing all the results for Elections at 8:00 p.m.! Councilmember Hernandez reported on the following:
• Happy Election Day!
• It is important to me is bridging a stronger relationship with School Districts that touch Riverbank, that means participating in events. I was a judge at Riverbank Language Academy for Red Ribbon Week Contest. It was great to see the Kindergarten to Seventh Grade the student participation. • Día de los Muertos event was amazing and Thank you to all the staff that helped with the event.
• We have a long break, so Happy Holidays to everyone!
Councilmember Barber-Martinez reported on the following:
• Thank you to the Staff for the detailed reports that were presented tonight. • Thank you to the Staff and Nancy Garcia for an Awesome Día De Los Muertos Event.
• Tomorrow is the Stanislaus Homeless Alliance meeting at 5:30 p.m. at Downtown Modesto at 1010 Tenth Street.
• Toy Drive and Car Show on Saturday, November 19th from 10 to 4 p.m. at Save Mart which is in the Crossroads Shopping Center.
• Thank you to all of our Veterans for your Service.
• Hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving!
Vice Mayor Campbell reported on the following:

Page 8 of 9 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/08/2022
• Thank you to the public for filling the room today. Democracy only works if we hear from you, we may not always agree, but we need to hear from you and appreciate everyone coming out and speaking their piece.
• Thank you to this council who I’ve worked with for a number of years, I think we had particularly a great year, this year, we have made lot of steps in a lot of things, and I want to thank them for the time they put into things. • I would like to see us work more closely with schools for School Safety, for students who walk and ride bikes to school, like flashing lights during the beginning of school and when they are leaving. We have had a few accidents. I would also like us to discuss with the school district the possibility of installing video cameras in the schools that would go into our camera system. That we can monitor what goes on, and more participation, if something were to happen that none of us want.

Item 12.3 Mayor/Chair
Mayor O’Brien -ABSENT

13. CLOSED SESSION
The public will have a limit of 3 minutes to comment on Closed Session item(s) as set forth on the agenda prior to the City Council/LRA Board recessing to Closed Session.

Item 13.1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela Garcia
Employee Organizations: Riverbank Mid-Management Employee Association
Item 13.2 LIABILITY CLAIMS
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54961)
Claimant: Jose Cuevas
Agency Claimed Against: City of Riverbank
Item 13.3 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54957)
Title: Assistant City Manager
Item 13.4 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54957)
Title: Public Works Director
Item 13.5 LIABILITY CLAIMS
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54961)
Claimant: Brian Miller, Miller Arms Company, Inc.

Agency Claimed Against: City of Riverbank
Vice Mayor Campbell asked whether there was anyone wishing to speak on the items listed on the Closed Session Agenda; there being none, Vice Mayor Campbell adjourned the City Council to closed session at 7:47 p.m.

14. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

Page 9 of 9 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/08/2022
Vice Mayor Campbell reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m.

Item 14.1 Report from Closed Session on Item 13.1

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela Garcia
ACTION: Direction was provided to staff.

Item 14.2 Report from Closed Session on Item 13.2

LIABILITY CLAIMS
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54961)
Claimant: Jose Cuevas
Agency Claimed Against: City of Riverbank
ACTION: Council voted to deny the claim by a vote of 4/0.

Item 14.3 Report from Closed Session on Item 13.3

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54957)
Title: Assistant City Manager
ACTION: Direction was provided to staff.

Item 14.4 Report from Closed Session on Item 13.4

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54957)
Title: Public Works Director
ACTION: Direction was provided to staff.

Item 14.5 Report from Closed Session on Item 13.5

LIABILITY CLAIMS
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54961)
Claimant: Brian Miller, Miller Arms Company, Inc.

Agency Claimed Against: City of Riverbank
ACTION: Council voted to deny the claim by a vote of 4/0.

14. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING
There being no further business, Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Campbell adjourned the regular meeting at 8:11p.m. to the next regular scheduled City Council / LRA Meeting of December 13th, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.

ATTEST: (Adopted 12/13//2022) APPROVED:

Gabriela Hernandez Cal Campbell
City Clerk / LRA Recorder Vice Mayor / Vice Chair

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 8.3 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELPOMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.3
SECTION 8: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Approval of the November 15, 2022 City Council Special City Council Minutes
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk/LRA Secretary

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council / LRA Board approve the Special City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.

SUMMARY
The Draft Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting have been prepared for review and approval.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to this item.

ATTACHMENTS

1. The November 15, 2022 Special City Council Minutes

Page 1 of 2 ends

Special CC Minutes – 11/15/2022

MINUTES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2022 – 5:30 P.M.
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTP://WWW.RIVERBANK.ORG/AGENDACENTER)

1. CALL TO ORDER - Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Cal Campbell called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.

2. FLAG SALUTE – Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Cal Campbell led the pledge of allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL – A Roll Call of councilmembers was done by the City Clerk.

Members of the City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority Board present in the Chamber:

4. AGENDA CHANGES
No changes to the Agenda.

5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Any Council/Authority Member or Staff who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (No action can be taken)
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda, and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/LRA Board. Individual comments will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes (or as stated by the presiding Officer) and time cannot be yielded to another person. Under State Law, matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon.

Vice Mayor Campbell Opened Public Comment at 5:32 p.m.

Brett Delmas, Riverbank Resident spoke in opposition of the proposed Sewer Rate increases. Riverbank is a small community we are small business owners, sole proprietors, teachers, laborers and lots of retired folks. There lots residents’ voices that need to be heard, and would disagree with a double in tax.

There being no further public comments, Vice Mayor Campbell closed the Public Comment period at 5:34 p.m.

CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and
Local Redevelopment Authority
Board Meetings
Council Chambers, 6707 Third St., Suite B
Riverbank, CA 95367

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
Mayor/Chair
Richard D. O’Brien
Vice Mayor/Chair (CM-D3) Cal Campbell
Council/Authority Members:

District 1 Luis Uribe
District 2 Rachel Hernandez
District 4 Darlene Barber-Martinez

Page 2 of 2 ends

Special CC Minutes – 11/15/2022

7. NEW BUSINESS
Item 7.1 A Resolution to Approve an Employment Agreement Between the City of Riverbank and Cody Bridgewater as Director of Public Works/Interim Riverbank Local Redevelopment Agency Director and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement - It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a Resolution which will approve an Employment Agreement with Cody Bridgewater as Director of Public Works.

City Manager Garcia presented a comprehensive Staff Report & Power Point Presentation on the terms of the Public Works/Interim RLRA Director Employment Agreement for Mr. Cody Bridgewater.

Vice Mayor Campbell Opened Public Comment at 5:41 p.m.

Mr. Cody Bridgewater commented on his excitement to start his employment here with the City of Riverbank. Look forward to the days ahead and being able to provide to the city that I currently live in. I’ve lived here since 2009, Parents graduated from Riverbank High School, grandfather worked in the Riverbank Wastewater Treatment Plant and is actually the person who got me started in wastewater and created that passion within me. I’m happy to kind of walk in his footsteps; I appreciate the opportunity to do that.

Vice Mayor Campbell Closed Public Comment at 5:42 p.m.

There being no public comments, Vice Mayor Campbell brought the item back to City Council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Uribe / Barber-Martinez 4/0) to approve the consent calendar as presented.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Hernandez, Barber-Martinez, Campbell
NAYS: None / ABSENT: Mayor O’Brien / ABSTAINED: None

8. ADJOURNMENT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
There being no further business, Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Campbell adjourned the Special Meeting at 5:43 p.m. to the next regular scheduled City Council / LRA Meeting of December 13, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.

ATTEST: (Adopted 12/13//2022) APPROVED:

Gabriela Hernandez Cal Campbell
City Clerk / LRA Recorder Vice Mayor / Vice Chair

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 8.4 - CC 12/13/22

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.4
SECTION 8: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Acceptance of the Santa Fe Street between 5th & 7th Project and Authorization to File a Notice of Completion
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Kathleen Cleek, Development Services Administration Manager Laura Graybill, Senior Project Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council accept the completion of the Santa Fe Street between 5th & 7
th Project and authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion.

SUMMARY:

George Reed, Inc. completed the construction of the Santa Fe Street between 5th & 7th Project. William Kull, City Engineer and City staff have completed a final inspection and determined that construction has been completed per the plans and specifications.

The contract was awarded on June 14, 2022 to George Reed, Inc. in the amount of $623,626.00. Four contract change orders were issued for this project in the amount of $268,932.85. The total cost of construction is $892,558.85.

The high cost of the change orders was due to two major items. During construction it was discovered that PG&E has a shallow gas line on Santa Fe Street and the contractor was required to do additional potholing, grading work, concrete form work, excavate to grade with hydrovac and many hours of hand work that was not expected. All work was performed as directed/allowed by PG&E personnel. The change order for this work was in the amount of $109,766.42. Since PG&E failed to identify this shallow gas line during the planning and engineering stage of the project, the City will be working on recouping these funds from PG&E.

Secondly, in order to meet ADA slopes on the sidewalk and to avoid variable curb heights along Santa Fe Street in front of Cardozo Middle School it was best to remove and replace an additional 5,212 SF of 4" thick sidewalk along the north side of Santa Fe Street. The change order for this work was in the amount of $72,968.00.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 8.4 - CC 12/13/22
It is recommended that the Council accept the Santa Fe Street between 5th & 7th Project as complete and authorize the Senior Project Coordinator to record the Notice of Completion.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding has been programmed for this project with Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Funds, $271,276.00 and Measure L Funds, $565,227.00. Additional Measure L funds in the amount of $56,055.85 were used. The total cost of construction is $892,558.85.

The City of Riverbank will be asking PG&E for reimbursements in the amount of $109,766.42.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Notice of Completion

2. Before & After Photos

3. Site Map

CITY OF RIVERBANK
ATTN: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES6707 THIRD STREETRIVERBANK, CA 95367 City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367
X
N/A
N/A
December 13, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Riverbank
Laura Graybill, Senior Project Coordinator
City of Riverbank
Laura Graybill, Senior Project Coordinator
Riverbank Stanislaus California
Stanislaus California
Riverbank
George Reed, Inc.
removal and installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk,
asphalt and base rock, installation of new striping, and traffic control.

Santa Fe Street between 5th and 7th Streets
in Riverbank, CA 95367
13th December 2022
13th December 2022
Santa Fe Street between 5th & 7th Project
Santa Fe Street between 5th & 7th Project Photos
Before After
ATTACHMENT 2
Santa Fe Street
Between 5th Street and 7th Street
N
➤
© 2018 Google
© 2018 Google
ATTACHMENT 3
{CW117708.1} Page 1 of 3
Item 8.5 – CC/LR – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.5
SECTION 8: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: A Resolution Reciting the Fact of the Consolidated Riverbank General Municipal Election Held on November 8, 2022 and Declaring the Results and Such Other Matters as Provided by Law
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk/Elections Official

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Riverbank (“City Council”) consider and adopt a Resolution for the purpose of reciting the fact of the General Municipal Election held on November 8, 2022 (“Election”) and of declaring the results as follows:
1) Declaring elected Luis Uribe, as the person for whom the highest number of votes were cast for the office of Councilmember District 1; and 2) Declaring elected Leanne Jones Cruz, as the person for whom the highest number of votes were cast for the office of Councilmember District 3.

SUMMARY
The City of Riverbank (“City”) adopted Resolution No. 2022-047 on May 24, 2022, which called for holding the Election. The Election was held in the time, form, and manner as provided by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for conducting municipal elections in general law cities.

The Election was called for the express purpose of electing by District two members of the City Council: the offices of Councilmember District 1, and Councilmember District 3 (“Offices”).

Upon the finalization of the nomination process, the City’s Elections Official verified there were two (2) candidates in total (“Verified Candidates”). One (1) was for the {CW117708.1} Page 2 of 3
Item 8.5 – CC/LR – 12/13/2022
District 1 City Council seat. The other was for the District 3 City Council seat. With no other candidates, the Verified Candidates were unopposed. Consequently, the City considered two courses of action for the uncontested City Council seats: 1.) Appoint the Verified Candidates as if elected; or 2.) Hold the Election allowing write-in candidates to qualify. Under certain circumstances, California Elections Code section 10229 allows for the appointment of nominees without election if unopposed. But the window to appoint in lieu of election under section 10229 is brief and was ultimately missed. Accordingly, the Elections Official and the City Attorney recommended that the elections process for both Offices be held and consolidated on the November 8, 2022, ballot.

A General Municipal Election was held on November 8, 2022, wherein the two City Council seats were determined by the City’s voters. On November 23, 2022, the Stanislaus County Registrar of Voters (“County Elections Official”) certified the results of the Election. The Official Statement of the Vote and the Certificate of Canvas are attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Section 10262 of the California Elections Code requires that upon certification of the results of an election by the County Elections Official, the City’s Elections Official is required to certify the results to the City Council.

Section 10263 of the Elections Code requires the City Council to meet to declare the results of an election upon certification of the results by the City Elections Official. The City Council is required to adopt a resolution in accordance with sections 10263 and 10264 of the Elections Code and declare elected the persons for whom the highest number of votes were cast for each Office. The results of the Election are as follows:

The Statement confirms that the highest number of votes cast to fill one (1) seat for Councilmember District 1, are for Luis Uribe and the highest number of votes cast to fill one (1) seat for Councilmember District 3, are for Leanne Jones Cruz.

COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 1 VOTES
Luis Uribe 852
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 3
Leanne Jones Cruz 1,172

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of the Resolution. {CW117708.1} Page 3 of 3
Item 8.5 – CC/LR – 12/13/2022

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
This Resolution does not constitute a “project” under CEQA, and as such, is exempt from environmental review.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2022-, with Exhibit A – Certificate of Canvass, Official Statement of the Vote for the City of Riverbank District 1 & District 3 Election {CW117702.1} Page 1 of 3
CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA,

RECITING THE FACT OF THE CONSOLIDATED RIVERBANK GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022, AND DECLARING THE RESULTS AND

SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election (“Election”) was held and conducted in the City of Riverbank (“City”), California, on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Election was given in time, form, and manner as provided by law; that candidates were nominated to fill the vacancy or vacancies as provided by law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election officers were appointed, and that in all respects the Election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received, and canvassed, and that the returns were made and declared in time, form, and manner as required by the provisions of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities; and
WHEREAS, the Election was consolidated with the November 8, 2022 statewide general election and was conducted by the County of Stanislaus (“County”); and WHEREAS, the Stanislaus County Registrar of Voters canvassed the returns of the Election and certified the results to the City Council of the City of Riverbank (“City Council”), which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (“Certified Statement of the Vote”); and WHEREAS, the City Elections Official has certified the Certified Statement of the Vote to the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK,

CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, DECLARE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: That the whole number of votes cast in the City was 2,024.

ATTACHMENT 1
{CW117702.1} Page 2 of 3
CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
SECTION 2: That the number of votes cast at each precinct and the number of votes cast in the City to each of the persons named above for the respective offices of Councilmember District 1 and Councilmember District 3, for which the persons were candidates, are as listed in Exhibit A attached hereto.

SECTION 3: That the whole number of votes cast in the City of Riverbank, District 1, at the November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election was 852.

SECTION 4: That the whole number of votes cast in the City of Riverbank, District 3, at the November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election was 1,172.

SECTION 5: That the names of persons voted for and numbers of votes cast at the Election for Councilmember District 1 and District 3 are as follows:

COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 1 VOTES
Luis Uribe (Incumbent) 852
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 3
Leanne Jones Cruz 1,172
SECTION 6: That Luis Uribe is elected to serve as Councilmember District 1 for a full four-year term, expiring November 2026.

SECTION 7: That Leanne Jones Cruz is elected to serve as Councilmember District 3 for a full four-year term, expiring November 2026.

SECTION 8: That the City’s Elections Official shall enter into the records of the City Council of the City of Riverbank, a statement of the results of the election, showing:
(1) the whole number of votes cast in the City; (2) the names of the persons voted for; (3) for what office each person was voted for; (4) the number of votes given at each precinct to each person; and (5) the total number of votes given to each person.

SECTION 9: That the City’s Elections Official, or his or her designee, shall immediately prepare and present to each of the person(s) so elected a Certificate of {CW117702.1} Page 3 of 3
CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
Election signed by the City’s Elections Official and authenticated by the Certified Statement of the Vote.

SECTION 10: That the Elections Official, or his or her designee, shall also administer to each person elected the Oath of Office prescribed in the Constitution of the State of California, and shall have each elected person subscribe to it and file it in the office of the elected City Clerk/Elections Official. Each and all of the persons so elected shall then be inducted into their respective office to which they have been elected.

SECTION 11: That the elected City Clerk/Elections Official, or his or her designee, shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December, 2022 motioned by Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote City Council vote of ___:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ___________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk/Elections Official Mayor
Attachment: Exhibit A –Certified Statement of Vote for the November 8, 2022, City of Riverbank Consolidated General Municipal Election for District 1 & District 3

STATEMENT OF THE VOTE
FOR

STANISLAUS COUNTY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
-CAST AT THEGENERAL ELECTION
-HELDTUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OFSTANISLAUS
} ss
I, DONNA LINDER, County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters for the County of Stanislaus, State of California, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15301 of the California Elections Code, do hereby certify that the following is a true and correct statement of the result of the votes cast in this county at the General Election as determined by the official canvass of the returns of said election.

I hereby set my hand and official seal this 23rd day of November 2022, in the County ofStanislaus.

County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters
County of Stanislaus
State of California
County Seal

EXHIBIT A

OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER

DONNA LINDER
County Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters &
Commissioner of Civil Marriage

REGISTRAR OFVOTERS
ELECTIONS DIVISION:
1021 "I" Street, Suite 101, Modesto, CA95354
Telephone: 209.525.5200, espanol: 209.525.5230
Toll-free: 833.772.2260, TTY:833.646.2136
Facsimile: 209.525.5802

CERTIFICATION OF

STANISLAUS COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER
& REGISTRAR OF VOTERS

OF THE RESULTS OF THE CANVASS OF THE
NOVEMBER 8, 2022,

GENERAL ELECTION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OFSTANISLAUS
} ss
I, DONNA LINDER, County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters of the County of Stanislaus, State of California, do hereby certify that, in pursuance to the provisions of Elections CodeSection 15300, et seq., I did canvass the results of the votes cast in the General Election held in said County on November 8, 2022, and that the Statement of Votes Cast, to which this certificate is attached is full, true and correct.

I hereby set my hand and official seal this 23rd day of November 2022, in the County of Stanislaus.

Donna Linder
County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters
County of Stanislaus
State of California

OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER

DONNA LINDER
County Clerk-Recorder, Registrar of Voters &
Commissioner of CivilMarriage

REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
ELECTIONS DIVISION:
1021 "I"Street, Suite 101, Modesto, CA 95354
Telephone: 209.525.5200, espaftol: 209.525.5230
Toll-free: 833.772.2260 , TTY: 833.646.2136
Facsimile: 209.525.5802
HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF ELECTIONS OFFICIAL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
} ss
Pursuant to the statewide voter registration list requirements set forth in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) 52 U.S.C. § 21083), I, DONNA LINDER, County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters for the County of Stanislaus, State of California, hereby certify that I complied with all provisions of Chapter 2 of Division 7 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations for the General Election held on November 8, 2022, in the County of Stanislaus, State of California, and all elections consolidated therewith.

I hereby set my hand and official seal this 23r d day of November 2022, in the County of Stanislaus.

County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters
County of Stanislaus
State of California
na Linder
INDEX
SUMMARY REPORT ……………………………………………………………………………..…..….….. 001 CERTIFIED WRITE-IN CANDIDATES ………………………………………………………..……..….…. W1 1% POST ELECTION MANUAL TALLY REPORT ……………………………………………..…..….…. W2 LOCAL MEASURE BALLOT QUESTION / PASSAGE REQUIREMENT………………………….….… W3 CERTIFICATE OF FACTS – MEASURE B – City of Waterford………………………..………………… W4 CERTIFICATE OF FACTS – MEASURE C – Knights Ferry Elementary School District………….….. W5 CERTIFICATE OF FACTS – MEASURE D – Westside Community Health Care District…….…....… W6 CERTIFICATE OF FACTS – MEASURE E – Patterson Joint Unified School District…..….………... W7 CERTIFICATE OF FACTS – MEASURE G – City of Modesto……………..………..……………......… W8 CERTIFICATE OF FACTS – MEASURE H – City of Modesto………………….……………………..… W9 CERTIFICATE OF FACTS – MEASURE J – Waterford Unified School District…………………….… W10 CERTIFICATE OF FACTS – MEASURE L – Modesto City Schools District …………………..…….... W11

VOTER NOMINATED OFFICES / PRECINCT LEVEL RESULTS
GOVERNOR…………………………………………………………………………………………..….……. 1
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR………………………………………………………………………….………. 11 SECRETARY OF STATE……………………………………………………………………………..……… 21 CONTROLLER…………………………………..…………………………................................................. 31 TREASURER……………………………………….………………………………………………..…….….. 41
ATTORNEY GENERAL………………………………………………………………………………………. 51
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER…………………..……………………................................................... 61 MEMBER, STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION – DISTRICT 1.…….………….................................. 71 UNITED STATES SENATOR – FULL TERM…………………….….…………………………..…….….. 81 UNITED STATES SENATOR – PARTIAL/UNEXPIRED TERM…………………………………………. 91 UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 5..…………………………………………...….….. 101 UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 9...…………………………………………..….….. 110 UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 13.…………………………………………..….….. 114 STATE SENATE – DISTRICT 4…………………………………….………………………………...….….. 122 STATE ASSEMBLY – DISTRICT 9……….…..……………………………………………….……………. 132 STATE ASSEMBLY – DISTRICT 22………………………………………………………………………... 137

JUDICIAL / ASSOCIATE JUSTICES / PRECINCT LEVEL RESULTS
PATRICIA GUERRERO – CHIEF JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT.....…………………….….... 146 GOODWIN LIU – ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT………………………………... 156 MARTIN J. JENKINS – ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT…………………….…... 166 JOSHUA P. GROBAN – ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT…….………………..... 176 BRAD R. HILL – COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT……………………..…… 186 JENNIFER DETJEN – COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT………….….……. 196 BERT LEVY – COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT………………………..…… 206

NONPARTISAN OFFICES / PRECINCT LEVEL RESULTS
STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION……………..………..………….……… 216 STANISLAUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION – TRUSTEE AREA 2…….……………….…. 226 YOSEMITE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT – AREA 1………………………………….……. 230 YOSEMITE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT – AREA 2………………………………….……. 234 CERES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 3………………….…………………………….…. 238 MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS DISTRICT – AREA 1 …………………………………………………. 242 MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS DISTRICT – AREA 5 …………………………………………………. 246 NEWMAN-CROWS LANDING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 2………………………… 250 NEWMAN-CROWS LANDING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 5………………………… 254 OAKDALE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 1……………………………………….. 258 OAKDALE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 4……………………………………….. 262 OAKDALE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 5……………………………………….. 266 RIVERBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 2…………………………………………….. 270 SHILOH SCHOOL DISTRICT………………………………………………………………………….. 274 SYLVAN UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 3……………………………………………………. 278 SYLVAN UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 5……………………………………………………. 282 TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 3 (SHORT TERM)………...…………………. 286 TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 4……….………………………………………. 290 TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 6……….………………………………………. 294 TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – AREA 2……….………………………………………. 298 CITY OF OAKDALE – MAYOR……………………………………………………………..……..…… 302 CITY OF OAKDALE – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL…………………………….…………………….. 306 CITY OF CERES – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL - DISTRICT 1……………....…………….….…… 310 CITY OF CERES – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL - DISTRICT 2……………....…………….….…… 314 CITY OF CERES – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL - DISTRICT 4 (SHORT TERM)……..…………. 318 CITY OF HUGHSON – MAYOR……………………………………………………………………….. 322 CITY OF HUGHSON – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL………………………………………….……… 326 CITY OF MODESTO – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL - DISTRICT 2………....…………….…..…… 330 CITY OF MODESTO – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL - DISTRICT 4………....…………….…..…… 334 CITY OF MODESTO – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL - DISTRICT 5………….…………….….….… 338 CITY OF PATTERSON – MAYOR…………………………………………………………………….. 342 CITY OF PATTERSON – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL – DISTRICT B……………………….……. 346 CITY OF PATTERSON – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL – DISTRICT D……………………….……. 350 CITY OF RIVERBANK – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL – DISTRICT 1……………………………… 354 CITY OF RIVERBANK – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL – DISTRICT 3……………………………… 358 CITY OF TURLOCK – MAYOR………………………………………………………………………… 362 CITY OF TURLOCK – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL – DISTRICT 1….………………………...…… 366 CITY OF TURLOCK – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL – DISTRICT 3………………………………… 370 CITY OF WATERFORD – MAYOR……………………………………………………………………. 374 CITY OF WATERFORD – MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL……………………………………………… 378 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT – DIVISION 2…………………………………………………. 382 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT – DIVISION 3…………………………………………………. 386 MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT – DIVISION 4…………………………………………………. 390 TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT – DIVISION 2……………….…………………………………. 394 WESTERN HILLS WATER DISTRICT………………………………………………………………… 398

MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS / PRECINCT LEVEL RESULTS STATE PROPOSITION 1…..…………………………………………………………………………… 402 STATE PROPOSITION 26..…………………………………………………………….……………… 412 STATE PROPOSITION 27...…………………………………………………………………………… 422 STATE PROPOSITION 28.…..……………………………….………..……………………….……… 432 STATE PROPOSITION 29………………………………….…………..……………………………… 442 STATE PROPOSITION 30..………………………………………….………………………………… 452 STATE PROPOSITION 31..………………………………………….………………………………… 462 MEASURE B – CITY OF WATERFORD…………….……….………………………………….……. 472 MEASURE G – CITY OF MODESTO……………………………………..…………………….…….. 476 MEASURE H - CITY OF MODESTO……………………………………..…………………….…….. 480 MEASURE C – KNIGHTS FERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT……………………..….. 484 MEASURE E – PATTERSON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT………………………..….… 488 MEASURE J – WATERFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT………………………………….….. 492 MEASURE L – MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS DISTRICT……………………………………….…… 496 MEASURE D – WESTSIDE COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE DISTRICT…………………………… 501

CERTIFIED WRITE-IN CANDIDATES / PRECINCT LEVEL RESULTS
CERTIFIED WRITE-IN CANDIDATE PRECINCT LEVEL RESULTS 505 Cumulative Results STANISLAUS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Official Results RegisteredVoters
132142 of 282393 =46.79%
PrecinctsReporting
199 of 199 =100.00%

GENERAL ELECTION
**OFFICIAL BALLOTS**
11/8/2022

Page 29 ends

Run Time
Run Date
5:16 PM
11/23/2022
LUIS URIBE 73 100.00% 779 100.00% 852 100.00%
Cast Votes: 73 100.00% 779 100.00% 852 100.00%
Undervotes: 26 134 160
Overvotes: 0 0 0
Rejected write-in votes: 13 37 50
Unresolved write-in votes: 0 0 0
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 3 - Vote for ONE Precincts Voters
Counted Total Percent Ballots Registered Percent
4 4 100.00% 1,630 3,186 51.16%
Choice Party Vote Center Vote by Mail
LEANNE JONES CRUZ 105 100.00% 1,067 100.00% 1,172 100.00% Cast Votes: 105 100.00% 1,067 100.00% 1,172 100.00%
Undervotes: 35 348 383
Overvotes: 1 0 1
Rejected write-in votes: 11 58 69
Unresolved write-in votes: 0 0 0
City of Turlock Mayor - Vote for ONE
Precincts Voters
Counted Total Percent Ballots Registered Percent
17 17 100.00% 18,806 38,360 49.03%
Choice Party Vote Center Vote by Mail
AMY BUBLAK 727 56.23% 8,779 52.63% 9,506 52.89%
GIL ESQUER 566 43.77% 7,902 47.37% 8,468 47.11%
Cast Votes: 1,293 100.00% 16,681 100.00% 17,974 100.00% Undervotes: 53 660 713
Overvotes: 0 3 3
Rejected write-in votes: 7 91 98
Unresolved write-in votes: 0 0 0
Choice Party Vote Center Vote by Mail Total
3 3 100.00%
Counted Total Percent
Precincts
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 1 - Vote for ONE Voters
Ballots Registered Percent
1,067 2,834 37.65%
Total
Total
11/23/2022 5:18 PM District Results - November 08, 2022 Page 354 Cumulative Totals
Precinct
RegistrationBallots CastTurnout (%)LUIS URIBE
126003 2,316 814 35.1 658
126017 390 180 46.2 146
226017 128 73 57.0 48
Vote Center Totals 2,834 112 4.0 73
Vote by Mail Totals 2,834 955 33.7 779
Grand Totals 2,834 1,067 37.6 852
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 1
11/23/2022 5:18 PM District Results - November 08, 2022 Page 355 Vote Center Totals
District
RegistrationBallots CastTurnout (%)

LUIS URIBE

STANISLAUS COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
2,834 112 4.0 73
5TH CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICT
2,834 112 4.0 73
9TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 2,834 112 4.0 73
4TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT 2,834 112 4.0 73

STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION DISTRICT 1
2,834 112 4.0 73
1ST SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 2,834 112 4.0 73
Y.C.C.D. TRUSTEE AREA 2 2,834 112 4.0 73
CITY OF RIVERBANK 2,834 112 4.0 73
COUNTYWIDE 2,834 112 4.0 73
STATEWIDE DISTRICT 2,834 112 4.0 73

RIVERBANK UNIFIED TRUSTEE
AREA 2
128 10 7.8 8

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT 1
2,834 112 4.0 73
Vote Center Totals 2,834 112 4.0 73
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 1
11/23/2022 5:18 PM District Results - November 08, 2022 Page 356 Vote by Mail
Totals
District
RegistrationBallots CastTurnout (%)

LUIS URIBE

STANISLAUS COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
2,834 955 33.7 779
5TH CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICT
2,834 955 33.7 779
9TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 2,834 955 33.7 779
4TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT 2,834 955 33.7 779

STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION DISTRICT 1
2,834 955 33.7 779
1ST SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 2,834 955 33.7 779
Y.C.C.D. TRUSTEE AREA 2 2,834 955 33.7 779
CITY OF RIVERBANK 2,834 955 33.7 779
COUNTYWIDE 2,834 955 33.7 779
STATEWIDE DISTRICT 2,834 955 33.7 779

RIVERBANK UNIFIED TRUSTEE
AREA 2
128 63 49.2 40

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT 1
2,834 955 33.7 779
Vote by Mail Totals 2,834 955 33.7 779
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 1
11/23/2022 5:18 PM District Results - November 08, 2022 Page 357 Grand Totals
District
RegistrationBallots CastTurnout (%)

LUIS URIBE

STANISLAUS COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
2,834 1,067 37.6 852
5TH CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICT
2,834 1,067 37.6 852
9TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 2,834 1,067 37.6 852
4TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT 2,834 1,067 37.6 852

STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION DISTRICT 1
2,834 1,067 37.6 852
1ST SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 2,834 1,067 37.6 852
Y.C.C.D. TRUSTEE AREA 2 2,834 1,067 37.6 852
CITY OF RIVERBANK 2,834 1,067 37.6 852
COUNTYWIDE 2,834 1,067 37.6 852
STATEWIDE DISTRICT 2,834 1,067 37.6 852

RIVERBANK UNIFIED TRUSTEE
AREA 2
128 73 57.0 48

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT 1
2,834 1,067 37.6 852
Vote Center Totals 2,834 112 4.0 73
Vote by Mail Totals 2,834 955 33.7 779
Grand Totals 2,834 1,067 37.6 852
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 1
11/23/2022 5:18 PM District Results - November 08, 2022 Page 358 Cumulative Totals
Precinct
RegistrationBallots CastTurnout (%)LEANNE JONES CRUZ
126001 1,380 650 47.1 463
126004 1,415 795 56.2 565
126006 128 50 39.1 39
226004 263 135 51.3 105
Vote Center Totals 3,186 152 4.8 105
Vote by Mail Totals 3,186 1,478 46.4 1,067
Grand Totals 3,186 1,630 51.2 1,172
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 3
11/23/2022 5:18 PM District Results - November 08, 2022 Page 359 Vote Center Totals
District
RegistrationBallots CastTurnout (%)LEANNE JONES CRUZ

STANISLAUS COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
3,186 152 4.8 105
5TH CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICT
3,186 152 4.8 105
9TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 3,186 152 4.8 105
4TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT 3,186 152 4.8 105

STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION DISTRICT 1
3,186 152 4.8 105
1ST SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 3,186 152 4.8 105
Y.C.C.D. TRUSTEE AREA 2 3,186 152 4.8 105
CITY OF RIVERBANK 3,186 152 4.8 105
COUNTYWIDE 3,186 152 4.8 105
STATEWIDE DISTRICT 3,186 152 4.8 105

RIVERBANK UNIFIED TRUSTEE
AREA 2
1,380 81 5.9 55
MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS 1,678 67 4.0 48

MODESTO IRRIGATION DIST,
DIV 3
263 13 4.9 11

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT 3
3,186 152 4.8 105
Vote Center Totals 3,186 152 4.8 105
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 3
11/23/2022 5:18 PM District Results - November 08, 2022 Page 360 Vote by Mail
Totals
District
RegistrationBallots CastTurnout (%)LEANNE JONES CRUZ

STANISLAUS COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
3,186 1,478 46.4 1067
5TH CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICT
3,186 1,478 46.4 1067
9TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 3,186 1,478 46.4 1067
4TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT 3,186 1,478 46.4 1067

STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION DISTRICT 1
3,186 1,478 46.4 1067
1ST SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 3,186 1,478 46.4 1067
Y.C.C.D. TRUSTEE AREA 2 3,186 1,478 46.4 1067
CITY OF RIVERBANK 3,186 1,478 46.4 1067
COUNTYWIDE 3,186 1,478 46.4 1067
STATEWIDE DISTRICT 3,186 1,478 46.4 1067

RIVERBANK UNIFIED TRUSTEE
AREA 2
1,380 569 41.2 408
MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS 1,678 863 51.4 622

MODESTO IRRIGATION DIST,
DIV 3
263 122 46.4 94

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT 3
3,186 1,478 46.4 1067
Vote by Mail Totals 3,186 1,478 46.4 1,067
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 3
11/23/2022 5:18 PM District Results - November 08, 2022 Page 361 Grand Totals
District
RegistrationBallots CastTurnout (%)LEANNE JONES CRUZ

STANISLAUS COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
3,186 1,630 51.2 1172
5TH CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICT
3,186 1,630 51.2 1172
9TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 3,186 1,630 51.2 1172
4TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT 3,186 1,630 51.2 1172

STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION DISTRICT 1
3,186 1,630 51.2 1172
1ST SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 3,186 1,630 51.2 1172
Y.C.C.D. TRUSTEE AREA 2 3,186 1,630 51.2 1172
CITY OF RIVERBANK 3,186 1,630 51.2 1172
COUNTYWIDE 3,186 1,630 51.2 1172
STATEWIDE DISTRICT 3,186 1,630 51.2 1172

RIVERBANK UNIFIED TRUSTEE
AREA 2
1,380 650 47.1 463
MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS 1,678 930 55.4 670

MODESTO IRRIGATION DIST,
DIV 3
263 135 51.3 105

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT 3
3,186 1,630 51.2 1172
Vote Center Totals 3,186 152 4.8 105
Vote by Mail Totals 3,186 1,478 46.4 1,067
Grand Totals 3,186 1,630 51.2 1,172
City of Riverbank Member, City Council - District 3

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 8.6 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.6
SECTION 8: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: A Resolution Approving the Appointments of John Dinan, Taide Zamora, and Alternates Steve Link and Michael Halterman to the Planning Commission Effective January 2023
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk/LRA Secretary

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Consider Mayor O’Brien’s applicant recommendations to fill the two (2) expired Planning Commissioner seats, the expired Alternate Planning Commissioner seat, and fill the additional Alternate Seat.

SUMMARY
Pursuant to the policy on Planning Commission terms and filling vacancies, two (2) primary seats and one (1) alternate seat are set to expire on December 31, 2022.

An “open until filled” recruitment to receive applications was opened on October 11, 2022 with the first round of application review occurring on November 3, 2022. Mayor O’Brien conducted interviews, and in accordance with the Riverbank Municipal Code (RMC), he is recommending that the City Council approve the reappointments of John Dinan as primary Planning Commissioner and Steve Link as Alternate Planning Commissioner, and the new appointments of Taide Zamora as Primary Planning Commissioner and Michael Halterman as Alternate Planning Commissioner. Then Primary Planning Commissioner term begins January 2023 through December 2026. The Alternate Planning Commissioner term begins January 2023 through December 2024.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Compensation to serve as a primary Planning Commissioner is $100, per month. The Alternate Planning Commissioner receives $50 per month, however if called upon to serve in the absence of a Primary Commissioner, the compensation is $100.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 8.6 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
Compensation is a fixed amount set at the discretion of the City Council by resolution and is paid for attendance of an “opened” meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN
The Planning Commission provides valuable guidance to the City Council and overall community on a variety of development projects. Many of those projects expand economic development opportunities and promotes sustainable land use planning, which are goals of the City’s Strategic Plan.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2022-

2. Copies of Applications

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA

APPROVING THE APPOINTMENTS OF JOHN DINAN, TAIDE ZAMORA, AND

ALTERNATES STEVE LINK AND MICHAEL HALTERMAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2023

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, the City of Riverbank Planning Commission was established and is regulated pursuant to Riverbank Municipal Code (RMC) Title IIII; Chapter 32; and WHEREAS, two (2) primary seats that were held by Commissioners John Dinan and Steve Link and the vacant alternate seat are scheduled to expire December 31, 2022 WHEREAS, pursuant to the RMC, a recruitment process was conducted beginning October 2022 through November 2022, to receive applications for consideration; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2022, Mayor O’Brien conducted interviews of the four (4) applicants, and in accordance with the RMC made the following recommendations to the City Council for Approval:
1) Reappoint John Dinan to a primary seat; 4-year term expiring December 2026; 2) Appoint Taide Zamora to a primary seat; 4-year term expiring December 2026; 3) Reappoint Steve Link to an alternate seat; 2-year term expiring December 2024; and
4) Appoint Michael Halterman to an alternate seat; 2-year term expiring December 2024.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the RMC, the Planning Commission shall consist of five voting members who shall serve a four-year term of office, and one alternate member who shall serve a two-year term of office, all of whom shall be residents and registered voters of the City of Riverbank;
(1) The Mayor with the approval of the City Council may appoint an additional alternate member as deemed necessary.
(2) Alternate members shall be prepared to serve in the absence of a regular member when called upon.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank does hereby approve the aforementioned appointments as stated. Said appointees shall begin their terms January 1, 2023 and may temporarily serve beyond their expiration date until a new appointment has been made.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December, 2022; motioned by Councilmember __________, seconded by Councilmember __________, and upon roll call was carried by the following City Council vote of ______:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1 of 5 ends

Item 9.1 - CC-LRA 12/13/22

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL/ LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.1
SECTION 9: PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Public Hearing for Proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rate Increase (1) Open the Proposition 218 Public Hearing and Receive Written Protests to the Proposed Rate Increase for Wastewater (Sewer) Services, and
(2) Adopt a Resolution Accepting and Closing the Proposition 218 Public Notification and Protest Process as it Relates to the Proposed Rate Increase for Wastewater (Sewer) Services, and (3) Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving the Proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rates (this item is contingent upon the Results of the Protest Process).

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the following requests related to the publicly noticed Public Hearing regarding the proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rate increase:

1. Open the Proposition 218 public hearing and receive written protests to the proposed rate increase for Wastewater (Sewer) Services, and

2. Adopt a Resolution accepting and closing the Proposition 218 Public Notification and Protest Process as it relates to the proposed rate increase for Wastewater (Sewer) services, and

3. Adopt a Resolution approving the proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rates contingent upon the results of the protest process.

SUMMARY
At the September 27, 2022 meeting the City Council authorized city staff to proceed with the Proposition 218 process for the proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rates. The Public

Page 2 of 5 ends

Item 9.1 - CC-LRA 12/13/22
Hearing was scheduled for tonight, December 13, 2022 which will conclude the Prop 218 process.

BACKGROUND
Upon completion of the City of Riverbank Recycled Water Production Study, Recycled Water Use Study reports and as directed by the City Council, applications for financial assistance for proceeding with the Phase I Regional Recycled Water Project (RRRWP) have been prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Additional application documentation will be submitted to the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for consideration of funding under the Title XVI program and funding from other sources will be identified and pursued.

To complete the CWSRF financial assistance application for project implementation, preparation of a Financial Security Package, a Wastewater (Sewer) Rate Study, Recycled Water Fee Study, and completion of rate setting under the requirements of Prop. 218, are necessary. Following an open Request for Proposals (RFP) process for the preparation of these necessary financial documents and a review committee’s selection of Bartle Wells Associates based on submitted proposals and the firm’s qualifications and experience.

The goals and objectives of the Sewer Rate Study included:

1. Develop a financial plan for the City’s sewer enterprise that:
a. supports the City’s sewer operating and capital programs b. funds the wastewater treatment plant project
c. provides an ongoing funding stream for sewer collection system improvements d. prudently uses sewer fund reserves to help minimize debt financing needs while maintaining an adequate level of fund reserves in future years e. maintains the long-term financial sustainability of the sewer enterprise

2. Develop sewer rates that:
a. recover the City’s costs of providing sewer service
b. are fair and equitable to all customer classes
c. are easy to understand and implement
d. comply with the legal requirements of Proposition 218 and other California law

3. Aim for steady, gradual annual rate increases, to the extent possible, to help minimize the annual impact on customers.

Bartle Wells prepared a Wastewater (Sewer) Rate Study Report which took into consideration three scenarios as follows:

Page 3 of 5 ends

Item 9.1 - CC-LRA 12/13/22
• Scenario 1: Original Recycled Water Project
• Scenario 2: Phased-In Recycled Water Project
• Scenario 3: Minimum Project (no project)
Basic financial assumptions incorporated into each scenario include:

Revenue Assumptions
• Sewer rate revenues are based on estimated revenues for the current fiscal year. The City is anticipating 347 single- family equivalent connections over the next five years based on current development projects.
• Future investment earnings are projected at 1.5% of the beginning annual fund reserves.

Expense Assumptions
• Operating and maintenance costs are primarily based on the 2022/23 budget.

Operating costs are projected to escalate at the annual rate of projected inflation.

Inflation projections used in this report are 4.5% in FY 23/24 and 4.0% thereafter.

Inflation is currently uncharacteristically high but the general economic consensus, including projections from the Federal Reserve, is that inflation will drop back to normal levels over the next two years.
• Based on feedback from City staff and City engineering consultants, the new wastewater treatment plant will increase operating costs by a net amount of about $800,000 per year. This amount was incorporated into Scenarios 1 & 2. • Capital improvement plan costs (excluding the new wastewater treatment plant) were provided by the City. Capital costs are adjusted for inflation.

In order to be eligible for State Revolving Fund Loan financing the City must adopt rates which include no assumptions for grant financing. The rates shown in the following scenarios are the maximum rates the City can implement. However, the City can review the enterprise’s financial position and may not need to raise rates to the maximum noticed amounts.

Based on a review of the various scenarios the City Council elected to proceed with Scenario 2, which would provide for a phasing in of this project.

SCENARIO 2 SELECTED
Scenario 2 is a phased-in version of the original project. It will require additional construction to meet projected future treatment capacity requirements. This project includes a recycled water treatment system. This scenario allows for new growth, produces recycled water, and is eligible for recycled water grants but will require additional construction to meet the capacity requirements of additional growth.

Page 4 of 5 ends

Item 9.1 - CC-LRA 12/13/22
In order to achieve the level of funding required of Scenario #2 the Maximum Rates would be set as follows:

PROPOSITION 218 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PROTEST PROCESS As authorized by the City Council at the September 27, 2022 meeting, staff began the Prop 218 public notification and protest process. This process requires a minimum protest period of 45 days. In order to comply with all the requirements, the following process was followed:
• Public Notification was processed and delivered to the US Postal Services on October 21, 2022, 54 days prior to tonight’s public hearing date. Mailing was sent to both the property address and the mailing address of property owner’s (if different). A total of 8,270 public notifications were mailed. • Public Notification highlighted the date of the Public Hearing. • Public Notification described the rates to be considered and the services to be provided.
• Public Notification explained to residents the protest process. All protests must be received in writing by the City Clerk and include the property owner’s name, address or APN, state that their intent is to protest the rates, and include the property owner’s signature.

Under Proposition 218 if written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented to the City by a majority of owners of the identified parcels prior to the close of the public hearing, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge. As of the writing of this report, 580 protests had been received.

Proposed Rates FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 Existing Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
Residential Sewer Rates
Monthly Fixed Rate $49.48 $58.39 $68.90 $81.30 $95.12 $109.39 Commercial Sewer Rates
Min. Monthly Base Charge $49.48 $58.39 $68.90 $81.30 $95.12 $109.39 Volumetric Rates ($/CF) for Usage Greater Than 1,000 Cubic Feet per Month Schools w/o cafeterias, Offices $0.002512 $0.002964 $0.003498 $0.004128 $0.004830 $0.005555 Commercial, hospitals, extended
care facilities, markets (w/o deli's),
automobile shops
$0.003350 $0.003953 $0.004665 $0.005505 $0.006441 $0.007407 Schools w/ cafeterias, Restaurants,
Short order facilities, markets w/
deli's
$0.004523 $0.005337 $0.006298 $0.007432 $0.008695 $0.009999 Restaurants w/ full kitchens $0.007370 $0.008697 $0.010262 $0.012109 $0.014168 $0.016293

Page 5 of 5 ends

Item 9.1 - CC-LRA 12/13/22

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Should the protest hearing reveal that a majority of the property owners did not protest the proposed rate increase, and the City Council adopts the Resolution to establish the new rates, those rates will become effective January 1, 2023, which will appear on the March 2023 bi-monthly billing.

Should the City be successful in obtaining grant funding, which would require less funding from ratepayers, then rates may be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution Accepting and Closing the Proposition 218 Public Notification and Protest Process as it Relates to the Proposed Rate Increase for Wastewater (Sewer) Services

2. Resolution Approving the Proposed Wastewater (Sewer) Rates (this item is contingent upon the results of the protest process)
(a) Exhibit A: Maximum Five-Year Sewer Rates

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING AND CLOSING THE PROPOSITION 218 PUBLIC

NOTIFICATION AND PROTEST PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO A PROPOSED RATE

INCREASE FOR WASTEWATER (SEWER) SERVICES

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022 the Riverbank City Council authorized a contract with Bartle Wells Associates, Inc. for the preparation of a Financial Security Package and Wastewater (Sewer) Rate Study in association with the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project; and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Rate Study, prepared by Bartle Wells Associates (“Rate Study”), developed a Financial Plan for the City’s Wastewater (Sewer) Enterprise Fund and based on the Financial Plan developed rate proposals that would support the City’s operating and capital programs, provide funding for the City’s Regional Recycled Water Project, and provide an on-going funding stream for the sewer collection system; and
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with the regulations set forth in Proposition 218 in connection with the proposed rate increase; and WHEREAS, Proposition 218 notices were mailed, pursuant to Government Code 53755, to the mailing and billing addresses of owners and tenants of parcels within the City who are responsible for paying for wastewater (sewer) services/record owners of each parcel receiving wastewater (sewer) services on October 21, 2022, which complies with the minimum 45-day notice requirement; and
WHEREAS, under Proposition 218 if written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented to the City by a majority of owners of the identified parcels prior to the close of the public hearing, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge; WHEREAS, the City Clerk has verified and counted the protests and determined that there are ____ valid protests.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ACCEPT AND CLOSE the Proposition 218 public notification and protest process with receipt of more/less than a majority protest vote as declared by the City Clerk of the City of Riverbank. The City Council may/may not ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
adopt a rate increase for Wastewater (Sewer) services in accordance with the Rate Study, consistent with Proposition 218.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 13
th day of December, 2022; motioned by Councilmember
___________, seconded by Councilmember __________, and upon roll call was carried by the following City Council vote of _____:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ _____________ _____________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK ADOPTING

THE PROPOSED MAXIMUM FIVE-YEAR RATES FOR WASTEWATER (SEWER)

SERVICES

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022 the Riverbank City Council authorized a contract with Bartle Wells Associates, Inc. for the preparation of a Financial Security Package and Wastewater (Sewer) Rate Study in association with the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project; and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Rate Study, prepared by Bartle Wells Associates (“Rate Study”), developed a Financial Plan for the City’s Wastewater (Sewer) Enterprise Fund and based on the Financial Plan developed rate proposals that would support the City’s operating and capital programs, provide funding for the City’s Regional Recycled Water Project, and provide an on-going funding stream for the sewer collection system; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with Proposition 218 requirements in connection with the proposed rate increase; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council did accept and close the Proposition 218 public notification and protest process with receipt of less than a majority protest vote as declared by the City Clerk of the City of Riverbank; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council, as authorized by Ordinance No. 2022-005, which added Section 51.03(E)(8) which allows for Sewer Service Charges to be increased or decreased by Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank hereby Adopts the maximum rates as presented in Exhibit A, and which may be amended from time to time based on the Five-Year Rate Study, for Wastewater (Sewer) Services.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 13
th day of December, 2022; motioned by Councilmember ,
seconded by Councilmember , and upon roll call was carried by the following City Council vote of :

AYES:

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor
Attachment(s): Exhibit A: Maximum Five-Year Sewer Rates Maximum Five-Year Sewer Rates
Proposed Rates Maximum Current
Wastewater Rates Rates Jan. 1, 2023 Jan. 1, 2024 Jan. 1, 2025 Jan. 1, 2026 Jan. 1, 2027 Residential Sewer Rates
Monthly Fixed Rate $49.48 $58.39 $68.90 $81.30 $95.12 $109.39 Commercial Sewer Rates
Min. Monthly Base Charge $49.48 $58.39 $68.90 $81.30 $95.12 $109.39 Volumetric Rates ($/Gallon) for Usage Greater Than 7,480 Gallons per Month* Group 1
Schools w/o cafeterias, Offices $0.002512 $0.002964 $0.003498 $0.004128 $0.004830 $0.005555 Group 2
Commercial, hospitals, extended care
facilities, markets (w/o deli's),
automobile shops
$0.003350 $0.003953 $0.004665 $0.005505 $0.006441 $0.007407 Group 3
Schools w/ cafeterias, Restaurants,
Short order facilities, markets w/ deli's
$0.004523 $0.005337 $0.006298 $0.007432 $0.008695 $0.009999 Group 4
Restaurants w/ full kitchens $0.007370 $0.008697 $0.010262 $0.012109 $0.014168 $0.016293 *Volumetric charges do not apply to residential customers Approved Maximum Rates Effective On or After

EXHIBIT A

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 10.1 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.1
SECTION 10: SPECIAL BUSINESS
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Recognition of Vice Mayor/Councilmember District 3 Cal Campbell
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Riverbank City Council recognize Vice Mayor/Councilmember District 3 Cal Campbell for his dedication and public service to the City of Riverbank.

SUMMARY
Councilmember Cal Campbell was sworn into office on June 10, 2013 after receiving the highest number of votes during the City’s first stand-alone Special Municipal Election held on June 4, 2013. Mr. Campbell was filling an unexpired term for former Councilmember Richard O’Brien who vacated his seat after being elected to the Mayor’s seat.

Councilmember Campbell was subsequently re-elected during the 2014 & 2018 Municipal Elections. Councilmember Campbell came into office with public service experience in his professional life having served as a teacher in the Oakdale Unified School District.

His service as a Councilmember to the City of Riverbank has been defined by his dedication and involvement in providing leadership in all areas of municipal services. Cal has dedicated countless hours beyond the normal City Council meeting schedule to represent and advocate for Riverbank both locally, regionally and on a statewide level, with a particular emphasis on expanding our parks and trails in the City of Riverbank, particularly the trails located near the Stanislaus River.

Councilmember Campbell has acted as the Council representative for Friends of Jacob Meyer, the Lower Stanislaus River Trail Improvement Plan Committee, the former Workforce Alliance Board, the Illegal Fireworks Subcommittee, and has been involved as a member of the League of California Cities Central Valley Division Executive Committee.

Additionally, he has been instrumental along with the rest of the Council in pushing forward many important policy initiatives in Riverbank. These policy decisions will help shape the success of Riverbank in the future. His steadfast support, dedication and public

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 10.1 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
service to his community have earned him respect amongst his colleagues and the community alike.

The Riverbank Council, Staff and Community are grateful for the commitment provided by Councilmember Campbell. This item has been agendized to provide an opportunity to recognize his service and many accomplishments during his time on the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS
None.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 10.2 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.2
SECTION 10: SPECIAL BUSINESS
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Administration of the Oath of Office, Presentation of Certificates of Election to each Elected Officer and Reorganization of the City Council
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk/LRA Secretary

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Mayor Richard D. O’Brien do the honors of administering the Oath of Office to Councilmember District 1 Luis Uribe and Councilmember District 3 Leanne Jones Cruz.

SUMMARY
The California Elections Code requires the administering of the Oath of Office and to present a Certificate of Election to the elected Members of the City Council as declared by the Statement of Votes. Elect, Councilmember District 1 Luis Uribe and Elect, Councilmember District 3 Leanne Jones Cruz, will take the Oath of Office and receive their Certificate of Election.

A brief recess will follow to allow those in attendance to meet and greet the new Council Members, to provide an opportunity to greet and thank departing Councilmember Cal Campbell, and to reorganize the new City Council on the dais.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to this item.

ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments to this report.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 10.2 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.3
SECTION 10: SPECIAL BUSINESS
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Administration of the Oath of Office to Newly Appointed Planning Commissioners, John Dinan and Taide Zamora and Alternates Steve Link and Michael Halterman.

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk/LRA Secretary

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Oath of Office be administered and the Certificates of Appointments be issued to newly appointed Planning Commissioners John Dinan and Taide Zamora, who will each serve a 4-year term ending in December 2026, and Alternate Planning Commissioners Steve Link and Michael Halterman, who will serve a 2-year term ending December 2024.

SUMMARY
In accordance with Riverbank Municipal Code a resolution to appoint Planning Commissioners and Alternate Planning Commissioners must be approved before the appointment of such candidates; This proceeding will take place at this evening’s meeting. As such, and as recommended by Mayor Richard O’Brien and The Riverbank City Council, John Dinan and Taide Zamora will take the Oath of Office as Planning Commissioners and Steve Link and Michael Halterman will take the Oath of Office as Alternate Planning Commissioners. All will be presented with their Certificate of Appointments.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to this item.

ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments to this report.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 14.1 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.1
SECTION 14: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the Appropriation of $26,700 in General Fund Reserves for the Squire Wells/Heartlands Roundabout Repairs
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Laura Graybill, Senior Project Coordinator

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider appropriating $26,700 in General Fund Reserves for the Squire Wells/Heartlands Roundabout repairs.

SUMMARY
In 2021, the roundabout located at Squire Wells & Heartlands was the victim of two separate vehicle accidents. Since that time staff has been in discussions with two different insurance agencies for reimbursement back to the City. Staff would like to proceed with the work in order to avoid any potential cost increases in the future. Tonight’s action will appropriate the funds from the General Fund Reserves to be replenished upon reimbursement.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 14.1 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City will provide upfront funding for this project of $26,700 which will be fully reimbursed.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2022-

2. David Hall Masonry, Inc. Proposal

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $26,700 IN GENERAL FUND RESERVES

FOR THE SQUIRE WELLS/HEARTLANDS ROUNDABOUT REPAIR

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, in 2021 the roundabout located at Squire Wells and Heartlands was damaged as a result of two vehicle accidents; and
WHEREAS, since such time, city staff has been working with the insurance agencies of both vehicle owners on a final reimbursement to the City for the damages caused; and
WHEREAS, until resolution is received on these two claims it is in the best interest of the City to move forward with repairs to avoid increasing costs; and WHEREAS, the City obtained quotes from various companies and will be moving forward with the proposal received from David Hall Masonry, Inc.; and WHEREAS, when funds are received from both insurance agencies the General Fund Reserves can be replenished; and
WHEREAS, the funds will be appropriated to account number 101-413.000- 707.003.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank does hereby authorize the appropriation of $26,700 in General Fund Reserves for the Squire Wells/Heartlands roundabout repairs.

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor
DIR # 1000006976
Cell # Date
(209) 247-4554 11/02/22 Revised
Job Name & Location:

Attn: Laura Grabill Roundabout
Email: [email protected] Squire Wells and Heartland Riverbank, CA
Plan Date: Job Number PHONE
California small business certification number is 57061 22-282 (209) 863-7155 We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: LF/HT QUANITITY Labor, Equipment, and Materials to build the following:
1) Roundabout repair to include the following:
- Remove damage block , stone and brick. 36' 0" x 2' 10" Labor - Move dirt and other orbitals away from work Material
- Lay block , stone and brick to match existing.
- Set up men working safety signs and remove
- Put dirt and deco rock back
- Haul away waste
- Existing footings to be used
- Stucco over CMU at sign area and attach new letters
2) Traffic control to include the following:
- Labor to supply and Set up signage and cones to close street access LS - Encrochment permit at now cost to DHM
Material
- 6x8x16 grey block grouted
- Eldorado Molano Hill stone. With tan over grout joints - English Rose full Brick caps 3-3/4" x 2-1/2" x 8"
- Stucco and letters to match existing
Note: Sign dose not appear to be damaged. Will review after demo Note: General Contractor must provide at no cost to DHM:
- Water within 100' and access to work
- Access to restrooms or portable toilets
- Current and approved Civil Drawings in DHM's possession prior to commencement of footings and / or masonry work.

This proposal is based on a eight (8) hour work day, five (5) day work week, contingent upon any required structural engineering approval by the governing jurisdiction and shall be incorporated as an "Exhibit" into any Sub-Contract Agreement.

Charges Against DHMasonry:

REMOBILIZATION COSTS;
1) DHM to be reimbursed remobilization costs at the rate of $1850 - $3400 depending on the location of the project per occasion in the event the General Contractor is not prepared to provide DHM with access, working plans, properly staked and graded site or any other condition outside DHM's control.

DHM not responsible for delays due (Unless specifically listed as included) 1) Lack of Contractor to furnished access. ( 15 ft Min to set up scaffolding ) 2) Grade is not ready for required masonry work.
3) Other Sub-Contractors scheduled in DHM work area.
4) Inclement weather or other conditions rendering soil obstructive to DHMasonry standard operations. $1,500.00
In the event of a claim or dispute between General Contractor and Sub-Contractor, which cannot be resolved in a reasonable period of time, General Contractor shall agree to submit said claim to binding arbitration.

If David Hall Masonry is authorized to proceed with work prior to a fully executed Sub-Contract Agreement, it shall be understood and agreed that this proposal shall govern and take precedence until such time as a mutually agreed upon, subcontract is executed.

To: City of Riverbank
6617 Third St. / 6707 Third St. ( mailing )
Riverbank , CA 95367
$4,425.00
Fax (209) 599-0881
Charges against David Hall Masonry's account will not be accepted unless 1) Notice of alleged deficiency is given to DHMasonry in writing with the opportunity to correct the alleged deficiency with its own forces. 2) Notice is timely, and 3) DHMasonry agrees in writing to the changes, timing of work to be done, and maximum amount of charge. $17,172.00
$3,602.00
David Hall Masonry, Inc.

Lic. #379966
651 S. Stockton Avenue

EXTENSION
Ripon, CA 95366
PH (209) 599-8722
Fax (209) 599-9692

PROPOSAL

Page 1 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
EXCLUSIONS: (Unless specifically listed as included)
1) Waterproofing,Solid Substrate Including Lath, Scratch Coat and Stucco, Paint, Sealants / Caulking and Flashing. 2) Layout for other trades, core drilling, wood bucks, furnishing of any type of embeds. 3) Supplying and setting of ledgers , roof supports of any kind unless negotiated in contract 4) Permits, engineering, testing, or inspections.
5) Responsibility for damage to driveways, sidewalks, or landscaping in normal execution of work. 6) Responsibility for vandalism or graffiti.
7) The protections, relocations, removal, and / or repair of all utilities that interfere with masonry contractors work. 8) All pedestrian and vehicular traffic control .

THIS PROPOSAL TO BECOME PART OF THE CONTRACT.

Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Nine Dollars and No Cents Payments to be made as follows: - Prevailing Wage Progress payments Authorized Signature
Ed Riley
[email protected]
Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 60 days.

Acceptance of Proposal -
Signature The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.

All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a professional manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado, and other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Worker's Compensation insurance.
$26,699.00
We Propose hereby to furnish material, labor, and equipment to complete in accordance with the above specifications, for the sum of:

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 14.2 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL/ LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.2
SECTION 14: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Resolution Approving the Appropriation of Funds and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract to Conduct a Cleanup at 3412 High Street
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Michele Garcia, Senior Neighborhood Improvement Officer Donna Kenney, Planning and Building Manager

RECOMMENDATION
City Council to review the materials and consider a Resolution to approve a funding request for the abatement of 3412 High Street.

BACKGROUND
3412 High Street suffered two different fires occurring on June 17, 2021 and October 4, 2021 which destroyed the home (Attachment 2). When the Senior Neighborhood Improvement Officer (NIO) tried to locate the property owners it was discovered that they are unfortunately deceased, and a reverse mortgage gave the property to an unknown bank. No one has stepped forward to abate the situation although the NIO has continued searching for responsible parties. The neighbors have been concerned about the aesthetics of the property, the vermin seen scurrying around, the appliances being dumped, and the homeless, who have erected tents within the burned structure. The City has installed a leased fence on the property but it has not kept out the homeless.

Staff has processed the abatement by sending several notices to the listed property owners and a Notice and Order pursuant to Riverbank Municipal Code (RMC) §98.17 was sent to all known banks and title companies associated with the subject property. On 1/3/2022 a summary abatement pursuant to RMC §98.12 was completed by the City on the front yard area to remove overgrown grass and weeds as well as several other potentially dangerous objects. The abatement cost was $3,000.00 which included the removal of trash and debris.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 14.2 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
Staff has obtained an estimate from Modesto Sand and Gravel (Exhibit A) to remove the structures, and clean the entire property including removal of all appliances dumped in the backyard area. The cost is $32,550.00 and the process will take approximately 2 days.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The request is for $32,550 to abate a fire damaged property. The proposed funding source, old Weed Abatement Fund 132, has approximately $47,000 in reserves to cover the cost. The Neighborhood Improvement Division will place a lien on the property for all assessed costs that must be satisfied before the property can sold or redeveloped.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2022-
(a) Exhibit A - Modesto Sand and Gravel Estimate

2. 3412 High Street Photos

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONDUCT A CLEANUP AT 3412 HIGH STREET

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, fires occurred on June 17, 2021 and October 4, 2021 at 3412 High Street, which destroyed the residential structure; and
WHEREAS, the property has become blighted with the burned structure, dumped appliances, and a homeless encampment, causing the neighborhood to become fearful; and
WHEREAS, the Senior Neighborhood Improvement Officer attempted to locate the property owners and discovered they are deceased; and
WHEREAS, it was also discovered that a reverse mortgage gave the property to an unknown bank; and
WHEREAS, Modesto Sand and Gravel has provided the City with an estimate of $32,550.00 to demolish the structure and remove all the debris to clean up the property; and
WHEREAS, there is $47,000 in old Weed Abatement Fund 132, which could be used to cover the costs of abatement and the placement of a lien.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Riverbank City Council desires to use Fund 132 to conduct a cleanup by Modesto Sand and Gravel.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager enter into a contract for the cleanup and appropriate reserves in Fund 132 to pay for it.

AYES:

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor
Attachment: Exhibit A - Modesto Sand and Gravel Estimate 6137 HAMMETT COURT * MODESTO, CA 95358 * PHONE * FAX
CSLB#
ModestoSandAndGravel.com
209-545-4425 209-545-4428
271166
11/2/2022
Please Deliver the Following 5 Page(s) Including Cover To:

Fax: 209-869-7126
Customer Name: City of Riverbank
Contact Name: Michele Garcia
Mailing Address: 6707 3rd Street
City/State/Zip: Riverbank, CA 95367
Phone: 209-869-7126
Re: Burnt Residential Structure (3412 High Street)
Submitted by: Tracy Fernandes
Sincerely,
Tracy Fernandes
Tracy Fernandes
Project Coordinator
The following is our proposal/contract for the above referenced project. Please feel free to call our office if you have any questions. Should everything meet with your approval, please sign contract, complete page (4), initial any options you are accepting and return one (1) copy to our office.

PROPOSAL
Thank you for allowing us to provide a bid on this project MODESTO SAND & GRAVEL, INC.

EXIHIBIT A
3412 High Street Photos ATTACHMENT 2
3412 High Street Photos ATTACHMENT 2
3412 High Street Photos ATTACHMENT 2
Project Bid
6137 HAMMETT COURT * MODESTO, CA 95358 * PHONE * FAX
CSLB#
ModestoSandAndGravel.com
209-545-4425 209-545-4428
271166
Bid Submitted: 11/2/2022
City of Riverbank
6617 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Phone: 209-869-7126 Fax 209-869-7126
Michele Garcia
E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: 209-863-7107
3412 High Street
Riverbank, Ca 95367
Bid Requested:

Contract
Submitted
To: Physical Address:
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Mailing Address
Contact
Project
Location:

Burnt Residential Structure (3412 High St
Bid Details
We will provide all labor, equipment, trucking and disposal fees to demolish and remove the residential structure, the concrete foundation, the concrete flatwork, the container and outbuildings in the back yard, the fencing along the alley and the additional debris scattered around the property. We will also file the Air Quality notification and obtain the City of Riverbank demolition permit. $32,550.00
Remove additional yard trees. $1,900.00
Excludes: Hazardous material surveys or abatement. Utility disconnects or capping of lines.
** UNFORESEEN ITEMS UNCOVERED DURING EXCAVATION WILL ONLY BE REMOVED AS AN EXTRA TO THE PRICE QUOTED HEREIN.
** PRICE IS BASED ON ALL WORK BEING PERFORMED WITH ONE MOVE-IN. **TIME AND MATERIAL PROPOSALS ARE BASED ON AN 8 HOUR WORKDAY. NO OVERTIME, NIGHT WORK OR WEEKEND WORK INCLUDED UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
**ALL SALVAGED/DEMOLISHED MATERIAL(S) SHALL BE THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED UPON.
**CSLB #271166 Expires: 02/28/2023 - DIR # 1000002479 - FEIN # 94-1730960 **THIS BID IS SUBJECT TO PROGRESSIVE BILLING EVERY 30 DAYS (or month's end).**

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Print date: 11/2/2022 Page 1 of 4
Project Bid
6137 HAMMETT COURT * MODESTO, CA 95358 * PHONE * FAX
CSLB#
ModestoSandAndGravel.com
209-545-4425 209-545-4428
271166

1. THE PRICE QUOTED HEREIN IS BASED UPON THE REMOVAL OF NON-HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ONLY.

2. IF THIS DOCUMENT IS BASED ON THE DEMOLITION OF ANY BUILDING AND/OR STRUCTURE, AN ASBESTOS/LEAD PAINT SURVEY MAY BE REQUIRED. IF THIS INSPECTION PROVES POSITIVE, ABATEMENT OF THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MUST BE DONE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DETECTION AND REMOVAL ARE NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MS&G AND MUST BE DONE BY OTHERS. THE ASBESTOS REPORT PROVIDED BY MVE. REMOVAL INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL.

3. LOCATION, SEPARATION, RELOCATION, AND/OR CAPPING OF UTILITIES, WATER LINES, AND/OR IRRIGATION LINES, ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS.

4. MODESTO SAND AND GRAVEL, INC SHALL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES, WATER LINES, AND/OR IRRIGATION LINES WHICH WERE NOT LOCATED AND CLEARLY MARKED.

5. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT, PIPELINE REMOVAL AND/OR OTHER EXCAVATION DOES NOT INCLUDED BACKFILL, GRADING OR SLOPING.

6. IF THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF ANY TREE(S), WHERE DAMAGE TO UTILITIES OR

PROPERTY MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE REMOVAL, THE STUMP(S) WILL NOT BE REMOVED BUT WILL BE CUT AT BASE, NEAR GROUND.

7. MODESTO SAND AND GRAVEL, INC SHALL TAKE CARE TO LIMIT DAMAGE TO DRIVEWAYS OR SIDEWALKS USED FOR ACCESS BUT WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE SHOULD DAMAGE OCCUR. EXCEPT FOR PUBLIC STREETS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.

8. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT LAYOUTS, SAWCUTTING OF CONCRETE AND/OR ASPHALT, DESIRED OR REQUIRED, IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MODESTO SAND AND GRAVEL, INC..

9. IF THIS DOCUMENT IS BASED UPON THE SEPARATION OF A BUILDING: ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURAL

AND/OR DRAFTING SERVICES, STRUCTURAL SUPPORT, AND WEATHER PROOFING OF REMAINING BUILDING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT, SO IS THE SEPARATION OF THE BUILDING.

10. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT: TRAFFIC CONTROL, SECURITY FENCING, BARRICADES, AND/OR OTHER NECESSARY SAFETY EQUIPMENT IS TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS.

11. EXTRA WORK, PERMITS, OR FEES REQUIRED TO MEET NEW LAWS, ORDINANCES, ETC IS TO BE PAID BY PURCHASER UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

12. NO STORM WATER PREVENTION PLANS INCLUDED IN PRICE.

EXCLUSIONS
NET: DUE UPON RECEIPT - UNLESS OTHER TERMS HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON IN ADVANCE- BUT NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF COMPLETION.
1 ½% SERVICE CHARGE PER MONTH (18% ANNUAL) WILL BE CHARGED ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS.

TERMS
THIS BID IS SUBJECT TO PROGRESSIVE BILLING EVERY 30 DAYS.

PROGRESSIVE BILLING
Print date: 11/2/2022 Page 2 of 4
Project Bid
6137 HAMMETT COURT * MODESTO, CA 95358 * PHONE * FAX
CSLB#
ModestoSandAndGravel.com
209-545-4425 209-545-4428
271166

1. MODESTO SAND AND GRAVEL, INC SHALL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAYS DUE TO WEATHER

CONDITIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS, FIRES, LABOR DISPUTES, INDUSTRY STRIKES, OR OTHER CONDITIONS BEYOND OUR CONTROL.

2. ANY OTHER CONTRACT OR DOCUMENT ISSUED AS A RESULT OF THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT SUPERSEDE OR NULLIFY THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS AS STATED HEREIN.

3. IF THE SERVICES OF AN ATTORNEY NEED TO BE EMPLOYED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OF THE

OBLIGATIONS OF THE PURCHASER OR THE RIGHT OF THE SELLER, EITHER BY SUIT OR OTHERWISE, PURCHASER AGREES TO PAY REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES.

4. MODESTO SAND AND GRAVEL, INC CARRIES WORKER’S COMPENSATION, GENERAL LIABILITY, AND AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE. UPON REQUEST, A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE WILL BE PROVIDED. IF REQUIRED, WE CAN NAME THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER AS ADDITIONAL INSURED. ANY OTHER INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL COST TO THAT QUOTED HEREIN.

5. THIS PRICE IS BASED UPON THE CURRENT PRICE OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, TRUCKING, MATERIAL AND DUMP FEES. IF THIS PRICE IS NOT ACCEPTED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE HEREIN, MODESTO SAND AND GRAVEL, INC RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MODIFY THIS PRICE.

ADDITIONAL TERMS
Contract
I do hereby accept and agree to the terms and conditions of the work described in the above document.

City of Riverbank
Michele Garcia

MODESTO SAND & GRAVEL

MATT KELLSTROM, GENERAL MANAGER
Date Date
Print date: 11/2/2022 Page 3 of 4
Project Bid
6137 HAMMETT COURT * MODESTO, CA 95358 * PHONE * FAX
CSLB#
ModestoSandAndGravel.com
209-545-4425 209-545-4428
271166
As required by law (Section 3097 and 2098 of the California Civic Code), we are required to notify the following parties that we are furnishing labor, services, equipment and/or materials as described herein.

In order to comply with the aforementioned provision, and to proceed with the paperwork necessary to start this project, we need you to provide us with the following information:

OWNER: ______________________________________________
ADDRESS: _____________________________________________
CITY/STATE/ZIP:________________________________________ PHONE #: ______________________________________________ PRIME CONTRACTOR: ___________________________________
ADDRESS: _____________________________________________
CITY/STATE/ZIP:________________________________________ PHONE #: ______________________________________________ LENDER: _______________________________________________ ADDRESS: _____________________________________________
CITY/STATE/ZIP:________________________________________ PHONE #: ______________________________________________ PROJECT NAME/#: ______________________________________
ADDRESS: _____________________________________________
CITY/STATE/ZIP:________________________________________ We are further required by law to notify all parties that if bills are not paid in full for labor, services, equipment, and/or materials furnished or to be furnished, the improved property may be subject to "Mechanics' Liens", and/or "Stop Notices", or "Notice to Withhold" may be filed where applicable.

THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO REFLECT IN ANY WAY ON THE INTEGRITY OR CREDIT STANDING OF THE PRIME

CONTRACTOR OR THE OWNER, BUT IS GIVEN MERELY TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS GOVERNING OUR STATE CONTRACTORS LICENSE.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at any time. Thank you for your cooperation, and please be assured that this project will receive our very best efforts.

To: City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Print date: 11/2/2022 Page 4 of 4

Page 1 of 3 ends

Item 14.3 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.3
SECTION 14: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Resolution Authorizing the Appropriations and Expenditures from the Jacob Myers Park Fund for Park Improvements
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Sue Fitzpatrick, Director of Parks and Recreation

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider approving a Resolution for expenditures from the Jacob Myers Park Fund.

SUMMARY
The seasonal parking fee was established at Jacob Myers Park in order to secure funding for park improvements and operations. The Director of Parks and Recreation and the Assistant Finance Director have reviewed the funds available which are sufficient for needed park improvements. Tonight, a Resolution is being proposed for the authorization of expenditures from the Jacob Myers Park Fund for the purchase of necessary equipment and the annual safe tree cut.

BACKGROUND
The seasonal parking fee was established at Jacob Myers Park in 2007 as part of the management plan for the park. This parking fee is implemented on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays at Jacob Myers Park during the busy season of April through September. This management plan has been successful as it covers personnel, equipment, supplies, and security for the park. All funds collected are put towards the needs of the park.

At the end of each season, an accounting is completed and reviewed to confirm the balance of the Jacob Myers Park Fund and any funds rolled over from the previous year.

At that time, major purchases or projects for the park are reviewed such as safe tree cuts and equipment replacement for repairs. These can be very costly. At this time, there is a

Page 2 of 3 ends

Item 14.3 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
balance of $69,000 in the account. Our attendance this past season doubled from our attendance last year. During our 2021 spring/summer season, there were an estimated 21,000 people who visited the park. This past spring/summer this number increased to closer to 40,000. That figure is derived by our ticket booth tracking of cars and estimating there are on average four people per car. This does not account for those walking the trail, dog park attendance, or people who walk into the park.

At this time, the needs of the park are as follows:
• A safe tree cut for the front portion of the park: $17,000 • The replacement of one of the utility vehicles: $14,000 • The installation of a stand-alone foot shower: $ 4,000 Total: $35,000
Safe Tree Cut: Twice per year our Arborist provides a report to the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the condition of trees needing canopy reduction or removal due to disease or other problems. This is done in two sections, usually the front 8 acres and the back 20 acres. A priority is set and the safe tree cuts are implemented. Any work done on the cottonwoods that are on the Army Corp easement need approval from the Army Corp which is obtained as needed.

Replacement of utility vehicle: The current vehicle that has been used is 15 years old and is non-operable. Staff have researched both diesel, electric, and gas replacements.

For multiple reasons, the gas vehicle is most appropriate for the use at this park. There may be a long wait period to obtain a vehicle so it is important to order this soon so it is received prior to our busy season. We are primarily interested in replacing our existing UTV at Jacob Myers Parks with another gas unit. The reason that we are interested in gas is because we have had issues with the two current electric vehicles that we have at the park. The batteries require constant maintenance such as keeping the batteries topped off which can be difficult for our staff to keep up with when they are not the primary users. When the batteries do not get topped off with fluid, it causes them to fail prematurely. Furthermore, the carts will sit for extended periods of time on the chargers when not in use, causing the acid to evaporate in the batteries and ultimately requiring replacement of the battery banks. When the electric carts do not get placed back on the chargers, they sometimes die out in the park when the next park host or staff member goes to use it. Finally, availability of an electric version of a UTV is so difficult currently that Polaris was unable to even provide a quote
Installation of a stand-alone foot shower: Due to the restroom being close the river, many people wash their feet in the sink in the restrooms. This causes a great deal of issues with the drains in the sink from sand and dirt buildup. Installation of a stand-alone foot shower will solve this problem. Our staff will do the installation once the equipment is received.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Item 14.3 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

STRATEGIC PLAN
This item is related to the City of Riverbank Strategic Plan by Maintaining and refreshing the parks, trails and facilities to provide exceptional experiences.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impact would be expenditures from the Jacob Myers Park Fund in the amount totaling $35,000. This would leave adequate funding within that account for future needs of the park.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Resolution 2022-

Page 1 of 1 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK TO

AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES FROM THE JACOB

MYERS PARK FUND FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, the City of Riverbank has collected seasonal parking fees at Jacob Myers Park in order to maintain the park; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Assistant Finance Director have reviewed the balance in the Jacob Myers Parking Fund and determined there is sufficient funding to cover current needs for park improvements and equipment replacement; and
WHEREAS, funding is requested to perform safe tree cuts, replacement of a utility vehicle and the purchase of a stand- alone foot shower in the amount totaling $35,000; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank hereby approves the appropriation and expenditures as outlined from the Jacob Myers Park Fund totaling $35,000.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 13
th day of December, 2022; motioned by Councilmember
______, seconded by Councilmember ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 14.4 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.4
SECTION 14: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Riverbank Establishing A Capital Financing and Debt Policy
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Tammy Alcantor, Assistant Finance Director

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a resolution that will establish a Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy.

SUMMARY
The City is currently working on obtaining funding through the State Water Resources Control Board under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) for the Phase I Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (RRRWP) in which the City is required to submit a Debt Management Policy.

BACKGROUND
The Attached policy has been reviewed and satisfies the requirements of SB 1029/Government Code section 8555(i).

The Debt Management Policy formally establishes parameters for issuing debt and managing a debt portfolio which encompasses the City’s specific capital improvement needs and its ability to repay financial obligations utilizing a long-range financial planning approach. Specifically, the policies outlined in this document are intended to guide the City in the following:
▪ Evaluating critical debt issuance options.
▪ Promoting sound financial management that utilizes long-range financial planning. ▪ Providing accurate and timely information on financial conditions. ▪ Maintaining appropriate capital assets for present and future needs.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 14.4 – CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
▪ Protecting and enhancing the City’s credit rating
▪ Ensuring the legal and prudent use of the City’s bonding authority through an effective system of financial security and internal controls. ▪ Promoting cooperation and coordination with other public entities and the private sector in the financing and delivery of services.
▪ Using debt financing where appropriate to match projected revenue streams with facility needs.

Tonight’s resolution will establish the Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy for the City of Riverbank needed for inclusion with the CWSRF financial assistance application.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact directly associated with the adoption of this Resolution.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Resolution 2022-
(a) Exhibit A: Capital Financing and Debt Policy

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK,

CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A CAPITAL FINANCING AND DEBT POLICY

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, the Riverbank City Council is responsible to the residents of the City of Riverbank (“City”) for policy creation, the enactment of local laws, and the design and implementation of programs and services to meet identified needs; and WHEREAS, in order to meet these responsibilities, the City Council adopts an annual budget each year to fund City operations; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of prudent debt management policies is important to ensure the long-term financial health of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Riverbank desires to establish a Capital Financing and Debt policy which will include the establishment of parameters for issuing debt, managing a debt portfolio, and its ability to repay financial obligations utilizing a longrange financial planning approach. .

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA, does hereby establish a Capital Financing and Debt policy in Exhibit “A” which will guide the City in the following:
• Evaluating critical debt issuance options.
• Promoting sound financial management that utilizes long-range financial planning.
• Providing accurate and timely information on financial conditions. • Maintaining appropriate capital assets for present and future needs. • Protecting and enhancing the City’s credit rating.
• Ensuring the legal and prudent use of the City’s bonding authority through an effective system of financial security and internal controls. • Promoting cooperation and coordination with other public entities and the private sector in the financing and delivery of services. • Using debt financing where appropriate to match projected revenue streams with facility needs.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 13
th day of December 2022; motioned by Councilmember
___________, seconded by Councilmember __________, and upon roll call was carried by the following City Council vote of _____:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ _____________ _____________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor
Attachment: Exhibit A - Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy Exhibit A

CAPITAL FINANCING AND DEBT

MANAGEMENT POLICY

CITY OF RIVERBANK
Adopted December 13, 2022
City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 2 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAPITAL FINANCING AND DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY
I. Introduction ............................................................................................3 II. Approach to Financing Long-term Debt .................................................4 III. Debt Management and Capacity............................................................5 IV. Financing Criteria...................................................................................6 V. Terms and Conditions of Bonds.............................................................7 VI. Credit Enhancements ............................................................................8 VII. Refinancing Outstanding Debt ...............................................................9 VIII. Interest Rate Mitigation Policy (Swap Policy).........................................10 IX. Methods of Issuance..............................................................................11 X. Underwriter Selection.............................................................................11 XI. Bond Counsel Selection.........................................................................12 XII. Consultants............................................................................................13 XIII. Market and Investor Relationships.........................................................15 XIV. Post Issuance Compliance………………………………………………… 16
XV. Glossary of Terms and Definitions.........................................................18 City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 3 ends

CITY OF

RIVERBANK

CAPITAL FINANCING & DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY
I. Introduction
To maintain the highest quality capital financing and debt management program, the City of Riverbank has prepared the guidelines and policies set forth in this document, referred to hereafter as the “Debt Management Policy.” The Debt Management Policy is intended to guide decisions related to debt supported by the City’s General Fund, Enterprise Funds.

To the extent that items have not been contemplated for inclusion in the Debt Management Policy, additions and revisions can be made by approval of the City Council.

Note: All references to “DOF” refers to the Director of Finance or their designee responsible for managing and overseeing the debt functions of the City.

Goals and Objectives
The Debt Management Policy formally establishes parameters for issuing debt and managing a debt portfolio which encompasses the City’s specific capital improvement needs and its ability to repay financial obligations utilizing a long-range financial planning approach. Specifically, the policies outlined in this document are intended to guide the City in the following:
▪ Evaluating critical debt issuance options.
▪ Promoting sound financial management that utilizes long-range financial planning.
▪ Providing accurate and timely information on financial conditions. ▪ Maintaining appropriate capital assets for present
and future needs.
▪ Protecting and enhancing the City’s credit rating.
▪ Ensuring the legal and prudent use of the City’s bonding authority through an effective system of financial security and internal controls.
▪ Promoting cooperation and coordination with other public entities and the private sector in the financing and delivery of services.
▪ Use debt financing where appropriate to match projected revenue streams with facility needs.

City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 4 ends

II. Approach to Financing Long-term Debt
A sound debt management program integrates pay-as-you-go project financing with projects financed through the issuance of long-term debt. The City’s Capital Improvement Program utilizes this combined approach to fund the City’s capital projects. Therefore, it is important to integrate the City’s Debt Management Policy with both the City’s long-range financial plan and the capital improvement program. Debt issuance for capital projects should not be considered unless such issuance has been incorporated into the capital improvement program.

The City’s Debt Management Policy promotes the use of debt only in those cases where public policy, equity, and economic efficiency favor debt over cash (i.e., pay-as-you-go) financing. When considering how to fund capital improvements, the City will use the following criteria to evaluate whether to fund the improvement project on a pay-asyou-go basis versus the use of long-term debt financing:

Factors Favoring Pay-As-You-Go Financing
▪ Current revenues and adequate fund balances are available such that project phasing can be accomplished.
▪ Useful life of the capital asset is 10 years or less. ▪ Existing debt levels might have an adverse impact on the City’s credit rating. ▪ Market conditions are unstable or present difficulties in marketing the improvement project.

Factors Favoring Long-term Financing
▪ Revenues available for debt service are sufficient and reliable such that long-term financings can be marketed with an investment-grade credit rating. ▪ The project securing the financing is of the type which will support an investmentgrade credit rating. ▪ Market conditions present favorable interest rates.
▪ The project is required to meet or relieve capacity needs and current resources are insufficient or unavailable.
▪ The life of the project or capital asset to be financed is 10 years or longer.

Notwithstanding the above considerations, the City may consider the use of long-term debt in special circumstances for projects other than capital projects to better manage its assets and liabilities over time, including Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 5 ends

and/or Pension Obligation Bonds, with the latter being considered only after careful policy evaluation by the City.

III. Debt Management and Capacity
▪ Use of the General Fund as a Back-up Guarantor. The City’s General Fund may be used to provide backup liquidity to improve the credit rating of a self-supported debt issue (i.e., an obligation that is expected to be paid through specific revenues), but only if the General Fund is not exposed to a significant risk of loss of assets or impairment of liquidity. The evaluation of risk should consider the following factors:
– Volatility and collection risk of the revenue source identified for repayment of the debt.
– The likelihood of General Fund reimbursement within one year for any payments it might potentially need to make in its role as back-up guarantor.

The City will not use General Fund financial support for assessment or Mello-Roos obligations.
▪ General Purpose Debt Capacity. The City will carefully monitor its levels of general-purpose debt. In evaluating debt capacity, general purpose supported debt service will not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of total General Fund budgeted expenditures and transfers out.
▪ Enterprise Fund Debt Capacity. The City will set enterprise fund rates at levels needed to fully cover debt service and coverage requirements, operations and maintenance, administration, and capital improvement costs. The ability to afford new debt for enterprise operations will be evaluated as an integral part of the City’s rate review and setting process.
▪ Inter-fund Loans among City Funds. Inter-fund loans among City funds will be considered to finance high-priority needs on a case-by-case basis, only when the fund making the loan would not be negatively impacted. Inter-fund borrowing may also be used when it would reduce costs of interest, avoid debt issuance, and/or reduce Finance burdens. Inter-fund loans require a written and signed loan agreement between the two City funds that includes a repayment schedule with a minimum of interest paid at the pooled cash investment rate for the term of the loan. The repayment term of inter-fund loans is limited to ten years.

City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 6 ends

IV. Financing Criteria
When the City determines that the use of debt is appropriate, the following criteria will be utilized to evaluate the type of debt to be issued.
▪ Long-Term Debt. The City may issue long-term debt (e.g., general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, lease obligations, or variable rate bonds) when an appropriate assessment of the need and priority of the capital improvement project has been undertaken, current resources are insufficient to finance the project, and when debt financing is the optimal structure given the City’s financial outlook in relation to the long-range financial plan. The proceeds derived from long-term borrowing will not be used to finance current operations or normal maintenance. Long-term debt will be structured such that the obligations do not exceed the expected useful life of the respective projects. - Subordinate Debt (e.g., subordinate or junior lien bonds) may be issued in instances in which statutory or indenture restrictions prevent additional series of parity of senior lien bonds.
▪ Short-Term Debt. Defined as borrowing that spans less than one-year, short-term borrowing may be utilized for the temporary funding of operational cash flow deficits or anticipated revenues (defined as an assured source with the anticipated amount based on conservative estimates). The City will determine and utilize the least costly method for short-term borrowing. The City may issue short-term debt when there is a defined repayment source or amortization of principal, subject to the following policies:
– Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs) may be issued instead of capitalizing interest to reduce the debt service during the construction period of a project or facility. – Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANs) should be issued only to meet projected cash flow needs consistent with a finding by bond counsel that the sizing of the issue fully conforms to IRS requirements and limitations. – Commercial Paper should only be considered as an alternative when considering not only the expected interest to be paid but the cost of the letter of credit and remarketing fees to be incurred to maintain the financing. – Lines of Credit should only be considered as an alternative to other short-term borrowing options. The lines of credit shall be structured to limit concerns as to the Internal Revenue Code.
▪ Variable Rate Debt. To maintain a predictable debt service burden, the City may give preference to debt that carries a fixed interest rate. However, the City may consider variable rate debt in certain instances, such as:
– High-Interest Rate Environment. Current interest rates are above historic average trends.
– Variable Revenue Stream. The revenue stream for repayment is variable and is anticipated to move in the same direction as market-generated variable interest rates or the dedication of revenues allows capacity for variability.

City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 7 ends

– Adequate S a fe g u a r d s Against Risk. Financing structure and budgetary safeguards are in place to prevent adverse impacts from interest rate shifts; such structures could include, but are not limited to, interest rate swaps, interest rate caps, and the matching of assets and liabilities.
– Variable Rate Debt Capacity. Consistent with rating agency guidelines, the percentage of variable rate debt outstanding (not including debt that has been converted to synthetic fixed rate debt through a matching swap agreement) shall not exceed 20% of the City’s total outstanding debt (excluding land-secured debt).
▪ Tax-Exempt Lease Financed Debt. Intermediate and long-term tax-exempt debt financing can also be undertaken for the acquisition of, for example, equipment, information technology enhancements, vehicles or HVAC, and other renewal and replacement systems improvements. The parameters for the City to enter into a taxexempt lease financing agreement are as follows:
– A minimum threshold of $250,000 up to a maximum of $5,000,000 can be taxexempt lease financed. Special consideration is negotiable for exceptions to be made on a case-by-case basis.
– Identified repayment revenue resources must be a continuous funding source.

Grant awards cannot be identified as the repayment source but can be utilized as a down payment to reduce the amount of the proposed tax-exempt lease. – Selection of the projects and tax-exempt financing method must undergo review and approval by the Finance Services Department.
– The terms of the tax-exempt lease financing may not exceed the useful life of the capital asset.

V. Terms and Conditions of Bonds / Direct Placements
The City shall establish all terms and conditions relating to the issuance of bonds, and will control, manage, and invest all bond proceeds. Unless otherwise authorized by the City, the following shall serve as bond requirements:

1. Term. All capital improvements financed through the issuance of debt will be financed for a period not to exceed the useful life of the improvements.

2. Capitalized Interest. Certain types of financings such as certificates of participation and other lease-secured financings may require the use of the capitalized interest from the issuance date until the City has beneficial use and occupancy of the financed project. Interest shall not be funded (capitalized) beyond a period of three years, or a shorter period if further restricted by statute.

The City may require that capitalized interest on the initial series of bonds be funded from the proceeds of the bonds. As an alternative to capitalizing interest during the acquisition or construction of a project, the City may lease and leaseback an existing capital asset to secure the financing.

City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 8 ends

3. Debt Service Structure. Market conditions at the time of sale will inform the City on its decision regarding debt service structure. Debt issuance shall be planned to achieve relatively rapid repayment of debt while still matching debt service to the useful life of facilities. The City shall avoid the use of bullet or balloon maturities except in those instances where these maturities serve to levelize existing debt service.

4. Call Provisions. In general, the City’s securities will include a call feature, which is no later than 10 years from the date of delivery of the bonds. The City will avoid the sale of non-callable bonds absent careful evaluation by the City of the value of the call option. Every effort shall be made to minimize call premiums which shall not exceed 3% unless required by statute.

5. Original Issue Discount and Premiums. An original issue discount or premium will be permitted only if the City determines that such discounts or premiums result in a lower true interest cost on the bonds and that their use will not adversely affect the project identified by the bond documents.

6. Deep Discount Bonds. Deep discount bonds may provide a lower cost of borrowing in certain markets. The City will carefully consider their value and effect on any future refinancing as a result of the lower-than-market coupon.

7. Multiple Series. In instances where multiple series of bonds are to be issued, the City shall make a final determination as to which facilities are of the highest priority and those facilities which will be financed first, pursuant to funding availability and the proposed timing of facilities development.

VI. Credit Enhancements
The City will consider the use of credit enhancement on a case-by-case basis, evaluating the economic benefit versus cost for each case. Only when a clearly demonstrable savings can be shown should a method of enhancement be considered.

The City will consider each of the following enhancements as alternatives by evaluating the cost and benefit of such enhancement.
▪ Bond Insurance. The City shall have the authority to purchase bond insurance when such purchase is deemed prudent and advantageous. The predominant determination shall be based on such insurance being less costly than the present value of the difference in the interest on insured bonds versus uninsured bonds.

1. Provider Selection. The DOF, with the assistance of the financing team, will solicit quotes for bond insurance (or cause such quotes to be solicited) from interested providers or in the case of a competitive sale submit an application for pre-qualification of insurance. In a negotiated sale, the DOF shall have the authority to select a provider whose bid is the most cost-effective and whose terms and conditions governing the guarantee are satisfactory to the City. ▪ Debt Service Reserves. When required, a reserve fund equal to the least of (1) ten percent (10%) of the original principal amount of the bonds, (2) one hundred percent (100%) of the maximum annual debt service, and (3) one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of average annual debt service, (the "Reserve City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 9 ends

Requirement") shall be funded from the proceeds of each series of bonds, subject to federal tax regulations and in accordance with the requirements of credit enhancement providers and/or rating agencies. This “three-prong” test will also apply to a common reserve fund (parity reserve) calculated on all parity bonds within a series. Policies governing the investment of debt service reserves and bond proceeds can be found in both the bond documents and the City’s Investment Policy.

The City may purchase reserve equivalents (i.e., the use of a reserve fund surety or letter of credit) when such purchase is deemed prudent and advantageous. Such equivalents shall be evaluated in comparison to cash funding of reserves on a net present value basis, taking into account projected interest earnings on a cash-funded reserve.
▪ Letters of Credit. The City may enter into a letter-of-credit (“LOC”) agreement when such an agreement is deemed prudent and advantageous. The DOF shall prepare (or cause to be prepared) and distribute to qualified financial institutions as described in the subsection “Selection Criteria” below, a request for qualifications that includes terms and conditions that are acceptable to the City.
– Provider Selection. Only those financial institutions with long-term ratings greater than or equal to that of the City, and short-term ratings of VMIG 1, A-1, or F1, by Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch IBCA, respectively, may be solicited.
– Selection Criteria. The selection of LOC providers will be based on responses to a City-issued request for qualifications; criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Ratings at least equal to or better than the financing issues’ underlying credit rating.
• Evidence of ratings (including the market outlook of the LOC). • Trading value relative to other financial institutions. • Terms and conditions acceptable to the City; the City may provide a term sheet along with the request for qualifications to which the financial institution may make modifications.
• Representative list of clients for whom the bank has provided credit facilities. • Fees, specifically, cost of LOC, draws, financial institution counsel and other Finance charges.

VII. Refinancing Outstanding Debt
The DOF shall have the responsibility to analyze outstanding bond issues for refunding opportunities that may be presented by underwriting and/or financial advisory firms.

The DOF will consider the following issues when analyzing possible refunding opportunities:
▪ Debt Service Savings. The City establishes a guideline net present value savings threshold goal of three percent (3%) of the refunded bond principal amount. The net present value savings will be net of all costs related to the refinancing. The City will evaluate each refunding candidate on a case-by-case basis. In evaluating such City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 10 ends

refundings and the appropriateness of a 3% or higher refunding goal, the City will take into account whether the refunding will be current or advance and if the latter, the period of time before the call date and the efficiency of the refunding escrow. ▪ Restructuring. The City will refund debt when in its best interest to do so. Refunding will include restructuring to meet unanticipated revenue expectations, achieve cost savings, mitigate irregular debt service payments, release reserve funds, or remove unduly restrictive bond covenants.
▪ Term of Refunding Issues. The City may refund bonds within the term of the originally issued debt. However, the City may consider maturity extension, when necessary to achieve a desired outcome, provided that such extension is legally permissible. The City may also consider shortening the term of the originally issued debt to realize greater savings. The remaining useful life of the financed facility and the concept of inter-generational equity should guide this decision.
▪ Escrow Structuring. The City shall utilize the least costly securities available in structuring refunding escrows. The City will examine the viability of an economic versus legal defeasance on a net present value basis. In the case where open market securities are purchased, the City shall procure a minimum of 3 competitive bids from approved broker-dealers. Such securities must be more cost effective than State and Local Government Obligations (SLGS), and that the price paid for the securities must be reasonable within Federal guidelines. Under no circumstances shall an underwriter, agent or financial advisor sell escrow securities to the City from its own account.

Arbitrage. The City shall take all necessary steps to optimize escrows and to avoid negative arbitrage on any refunding.

VIII. Interest Rate Risk Mitigation Policy (Swap Policy) The City is not considered a sophisticated active issuer and therefore it is not appropriate for the City to enter into any Interest Rate Swap Agreements.

An interest rate swap is an agreement between two parties to exchange one stream of interest payments for another, over a set period of time. Swaps are derivative contracts and trade over-the-counter. Investment and commercial banks with strong credit ratings are swap market-makers, offering both fixed and floating-rate cash flows to their clients.

By convention, each participant in a swap transaction is known by its relation to the fixed rate stream of payments. The party that elects to receive a fixed rate and pay floating is the “receiver” and the party that received floating in exchange for fixed is the “payer.” Both the receiver and payer are known as counterparties in the swap transaction.

City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 11 ends

IX. Methods of Issuance
The City will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to sell its bonds competitively or through negotiation.
▪ Competitive Sale - In a competitive sale, the City’s bonds shall be awarded to the bidder providing the lowest true interest cost as long as the bid adheres to the requirements set forth in the official Notice of Sale.
▪ Negotiated Sale / Direct Placement - The City recognizes that some securities are best sold through negotiation. In its consideration of a negotiated sale, the City shall assess the following circumstances:
– Bonds issued as variable rate demand obligations.
– A complex structure which may require a strong pre-marketing effort. – Size of the issue which may limit the number of potential bidders. – Market volatility is such that the City would be better served by flexibility in timing its sale in changing interest rate environments.
– Other criteria to consider: the absence of investment grade rating of the bonds; timing considerations beyond “market volatility” (e.g., refundings), X. Underwriter / Placement Agent
▪ Underwriter’s Responsibilities. The underwriter will be expected to assist in the development of a sound financial plan for the capital facility or infrastructure that is planned to be financed as necessary, and to underwrite the bonds to finance the project.

Specific services, although not all inclusive, are listed below. Note that if the terms of the specific services differ from those described in a formal contract, the services as described in the contract shall prevail.
– Meet with City staff, developers, members of the financial team and others as required, to become familiar with the Project.
– Determine, with the assistance of City staff, the capital requirements for the Project.
– Determine and recommend the means of financing which is the most cost-effective in regard to net interest cost, annual debt service, market timing, and other matters which affect the cost of the financing.
– Either independently, or in conjunction with City's municipal advisor, recommend alternative credit structures for the financing.
– Prepare a written analysis to be presented to the City of the recommended structure, pricing, and sizing of the issue, based on the then-current market City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 12 ends

conditions. Modify said analysis to meet the changing conditions of the financial markets.
– Prepare a time schedule for the financing, with each critical component or task identified with the operative date of occurrence. Modify such schedule as needed.

The schedule will be circulated to all participants in the financing including City staff, municipal advisor, the developer if any, bond counsel, disclosure counsel, and the City Attorney's Office.
– Recommend and institute, with the City’s concurrence, a marketing plan for selling the financial instruments. Such plan may include distributing preliminary official statements to all individuals, broker-dealers and institutional investors targeting those most likely to purchase the instruments, and following up with telephone calls and other forms of communication.
– Coordinate the financing with the municipal advisor, bond counsel, and disclosure counsel regarding the legal requirements of the financing and the preparation and structure of documents, including but not limited to, the preliminary and final official statements.
– Conduct a pre-pricing conference call with City staff the day before the sale. The purpose is to discuss with staff coupon interest rates, prices and yields for the financial instruments to be issued, and to review the comparable sales provided by the underwriter for recently conducted sales of like issues. – Purchase the bonds, subject to pertinent resolutions, the official statement, and all other necessary documents with all approvals and proceedings governing such debt obligations having been determined by bond counsel, the City, municipal advisor, and underwriter to be satisfactory in all respects for financing purposes. – Obtain CUSIP Numbers for the bonds, if required.
– Prepare a final pricing report which includes an analysis of the interest rates obtained compared to other comparable financings in the market at that time.

XI. Bond Counsel
The issuance of debt by the City will include a written opinion by legal counsel affirming that the City is authorized to issue the proposed debt, that the City has met all constitutional and statutory requirements necessary for issuance, and a determination of the proposed debt’s federal income tax status. The approving opinion and other documents relating to the issuance of debt will be prepared by counsel with extensive experience in public finance and tax issues.

City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 13 ends

▪ Bond Counsel Responsibilities. The services to be provided by bond counsel will include, but not be limited to, those listed below. Note that if the terms of the specific services differ from those described in a formal contract, the services as described in the contract shall prevail.
– Provide an objective legal opinion with respect to the authorization and issuance of local agency debt obligations and whether interest paid is tax-exempt under federal and/or state laws and regulations.
– Research applicable law; preparing documents; consulting with City staff and the financial team; reviewing proceedings; and performing additional duties as necessary to render the opinion.
– Provide continuing legal advice regarding any actions necessary to ensure that interest will continue to be tax-exempt.
– Prepare legal documents for the financing, including closing documents and transcripts.
– Participate, when requested, in activities associated with rating agency reviews. – Offer continuing legal advice, as needed, on issues related to the sale and the trustee administration of City's obligations.
– In cases where a separate disclosure counsel is not retained by the City, bond counsel will provide the City with a "10b-5 Opinion" with respect to the preliminary and final official statements.
– Provide a legal opinion with respect to the authorization and issuance of the debt obligations and whether interest paid is tax-exempt.
– Attend City Council meetings when the debt obligation for which counsel is providing services is being considered. Participate in staff meetings, including post-issuance reviews, as requested, relating to the issuance of debt.

XII. Consultants
▪ Municipal Advisor. The City may select a municipal advisor (or advisors) to assist in its debt issuance and debt administration processes. Selection of the City’s financial advisor(s) shall be based on, but not limited to, the following criteria:
– Experience in providing consulting services to complex issuers. – Knowledge and experience in structuring and analyzing complex issues. – Experience and reputation of assigned personnel.
– Fees and expenses.

City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 14 ends

▪ Municipal Advisor Services. Municipal Advisor services provided to the City shall include, but shall not be limited to those listed below. Note that if the terms of the specific services differ from those described in a formal contract, the services as described in the contract prevail.
– Take primary responsibility for review of the quantitative analysis of the cash flows provided by the underwriter. Prepare reports matching all calculations for bond sizing, debt service schedules, savings calculations, bond calls, escrow calculations, and cash flows on the project. Prepare any other cash flow schedules as requested by the City.
– Provide all cash flow schedules in a reasonable and timely fashion to all Finance Team members including but not limited to City staff, bond counsel, underwriter, and disclosure counsel. In addition, make all schedules, in presentation form, available to rating agencies and bond insurers as requested by the City. – Prepare the detailed costs of issuance, review the gross spread (underwriter’s discount) and review all funds available as contributions to any refinancing. – Assist the City in the design and implementation of a credit strategy, including preparation of presentations to credit rating agencies and bond insurers or other credit providers, development of requests for proposals for municipal bond insurance, surety bonds and/or letters of credit, and the analysis of the economic efficiency of any proposed credit enhancement.
– In the case of a competitive sale of bonds, advise the City on the appropriate terms and parameters for the Notice of Sale and market timing for the receipt of bids.
– Be available at reasonable times for consultation to render advice regarding all financial aspects of the project as may be requested.
– Attend meetings and make presentations as requested. Prepare graphs, charts, etc. for staff presentations as needed.
– Review and comment on all legal documents including, but not limited to, the preliminary and final official statements, resolutions, loan agreements, indentures or fiscal agent agreements.
– Conduct pre-pricing, pricing and post-pricing conference calls with City Staff and underwriter reviewing market conditions, comparable sales, fees related to the refinancing and final sale results.
– Provide City staff with recent comparable sales from similar projects including information related to that project and the final sale coupons and yields.

City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 15 ends

– Be responsible and readily available to City staff (or designee) for the handling and answering of any and all questions, inquiries, and correspondence from interested persons referred to the Municipal Advisor by City staff (or designee) regarding the services provided by the Municipal Advisor. ▪ Disclosure Counsel. The scope of duties will include, but not be limited to, the following:
– Prepare the preliminary and final official statements. – Provide a “10b-5 Opinion" with respect to the preliminary and final official statements.
– Prepare all documents and materials necessary to comply with all applicable "continuing disclosure" requirements for the transaction. – Review, as necessary, applicable law and pertinent documents. – Attend City Council meetings when the debt obligation for which counsel is providing services is being considered. Participate in staff meetings, including post-issuance reviews, as requested, relating to the issuance of debt.

XIII. Market and Investor Relationships
▪ Rating Agencies and Investors. The City may, from time to time, choose to deal with only one or two of the following agencies as circumstances dictate: Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch IBCA.
▪ City Council Communication. As appropriate, the DOF shall provide feedback to the City Manager from rating agencies and/or investors regarding the City’s financial strengths and weaknesses and recommendations for addressing any weaknesses. ▪ Continuing Disclosure. The City shall remain in compliance with Rule 15c2-12 by filing its annual financial statements and other financial and operating data for the benefit of its bondholders.
▪ Rebate Reporting. The use of bond proceeds and their investments must be monitored to ensure compliance with arbitrage restrictions as contained in the Federal Tax Code. Existing regulations require that issuers calculate annual rebates, due for interest earnings on bond proceeds in excess of the interest rate on the bonds if any, with rebate, if due, paid every five years. Therefore, the DOF shall ensure that proceeds and investments are tracked in a manner which facilitates accurate calculation, that calculations are completed, and rebates, if any, are made in a timely City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 16 ends

manner.

Conduit Financings. The applicant must go through any Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of which the City is a member. Conduits, or Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), are (non-city) debt, therefore the City does not act as an issuer for conduit debt. The sole purpose of the JPA is to finance projects that promote economic development through the issuance of bonds.

Before bonds are issued, the federal tax laws under the TEFRA and Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code require the JPA member (City of Escalon) to 1) conduct a public hearing and 2) approve the JPA’s issuance of indebtedness.

XIV. Post Issuance Compliance
External Advisors / Documentation - The DOF and other appropriate City personnel shall consult with bond counsel and other legal counsel and advisors, as needed, throughout the Bond issuance process to identify requirements and to establish procedures necessary or appropriate so that the Bonds will continue to qualify for the appropriate tax status. Those requirements and procedures shall be documented in a City resolution(s), Tax Certificate(s) and/or other documents finalized at or before the issuance of the Bonds. Those requirements and procedures shall include future compliance with applicable arbitrage rebate requirements and all other applicable postissuance requirements of federal tax law throughout (and in some cases beyond) the term of the Bonds.

The DOF and other appropriate City personnel also shall consult with bond counsel and other legal counsel and advisors, as needed, following the issuance of the Bonds to ensure that all applicable post-issuance requirements in fact are met. This shall include, without limitation, consultation in connection with future contracts with respect to the use of bond-financed assets and future contracts with respect to the use of output or throughput of bond-financed assets.

Whenever necessary or appropriate, the City shall engage expert advisors (each a “Rebate Service Provider”) to assist in the calculation of arbitrage rebate payable in respect of the investment of Bond proceeds.

Role of the City as Bond Issuer - Unless otherwise provided by City resolutions, unexpended Bond proceeds shall be held by the City and the investment of Bond proceeds shall be managed by the DOF. The DOF shall maintain records and shall prepare regular, periodic statements to the City regarding the investments and transactions involving Bond proceeds.

If a City resolution provides for Bond proceeds to be administered by a trustee, the trustee shall provide regular, periodic (monthly) statements regarding the investments and transactions involving Bond proceeds.

Arbitrage Rebate and Yield - Unless a Tax Certificate documents that bond counsel has advised that arbitrage rebate will not be applicable to an issue of Bonds City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 17 ends

▪ the City shall engage the services of a Rebate Service Provider, and the City or the Bond trustee shall deliver periodic statements concerning the investment of Bond proceeds to the Rebate Service Provider on a prompt basis; ▪ upon request, the DOF and other appropriate City personnel shall provide to the Rebate Service Provider additional documents and information reasonably requested by the Rebate Service Provider;
▪ the DOF and other appropriate City personnel shall monitor efforts of the Rebate Service Provider and assure payment of required rebate amounts, if any, no later than 60 days after each 5-year anniversary of the issue date of the Bonds, and no later than 60 days after the last Bond of each issue is redeemed; and ▪ during the construction period of each capital project financed in whole or in part by Bonds, the DOF and other appropriate City personnel shall monitor the investment and expenditure of Bond proceeds and shall consult with the Rebate Service Provider to determine compliance with any applicable exceptions from the arbitrage rebate requirements during each 6-month spending period up to 6 months, 18 months or 24 months, as applicable, following the issue date of the Bonds.

The City shall retain copies of all arbitrage reports and trustee statements as described below under “Record Keeping Requirements.”
Use of Bond Proceeds - The DOF and other appropriate City personnel shall:
▪ monitor the use of Bond proceeds, the use of Bond-financed assets (e.g., facilities, furnishings or equipment) and the use of output or throughput of Bond-financed assets throughout the term of the Bonds (and in some cases beyond the term of the Bonds) to ensure compliance with covenants and restrictions set forth in applicable City resolutions and Tax Certificates;
▪ maintain records identifying the assets or portion of assets that are financed or refinanced with proceeds of each issue of Bonds;
▪ consult with Bond Counsel and other professional expert advisers in the review of any contracts or arrangements involving use of Bond-financed facilities to ensure compliance with all covenants and restrictions set forth in applicable City resolutions and Tax Certificates;
▪ maintain records for any contracts or arrangements involving the use of Bondfinanced facilities as might be necessary or appropriate to document compliance with all covenants and restrictions set forth in applicable City resolutions and Tax Certificates;
▪ meet at least annually with personnel responsible for Bond-financed assets to identify and discuss any existing or planned use of Bond-financed, assets or output or throughput of Bond-financed assets, to ensure that those uses are consistent with City of Riverbank
Capital Financing & Debt Management Policy

Page 18 ends

all covenants and restrictions set forth in applicable City resolutions and Tax Certificates.

All relevant records and contracts shall be maintained as described below.

Record Keeping Requirements - Unless otherwise specified in applicable City resolutions or Tax Certificates, the City shall maintain the following documents for the term of each issue of Bonds (including refunding Bonds, if any) plus at least three years:
▪ a copy of the Bond closing transcript(s) and other relevant documentation delivered to the City at or in connection with closing of the issue of Bonds; ▪ a copy of all material documents relating to capital expenditures financed or refinanced by Bond proceeds, including (without limitation) construction contracts, purchase orders, invoices, trustee requisitions and payment records, as well as documents relating to costs reimbursed with Bond proceeds and records identifying the assets or portion of assets that are financed or refinanced with Bond proceeds; ▪ a copy of all contracts and arrangements involving private use of Bond-financed assets or for the private use of output or throughput of Bond-financed assets; and ▪ copies of all records of investments, investment agreements, arbitrage reports and underlying documents, including trustee statements.

XV. Glossary for definition of terms www.investinginbonds.com

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 14.5 – CC-LRA 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.5
SECTION 14: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Authorization for Out of State Travel Request to have Sr.

Construction Inspector Attend 2023 Slurry Systems Workshop in Las Vegas, NV
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Kathleen Cleek, Development Services Administration Manager

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider providing authorization for an out-ofstate travel request for Peter Lolonis, Sr. Construction Inspector, to attend 2023 Slurry Systems Workshop in Las Vegas, NV on January 16 to January 19, 2023.

SUMMARY
The Slurry Systems Workshop is a study course offering a challenging and informative program on slurry seal, micro surfacing, chip seals and crack treatments with live operation demonstrations and workshop-type discussions. Highly qualified Pavement Preservation Specialists will cover topics on the previously listed processes, including materials and equipment, specifications, hand mixes, calibration, quality control and inspection. Attendees will also be able to view state of the art slurry, micro surfacing, chip seal and crack treatment equipment, independent of the paving demonstrations.

BACKGROUND
These workshops are not offered in California but are very beneficial as they offer not only demonstrations and discussions with a hands-on day where you actually work through each step of the slurry seal process from start to finish. This is the first workshop that the Sr. Construction Inspector will have attended in this magnitude. Measure L has provided significant revenues over the past several years that has allowed the City to fund multiple Slurry Seal Projects which have improved the safety of our streets.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 14.5 – CC-LRA 12/13/2022

STRATEGIC PLAN
Participation in this user conference will help support the Strategic Plan goals of:

1. Achieve and Maintain Financial Stability and Sustainability

2. Attract, Develop, and Retain Quality Staff

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The approximate costs are $1,190.56 which includes hotel accommodations, airfare, per diem, and conference registration. With the approved 22-23 Budget there is sufficient funding in account 101-412.000-706-038.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Slurry Systems Workshop Details
••ssA
MENU

IS THE ESSENCE OF
2023Slurry
Systems Workshop
FAQs
Pricing
Exam Information
Agenda
Hotel
Sponsors
ATTACHMENT 1
About the Slurry Systems Workshop
The Slurry Systems Workshop is a study course offering a challenging and informative program on slurry seal, micro surfacing, chip seals and crack treatments with live operation demonstrations and workshop-type discussions. Highly qualified Pavement Preservation Specialists will cover topics on the previously listed processes, including materials and equipment, specifications, hand mixes, calibration, quality control, and inspection. Attendees will also be able to view state of the art slurry, micro surfacing, chip seal and crack treatment equipment, independent of the paving demonstrations. With the ability to choose between a variety of sessions and tracks, there is something for everyone at the 2023 Slurry Systems Workshop.

Looking for something more interactive? Bring your work boots and be prepared to get dirty for this year's "Hands-On Day". We will start by diving into the details of slurry & micro equipment and then we will put you to work as a member of a micro crew for a day. You will have the opportunity to get hands-on with a micro surfacing paver as we discuss and demonstrate calibration, how to configure the paver to meet mix design requirements and the systems behind the covers that make it all work. Then we will move to a micro surfacing spreader box as we go over basics of operation and proper setup. We will put the equipment to work to produce mixes and recreate real world application scenarios. We will drop some piles of mix for hand work, demonstrate proper joint construction and go through various other situations and discuss best practices. Crowd participation is not just requested, it is required! We will have hand tools (squeegees, rakes, etc.) available and the equipment will be accessible for you to operate. Availability for this class is very limited and additional fees apply, so register today to save your spot! <
Frequently Asked Questions
What meals are included in my registration fees?
Continental Breakfast and Lunch are offered Tuesday, January 17, through Thursday, January 19, 2023. In addition, there is an Opening Reception with hors d'oeuvres on Monday, January 16, and a Bowling Reception with hors d'oeuvres on Tuesday, January 17. Attendees are on their own for dinner on Wednesday, January 18.

Registration Fees
Early Bird Registration is available until October 31, 2022. >
Questions regarding registration? Contact ISSA staff at 630.942.6577 or (mailto:[email protected]? subject=2023%20SSWS%3A %20Registration%20Question) [email protected] Santa Fe Station Hotel & Casino
4949 N Rancho Dr.

Las Vegas, NV 89130
Santa Fe Station offers the best combination of price and posh, just minutes from the Las Vegas Strip, with all new renovated rooms!
Room Rate Per Night: $75.00
Room rates increase for the nights of Saturday, January 14th and Friday, January 20th.

Contact /SSA Staff ( mailto:tessap@cmservices. com ?subject=ISSA %3A %20SSWS%20Hote/%20Rates) for more information.

Click below or call 866-767-7770 and use code ACISS23 to reserve your room.

BOOK NOW! {HTTPS://RESERVATIONS.SANTAFESTATION.COM/CGI-BIN/LANSAWEB? PROCFUN+RN+RESNET+SAN+FUNCPARMS+UP%28A2560%29:;ACISS23;;;;;;?/) Travel:

Santa Fe Station is approximately 25 miles from McCarran International Airport.

Average costs for transportation are:

Taxi: $50-65
Uber: $30-45
Interested in Becoming a Sponsor?
Contact ISSA Staff at [email protected] ([email protected]) for more information! Thank You Sponsors!

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 14.6 – CC/LRA 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.6
SECTION 14: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager, or His/Her Designee, to Act as the Authorized Representative to Sign and File, for and on behalf of the City of Riverbank, A Financial Assistance Application for a Financing Agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the Planning, Design, and
Construction of the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting a resolution which will authorize the City Manager to act as the Authorized Representative for the City of Riverbank to sign and file an application for Financial Assistance with the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project.

SUMMARY
This Resolution is a requirement of the submittal of a Financial Assistance Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for funding of the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project.

BACKGROUND
Upon completion of the City of Riverbank Recycled Water Production Study and Recycled Water Use Study reports and as directed by the City Council, applications for financial assistance for proceeding with the Phase I Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (RRRWP) have been prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).

To complete the CWSRF financial assistance application for project implementation, preparation of a Financial Security Package, a Wastewater (Sewer) Rate Study, and Recycled Water Fee Study, and completion of rate setting under the requirements of

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 14.6 – CC/LRA 12/13/2022
Prop. 218, were necessary. City staff along with our consultants from KSN, Inc., and Bartle Wells Associates have been coordinating the preparation of the Financial Assistance Application to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Tonight’s resolution will authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to sign and submit the Financial Assistance Application to the SWRCB for consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact directly associated with the adoption of this Resolution.

Should the City be awarded funding, staff will return with an agenda item formerly accepting the funds. Any grant funds received by the City for this project may have the potential of decreasing rates assessed to property owners.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2022-

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE, TO ACT AS THE

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO SIGN AND FILE, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, A FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION FOR A

FINANCING AGREEMENT FROM THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL

BOARD FOR THE PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE

RIVERBANK REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECT

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, in December 2019 the City was awarded grant funds from the State Water Resources Control Board to study and production and use of recycled water under a potential regional recycled water project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received the Draft Recycled Water Production and Use Study Report in June 2021 and authorized staff to proceed with submittal of the reports to the State Water Resources Control Board; and WHEREAS, the City Council provided further direction to staff to investigate and pursue grant and/or other low interest financing for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (RRRWP); and
WHEREAS, in January 2022 the City Council provided direction to staff to prepare a Financial Security Package, and a Wastewater (Sewer) Rate Study which are components of the Financial Assistance Application for financing from the State Water Resources Control Board; and
WHEREAS, city staff in coordination with assistance from KSN, Inc. and Bartle Wells Associates have been working on completing the Financial Assistance Application for submittal; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, or his/her designee, is the appropriate party to sign and submit the Financial Assistance Application on behalf of the City of Riverbank.

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

The City Manager (the "Authorized Representative") or designee is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the Entity, a Financial Assistance ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (the "Project").

This Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to provide the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance application, including executing a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto.

The Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to represent the Entity in carrying out the Entity's responsibilities under the financing agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the Entity and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor

CERTIFICATION
I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a Resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the City of Riverbank City Council held on December 13, 2022.
__________________________________
Name, Signature, and Seal of the Clerk of
the Governing Board of the Agency

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 14.7 – CC/LRA 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.7
SECTION 14: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: A Reimbursement Resolution Declaring the City’s Intent to Expect Reimbursement of Expenditures Paid Prior to the
Issuance of Obligations or the Approval by the State Water Board of Project Funds
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that that the City Council consider adopting a Reimbursement Resolution which states the City’s intention to expect reimbursement of expenditures paid prior to the issuance of any obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of Project Funding.

The resolution will allow the City to submit for reimbursement costs associated with the project that have been incurred prior to the issuance of Obligations (loans, bonds, etc.) or the approval of financing by the State Water Board.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 14.7 – CC/LRA 12/13/2022

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Any costs associated with the planning, design, or construction of the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project will be approved by the City Council at such time when the project is fully approved.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2022-

Page 1 of 3 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY’S INTENT

TO EXPECT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURES PAID PRIOR TO THE

ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS OR THE APPROVAL OF BY THE STATE WATER

BOARD OF PROJECT FUNDS

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, the City of Riverbank (“the Agency”) desires to finance the cost of constructing and/or reconstructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its water system, including certain treatment facilities, pipelines and other infrastructure (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Agency intends to finance the construction and/or reconstruction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board); and
WHEREAS, the State Water Board may fund the Project Funds with proceeds from the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes (the "Obligations"), and
WHEREAS, prior to either the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of the Project Funds the Agency desires to incur certain capital expenditures (the "Expenditures") with respect to the Project from available moneys of the Agency; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the Agency for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Obligations.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Agency hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse Expenditures paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of the Project Funds.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 3 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Project Funds is $7,896,000.

SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date on which the Agency will expend moneys for the construction portion of the Project costs to be reimbursed with Project Funds.

SECTION 4. Each Agency expenditure will be of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles.

SECTION 5. To the best of our knowledge, this Agency is not aware of the previous adoption of official intents by the Agency that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued.

SECTION 6. This resolution is adopted as official intent of the Agency in order to comply with Treasury Regulation §1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Project costs.

SECTION 7. All the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and this Agency so finds, determines, and represents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of _________, ____; motioned by Councilmember __________, seconded by Councilmember __________, and upon roll call was carried by the following City Council vote of ______:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor

Page 3 of 3 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

Page 1 of 4 ends

Item 15.1 – CC/LRA 12/13/2022

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL/ LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.1
SECTION 15: PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
Subject: Council Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project and Approving the Project
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Michael Riddell, Public Works Director

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends approval of Resolution 2022- adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and approve the Project based on the analysis presented below and based on the findings in the published Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project.

SUMMARY
The City of Riverbank (City) is proposing to implement the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (Project). The City and its consultant team have prepared three California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents: an Initial Study (IS), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The IS supports the determination in the MND and the MND and MMRP are ready to be formally adopted.

ANALYSIS
The action being presented to the City Council is to adopt the MND and MMRP for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project. As required under CEQA, the IS/proposed MND was prepared and circulated for public review. The full IS/MND and MMRP are available for public review at www.riverbank.org. Six comment letters or emails were received. The City has considered all comments, and minor revisions were made to the IS/MND to incorporate input from Mrs. Evelyn Halbert, and finalize the MND and MMRP, attached as Exhibit A to the draft Resolution 2022-XXX.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Item 15.1 – CC/LRA 12/13/2022
The Project would have potentially significant impacts on various resources, but mitigation measures are proposed to avoid or reduce these effects to less-than-significant levels.

Recommended mitigation measures are included in the MND and MMRP (see Exhibits A and C to Resolution 2022-XXX). Therefore, the City Council is asked to consider adopting the MND and MMRP and approve the Project.

The IS/proposed MND was publicly circulated beginning on September 21, 2022. The 30- day public review period ended on October 20, 2022. Six comment letters or emails were received during the public review period, as follows:
• Email dated September 21, 2022, from the San Joaquin Council of Governments;
• Email dated October 7, 2022, from Jami Aggers;
• Letter dated October 18, 2022, from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District;
• Letter dated October 20, 2022, from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board;
• Email dated October 20, 2022, from Evelyn Halbert; and • Email dated October 20, 2022, from Karen Conrotto.

The letters and responses are provided in Exhibit B to Resolution 2022-XXX. The letters do not identify any new or substantially more severe significant effects on the environment, nor do they offer evidence that would change the conclusions of the IS/MND. Although CEQA does not require consideration of comments received outside of the formal public review period, in the event that late comments are received prior to the City Council meeting, they will be presented by staff for consideration at the meeting.

Pursuant to CEQA, City Council must consider the MND and any comments received prior to approving the Project. If City Council finds that on the basis of the whole record there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and the MND reflects its independent judgment, City Council may adopt the MND, including the mitigation measures identified in the MND that are required to avoid or reduce all significant environmental effects to a less-than-significant level, and approve the Project. In adopting the MND, City Council must also adopt a MMRP to track the adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP is Exhibit C to Resolution 2022-XXX.

Resolution 2022-XXX makes the required findings, adopts the MND, adopts the MMRP, and approves the Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project would result in potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, transportation, and tribal cultural resources, but incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Page 3 of 4 ends

Item 15.1 – CC/LRA 12/13/2022
Environmental impacts associated with the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project were evaluated in the IS/MND that was prepared for the Project, which is available at www.riverbank.org. The project would have no impact related to agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, and recreation. The project would have a less-than-significant impact on aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, utilities and service systems and wildfire. The project would have potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, transportation, and tribal cultural resources, but with implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into the MND, these potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this project is subject to separate analysis and City Council consideration, separate from the physical effects of the project on the environment, which is the purview of CEQA.

STRATEGIC GOALS
This is directly related to the City’s Strategic Plan, which can be found at www.riverbank.org.

On March 20, 2017, the City Council established goals to achieve and maintain financial stability and sustainability, stabilize City systems, and expand economic development.

Through providing for a plan to expand wastewater treatment and disposal and potentially offset future costs for wastewater disposal, this action would address these matters.

The recommendation is consistent with supporting the City Council’s goals and adoption of the MND and MMRP and approval of the Project is consistent with past City Council actions. Past City council actions and opportunities for public input include the following City council meetings/workshops:

1. April 12, 2016, Regular Meeting of the City Council, with a presentation of a reconnaissance study of the opportunities for recycled water.

2. August 22, 2017, Regular Meeting of the City Council, presentation of the updated reconnaissance study with discussion of drivers for project including regulatory policy, capacity, and phasing.

3. October 10, 2017, Regular Meeting of the City Council, with authorization to submit applications for two planning grants to study recycled water.

4. August 25, 2020, Regular Meeting of the City Council, to present the draft recycled water studies/master plan analysis and solicit Council input.

5. October 27, 2020, Regular Meeting of the City Council providing a progress report on the recycled water study/master plan analysis and solicit additional input from the Council.

6. June 8, 2021, Regular Meeting of the City Council, presenting the public review drafts of the recycled water planning studies/master plan reports, including need for and benefits of the project.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Item 15.1 – CC/LRA 12/13/2022

7. September 14, 2021, Regular Meeting of the City Council, presenting the final reports for submittal to the State Water Resources Control Board.

8. September 27, 2022, Regular Meeting of the City Council, presenting the results of the preliminary design effort authorized by the Council at the February 22, 2022 meeting, including overall project need, scope and schedule with Council input to project phasing, with the currently planned phased project being consistent with the Project as described in the IS/MND.

PUBLIC NOTICE
On September 21, 2022, the City published notice of the hearing in the Modesto Bee and posted notice at City Hall North and South circulated the IS/MND for public review from September 21, 2022, through October 20, 2022.

ATTACHMENT

1. City Council Resolution 2022-XXX
(a) Exhibit A – Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project, November 2022
(b) Exhibit B – Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments and Summary of Text Changes
(c) Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project, November 2022 .

Page 1 of 3 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA

ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE RIVERBANK

REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECT AND APPROVING THE PROJECT

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, the City of Riverbank (City) is the lead agency for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes upgrade and expansion of the City of Riverbank’s existing wastewater treatment plant to serve planned growth in the City through the year 2050 and produce high quality (disinfected tertiary treated) recycled water for distribution to nearby landowners for irrigation of orchards; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Initial Study/proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that evaluates the environmental effects of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND was circulated for public review from September 21, 2022 through October 20, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND concluded that significant environmental effects on various resources would be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels by mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the comments received on the IS/MND, with responses to these comments, are attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND, attached hereto as Exhibit A, together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto as Exhibit C, constitute the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final MND); and
WHEREAS, the Riverbank City Council has considered the Final MND together with the comments received, and
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 3 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-
WHEREAS, the significant environmental effects identified in the Final MND can be reduced to a less-than-significant level or avoided by mitigation measures identified in the Final MND; and
WHEREAS, all other legal pre-requisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank does hereby:

1. The Riverbank City Council has independently considered the IS/MND (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and the comments received on the IS/MND as set forth in Exhibit B, and has considered the information contained therein prior to acting on the proposed Project.

2. The Riverbank City Council finds that the comments received do not require any major revisions to the IS/MND due to new or substantially more severe significant effects on the environment.

3. The Riverbank City Council hereby finds that the IS/MND was prepared, published, circulated, and considered in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete MND in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Riverbank City Council.

4. The Riverbank City Council finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

5. The Riverbank City Council hereby adopts the MND for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project.

6. The Riverbank City Council hereby adopts and incorporates into the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project all the mitigation measures identified in the MND.

7. The Riverbank City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

8. The City of Riverbank, City Clerk, located at 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367, shall be the custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.

Page 3 of 3 ends

CC/LRA – 12/13/2022
CC Resolution 2022-

9. The Riverbank City Council hereby approves the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project.

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk Mayor
Attachment(s):

1. Exhibit A – Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project, November 2022

2. Exhibit B – Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments and Summary of Text Changes

3. Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project, November 2022
November 2022

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Riverbank Regional Recycled
Water Project
PREPARED FOR:

City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
209.869.7128

EXHIBIT A

Page 1 of 1 ends

City of Riverbank
Public Works Department
2901 High Street, Riverbank, CA 95367
Office (209) 869-7128 FAX (209) 869-7045
PUBLISH DATE: September 21, 2022 LEGAL
DEPT: Public Works

CITY OF RIVERBANK

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
The City of Riverbank has prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). Based on the Initial Study, the City has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect because the City has incorporated mitigation measures into the project that would avoid significant effects or reduce the effects to an insignificant level. A public hearing for the proposed project to consider adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the project is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, December 13, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers at 6707 3rd Street, Suite B, Riverbank, CA 95367. Copies of the IS/MND are available for public review at www.riverbank.org, and at City of Riverbank City Hall, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, 95367.

PROJECT LOCATION: The City of Riverbank is located on the south side of the Stanislaus River along State Highway 108 in Stanislaus County 94 miles east of San Francisco, 75 miles south of Sacramento, 100 miles north of Fresno, and 108 miles west of Yosemite National Park. The project site is located at the Riverbank Wastewater Treatment Plant on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County at 23865 Santa Fe Road.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Riverbank proposes to upgrade and expand its existing wastewater treatment plant to produce high quality (disinfected tertiary treated) recycled water for use on nearby agricultural lands. The project would include construction of new preliminary, secondary, and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities and a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, installation of a recycled water distribution system, and expansion of treatment capacity to serve planned growth in the City through the year 2050. The City proposes to distribute the recycled water to two adjacent land owners that have expressed interest in receiving recycled water from the project for irrigation of walnut orchards.

MITIGATION MEASURES: The City has incorporated mitigation measures into the project for potentially significant project impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The City of Riverbank will accept public and agency comments on the IS/MND during a 30-day public review period starting on September 21, 2022, and closing on October 20, 2022.

Written comments will be accepted up until 5:00 pm on October 20, 2022. Comments may be delivered via e-mail to [email protected], or by postal service or hand delivery to the City of Riverbank, Public Works Department, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367, Attn: Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works.

PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing to consider adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the project is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, December 13, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 6707 Third Street, Suite B, Riverbank, CA 95367.

Meeting facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. Any person requiring special assistance to participate in the meeting should notify the Administration Dept. at (209) 863-7122 or [email protected] at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting. 20210199.01
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
Prepared for:

City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
209.869.7128
Contact: Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works
[email protected]
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.444.7301
Contact: Andrea L. Shephard, PhD, Senior Project Manager [email protected]
November 2022
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................... VI MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidance.......................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose of this Document ..............................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Public Review Process...................................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Document Organization ................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Background and Overview.............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Project Objectives............................................................................................................................................................. 2-3

2.4 Existing Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities ................................................................................................ 2-3

2.5 Existing Water Pollution Control Requirements .................................................................................................... 2-4

2.6 Proposed Project.............................................................................................................................................................. 2-8

2.7 Project Construction...................................................................................................................................................... 2-21

2.8 Project Operations ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-26

2.9 Required Permits and Project Approvals ............................................................................................................... 2-27 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...............................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-15

3.4 Biological Resources...................................................................................................................................................... 3-28

3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-49

3.6 Energy................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-54

3.7 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-59

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................................... 3-66

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................................... 3-73

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................................................................... 3-85

3.11 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................................................... 3-100

3.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................................................ 3-103

3.13 Noise................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-105

3.14 Population and Housing............................................................................................................................................. 3-117

3.15 Public Services ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-120

3.16 Recreation....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-123

3.17 Transportation............................................................................................................................................................... 3-126

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 3-132

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................................................... 3-136

3.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-150

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................................................... 3-156 4 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act......................................................................................................... 4-1 Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
ii Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.2 Clean Air Act .......................................................................................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Coastal Barrier Resources Act......................................................................................................................................4-4

4.4 Coastal Zone Management Act...................................................................................................................................4-4

4.5 Endangered Species Act................................................................................................................................................4-4

4.6 Environmental Justice .....................................................................................................................................................4-5

4.7 Farmland Protection Policy Act ...................................................................................................................................4-9

4.8 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act........................................................................................................................... 4-10

4.9 Floodplain Management.............................................................................................................................................. 4-10

4.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act..................................................................4-11

4.11 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .............................................................................................................................................4-11

4.12 National Historic Preservation Act............................................................................................................................ 4-12

4.13 Protection of Wetlands................................................................................................................................................. 4-12

4.14 Rivers and Harbors Act................................................................................................................................................. 4-13

4.15 Safe Drinking Water Act and Sole Source Aquifer Protection........................................................................ 4-13

4.16 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.......................................................................................................................................... 4-13 5 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................................................................5-1 6 REPORT PREPARERS .................................................................................................................................................................6-1 Appendices
Appendix A – Project Construction Assumptions
Appendix B – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Modeling Assumptions and Results Appendix C – Botanical and Wildlife Species Evaluated for the Potential to Occur on the Project Site Appendix D – Noise Modeling Assumptions and Results
Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2 Riverbank WWTP – Existing Site Layout...................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3 Proposed Project..............................................................................................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-4 Riverbank WWTP – Proposed Upgrades................................................................................................................ 2-15 Figure 2-5 Riverbank WWTP – Proposed Process Flow Diagram........................................................................................2-17 Figure 3.4-1 Project Features and Land Cover.............................................................................................................................. 3-31 Figure 3.10-1 Flood Zones......................................................................................................................................................................3-93 Tables
Table 2-1 Pond Freeboard Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Table 2-2 Potential Recycled Water Use Areas..........................................................................................................................2-8 Table 2-3 Projected Flows and Loads by 2050 .........................................................................................................................2-11 Table 2-4 Proposed WWTP and Associated Storage and Distribution Facility Improvements............................... 2-12 Table 2-5 Project Construction Sequence and Durations.................................................................................................... 2-21 Table 2-6 Monthly Crop Irrigation Volume per Acre.............................................................................................................2-26 Table 2-7 Irrigation Delivery at 1.6 mgd and 2.29 mgd of Recycled Water Production............................................2-27 Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iii Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................... 3-16 Table 3.3-2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants ..........................................................................................3-17 Table 3.3-3 Summary of Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors ................. 3-24 Table 3.3-4 Summary of Operations-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors..................... 3-25 Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Species Known or with the Potential to Occur in the Project Site ................................... 3-34 Table 3.7 1 Soil Types in the Areas of Ground Disturbance................................................................................................... 3-61 Table 3.8-1 Summary of Construction-Generated GHG Emissions...................................................................................... 3-70 Table 3.8-2 Summary of Operational GHG Emissions ...............................................................................................................3-71 Table 3.13-1 FICON Significance of Change in Noise Exposure............................................................................................ 3-105 Table 3.13-2 FTA Indoor Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Vibration Assessment................... 3-106 Table 3.13-3 FTA Construction Damage Vibration Criteria..................................................................................................... 3-106 Table 3.13-4 County of San Joaquin Acceptable Noise Levels by Land Use..................................................................... 3-107 Table 3.13-5 San Joaquin County Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Noise Source (Part II)........ 3-108 Table 3.13-6 [City of Riverbank] Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Transportation Noise Sources at Noise-Sensitive Land Uses ................................................................................................................................... 3-109 Table 3.13-7 [City of Riverbank] Performance Standards for New Projects Affected By, or Including, NonTransportation Noise Sources................................................................................................................................... 3-110 Table 3.13-8 [City of Riverbank] Noise Level Performance Standards for Non-Transportation Noise Sources.............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-111 Table 3.13-9 Existing Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................ 3-112 Table 3.13-10 Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment...................................................................................... 3-113 Table 3.13-11 Estimated Temporary Noise Levels During Selected Construction Phase................................................. 3-113 Table 4-1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status .................................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2 De Minimis Thresholds for Determining Applicability of General Conformity Requirements for Federal Actions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin...................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3 Summary of Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors ................... 4-3 Table 4-4 Environmental Justice Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 4-6 Table 4-5 Demographics of the Environmental Justice Study Area, San Joaquin County, and Stanislaus County.................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-7 Table 4-6 Income and Poverty Status in the Environmental Justice Study Area, San Joaquin County, and Stanislaus County .................................................................................................................................................... 4-8 City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius
AAQA ambient air quality analysis
AB Assembly Bill
ADWF average dry weather flow
AFV alternative fuel vehicle
AFY acre-feet per year
Alquist-Priolo Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AWMP agricultural water management plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACT Best Available Control Technology
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins BAU business-as-usual
bgs below the ground surface
BMP best management practice
BOD biological oxygen demand
BPS Best Performance Standards
CAA federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFÉ corporate average fuel economy
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCaIC Central California Information Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration v CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
City City of Riverbank
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies
CV-SALTS Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability CWA Clean Water Act
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
cy cubic yard
DAF dissolved air flotation
dBA A-weighted decibels
DDW State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water diesel PM particulate matter exhaust from diesel engines District South San Joaquin Irrigation District
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOT US Department of Transportation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EGU electric generating unit
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPAct Energy Policy Act of 1992
ESA federal Endangered Species Act
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPP Farmland Protection Program
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FR Federal Register
List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
vi Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FTA Federal Transit Administration
gal gallon
General Order Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use (Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW) GHG greenhouse gas
GMF granular media filtration
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpm gallons per minute
GSA groundwater sustainability agency
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCP habitat conservation plan
Hot Spots Act Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 hp horsepower
HRA health risk assessment
IEPR integrated energy policy report
IFI Important Farmlands Inventory
in/sec inches per second
IS/MND initial study/mitigated negative declaration
kWh kilowatt hours
lb/day pounds per day
Leq hourly equivalent sound level
LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
LHMP local hazard mitigation plan
Lmax maximum instantaneous levels
mg/L milligrams per liter
mgal million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
MID Modesto Irrigation District
mL milliliters
MPN most probable number
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MTCO2e million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration vii NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSR New Source Review
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O3 ozone
OES Office of Emergency Services
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCC Public Contract Code
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
project Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB regional water quality control board
SB Senate Bill
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
viii Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMARA California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SNMP Salt and Nitrate Management Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOX oxides of sulfur
SR State Routes
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSJID South San Joaquin Irrigation District
SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAC toxic air contaminant
TMDL total maximum daily load
tpy tons per year
TSS total suspended solids
TTC temporary traffic control
Unified Program Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UV ultraviolet light
VdB vibration decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WQO Water Quality Objective
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT: RIVERBANK REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECT
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF RIVERBANK
Under CEQA, the lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility for approval of the project. The City of Riverbank (City) is the CEQA lead agency because it is responsible for implementation and operation of the Riverbank Regional Recycle Water Project (project).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The project includes upgrades to the existing Riverbank Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), located on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County. Project improvements would include construction of new preliminary, secondary, and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities, construction of a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, and installation of a recycled water distribution system to initially serve nearby agricultural users. To support these facility improvements, the project would include interconnecting piping, utility and backup power supply improvements, and site grading and drainage improvements. In addition, new electrical and controls buildings, as well as shop and maintenance buildings, would be constructed at the site to support the expanded WWTP. Upon completion, the proposed facilities would treat up to 2.29 million gallons per day average dry weather flow and produce and deliver up to approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year of Title 22 recycled water at an approximate maximum rate of 4,350 gallons per minute. These improvements are needed to meet the requirements for Title 22 unrestricted recycled water use, provide wastewater treatment adequate to treat City wastewater flows and loads projected by 2050, provide for expandable recycled water treatment and storage capacity, and produce and distribute recycled water to the potential agricultural use areas.

FINDINGS
An Initial Study has been prepared to assess the project’s potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project would not have any significant effects on the environment once mitigation measures are implemented. The conclusion is supported by the following findings:

1. The project would have no impact related to agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, and recreation.

2. The project would have a less-than-significant impact on aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, utilities and service systems and wildfire.

3. Mitigation is required to reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, transportation, and tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant levels.

The City shall implement the following mitigation measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.

Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the environmental impacts of the project to a less-thansignificant level.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Ascent Environmental City of Riverbank
2 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle To avoid and minimize project impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP, and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 Indirect impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle will be minimized by implementing the following:
 All elderberry shrubs to be avoided during construction activities will be fenced or flagged as close to construction limits as possible.
 A minimum avoidance area of at least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant will be maintained to avoid direct impacts that could damage or kill the plant.  A qualified biologist will provide training for all contractors, work crews, and any onsite personnel on the status of valley elderberry longhorn beetle, its host plant and habitat, the need to avoid damaging the elderberry shrubs, and the possible penalties for non-compliance.  A qualified biologist will inspect the work area prior to commencement of construction and will monitor the work area at project-appropriate intervals to assure that all avoidance and minimization measures are implemented.  Project activities, such as truck traffic or other use of machinery, will not create excessive dust on the project site, such that the growth or vigor of elderberry shrubs is adversely affected. Enforcement of a speed-limit and watering dirt roadways are potential methods to minimize excessive dust creation.  Herbicides will not be used within the dripline of any elderberry shrub. Insecticides will not be used within 98 feet of any elderberry shrub. All chemicals will be applied using a backpack sprayer or similar direct application method. Mechanical weed removal within the dripline of any elderberry shrub will be limited to the season when adults are not active (August – February) and will avoid damaging the elderberry.  Following completion of construction, affected areas will be returned to pre-project conditions.  If avoidance of elderberry shrubs is not feasible, the health and vigor of the shrubs could be damaged, which could result in death or injury to valley elderberry longhorn beetles. The City will obtain approval from the San Joaquin Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP or consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA to obtain take coverage and implement required conservation and minimization measures. No elderberry shrub will be trimmed or removed until authorization has been issued. Conservation and minimization measures will include, but may not be limited to, the following:
 Elderberry shrubs that would be directly impacted will be transplanted to a USFWS approved mitigation site during the dormant period for elderberry shrubs (November 1 through February 15).  If elderberry shrubs without evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes cannot be transplanted, the City will provide compensation within SJMSCP Preserves or other USFWS approved mitigation site at a ratio of at least three new plants for each stem 1 inch in diameter or greater at ground level.  If elderberry shrubs with evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes cannot be transplanted, the City will provide compensation within SJMSCP Preserves or other USFWS approved mitigation site at a ratio of at least six new plants for each stem 1 inch in diameter or greater at ground level.

Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on valley elderberry longhorn beetle from construction and operation of the project by implementing construction setbacks from elderberry shrubs, and protecting shrubs from indirect impacts or transplanting shrubs and providing compensation for removal of shrubs consistent with the SJMSCP, or conservation measures developed in consultation with USFWS. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the SJMSCP, dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Ascent Environmental Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects on the viability of the species, and the impact to valley elderberry longhorn beetle would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Western Pond Turtle To avoid potentially significant impacts on western pond turtle, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a). All mitigation listed below will be limited to construction within 0.3 mile of suitable aquatic habitat:
 A preconstruction survey for western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours of commencing work in aquatic habitat suitable for the species. If no pond turtles are observed, no further mitigation is necessary.
 During draining of the existing water storage ponds within the WWTP associated with construction of the project, a qualified biologist shall be present to monitor for presence of western pond turtles. If pond turtles are observed, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall relocate pond turtles to the nearest area with suitable aquatic habitat that will not be disturbed by project-related construction activities (i.e., Stanislaus River).  If nesting areas for pond turtles are identified on the project site, a no-disturbance buffer area of 300 feet shall be established around the nesting site (which may be immediately adjacent to the river or extend up to 400 feet away from the river in uplands). These buffers shall be indicated by temporary fencing if construction has or will begin before nesting periods have ended. (The period from egg laying to emergence of hatchlings is normally April to November.)
Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on western pond turtle from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around nesting sites consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the viability of local or regional populations of the species, and the impact to western pond turtle would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Ascent Environmental City of Riverbank
4 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  If an occupied Swainson’s hawk nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, a 0.25-mile no-disturbance buffer will be established. If an occupied Cooper’s hawk, osprey, or white-tailed kite nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be established around the nest. All project activities will be avoided within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active or that the young have fully fledged.
 If a Swainson’s hawk nest tree becomes occupied during construction activities, then all construction activities shall remain a distance of two times the dripline of the tree, measured from the nest, and the nest shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If construction activities cause the nesting bird to vocalize, make defensive flights at intruders, get up from a brooding position, or fly off the nest, then the no-disturbance buffer shall be increased until the agitated behavior ceases.

Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on Swainson’s hawk Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around occupied nesting sites consistent with the SJMSCP or conservation measures developed in consultation with CDFW. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to Swainson’s hawk Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and whitetailed kite to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the viability of the local or regional populations of the species, and the impact to Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Other Special-Status Birds To avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler nests; burrowing owl burrows; black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret and tricolored blackbird colonies, the City may obtain approval from San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for any project activity that would occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–August 31) within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat for special-status birds, including shrubs, riparian vegetation, trees, and barren areas within the WWTP, access road, and pipeline alignment. The survey shall be conducted within 14 days before project activity begins.  If no black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, or tricolored blackbird colonies, or other special-status nesting birds are found, no further mitigation is required.  If active black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, or tricolored blackbird colonies are found, a qualified biologist shall establish a setback of 500 feet from colonial nesting areas for these species, which shall be established and maintained during the nesting season for the period encompassing nest building and continuing until fledglings leave nests. This setback applies whenever construction or other ground-disturbing activities must begin during the nesting season in the presence of nests that are known to be occupied. Setbacks shall be marked by brightly colored temporary fencing.  If active burrowing owl burrows or California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, song sparrow, yellow-breasted chat, or yellow warbler nests are found, a qualified biologist shall establish a setback of 500 feet from the California horned lark nest, 250 feet from the burrowing owl burrow, or 100 feet from the loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, or yellow warbler nest as applicable, during the nesting season (February 1–August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive means that the birds have not begun egg laying, or Ascent Environmental Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 that juveniles from the occupied burrows or nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. For burrowing owls, once the fledglings are capable of independent survival the owls may be evicted using passive relocation as described in the California Department of Fish and Game’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on specialstatus birds from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around active nests consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to special-status birds to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org.

Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of specialstatus birds, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Common Raptors and Other Nesting Birds The City will implement the following measures to avoid impacts to common raptors and other common nesting birds.  A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for any project activity that would occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–August 31) within suitable nesting habitat for common raptors and other nesting birds, including shrubs, riparian vegetation, trees, and barren areas within the WWTP, access road, and pipeline alignment. The survey shall be conducted within 14 days before project activity begins.  If occupied nests are identified during the preconstruction survey, the qualified biologist shall determine and establish an appropriate no-disturbance buffer based on bird species; listing status; and other factors, including distance from construction activity, type and duration of construction, and whether the nest is within the line of sight of construction activity. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if the qualified biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Project activities will be avoided within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active or that the young have fully fledged.

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-5, the City would avoid and minimize disturbance of nests through pre-construction surveys and non-disturbance buffers around active nests. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of common raptors and other nesting birds, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Western Red Bat Roosts To avoid and minimize impacts to special-status bat roosts, the City may obtain approval from San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 Within 14 days prior to initiating work, a qualified bat biologist will inspect the portions of the project site where ground disturbance would occur (i.e., north access road, distribution pipeline alignment, WWTP) and adjacent areas (within 250 feet) for bat roosts (mature trees in the riparian woodland, and mixed oak woodland portions of the project site). Surveys will consist of a daytime pedestrian survey looking for evidence of bat use (e.g., guano) and/or an evening emergence survey to note the presence or absence of bats within potential roosts. If no bat roosts are found, then no further mitigation will be required.  If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost will be determined. Acoustic bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts if needed to determine the species of roosting bats, but are not required.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Ascent Environmental City of Riverbank
6 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  If an active western red bat maternity roost is detected, an avoidance buffer of 250-feet will be maintained from May 1 until young are flying (typically through August).  If roosts of western red bat are determined to be present within the project site and within 250 feet of construction, work may be performed within a 250-foot buffer of the roost outside of the breeding season (May 1 through August 31) when the daytime temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit or greater.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Protect Unanticipated Archaeological Resource Discoveries In the event that a prehistoric archeological site (such as any unusual amounts of stone, bone, or shell) or a historicperiod archaeological site (such as concentrated deposits of bottles or bricks, amethyst glass, or other historic refuse), is uncovered during grading or other construction activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. The City will be notified of the potential find and a qualified archeologist shall be retained to investigate its significance. If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the geographically and culturally affiliated Native American group shall be notified and Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 shall be implemented. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the California Register of Historical Resources standards of significance for cultural resources, construction may proceed.

If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall work with the City to follow accepted professional standards such as further testing for evaluation or data recovery, as necessary. If artifacts are recovered from significant historic archaeological resources, they shall be housed at a qualified curation facility. The results of the identification, evaluation, and/or data recovery program for any unanticipated discoveries shall be presented in a professional-quality report that details all methods and findings, evaluates the nature and significance of the resources, and analyzes and interprets the results.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce impacts to archaeological cultural resources to a lessthan-significant level by requiring implementation of preservation options and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.

Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Retain Qualified Paleontologist to Conduct Project Design Review Prior to completion of project design and the beginning of construction, the City of Riverbank shall retain a qualified paleontologist to review the project plans and all geotechnical reports to determine whether construction activities would affect native sediments containing sensitive paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist will provide Ascent Environmental Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 these findings in writing and provide recommendations for paleontological monitoring during construction, if necessary. If the project would not disturb native soils, no further action would be necessary.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Prepare Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan In the event that construction activities occur in native sediments identified as being sensitive for paleontological resources, the City of Riverbank shall retain a qualified paleontologist to prepare a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The PMP will be prepared prior to construction and will include requirements for paleontological resource monitoring to inspect exposed rock units during active excavations within geologically sensitive sediments.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Conduct Paleontological Monitoring In the event that construction activities occur in native sediments identified as being sensitive for paleontological resources, the City of Riverbank shall retain a qualified paleontologist prior to construction to monitor grading and trenching activities during construction of the project. The paleontological monitor will have authority to temporarily divert ground-disturbing activities away from exposed fossils to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. If potentially significant paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the contractor will stop all work within 60 feet of the discovery until the paleontological monitor can remove the fossils and retrieve associated data. If fossils are collected, they will be transported to a paleontological laboratory for processing where they will be prepared to the point of identification, identified by qualified experts, and listed in a database to facilitate analysis. If discovered, significant specimens will be deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility.

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and 3.7-3, the City would avoid and minimize the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site by implementing paleontological design review, preparing a PMP, conducting paleontological monitoring, and in the event paleontological resources are discovered, by providing data retrieval, fossil collection and processing, and curation as appropriate. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on potentially significant paleontological resources, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Transportation
Mitigation Measure 3.17-1: Prepare and Implement a Temporary Traffic Control Plan Before project construction is begun in any existing public roadway rights-of-way, the City of Riverbank shall coordinate with the agency with jurisdictional control of the affected roadway (e.g., County of San Joaquin) to determine the required process, permits, and approvals. Additionally, the construction coordinator shall prepare a temporary traffic control (TTC) plan in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and to the satisfaction of the appropriate agency. The TTC plan shall be subject to review by all affected agencies and, at a minimum, shall:
 describe the proposed work zone (e.g., include a site plan and vicinity map showing right-of-way lines, the centerline, the edge of pavements, the curb, the gutter, the sidewalk, and all existing utilities);  describe the type of work and location clearly (e.g., dimensions relative to the right-of-way, centerline, edge of pavement);
 describe detours and/or lane closures if applicable;
 identify the need for flag-persons where warranted;
 describe appropriate tapers and lengths, signs, and spacing;  describe appropriate channelization devices and spacing;  identify work hours/work days;
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Ascent Environmental City of Riverbank
8 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  identify proposed speed limit changes if applicable;
 describe roadways affected by the work;
 describe trucks, including the number and size of trucks per day, expected arrival/departure times, and truck circulation patterns;
 identify all staging areas; and
 ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access to all surrounding parcels and properties is maintained at all times.

Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.17-1 would reduce temporary traffic hazards associated with project construction by requiring coordination between the City and San Joaquin County, which has jurisdiction over an affected roadway, and requiring that the construction contractor prepare and implement a TTC plan that meets with the approval of that agency. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.17-1, the project would not substantially increase traffic hazards and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.17-1: Prepare and Implement a Temporary Traffic Control Plan Mitigation Measure 3.17-1 shall be implemented, as described above.

Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.17-1 would reduce temporary impacts associated with emergency access by requiring the construction contractor to prepare and implement a TTC plan that meets with the approval of San Joaquin County, the agency with jurisdiction over the affected roadways, and ensures that adequate emergency vehicle access to all surrounding parcels and properties is maintained at all times. Therefore, the potentially significant impact on emergency access would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.18-1: Protect Unanticipated Discoveries of Potential Tribal Cultural Resources If any suspected tribal cultural resources, including midden soil, artifacts, chipped stone, exotic rock (nonnative), or unusual amounts of baked clay, shell, or bone, are discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find. Appropriate tribal representative(s) shall be immediately notified and shall determine whether the find is a tribal cultural resource (pursuant to PRC Section 21074). If the find is determined to be a tribal cultural resource, the appropriate tribal representative(s) will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary. If the find is determined not to be a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074, construction may proceed.

Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA and the tribes’ protocols, and every effort must be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign. Culturally appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, or returning objects to a location within the project vicinity where they will not be subject to future impacts. Tribes do not consider curation of tribal cultural resources to be appropriate or respectful and request that materials not be permanently curated unless approved by the tribal representative. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a tribal cultural resource may include tribal monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil (soils containing and surrounding the discovery).

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.18-1 would reduce impacts on tribal cultural resources by requiring appropriate treatment and proper care of significant tribal cultural resources, in the case of a discovery. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION
This initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Riverbank (City) to evaluate potential environmental effects resulting from implementing the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (project). Chapter 2, “Project Description,” presents the detailed project information.

1.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDANCE
This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). An IS is prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[a]) and thus to determine the appropriate environmental document. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration when: (a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposal are agreed to by the applicant and such revisions would reduce potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level. In this circumstance, the lead agency prepares a written statement describing its reasons for concluding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). By contrast, an EIR is required when the project may have a significant environmental impact that cannot clearly be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adopting mitigation or by making revisions to the project design.

As described in the environmental checklist (Chapter 3), with mitigation incorporated, implementing the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, an IS/Proposed MND is the appropriate document for compliance with the requirements of CEQA. This IS/Proposed MND conforms to these requirements and to the content requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15071.

Under CEQA, the lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility for approving the project. The City is the CEQA lead agency because it has primary responsibility for approving and carrying out the project.

The project may receive financial assistance from the federal Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. This program is administered nationally by the US Environmental Protection Agency, and in certain instances, the administration has been delegated to the states. In California, administration of the CWSRF program has been delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). In turn, SWRCB requires that all projects being considered under the CWSRF program must comply with CEQA and certain federal environmental protection laws. SWRCB refers to these requirements collectively as “CEQAPlus.” Therefore, this IS/Proposed MND has been prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Review Process for the State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (SWRCB 2017), and its content is expanded beyond the typical requirements of an IS to include additional CEQA-Plus information in the IS analysis and associated appendices. (See Chapter 4, “Compliance with Federal Regulations,” for a complete list of federal laws addressed in compliance with CWSRF program requirements.) SWRCB, as a responsible agency for the project, will consider this CEQA document before any CWSRF loan authorization.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects. An MND, which requires inclusion of an IS, is a public document used by the decision-making lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If the agency finds that the project as proposed may have a significant adverse impact on the environment but that the impact would be clearly reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of specific mitigation measures, an MND shall be prepared.

Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
1-2 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This IS/Proposed MND is a public information document that describes the project, existing environmental setting at the project site, and potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of the project. It is intended to inform the public and decision makers of the project’s compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and CWSRF program requirements.

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
This IS/Proposed MND is being made available to the public for review and comment at www.riverbank.org. It will be available for a 30-day public review period from Wednesday, September 21, 2022, to Thursday, October 20, 2022.

Supporting documentation referenced in this document is available for review at:

City of Riverbank
City Hall
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Comments should be addressed to:

Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works
City of Riverbank
Public Works Department
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
E-mail comments may be addressed to [email protected] and must be received by 5:00 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2022.

If you wish to mail written comments, they must be postmarked no later than Thursday, October 20, 2022.

After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, the City may (1) adopt the MND and approve the project, (2) undertake additional environmental studies, or (3) abandon the project. If the project is approved and funded, the project proponent may proceed with the project.

1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS/Proposed MND is organized as follows:
 Mitigated negative declaration: The proposed MND identifies the project and lead agency, and briefly summarizes the proposed project and findings of the IS.  Chapter 1, “Introduction”: This chapter introduces the environmental review process and describes the purpose and organization of this IS/Proposed MND.
 Chapter 2, “Project Description”: This chapter provides the project background; identifies the basic project objectives; provides a detailed description of the project, including construction and operations; and identifies potential required permits and approvals.
 Chapter 3, “Environmental Checklist”: This chapter presents an analysis of a range of environmental issues identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and determines for the different issues whether project actions would result in no impact, a less-than-significant impact, a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated, or a potentially significant impact. If any impacts were determined to be potentially significant, an EIR would be required.

For this project, however, none of the impacts were determined to be potentially significant.  Chapter 4, “Compliance with Federal Regulations”: This chapter provides a discussion of compliance with federal executive orders and regulations required for CEQA-Plus compliance.  Chapter 5, “References”: This chapter lists the references used to prepare this IS/Proposed MND.  Chapter 6, “Report Preparers”: This chapter identifies the individuals who prepared this IS/Proposed MND.

City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City of Riverbank (City) is proposing to expand capacity at its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to accommodate future growth. The existing WWTP treats effluent to an equivalent secondary level and discharges the treated effluent to land on the WWTP site where it is disposed through percolation and evaporation. There are no existing water rights for reuse of the treated effluent. The treatment capacity of the WWTP is currently limited to approximately 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd) and capacity of the existing disposal ponds is limited.

Wastewater flows to the Riverbank WWTP are projected to increase up to approximately 6 mgd at city buildout. To accommodate growth, the WWTP facilities would need to be expanded, which would require consideration of a new permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The existing process of effluent disposal through percolation to groundwater would also likely be subject to regulation under the newly enacted Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability program as included in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan) through the Salt and Nitrate Control Program Basin Plan Amendments (CVRWQCB 2019, 2020). Although the WWTP is not located in a Priority 1 groundwater basin, it is likely to be subject to the nitrogen management requirements of this program in the near future. In addition, further improvements to the treatment method may be required based on water quality requirements. Therefore, new and/or expanded means of treatment and effluent disposal, including reuse, are needed to accommodate future growth in the city.

The WWTP, which is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County within the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, is surrounded by agricultural lands to the north, east, and west. A significant cone of depression that exists within the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin east of Stockton has led to the overall decline in groundwater levels in the subbasin north of the WWTP site. The project, which involves upgrade and expansion of the Riverbank WWTP to accommodate growth in the city through 2050 and produce disinfected tertiary recycled water, would create a source of high-quality irrigation water that could contribute to greater water balance in the subbasin by replacing some of the groundwater that would otherwise be used for irrigation.

The project involves upgrades to the existing city WWTP, including new secondary and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities, construction of a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, and installation of a recycled water distribution system to initially serve nearby agricultural users.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The city of Riverbank is located on the south side of the Stanislaus River along State Route 108 in Stanislaus County, 94 miles east of San Francisco, 75 miles south of Sacramento, 100 miles north of Fresno, and 108 miles west of Yosemite National Park. The City WWTP is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County at 23865 Santa Fe Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 247-260-02, 247-250-04, and 247-250-22). Agricultural lands that would receive recycled water in the near term are located adjacent to the WWTP. The project location is shown in Figure 2-1.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-2 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Source: Prepared by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-1 Project Location
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-3

2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed project has the following objectives:
 Provide wastewater treatment capacity to serve projected population growth in the city of Riverbank over a 30-year planning horizon.
 Maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater from the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin for irrigation.
 Produce treated wastewater that meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water under the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 to achieve a high degree of grower acceptability.  Provide a scalable recycled water delivery system that may be expanded in the future as the availability of and demand for recycled water increases.
 Provide efficient and cost-effective wastewater services to the city of Riverbank.

2.4 EXISTING WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES
This section describes the city’s existing wastewater characteristics, treatment process, and treatment facilities.

2.4.1 Existing Flows and Loads
The City WWTP serves the approximately 2,485-acre city of Riverbank, the population of which in 2021 was approximately 25,243 people (City of Riverbank 2022).

Influent to the WWTP includes flows from currently and historically active industrial discharges and domestic wastewater sources. The largest industrial dischargers include Compass Foods, Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant Local Redevelopment Authority, and Stanislaus Cheese. Domestic wastewater sources include residential, institutional, public facility, and commercial sources. Unit wastewater generation rates in the city range from 55 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 63 gpcd. (KSN 2022a)
Influent wastewater flows (flows into the plant) from the city are affected by seasonal events. During the wet season, infiltration and inflow (I/I) (e.g., rainfall and groundwater seeping through cracks into sewer pipes or through other utility access points) increase influent to the plant; during dry-period flows, occurring predominantly in July, August, and September, flows are lower. Recent annual average flows have ranged from 1.49 million mgd to 1.61 mgd (KSN 2022a).

Seasonal increases in wastewater flows resulting from I/I typically occur in the months of December through March, but with occasional increases in influent flows occurring as late as May. Seasonal peak flows typically occur during very heavy rain periods, resulting in peak influent flows reaching more than 4.0 mgd. During the winter season, peak day influent flows frequently reach 2.3 to more than 3.0 mgd (KSN 2022a).

Annual average influent concentrations of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS), which range from 236 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 428 mg/L and from 144 mg/L to 340 mg/L, respectively, are generally consistent with wastewater strength associated with a mixture of primarily residential flows with some commercial and industrial contribution (KSN 2022a).

2.4.2 Existing Treatment Facilities
Existing facilities at the City’s 150-acre WWTP consist of a headworks system, two aerated treatment ponds, two polishing ponds, eight evaporation/percolation ponds, 13 groundwater monitoring wells, and associated piping and mechanical components. Figure 2-2 shows the layout of the existing WWTP. Flow is gravity fed through the system and controlled with system valving/piping. The WWTP is operated and maintained by one supervisor and two maintenance workers. Most of the WWTP facilities were constructed before the 1990s, and upgrades were made to the ponds in the early 2010s and to the aeration system in the mid-2010s (KSN and BC 2022).

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-4 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration A trestle over the Stanislaus River connects the City’s sewer system to the WWTP. The collection system consists of 66 miles of gravity pipe and 10 sewer pump stations. The current average wastewater flow into the facility is approximately 1.6 mgd.

The headworks of the facility includes two parallel influent channels, each about 2.5 feet wide by 3 feet deep. One of the channels is equipped with a grinder, mechanical screen, screenings compactor, and Parshall flume with bubbler tube for flow metering. The second channel is equipped with a manual bar rack used as a bypass of the grinder and screen. The bypass channel is used during peak influent conditions (high rainfall events), when instantaneous inflow can exceed the Parshall flume’s ability to reliably measure flows above 7 mgd. Because of the uncertainty of measurement in peak flows, it is anticipated that current peak wet weather flows may reach as high as 10 mgd. A composite autosampler is used to sample WWTP influent for water quality monitoring.

From the headworks, wastewater is directed to ponds T-1 and T-2 for treatment (see Figure 2-2). These ponds operate in series as completely mixed aerated treatment ponds using the Biolac aeration system, which consists of four blowers, and numerous fine-bubble diffusers (tube assemblies) attached to moving chains that facilitate mixing and aeration of the wastewater. Each pond has a synthetic lining and was designed for a hydraulic retention time of

7.72 days (15.4 days total).

Effluent from the aerated ponds flows from pond T-2 to polishing ponds T-3 or T-4, and then the effluent from ponds T-3 and T-4 is disposed of by percolation and evaporation in ponds P-2 through P-9 (see Figure 2-2). Ponds T-3 and T-4 are equipped with mechanical surface aerators. Pond T-3 has three 75-horsepower (hp) aerators, and T4 has two 75-hp aerators. Effluent from pond T-3 is conveyed to pond T-4 and then flows into pond P-2, from which it is diverted to ponds P-3 through P-9 from various points within pond P-2 (see Figure 2-2). The City uses ponds P-2 and P-4 through P-7 as the primary means of disposal, and ponds P-3, P-8, and P-9 are used for supplemental disposal and storage during high-flow periods. Percolation through the pond bottom makes up the majority of treated wastewater disposal. Evaporation into the atmosphere is estimated to account for 15 percent of the monthly disposal volume in summer and less than 2 percent in winter.

2.5 EXISTING WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
Current discharge requirements for the WWTP are prescribed under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. 94-100 and the associated monitoring and reporting program, which was adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB, on April 22, 1994. A summary of applicable WDRs is provided below.

As defined in the WDRs, the WWTP is prohibited from the following actions:
 discharge of wastes to surface waters or surface water drainage courses;  bypass or overflow of untreated or partially treated waste; and  discharge of waste classified as “hazardous” or “designated,” as defined in Title 22, Chapter 15, Section 2521(a) and 2522(a) of the CCR.

The following additional discharge specifications are listed in the WDRs:
 The monthly average dry weather discharge flow shall not exceed 7.9 mgd.  Objectionable odors originating at the facility shall not be perceivable beyond the limits of the property.  Dissolved oxygen content in the upper 1 foot of wastewater in ponds shall not be less than 1.0 mg/L.  Treatment facilities shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent inundation or washout related to floods with a 100-year return frequency.
 Ponds shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate allowable wastewater flow and design seasonal precipitation (based on a 100-year return period) and ancillary inflow and infiltration during the nonirrigation season.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-5 Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-2 Riverbank WWTP – Existing Site Layout
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-7 The WDRs specify freeboard requirements for the treatment and disposal ponds (i.e., vertical distance between the maximum normal water elevation in the pond and the top of the berm); however, since the adoption date of the WDRs, ponds have been renamed and their functions have been modified. The same freeboard requirements apply to each location despite changes in name or function. Table 2-1 describes the freeboard requirements listed in the WDRs and the modifications made to each pond.

Table 2-1 Pond Freeboard Requirements
Pond Listed in WDRs (1994) Minimum Freeboard Pond Modification Since Adoption of WDRs Summer Pond No. 1 1 foot Converted to percolation pond P-2 Summer Aeration Cell 2 feet Converted to aerated treatment pond T-4 Summer Pond No. 2 2 feet Converted to percolation pond P-6 Summer Pond No. 3 2 feet Converted to percolation pond P-5 Winter Pond 2 feet Converted to aerated treatment pond T-3 South Levee of Domestic Percolation Ponds 2 feet Converted to two Biolac treatment ponds (T-1 and T-2) and two percolation ponds (P-3 and P-4)
Note: Freeboard is the vertical distance between the maximum normal water elevation in the pond and the top of the berm.

Source: KSN and BC 2022.

The groundwater limitations contained in the WDRs state that discharge from the WWTP shall not cause underlying groundwater to:
 be degraded;
 contain chemicals, heavy metals, or trace elements in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses or exceed maximum contaminant levels specified in 22 CCR, Division 4, Chapter 15;  exceed a most probable number (MPN) of total coliform organisms of 2.2/100 milliliters (mL) over any 7-day period;
 exceed concentrations of radionuclides specified in 22 CCR, Division 4, Chapter 15;  contain taste or odor-producing substances in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses; or
 contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect agricultural use.

The following applicable sludge disposal requirements are specified in the WDRs:
 Collected screenings, sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes shall be disposed of in a manner that is consistent with Chapter 15, Division 3, Title 23, of the CCR and approved by the executive officer.  Use and disposal of sewage shall comply with existing federal and state laws and regulations, including permitting requirements and technical standards included in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 503.

The WWTP is in compliance with the WDRs, with the following exceptions:
 Nitrate and ammonia concentrations in groundwater sampled from several interior monitoring wells dominated by effluent exceed recommended groundwater limitations.  Dissolved oxygen in ponds T-1 and T-2 periodically fall below the 1.0 mg/L limit.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-8 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.6 PROPOSED PROJECT

2.6.1 Regulatory Framework
The California Water Code establishes SWRCB and RWQCBs and grants them the power to permit and approve recycled water programs. The RWQCBs issue permits for water reuse applications. These permits specify the requirements for water recycling, including treatment, monitoring, reporting, and effluent water quality. Water quality criteria are enforced using WDRs, water reclamation requirements, or other appropriate permits issued by the RWQCB. The RWQCB works with SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) to verify that reuse projects meet the criteria in CCR Title 22 before issuing a discharge permit. CCR Title 22, which establishes the guidelines for permitting and implementing recycled water programs and focuses on public health protection, is administered by DDW. Before approval of a recycled water project, a Title 22 engineering report must be developed and submitted to DDW for review and approval.

To meet the needs of recycled water users and provide for a high degree of grower acceptability, production of disinfected tertiary recycled water is proposed. Disinfected tertiary recycled water, also sometimes referred to as “Title 22 unrestricted recycled water,” is wastewater that has been oxidized, filtered, and disinfected such that secondary effluent total coliform has a median concentration of ≤2.2 MPN/100 mL; has an average turbidity of 2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) or less (or 0.2 NTU for microfiltration); and includes either a chlorine disinfection process that provides a contact time value of at least 450 milligrams-minutes per liter always, with a modal contact time of no less than 90 minutes, or a disinfection process that is demonstrated to inactivate and/or remove 99.999 percent of the plaque-forming units of F-specific bacteriophage MS2 or polio virus.

2.6.2 Recycled Water Use Area
The City has identified two landowners that have expressed interest in receiving recycled water from the proposed project for irrigation of walnut orchards on agricultural lands adjacent to the WWTP. These potential recycled water use areas occupy portions of or all of six parcels, as summarized in Table 2-2, and encompass a total of approximately 690 acres (ac) (Figure 2-3).

Table 2-2 Potential Recycled Water Use Areas
Landowner/Recycled Water Use Area Assessor’s Parcel Number Reuse Area (acres) Beard’s Quality Nut Company (Use Area A)
247-220-35 0.54
247-250-21 440.00
Barton Ranch, Inc. (Use Area B)
249-070-08 94.15
249-070-14 2.34
249-070-34 71.87
249-070-45 81.18
Source: Data compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-9 Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-3 Proposed Project
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-11

2.6.3 Surrounding Land Uses
Jacob Myers Park, a regional park along the northern bank of the river, is located along the southern border of the potential use areas and the Riverbank WWTP, and agricultural lands border the remainder of the project area. A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway railroad track runs through the project area east of the WWTP. Of the crops grown in the surrounding area, nut crops make up the largest percent. Almonds and walnuts account for approximately 56 percent and 22 percent of the crops grown in the surrounding area, respectively. Irrigation of crops in this area is typically through micro sprinklers or drip irrigation.

2.6.4 Projected Wastewater Flows and Loads
Future growth in the city is managed under the policies of the City’s General Plan and under adopted zoning. Future city wastewater flows and loads to the WWTP are expected to increase as a result of infill development and new development within the City’s sphere of influence. No new significant industrial discharges are known to be planned.

For purposes of the proposed project, future flows and loads to the City’s WWTP are based on future population growth projected to 2050 rather than at buildout of the city, which is expected to occur well beyond the proposed 30-year planning horizon. In 2050, the city’s population is estimated to reach approximately 36,766 (KSN and BC 2022: Table 12). Based on this population projection, wastewater flows in 2050 are projected to be 2.29 mgd with flow and loading characteristics, as summarized in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3 Projected Flows and Loads by 2050
Wastewater Characteristic Unit Planning Criteria
Flows
ADWF mgd 2.29
Peak month peaking factor Unitless 1.2
Peak day peaking factor Unitless 3.0
Loads
BOD
Average BOD daily load lbs/d 6,650
BOD peak month peaking factor Unitless 1.4
BOD peak day peaking factor Unitless 3.1
TSS
Average TSS daily load lbs/day 6,100
TSS peak month peaking factor1 Unitless 1.4
TSS peak day peaking factor1 Unitless 3.1
Nitrogen
TKN load2lbs/day 1,070
TKN peak month peaking factor3 Unitless 1.4
TKN peak day peaking factor3 Unitless 3.1
Notes: ADWF = average dry weather flow; BOD = biological oxygen demand; lbs/d = pounds per day; mgd = million gallons per day; TKN = total Kjeldahl nitrogen; TSS = total suspended solids.
1 Peaking factors for TSS based on BOD peaking factors. 2 Because of limited nitrogen data, a unit TKN load factor of 0.029 pound per capita per day was assumed based on a typical ratio of TKN/BOD of 0.21. 3 Peaking factors for TKN assumed based on BOD peaking factors.

Source: KSN and BC 2022.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-12 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.6.5 Project Features
To meet the requirements for Title 22 unrestricted recycled water use, provide wastewater treatment adequate to treat wastewater flows and loads projected by 2050, provide for expandable recycled water treatment and storage capacity, and produce and distribute recycled water to the potential use areas, the proposed project would include improvements to the WWTP and construction of recycled water storage and distribution facilities (see Figure 2-3).

The facilities described below and summarized in Table 2-4 are proposed to treat up to 2.29 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF) and produce and deliver approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year (AFY) of Title 22 recycled water at a rate of 4,350 gallons per minute (gpm).

Table 2-4 Proposed WWTP and Associated Storage and Distribution Facility Improvements Facility Upgrades
Primary treatment and flow equalization facilities
Upgraded grinders (2)
Upgraded screening equipment (2)
New vactor truck1receiving station platform
New anoxic basin splitter
Modified emergency storage and overflow basins (ponds T1 and P3, respectively) New plant and storm drain pump stations (2 duty, 1 standby) Secondary treatment system and solids handling
Pond T2 demolished and filled for secondary treatment space New oxidation ditch effluent splitter (1)
New mechanical aerators (2 per train, 4 total)
New anoxic basins (2)
New oxidation ditches (2)
New secondary effluent splitter (1)
New secondary clarifiers (2)
New RAS/WAS pump stations (3 duty, 2 standby)
New secondary scum pump stations (1 duty, 1 standby)
Pond T3 partially converted to WAS storage basin and partially demolished and filled for tertiary treatment space
New sludge feed pump stations (1 duty, 1 standby)
New polymer and screw press facility (1)
New interim solids storage area
Tertiary treatment and disinfection system
New filter feed pump stations (2 duty, 1 standby)
New DAF units (2)
New rapid mix basins (2)
New 3,500-gal coagulant storage tank and pump (1)
New flocculation basins (2)
New granular media filters (1 duty, 1 standby)
New UV reactors (2)
New 12,500-gal coagulant tank and metering pumps (4)
New 5,000-gal hypochlorite storage tank and pump (1)
New plant water pump stations (2 duty, 2 standby)
Secondary effluent seasonal storage
Ponds T4 and P2 converted to seasonal storage basins (2) New secondary effluent return pump stations (1 duty, 1 standby) Recycled water storage and distribution system
New 900,000-gal recycled water storage tank (1)
New recycled water pump stations (2 duty, 1 standby)
Notes: DAF = dissolved air flotation; gal = gallon; RAS = return activated sludge; UV = ultraviolet light; WAS = waste activated sludge. 1 Vactor trucks suction sludge, solids, and liquids during maintenance of the sewer collection system and transport this material to the wastewater treatment plant for processing.

Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-13 To support the facility improvements listed in Table 2-4, the project would include interconnecting piping, utility and backup power supply improvements, and site grading and drainage improvements. In addition, to support the expanded WWTP, a new electrical and controls building, as well as shop and maintenance buildings, would be constructed at the site.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADES
Improvements to the Riverbank WWTP to upgrade the level of treatment and expand treatment capacity to accommodate growth projected to occur by 2050 would include headworks facility upgrades to provide reliable grinding and screening capacity; upgrades to the wastewater treatment process to provide oxidation, biological nutrient removal, filtration, and disinfection; and construction of other buildings and structures to support operation of the WWTP. A site layout for the upgraded WWTP is shown in Figure 2-4, and a process flow diagram is shown in Figure 2-5. Conveyance of flows through the secondary process would continue to be gravity fed, similar to existing facilities, with treated water supplied to the tertiary facilities via pumping.

The proposed WWTP upgrades are modular in design and laid out in a fashion to accommodate expansion in the future beyond the 2050 planning horizon. However, the proposed facilities are not sized beyond the capacity needed to treat the projected 2.29-mgd flow, which is based on the projected population of 36,766 by 2050.

Primary Treatment and Flow Equalization
Because the existing headworks facility has additional capacity in its bypass channel and provides the desired level of primary treatment under average flow conditions, a full overhaul of the facility would not be required. Instead, an upgrade to existing equipment and addition of new grinding and screening equipment in the bypass channel are proposed. These upgrades would provide redundancy to allow for one channel to be taken offline during low-flow periods for maintenance, as well as provide increased grinding/screening capacity for peak influent flows. In addition, inclusion of a vactor receiving station for disposal of trucked-in waste is proposed to be included in the upgraded headworks facility to allow the City to manage wastes collected from maintenance of the collection system using vactor trucks capable of suctioning sludge, solids, and liquid. This station would be located downstream of the screening process.

Existing lined pond T-1 would be converted from a treatment pond to an emergency storage pond for emergency and flow equalization storage, and existing lined pond P-3 would be converted to serve as an overflow basin into which high flows from pond T-1 could be diverted for temporary storage and then later pumped back to pond T-1 and returned to the influent channel or through the secondary treatment facilities splitter box.

Secondary Treatment Facilities
Following screening, the WWTP influent would receive secondary treatment before percolation or further treatment for reuse. To meet secondary treatment requirements, removal of total BOD and TSS is required. The existing treatment ponds system is not able to remove TSS and cannot provide adequate aeration for the projected increase in flows and loadings to meet anticipated water quality requirements. In addition, the treatment pond system cannot consistently control nitrogen at the level expected to meet requirements of the Salt and Nitrate Control Program Basin Plan Amendments. Therefore, improvements to the secondary treatment facilities would include solids separation and additional aeration capacity and biological nutrient removal. To achieve this, the existing treatment pond system would be demolished and replaced with an oxidation ditch that would include at least two trains, each with anoxic submersible mixers to provide mixing in the anoxic zones, and aerators to provide oxygen for BOD removal and ammonia conversion. Two secondary clarifiers would also be added to separate and return solids to the oxidation ditch. This design would provide redundancy for worst-case conditions (maximum month loading, cold temperature, and peak flows). The system could also be operated with either one secondary clarifier or the oxidation ditch out of service.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-14 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facilities
To meet the requirements of disinfected tertiary recycled water for unrestricted reuse, the secondary effluent would be tertiary treated and then disinfected. The proposed facilities would be sized to treat 2.29 mgd ADWF (1,600 gpm), the WWTP’s permitted average dry weather flow, which, in concert with continued use of the existing disposal ponds, is expected to be adequate to serve growth in the city through 2050.

The tertiary treatment and disinfection process would include pretreatment by coagulation/flocculation followed by granular media filtration (GMF) and then ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection. Because of the potential for growth of algae in the seasonal storage ponds, a secondary effluent pretreatment system consisting of dissolved air flotation (DAF) units may be installed and used before tertiary treatment when effluent from seasonal storage is being treated.

The following discussion provides further information on the proposed tertiary treatment and disinfection process and facilities.

DAF Rapid Treatment System
Fouling of granular media caused by algal solids formed when algae is mixed with coagulant is a common issue encountered when storage pond water is treated through GMF. Although secondary effluent from the oxidation ditch would be the primary source of effluent to be treated to tertiary levels, as influent flows increase, some secondary effluent stored in pond T-4 or P-2 could be returned to the tertiary treatment system to supplement the supply of recycled water. To reduce or control the amount of GMF solids loading caused by the formation of algal solids, two 50-foot-long-by-13-foot-wide-by-10-foot-high DAF units capable of handling 1,600 gpm may be installed upstream of the tertiary treatment facilities. Motorized valves would be used to either deliver secondary effluent directly to the tertiary process or direct it through the DAF units before tertiary treatment. (Bypassing of the DAF units would occur when seasonal storage pond effluent is not being returned to the tertiary treatment system.) Coagulant injection to the DAF units would be fed from pumps in the chemical feed system installed in the tertiary facility. Solids produced by the DAF units would be pumped to the waste activated sludge storage basin.

Pretreatment System – GMF Rapid Mixing and Flocculation A rapid mix and flocculation system would be installed upstream of the filters to enhance filtration performance.

Secondary effluent would be pumped to a rapid mix basin. A chemical feed system would be used to inject coagulant (e.g., alum or PACl [polyaluminum chlorohydrate]) into the rapid mix tank where flow would be flash-mixed to begin the coagulation process. Flow would leave the rapid mix basin and enter the flocculation tank. Each flocculation tank would provide a minimum of 15 minutes of hydraulic retention time at 1,600 gpm to achieve proper coagulation and flocculation. Because of the size of the flocculation basins and the simplicity of their mechanical parts and because it is anticipated that flocculation would be required only intermittently, redundant flocculation tanks are not proposed at the buildout condition. Each tank would have a dedicated mixer. Flow would discharge from each individual flocculation tank into a common header that could distribute flow to the filters.

The chemical addition system would consist of one 12,500-gallon (gal) coagulant storage tank and four pumps (two duty, two standby) to convey chemicals to the rapid mix and flocculation basins and the DAF units separately. A bypass around the rapid mix and flocculation system would be provided to allow water to be sent directly to the filters when water quality (turbidity) does not require pretreatment before filtration.

Filtration
Following pretreatment, particulate matter would be filtered from the secondary effluent using a GMF system. The filtration system would produce filtered effluent with a turbidity that does not exceed any of the following standards in compliance with Title 22 regulations for tertiary recycled water:
 an average turbidity of 2 NTUs within a 24-hour period,  5 NTUs, more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period (e.g., 72 minutes within a 24-hour period), or  10 NTUs at any time (diversion of wastewater is required if turbidity exceeds 10 NTUs).

The GMF system would consist of four deep-bed anthracite/sand filters (three duty, one standby) with a capacity of 1,600 gpm and backwashing equipment constructed downstream of the mixing and flocculation system.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-15 Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-4 Riverbank WWTP – Proposed Upgrades
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-17 Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-5 Riverbank WWTP – Proposed Process Flow Diagram Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-19 During filtration, secondary effluent would be pumped to the top of the filter basins containing sand and support gravel. Solids would be captured on the sand as it flows through the filter bed, and then the filtered water would be collected from each filter and conveyed to the disinfection system for further treatment.

A backwash cycle would be installed and initiated to periodically clean the filters using the tertiary treated effluent when solids accumulation on the media increases head loss across the filter to a threshold value. The backwash facilities would recycle filter backwash water to the headworks.

Turbidity meters would also be installed after the filtration process and before disinfection. The turbidity meters would continuously log data and be capable of retaining data history.

Disinfection System
Following tertiary treatment, the effluent would be disinfected using a UV disinfection system. The UV system would include low-pressure high-output lamps with automatic sleeve cleaning. Filter unit effluent would be routed through a connecting pipe and into a common UV influent channel. Water levels in the UV open-channel system would be controlled using a level control structure, which keeps the UV equipment continually submerged. Flows from the UV channels would be conveyed to a common effluent channel/pipeline and on to storage and distribution.

A programmable logic controller would adjust the UV dose based on a validated UV dose equation to maintain UV dose delivery at or above the required reduction equivalent dose set point without overdosing through “dose pacing.” An ultraviolet transmittance meter would be installed postfiltration, and a flowmeter would be included to allow UV dose pacing.

A davit crane or roof crane would be used to allow removal of UV banks from service in the open-channel system.

Walkways with a minimum width of 3 feet would be provided on both sides and between the UV channels to facilitate maintenance.

Hypochlorite Chemical Addition System
Before the tertiary treated disinfected effluent is stored in the proposed on-site recycled water storage tank described below, facilities would be provided to allow injection of sodium hypochlorite into the recycled water to provide a chlorine residual sufficient to prevent any biological growth in the recycled water storage tank. The chemical addition system would likely consist of one 5,000-gal sodium hypochlorite storage tank and one pump to inject chemicals into the tertiary treated and disinfected effluent.

Backup Power
To ensure continued operation of the secondary treatment system during power outages, two approximately 450- kilowatt (kW) diesel backup generators would be installed; each generator would handle one of the two secondary treatment trains (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022). A third 450-kW diesel backup generator could also be installed to power auxiliary operations and the tertiary treatment system during power outages (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022).

The installation of these generators may be integrated such that any one of the three generators could provide power to the secondary, tertiary, or auxiliary systems as deemed necessary by the WWTP staff at the time. To recharge the battery, burn off excess moisture, and help to keep the system lubricated, the backup generators would be test-run monthly for at least 30 minutes.

Other Buildings and Structures
To support operation of the WWTP, a new, approximately 1,000-square-foot air-conditioned electrical building and approximately 5,000-square-foot air-conditioned shop maintenance building would also be constructed near the entrance to the WWTP (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022).

Other improvements to support operation of the treatment facilities would include:
 upgrades to the MID and/or Pacific Gas and Electric Company electrical services to the site;  site paving, grading, and drainage to provide for access to the facilities and contain site drainage to be discharged to the site disposal ponds;
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-20 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  radio communications equipment to provide for integration of the WWTP systems with the City’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, including communication and control to the remote recycled water turnouts;
 facilities for the storage, treatment, and dewatering of process biosolids; and  incidental fencing, gate replacement/improvement, and access road repaving to support new facilities.

RECYCLED WATER STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
Improvements to recycled water storage and distribution facilities would include construction of a recycled water distribution pump station, reconfiguration of existing percolation ponds to provide seasonal storage, installation of two recycled water storage tanks to provide operational storage, and construction of distribution pipelines and turnouts to serve nearby agricultural fields. Operational storage of recycled water is required for direct delivery to landowners in the use area to meet variability of recycled water demands and provide for controlled delivery of recycled water for internal plant use and off-site agricultural use under variable recycled water demands. Operational storage also provides for a source of water for GMF backwash.

Seasonal storage, through modification of ponds T-4 and P-2, would be integrated into the ongoing percolation disposal operation and would augment availability of secondary effluent for tertiary treatment during peak irrigation months, normally June, July, and August.

The proposed recycled water storage and distribution facilities are described below, and the planned layout of facilities on the WWTP site is shown in Figure 2-4. The planned distribution pipeline alignments are shown in Figure 2-3.

Seasonal Storage Ponds
Wastewater flows into the WWTP year-round, and recycled water demands are highest during the summer months.

During periods of low recycled water demand, the City proposes to divert treated effluent before the tertiary treatment process and store and/or dispose of the secondary treated effluent on-site at the WWTP.

Based on projected wastewater flows by 2050 (2.29 mgd), water balance calculations assuming a 1-in-100-year precipitation event, average evaporation rates, and continued use of most of the City’s percolation ponds, the estimated amount of on-site seasonal storage that would be required is approximately 155 million gallons (mgal) (KSN 2022b). The project includes modifying ponds T-4 and P-2 to provide seasonal storage for up to an estimated 85 mgal of secondary effluent that would be either discharged to the on-site percolation disposal ponds or pumped to the tertiary treatment system to supplement the production of recycled water during summer months.

Recycled Water Storage Tanks
One belowground prestressed concrete 900,000-gal storage tank would be installed on the WWTP site to store recycled water needed to meet irrigation demands. Piping connecting the UV reactors and hypochlorite injection system to the recycled water storage tank would convey tertiary effluent to the tank.

Recycled Water Distribution Pump Station
The recycled water distribution pump station would have three approximately 75-hp pumps (two duty, one standby) with room to add one additional pump in the future. The pumps would have a combined delivery rate of 2,900 gpm and would operate an average of 12 hours per day. Within the same pump station area, there would be two other pump systems to serve the plant water system.

Two pumps (one duty, one standby) would provide backwash water at a rate potentially up to 3,200 gpm to the GMF and are expected to operate only 2 hours per day when recycled water is being produced. The other set of two pumps (one duty, one standby) would provide approximately 765 gpm of plant water to the treatment system for various uses, such as washdown, spray systems, and scum control. The plant water pumps would operate up to approximately 6 hours per day.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-21 Recycled Water Distribution Pipelines and Turnouts
Recycled water from the WWTP would be pumped to individual landowners in the use area through approximately 5,400–6,300 linear feet of newly constructed pipelines (expected to range in size from 12 inches to 18 inches in diameter) that would deliver pressurized irrigation water to the agricultural users. The point of connection to the recycled water user’s site would be an aboveground turnout either on the City’s property or on the agricultural properties. The turnouts would include valves, a flow meter, pressure instruments, a control panel, and radio communication facilities to communicate with the WWTP SCADA system. Recycled water users would connect their existing irrigation systems to the recycled water distribution system at the turnout (see Figure 2-3). The pipelines would provide pressurized filtered water to the designated points-of-connection within the end user’s existing irrigation system.

The pipeline route to agricultural property east of the WWTP is shown in Figure 2-3. Two potential routes for the pipeline that would deliver recycled water to assessor’s parcel number 247-250-21 to the northwest have been identified and are shown in Figure 2-3. Both of these routes are evaluated at a project level in this document; however, only one pipeline would be constructed to serve the property to the northwest.

2.7 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

2.7.1 Construction Schedule and Sequencing
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in October 2024 and last approximately 27 months, ending in December 2026. For purposes of the analysis in this IS/MND, it is assumed that construction would occur in the approximate sequence shown in Table 2-5. For all components, construction would typically be limited to those hours consistent with the noise ordinance of the jurisdiction in which the construction would occur (i.e., City of Riverbank or San Joaquin County). Typical work hours would be Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in the fall, winter, and spring months and 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. during the summer months. Extended work hours and days per week may be required to meet project milestones.

Table 2-5 Project Construction Sequence and Durations
Construction Phase Estimated
Start Date
Estimated
End Date
Duration
(weeks)
Mobilization 10/1/2024 10/7/2024 1
Haul road construction 10/7/2024 10/22/2024 2
Ponds T-2, T-3, and T-4 dewatering 10/7/2024 11/6/2024 4 Utility locating/potholing 10/7/2024 10/21/2024 2
Ponds T-2, T-3, and T-4 demolition 11/6/2024 11/26/2024 3 Sludge handling (move from T-4 to P-3) 12/1/2024 12/21/2024 3 Mass excavation 12/21/2024 1/20/2025 4
Rough grading 1/20/2025 2/4/2025 2
Pipeline excavation, lay, and backfill (deep) 2/4/2025 3/6/2025 4 Oxidation ditches 1 and 2 and anoxic basin construction 3/6/2025 11/26/2025 38 Oxidation ditches 1 and 2 and anoxic basin backfilling 11/26/2025 12/10/2025 2 Underground electrical installation for oxidation ditches 1 and 2 and anoxic basin 12/10/2025 12/24/2025 2 Clarifiers 1 and 2 construction 3/6/2025 9/22/2025 29
Clarifiers 1 and 2 backfilling 9/22/2025 10/2/2025 1
Sludge handling equipment and solids storage construction 9/22/2025 12/6/2025 11 Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-22 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Construction Phase Estimated
Start Date
Estimated
End Date
Duration
(weeks)
Splitter structures and pump stations construction (primary and secondary treatment) 9/22/2025 12/6/2025 11 Splitter structures and pump stations backfilling (primary and secondary treatment) 12/6/2025 12/20/2025 2 Process piping pump stations and splitter structures installation (secondary treatment) 12/20/2025 3/5/2026 11 Underground electrical installation for clarifiers 1 and 2, splitter structures, pump stations, and solids handling
12/20/2025 2/18/2026 9
Electrical building, generator pad, and shop/maintenance building construction 2/1/2026 10/9/2026 36 Miscellaneous above-grade equipment pads/equipment construction 3/1/2026 4/30/2026 9 Recycled water storage tank 1 construction 8/1/2025 3/9/2026 31 Recycled water storage tank 1 backfilling 3/9/2026 3/19/2026 1 Process piping tertiary pump stations and splitter structures installation 3/19/2026 4/18/2026 4 Distribution pipeline A and A1 or A2 construction 4/18/2026 5/6/2026 3 Distribution pipeline B construction 4/18/2022 5/6/2022 3 Tertiary treatment facility construction 4/18/2026 10/15/2026 26 Ultraviolet light disinfection facility construction 7/18/2026 10/16/2026 13 Control structures, pump stations, and miscellaneous construction (tertiary treatment and disinfection)
5/1/2025 7/20/2025 11
Underground electrical installation for tertiary and disinfection area 10/16/2025 11/25/2025 6 Fine grading and site paving 9/1/2026 11/15/2026 11
Dewatered sludge off-hauling 10/1/2026 10/31/2026 4
Demobilization 11/15/2026 11/30/2026 2
Source: Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022.

2.7.2 Construction Equipment, Staging Areas, and Import/Export The estimated type and quantity of construction equipment, materials, and haul trips and the volume of earthmoving required to construct the proposed project are summarized in Appendix A. Staging of equipment and materials during construction would occur at the WWTP site, as shown in Figure 2-3, but may also occur adjacent to the roadways in existing public utility easements or at other previously disturbed sites if they are present close to the project site.

A total of approximately 964 round-trip haul trips using 14-cubic-yard (cy) dump trucks would be required to import subgrade and paving materials to the site from up to 20 miles away, and another 1,420 round-trip haul trips using 9- cy concrete trucks would be required to import concrete from up to 20 miles away for structures and slabs.

Approximately 4,750 loads using 27-cy dump trucks would be transported across 0.5 mile from pond T-4 to pond T-2 and/or T-3 for general earth cut-and-fill transport on-site. In addition, approximately 890 loads using 27-cy dump trucks containing dried secondary sludge from pond T-4 would be exported from the site approximately 20 miles to the Forward Landfill in Manteca, California. Another 30 loads using 27-cy dump trucks would be needed to export the pond T-2 liner to the landfill.

2.7.3 Construction Methods and Labor Force
This section summarizes the proposed methods that would be used and the number of workers anticipated during peak construction of each major project activity.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-23

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINT AND ROAD
Access to the WWTP site is limited because of a constrained access point. The entrance to the WWTP has an overhead rail crossing that creates height and width limitations for transportation of construction materials and equipment. In addition, existing WWTP operations that use this access point would need to continue uninterrupted use through the expected 27-month construction timeline. Therefore, a temporary access point and road would be required to support the transportation of construction materials and equipment.

The proposed temporary access point would be located northwest of the project site, off Burwood Road. An approximately 9,000-foot-long temporary access road would be constructed between the access point and the WWTP site on a combination of private farm roads and existing WWTP roads, both currently unimproved.

Improvements would include fine grading followed by placement of aggregate base rock on the existing roads.

The temporary construction access road would be maintained throughout the construction timeline. This road would be watered as necessary to prevent fugitive dust caused by vehicular traffic.

Encroachment permits for the temporary access point would be acquired as required by San Joaquin County.

Temporary easements would be obtained from individual property owners as required for the temporary construction access point and the portion of the road on private property.

POND DEWATERING AND DEMOLITION
Construction of the major facilities would be completed in the areas of existing wastewater treatment ponds T-2 and T-3. Earthen material would be excavated from pond T-4 for fill to construct the proposed treatment facilities at the location of ponds T-2 and T-3. To accommodate construction, ponds T-2, T-3, and T-4 would be dewatered, existing improvements slated for removal in these ponds would be demolished, and the accumulated sludge would be removed. Then the surfaces would be prepped for fill and construction as necessary. In ponds T-2 and T-3, aeration equipment, conveyance facilities, and the liner would be demolished and disposed of. Pond T-4 does not contain treatment improvements and would require limited demolition. With construction slated to start in fall 2024, pond T4 would be dewatered as part of normal WWTP operations by operations staff (before construction), starting in early summer 2024 to allow sludge material in the pond to dry enough for removal. Trash pumps would be used to dewater the ponds slated for improvement, and the dewatering water would be discharged to other ponds on-site for disposal. After the water has been drained from the ponds, low ground pressure (LGP) dozers would be used to windrow the sludge for further drying and pick up by transport equipment. The sludge material would be transported out of the respective ponds using a combination of pumps, scrapers, and dozers and stockpiled for further drying in existing pond P-3. To support this transport, a motor grader would maintain the haul road on the site, and a water truck would be employed to control dust. The stockpiled sludge material would be allowed to dry and then would be transported to a disposal facility permitted to take the material as daily cover.

MASS EXCAVATION AND ROUGH GRADING
Excavation (cut of approximately 128,200 cy) from pond T-4 would commence following dewatering, demolition, and sludge removal from the ponds. Excavated material would be transported to ponds T-2 and T-3 to meet specific fill grades for construction elevations. Most excavated material from pond T-4 would be stockpiled on-site in the construction staging area to be used as future fill in the staged construction fill operations associated with the secondary and tertiary treatment facilities. The mass excavation would require aeration of the existing soil to further dry the cut material to be used as fill within ponds T-2 and T-3. This aeration and conditioning would continue until the soil is within 3 percent of optimum moisture content for compaction purposes. The aeration would be accomplished using LGP dozers to rip the pond bottom. After the pond bottom is ripped and dried, the material would be windrowed for pickup by scrapers for transport to ponds T-2 and T-3 as fill. A motor grader would maintain the haul road on the site, and a water truck would be employed to control dust. Material to be stockpiled on-site would be excavated and transported in the same manner, except moisture conditioning and drying would not be as critical.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-24 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rough grading would coincide with mass excavation and would entail prepping surfaces for additional excavation and to receive fill for construction of the major structures, oxidation ditches, clarifiers, and tank. The open-cut and sloping method of excavation would be used to allow safe excavations for construction of major facilities without the need for shoring. The material produced from these excavations, depending on the moisture content, would be incorporated into the mass excavation, cut-and-fill process with the remainder stockpiled at the north end of existing pond T-2 for future use as backfill material at the secondary treatment process area.

FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
Treatment facilities construction would begin following the rough grading operations. Concrete would be the primary building material used to construct the treatment facilities. Construction would likely start with secondary treatment facilities. It is expected that one concrete crew would construct the oxidation ditches, and another concrete crew would construct the clarifiers concurrently. Before concrete work for the clarifiers is initiated, the deep piping/clarifier influent piping would be set in place and backfilled. After concrete walls are completed for these structures, they would be backfilled. The backfill operations of the open-cut excavations with sloped sides for the oxidation ditches and the clarifiers would create the area necessary to construct the various splitter structures and pump structures in the secondary treatment facilities. The concrete crews associated with oxidation ditches and the clarifiers would then split off. One crew would move to the various pump stations and splitter structures at the secondary treatment facilities, and the other crew would move to the tertiary treatment facility and initiate concrete construction of the recycled water storage tank.

The construction of the various pump stations and splitter structures at the secondary treatment facilities would require open-cut excavations with sloped sides similar to those created for the oxidation ditches and clarifiers. After the walls are completed for these structures, they would be backfilled.

Following the vertical concrete work for the various pump stations and splitter structures at the secondary treatment facilities, process and drainage piping connecting the structures would be initiated. After the piping is installed, it would be backfilled to near finished grade in the area to establish the subgrade.

After the subgrade is established in the secondary treatment facility area, the electrical duct banks would be installed between respective electrical buildings and equipment loads (e.g., pumps, aerators, and monitoring devices).

For the tertiary facilities, which would consist of storage, pumping, DAF, filtration, and disinfection facilities, excavations would vary in depth to accommodate the different base elevations for each component. The storage and pumping structures would be constructed at much lower elevations than the filtration and disinfection facilities and would require open-cut side-sloped excavations that encroach on the filtration and disinfection facilities. Following excavation for and before concrete work, deep piping would be installed between the tank and pump station. After the walls are completed for these structures, they would be backfilled. Process piping connecting the structures would be installed during the backfilling process and up to the elevation necessary for the disinfection facility.

Following vertical concrete construction of the disinfection facility, construction of the filtration facility, which would be at subgrade, would commence.

Following subgrade establishment in the tertiary treatment facility area, the electrical duct banks would be installed between respective electrical buildings and the equipment loads e.g., pumps, aerators, and monitoring devices).

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
The project would also involve construction of two buildings: a shop maintenance building and an electrical building.

These structures would be air-conditioned, have concrete foundations and at-grade pads, and be standard metal or concrete masonry unit buildings. Initial construction would employ the concrete crew coming from the splitter and pump structures at the secondary treatment area to set forms to outline the building footprints and allow for the respective trades to install electrical and plumbing. Vertical construction would start following the concrete work and coincide with electrical, plumbing, and finishes respective of the office, lab, and maintenance areas.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-25

PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
Open-cut construction is the proposed option for installing all pipelines, manholes, air vents, and turnouts on the WWTP site, along existing roadways, and on private lands. Generally, the open-cut trench would be up to approximately 4 feet wide and up to 12 feet deep, depending on the pipe size, existing utility locations, and pipe bedding requirements. Shoring may be required to provide trench stability.

Open-cut construction would occur within private, unpaved farm roads adjacent to reuse areas and is not anticipated to affect cultivated areas. However, temporary and permanent easements would be obtained from individual growers as needed and coordinated to avoid the need to remove crops.

Open-cut construction would involve cutting and removing pavement in a couple of locations where paved roadways need to be crossed (i.e., entrance to Jacob Myers Park and the Riverbank WWTP, and the crossing along Santa Fe Road). Asphalt would be cut using large saw blades mounted on a special cart that would be pushed by a construction laborer. The asphalt would be lifted in large chunks and slabs from the cut area by a front-end loader or backhoe into a dump truck for off-hauling. Upon completion of pipeline installation, affected roadways would be repaved in accordance with the requirements of the affected jurisdiction.

Affected roadway segments may be closed temporarily during pipeline installation activities. Traffic control operations would be noticed at the location of the temporary traffic restrictions a week in advance of any roadwork that would impede the flow of traffic (i.e., closes the road, closes a traffic lane, or closes the road shoulder).

Based on recent groundwater monitoring data, shallow groundwater in the project area is substantially lower than the expected bottom elevations of the trench excavations. Therefore, it is not expected that continuous groundwater dewatering would be required. However, if incidental perched groundwater is encountered or if rainfall occurs during trenching and installation, then the water would be removed from the trench using temporary sump pumps, and the removed water would be disposed of at the WWTP using the percolation ponds.

The use of heavy equipment for excavation likely would involve continuous use of an excavator to fill dump trucks that would make intermittent trips to the stockpile area on the WWTP site. Typically, two or more dump trucks are used to allow continuous offloading from the excavator. In addition, dump trucks hauling material from off-site sources for pipeline bedding and backfill would make semicontinuous trips to the site as pipe is being installed. A front-end loader would be used to lift pipe segments from a flat-bed delivery truck and position the pipe in the trench. In publicly accessible areas, temporary trench plates would be installed over the trench at the end of each workday.

During open trenching, excavated trench materials would be sidecast within approved work areas and reused as appropriate for backfill. Excess material would be either stockpiled or used on the WWTP site for general site fill and finish grading.

FINE GRADING AND PAVING SITE
Fine grading of the project site would commence at the sludge storage facility and secondary treatment facility area to establish the subgrade for improved roadway access to the structures to support operations and maintenance and to provide finish-grading of areas to be landscaped. The progression would then move east toward the electrical building and shop maintenance building area, headworks, and tertiary facility. Finally, surfaces at the existing treatment plant facility improvements would be restored. Following fine grading of the site, paving would commence.

Paving would be a combination of concrete and asphalt concrete. Concrete would be used at the sludge storage area and as a skirt for most all the structures. Asphalt concrete would be used for access roads to and between the major structures to support vehicular and crane access.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-26 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE
Throughout the project construction, the workforce is anticipated to range from approximately 10 to 53 workers per day. The average number of workers on-site would be approximately 28 over the 566 total working days of the project. Overlap between the beginning of construction for the tertiary treatment facilities and the completion of the secondary treatment facilities would result in a maximum total workforce of approximately 53 workers for a period of approximately 1 week.

2.8 PROJECT OPERATIONS
Wastewater flows into the WWTP year-round. The highest demand for recycled water for irrigation is in the summer months, when rainfall is lowest and crops are in peak production. During the winter months, when irrigation demand is low, the WWTP would produce effluent treated to secondary standards, and instead of receiving further treatment and being distributed off-site for beneficial reuse, the secondary effluent would be diverted and stored in a seasonal storage pond (T-4 or P-2) and/or disposed of on-site in the existing percolation ponds at the WWTP if storage in the seasonal storage ponds is exceeded. During summer, when irrigation demand is high, secondary treated effluent stored in the seasonal storage pond would be returned to the headworks for further treatment along with influent from the city to produce tertiary treated disinfected effluent.

Following treatment and disinfection, the recycled water would be conveyed to the on-site 900,000-gal recycled water storage tank. Before the recycled water enters the storage tank, it would be injected with sodium hypochlorite to provide a chlorine residual sufficient to prevent any biological growth in the tank. During the irrigation season, the storage tank would provide up to 5.75 hours of storage at 1.6-mgd ADWF. The combined 1.8 mgal of storage that would be constructed at buildout of the system would provide approximately 6.9 hours of storage at 2.29-mgd ADWF. Delivery of recycled water to the landowners would be accomplished by the recycled water pump station and would occur when the landowners call or otherwise contact the WWTP staff, typically 24 hours to 1 week in advance.

Walnuts are currently grown in the proposed use areas. Table 2-6 summarizes the required monthly crop irrigation volume per acre for nut orchards, such as walnut orchards, based on evapotranspiration less average monthly precipitation. July is expected to have the largest volume demand for recycled water (1.79 mgal, or 5.51 acre-feet) per acre. Peak irrigation delivery rates may vary depending on the irrigation schedule demands that the individual growers require for their crops.

Table 2-6 Monthly Crop Irrigation Volume per Acre
Irrigation Volume Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Crop demand (mgal) 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.26 0.23 Crop demand (af) 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.59 0.59 0.74 0.79 0.69 Notes: af = acre-feet; mgal = million gallons.

Source: KSN 2022b.

Based on the current flows, the WWTP has the potential to produce approximately 1.6 mgd, or 2,500 AFY, of Title 22 recycled water at a peak irrigation flow rate of 2,610 gpm. This amount would be sufficient to irrigate a 30-acre block of agricultural land in the proposed use area once every 7 days, or a total of 210 ac (KSN and BC 2022). At the proposed recycled water production rate of 2.29 mgd anticipated by 2050, the WWTP could produce and deliver up to 2,500 AFY of Title 22 recycled water at a peak irrigation flow rate of 4,350 gpm, enough to irrigate a 50-acre block once every 7 days, or a total of 350 ac (KSN 2022b). More frequent irrigation is not proposed, because it would reduce overall crop demand, thereby reducing daily recycled water delivery requirements below WWTP capacity.

Irrigation of a larger area is also not proposed, because the demand for recycled water associated with a larger irrigation area would exceed the production capacity of the WWTP, which would require the addition of substantially more recycled water storage or an additional source of water.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-27 Table 2-7 summarizes potential irrigation delivery parameters for the use area at 1.6 and 2.29 mgd of recycled water production.

Table 2-7 Irrigation Delivery at 1.6 mgd and 2.29 mgd of Recycled Water Production Parameter Unit At 16. Mgd ADWF At 2.29 mgd ADWF
Total irrigated area ac 210 350
Peak daily irrigation area ac 30 50
Irrigation efficiency % 85 85
Day between irrigation Days 7 7
Irrigation duration hrs 11 11
Peak irrigation flow rate gpm 2,610 4,350
Notes: ac = acres; ADWF = average dry weather flow; hrs = hours; gpm = gallons per minute; mgd = million gallons per day; % = percent.

Source: KSN and BC 2022.

The WWTP may require a total of four operators for normal WWTP operations. Routine maintenance performed by the operators would involve scheduling and performing pump, valve, aerator, UV system, and monitoring equipment repairs at the maintenance shop.

Energy demand associated with the proposed project after it is completed would increase because of the need to incorporate additional pumps and pumping stations to serve the secondary, tertiary, solids handling, storm drainage, and recycled water delivery systems at the upgraded WWTP and the recycled water distribution system. Energy demand would also increase over time as flows to the WWTP increase and recycled water use expands to offset irrigation demand within a larger portion of the proposed reuse areas. In the first year of operation at a recycled water production rate of 1.6 mgd, the estimated energy demand may be 6,632,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh), and in the future, at a recycled water production rate of 2.29 mgd, the estimated energy demand may reach 9,620,000 kWh (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022). To provide enough reliable power to maintain treatment efficacy in the event of a power outage, three 450-kW diesel generators are planned for installation, as described in Section 2.6.5 above.

Modesto Irrigation District (MID) provides electricity to the equipment at the WWTP. The project would not require offsite modifications to MID infrastructure or upsizing of off-site power systems or supplies to meet the project’s energy demands. However, the City would initiate review with MID to determine whether the project would require on-site upgrades to meet the expanded WWTP power needs, such as relocating power poles, upsizing an existing transformer, or constructing a new transformer within the project site.

2.9 REQUIRED PERMITS AND PROJECT APPROVALS
In addition to having primary responsibility for project approval and implementation, the City, as the lead agency under CEQA, has the principal responsibility for ensuring that CEQA requirements and all other applicable regulations are met. The following responsible agencies may have permitting approval or review authority over the project, or portions thereof, and their potential required permits or approvals:
 Central Valley RWQCB—Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act waste discharge requirements for discharge of construction dewatering water and treated wastewater to land  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District—authority to construct; Title V permit to operate; air quality management plan consistency determination
 San Joaquin County—coverage under the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan for potential impacts on biological resources pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act; flood hazard development permit; roadway easement; encroachment permit Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-28 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  State Office of Historic Preservation—National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance; concurrence with effect determination
 SWRCB—approval of SRF financing; DDW approval under General Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW for recycled water use consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria (CCR Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3); CCR Title 22 Engineering Report approval; Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit for general construction
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-1 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Riverbank, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works, 209.869.7128

4. Project Location: 23865 Santa Fe Road, Riverbank, CA, San Joaquin County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Riverbank, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367

6. General Plan Designation: Riverbank GP: Civic (C); San Joaquin County GP: Public (P/F) and General Agriculture (AG-40)

7. Zoning: Public Facility (P-F)

8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The City of Riverbank proposes to upgrade and expand its existing wastewater treatment plant to produce disinfected tertiary treated recycled water for distribution to nearby agricultural landowners. The project would include construction of new preliminary, secondary, and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities and a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, installation of a recycled water distribution system, and expansion of capacity to serve planned growth in the city through the year 2050. The City proposes to distribute the recycled water to two land owners that have expressed interest in receiving recycled water from the project for irrigation of walnut orchards.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The land surrounding the project site is primarily agricultural. Of the crops grown in the surrounding agricultural area, nut crops make up the largest percent. The project site is bordered by agricultural lands to the west, north, and east. The Stanislaus River runs beyond the southern border of the project site. Jacob Myers Park, a regional park along the north bank of the river, is located along the southern border of the potential use areas and the project site. A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway railroad track runs through the project area east of the project site.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) State Water Resources Control Board, State Office of Historic Preservation, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, San Joaquin County.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation.

Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

See Section 3.18, “Tribal Cultural Resources,” below.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-2 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Where checked below, the topic with a potentially significant impact will be addressed in an environmental impact report.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance None None with Mitigation Incorporated
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Marisela H. Garcia City Manager
Printed Name Title
City of Riverbank
Agency
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-4 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-5

3.1 83BAESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
I. Aesthetics.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099 (where aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant for qualifying residential, mixed-use residential, and employment centers), would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to aesthetics, light, and glare are applicable to the project.

STATE
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 2) contains various building standards derived and adapted from the International Building Code, authorized by the California legislature, that address California building issues, including several that are applicable to the visual condition of a site (especially at night). They include standards for outdoor lighting intended to improve energy efficiency, minimize light pollution and nighttime glare, and provide design solutions to shield and control outdoor lighting fixtures.

California Scenic Highway Program
California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the California Legislature in 1963 and is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The goal of this program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would affect the aesthetic value of the land adjacent to highways. A highway may be designated “scenic” depending on how much of the natural landscape travelers can see, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on travelers’ enjoyment of the view (Caltrans 2022).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-6 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The primary scenic resources within San Joaquin County (when visibility conditions permit) consist of views of the Delta and the agriculturally rich valley floor, as well as panoramic views of the Coastal ranges and the Sierra. Because of the flatness of most of San Joaquin County’s terrain and often poor air quality, most scenic views are limited to near and medium range as provided by viewpoints such as public recreation areas and roadways. San Joaquin County has designated 26 local roadways within the County as local scenic routes. Interstate 5 and State Routes (SR) 4 and 99 are all County-designated scenic roadways. Interstates 5 and 580 are designated as state scenic highways.

The following policies from the Community Development and the Natural and Cultural Resources Elements of the San Joaquin County General Plan are relevant to aesthetics with respect to the project (San Joaquin County 2017a):
 Policy LU-3.10 - Visual Access: The County shall encourage new development to maintain views of hillsides, creeks, and other distinctive natural areas by regulating building orientation, height, and bulk.  Policy NCR-7.1. Scenic Roadways: The County shall protect the visual character of designated scenic roadways.  Policy NCR-7.2. Views from Public Lands and Roadways: The County shall ensure that views of waterways, hilltops, and oak groves from public land and public roadways are protected, and public access is provided to them whenever possible.
 Policy NCR-7.4. Visually Complementary Development: The County shall require new development adjacent to scenic resources to be sited and designed to visually complement those resources, except in MR-Z designated areas.
 Policy NCR-7.7. Reducing Light Pollution: The County shall encourage project designs, lighting configurations, and operational practices that reduce light pollution and preserve views of the night sky.  Policy NCR-7.8. Underground Utility Lines: The County shall require all new electric and communication distribution facilities adjacent to scenic routes to be placed underground, whenever feasible. Where overhead utility lines are unavoidable, every effort should be made to reduce the visual impact through elements of design.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The Community Character and Design Element of the City’s General Plan emphasizes how development should relate to the user, visual characteristics, and how buildings and other improvements should function in the greater context of the community. The Community Character and Design Element is the basis for the aesthetic regulation of public and private land and structures.

The following policies from the Community Character and Design Element of the City’s General Plan are relevant to aesthetics with respect to the project (City of Riverbank 2009):
 Policy DESIGN-11.2: The City will require the use of durable, high quality building materials to lower maintenance and replacement needs and ensure the aesthetic appeal of new development.  Policy DESIGN-14.3: When new development, re-development, or maintenance of industrial and bulk retail complexes occurs, the City will require aesthetic and landscaping improvements of facades and entry features oriented to the street that will strengthen the identity of Riverbank.  Policy DESIGN-14.4: When new development, re-development, or maintenance of industrial and bulk retail complexes occurs adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas, the City will require landscaping improvements that will maintain or strengthen existing aesthetic qualities and environmental functions.  Policy DESIGN-15.4: The City will require and pursue the preservation and enhancement of public access to riverfront recreation / natural areas while protecting sensitive habitats.  Policy DESIGN-16.1: Approved plans, projects, and subdivision requests shall retain and enhance scenic views of Stanislaus River.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-7  Policy DESIGN-16.2: The City will encourage the preservation of healthy, attractive native vegetation during land development. Where this is not possible, the City will require site landscaping that uses appropriate native plant materials.
 Policy DESIGN-17.1: The City will support development standards that minimize environmental impacts of development through an appropriate balance of regulations and incentives. Incentives could be tied to compliance with criteria applied throughout the development process.  Policy DESIGN-17.2: Lighting in development projects shall include low, pedestrian scaled, ornamental street lights, and shall otherwise design lighting as to prevent glare and spillover onto adjacent properties and to prevent any glare that could affect motorists or bicyclists.  Policy DESIGN-18-1: The City will promote safe and sustainable energy collection and distribution systems that draw from renewable energy sources.
 Policy DESIGN-18.2: The City will encourage passive and natural lighting systems in architectural design to conserve electricity.
 Policy DESIGN-18.3: The City will encourage building-site orientation, articulated windows, roof overhangs, appropriate insulation materials and techniques, and other architectural features that allow for improved passive interior climate control.
 Policy DESIGN-18.4: The City will ensure that municipal buildings are LEEDTM certified and promote LEEDTM certification of multi-family, commercial, and industrial properties.  Policy DESIGN-19.1: The City will establish site design criteria for allowing natural hydrological systems to function with minimum or no modification.
 Policy DESIGN-19.2: The City will promote the use of rain gardens, open ditches or swales, and pervious driveways and parking areas in site design to maximize infiltration of storm water and minimize runoff into environmentally critical areas.
 Policy DESIGN-19.3: The City will promote inclusion of passive rainwater collection systems in site and architectural design for non-potable water (gray-water) storage and use, thereby saving potable (drinking) water for ingestion.

3.1.2 Environmental Setting
Aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which a project’s presence would alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, aesthetic impacts may occur.

VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The project site is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County at 23865 Santa Fe Road, adjacent to the City of Riverbank, California. The City of Riverbank is located in Stanislaus County, which is in the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley in central California. The Stanislaus River forms the boundary between Stanislaus County to the south and San Joaquin County to the north. The Stanislaus River is one of multiple rivers in the San Joaquin Valley that flow west from the Sierra Nevada into the San Joaquin River (City of Riverbank 2009).

Although the project site is located across the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County, it is still owned and operated by the City of Riverbank.

As discussed in Section 2, “Project Description,” existing facilities at the 150-acre WWTP consist of a headworks system, two aerated treatment ponds, two polishing ponds, eight evaporation/percolation ponds, 13 groundwater monitoring wells, and associated piping and mechanical components. Figure 2-2 in Section 2, “Project Description,” depicts the layout of the existing WWTP.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-8 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The land surrounding the project site is primarily agricultural. Of the crops grown in the surrounding agricultural area, nut crops make up the largest percent. Almonds and walnuts account for approximately 56 percent and 22 percent of the crops grown in the surrounding area, respectively. The project site is bordered by agricultural lands to the west, north, and east. The Stanislaus River runs beyond the southern border of the project site. Jacob Myers Park, a regional park along the north bank of the river, is located along the southern border of the potential use areas and the project site. A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway railroad track runs through the project area to the east of the project site.

The nearest sensitive viewers include visitors at Jacob Myers Park and the persons living in the residences located to the south of the Stanislaus River across River Cove Drive and to the east of the project site. Although the topography is primarily flat, the residences to the south and to the east do not have direct views of the Riverbank WWTP due to the general distance from the project site (over 500 feet) and the riparian area buffer surrounding the existing Riverbank WWTP.

STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS AND SCENIC RESOURCES
A highway may be designated as “scenic” depending on how much of the natural landscape travelers can see, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on travelers’ enjoyment of the view.

There are no eligible or officially designated state scenic highways located near the project site (Caltrans 2018).

Interstate 5, as it passes through Stanislaus County, is a designated scenic highway, and is located approximately 23 miles southwest of the project site. According to the City’s General Plan, the Stanislaus River is identified as a community asset that provides natural beauty and function and is considered a scenic resource offering scenic views (City of Riverbank 2009).

3.1.3 Discussion
0Ba) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less-than-significant impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The project site is located in a primarily agricultural area. Although the project site is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River, which, according to the City of Riverbank General Plan, is identified as a community asset that provides natural beauty and function and is considered a scenic resource offering scenic views, implementation of the project would not alter views of this scenic resource due to the riparian area buffer surrounding the existing Riverbank WWTP. Views of the project area from publicly available locations around the site would not substantially change. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and this impact would be less than significant. 1Bb) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No impact. No designated state scenic highways are within the vicinity of the project site (Caltrans 2018). The nearest designated state scenic highway is Interstate 5, as it passes through Stanislaus County, and is located approximately 23 miles southwest of the project site. Although the project site is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River, which, according to the City of Riverbank General Plan, is identified as a community asset that provides natural beauty and function and is considered a scenic resource offering scenic views, implementation of the project would not alter views of this scenic resource due to the riparian area buffer surrounding the existing Riverbank WWTP. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and no impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-9 2Bc) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less-than-significant impact. The project site is primarily surrounded by agricultural lands. Although the project would include construction of new facilities within the existing WWTP, the addition of like buildings and facilities to an already developed site would not substantially change the existing views of the site. Furthermore, the proposed facilities would not be visible to persons living in the nearby residences located to the east of the project site or to the south (across Stanislaus River and River Cove Drive), or to persons visiting Jacobs Myers Park (which is located along the southern border of the potential use areas and the project site).

The project would not substantially change the visual character of the site because the project would be located at the already developed WWTP site. The new pipelines would be underground, and the two proposed structures at the WWTP site would be standard metal buildings and would not alter views due to the riparian area buffer surrounding the existing Riverbank WWTP. The project would be visually consistent with the existing WWTP and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
3Bd) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-than-significant impact. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours and would not require nighttime lighting. Construction equipment is unlikely to have reflective surfaces and would not be a substantial source of glare in the area. The project would include construction of two buildings: a 5,000-square-foot airconditioned shop maintenance building, and a 1,000-square-foot air-conditioned electrical building, as well as installation of pipelines, manholes, air vents, and turnouts within the WWTP site, along existing roadways and within private lands. The two structures would be constructed near the entrance to the WWTP and would have concrete foundations and at-grade pads, and be standard metal buildings, which are not highly reflective (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022). These project features would not be a substantial source of glare in the area. The new pipelines would be underground. In order to facilitate operation, the new facilities would have limited lighting which would be shielded and downcast to prevent light pollution on surrounding residences and the night sky. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-10 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.2 84BAGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
United States Department of Agriculture
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to farming, forestry, and food. The USDA aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, assist rural communities, and address hunger in the United States. While local agricultural operations may interface with USDA programs, data resources, requirements, and procedures, federal regulations do not typically influence or have permitting authority over local land use projects under CEQA review.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-11 The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency within the USDA, is the agency primarily responsible for the implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize federal programs’ contribution to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local and private programs designed to protect farmland. NRCS provides technical assistance to federal agencies, state, and local governments, and tribes or non-profit organizations that desire to develop farmland protection programs and policies.

The FPPA also established the Farmland Protection Program (FPP) and the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA). The LESA system ranks lands for suitability and inclusion in the FPP. LESA evaluates several factors, including soil potential for agricultural uses, location, market access, and adjacent land uses. The LESA system has spawned many variations, including the California LESA model, which is used in California’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), described below.

STATE
Land Conservation Act of 1965
Agricultural preserve contracts are executed through procedures enabled by the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act. A contract may be entered into for property with agricultural, recreational and open space uses in return for decreased property taxes. The County Agricultural Preserve Rules of Procedure require certain minimum parcel sizes and land use restrictions applicable to agricultural preserve lands under their respective contracts. The minimum length of Williamson Act contracts is ten years. Because the contract term automatically renews on each anniversary date (unless certain steps are taken), the actual contract length is essentially indefinite. To be eligible for Williamson Act designation, a minimum 100 acres of non-prime land is typically required, and that land must be used to produce an agricultural commodity that is plant or animal and is produced in California for commercial purposes.

California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Within the California Natural Resources Agency, the California Department of Conservation (DOC) provides services and information that promote informed land-use decisions and sound management of the state’s natural resources.

As noted above, DOC manages the FMMP, which supports agriculture throughout California by developing maps and statistical data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland.

The developed maps are called the Important Farmlands Inventory (IFI). The IFI categorizes land based on the productive capabilities of the land. There are many factors that determine the agricultural value of land, including the suitability of soils for agricultural use, whether soils are irrigated, the depth of soil, water-holding capacity, and physical and chemical characteristics. To categorize soil capabilities under the FMMP, two soil classification systems are used: the Capability Classification System and the Storie Index (which takes into account other factors as well, such as slope and texture). The FMMP data is updated every 2 years.

FMMP rates the production potential of agricultural land according to the following classifications:
 Prime Farmland. Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. These are Class I and Class II soils.  Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.  Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops.

This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-12 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.  Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.  Urban and Built-Up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.  Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas, not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
 Water. This is used to describe perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.

California Public Resources Code
Agricultural and forestry lands within California are defined by the California Public Resources Code (PRC) as follows:
 Section 21060.1(a) defines “agricultural land” as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland, as defined by the USDA land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California.  Section 21060.1(b) states the following: In those areas of the state where lands have not been surveyed for the classifications specified in subdivision (a), “agricultural land” means land that meets the requirements of “prime agricultural land” as defined in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 51201 of the Government Code.
 Section 21095 amended CEQA to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology, the LESA Model, to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process. The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, the factors are rated, weighted, and combined, resulting in a single numeric score. The project score becomes the basis for making a determination of a project’s potential significance.

LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the Public Health and Safety, Natural and Cultural Resources, and Community Development Elements of the San Joaquin County General Plan are relevant to agriculture with respect to the project:
 Policy PHS-6.3. GHG Reduction Strategies: The County shall promote greenhouse gas emission reductions by encouraging efficient farming methods (e.g., no-till farming, crop rotation, cover cropping); supporting the installation of renewable energy technologies; and protecting grasslands, open space, oak woodlands, riparian forest and farmlands from conversion to urban uses.
 Policy NCR-5.6. Energy Facilities on Prime Farmland: The County shall discourage the placement of energy facilities on Prime Farmland.
 Policy LU-1.7. Farmland Preservation: The County shall consider information from the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program when designating future growth areas in order to preserve prime farmland and limit the premature conversion of agricultural lands.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-13 City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The following policies from the Economic Development, Public Services and Facilities, and Conservation and Open Space Elements of the City’s General Plan are relevant to agriculture with respect to the project:
 Policy ED-6.1: Acknowledging the significant agricultural economy in Stanislaus County, the City will continue to accommodate industries that serve the agricultural trade and have supplier relationships with primary farming activity in Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties.
 Policy PUBLIC-3.3: The City will not induce urban growth by providing wastewater facilities to areas outside the Planning Area or areas not planned for urban development, such as areas designated for agriculture or open space.
 Policy CONS-3.1: The City will prepare a comprehensive Sustainable Agricultural Strategy intended to conserve agricultural production in the Stanislaus River Watershed, herein defined as the area within Stanislaus County and San Joaquin County between the Tuolumne and Calaveras Rivers, attributable to implementation of the 2025 General Plan. This strategy should provide flexibility so that it can be tied to land-use and regional agricultural preservation policies, and is intended to be funded on a fair-share basis by those projects that have a significant impact on the conversion of Important Farmlands, a non-renewable resource, to urban use. In determining a level of significance, it is the intent of the City to use quantifiable, measurable inputs and if a project has a significant impact on Farmland resources, then the project will mitigate for this impact.

3.2.2 Environmental Setting
The project site is located across the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County but is owned and operated by the City of Riverbank, which is in Stanislaus County. According to the City of Riverbank General Plan, the land use classification for the project site is Civic (C) (City of Riverbank 2009) and according to the San Joaquin County General Plan, the project site land use is designated Public Facility (P/F) (San Joaquin County 2017a). No areas of the project site have active Williamson Act contracts, however, two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 24724010 and APN 24726001) located immediately north of the project site are under Williamson Act contracts (SJV Gateway 2015).

FARMLAND
The project site is mapped by the DOC as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2018). The land to the south and to the east of the project site is mapped as Farmland of Local Importance, the land immediately to the west of the project site is mapped as Farmland of Statewide Importance, and the land immediately to the north of the project site is mapped as Prime Farmland (DOC 2018).

EXISTING FORESTRY RESOURCES
Forestry resources include forest land, timberland, and timberland production zones. Definitions used for these categories are those found in the PRC and California Government Code. Forest land is defined as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forestry resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits (PRC Section 12220[g]). Timberland is land, other than land owned by the federal government or land that is designated as experimental forest, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products (PRC Section 4526). Timberland production zones are areas that have been devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)).

Based on these definitions, lands within the project site are not considered forestry or timber-production lands nor are they designated as forestland.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-14 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.2.3 Discussion
4Ba) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2018).

Project construction and operation would occur within existing developed uses, including under existing private roadways and at the existing WWTP facility. Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), to non-agricultural use and no impact would occur. 5Bb) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. There are no areas within the project site that are under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Project construction and operation would occur within existing developed uses, including under existing private roadways and at the existing WWTP facility. Therefore, the project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur. 6Bc) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the project site and surrounding land uses are not designated as forest or timber-production lands; therefore, no forestry resources could be affected by project implementation. There would be no conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land and no impact would occur.
7Bd) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the project site and surrounding land uses are not designated as forest or timber-production lands; therefore, no forestry resources could be affected by project implementation. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur.
8Be) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2018).

Project construction and operation would occur within existing developed uses, including under existing private roadways and at the existing WWTP facility. Therefore, the project would not involve changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-15

3.3 85BAIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
III. Air Quality.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations.

Are significance criteria established by the applicable air district available to rely on for significance
determinations?
Yes No
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting
Air quality in the project area is regulated through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality within the air basin are discussed below.

FEDERAL
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. EPA’s air quality mandates draw primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was enacted in 1970.

The most recent major amendments were made by Congress in 1990. EPA’s air quality efforts address both criteria air pollutants and precursors and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). EPA regulations concerning criteria air pollutants and precursors and HAPs are presented in greater detail below.

Criteria Air Pollutants
The CAA required EPA to establish the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (42 United States Code Section 7409). As shown in Table 3.3-1, EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of

2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead. Table 3.3-2 summarizes the sources of these criteria air pollutants and their health effects. The primary standards protect the public health, and the secondary standards protect public welfare. The Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-16 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CAA also requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS.

The CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. Individual SIPs are modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. EPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and whether implementation will achieve air quality goals. If EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a federal implementation plan that imposes additional control measures may be prepared for the nonattainment area. If an approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California (CAAQS)1,2
National (NAAQS)3
Primary2,4 Secondary2,5
Ozone (O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) – Same as primary standard 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137147 μg/m3) Carbon monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Same as primary standard 8-hour 9.0 ppm6 (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Same as primary standard 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) —
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) — —
3-hour — — 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3)
1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
Respirable particulate
matter (PM10)
Annual arithmetic mean 20 μg/m3 — Same as primary standard 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Annual arithmetic mean 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
24-hour — 35 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
Lead 6
Calendar quarter — 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
30-Day average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3 Same as primary standard Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
No
national
standards
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3
Vinyl chloride 6 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Visibility-reducing
particles
8-hour Extinction of 0.23 per km
1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 3 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM10 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 4 National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-17 5 National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
6 The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined. This allows for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; km = kilometers; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million.

Source: CARB 2016.

Table 3.3-2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting from reaction of
ROG and NOX in presence of sunlight. ROG
emissions result from incomplete combustion
and evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels;
NOX results from the combustion of fuels
Increased respiration and pulmonary
resistance; cough, pain, shortness of
breath, lung inflammation
Permeability of respiratory
epithelia, possibility of
permanent lung impairment
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Incomplete combustion of fuels; motor vehicle
exhaust
Headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea,
vomiting, death
Permanent heart and brain
damage
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
Combustion devices; e.g., boilers, gas turbines,
and mobile and stationary reciprocating
internal combustion engines
Coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting,
headache, eye irritation, chemical
pneumonitis or pulmonary edema;
breathing abnormalities, cyanosis, chest
pain, rapid heartbeat, death
Chronic bronchitis,
decreased lung function
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, and pulp and paper mills
Irritation of upper respiratory tract,
increased asthma symptoms
Insufficient evidence linking
SO2 exposure to chronic
health impacts
Respirable particulate
matter (PM10), Fine
particulate matter
(PM2.5)
Fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and
stationary sources, construction, fires and
natural windblown dust, and formation in the
atmosphere by condensation and/or
transformation of SO2 and ROG
Breathing and respiratory symptoms,
aggravation of existing respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases, premature
death
Alterations to the immune
system, carcinogenesis
Lead Metal processing Reproductive/ developmental effects (fetuses and children)
Numerous effects including
neurological, endocrine, and
cardiovascular effects
1 Acute health effects refer to immediate illnesses caused by short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants at fairly high concentrations. An example of an acute health effect includes fatality resulting from short-term exposure to carbon monoxide levels in excess of 1,200 parts per million. 2 Chronic health effects refer to cumulative effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations. An example of a chronic health effect includes the development of cancer from prolonged exposure to particulate matter at concentrations above the national ambient air quality standards.

Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases.

Source: EPA 2018.

Hazardous Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, HAPs, are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

A wide range of sources, from industrial plants to motor vehicles, emit TACs. The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally, rather than regionally. TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage; or short-term acute effects, such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), running nose, throat pain, and headaches.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-18 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration For evaluation purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and non-carcinogens based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. This contrasts with criteria air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the ambient standards have been established (Table 3.3-1). Cancer risk from TACs is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure.

EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate HAPs and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum available control technology or best available control technology for air toxics to limit emissions.

STATE
California Air Resources Board
CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA, which was adopted in 1988, required CARB to establish California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) (Table 3.3-1).

Criteria Air Pollutants
CARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility-reducing particulate matter, and the above-mentioned criteria air pollutants. In most cases the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS.

Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects studies considered during the standardsetting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals.

The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to attain and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest date practical. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources. The CCAA also provides air districts with the authority to regulate indirect emission sources.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (Hot Spots Act) (AB 2588, Chapter 1252, Statutes of 1987). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs.

Research, public participation, and scientific peer review are required before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified approximately 200 TACs. Particulate matter (PM) exhaust from diesel engines (diesel PM) was added to CARB’s list of TACs in 1998.

After a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an airborne toxics control measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. If a safe threshold exists for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate best available control technology for toxics to minimize emissions.

The Hot Spots Act requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare an inventory of toxic emissions, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

AB 617 of 2017 aims to help protect air quality and public health in communities around industries subject to the state’s cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions. AB 617 imposes a new state-mandated local program to address non-vehicular sources (e.g., refineries, manufacturing facilities) of criteria air pollutants and TACs. The bill requires CARB to identify high-pollution areas and directs air districts to focus air quality improvement efforts through adoption of community emission reduction programs within these identified areas. Currently, air districts review individual sources and impose emissions limits on emitters based on best available control technology, pollutant type, and proximity to nearby existing land uses. This bill addresses the cumulative and additive nature of air pollutant health effects by requiring community-wide air quality assessment and emission reduction planning.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-19 CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emissions standards for various transportationrelated mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses, and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators).

Over time, the replacement of older vehicles will result in a vehicle fleet that produces substantially lower levels of TACs than under current conditions. Mobile-source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3-butadiene, diesel PM) have been reduced significantly over the last decade and will be reduced further in California through a progression of regulatory measures (e.g., Low Emission Vehicle/Clean Fuels and Phase II reformulated gasoline regulations) and control technologies. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan and other regulatory programs, it is estimated that emissions of diesel PM will be less than half of those in 2010 by 2035 (CARB 2022a). Adopted regulations are also expected to continue to reduce formaldehyde emissions emitted by cars and light-duty trucks. As emissions are reduced, it is expected that risks associated with exposure to the emissions will also be reduced.

LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Criteria Air Pollutants
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the primary agency responsible for planning to meet the NAAQS and CAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), in which the project site is located. SJVAPCD works with CARB and EPA to maintain the region’s portion of the SIP for ozone and PM2.5. The SIP is a compilation of plans and regulations that govern how the region and state will comply with the federal CAA requirements to attain and maintain the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5. The SJVAB has been designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 in addition to CAAQS for PM10 (EPA 2022; CARB 2022a).

SJVAPCD also enforces air quality regulations, educates the public about air quality, and implements a number of programs to provide incentives for the replacement or retrofit of older diesel engines and to influence land use development in the SJVAB.

All projects are subject to adopted SJVAPCD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the project may include but are not limited to the following:
 Regulation VIII—Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions: Rules 8011–8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust and dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, and landfill operations.

Compliance with Regulation VIII does not constitute mitigation because it is already required by law (SJVAPCD 2015). Thus, compliance is assumed in this analysis.
 Rule 2010—Permits Required: This rule applies to anyone who plans to or does operate, construct, alter, or replace any source operation that may emit air contaminants or may reduce the emission of air contaminants.

The project would be subject to SJVAPCD permitting requirements for stationary sources such as back-up generators.
 Rule 2201—New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule: This rule applies to all new stationary sources and all modifications of existing stationary sources. Stationary sources are subject to SJVAPCD permit requirements if, after construction, they emit or may emit one or more affected pollutant. This rule requires the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize potential emissions from new and modified equipment and processes. Specific to the project, the BACT for emergency diesel-fired engines, including backup generators, requires engines greater than 50 horsepower (hp) to be in compliance with emission limits that are equivalent to the EPA Tier 4 final standards (for all permits requested after April 29, 2022) (SJVAPCD 2022).  Rule 2550—Federally Mandated Preconstruction Review for Major Sources of Air Toxics: This rule applies to applications to construct or reconstruct a major air toxics source.  Rule 3135—Dust Control Plan Fee: This rule requires applicants to submit a fee in addition to a dust control plan. The purpose of this fee is to recover SJVAPCD’s cost for reviewing such plans and conducting compliance inspections.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-20 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Rule 4002—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: This rule applies to all sources of HAPs and requires them to comply with the standards, criteria, and requirements set forth therein.  Rule 4101—Visible Emissions: This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.  Rule 4102—Nuisance: This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. If such emissions create a public nuisance, the owner/operator could be in violation and be subject to enforcement action by SJVAPCD.
 Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings: This rule limits volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings by specifying storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements for architectural coatings.  Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review: This rule is intended to reduce or mitigate emissions of NOX and PM10 from the construction- and operation-related emissions of new land use development in the SJVAPCD. This rule requires specific percentage reductions in estimated onsite construction and operation emissions, and/or payment of a prescribed off-site mitigation fee for required reductions that cannot be met on the project site.

Construction emissions of NOX and PM10 exhaust must be reduced by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively.

Operational emissions of NOX and PM10 must be reduced by 33.3 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The rule applies to commercial development projects of 2,000 square feet and larger, so the project would be subject to Rule 9510. Per Section 4.4.3 of Rule 9510, any project whose primary functions are subject to Rules 2010 and 2201 is exempted from Rule 9510. The provisions of Rule 9510 are described in more detail in the analysis of environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

In addition, if modeled construction- or operation-related emissions for a project exceed SJVAPCD’s mass emission thresholds for criteria air pollutants and precursors then SJVAPCD recommends implementing mitigation to reduce these emissions. As a form of mitigation, a project proponent may enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement with SJVAPCD to reduce the project-related impact on air quality to a less-than-significant level. A Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides poundfor-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that funds and implements emission reduction projects (SJVAPCD 2015).

Toxic Air Contaminants
At the local level, air districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures. Under SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (“Permits Required”), Rule 2201 (“New and Modified Stationary Source Review”), and Rule 2550 (“Federally Mandated Preconstruction Review for Major Sources of Air Toxics”), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SJVAPCD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including New Source Review standards and air toxics control measures. SJVAPCD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through multiple programs. SJVAPCD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are people, or facilities that generally house people (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals), that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants.

Odors
Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and SJVAPCD. SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (“Nuisance”) regulates odorous emissions.

San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
San Joaquin County General Plan, Community Development Element, includes goals and policies to accommodate new growth while encouraging a majority of growth to occur within incorporated cities. The following policies from the Community Development Element are relevant to air quality with respect to the project (San Joaquin County 2017a):
 Policy LU-1.2. Accommodating Future Growth: The County shall ensure that the General Plan designates sufficient land for urban development to accommodate projected population and employment growth.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-21 The Public Health and Safety Element of the San Joaquin General Plan includes the following applicable to policies:
 Policy PHS-5.1 Air Quality Monitoring The County shall participate in programs to monitor harmful air contaminants to determine their impacts.
 Policy PHS-5.2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Coordination The County shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) during the review of new development projects which have the potential for causing adverse air quality impacts.  Policy PHS-5.3 Cross-Jurisdictional Air Quality Issues The County shall coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies to address cross-jurisdictional and regional transportation and air quality issues.  Policy PHS-5.4 Innovative Mitigation Measures The County shall encourage innovative mitigation measures and project redesign to reduce air quality impacts by coordinating with the SJVAPCD, project applicants, and other interested parties.
 Policy PHS-5.5 Air District Best Performance Standards The County shall consider the Best Performance Standards adopted by SJVAPCD during the review of new development proposals.  Policy PHS-5.6 Toxic Air Contaminants The County shall require effective buffers between residential areas and other sensitive receptors and non-residential land uses, such as highways, trucking centers, gasoline dispensing facilities, and dry cleaners, that generate toxic air contaminants.  Policy PHS-5.7 TAC Exposure Reduction Measures for New Development The County shall require new development projects to implement all applicable best management practices that will reduce exposure of sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing and convalescent facilities) to toxic air contaminants.
 Policy PHS-5.8 Minimize Motor Vehicle Emissions The County shall strive to minimize motor vehicle emissions through land use and transportation strategies, as well as by promotion of alternative fuels.  Policy PHS-5.9 Particulate Emissions from Construction The County shall support SJVAPCD efforts to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with State and Federal regulations.
 Policy PHS-5.10 Particulate Emissions from County Roads The County shall require PM10 and PM2.5 emission reductions on County-maintained roads to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with State and Federal regulations.
 Policy PHS-5.11 Paving Materials The County shall require all access roads, driveways, and parking areas serving new commercial and industrial development to be constructed with materials that minimize particulate emissions and are appropriate to the scale and intensity of use.
 Policy PHS-5.12 Agricultural Best Management Practices The County shall encourage agricultural operations to incorporate Best Management Practices, such as: paving roads; screening cropland with windbreaks; limiting tilling, grading, and pesticide use on high-wind days; and changing harvesting equipment to minimize air quality hazards from pesticides and reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions consistent with State and Federal regulations.  Policy PHS-5.13 Industrial Best Management Practices The County shall require industrial facilities to incorporate economically feasible Best Management Practices and control technology to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions consistent with State and Federal regulations.
 Policy PHS-5.14 Energy Consumption Reduction The County shall encourage new development to incorporate green building practices and reduce air quality impacts from energy consumption.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The City of Riverbank General Plan, Air Quality Element, addresses the City’s goals, policies, and implementation strategies for maintaining and improving air quality during and after the buildout of the General Plan. The overarching air quality goal is to minimize Riverbank's contribution to existing and potential future air quality Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-22 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration problems, whether experienced locally, regionally, or globally. The following policies from the Air Quality Element of the City’s General Plan are relevant to the project:
 Policy AIR-2.1: The City of Riverbank, in coordination with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, will require approved projects, plans, and subdivisions to reduce particulate emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible.  Policy AIR-3.1: The City will provide adequate sites for industrial development, while minimizing the health risks to people resulting from industrial toxic or hazardous air pollutant emissions.  Policy AIR-3.3: The City of Riverbank will ensure that industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities that may produce toxic or hazardous air pollutants are located at an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors.

The following policies from the Public Services and Facilities Element of the City’s General Plan also are relevant to air quality with respect to the project:
 Policy PUBLIC-3.1: The City will require that wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment facilities meet or exceed local, State, and federal standard
 Policy PUBLIC-3.2 The City will identify and utilize, as feasible, best environmental practices and technologies for wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment.

3.3.2 Environmental Setting
San Joaquin County, and the rest of the SJVAB, is designated as nonattainment with respect to the CAAQS and NAAQS for ozone (CARB 2020). Ozone is a secondary pollutant resulting from reaction of reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight. The county is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS for PM10 and attainment for the NAAQS for PM10; and the county is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS for PM2.5 (CARB 2020).

The thresholds of significance listed below were adopted by SJVAPCD for evaluating emissions generated during the construction and operational phase of a project (SJVAPCD 2015).

Ozone Precursors
 ROG: 10 tons per year (tpy)
 NOX: 10 tpy
Particulate Matter
 PM10 and PM2.5: 15 tpy
Carbon Monoxide
 CO: 100 tpy
Oxides of Sulfur
 Oxides of sulfur (SOX): 27 tpy
Toxic Air Contaminants
 If the project would be considered significant if the project would expose the public to substantial levels of TACs so that the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual equals or exceeds 20 in 1 million or an acute or chronic Hazard Index that equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual for non-carcinogens.

Odor Impacts
 If the project would result in sensitive receptors being located closer than the screening level distances designated by SJVAPCD for specific facility types (e.g., landfill, wastewater treatment plant, chemical manufacturing plant).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-23  In addition, if emissions of any of these criteria pollutants (ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5, CO, SOX) would exceed a screening criterion of 100 pounds per day (lb/day), SJVAPCD requires site-specific ambient air quality analysis (AAQA) to determine whether the project would result in a localized exceedance or cumulatively considerable contribution to an exceedance of a NAAQS or CAAQS (SJVAPCD 2015: 93–94).

These SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions are based on SJVAPCD New Source Review (NSR) offset requirements for stationary sources. Emission reductions achieved through implementation of SJVAPCD offset requirements are a major component of SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. Thus, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are considered to not conflict or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD’s air quality plan.

3.3.3 Discussion
9Ba) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than-significant impact. SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions, which are based on NSR offset requirements for stationary sources. Stationary sources in the SJVAPCD are subject to some of the toughest regulatory requirements in the nation. Emission reductions achieved through implementation of SJVAPCD offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. Thus, for purposes of CEQA analysis, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to not conflict or obstruct implementation of the SJVAPCD’s air quality plan (SJVAPCD 2015: 65).

As noted under item b) below, the project would not result in a significant increase in short-term construction or long-term operational emissions because the proposed additions to the existing project site would not introduce levels of emissions which exceed SJVAPCD thresholds. Additionally, the project would maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater which would help provide wastewater treatment capacity to serve projected population growth in the City of Riverbank over a 30-year planning horizon. Thus, the project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD’s air quality plan. This impact would be less than significant. 10Bb) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less-than-significant impact. As discussed above, San Joaquin County and the rest of the SJVAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the CAAQS and NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 and with respect to the CAAQS for PM10.

Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the adverse air quality in the SJVAB on a cumulative basis.

By its very nature, air pollution throughout the SJVAB is a cumulative impact. A project’s individual emissions can contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. As explained in SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (2015), and consistent with CEQA, if a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If project-related emissions do not exceed the identified significance thresholds, including SJVAPCD’s mass emission thresholds of 10 tpy for ROG or NOX, 15 tpy for PM10 and PM2.5, 100 tpy for CO, and 27 tpy for SOX, its emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and would not result in significant adverse air quality impacts. Additionally, if project emissions exceed a screening criterion of 100 lb/day for each of these criteria pollutants (ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5, CO, SOX), then a site-specific AAQA would be required.

Construction would include upgrades to the existing City WWTP, including new secondary and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities, construction of a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, and installation of a distribution system to initially serve nearby agricultural users. Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in October 2024 and last approximately 27 months, ending in December 2026. The estimated type and quantity of construction equipment, materials, haul trips, and the earthmoving volumes were provided by the project applicant and are summarized in Appendix A. Sources of Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-24 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration construction emissions include equipment exhaust, delivery truck and haul truck vehicle exhaust, construction worker commute vehicles, and fugitive dust associated with earth movement. Emissions were estimated using a combination of emission factors and methodologies published and recommended by CARB and other agencies, including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0 and CARB’s EMFAC2021 model. Implementation of feasible control measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction are regulated through mandatory compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. Compliance is assumed in this analysis.

Once constructed, operational emission sources would be associated with routine maintenance performed by four operators (workers) and pumps to pump the additional water demand. Moreover, there would be occasional maintenance and delivery trips to bring in materials, as well as haul trucks to transport biosolids to land application sites.

For purposes of analysis, it was assumed there would be 24 material delivery trips and 16 biosolids haul trips per year per the project applicant. The new pumps would be electrically powered and would require 6,632,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) in the first year of operation (assumed to be 2027), and 9,620,000 kWh at a future date (assumed to be 2050).

Construction- and operations-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were summed at the daily and annual time scale for comparison with SJVAPCD’s daily screening criteria and annual thresholds of significance.

Modeling outputs are provided in Appendix B.

As shown in Table 3.3-3, construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, SOX, would not exceed the annual mass emission thresholds during any year of construction nor would peak daily emissions exceed the daily screening criteria on the maximum day of construction. Thus, emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors generated by project construction would not contribute to the nonattainment status of the SJVAB for any criteria air pollutants, and no site-specific ambient air quality modeling is required. This impact would be less than significant.

Table 3.3-3 Summary of Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Construction Source Emissions

ROG NOX
PM10 PM2.5 CO SOX
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
2024 0.1 1.0 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.003
2025 0.2 1.6 1.9 0.3 0.1 0.004
2026 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.004
SJVAPCD Mass Emission Threshold (tons/year) 10 10 15 15 100 27 Exceed Significance Threshold? No No No No No No
Daily Emissions (lb/day) 7 50 20 5 71 <1
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria (lb/day) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceed Screening Criteria? No No No No No No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; SO X = oxides of sulfur; tpy = tons per year.

Refer to Appendix B for detailed assumptions and modeling output files.

Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

As shown in Table 3.3-4, operations-generated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, SOX, would not exceed the annual mass emission thresholds nor would daily emissions exceed the daily screening criteria. Thus, emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors generated by project operations would not contribute to the nonattainment status of the SJVAB for any criteria air pollutants, and no site-specific ambient air quality modeling is required. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-25 Table 3.3-4 Summary of Operations-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Operational Source Emissions

ROG NOX
PM10 PM2.5 CO SOX
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Area Sources 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile Sources 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.05 <0.01
Stationary Sources 0.02 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 <0.01
Total Annual Emissions 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.11 <0.01
SJVAPCD Mass Emission Threshold 10 10 15 15 100 27
Exceed Significance Threshold? No No No No No No
Daily Emissions (lb/day)
Area Sources 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile Sources 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.29 <0.01
Stationary Sources 0.13 0.36 0.02 0.02 0.33 <0.01
Total Daily Emissions 0.31 0.41 0.09 0.04 0.62 <0.01
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria (lb/day) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceed Screening Criteria? No No No No No No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; SO X = oxides of sulfur; tpy = tons per year.

Refer to Appendix B for detailed assumptions and modeling output files.

Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022. 1Bc) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
Less-than-significant impact. The closest sensitive receptors to the project area are the residential land uses across the Stanislaus River, along River Cove Drive, approximately 615 feet (188 meters) south of the southern edge of the project area, and the residential land uses along Santa Fe Road, approximately 645 feet (197 meters) east of the eastern edge of the project area. Other nearby land uses are predominately agricultural uses and open space. As discussed in b) above, the project would not result in regional (e.g., ROG, NOX, PM10) or local (e.g., CO) emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors that would exceed applicable SJVAPCD-adopted thresholds of significance. Thus, project-generated emissions of criteria air pollutant and precursors would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Less-than-significant impact. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., diesel PM) were identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (OEHHA 2003). Construction-related activities would result in temporary, short-term projectgenerated emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, excavation, and paving. Based on the construction analysis presented above and summarized in Table 3.3-1, daily and annual exhaust emissions of PM10, considered a surrogate for diesel PM, would be less than one lb/day during construction. Emissions would occur over most of the 150-acre WWTP area.

Considering the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM, the relatively low level of diesel PM emissions that would be generated during project construction, and the relatively short duration of construction activities, constructionrelated TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds 10 in 1 million or a hazard index greater than 1.0.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-26 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The project would include three 450-kW (or 603 hp) diesel backup generators, which are included to provide reliable power to maintain treatment efficacy in the event of a power outage. The backup generators would be test-run monthly for a period of at least 30 minutes. For purposes of analysis, it was assumed each monthly test-run would last one hour. As noted above, SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires all backup diesel generators greater than 50 horsepower to be installed after April 29, 2022, to be equipped with engines in compliance with Tier 4 final emission limits.

Generators permitted as part of the project would be subject to this rule and associated BACT requirements.

To determine whether emissions from backup generator testing activities would be potentially significant, the SJVAPCD’s Prioritization Risk Screening Tool was used to screen for long-term cancer and chronic hazards (there are no acute risk factors for diesel PM). This tool calculates potential health risk impacts from exposure to TACs associated with the operation of stationary equipment or industrial processes. The annual and maximum daily pounds of TAC emissions are the inputs to determine the maximum cancer, chronic, and acute risk impacts to receptors at different receptor distances.

Based on SJVAPCD’s guidance in using its Prioritization Risk Screening Tool, if a cancer prioritization score exceeds a cancer risk value of 10 at the nearest residential receptor, the project (or facility) is considered high priority, and a quantitative health risk assessment (HRA) is required.) Following the use of the Prioritization Risk Screening Tool, the prioritization score from operation of the backup generator at the nearest sensitive receptor (188 meters or approximately 615 feet) is estimated to be 4.0 without BACT, and 0.27 with BACT, assuming each generator is tested 12 hours per year, which is well below SJVAPCD’s prioritization screen score of 10, thus not warranting the preparation of a quantitative operational HRA. Therefore, project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk. This impact would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Less-than-significant impact. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near roadways and/or intersections may reach unhealthy levels at nearby sensitive land uses, such as residential units, hospitals, schools, and childcare facilities. SJVAPCD provides a screening methodology to determine whether CO emissions generated by traffic at congested intersections have the potential to exceed, or contribute to an exceedance of, the 8-hour CAAQS of 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3
) or the 1-hour CAAQS of 20 μg/m3. SJVAPCD has established that if neither of the following criteria are met at all intersections affected by the project, the project would result in no potential to create a violation of the CO standard:
 A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or  A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

As noted in Section 3.17, “Transportation”, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has replaced congestion as the metric for determining transportation impacts (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3). Congestion-related metrics, such as LOS, are no longer analyzed in most CEQA documents. Regardless, the project is primarily a construction project that would result in minor operational traffic changes relative to baseline conditions. Construction worker and truck activity would be minimal and temporary and would not add vehicles to nearby roadways that would potentially create a violation of the CO standard. Once operational, the project may increase maintenance-related trips longterm due to the increase in size and number of facilities associated with implementation of the project, but these trips would be minimal and would not result in traffic that could create a violation of the CO standard Therefore, neither of SVJAPCD-recommended criteria would be met to result in a potential for a CO hotspot and this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-27 12Bd) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less-than-significant impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of sensitive receptors.

Although offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they may still be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

SJVAPCD provides odor screening guidance, which can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors. If the project would result in sensitive receptors being located closer than the screening level distances, a more detailed analysis should be provided. The project is an expansion of the existing WWTP. Based on SJVAPCD, the screening distance for this type of facility is 2 miles. The closest sensitive receptor is 615 feet (or 0.12 miles) away. Thus, the screening criteria is not met, and further analysis is required.

As described in Section 2, “Project Description”, the project site is subject to Waste Discharge Requirements, which states that objectionable odors originating at the facility shall not be perceivable beyond the limits of the property.

Consistency with Waste Discharge Requirements will ensure that the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, since the Waste Discharge Requirements prohibit objectionable odors originating at the facility to be perceivable beyond the limits of the property. Therefore, while the project is closer than the recommended screening distance, these requirements would ensure that objectionable odors are not perceived at sensitive receptors beyond the property line.

Additionally, construction associated with the project could expose existing nearby residents to odorous emissions from diesel equipment. However, such emissions would be short-term in nature and would dissipate rapidly with increasing distance from the source.

Implementation of the project would not involve the construction or operation of any major odor sources, and no new sensitive receptors would be introduced by the project. Thus, the project would not result in the exposure of residences or other sensitive receptors to objectionable odors. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-28 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.4 86BBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. Biological Resources.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the US Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 United States Code [USC] Section 1531 et seq.) regulates the taking of species listed under the ESA as threatened or endangered. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person from “taking” an endangered or threatened fish or wildlife species. “Take” is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has also interpreted the definition of “harm” to include substantial habitat modification that could result in take. Section 10 regulates incidental take if a non-federal agency is the lead agency for an action that results in take and no other federal agencies are involved in permitting or funding the action; an application for an incidental take permit under Section 10 would require preparation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which can take many years to prepare, or enrollment in an existing HCP such as the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). If a project would result in take of a federally listed species and there is a federal nexus through federal funding or permitting by a federal agency, the federal lead agency is required to initiate federal interagency cooperation, and Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-29 Section 7 could provide take authorization. In some circumstances the federal lead agency can delegate the responsibility for Section 7 to a non-federal agency such as the State Water Resources Control Board.

STATE
California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a plant or animal species that is listed by the state as candidate, threatened, or endangered. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species, but the CESA definition of take does not include “harm” or “harass,” like the federal ESA definition does. Authorization for take of state-listed species can be obtained through a California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 2081 incidental take permit.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5
Section 3503 of the CFGC states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird.

Section 3503.5 of the CFGC states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Projects typically comply with this requirement to avoid take by implementing pre-construction nest surveys and nesting period restrictions if nests are found.

LOCAL
San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan An HCP is a federal planning document that is prepared pursuant to Section 10 of ESA. An approved HCP within a defined plan area allows for the incidental take of species and habitat that are otherwise protected under ESA during development activities. A natural community conservation plan (NCCP) is a state planning document administered by CDFW. An approved NCCP within a defined plan area allows for the incidental take of species and habitat that are otherwise protected under CESA during growth and development activities.

The SJMSCP, which is an HCP and an NCCP, in accordance with ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) and CESA Section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permits, provides compensation for the conversion of open space to non-open space uses that affect the plant, fish, and wildlife species covered by the plan, hereinafter referred to as “SJMSCP Covered Species.” Participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary; however, the City of Riverbank General Plan (Policy CONS-4.3) requires compliance with the SJMSCP for projects within San Joaquin County, for covered activities as applicable (i.e., when take authorization is required).

The 97 SJMSCP Covered Species include 25 state-listed and/or federally listed species: 27 plants (six listed), four fish (two listed), four amphibians (one listed), four reptiles (one listed), 33 birds (seven listed), 15 mammals (three listed), and 10 invertebrates (five listed).

The SJMSCP is administered by a Joint Powers Authority consisting of members of the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), CDFW, and USFWS. Development project applicants are given the option of participating in the SJMSCP to streamline compliance with required local, state, and federal laws regarding biological resources and typically avoid having to approach each agency independently. According to the SJMSCP, adoption and implementation by local planning jurisdictions provide full compensation and mitigation for impacts on plants, fish, and wildlife. Adoption and implementation of the SJMSCP also secures compliance pursuant to state and federal laws, such as CEQA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The SJMSCP is intended to support issuance of CFGC Section 2081 incidental take permits and incidental take permits under Section 10 of the ESA for species covered under the SJMSCP.

Applicants pay mitigation fees on a per-acre basis, as established by the Joint Powers Authority, according to the measures needed to mitigate impacts on the various habitats and biological resources covered by the SJMSCP.

Development occurring on land that has been classified under the SJMSCP as “no-pay” would not be required to pay a fee. This category usually refers to already urbanized land and infill development areas.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-30 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin County Code of Ordinances
Chapter 9-1505 of the San Joaquin County Code of Ordinances requires permits for the removal of native oak trees, heritage oak trees, or historical trees; and requires design constraints, and protection measures be implemented for trees that are retained within the construction zone of a project.

San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the Natural and Cultural Resources Element of the San Joaquin General Plan are relevant to biological resources with respect to the project:
 Policy NCR-2.1 Protect Significant Biological and Ecological Resources: The County shall protect significant biological and ecological resources including: wetlands; riparian areas; vernal pools; significant oak woodlands and heritage trees; and rare, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats.  Policy NCR-2.2 Collaboration for Species Protection: The County shall collaborate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife during the review of new development proposals to identify methods to protect listed species.
 Policy NCR-2.3 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan: The County shall continue to implement the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan to mitigate biological impacts resulting from open space land conversion. (RDR/PSP/IGC)  Policy NCR-2.8 Natural Open Space Buffer: The County shall require a natural open space buffer to be maintained along any natural waterway to provide nesting and foraging habitat and to protect waterway quality.  Policy NCR-2.9 Protect Fisheries: The County shall encourage and support efforts to protect fisheries, including:
 reducing the level of pesticides and fertilizers and other harmful substances in agricultural and urban runoff,  designing and timing waterway projects to protect fish populations, and  operating water projects to provide adequate flows for spawning of anadromous fish.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The following policy from the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan (City of Riverbank 2009) is relevant to biological resources with respect to the project:
 Policy CONS-4.3: The City will require compliance with the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan for projects to expand Jacob Myers Park, or other projects within San Joaquin County as applicable.

3.4.2 Environmental Setting

LAND COVER WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE
The land cover within the project site is mostly cultivated agricultural land consisting of walnut and almond orchards.

The existing WWTP and storage ponds are mostly unvegetated, with isolated trees and low-growing herbaceous cover and barren disturbed areas. Natural land cover types within the project site include California annual grassland, valley oak (Quercus lobata) woodland, and box elder (Acer negundo) forest and woodland (Figure 3.4-1). Small areas of Fremont cottonwood forest (Populus fremontii) and elderberry (Sambucus nigra) land cover types were also mapped in the project area on the river side edge of Recycled Water Area B.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-31 Source: Data provided by Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck in 2022; adapted by Ascent in 2022.

Figure 3.4-1 Project Features and Land Cover
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-33

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Special-status species are defined as species that are legally protected or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, state, or local resource agencies. Special-status species are species, subspecies, or varieties that fall into one or more of the following categories, regardless of their legal or protection status:
 officially listed by California (under CESA) or the federal government (under ESA) as endangered, threatened, or rare;
 a candidate for state or federal listing as endangered, threatened, or rare;  taxa (i.e., taxonomic category or group) that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in CCR Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines;  species identified by CDFW as species of special concern;  species listed as fully protected under the CFGC;
 species afforded protection under local planning documents, such as SJMSCP; and  taxa considered by the CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR). The CDFW system includes five rarity and endangerment ranks for categorizing plant species of concern; the three that are considered special-status for the purpose of this report are summarized as follows:
 CRPR 1A Plants presumed to be extinct in California;
 CRPR 1B – Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; and  CRPR 2 Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

The term “California species of special concern” is applied by CDFW to animals not listed under ESA or CESA, but that are considered to be declining at a rate that could result in listing, or that historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. CDFW’s fully protected status was California’s first attempt to identify and protect animals that were rare or facing extinction. Most species listed as fully protected were eventually listed as threatened or endangered under CESA; however, some species remain listed as fully protected but do not have simultaneous listing under CESA. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no take permits can be issued for these species except for scientific research purposes or for relocation to protect livestock.

A list of special-status species with the potential to occur in the project area was developed through a review of relevant databases and other available information. The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2022) and CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2022a) were reviewed for specific information on documented observations of special-status species previously recorded in the project site and vicinity. A search of the CNDDB and CNPS was conducted for the following US Geological Survey 7.5’ quadrangles surrounding the project area: Riverbank, Waterford, Oakdale, Escalon, Brush Lake, Ceres, Denair, Avena, and Salida. In addition, an official species list was received for the project from the USFWS IpaC database.

The determination of the probability that any species may occur in the project site was determined based on the range of the species, distance to documented occurrences, suitable habitat within the project site, and other factors.

The full list of botanical and animal species evaluated for the potential to occur within the project site are shown in Appendix C. The special-status species with the potential to occur within the project site are shown in Table 3.4-1.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-34 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Species Known or with the Potential to Occur in the Project Site Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2
Invertebrates
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus
T SJMSCP: Yes Riparian scrub. Occurs only in the Central Valley of California, in association with
blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp.

Caerulea). Prefers to lay eggs in
elderberries 2-8 inches in diameter; some
preference shown for “stressed”
elderberries.

Could occur: Riparian habitat associated with
the Stanislaus River is located directly
adjacent to the project area. Numerous
elderberry shrubs were observed during the
reconnaissance surveys located within 165
feet of the disturbance footprint. The species
was documented to occur historically along
the north bank of the Stanislaus River
adjacent to the WWTP (CNDDB 2022a).

Fish
Green sturgeon
southern distinct
population segment
Acipenser medirostris
FT SJMSCP: Yes Aquatic, Klamath/North coast flowing
waters, Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing
waters. These are the most marine species
of sturgeon. Abundance increases
northward of Point Conception. Spawns in
the Sacramento, Klamath, and Trinity
Rivers. Spawns at temperatures between
8-14 degrees C. Preferred spawning
substrate is large cobble, but can range
from clean sand to bedrock.

Could Occur: There are no aquatic features
within the project area suitable for green
sturgeon; however, the species may be
present within the Stanislaus River directly
adjacent to the eastern application area.

Chinook salmon –
Central Valley fall /
late fall-run
Evolutionary
Significant Unit
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
SSC SJMSCP: No Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters.

Populations spawning in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin rivers and their
tributaries.

Could Occur: There are no aquatic features
within the project area suitable for Chinook
salmon; however, the species may be present
within the Stanislaus River directly adjacent to
the eastern application area.

Hardhead
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
SC SJMSCP: No Aquatic. Klamath/North coast flowing
waters, Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing
waters. Low to mid-elevation streams in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage.

Also present in the Russian River. Clear,
deep pools with sand-gravel-boulder
bottoms and slow water velocity. Not
found where exotic centrarchids
predominate.

Could Occur: There are no aquatic features
within the project area suitable for hardhead;
however, the species may be present within
the Stanislaus River directly adjacent to the
eastern application area.

Steelhead – Central
Valley DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus pop. 11
T SJMSCP: No Aquatic. Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing
waters. Populations in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin rivers and their
tributaries.

Could Occur: There are no aquatic features
within the project area suitable for steelhead;
however, the species may be present within
the Stanislaus River directly adjacent to the
eastern application area.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-35 Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2
Amphibians and
Reptiles
Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
SC SJMSCP: Yes A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation
ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation,
below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking
sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy
open fields) upland habitat up to 0.3 mile
from water for egg-laying.

Could Occur: Riparian vegetation adjacent to
the project area, as well as undisturbed
portions of the WWTP and application areas,
may be used by western pond turtle as
upland habitat. Unidentified turtles were seen
using the existing treatment ponds during the
site visit on May 17, 2022. Nearest
documented occurrence is approximately 7
miles from the project area (CNDDB 2022a).

Birds
Cooper’s hawk
Accipter cooperi
SJMSCP: Yes Cismontane woodland, riparian forest,
riparian woodland, upper montane
coniferous forest. Woodland, chiefly of
open, interrupted, or marginal type. Nest
sites mainly in riparian growths of
deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms on
river floodplains; also, live oaks.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Sharp-shinned hawk
Accipter striatus
SJMSCP: Yes Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian
woodland. Ponderosa pine, black oak,
riparian deciduous, mixed conifer, and
Jeffrey pine habitats. Prefers riparian
areas. North-facing slopes with plucking
perches are critical requirements. Nests
usually within 275 feet of water.

Could occur: Riparian habitat adjacent to
project area is suitable foraging habitat for
the species. Project is outside of the breeding
range of the species.

Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
T SJMSCP: Yes Freshwater marsh, swamp, and wetland.

Highly colonial species, most numerous in
Central Valley and vicinity. Largely
endemic to California. Requires open
water, protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey within a few
kilometers of the colony.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species; however, no nesting
habitat is present within the project area, and
the orchards within the project area are not
likely to support foraging tricolored blackbird.

Great egret
Ardea albus
SJMSCP: Yes Brackish marsh, estuary, freshwater marsh,
marsh and swamp, riparian forest, and
wetlands. Colonial nester in large trees.

Rookery sites located near marshes, tideflats, irrigated pastures, and margins of rivers and lakes.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Great blue heron
Ardea herodias
SJMSCP: Yes Brackish marsh, estuary, freshwater marsh,
marsh and swamp, riparian forest, and
wetlands. Colonial nester in tall trees,
cliffsides, and sequestered spots on
marshes. Rookery sites in close proximity
to foraging areas: marshes, lake margins,
tide-flats, rivers and streams, wet
meadows.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-36 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SC SJMSCP: Yes Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, Great Basin grassland, Great Basin scrub, Mojavean
desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub, and
valley and foothill grassland. Open, dry
annual or perennial grasslands, deserts
and scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably, the California ground
squirrel.

Could Occur: The project area includes lowgrowing open grassland and open ruderal habitats containing ground squirrel burrows
that may provide suitable burrows for this
species.

Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
T SJMSCP: Yes Great Basin grassland, riparian forest,
riparian woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Breeds in grasslands with
scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian
areas, savannahs, and agricultural or
ranch lands with groves or lines of trees.

Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas
such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain
fields supporting rodent populations.

Known to Occur: Large riparian and other
trees within and adjacent to the project area
provide potential nesting habitat for this
species. Swainson’s hawks were observed
nesting in oak trees just north of the WWTP
along the railroad right of way in 2003
(CNDDB 2022a).

Yellow warbler
Dendroica petechia
brewsteri
SC SJMSCP: Yes Riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland. Riparian plant associations in
close proximity to water. Also nests in
montane shrubbery in open conifer
forests in Cascade Range and Sierra
Nevada. Frequently found nesting and
foraging in willow shrubs and thickets,
and in other riparian plants including
cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and alders.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
FP SJMSCP: Yes Forages in grasslands and agricultural
fields; nests in riparian zones, oak
woodlands, and isolated trees.

Could Occur: Large riparian and other trees
within and adjacent to the project area
provide potential nesting habitat for this
species.

California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia
SJMSCP: Yes A common to abundant resident in a
variety of open habitats, usually where
trees and large shrubs are absent. Found
from grasslands along the coast and
deserts near sea level to alpine dwarfshrub habitat above treeline.

Could occur: Grassland adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Merlin
Falco columbarius
SJMSCP: Yes Estuary, Great Basin grassland, valley and
foothill grassland. Seacoast, tidal
estuaries, open woodlands, savannas,
edges of grasslands and deserts, farms
and ranches. Clumps of trees or
windbreaks are required for roosting in
open country.

Could occur: Grassland and oak woodlands
within the project area are potentially suitable
foraging habitat for this species.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-37 Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2
Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
SC SJMSCP: Yes Riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland. Summer resident; inhabits
riparian thickets of willow and other
brushy tangles near watercourses. Nests
in low, dense riparian, consisting of
willow, blackberry, wild grape; forages
and nests within 10 feet of ground.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
SC SJMSCP: Yes Broken woodlands, savanna, pinyonjuniper, Joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oases, scrub and
washes. Prefers open country for hunting,
with perches for scanning, and fairly
dense shrubs and brush for nesting.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Black-crowned night
heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
SJMSCP: Yes Marsh and swamp, riparian forest, riparian
woodland, and wetlands. Colonial nester,
usually in trees, occasionally in tule
patches. Rookery sites located adjacent to
foraging areas: lake margins, mudbordered bays, marshy spots.

Could occur: Riparian trees adjacent to the
project area may provide potential nesting
habitat for this species.

Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
SJMSCP: Yes Riparian forest. Ocean shore, bays, freshwater lakes, and larger streams. Large nests built in tree-tops within 15 miles of a
good fish-producing body of water.

Could occur: Large riparian and other trees
within and adjacent to the project area
provide potential nesting habitat for this
species, which may forage within the
Stanislaus River.

Mammals
Townsend’s big-eared
bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
SC SJMSCP: Yes Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral,
chenopod scrub, Great Basin grassland,
Great Basin scrub, Joshua tree woodland,
lower montane coniferous forest, meadow
& seep, Mojavean desert scrub, riparian
forest, riparian woodland, Sonoran desert
scrub. Throughout California in a wide
variety of habitats. Most common in
mesic sites. Roosts in the open, hanging
from walls and ceilings. Roosting sites
limiting. Extremely sensitive to human
disturbance.

Could occur: The project area and adjacent
riparian corridor may provide foraging habitat
for this species, which has been recorded to
occur upstream along the Stanislaus River
near Knights Ferry (CNDDB 2022a). However,
the project area does not likely support roosts
for Townsends’ big-eared bat because
structures in the area that may provide
suitable shelter are subject to regular human
disturbance.

Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
californicus
SC SJMSCP: Yes Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Many
open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including
conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, and chaparral. Roosts in
crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees,
and tunnels.

Could occur: The project area and adjacent
riparian corridor may provide foraging habitat
for this species. There is a historical record of
the species approximately 5.5 miles east of
the project area, and more recent occurrences
upstream along the Stanislaus River (CNDDB
2022a). While there is no roosting habitat
within the project area, the railroad bridge
over the Stanislaus River near the project area
may support roosts of this species.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-38 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2
Yuma myotis bat
Myotis yumanensis
SJMSCP: Yes Lower montane coniferous forest, riparian
forest, riparian woodland, upper montane
coniferous forest. Optimal habitats are
open forests and woodlands with sources
of water over which to feed. Distribution
is closely tied to bodies of water.

Maternity colonies in caves, mines,
buildings, or crevices.

Could occur: The project area and adjacent
riparian corridor may provide foraging habitat
for this species. While there is no roosting
habitat within the project area, the railroad
bridge over the Stanislaus River near the
project area may support roosts of this
species.

Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
SC SJMSCP: Yes Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian
woodland. Roosts primarily in trees, 2-40
feet above ground, from sea level up
through mixed conifer forests. Prefers
habitat edges and mosaics with trees that
are protected from above and open
below with open areas for foraging.

Could Occur: Riparian trees adjacent to the
project area, as well as large oaks within the
application areas, may provide roosting
habitat for this species.

Notes: ESA = Federal Endangered Species Act; CESA = California Endangered Species Act; SJMSCP = San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan; DPS= Distinct Population Segment 1 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

T Threatened (legally protected)
State:

SC Species of special concern (no formal protection other than CEQA consideration) T Threatened (legally protected
2 Other
SJMSCP = species covered by the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan 3 Potential for Occurrence Definitions
Could occur: Suitable habitat is available in the project site; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be present.

Known to occur: The species, or evidence of its presence, has been reported by others within the project site.

Sources: CNDDB 2022a; SJCOG 2000.

SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Based on the land covers present (Figure 3.4-1) and the reconnaissance surveys conducted on May 17 and July 8, 2022, the following vegetation alliances were identified within the project site:
 Acer negundo (61.440.00) Box-elder forest and woodland (S3)  Populus fremontii (61.130.00) Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland (S3)  Quercus lobata (71.040.00) Valley oak woodland and forest (S3) These vegetation alliances have a state rarity ranking of S3 and are therefore considered sensitive natural communities under CEQA.

POTENTIALLY JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES
Based on the aquatic resources delineation report for the project (Ascent Environmental 2022a), no potentially jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the United States and/or state are located within 50 feet of the access road, pipeline alignment, or within the existing WWTP site.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-39

3.4.3 Discussion
13Ba) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Special-Status Wildlife
Twelve special-status wildlife species are known to occur or could occur within or adjacent to the project site (Table

3.4-1). The potential for the project to result in impacts to each of these species is disclosed below.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle is listed under ESA as threatened and is a SJMSCP covered species. Critical habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetle does not occur within the project area. The species was documented to occur between the existing WWTP and the Stanislaus River in 1991 (CNDDB 2022a). Blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) is the obligate larval host plant for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (USFWS 2017a) and elderberry plants with exit holes indicating valley elderberry longhorn beetle activity have been documented within Jacob Myers Park directly adjacent to the project area (River Partners 2007). Blue elderberry is an important component of riparian ecosystems in California. It can be found as an overstory plant or understory plant within these communities. In addition to riparian habitat, elderberry shrubs may be found in historic floodplain, floodplain terraces, along canals and ditches, and other areas where shrub roots can access subsurface water (USFWS 2017a).

During the reconnaissance-level biological surveys, elderberry shrubs were observed within the project impact footprint along pipeline A2, and directly adjacent to pipeline A and the WWTP facility.. Although elderberry shrubs were noted during the reconnaissance surveys, these surveys did not constitute protocol-level surveys for the presence of elderberry shrubs that could provide habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetle. However, these elderberry shrubs are within 2,526 feet of other elderberry shrubs and the known occurrence in Jacob Myers Park, which increases the likelihood that these shrubs are occupied (USFWS 2017a).

While elderberry shrubs may occur in or adjacent to the application areas, there would be no project related ground disturbance in these areas where shrubs are located. Furthermore, any impact to valley elderberry longhorn beetle from recycled water application would be discountable because recycled water would be applied at agronomic rates similar to current irrigation practices. However, there are elderberry shrubs within pipeline alignment A1 and adjacent to the disturbance footprint of pipeline alignment A and the WWTP facility, and adverse effects on valley elderberry longhorn beetle from constriction activities may occur. Potential adverse effects from the construction of pipeline A 1 include damage or killing of elderberry shrubs as the result of direct removal, cutting of roots, changes in hydrology, or construction dust. Construction of other portions of the project (e.g., pipeline alignment A and the WWTP facility), while not likely to result in direct removal of shrubs or roots, could still have indirect effects on elderberry shrubs (i.e., changes in hydrology and construction dust). The damage or death of elderberry shrubs would reduce habitat and may result in death of individual valley elderberry longhorn beetle if these shrubs are occupied. Therefore, project construction, and associated ground disturbance and dust, could result in damage or removal of elderberry shrubs, and injury or death of valley elderberry longhorn beetle, which would be a substantial adverse effect on the species and a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle To avoid and minimize project impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP, and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-40 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Indirect impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle will be minimized by implementing the following:
 All elderberry shrubs to be avoided during construction activities will be fenced or flagged as close to construction limits as possible.
 A minimum avoidance area of at least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant will be maintained to avoid direct impacts that could damage or kill the plant.  A qualified biologist will provide training for all contractors, work crews, and any onsite personnel on the status of valley elderberry longhorn beetle, its host plant and habitat, the need to avoid damaging the elderberry shrubs, and the possible penalties for non-compliance.
 A qualified biologist will inspect the work area prior to commencement of construction and will monitor the work area at project-appropriate intervals to assure that all avoidance and minimization measures are implemented.  Project activities, such as truck traffic or other use of machinery, will not create excessive dust on the project site, such that the growth or vigor of elderberry shrubs is adversely affected. Enforcement of a speed-limit and watering dirt roadways are potential methods to minimize excessive dust creation.  Herbicides will not be used within the dripline of any elderberry shrub. Insecticides will not be used within 98 feet of any elderberry shrub. All chemicals will be applied using a backpack sprayer or similar direct application method. Mechanical weed removal within the dripline of any elderberry shrub will be limited to the season when adults are not active (August – February) and will avoid damaging the elderberry.  Following completion of construction, affected areas will be returned to pre-project conditions.  If avoidance of elderberry shrubs is not feasible, the health and vigor of the shrubs could be damaged, which could result in death or injury to valley elderberry longhorn beetles. The City will obtain approval from the San Joaquin Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP or consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA to obtain take coverage and implement required conservation and minimization measures. No elderberry shrub will be trimmed or removed until authorization has been issued. Conservation and minimization measures will include, but may not be limited to, the following:
 Elderberry shrubs that would be directly impacted will be transplanted to a USFWS approved mitigation site during the dormant period for elderberry shrubs (November 1 through February 15).  If elderberry shrubs without evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes cannot be transplanted, the City will provide compensation within SJMSCP Preserves or other USFWS approved mitigation site at a ratio of at least three new plants for each stem 1 inch in diameter or greater at ground level.  If elderberry shrubs with evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes cannot be transplanted, the City will provide compensation within SJMSCP Preserves or other USFWS approved mitigation site at a ratio of at least six new plants for each stem 1 inch in diameter or greater at ground level.

Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on valley elderberry longhorn beetle from construction and operation of the project by implementing construction setbacks from elderberry shrubs, and protecting shrubs from indirect impacts or transplanting shrubs and providing compensation for removal of shrubs consistent with the SJMSCP, or conservation measures developed in consultation with USFWS. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the SJMSCP, dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, the project would not result in Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-41 substantial adverse effects on the viability of the species, and the impact to valley elderberry longhorn beetle would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Special-Status Fish Species
The Stanislaus River, which is adjacent to the project area, provides suitable habitat for the Central Valley distinct population segment of steelhead, and southern distinct population segment of green sturgeon which are listed under the ESA as threatened. In addition, the river may also provide suitable habitat for Chinook salmon – Central Valley fall / late fall-run Evolutionary Significant Unit and hardhead, CDFW species of special concern.

The construction of project features including WWTP modifications, pond modifications, storage tank, pump station, distribution pipelines, access route, and staging areas would not occur within the Stanislaus River, its associated riparian vegetation, or waters that drain to the river. Although the proposed access road crosses over a canal that previously may have drained to the river, the canal is no longer operational and does not convey water, and no work is proposed within the canal. For this reason, adverse direct effects on special-status fishes are not anticipated to occur as a result of project construction.

Ground disturbance would occur no closer than approximately 200 feet from the Stanislaus River and as such no vibration impacts that would adversely affect special-status fishes would occur. While construction is anticipated to occur during the normal rainy season for the project region, the project would employ water quality best management practices (BMPs) to control runoff from ground disturbing activities. Therefore, construction of the project is not likely to result in contaminated runoff to the Stanislaus River, or any waterbody that drains into the Stanislaus River and construction related indirect effects to habitat for special-status fishes is not anticipated. As discussed in Section 2.3, the application of recycled water would occur at current application rates and is not anticipated to result in run-off to the Stanislaus River or waters that drain to the river. Therefore, no direct impacts to special-status fishes would occur, and indirect impacts would be insignificant or discountable. The project is not likely to have a substantial adverse effect on Chinook salmon – Central Valley fall / late fall-run Evolutionary Significant Unit or hardhead and is not likely to adversely affect the Central Valley distinct population segment of steelhead or green sturgeon. The project would have no impact on special-status fish species.

Steelhead Critical Habitat
The Stanislaus River is designated critical habitat for the Central Valley distinct population segment (DPS) of steelhead (NOAA 2002, 2022). The physical and biological features that are essential for conservation of Central Valley steelhead that occur within the portion of the Stanislaus River adjacent to the project site are:

Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival; and Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.

As discussed above, the project would not occur within the Stanislaus River and would therefore not have any direct effects on steelhead critical habitat or physical and biological features that are essential for conservation of the species.

In addition, due to the distance from critical habitat, construction activities are not likely to result in vibration impacts, and through the use of water quality BMPs contaminated runoff to critical habitat would be avoided to the extent that any effect would be discountable. In addition, as discussed in Section 2.3, the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and is not anticipated to result in run-off to the Stanislaus River or waters that drain to the river.

Therefore, the project is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for steelhead, and the project would have no impact on critical habitat for steelhead.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-42 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Western Pond Turtle
Western pond turtle is a CDFW species of special concern and a covered species under the SJMSCP. The construction of project features including WWTP improvements, pond modifications, storage tank, pump station, distribution pipelines, access routes, and staging areas would not occur within the Stanislaus River, its associated riparian vegetation, or waters that drain to the river. In addition, the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and is not anticipated to result in run-off to the Stanislaus River or waters that drain to the river. Therefore, the project would not result in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat for western pond turtle. However, due to the proximity of the project site to the Stanislaus River, portions of the project site (within 0.3 mile of the river) with uncompacted soils may be used as upland nesting habitat by western pond turtles. The construction of the project would not result in a reduction of upland habitat, because modifications to access roads would occur within the existing road footprint, and modifications to the WWTP and staging areas would occur within the footprint of the existing facility, which do not provide upland habitat. In addition, where the access road and pipeline work areas overlap with natural habitats, the disturbance would be temporary and restored to previously existing conditions after construction.

However, because the project site overlaps with upland habitat, the construction of the project could therefore result in turtles being crushed by construction equipment. In addition, turtles could be trapped within the open trench during construction of the distribution pipelines, and western pond turtle nests could be destroyed. The death of western pond turtles and destruction of nests would be a substantial adverse effect on the local and regional population of this species; therefore, the impact of the project on western pond turtle would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Western Pond Turtle To avoid potentially significant impacts on western pond turtle, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a). All mitigation listed below will be limited to construction within 0.3 mile of suitable aquatic habitat:
 A preconstruction survey for western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours of commencing work in aquatic habitat suitable for the species. If no pond turtles are observed, no further mitigation is necessary.
 During draining of the existing water storage ponds within the WWTP associated with construction of the project, a qualified biologist shall be present to monitor for presence of western pond turtles. If pond turtles are observed, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall relocate pond turtles to the nearest area with suitable aquatic habitat that will not be disturbed by project-related construction activities (i.e., Stanislaus River).  If nesting areas for pond turtles are identified on the project site, a no-disturbance buffer area of 300 feet shall be established around the nesting site (which may be immediately adjacent to the river or extend up to 400 feet away from the river in uplands). These buffers shall be indicated by temporary fencing if construction has or will begin before nesting periods have ended. (The period from egg laying to emergence of hatchlings is normally April to November.)
Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on western pond turtle from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around nesting sites consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org.. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, the project would not have a Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-43 substantial adverse effect on the viability of local or regional populations of the species, and the impact to western pond turtle would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Swainson’s Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Merlin, Osprey, and White-Tailed Kite The project area contains suitable foraging habitat for merlin, but is not within the breeding range of the species. The project contains suitable foraging habitat and potential nesting trees for Swainson’s hawk, which is listed as threatened under CESA and covered under the SJMSCP. In addition, a Swainson’s hawk nest was documented just outside of the project site, along the railroad alignment in 2003. The recycled water use area portions of the overall project site contain oaks in some locations that could be suitable nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite; however, the application of the recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as existing conditions. Therefore, no impacts from operations of the project are anticipated. No tree removal is anticipated as part of the project, and the project would not remove potential roosts or foraging habitat for merlin. However, potentially suitable nesting trees for Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite are located on the project site and within 0.25 mile of the project site. If construction occurs between February 15 and September 15, construction noise and human disturbance from construction activities could result in nest abandonment, or loss of eggs and young, which would be a substantial adverse effect on the local and regional population of the species. Therefore, the project would have a potentially significant impact on Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawk, Osprey, and white-tailed kite, .

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk, Coopers Hawk, Osprey, and White-tailed Kite To avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP or consult with CDFW and obtain take authorization for Swainson’s hawk under CFGC Section 2081, and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 If project activity will commence between February 15 and September 15, a qualified biologist will be retained to conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests on and within 0.5 mile of the project site no more than 14 days and no less than 7 days before work begins.
 If an occupied Swainson’s hawk nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, a 0.25-mile no-disturbance buffer will be established. If an occupied Cooper’s hawk, osprey, or white-tailed kite nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be established around the nest. All project activities will be avoided within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active or that the young have fully fledged.
 If a Swainson’s hawk nest tree becomes occupied during construction activities, then all construction activities shall remain a distance of two times the dripline of the tree, measured from the nest, and the nest shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If construction activities cause the nesting bird to vocalize, make defensive flights at intruders, get up from a brooding position, or fly off the nest, then the no-disturbance buffer shall be increased until the agitated behavior ceases.

Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on Swainson’s hawk Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around occupied nesting sites consistent with the SJMSCP or conservation measures developed in consultation with CDFW. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to Swainson’s hawk Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and whitetailed kite to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the viability of the local or regional populations of the species, Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-44 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the impact to Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Other Special-Status Bird Species
Loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, and burrowing owl are CDFW species of special concern, and tricolored blackbird is listed as threatened under CESA. All five species are covered species under the SJMSCP.

California horned lark, black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, and snowy egret are also SJMCP covered species.

Yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler, may nest within the riparian habitat adjacent to the project site, which also may contain tricolored blackbird, black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, and great egret, snowy egret colonies. Although, no colonies have been documented in this area. Loggerhead shrike may nest within the shrub savannah adjacent to the project area. Burrowing owls nest in burrows that have been constructed by ground squirrels and other similar human-created structures (e.g., unused pipe openings) that occur within barren areas or habitats with low growing vegetation. Ground squirrel burrows were observed within the WWTP, access road, and pipeline work areas during the reconnaissance survey on May 17, 2022. California horned lark nests in grasslands, and although the grassland within the project site is likely too small to support nesting larks, the grasslands adjacent to the project site may be suitable for this species.

The recycled water use area portions of the overall project site are less than 25 feet from suitable riparian habitat in some locations; however, the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as existing conditions. Therefore, no impacts from operations of the project on these species are anticipated. The majority of construction activities would occur greater than 100 feet from suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler and no direct or indirect impacts to these species from these activities are anticipated. However, the improvements to the access road would occur within 100 feet of loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler habitat, and indirect impacts could result from this activity. Construction and staging activities would occur within 500 feet of potential tricolored blackbird, blackcrowned night heron and snowy egret habitat and indirect impacts from construction and staging activities within this distance to riparian habitat could result in disturbance of a nesting colony and loss of eggs and young. Similarly, construction activities may occur within 100 feet of California horned lark nests and burrowing owl burrows, which could result in the disturbance of nesting activities, or destruction of nests and loss of eggs and young. The disturbance of special-status bird nests, if nests occur within or adjacent to the project site, would be a substantial adverse effect on the local and regional populations of these species. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Other Special-Status Birds To avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler nests; burrowing owl burrows; black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret and tricolored blackbird colonies, the City may obtain approval from San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for any project activity that would occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–August 31) within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat for special-status birds, including shrubs, riparian vegetation, trees, and barren areas within the WWTP, access road, and pipeline alignment. The survey shall be conducted within 14 days before project activity begins.  If no black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, or tricolored blackbird colonies, or other special-status nesting birds are found, no further mitigation is required.  If active black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, or tricolored blackbird colonies are found, a qualified biologist shall establish a setback of 500 feet from colonial nesting areas for these species, which shall be established and maintained during the nesting season for the period encompassing nest building and continuing until fledglings leave nests. This setback applies whenever Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-45 construction or other ground-disturbing activities must begin during the nesting season in the presence of nests that are known to be occupied. Setbacks shall be marked by brightly colored temporary fencing.  If active burrowing owl burrows or California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, song sparrow, yellow-breasted chat, or yellow warbler nests are found, a qualified biologist shall establish a setback of 500 feet from the California horned lark nest, 250 feet from the burrowing owl burrow, or 100 feet from the loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, or yellow warbler nest as applicable, during the nesting season (February 1–August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive means that the birds have not begun egg laying, or that juveniles from the occupied burrows or nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. For burrowing owls, once the fledglings are capable of independent survival the owls may be evicted using passive relocation as described in the California Department of Fish and Game’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on specialstatus birds from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around active nests consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to special-status birds to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of special-status birds, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Common Raptors and Other Nesting Birds
While common raptors and other nesting birds do not fit the criteria for special-status species as defined in this analysis, it is standard for public entities such as the City to analyze project impacts to common raptors and other common nesting birds protected under CFGC Section 3503 and Section 3503.5 and under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Construction of the project could result in the disturbance or destruction of nests of common raptors and other nesting birds that may nest within the project site and may result in loss of eggs and young. The loss of nests could be a substantial adverse effect on the local populations of these species. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-5, the City would avoid and minimize disturbance of nests through pre-construction surveys and non-disturbance buffers around active nests. Therefore, the project would not Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-46 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of common raptors and other nesting birds, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Special-Status Bat Species
The project site contains suitable foraging habitat for the CDFW species of special-concern Townsend’s big-eared bat, and western mastiff bat, as well as the Yuma myotis bat. However, roosting habitat for these species is not present in the project site. The project would not have any adverse effect on foraging by Townsend’s big-eared bat, or western mastiff bat because operations would not result in a reduction of irrigation or agricultural production, and the new facilities would be placed within the existing WWTP site.

Western red bat, a CDFW species of special-concern and SJMSCP covered species, not only may forage in the project site, but the large oaks and riparian trees within and adjacent to the project site may provide suitable roosting habitat for this species. The recycled water use area portions of the overall project site contain trees suitable for roosting by western red bat in some locations; however, the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as existing conditions. Therefore, no impacts from operations of the project are anticipated. While no tree removal is anticipated, western red bats roost within the foliage of large trees and tree trimming could result in direct impacts, including injury or death. Indirect impacts from noise and vibration could also result in the loss of roosts, injury, or death of western red bat if tree trimming, grading, trenching or other construction activities take place within 250 feet of suitable roosts during roosting season (March 1 through August 31). The loss of western red bat roosts would result in a substantial adverse effect on the local and regional population of this species. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-6, the City would avoid and minimize disturbance of western red bat roosts by implementing preconstruction surveys and avoidance buffers consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to special-status bats to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-47 (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org.. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of western red bat, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 14Bb) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less-than-significant impact. Valley oak woodland, Fremont cottonwood forest, and box elder forest and woodland are the only sensitive natural communities in the project site (Figure 3.4-1). With the exception of small areas of valley oak woodland located within the proposed pipeline alignment and along the access road, these sensitive natural communities occur within the recycled water use areas of the project. No impacts to these communities are anticipated from project operations because the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as existing conditions. Although the branches of oak trees may be trimmed along the access road if required for the passage of vehicles, no tree removal or conversion of the valley oak woodland is anticipated. For these reasons the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 15Bc) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No impact. No potentially jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the United States and/or state are located within 50 feet of the access road, pipeline alignment, or within the existing WWTP. Furthermore, no indirect effects on state or federally protected wetlands would occur because the project would employ water quality BMPs to control runoff from ground disturbing activities, and the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as under existing conditions. Therefore, the project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands.
16BD) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less-than-significant impact. There are no documented native wildlife nursery sites within or adjacent to the project site. The project is located within a documented wildlife corridor (CNDDB 2022b), and the project site may also be used for local movement between the Stanislaus River and adjacent uplands. The project would not construct any linear features (e.g., fences, roads) that would be a barrier to wildlife movement through the site. The improvements to the access road would not increase the width of this existing road or result in any changes that would affect wildlife movement. Construction activities would likely result in temporary impacts to wildlife movement through the site, due to construction noise, equipment use, and the presence of workers. However, construction activities would occur during daylight hours (Section 2.7.1, Construction Schedule and Sequencing), while most wildlife movement through the area would occur between dusk and dawn. For these reasons the project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
17Be) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less-than-significant impact. Chapter 9-1505.3 of the San Joaquin County Code of Ordinances requires permits for the removal of native oak trees, heritage oak trees, or historical trees. Native oak trees are present within the project site; however, no tree removal is anticipated as part of the project. In addition, the City will comply with all of the applicable development constraints (Chapter 9-1505.5) protecting native oak trees, heritage oak trees, or historical Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-48 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration trees, including but not limited to, no grade changes within 6 feet of the drip line, no trenching within the protected zone, and the installation of fencing to protect trees from construction activities. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and this impact would be less than significant.
18Bf) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No impact. The project is located within the plan area of the SJMSCP (Section 3.7.1), which is an HCP/NCCP, and meets the definition of a covered activity under the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a). The project does not occur within or adjacent to any existing SJMSCP preserves (SJCOG 2022), and therefore, would have no direct or indirect effect on any preserve. As described in section 3.4.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the City of Riverbank General Plan (Policy CONS4.3) (City of Riverbank 2009) requires compliance with the SJMSCP for covered activities within San Joaquin County as applicable. However, participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary and the project site is unmapped. Therefore, the City could either apply for and obtain approval from the San Joaquin Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP or consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA for take authorization for valley elderberry longhorn beetle. The mitigation measures proposed above for special-status species are consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP, as applicable.

Therefore, no conflict with the SJMSCP would occur regardless if the project is covered by the SJMSCP; there would be no impact.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-49

3.5 87BCULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
V. Cultural Resources.

Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 establishes the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and defines federal criteria for determining the historical significance of archaeological sites, historic buildings, and other resources. To be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, a resource must meet at least one of the following four historical significance criteria (delineated at 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 60.4) and must also possess sufficient deposition, and architectural or historic integrity to retain the ability to convey the resource’s historic significance.

Those resources determined to meet these criteria are eligible for listing in the NRHP and are termed “historic properties.” A resource may be eligible for NRHP listing at the local, state, or national level of significance.

A resource is eligible for NRHP inclusion if it possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and it:
 Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or  Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or  Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
 Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several and usually most aspects that demonstrate integrity, and generally would retain most aspects of that integrity. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. A resource that lacks integrity or does not meet one of the NRHP criteria is not considered a historic property under federal law, and effects to such a resource are not considered significant under the NHPA.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-50 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration STATE
California Register of Historical Resources
All properties in California that are listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is a listing of State of California resources that are significant in the context of California’s history. It is a statewide program with a scope and with criteria for inclusion similar to those used for the NRHP. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the CRHR.

A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the criteria defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 15, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 to be included in the CRHR. The CRHR criteria are tied to CEQA because any resource that meets the criteria below is considered a significant historical resource under CEQA. The CRHR uses four evaluation criteria:

Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values.

Criterion 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on “historical resources,” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to PRC Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” “Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5[a] and [b]) as a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR, included in a local register, identified as significant in a historical resource survey, or considered by the lead agency to be historically significant.

CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will affect unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2(g) states that “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

California Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are determined to be those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

Public Resources Code, Section 5097
PRC Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed if human remains are unexpectedly discovered on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of NAHC. Section 5097.5 of the code states:

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-51 No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the Natural and Cultural Resources Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan are relevant to cultural resources with respect to the project:
 Policy NCR-6.2. No Destruction of Resources: The County shall ensure that no significant architectural, historical, archeological, or cultural resources are knowingly destroyed through County action.  Policy NCR-6.5. Protect Archeological and Historical Resources: The County shall protect significant archeological and historical resources by requiring an archeological report be prepared by a qualified cultural resource specialist prior to the issuance of any discretionary permit or approval in areas determined to contain significant historic or prehistoric archeological artifacts that could be disturbed by project construction.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The following policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan are relevant to cultural resources with respect to the project:
 Policy CONS-2.1: Approved projects, plans, and subdivision requests shall incorporate all available measures, with a preference for avoidance, to reduce or eliminate impacts to known and unknown archaeological and paleontological resources.
 Policy CONS-2.2: All Native American cultural and archaeological sites shall be protected permanently from urban development, wherever possible.
 Policy CONS-2.3: The City shall restrict the circulation of cultural resource locational information to prevent potential site vandalism.
 Policy CONS-2.4: The City shall not knowingly approve any public or private project that may adversely affect an archaeological site without first consulting with the Central California Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and, if necessary, consulting with a qualified professional archaeologist regarding the significance of the site. Implementation of this policy shall be guided by Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA guidelines.
 Policy CONS-2.5: As guided by State law, in the event of the inadvertent discovery of previously unknown archaeological sites during excavation or construction, all construction affecting the site shall cease and the contractor shall contact the appropriate City agency. If Native American human remains are discovered, the City shall work with local Native American representatives to ensure that the remains and associated artifacts are treated in a respectful and dignified manner.

3.5.2 Environmental Setting
On April 19, 2022, a CHRIS records search was conducted by the Central California Information Center (CCaIC), at California State University Stanislaus (File No.: 12161LN) to determine whether prehistoric archaeological, historicperiod archaeological, or built-environment historical resources have been previously recorded within the project area, the extent to which the project area has been previously surveyed, and the number and type of cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area. When additional acreage was added to the project site, a Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-52 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration second records search was conducted to include the additional areas and a one-quarter-mile radius on June 8, 2022 (File No.: 12204LN).

Combined, the records searches identified only one previously recorded historical resource within the project site, the Stanislaus River Bridge, and one informal resource, a verbal report of an approximate location of a Native American burial. The records search also found that 10 previous cultural resources surveys have been conducted which included portions of the project site. No new resources or investigations were identified as a result of the June 8, 2022, records search that were not already identified in the April 19, 2022, search. A pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on April 28, 2022, which resulted in the identification of no built-environment features or archaeological sites (Ascent Environmental 2022b).

3.5.3 Discussion
19Ba) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant. The Stanislaus River Bridge (P-39-000564/P-50-001735) is a NRHP- and CRHR-eligible historical resource. Although this bridge is located within the project site, project activities (specifically Pipeline B) would be limited to the roadway beneath the bridge. No part of the project would demolish, relocate, or alter the bridge, or its immediate surroundings, such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Because the bridge would not be altered, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Therefore, the impact to historical resources would be less than significant. 20Bb) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Although the CCaIC records searches did not reveal any previously identified archaeological resources, project-related ground-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Protect Unanticipated Archaeological Resource Discoveries In the event that a prehistoric archeological site (such as any unusual amounts of stone, bone, or shell) or a historicperiod archaeological site (such as concentrated deposits of bottles or bricks, amethyst glass, or other historic refuse), is uncovered during grading or other construction activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. The City will be notified of the potential find and a qualified archeologist shall be retained to investigate its significance. If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the geographically and culturally affiliated Native American group shall be notified and Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 shall be implemented. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CRHR standards of significance for cultural resources, construction may proceed. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall work with the City to follow accepted professional standards such as further testing for evaluation or data recovery, as necessary. If artifacts are recovered from significant historic archaeological resources, they shall be housed at a qualified curation facility. The results of the identification, evaluation, and/or data recovery program for any unanticipated discoveries shall be presented in a professional-quality report that details all methods and findings, evaluates the nature and significance of the resources, and analyzes and interprets the results.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-53 Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce impacts to archaeological cultural resources to a lessthan-significant level by requiring implementation of preservation options and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.
21Bc) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less-than-significant impact. There potentially was once a burial within the project site. The burial site was officially documented in 1991 based on verbal information from 1971; the burial was excavated, and all materials removed in 1971. The 1991 documentation does not include a precise location, however the general location given was partially inside the project site, but outside the area of disturbance as shown in Figure 2-3.

California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in HSC Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.

These statutes require that, if human remains are discovered, potentially damaging ground-disturbing activities in the area of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the county coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following the coroner’s findings, the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant and the landowner shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments, if present, are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94.

Compliance with HSC Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097 would provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of human remains, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-54 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.6 8BENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting
Energy conservation is embodied in many federal, state, and local statutes and policies. At the federal level, energy standards apply to numerous products (e.g., EPA’s EnergyStar™ program) and transportation (e.g., fuel efficiency standards). At the state level, Title 24 of the CCR sets forth energy standards for buildings. Further, the state provides rebates and tax credits for installing renewable energy systems, and its Flex Your Power program promotes conservation in multiple areas. At the local level, individual cities and counties establish policies in their general plans and climate action plans related to the energy efficiency of new development and land use planning and related to the use of renewable energy sources.

FEDERAL
Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. The EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. The EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light-duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in the EPAct. Federal tax deductions are allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the EPAct to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce US dependence on oil. It represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. It also increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022, which represents a nearly fivefold increase over 2007 levels. It also reduces US demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020—an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-55 STATE
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1974 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the California Energy Commission (CEC). The creation of the act occurred in response to the state legislature’s review of studies projecting an increase in statewide energy demand, which would potentially encourage the development of power plants in environmentally sensitive areas. The act introduced state policy for siting power plants to reduce potential environmental impacts and sought to reduce demand for these facilities by directing CEC to develop statewide energy conservation measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary uses of energy. Conservation measures recommended establishing design standards for energy conservation in buildings, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code). These standards are updated regularly and remain in effect today. The act additionally directed CEC to cooperate with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the California Natural Resources Agency, and other interested parties in ensuring that a discussion of the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy is included in all EIRs required for local projects.

State of California Energy Action Plan
CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, and conservation; public health and safety; and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The current plan is the 2008 update, which calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assisting public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs, as well as encouraging urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access (CEC 2008).

The 2008 update has been supplemented by the 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which includes three goals to drive energy efficiency: doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030, removing and reducing barriers to energy efficiency in low-income and disadvantaged communities, and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the buildings sector (CEC 2019).

Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required CEC to “conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety” (PRC Section 25301[a]). This work culminated in preparation of the first integrated energy policy report (IEPR).

CEC adopts an IEPR every 2 years and an update every other year. The most recent IEPR is the 2021 IEPR. The 2021 IEPR provides a summary of priority energy issues currently facing the state, outlining strategies and recommendations to further the state’s goal of ensuring reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy sources. The 2021 IEPR covers a broad range of topics, including building decarbonization, energy efficiency, challenges with decarbonizing California’s gas system, quantifying the benefits of the Clean Transportation Program, and the California Energy Demand Forecast (CEC 2021b).

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other state, federal, and local agencies. The plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes the costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of instate production. The plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-56 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation to public health and environmental quality.

Legislation Associated with Electricity Generation
The state has passed legislation requiring the increasing use of renewable energy to produce electricity for consumers. California utilities are required to generate 52 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018), 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018), and 100 percent zero-carbon by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018). More detail about these regulations is provided in Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Legislation Associated with Greenhouse Gas Reduction
The state has passed legislation that aims to reduce GHG emissions. The legislation often has an added benefit of reducing energy consumption. SB 32 requires a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 sets a long-term target of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, while EO B-55-18 establishes a statewide goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” While EO S-3-05 and EO B-55-18 have not yet been codified in law, the EO directs CARB to ensure future Climate Change Scoping Plans (discussed below) identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. Implementation of the state’s legislation associated with GHG reduction will have the co-benefit of reducing California’s dependency on fossil fuel and making land use development and transportation systems more energy efficient. More details about legislation associated with GHG reduction are provided in the regulatory setting of Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”
LOCAL
The City’s General Plan contains goals and policies pertaining to the City’s energy demand and consumption; however, these policies do not pertain to the project because those goals and policies pertain mostly to energy efficiency and renewable energy associated with land use development.

3.6.2 Environmental Setting

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS USE
Electric and natural gas services are provided to the City through Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. Over one-third of energy commodities consumed in California is natural gas. In 2021, the statewide electrical power mix was approximately 38 percent natural gas, 14 percent solar, 11 percent wind, 9 percent nuclear, and 9 percent large hydroelectric, with the remaining associated with geothermal, biomass, and other sources (CEC 2022). In 2020, (the most recent power content is available by utility through CEC), 30.6 percent of the electricity PG&E provided its customers was generated by eligible (as defined by CEC) renewable energy resources (i.e., biomass combustion, geothermal, small-scale hydroelectric, solar, and wind), 10 percent by large-scale hydroelectric resources, 16 percent by natural gas, and 43 percent by renewable (CEC 2021a). The contribution of instate and out-of-state power plants depends on the precipitation that occurred in the previous year, the corresponding amount of hydroelectric power that is available, and other factors. The proportion of PG&E-delivered electricity generated from eligible renewable energy sources is anticipated to increase over the next three decades to comply with the SB 100 goals described in Section 3.8.

ENERGY USE FOR TRANSPORTATION
In 2020, the transportation sector was the largest end-user of energy in the state, totaling 34.0 percent, followed by the industrial sector at 24.6 percent, the residential sector at 21.8 percent, and the commercial sector at 19.6 percent Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-57 (EIA 2022). On-road vehicles use about 90 percent of the petroleum consumed in California. Caltrans projected that 495 million gallons of gasoline and diesel were consumed in San Joaquin County in 2015, an increase of approximately 55 million gallons of fuel from 2010 levels (Caltrans 2008).

ENERGY USE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists and climatologists have produced substantial evidence that the burning of fossil fuels by vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, residences, and commercial facilities has led to an increase of the earth’s temperature (IPCC 2014; OPR et al. 2019). For an analysis of GHG production and the project’s contribution to climate change, refer to Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”

3.6.3 Discussion
2Ba) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less-than-significant impact. Appendix F and Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the energy implications of a project. CEQA requires implementation of mitigation measures to prevent or reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy. Neither the law nor the State CEQA Guidelines establish thresholds that define when energy consumption is considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and materials using on-road haul trucks. An estimated 7,824 gallons of gasoline and 90,044 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during construction of the project (see Appendix B for a summary of construction calculations). Consumption of diesel fuel would occur primarily from the haul truck trips to and from the project site, as well as the operation of heavy-duty equipment, such as tractors, dozers, and scrapers. The energy needs for project construction would be temporary and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or to substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. Gasoline and diesel would be consumed during construction for heavy-duty equipment operation, trucks deliveries, material hauling, and worker commute trips. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the project would be nonrecoverable. There is no atypical construction-related energy demand associated with the project. Nonrenewable energy would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner when compared to other construction activity in the region. Moreover, this one-time energy expenditure would facilitate the project’s objectives to provide efficient and cost-effective wastewater treatment capacity to serve planned population growth in the City through 2050 and to maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater for irrigation. Therefore, construction energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

The majority of operational energy would be associated with electricity consumption to power the new pumps, fuel associated testing of the emergency backup diesel generators, and for transportation associated with routine maintenance trips. Building energy would be minimal and associated only with electrical and controls building as well as shop and maintenance buildings. The pumps would consume an estimated 4,624 megawatt-hours (MWh) in the first year and 6,332 MWh at peak flows in 2050. The emergency backup diesel generators would be tested monthly and would consume an estimated 1,080 gallons of diesel per year. Additionally, the four operators (workers), 24 material delivery trips annually, and 16 biosolids haul trips annually would consume 1,1145 gallons of diesel per year.

However, these sources of energy consumption would support the project’s objective of providing efficient and costeffective wastewater treatment capacity to serve planned population growth in the City through 2050 and to maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater for irrigation. As such, the project would reduce the need for additional groundwater pumping and would provide recycled water to support City-wide growth. Fuel and energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to that associated with groundwater pumping and building additional wastewater treatment plants elsewhere. For these reasons, the project’s energy consumption through construction, operation, or transportation would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-58 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23Bb) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
Less-than-significant impact. As stated previously, implementing the project would result in an efficient and costeffective use of energy to provide wastewater treatment capacity to serve planned population growth in the City through 2050 and maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater for irrigation.

Construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment, the transport of equipment and materials using on-road haul trucks, and minor amounts associated with construction worker commute trips.

Operational energy would be associated with electricity consumption to power the new pumps, fuel associated testing of the emergency backup diesel generators, and for transportation associated with routine maintenance trips.

Energy would be consumed during project construction (approximately 7,824 gallons of gasoline and 90,044 gallons of diesel); however, this one-time energy expenditure would not impede or conflict with an applicable renewable energy or energy efficiency plan. Applicable plans, such as the statewide Climate Change Scoping Plan (including the adopted 2017 Scoping Plan and the draft 2022 Scoping Plan) and the push to make the electrical grid entirely renewable and carbon-free, address renewable energy and energy efficiency from an operational perspective with the understanding that construction-related energy consumption is inherently short term. Energy consumption during operations (4,624 MWh in the first year, 6,332 MWh at peak flows, 1,080 gallons of diesel per year associated with the emergency backup generators, 1,145 gallons of diesel per year associated with routine maintenance trips) would support wastewater treatment and recycled water production, which would not impede implementation of state or local renewable energy or energy efficiency plans. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-59

3.7 89BGEOLOGY AND SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils.

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

3.7.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
In October 1977, the US Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States. To accomplish this, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The mission of NEHRP includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improved building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post-earthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improved mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. The NEHRP designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency as the lead agency of the program and assigns several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-60 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration STATE
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (Alquist-Priolo Act) (PRC Sections 2621–2630) intends to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes by regulating construction in active fault corridors and by prohibiting the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. The act defines criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal support to terms such as “active” and “inactive,” and establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in earthquake fault zones. Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned and construction along or across these zones is strictly regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” A fault is considered sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (defined for purposes of the act as within the last 11,000 years). A fault is considered well defined if its trace can be clearly identified by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard professional techniques, criteria, and judgment (Bryant and Hart 2007). Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. The law addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The intention of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Sections 2690–2699.6) is to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. Whereas the Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The act’s provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo Act: The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped seismic hazard zones. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development.

California Building Code
The CBC (CCR Title 24) is based on the International Building Code. The CBC has been modified from the International Building Code for California conditions to include more detailed or more stringent regulations. Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC identifies seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, whereas Chapter 18A regulates construction on unstable soils, such as expansive soils and areas subject to liquefaction. Appendix J of the CBC regulates drainage and erosion control during grading activities. The CBC contains a provision that provides for a preliminary soil report to be prepared to identify “the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects” (CBC Chapter 18 Section 1803.1.1.1).

LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The Public Health and Safety Element of the County’s General Plan provides guidance for how to protect County residents, workers, visitors, and properties from unreasonable risks associated with natural and human-made hazards.

City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing AuthorityDecember 13, 2022

City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority
December 13, 2022