Agenda packet — City Council and Concurrent Authorities, October 18, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

7.3 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project. Specifically, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

The project would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy and material resources during construction and operation, including:
 construction materials, including such resources as soil, rocks, wood, concrete, glass, and steel; and  energy expended in the form of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and oil for equipment and transportation vehicles that would be needed for project construction, operation, and maintenance.

The use of these nonrenewable resources would account for a minimal portion of the region’s resources and would not affect the availability of these resources for other needs within the region. As discussed in Section 1.4, “Scope of This Draft Supplemental EIR,” the construction equipment, hauling trips, and worker vehicle trips needed to construct the project would be within the type and number needed to construct features of the RWCF Modifications Project that would no longer be constructed as a result of the outfall relocation. Therefore, implementing the project would not result in inefficient use of energy, as described in Section 4.4, “Energy,” of the RWCF Modifications Project EIR.

Construction contractors selected would use best available engineering techniques, construction and design practices, and equipment operating procedures. Furthermore, the revised RWCF Modifications Project would use less energy relative to existing conditions because RWCF effluent would be discharged to the San Joaquin River by gravity flow more than 90 percent of the time rather than pumped to the existing outfall. Moreover, the project would not require more RWCF staff or result in more vehicular trips related to RWCF maintenance than previously evaluated in the RWCF Modifications Project EIR or in comparison to existing conditions.

EXHIBIT 1
585
8 REPORT PREPARATION
City of Stockton (Lead Agency)
C. Mel Lytle, PhD ..................................................................................................................... Director, Municipal Utilities Department Ali Gharegozloo, PE ..................................................................... Engineering Services Manager, Municipal Utilities Department Deedee Antypas ................................................... Deputy Director of Wastewater Operations, Municipal Utilities Department Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

Michael Bryan, PhD ..................................................................................................................................... Principal-in-Charge, Biologist Michelle Brown, PE ....................................................................................................................... Project Manager, Associate Engineer Art O’Brien, PE ................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Engineer Cyle Moon, PE ....................................................................................................................................................................... Senior Engineer Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Sydney Coatsworth, AICP ................................................................................................................................................................ Principal Andrea Shephard, PhD ...................................................................................................................................................... Project Manager Nicole Greenfield ..................................................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner Tammie Beyerl ........................................................................................................................................................................ Senior Biologist Zachary Miller, AICP ............................................................................................................................................................. Noise Specialist Brian Perry ......................................................................................................................................................................... Graphics Specialist Phi Ngo ........................................................................................................................................................................................ GIS Specialist Jim Merk ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Editor Michele Mattei ............................................................................................................................................................... Publishing Specialist Gayiety Lane ................................................................................................................................................................... Publishing Specialist

EXHIBIT 1
586
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 1
587
9 REFERENCES
Chapter 1 Introduction
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2021. Solid Waste Information System facility database.

Facility/Site Summary Details for Forward Landfill, Foothill Sanitary Landfill, and North County Landfill.

Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed December 9, 2021.

CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

Chapter 2 Executive Summary
No references cited in this chapter.

Chapter 3 Project Description
AECOM. 2021 (November). Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project Final Effluent Conveyance Basis of Design Report. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for City of Stockton. ———. 2022 (February). Construction Plans for the City of Stockton, California, Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project Final Effluent East Bank Outfall. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for City of Stockton.

Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Stockton. 2018 (November). City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017.

Section 4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Second edition. EPA 841-B099-002. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC.

Bash, J., C. Berman, and S. Bolton. 2001. Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Solids on Salmonids. Final Research Report.

Washington State Transportation Center. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington. Seattle, WA.

Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management of Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83–138.

City of Stockton. 2018 (November). City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017.

Hatin, D., S. Lachance, and D. Fournier. 2007. Effect of Dredged Sediment Deposition on Use by Atlantic Sturgeon and Lake Sturgeon at an Open-Water Disposal Site in the St. Lawrence Estuarine Transition Zone. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56:235–255.

Madej, M. A., M. Wilzbach, K. Cummins, C. Ellis, and S. Hadden. 2004. The Significance of Suspended Organic Sediments to Turbidity, Sediment Flux and Fish-feeding Behavior. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-194.

Newcombe, C. P., and J. O. T. Jensen. 1996. Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries: A Synthesis for Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:693–727.

Sigler, J. W., T. C. Bjornn, and F. H. Everest. 1984. Effects of Chronic Turbidity on Density and Growth of Steelhead and Coho Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142–150.

Stern, G. R. 1988 (May). Effects of Suction Dredge Mining on Anadromous Salmonid Habitat in Canyon Creek, Trinity County, California. Thesis. Humboldt State University.

EXHIBIT 1
588
Section 4.2 Terrestrial Biological Resources
Ascent Environmental. 2022. Final Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Stockton Outfall Relocation Project.

Prepared for the City of Stockton. January 21, 2022.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2012 (March 7). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. Accessed January 21. 2022.

California Native Plant Society. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03

0.39). Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed January 21. 2022.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2022. Results of electronic records search. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed January 21. 2022.

CDFG. See California Department of Fish and Game.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

City of Stockton. 2018 (November). City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017.

CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database.

CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.
eBird. 2022. eBird. Ithaca, NY. Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed January 21, 2022.

NRCS. See U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. Information for Planning and Consultation. Official Species List for the Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project. Consultation Code 08FBDT00-2022-SLI-0086. Event Code:
08FBDT00-2022-E-00215.

USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2017. Soil survey of San Joaquin County, California, Web Soil Survey.

Available: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed January 19, 2022.

Section 4.3 Aquatic Biological Resources
Allen, P. J., B. Hodge, I. Werner, and J. J. Cech. 2006. Effects of Ontogeny, Season, and Temperature on the Swimming Performance of Juvenile Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences 63:1360–1369.

Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI.

Biro, P. A. 1998. Staying Cool: Behavioral Thermoregulation during Summer by Young-of-Year Brook Trout in a Lake.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:212–222.

Boles, G. L. 1988. Water Temperature Effects on Chinook Salmon, with Emphasis on the Sacramento River – a Literature Review. Internal memorandum for California Department of Water Resources. Northern District. Red Bluff, CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2020 (October). Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish.

Cech, J. J., Jr., M. J. Massingill, B. Vondracek, and A. L. Linden. 1985. Respiratory Metabolism of Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis: Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Sex Difference. Environmental Biology of Fishes 13:297–307.

Cech, J. J., Jr., S. J. Mitchell, D. T. Castleberry, and M. McEnroe. 1990. Distribution of California Stream Fishes: Influence of Environmental Temperature and Hypoxia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 29:95–105.

EXHIBIT 1
589
Cech, J. J., Jr., and C. A. Myrick. 1999 (August). Steelhead and Chinook Salmon Bioenergetics: Temperature, Ration, and Genetic Effects. Technical Completion Report. Project Number UCAL-WRC-W-885. University of California Water Resource Center, Davis, CA. Cited in Myrick and Cech 2004.

Cherry, D. S., K. L. Dickson, and J. Cairns Jr. 1975. Temperatures Selected and Avoided by Fish at Various Acclimation Temperatures. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:485–491.

City of Stockton. 2018 (November). City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017.

Claire, C. W. 2004. Life History, Habitat Utilization, and Distribution of Pacific Lamprey in the S.F. Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho. Master’s thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow.

Coutant, C. C. 1972a. Effect of Thermal Shock on Vulnerability to Predation in Juvenile Salmonids. I. Single Shock Temperature. AEC Research and Development Report. BNWL-1521. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. ———. 1972b. Effect of Thermal Shock on Vulnerability to Predation in Juvenile Salmonids. II. A Dose Response by Rainbow Trout to Three Shock Temperatures. BNWL-1519. AEC Research and Development Report. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.

Coutant, C. C., and J. P. Dean 1972. Equilibrium Loss and Death as Responses of Fish to Acute Thermal Shock. Cited in Coutant 1972a.

Cramer, F. K., and D. F. Hammack. 1952. Salmon Research at Deer Creek, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report 67.

Davis, B. E., D. E. Cocherell, T. Sommer, R. Baxter, T-C. Hung, A. E. Todgham, and N. A. Fangue. 2019. Sensitivities of an Endemic, Endangered California Smelt and Two Non-Native Fishes to Serial Increases in Temperature and Salinity: Implications for Shifting Community Structure with Climate Change. Conservation Physiology 7(1):coy076. DOI: 10.1093/conphys/coy076.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Faukner, J. R., and Z. J. Jackson. 2014. 2013 San Joaquin River White Sturgeon Telemetry Study. Stockton Fish and Wildlife Office, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lodi, CA.

Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group. 2008 (June 12). Agreement in Principle for Interim Criteria for Injury to Fish from Pile Driving Activities. Memorandum. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/ser/bio-fhwg-criteria-agree-a11y.pdf.

Geist, D. R., Z. Deng, R. P. Mueller, S. R. Brink, and J. A. Chandler. 2010. Survival and Growth of Juvenile Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon Exposed to Constant and Fluctuating Temperatures. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139(1):92−107. DOI:10.1577/T09-003.1.

Goss, L. B., and D. L. Bunting. 1976. Thermal Tolerance of Zooplankton. Water Research 10:387–398.

Gray, R. H., R. G. Genoway, and S. A. Barraclough 1977. Behavior of Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Relation to Simulated Thermal Effluent. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106(4):366–370.

Hanson, C. R. 1997. Acute Temperature Tolerance of Juvenile Chinook Salmon from the Mokelumne River. Hanson Environmental. Walnut Creek, CA.

Hart, J. S. 1947. Lethal Temperature Relations of Certain Fish of the Toronto Region. Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 5(41):57–71. Cited in Hokanson et al. 1977. ———. 1952. Geographic Variations of Some Physical and Morphological Characters in Certain Freshwater Fish.

University of Toronto Press, Canada. Cited in Hokanson et al. 1977.

Hawkins, A. D., and A. N. Popper. 2017. A Sound Approach to Assessing the Impact of Underwater Noise on Marine Fishes and Invertebrates. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 74(3):635–671.

EXHIBIT 1
590
Heironimus, L. B., and Z. J. Jackson. 2017. 2015 San Joaquin River White Sturgeon Telemetry Study. Lodi Fish and Wildlife Office, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lodi, CA.

Hokanson, K. E. F., C. F. Kleiner, and T. W. Thorsland. 1977. Effects of Constant Temperature and Diel Fluctuation on Growth, Mortality, and Yield of Juvenile Rainbow Trout, Salmo gairdneri (Richardson). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:639–648.

Jeffries, K. M., R. E. Connon, B. E. Davis, L. M. Komoroske, M. T. Britton, T. Sommer, A. E. Todgham, and N. A. Fangue. 2016. Effects of High Temperatures on Threatened Estuarine Fishes during Periods of Extreme Drought.

Journal of Experimental Biology 219(11):1705–1716.

Jordan, C. M., and E. T. Garside. 1972. Upper Lethal Temperatures of Threespine Stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus (L.), in Relation to Thermal and Osmotic Acclimation, Ambient Salinity, and Size. Canada Journal of Zoology 50:1405–1411.

Kivivuori, L., and E. Lahdes. 1996. How to Measure the Thermal Death of Daphnia? A Comparison of Different Heat Tests and Effects of Heat Injury. Journal of Thermal Biology 21:305–311.

Komoroske, L. M., R. E. Connon, J. Lindberg, B. S. Cheng, G. Castillo, M. Hasenbein, and N. A. Fangue. 2014. Ontogeny Influences Sensitivity to Climate Change Stressors in Endangered Fish. Conservation Physiology 2(1):cou008.

DOI: 10.1093/conphys/cou008.

Langford, T. 1990. Ecological Effects of Thermal Discharges. Springer.

Lee, S., S. S. O. Hung, N. A. Fangue, L. Haller, C. E. Verhille, J. Zhao, and A. E. Todgham. 2016. Effects of Feed Restriction on the Upper Temperature Tolerance and Heat Shock Response in Juvenile Green and White Sturgeon. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 198:87–95.

Lovell, J. M., M. M. Findlay, R. M. Moate, J. R. Nedwell, and M. A. Pegg. 2005. The Inner Ear Morphology and Hearing Abilities of the Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and the Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular Integrative Physiology 142:286–289.

Mallatt, J. 1983. Laboratory Growth of Larval Lampreys (Lampetra (Entosphenus) tridentata Richardson) at Different Food Concentrations and Animal Densities. Journal of Fish Biology 22:293–301.

Mayfield, R. B., and J. J. Cech, Jr. 2004. Temperature Effects on Green Sturgeon Bioenergetics. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:961–970.

McCauley R. D, R. D. Day, K. M. Swadling, Q. P. Fitzgibbon, and R. A. Watson. 2017. Widely Used Marine Seismic Survey Air Gun Operations, Negatively Impact Zooplankton. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1:0195.

McCullough, D. A. 1999 (July). A Review and Synthesis of Effects of Alterations to the Water Temperature Regime on Freshwater Life Stages of Salmonids with Special Reference to Chinook Salmon. EPA 910-R-99-010. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Seattle, WA.

McEwan, D., and T. Jackson. 1996. Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. Second edition. Pub. No. 3-A. State Water Quality Control Board. Sacramento, CA.

Mesa, M. G., L. K. Weiland, and P. Wagner. 2002. Effects of Acute Thermal Stress on the Survival, Predator Avoidance, and Physiology of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon. Northwest Science 76:118–128.

Meyer, M., A. N. Popper, and R. R. Fay. 2012. Coding of Sound Direction in the Auditory Periphery of the Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens. Journal of Neurophysiology 107:658–665.

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Quiñones, J. V. Katz, and J. Weaver. 2015. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento. Available: www.wildlife.ca.gov.

EXHIBIT 1
591
Muñoz, N. J., K. Anttila, Z. Chen, J. W. Heath, A. P. Farrell, and B. D. Neff. 2014. Indirect Genetic Effects Underlie Oxygen-Limited Thermal Tolerance within a Coastal Population of Chinook Salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281:1–7.

Myrick, C. A., and J. J. Cech Jr. 2000a. Growth and Thermal Biology of Feather River Steelhead under Constant and Cyclical Temperatures. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology. University of California, Davis. ———. 2000b. Temperature Influences on California Rainbow Trout Physiological Performance. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 22:245–254.
———. 2004. Temperature Effects on Juvenile Salmonids in California’s Central Valley: What Don’t We Know? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14(1):113–123.
———. 2005. Effects of Temperature on the Growth, Food Consumption and Thermal Tolerance of Age-0 Nimbus- Strain Steelhead. North American Journal of Aquaculture 67(4):324−330.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Pacific Coast Salmon Plan Amendment 18: Incorporating Revisions to Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat. Regulatory Identifier Number 0648-BC95.

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2016a (January). Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) Thermal Tolerance Analyses—Juvenile and Adult, Summer. Draft. Available: https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/water-wqs- docs/LargemouthTTA.pdf.
———. 2016b (March). Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) Thermal Tolerance Analyses—Juvenile and Adult, Summer.

Draft. Available:
http://ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/Temperature/Juvenile%20and%20Adult,%20Summer%20Values/StripedBassTTA.pd f. Accessed June 7, 2017.

NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Service.

Orsi, J. J. 1971. Thermal Shock and Upper Lethal Temperature Tolerances of Young King Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytsha, from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. Anadromous Fisheries Branch Administrative Report No. 71–11. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Cited in Boles 1988.

Pacific Lamprey Technical Workgroup. 2017 (June). Practical Guidelines for Incorporating Adult Pacific Lamprey Passage at Fishways. White paper. Available: https://www.fws.gov/pacificlamprey/mainpage.cfm.

PLTW. See Pacific Lamprey Technical Workgroup.

Poletto, J. B., D. E. Cocherell, S. E. Baird, T. X. Nguyen, V. Cabrera-Stagno, A. P. Farrell, and N. A. Fangue. 2017.

Unusual Aerobic Performance at High Temperatures in Juvenile Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.

Conservation Physiology 4:5(1):cow067.

Popper, A. N., and M. C. Hastings. 2009. Effects of Anthropogenic Sources of Sound on Fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 75:455–498.

Popper, A. N., and A. D. Hawkins. 2018. The Importance of Particle Motion to Fishes and Invertebrates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143:470–486.

Popper, A. N., A. D. Hawkins, and M. B. Halvorsen. 2019 (February). Anthropogenic Sound and Fishes. Washington State Department of Transportation. Research Report Agreement Y-11761, Task AD WA-RD 891.1.

Purser J., and A. N. Radford. 2011. Acoustic Noise Induces Attention Shifts and Reduces Foraging Performance in Three-Spined Sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLoS ONE 6(2) e17478. DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0017478.

Rajadurai, M., E. H. Poornima, S. V. Narasimham, V. N. R. Rao, and V. P. Venugopalan. 2005. Phytoplankton Growth under Temperature Stress: Laboratory Studies Using Two Diatoms from a Tropical Coastal Power Station Site.

Journal of Thermal Biology 30:299–305.

EXHIBIT 1
592
Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 2013. Temperature Study to Assess the Thermal Impacts of the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge on Aquatic Life of the Lower Sacramento River. Prepared for Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, on behalf of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District.
———. 2022a. Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the City Of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA, on behalf of City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department, Stockton, CA. Rancho Cordova, CA. ———. 2022b. Biological Assessment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the City Of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA, on behalf of City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department, Stockton, CA. Rancho Cordova, CA.

Rodgers, E. M., D. E. Cocherell, T. X. Nguyen, A. E. Todgham, and N. A Fangue. 2018. Plastic Responses to Diel Thermal Variation in Juvenile Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. Journal of Thermal Biology 76:147–155.

Sardella, B. A., E. Sanmarti, and D. Kultz. 2008. The Acute Temperature Tolerance of Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) and the Effect of Environmental Salinity. Journal of Experimental Zoology 309A:477−483.

Snyder, G. R., and T. H. Blahm. 1971. Effects of Increased Temperature on Cold-Water Organisms. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 43(5):890−899.

Solan, M., C. Hauton, J. A. Godbold, C. L. Wood, T. G. Leighton, and P. White. 2016. Anthropogenic Sources of Underwater Sound Can Modify How Sediment-Dwelling Invertebrates Mediate Ecosystem Properties. Science Reports 6:20540. DOI: 10.1038/srep20540.

Swanson, C., and J. J. Cech, Jr. 1995. Temperature and Salinity Tolerances of Delta Smelt. Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento−San Joaquin Estuary Newsletter. Autumn.

Swanson, C., T. Reid, P. S. Young, and J. J. Cech, Jr. 2000. Comparative Environmental Tolerances of Threatened Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and Introduced Wakasagi (H. nipponensis) in an Altered California Estuary.

Oecologia 123:384–390.

Thompson, L. C., N. A. Fangue, J. J. Cech Jr., D. E. Cocherell, and R. C. Kaufman. 2012. Juvenile and Adult Hardhead Thermal Tolerances and Preferences: Temperature Preference, Critical Thermal Limits, Active and Resting Metabolism, and Blood-Oxygen Equilibria. Center for Aquatic Biology and Aquaculture Technical Report.

University of California, Davis.

University of California, Davis. 2017a. California Fish Species, Sacramento Pikeminnow. California Fish Website.

Available: http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/location/?uid=113&ds=694. Accessed November 29, 2017. ———. 2017b. California Fish Species, Western Mosquitofish. California Fish Website. Available:
http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/species/?uid=109&ds=241. Accessed November 29, 2017.

U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012 (December). Effects of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic from Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities. Workshop Report. Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc. Bedford, NH.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Water Quality Criteria 1972. A Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria. EPA-R3-73-033. Prepared by National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering.

Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995 (May 9). Working Paper on Restoration Needs: Habitat Restoration Actions to Double Natural Production of Anadromous Fish in the Central Valley of California. Volume 2. Prepared under the direction of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group. Stockton, CA. ———. 2015. Species Account: Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus). Available: http:
//www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/species/delta_smelt.pdf.

EXHIBIT 1
593
———. 2018. San Joaquin River Restoration Project: Adult Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Return Monitoring. Available:
https://www.fws.gov/Lodi/sj_river_restoration_project/Spring-run_Chinook_Return_Monitoring/spring- run_return.htm.

USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Verhille, C. E., K. K. English, D. E. Cocherell, A. P. Farrell, and N. A. Fangue. 2016. High Thermal Tolerance of a Rainbow Trout Population Near Its Southern Range Limit Suggests Local Thermal Adjustment. Conservation Physiology 4(1):cow057. DOI:10.1093/conphys/cow057.

Verhille, C. E., S. Lee, A. E. Todgham, D. E. Cocherell, S. S. O. Hung, and N. A. Fangue. 2015. Effects of Nutritional Deprivation on Juvenile Green Sturgeon Growth and Thermal Tolerance. Environmental Biology of Fishes 99:145−159.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2002. Evaluating Standards for Protecting Aquatic Life in Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards: Temperature Criteria. Draft Discussion Paper and Literature Summary.

Publication Number 00-10-070.

Wood, J. R., E. P. McElravy, and V. H. Resh. 1996. Thermal-Shock Tolerance of Three Species of Aquatic Insects in a Northern California Geothermally Influenced Stream. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 72(4):227–235.

Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts
City of Stockton. 2018 (November). City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017.

Chapter 6 Alternatives
Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 2013. Temperature Study to Assess the Thermal Impacts of the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge on Aquatic Life of the Lower Sacramento River. Prepared for Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, on behalf of Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District.

Chapter 7 Other CEQA-Mandated Sections
City of Stockton. 2018a (December). Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. Available:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/Adopted_Plan.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2022. ———. 2018b (June). Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR.

Available: http://www.stocktongov.com/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2022.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2022 (January). Economy at a Glance, Stockton, CA. Available:
https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca_stockton_msa.htm. Accessed January 21, 2022.

EXHIBIT 1
594
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 1
595
Appendix A
Project Thermal Plume Graphics
EXHIBIT 1
596

Figure D-1 March Project median-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 74.6°F, river temperature of 61.2°F (13.4°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 32.2 mgd, and river velocity of 0.86 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
597

Figure D-2 March Project worst-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 69.6°F, river temperature of 49.5°F (20.1°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 52.0 mgd, and river velocity of 0.05 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
598

Figure D-3 April project median-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 80.0°F, river temperature of 68.3°F (11.7°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 24.7 mgd, and river velocity of 0.95 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
599

Figure D-4 April project worst-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 79.5°F, river temperature of 59.7°F (19.8°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 54.1 mgd, and river velocity of 0.05 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
600

Figure D-5 May project median-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 80.9°F, river temperature of 69.4°F (11.5°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 24.3 mgd, and river velocity of 0.89 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
601

Figure D-6 May project worst-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 74.6°F, river temperature of °F (55.8°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 52.8 mgd, and river velocity of 0.05 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
602

Figure D-7 October Project median-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 82.2°F, river temperature of 72.1°F (10.1°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 25.1 mgd, and river velocity of 0.65 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
603

Figure D-8 October Project worst-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 80.4°F, river temperature of 61.9°F (18.5°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 51.0 mgd, and river velocity of 0.05 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
604

Figure D-9 November Project median-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 75.9°F, river temperature of 61.9°F (14.0°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 52.0 mgd, and river velocity of 0.71 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
605

Figure D-10 November Project worst-case thermal plume, based on effluent temperature of 74.4°F, river temperature of 52.9°F (21.4°F temperature differential), effluent flow of 48.7 mgd, and river velocity of 0.05 fps.

EXHIBIT 1
606
Final S
upplement to
City of Stockton
Regional Wastewater Control Facility
Modifications Project
Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017
Outfall Relocation Project
Prepared for:

City of Stockton
Municipal Utilities Department
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
May 2022
EXHIBIT 2
607

Final Supplement to
City of Stockton
Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017
Outfall Relocation Project
Prepared for:

City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
Contact: Deedee Antypas, Deputy Director of Wastewater Operations [email protected]
Prepared by:

Robertson–Bryan, Inc.
3100 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 300
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Contact: Michelle Brown, PE, Project Manager
Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

Telephone: (916) 405-8933
[email protected]
Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact: Andrea L. Shephard, PhD, Project Manager
Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Telephone: (916) 842-3179
[email protected]
May 2022
EXHIBIT 2
608

City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... II 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of this Final SEIR ..........................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.4 Summary Description of the Project ........................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Major Conclusions of the Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................. 1-3

1.6 CEQA Public Review Process ......................................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.7 Organization of the Final SEIR ...................................................................................................................................... 1-4 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2-1

2.1 List of Commenters on the Draft SEIR ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Comments and Responses ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SEIR ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............3-1 4 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..5-1

Appendices
A

Tables
Table 2-1 List of Commenters ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

EXHIBIT 2
609

City of Stockton
ii RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERP Community Emission Reduction Program
City City of Stockton
Commission California State Lands Commission
CSLC California State Lands Commission
CVFPB Central Valley Flood Protection Board
CWA Clean Water Act
EIR environmental impact report
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RWCF Regional Wastewater Control Facility
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SEIR supplemental environmental impact report
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District TAC toxic air contaminants
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

EXHIBIT 2
610

City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This final supplement to the Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF) Modifications Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Stockton (City), as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines ( California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15132). Referred to herein as the Final Supplemental EIR, this document contains comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the RWCF Modifications Project, which evaluates the relocation of the RWCF outfall from the west bank of the San Joaquin River to the east bank, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR. In its entirety, the Final Supplemental EIR consists of the Draft Supplemental EIR and this document.

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CEQA requires a lead agency that has prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR to consult with and obtain comments from responsible and trustee agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental EIR. The Final Supplemental EIR is the mechanism for responding to these comments. This Final Supplemental EIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR, which are reproduced in this document; and to present corrections, revisions, and other clarifications and amplifications to the Draft Supplemental EIR, including project updates, made in response to these comments and as a result of ongoing planning and design efforts. The Final Supplemental EIR will be used to support the City Council’s decision regarding whether to approve the proposed outfall revision to the RWCF Modifications Project.

This Final Supplemental EIR will also be used by CEQA responsible and trustee agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit project elements over which they have jurisdiction. It may also be used by other state, regional, and local agencies that may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the project or that have jurisdiction over portions of the project.

Responsible, trustee, and interested agencies may include:

Federal
 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
State
 Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB)
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)  California State Lands Commission (CSLC)
Regional and Local
 Reclamation District 404
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) EXHIBIT 2
611
Introduction
City of Stockton
1-2 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at the City’s RWCF, along the east bank of the San Joaquin River, south of the Santa Fe Railroad bridge in Stockton, California. The proposed outfall location is at an abandoned 60 -inch reinforced concrete pipe that served as the outfall for the City’s treated wastewater effluent before circa 1970.

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the project is to consolidate RWCF effluent disposal operations and maintenance activities at the main plant. The specific objectives of the project are to:
 further consolidate treatment facilities, thereby eliminating the need to construct approxim ately 2,000 feet of 72- inch pipeline along the western edge of the San Joaquin River,  allow gravity discharge of effluent to the San Joaquin River to the maximum extent possible (more than 90 percent of the time) thereby reducing overall disposal cost, and  comply with receiving water limitations specified in the RWCF National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

1.4 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed project consists of the following three primary elements:
 reinstatement of the existing 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe running from the RWCF to the abandoned outfall apron on the east bank of the San Joaquin River,
 modification of the outfall apron structure to create a new outfall outlet, and  construction of a pipeline running from the Final Effluent Pump Station to the reinstated 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe.

With the RWCF effluent outfall relocated to the east side of the San Joaquin River adjacent to the main plant, the following components of the RWCF Modifications Project would no longer be constructed:
 1,600 feet of 72-inch final effluent pipeline (Option 1 or 2) to the existing tertiary plant,  connection of new 72-inch final effluent pipeline to the existing 72-inch reinforced concrete pipe at the control weir drainage box, and
 400 feet of 36-inch pipeline under the utility bridge and the associated discharge to the pond return channel.  In addition, the existing 60-inch pipeline to the pond return channel would remain in service with no modifications.

Upon successful commissioning and reinstatement of the main plant east discharge outfall, the existing outfall on the west side of the river would no longer be required and would be abandoned in place so that no discharge of RWCF effluent could occur through the existing outfall. The abandonment of the existing outfall would be performed in conjunction with the demolition of the tertiary plant. The existing outfall abandonment would be accomplished by removing the process equipment, including air vacuum pumps and associated equipment that is currently required for operation. When this equipment is removed, the system would be deemed nonoperational and outfall abandoned in place.

EXHIBIT 2
612
Introduction
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 1-3

1.5 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1.5.1 Less Than Significant Impacts
The Draft Supplemental EIR identified the following impacts related to the project that would be less than significant:

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
 Impact 4.1-1: Potential for Project Construction to Affect Water Quality  Impact 4.1-2: Potential for Project Construction to Cause Increased Erosion or Affect Flood Flows  Impact 4.1-3: Potential for Project Operations to Affect Water Quality  Impact 4.1-4: Potential for the New Outfall to Cause Increased Erosion or Affect Flood Flows

AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
 Impact 4.3-1: Potential for Project Construction-related Alterations in Aquatic and Riparian Habitat to Affect Aquatic Species
 Impact 4.3-2: Potential for Project Construction-Related Underwater Noise and Vibration to Affect Fish and Their Prey Organisms
 Impact 4.3-4: Potential for the RWCF’s Thermal Plume in the San Joaquin River to Thermally Block or Substantially Delay the Migrations or Movements of Fishes Past the New Outfall  Impact 4.3-5: Potential for the RWCF Effluent Discharge to Cause Mortality or Chronic Adverse Sublethal Effects on Fish, Phytoplankton, Zooplankton, or Macroinvertebrates Moving through the Thermal Plume  Impact 4.3-6: Potential for the Abandoned-in-Place Outfall Structure to Affect Movements of Fishes or Increase Predation on Special-Status Fishes
 Impact 4.3-7: Potential for the New East Bank Outfall Structure and Thermal Plume to Cause Increased Predation on Special-Status Fishes

1.5.2 Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation
The Draft Supplemental EIR identified the following significant or potentially significant impacts related to the project, which would all be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation:

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
 Impact 4.2-1: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Plant Species and Habitat
 Impact 4.2-2: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Western Pond Turtle  Impact 4.2-3: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Burrowing Owl  Impact 4.2-4: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Swainson’s Hawk, White - Tailed Kite, and Other Nesting Raptors
 Impact 4.2-5: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Song Sparrow (“Modesto” Population) and Other Nesting Birds
 Impact 4.2-6: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special- Status Bats EXHIBIT 2
613
Introduction
City of Stockton
1-4 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
 Impact 4.2-7: Potential for the Project to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Waters of the United States and State  Impact 4.2-8: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Riparian Habitat

AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
 Impact 4.3-3: Potential for Project Construction to Cause Direct Fish Injury or Mortality, Resulting in Impacts on Fish Populations

1.6 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
On February 25, 2022, the City released the Draft Supplemental EIR for a 45-day public review and comment period.

The Draft Supplemental EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies; posted on the City’s website (http://www.stocktonca.gov/mudprojects); and was made available at the City Clerk’s office and the Cesar Chavez Central Library. A notice of availability of the Draft Supplemental EIR was advertised in The Record and distributed by the City to a project-specific mailing list.

As a result of these notification efforts, six written comment letters were received on the content of the Draft Supplemental EIR from the following agencies and Native American tribes:
 San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department
 Wilton Rancheria
 California State Lands Commission
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
 Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation
Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15088.5).

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
This Final Supplemental EIR is organized as follows:

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” describes the purpose of the Final Supplemental EIR, summarizes the proposed outfall revision to the RWCF Modifications Project and the major conclusions of the Draft Supplemental EIR, provides an overview of the CEQA public review process, and describes the content of the Final Supplemental EIR.

Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” contains a list of all parties that submitted comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR during the public review period, copies of the comment letters received, and responses to the comments.

Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR,” presents revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR text made in response to comments, or to amplify, clarify or make minor modifications or corrections. Changes in the text are signified by strikeouts where text is removed and by underline where text is added.

Chapter 4, “References,” identifies the documents used as sources for the analysis in this Final Supplemental EIR .

Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” identifies the lead agency contacts as well as the preparers of this Final Supplemental EIR.

EXHIBIT 2
614

City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 2-1
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This chapter contains comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft Supplemental EIR , which concluded on April 11, 2022. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses were prepared addressing comments on environmental issues received from reviewers of the Draft Supplemental EIR.

2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
Table 2-1 presents the list of commenters, including the numerical designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter.

Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Letter No. Commenter Date
1 San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department
Michael Suszycki, Senior Registered Environmental Health Specialist March 2, 2022
2 Wilton Rancheria
Cultural Preservation Department
March 28, 2022
3 California State Lands Commission
Nicole Dobroski, Division of Environmental Planning and Management Chief April 11, 2022
4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Brian Clements, Director of Permit Services
April 12, 2022
5 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Greg Hendricks, Environmental Scientist
April 13, 2022
6 Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation
Jazzmyn Gegere (Brochini), Tribal Cultural Monitor Coordinator April 21, 2022

2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The individual comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR and the responses to those comments are provided below. Each comment is reproduced in its entirety and is followed by the response. Comment letters in their original form are included in Appendix A; individual comments are bracketed and numbered in the comment letters, and correspond to the comments presented in this section.

EXHIBIT 2
615
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
2-2 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
Letter 1 San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department Michael Suszycki, Senior Registered Environmental Health Specialist March 2, 2022
Comment 1-1
The Environmental Health Department has no comment or concerns regarding the Environmental Impact Report (FIR) dated February 2022 concerning the above-mentioned project.

Response 1-1
No specific comment on the adequacy, accuracy, or completeness of the Draft Supplemental EIR is provided; therefore, no further response is necessary.

EXHIBIT 2
616
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 2-3
Letter 2 Wilton Rancheria
Cultural Preservation Department
March 28, 2022
Comment 2-1
Thank you for sending over the notice for the opportunity to comment on the EIR of the City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project (Project No. M16022). Wilton Rancheria knows of one Culturally related site nearby. This site is a known Burial Site and is less than 2 miles away. This is extremely important to acknowledge due to the fact that there is most likely other known resources in the area and the City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project (Project No. M16022) happens to be extremely close by.

Wilton Rancheria would like to ask you to consider having a Tribal Monitor on site to ensure the protection of any unknown resources that could be uncovered during any ground disturbing activities.

Response 2-1

During project planning in 2018, Native American consultation was initiated pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The City sent out formal notification letters, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, on September 7, 2018 to eight Tribes, including the Wilton Rancheria, and received responses from two tribes, the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria. The City conducted a site visit with representatives from these tribes.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City Council for the RWCF Modifications Project includes Mitigation Measure 4.8-2, “Halt Ground-disturbing Activity Upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources.” Developed, in part, from discussions with tribal representatives, the mitigation measure requires training of construction personnel and notification of the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria and the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe by email in the event tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities.

Because the consulting tribes, the Northern Valley Yokuts and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, were involved with and approved the mitigation measures in the RWCF Modifications Project Draft EIR and those mitigation measures adequately address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources for the revised outfall location, no additional measures are necessary.

In addition, the “Cultural Resources Inadvertent/Unanticipated Discovery Plan for the Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facilities Project, San Joaquin County, California” prepared for the project outlines protective measures to address unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources during project construction, including tribal cultural resources (NIC 2020). This plan provides for the identification, protection, and treatment of cultural resources discovered by the construction workforce during project-related activities within the project area of potential effects. The qualified archaeologist who prepared this plan is and will remain on-call during project-related ground-disturbing activities. If cultural resources are discovered during construction, the measures identified in the plan will be implemented by the qualified archaeologist and/or their assignee throughout the life of the project.

The qualified archaeologist will notify Tribal representatives in the event unanticipated discoveries are suspected to be Native American in origin. As discussed in the Plan, upon being called to assess potential discoveries, the qualified Archaeologist and any Tribal Monitors will inspect soil profiles exposed during mechanical trenching or associated ground disturbance, as well as backfill dirt piles, for evidence of prehistoric, historic, or other culturally sensitive materials. If warranted by their observations, the qualified Archaeologist and any Tribal Monitors have the authority to halt or redirect construction to further examine soils or the interior of a trench, and to allow for sufficient time to evaluate and potentially sample or recover a find.

EXHIBIT 2
617
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
2-4 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
Letter 3 California State Lands Commission
Nicole Dobroski, Division of Environmental Planning and Management Chief April 11, 2022
Comment 3-1
The California State Lands Commission (Commission) staff has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environ mental Impact Report (SEIR) for the City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modification, Outfall Relocation Project (Project), which is being prepared by the City of Stockton (City). The City, as the public agency responsible for the Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF) proposing to carry out the Project, is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The Commission is a trustee agency for projects that could directly or indirectly affect State sovereign land and their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses. Additionally, because the Project involves work on State sovereign land, the Commission will act as a responsible agency.

Response 3-1

The City acknowledges that the project involves work on State sovereign land and accompanying Public Trust resources or uses. Section 1.5.2, “Trustee and Responsible Agencies,” of the Draft Supplemental EIR (pages 1-5 and 1- 6) identifies the California State Lands Commission (Commission) as a trustee and responsible agency.

Comment 3-2
The Commission has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and waterways. The Commission also has certain residual and review authority for tidelands and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 6009, subd. (c); 6009.1; 6301; 6306). All tidelands and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable lakes and waterways, are subject to the protections of the common law Public Trust Doctrine.

As general background, the State of California acquired sovereign ownership of all tidelands and submerged lands and beds of navigable lakes and waterways upon its admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all people of the state for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include but are not limited to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water-related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. On tidal waterways the State holds fee ownership of the bed of the waterway landward to the mean high- tide line, except for areas of fill or artificial accretion or where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a final court decision. Such boundaries may not be readily apparent from present day site inspections.

Based on the Project description, staff understands that the proposed Project will be located in the bed of the San Joaquin River. The San Joaquin River at this location is a natural, navigable, tidal watercourse. The Commission’s jurisdiction includes the river and levees below the ordinary high-tide line. In addition, Project construction requires in-water work. Therefore, a lease from the Commission will be required for the Project. An application may be submitted to the Commission through the online application portal (OSCAR.slc.ca.gov). If you have questions specific to jurisdiction, lease provisions, or the application process, please contact Public Land Management Specialist, Al Franzoia (see contact information below).

Response 3-
2 The City acknowledges that portions of the project area are within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Section 1.5.3, “Required Permits and Approvals,” of the Draft Supplemental EIR (page 1-6) identifies a lease from the Commission as a required permit and approval for the project. The City will submit a lease application prior to commencing in- water work and will reach out to Mr. Franzoia with any questions.

Comment 3-3

The City proposes to relocate an existing outfall to meet the City’s objectives and needs for the Project as follows:
 Further consolidate treatment facilities, thereby eliminating the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of pipeline along the western edge of the San Joaquin River; EXHIBIT 2
618
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 2-5
 Allow gravity discharge of effluent to the San Joaquin River to the maximum extent possible (more than 90 percent of the time) thereby reducing overall disposal cost; and  Comply with receiving water limitation specified in the RWCF National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

From the Project Description, Commission staff understands that the Project would include the following components that have potential to affect State sovereign land:
 Project Component 1. Reinstatement of an existing 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe running from the RWCF to an abandoned outfall apron on the east bank of the San Joaquin River.  Project Component 2. Modification of the outfall apron structures to create a new outfall outlet.  Project Component 3. Construction of a pipeline running from the Final Effluent Pump Station (a component of the RWCF) to the reinstated 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe.

Outfall construction would involve installation of a temporary cofferdam and dewatering in the San Joaquin River.

Response 3-3
The comment correctly summarizes project objectives and elements of the project that could affect State sovereign land.

Comment 3-4

Commission staff requests that the City consider the following comments on the Project’s SEIR, to ensure that impacts to State sovereign land are adequately analyzed for the Commission’s use of the SEIR when considering a future lease application for the Project.

Response 3-4

The comment introduces the Commission’s specific comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR .

Comment 3-5
General Comments

1. The Executive Summary, p. 2-1, Section 2.2.2 Project Objectives states that one of the objectives of the Project is to “eliminate the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of 54-inch pipeline…” However, the Project Description, p. 3-1, Section 3.3 Project Purpose and Objectives states that the objective is to “eliminate the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of 72-inch pipeline…” Staff requests a clarification on the size of the pipeline to avoid confusion as to what part of the Final Environmental Impact Report would be eliminated through certification of this SEIR.

Response 3-5

In response to this comment the project objectives in Section 2.2.2, “Executive Summary,” are revised as shown below to be consistent with the objectives as stated in Section 3.3, “Project Purpose and Objectives,” and the project description in Section 3.5, “Project Components.”
The purpose of the proposed project is to consolidate RWCF effluent disposal operations and maintenance activities at the main plant on the east side of the San Joaquin River. The specific objectives of the project are to:
 further consolidate treatment facilities, thereby eliminating eliminate the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of 54-inch 72-inch pipeline along the western edge of the San Joaquin River, The project objectives in Section 6.1.1, “Project Purpose and Objectives,” are also revised as shown below.

One of the key factors in considering alternatives is whether they can feasibly attain most of the objectives of the project. Chapter 3, “Project Description,” Section 3.3, “Project Purpose and Objectives,” states the project objectives, which are repeated here for reference:

EXHIBIT 2
619
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
2-6 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
 Further consolidate treatment facilities, thereby eliminating the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of 54-inch 72-inch pipeline along the western edge of the San Joaquin River.

Comment 3-6
Cultural Resources

2. Title to Resources within Commission Jurisdiction: The SEIR should state that “the title to all abandoned shipwrecks, archaeological sites, and historic or cultural resources on or in the tide and submerged lands of California is vested in the State and under the jurisdiction of the Commission (Pub. Resources Code, § 6313).” Commission staff requests that the City consult with Staff Attorney Jamie Garrett should any cultural resources on state lands be discovered during construction of the proposed Project.

Although Cultural Resources were not required to be further analyzed in the SEIR, staff requests that the following statement be included in the final Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project: “The final disposition of archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on State land under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission must be approved by the Commission.” Response 3-
6 The City understands that all abandoned shipwrecks, archaeological sites, and historic or cultural resources on or in the tide and submerged lands are under the jurisdiction of the Commission. The City will consult with the Commission’s Staff Attorney in the event that cultural resources are discovered on State lands during project construction. Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City Council for the RWCF Modifications Project is revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure 4.8-2: Halt Ground-disturbing Activity Upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources.

The City shall implement cultural resource training of construction personnel to make them aware of the cultural value of the area, including the potential for tribal cultural resources to be present near the project site, and to educate them on how to best avoid impacting such resources, if encountered. If archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources are discovered during project-related construction activities all ground disturbance within a minimum of 100 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the discovery. The archaeologist shall examine the resources, assess their significance, and recommend appropriate procedures to either further investigate or mitigate adverse impacts. If the find is determined to be a significant historical resource and the archaeological resource cannot be avoided, then applicable mitigation measures for significant resources shall be completed (e.g., preservation in place, data recovery program pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2[i]). In the event that tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, the City shall notify the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria and the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe by email. During evaluation or mitigative treatment, ground disturbance and construction work could continue on other parts of the project area.

The title to all abandoned shipwrecks, archaeological sites, and historic or cultural resources on or in the tide and submerged lands of California is vested in the State and under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Commission) (Pub. Resources Code, Section 6313). In the event that archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources are discovered on State land during project construction, the City will notify and consult with the Commission’s Staff Attorney. The final disposition of archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on State land under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission must be approved by the Commission.

This revised mitigation measure will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project.

EXHIBIT 2
620
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 2-7
Comment 3-7
Recreation

3. Commission staff believes that there could be temporary potential impacts to recreational activities during the construction phase of the Project. Because the Project’s use of a temporary cofferdam is within a recreational site, Commission staff suggests that the City include additional analysis to address impacts to existing and ongoing recreational activities, even on a temporary basis. For example, would the P roject interfere with the existing use of in-river recreational opportunities, such as kayaking, paddleboarding, or fishing? Mitigation to address potential impacts to recreational users may include safety and informational signage and a clear demarcation of the Project area during construction or temporary relocation/redirection of river access.

Response 3-7

The project area is not within a designated recreation area; however, the City acknowledges that the portion of the San Joaquin River adjacent to the project area may be used for recreational purposes and could affect the recreation experience in various ways. For example, construction-generated noise could be audible to people traveling past the project site by boat, kayak, or paddleboard on the San Joaquin River. Similarly, construction activities and equipment could be visible to these recreationists and construction emissions could be detectable at close proximity. However, these impacts would be short-term, localized, and would be reduced in severity with distance from the source.

Further, the project area is surrounded by industrial and institutional land uses. No launch ramps or other recreational access features are provided within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, short -term, localized construction activities would not be out of character. Therefore, the project would not reduce or impair access to recreational opportunities.

Project construction would not substantially impair access within the San Joaquin River channel. Specifically, all construction activities would occur from the landside and no waterside construction equipment would be need ed (e.g., barges). In addition, the temporary cofferdam would occupy a small area of the San Joaquin River channel. As discussed on page 4-10 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the temporary cofferdam would extend approximately 60 feet from the ordinary high-water mark into the San Joaquin River channel. The channel width at this location is approximately 225 feet. Although the channel capacity to convey river flows would be temporarily reduced, the temporary cofferdam would only be in place during the summer period at a time when river flows are lowest. The Draft Supplemental EIR determined that the temporary cofferdam would not impede or redirect river flow. Therefore, there would be adequate space for recreational users to travel around the project area. Based on the above discussion, project construction would not interfere with in-river recreational opportunities. Temporary relocation or redirection of river access would not be required.

In addition, there are substantial recreational opportunities throughout the City of Stockton and along other sections of the San Joaquin River that would continue to be available during project construction. There are no special features of the project area or its vicinity that make it especially attractive to recreationists. Existing recreational sites throughout the region and other areas of the San Joaquin River up- and downstream of the project site would accommodate any recreational users potentially displaced by project construction.

During operations, the project area would be restored to similar conditions as the existing setting. No permanent effects on recreation opportunities would occur with implementation of the project.

Based on the above discussion, the City maintains its conclusion that impacts related to recreation would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Comment 3-8

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the SEIR for the Project. As a responsible agency, the Commission will rely on the Final SEIR when considering a new lease as specified above (see Section “Commission Jurisdiction and Public Trust Lands”). We request that you consider our comments before certifying the SEIR.

Please send electronic copies of the Final EIR, Final SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Notice of Determination, approving resolution, CEQA Findings, and, if applicable, Statement of Overriding Considerations when they become EXHIBIT 2
621
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
2-8 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
available. Please note that federal and state laws require all government entities to improve accessibility of information technology and content by complying with established accessibility requirements. (29 U.S.C. § 794d; 36 C.F.R. § 1194.1 et seq.; Gov. Code, § 7405.) California State law prohibits State agencies from publishing on their websites content that does not comply with accessibility requirements. (Gov. Code, § 115467.) Therefore, any documents submitted to Commission staff during the processing of a lease or permit, including all CEQA documentation, must meet accessibility requirements for Commission staff to place the application on the Commission agenda.

For questions concerning Commission leasing jurisdiction, please contact Al Franzoia, Public Land Management Specialist, at [email protected] or (916) 574-0992.

Response 3-8

The City appreciates the Commission’s comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR and will continue to work with the Commission to ensure that public resources are protected. CEQA documentation and other documents submitted to the Commission will comply with accessibility requirements.

EXHIBIT 2
622
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 2-9
Letter 4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Brian Clements, Director of Permit Services
April 12, 2022
Comment 4-1
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft Supplemental EIR) for the Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications project (Project) from the City of Stockton (City). The Project consists of the three primary elements listed below:
 Reinstatement of an existing 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe running from the existing Regional Wastewater Control Facility to the abandoned outfall apron on the east bank of the San Joaquin River  Modification of the outfall apron structure to create a new outfall outlet  Construction of a pipeline running from the final effluent pump station to the reinstated 60- inch reinforced concrete pipe
The Project is located at the City’s existing Regional Wastewater Control Facility along the east bank of the San Joaquin River, south of the Santa Fe Railroad bridge, in Stockton, CA and lies within one of the communities in the State selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for investment of additional air quality resources and attention under Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (2017, Garcia) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities.

Response 4-1

The comment correctly summarizes elements of the project. The City acknowledges that the project area is within a community selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for investment of additional air quality resources and attention under Assembly Bill (AB) 617.

Comment 4-2

1) Assembly Bill 617
AB 617 requires CARB and air districts to develop and implement Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERPs) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities, like those in which the Project is located. The Stockton AB 617 community is one of the statewide communities selected by CARB for development and implementation of a CERP. Following extensive community engagement and collaboration with the Community Steering Committee, the CERP for the Stockton Community was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in March 2021 and by CARB in July 2021.

During the development of the CERP, the Community Steering Committee expressed concerns regarding the proximity of emission sources to nearby sensitive receptors like schools, homes, day care centers, and hospitals, and the potential future industrial development within the community that may exacerbate the cumulative exposure burden for community residents. The Community Steering Committee also expressed the desire for more meaningful avenues of engagement surrounding the land-use decisions in the area. As these issues can most effectively be addressed through strong partnerships between community members and local land- use agencies. Furthermore, the District recommends the City assess the emission reductions measures and strategies included in the CERP and address them in the Draft Supplemental EIR, as appropriate, to align the City’s work with the air pollution and exposure reduction strategies and measures outlined in the CERP.

For more information regarding the CERP approved for Stockton, please visit the District’s website at:
http://community.valleyair.org/selected-communities/stockton/ Response 4-2

The RWCF Modifications Project EIR determined that project construction and operations would have less- than- significant impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs). As stated in Section

1.4, “Scope of this Draft Supplemental EIR” of the Draft Supplemental EIR (page 1-2), the proposed outfall relocation EXHIBIT 2
623
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
2-10 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
would not result in a net increase in emissions from construction relative to that assessed in t he RWCF Modifications Project EIR. In addition, the outfall relocation project would not site any new stationary sources of TACs that would cause adverse impacts to sensitive receptors in the project area. As such, the Draft Supplemental EIR concluded that the outfall relocation project would not create any new sources of emissions from operations and maintenance activities beyond those assessed in the RWCF Modifications Project EIR.

The City acknowledges that a Community Emission Reduction Program (CERP) was adopted for the Stockton Community. The CERP contains various measures to reduce pollution in an existing pollution burdened community; however, the measures contained in the CERP are primarily directed towards reducing emissions from long- term operational sources of air pollution. As discussed in Section 3.7, “Project Operation and Maintenance,” of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the outfall relocation project would not increase operational activities above what is currently occurring at the project site. Specifically, the proposed outfall relocation project would not change the number of employees and truck trips at the existing RWCF. Therefore, the outfall relocation project would not contribute to new long-term operational sources of air pollution. Additionally, the construction period for the project evaluated in the Draft Supplemental EIR would occur between July 1 and October 31 during which some diesel equipment use would occur, but this use would not extend over a prolonged period such that adverse levels of pollution would be generated.

Because the project would not introduce substantial new vehicle trips, would not result in a new stationary source of TACs and criteria air pollutants, and would not result in stationary source emissions that would e xceed existing conditions, the policies of the Stockton CERP would not be applicable to the project.

Comment 4-3

2) Project Emissions
The Draft Supplemental EIR demonstrates Project criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operations are not expected to exceed the District thresholds of significance.

Response 4-3

The comment acknowledges that construction-related emissions were determined in the RWCF Modifications Project EIR to result in a less-than-significant impact. The RWCF Modifications Project EIR estimated emissions of construction-generated criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors and compared these estimates against San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) thresholds of significance and federal de minimis levels for pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is in nonattainment. Emissions were found to be less than significant based on these standards. Additionally, the project would be required to implement the fugitive dust reduction measures contained in its Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM 10 Prohibition), which would further reduce fugitive
dust emissions.

While SJVAPCD may submit a comment to the Draft Supplemental EIR consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15044 and recommend that additional mitigation be required to reduce exhaust emissions, the City has evaluated the significance of the project emissions using SJVAPCD-developed performance standards at the time of preparing the RWCF Modifications Project EIR (i.e., 10 tons per year [tpy] for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen, 100 tpy for carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides, and 15 tpy for respirable and fine particulate matter) and determined that air quality impacts would be less than significant. These thresholds were developed in consideration of long- term regional air quality planning in the SJVAB which is overseen by SJVAPCD. The City, serving as lead agency overseeing the environmental assessment of the now proposed project and Draft Supplemental EIR , has determined that these thresholds of significance are adequate to determine the significance of the project’s air quality impacts.

EXHIBIT 2
624
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 2-11
Through the use of SJVAPCD’s mass emissions thresholds, the project’s air quality impacts were found to be less than significant. Pursuant to Section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. Therefore, due to the significance determination made in the RWCF Modifications Project EIR and Draft Supplemental EIR, additional mitigation for the project is unnecessary, and no revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR are proposed in response to this comment.

Comment 4-4

3) District Rules and Regulation
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources and regulates some activities not requiring permits. A project subject to District rules and regulation would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with regulatory requirements. In general, a regulation is a collection of rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. Here are a couple of example, Regulation II (Permits) deals with permitting emission sources and includes rules such as District permit requirements (Rule 2010), and New and Modified Stationary Source Review (Rule 2201).

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at:
www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to this Project or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (209) 557-6446. 3a) District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)
Per District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) section 4.4.3, a development project on a facility whose pr imary functions are subject to District Rule 2201 or District Rule 2010 are exempt from the requirements of the rule. The District has reviewed the information provided and has determined that the primary functions of this Project are subject to District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) or District Rule 2010 (Permits Required). As a result, District Rule 9510 requirements and related fees do not apply to the Project referenced above.
3b) Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Regulation VIII, (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the project may be subject to District Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).

Response 4-4

The project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, which would be enforced through the SJVAPCD permitting process.

Comment 4-5

4) District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

Response 4-5
The City is the project proponent and acknowledges receipt of SJVAPCD’s comments.

Comment 4-6
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Harout Sagherian by e -mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5860.

Response 4-6
The City appreciates the SJVAPCD’s comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR.

EXHIBIT 2
625
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
2-12 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
Letter 5 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Greg Hendricks, Environmental Scientist
April 13, 2022
Comment 5- 1
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 24 February 2022 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project - Outfall Relocation, located in San Joaquin County.

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

Response 5-1

The comment consists of prefatory remarks to more detailed comments contained in the letter.

Comment 5- 2
I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The comment summarizes the role of the Central Valley RWQCB with regard to formulation and adoption of Basin Plans. No response is necessary.

Comment 5- 3
Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68- 16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018 05.pdf In part it states:

EXHIBIT 2
626
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 2-13
Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

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

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

Response 5-3

The comment summarizes the Antidegradation Policy. The RWCF discharge to the San Joaquin River is regulated by NPDES permit No. CA0079138 (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] Order R5-2020-0007), which finds that the permit is consistent with federal and state antidegradation regulations and policies. Project impacts on groundwater and surface water quality are addressed in Section 4.1, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” of the Draft Supplemental EIR. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. The Draft Supplemental EIR adequately analyzes the potential impacts on groundwater and surface water quality and does not conflict with the NPDES permit antidegradation policy consistency findings.

Comment 5-
4 II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ.

Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml Response 5-4

Construction activities associated with the project would disturb more than 1 acre of soils. Therefore, page 4-8 in Section 4.1, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” of the Draft Supplemental EIR states that the construction work would be subject to the Construction General Permit and that City and/or its construction contractor would be required to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan and implement appropriate construction best management practices for all activities that may result in the discharge of construction-related contaminants from disturbed construction areas.

Comment 5-5

Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits 1 The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/postconstruction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process.

EXHIBIT 2
627
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
2-14 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/municipal_permits/ For more information on the Phase II MS4 permit and who it applies to, visit the State Water Resources Control Board at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.shtm l Response 5-5
The City of Stockton’s MS4 is covered under the Central Valley RWQCB’s NPDES permit and WDR General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (NPDES permit No. CAS0085324 , Order R5-2016-0040).

The City received the Notice of Applicability from the Central Valley RWQCB on November 30, 2016.

Comment 5-6
Industrial Storm Water General Permit
Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014- 0057-DWQ. For more information on the Industrial Storm Water General Permit, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/industrial_general_permits/index.shtml Response 5-6

The RWCF has been approved for coverage under Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ.

Comment 5-7
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557- 5250.

Response 5-7

The City has applied for a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from USACE.

Comment 5-8
Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/ Response 5-8

The City has applied for a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Central Valley RWQCB.

EXHIBIT 2
628
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 2-15
Comment 5-9
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “non-federal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_water/ Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non -jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non - jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004- 0004.pdf Response 5-9

As part of the CWA Section 404 permit application, the City submitted an aquatic resources delineation report to USACE. As delineated in the report, all waters at the project site are waters of the United States. The jurisdictional delineation informed the analysis of impacts to wetlands and waters of the United States and waters of the state presented in the Draft Supplemental EIR.

Comment 5-10
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of undergro und utility vaults.

Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

EXHIBIT 2
629
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
2-16 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
Comment 5-11
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwate r to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5 -2016-0076-

01.pdf
Response 5-11
As described in Section 3.6.2, “Temporary Cofferdam,” of the Draft Supplemental EIR , the water behind the cofferdam may be discharged to the San Joaquin River. The City will apply for the appropriate NPDES permit for dewatering discharges to the river.

Comment 5-12
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ Response 5-12
The RWCF discharge to the San Joaquin River is regulated by NPDES permit No. CA0079138 (Central Valley RWQCB Order R5-2020-0007). The City has contacted the Central Valley RWQCB regarding the need to modify the NPDES permit to allow discharges from the RWCF through the new outfall proposed by the project.

Comment 5-13
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464 -4709 or [email protected].

Response 5-13
The City appreciates the Central Valley RWQCB comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR.

EXHIBIT 2
630
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 2-17
Letter 6 Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation
Jazzmyn Gegere (Brochini), Tribal Cultural Monitor Coordinator April 21, 2022
Comment 6-1
I am contacting you in regard to the Notification of Consultation Opportunity the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation had received concerning the proposed project located at Stockton’s Regional Wastewater Control Facility. As of now, Stockton is out of the range of areas the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation culturally monitors. I’d recommend contacting the following Tribe for consultation. Their contact information will be listed below.

California Valley Miwok Tribe
Silvia Burley, Chairperson
14807 Avenida Central
La Grange, California 95329
Phone: 1 (209) 931-4567
Email: [email protected]
Response 6-1

The information provided by the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation is appreciated. The California Valley Miwok Tribe was included in the list of tribes notified pursuant to AB 52 prior to preparation of the RWCF Modifications Project Draft EIR in 2018 and received the notice of availability of the Draft Supplemental EIR for review and comment. See also response to comment letter #2.

EXHIBIT 2
631
Responses to Comments
City of Stockton
2-18 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 2
632

City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 3-1
3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
This chapter presents specific text changes made to the Draft Supplemental EIR since its publication and public review. The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft Supplemental EIR and are identified by the Draft Supplemental EIR page number. Text deletions are shown in strikethrough and text additions are shown in underline.

The information contained within this chapter clarifies and expands on information in the Draft Supplemental EIR .

None of the changes identified below alter the conclusions of the Draft Supplemental EIR and do not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation. (See Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.)

3.1 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 2, “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY”

Page 2 ends

in Section 3.3, “Project Purpose and Objectives,” and the project description in Section 3.5, “Project Components.” The purpose of the proposed project is to consolidate RWCF effluent disposal operations and maintenance activities at the main plant on the east side of the San Joaquin River. The specific objectives of the project are to:
 further consolidate treatment facilities, thereby eliminating eliminate the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of 54-inch 72-inch pipeline along the western edge of the San Joaquin River,

Page 2 ends

window identified in Section 3.6.6, “Timing and Workforce,” and assessed in Chapter 4, “Environ mental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation.”
 Construction of the outfall would involve installation of a temporary cofferdam on the waterside of the San Joaquin River levee and removal of two trees at the site. Construction is expected to last up to 3 months, from occur between July 15 1 through October 30 31.

Page 2 ends

revised as shown below to remove the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional determination request.

The portion of the San Joaquin River that would be affected by project implementation is a navigable waterway, hence a water of the United States and state, and as such a jurisdictional determination is not necessary. The aquatic resources delineation prepared for the project has identified the exact acreage of these waters that would be filled by the project implementation.

Impact
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Significance
after
Mitigation
Impact 4.2-7: Potential for the Project to Result
in Disturbance to or Loss of Waters of the United
States and State
Construction of the proposed new outfall within
the San Joaquin River would result in temporary
dewatering of approximately 0.04 acre of the San
Joaquin River and permanent fill of
approximately 0.02 acre of waters of the United
States and state because of apron demolition
and placement of a steel pipe and riprap to
create the new outfall. Therefore,
implementation of the project would result in a
S Mitigation 4.2-7: Compensate for Loss of Waters of
the United States and State
The City will implement the following measures to
compensate for the loss of waters of the United States
and state:
 The City will submit an aquatic resources
delineation report to USACE and request a
jurisdictional determination. Based on the
jurisdictional determination aquatic resources
delineation, the City will determine the exact
acreage of waters of the United States and waters
of the state that would be filled because of
project implementation.

LTS
EXHIBIT 2
633
Revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Stockton
3-2 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
Impact
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Significance
after
Mitigation
substantial adverse effect on state and federally
protected waters.
 The City will replace on a “no net loss” basis
(minimum 1:1 ratio) (in accordance with USACE
and/or the regional water quality control board
[RWQCB]) the acreage and function of all wetlands
and other waters that would be removed, lost, or
degraded as a result of project implementation.

Wetland habitat will be replaced at an acreage and
location agreeable to USACE and the Central Valley
RWQCB and as determined during the Section 401
and Section 404 permitting processes.
 The City will obtain a USACE Section 404 permit
and RWQCB Section 401 water quality certification
before any groundbreaking activity within 50 feet
of waters of the United States or state. The City will
implement all permit conditions.

Page 2 ends

“Potential for the Abandoned-in-Place Outfall Structure to Affect Movements of Fishes or Increase Predation on Special-Status Fishes.”
Impact
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Significance
after
Mitigation
Impact 4.3-6: Potential for the Abandoned-in-
Place Outfall Structure to Affect Movements of
Fishes or Increase Predation on Special-Status
Fishes
The project would involve abandoning in place
the existing west bank outfall structure, located
below the river’s water surface. Therefore, the
two 48-inch-diameter outfall pipes would remain
unchanged compared to existing conditions,
except that RWCF effluent would no longer enter
the river via these pipes. The continued existence
of these submerged pipes on the west bank of
the river would not provide any additional
physical structure within the channel compared
to existing conditions. Consequently, these pipes
would not block or delay fish movement past the
site or provide physical structure and associated
hydraulic breaks for predatory fish to hold
behind beyond that which presently occurs.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS

3.2 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3, “PROJECT DESCRIPTION”

Page 3 ends

window identified in Section 3.6.6, “Timing and Workforce,” and assessed in Chapter 4, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation.”
EXHIBIT 2
634
Revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 3-3
The cofferdam would be in place for the entire permitted in--water work window, from approximately July 15 1 through October 3031.

Page 3 ends

construction window assessed in Chapter 4, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation.” Construction is expected to last up to 3 months and oc cur between July 1 and October 31.

3.3 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 4, “ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,
IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES”

Page 4 ends

shown below, consistent with the revisions described above for this mitigation measure in the Executive Summary.

Mitigation 4.2-7: Compensate for Loss of Waters of the United States and State The City will implement the following measures to compensate for the loss of waters of the United States and state:
 The City will submit an aquatic resources delineation report to USACE and request a jurisdictional determination. Based on the jurisdictional determination aquatic resources delineation, the City will determine the exact acreage of waters of the United States and waters of the state that would be filled because of project implementation.
 The City will replace on a “no net loss” basis (minimum 1:1 ratio) (in accordance with USACE and/or the regional water quality control board [RWQCB]) the acreage and function of all wetlands and othe r waters that would be removed, lost, or degraded as a result of project implementation. Wetland habitat will be replaced at an acreage and location agreeable to USACE and the Central Valley RWQCB and as determined during the Section 401 and Section 404 permitting processes.  The City will obtain a USACE Section 404 permit and RWQCB Section 401 water quality certification before any groundbreaking activity within 50 feet of waters of the United States or state. The City will implement all permit conditions.

3.4 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 6, “ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS”

Page 6 ends

objectives as stated in Section 3.3, “Project Purpose and Objectives,” and the project description in Section 3.5, “Project Components.”
One of the key factors in considering alternatives is whether they can feasibly attain most of the objectives of the project. Chapter 3, “Project Description,” Section 3.3, “Project Purpose and Objectives,” states the project objectives, which are repeated here for reference:
 Further consolidate treatment facilities, thereby eliminating the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of 54-inch 72-inch pipeline along the western edge of the San Joaquin River.

EXHIBIT 2
635
Revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Stockton
3-4 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 2
636

City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 4-1
4 REFERENCES
Natural Investigations Company. 2020 (April). Cultural Resources Inadvertent/Unanticipated Discovery Plan for the Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facilities Project, San Joaquin County, California . Sacramento, CA.

Prepared for City of Stockton.

NIC. See Natural Investigations Company.

EXHIBIT 2
637
References
City of Stockton
4-2 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 2
638

City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR 5-1
5 LIST OF PREPARERS

5.1 CITY OF STOCKTON (LEAD AGENCY)
C. Mel Lytle, PhD ........................................................................................................................ Director, Municipal Utilities Department Ali Gharegozloo, PE ....................................................................... Engineering Services Manager, Municipal Utilities Department Deedee Antypas ..................................................... Deputy Director of Wastewater Operations, Municipal Utilities Department

5.2 ROBERTSON-BRYAN, INC.

Michael Bryan, PhD ........................................................................................................................................ Principal-in-Charge, Biologist Michelle Brown, PE .......................................................................................................................... Project Manager, Associate Engineer Art O’Brien, PE ....................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Engineer

5.3 ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Sydney Coatsworth, AICP ..................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Andrea Shephard, PhD .......................................................................................................................................................... Project Manager Nicole Greenfield ......................................................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner Alta Cunningham ......................................................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner Dimitri Antoniou .................................................................................................................................................. Senior Air Quality Specialist Julia Wilson ........................................................................................................................................................................ Air Quality Specialist Jim Merk ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... Editor Michele Mattei ................................................................................................................................................................... Publishing Specialist Gayiety Lane ....................................................................................................................................................................... Publishing Specialist

EXHIBIT 2
639
List of Preparers
City of Stockton
5-2 RWCF Modifications Project Final Supplemental EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 2
640

Appendix A
Comments Received on the Draft SEIR

EXHIBIT 2
641

SAN JOAQUIN
-COUNTY-
Greotness grows here.

March 2, 2022
Environmental Health Department
Jasjit Kang, REHS, Director
Muniappa Naidu, REHS, Assistant Director

PROGRAM COORDINATORS
Robert McClellan, REHS
Jeff Carruesco, REHS, ROI
Willy Ng, REHS
Melissa Nissim, REHS
Steven Shih, REHS
Michelle Henry, REHS
To:

From:

RE:

San Joaquin County Community Development Department
Attention: Deedee Antypas
Michael Suszycki (209) 598-7001 M
Senior Registered Environmental Health Specialis( f1/
M16022 (EIR), Response Letter, SU0014785 (2677)
2500 Navy Dr., Stockton
The Environmental Health Department has no comment or concerns regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated February 2022 concerning the above-mentioned project.
1868 E. Hazelton Avenue I Stockton, California 95205 I T 209 468-3420 I F 209 464-0138 I www.sjgov.org/ehd 1-1
EXHIBIT 2
642
From: Cultural Preservation Department Inbox <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:56 AM
To: Deedee Antypas <[email protected]>
Cc: Cultural Preservation Department Inbox <[email protected]> Subject: City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project (Project No.

M16022)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Good morning,
Thank
you for sending over the notice for the opportunity to comment on the EIR of the City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project (Project No. M16022). Wilton Rancheria knows of one Culturally related site nearby. This site is a known Burial Site and is less than 2 miles away.

This is extremely important to acknowledge due to the fact that there is most likely other known resources in the area and the City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project (Project No. M16022) happens to be extremely close by. Wilton Rancheria would like to ask you to consider having a Tribal Monitor on site to ensure the protection of any unknown resources that could be uncovered during any ground disturbing activities.

Thank
you
Cultural Preservation Department
Wilton Rancheria
Tel: 916.683.6000 | Fax: 916.683.6015
9728 Kent Street | Elk Grove | CA | 95624
[email protected]
wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov
2-1
EXHIBIT 2
643
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1890
April 11, 2022
File Ref: SCH #2018092017
City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department
Deedee Antypas, Deputy Director of Wastewater Operations 2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY ([email protected]) Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project, Outfall Relocation Project, San Joaquin County
Dear Deedee Antypas:

The California State Lands Commission (Commission) staff has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modification, Outfall Relocation Project (Project), which is being prepared by the City of Stockton (City). The City, as the public agency responsible for the Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF) proposing to carry out the Project, is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The Commission is a trustee agency for projects that could directly or indirectly affect State sovereign land and their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses. Additionally, because the Project involves work on State sovereign land, the Commission will act as a responsible agency.

Commission Jurisdiction and Public Trust Lands
The Commission has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and waterways. The Commission also has certain residual and review authority for tidelands and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 6009, subd. (c); 6009.1; 6301; 6306). All tidelands and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable lakes and waterways, are subject to the protections of the common law Public Trust Doctrine.

JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
(916) 574-1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
3-1
3-2
EXHIBIT 2
644
City of Stockton Page 2 April 11, 2021
As general background, the State of California acquired sovereign ownership of all tidelands and submerged lands and beds of navigable lakes and waterways upon its admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all people of the state for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include but are not limited to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water-related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. On tidal waterways the State holds fee ownership of the bed of the waterway landward to the mean high-tide line, except for areas of fill or artificial accretion or where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a final court decision. Such boundaries may not be readily apparent from present day site inspections.

An application may be submitted to the Commission through the online application portal (OSCAR.slc.ca.gov). If you have questions specific to jurisdiction, lease provisions, or the application process, please contact Public Land Management Specialist, Al Franzoia (see contact information below).

Project Description
The City proposes to relocate an existing outfall to meet the City’s objectives and needs for the Project as follows:
• Further consolidate treatment facilities, thereby eliminating the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of pipeline along the western edge of the San Joaquin River;
• Allow gravity discharge of effluent to the San Joaquin River to the maximum extent possible (more than 90 percent of the time) thereby reducing overall disposal cost; and
• Comply with receiving water limitation specified in the RWCF National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

From the Project Description, Commission staff understands that the Project would include the following components that have potential to affect State sovereign land:
• Project Component 1. Reinstatement of an existing 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe running from the RWCF to an abandoned outfall apron on the east bank of the San Joaquin River.
• Project Component 2. Modification of the outfall apron structures to create a new outfall outlet.
• Project Component 3. Construction of a pipeline running from the Final Effluent Pump Station (a component of the RWCF) to the reinstated 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe.
3-2
cont.
3-3
EXHIBIT 2
645
City of Stockton Page 3 April 11, 2021
Outfall construction would involve installation of a temporary cofferdam and dewatering in the San Joaquin River.

Environmental Review
Commission staff requests that the City consider the following comments on the Project’s SEIR, to ensure that impacts to State sovereign land are adequately analyzed for the Commission’s use of the SEIR when considering a future lease application for the Project.

General Comments

3.3 Project Purpose and Objectives states that the objective is to “eliminate the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of 72-inch pipeline…” Staff requests a clarification on the size of the pipeline to avoid confusion as to what part of the Final Environmental Impact Report would be eliminated through certification of this SEIR.

Cultural Resources

3. Commission staff believes that there could be temporary potential impacts to recreational activities during the construction phase of the Project. Because the Project’s use of a temporary cofferdam is within a recreational site, Commission staff suggests that the City include additional analysis to address impacts to existing and ongoing recreational activities, even on a temporary basis. For example, would the Project interfere with the existing use of in-river recreational opportunities, such as kayaking, paddleboarding, or fishing? Mitigation to address potential impacts to recreational users may include safety and informational signage and a clear 3-3
cont.
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
EXHIBIT 2
646
City of Stockton Page 4 April 11, 2021
demarcation of the Project area during construction or temporary relocation/redirection of river access.

Please note that federal and state laws require all government entities to improve accessibility of information technology and content by complying with established accessibility requirements. (29 U.S.C. § 794d; 36 C.F.R. § 1194.1 et seq.; Gov. Code, § 7405.) California State law prohibits State agencies from publishing on their websites content that does not comply with accessibility requirements. (Gov. Code, § 115467.) Therefore, any documents submitted to Commission staff during the processing of a lease or permit, including all CEQA documentation, must meet accessibility requirements for Commission staff to place the application on the Commission agenda.

Refer questions concerning environmental review to Christine Day, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected] or (916) 562-0027. For questions concerning archaeological or historic resources under Commission jurisdiction, please contact Jamie Garrett, Staff Attorney, at [email protected] or (916) 574-0398. For questions concerning Commission leasing jurisdiction, please contact Al Franzoia, Public Land Management Specialist, at [email protected] or (916) 574-0992.

Sincerely,
Nicole Dobroski, Chief
Division of Environmental Planning
and Management
cc: Office of Planning and Research
C. Day, Commission
A. Franzoia, Commission
A. Kershen, Commission
J. Garret, Commission
3-8
3-7
cont.

EXHIBIT 2
647
April 12, 2022
Deedee Antypas
City of Stockton
Municipal Utilities Department
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
Project: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project, State Clearinghouse No.:2018092017
District CEQA Reference No: 20220241
Dear Ms. Antypas:

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft Supplemental EIR) for the Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications project (Project) from the City of Stockton (City). The Project consists of the three primary elements listed below:
 Reinstatement of an existing 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe running from the existing Regional Wastewater Control Facility to the abandoned outfall apron on the east bank of the San Joaquin River
 Modification of the outfall apron structure to create a new outfall outlet  Construction of a pipeline running from the final effluent pump station to the reinstated 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe
The Project is located at the City’s existing Regional Wastewater Control Facility along the east bank of the San Joaquin River, south of the Santa Fe Railroad bridge, in Stockton, CA and lies within one of the communities in the State selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for investment of additional air quality resources and attention under Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (2017, Garcia) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities. 4-1
EXHIBIT 2
648
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 District Reference No. 20220241
April 12, 2022
The District offers the following comments:
1) Assembly Bill 617
AB 617 requires CARB and air districts to develop and implement Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERPs) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities, like those in which the Project is located.

The Stockton AB 617 community is one of the statewide communities selected by CARB for development and implementation of a CERP. Following extensive community engagement and collaboration with the Community Steering Committee, the CERP for the Stockton Community was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in March 2021 and by CARB in July 2021.

During the development of the CERP, the Community Steering Committee expressed concerns regarding the proximity of emission sources to nearby sensitive receptors like schools, homes, day care centers, and hospitals, and the potential future industrial development within the community that may exacerbate the cumulative exposure burden for community residents. The Community Steering Committee also expressed the desire for more meaningful avenues of engagement surrounding the land-use decisions in the area. As these issues can most effectively be addressed through strong partnerships between community members and local land-use agencies. Furthermore, the District recommends the City assess the emission reductions measures and strategies included in the CERP and address them in the Draft Supplemental EIR, as appropriate, to align the City’s work with the air pollution and exposure reduction strategies and measures outlined in the CERP.

For more information regarding the CERP approved for Stockton, please visit the District’s website at:
http://community.valleyair.org/selected-communities/stockton/ 2) Project Emissions
The Draft Supplemental EIR demonstrates Project criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational are not expected to exceed the District thresholds of significance.

Although the construction-related emissions are expected to have a less than significant impact, the District suggests that the City advise project proponents with construction-related exhaust emissions and activities resulting in less than significant impact on air quality to utilize the cleanest reasonably available off-road construction fleets and practices (i.e. eliminating unnecessary idling) to further reduce impacts from construction-related exhaust emissions and activities. 4-2
4-3
EXHIBIT 2
649
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 District Reference No. 20220241
April 12, 2022
3) District Rules and Regulation
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources and regulates some activities not requiring permits. A project subject to District rules and regulation would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with regulatory requirements. In general, a regulation is a collection of rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. Here are a couple of example, Regulation II (Permits) deals with permitting emission sources and includes rules such as District permit requirements (Rule 2010), and New and Modified Stationary Source Review (Rule 2201).

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to this Project or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (209) 557-6446. 3a) District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)
Per District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) section 4.4.3, a development project on a facility whose primary functions are subject to District Rule 2201 or District Rule 2010 are exempt from the requirements of the rule. The District has reviewed the information provided and has determined that the primary functions of this Project are subject to District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) or District Rule 2010 (Permits Required). As a result, District Rule 9510 requirements and related fees do not apply to the Project referenced above.
3b) Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Regulation VIII, (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the project may be subject to District Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). 4-4
EXHIBIT 2
650
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 District Reference No. 20220241
April 12, 2022
4) District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Harout Sagherian by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5860.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
4-5
4-6
EXHIBIT 2
651
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
13 April 2022
Deedee Antypas
City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, REGIONAL WASTEWATER CONTROL

FACILITY MODIFICATIONS PROJECT - OUTFALL RELOCATION,
SCH#2018092017, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 24 February 2022 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project - Outfall Relocation, located in San Joaquin County.

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

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has 5-1
5-2
EXHIBIT 2
652
Regional Wastewater Control Facility - 2 - 13 April 2022 Modifications Project - Outfall Relocation
San Joaquin County
adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

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

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the 5-2
cont.
5-3
5-4
EXHIBIT 2
653
Regional Wastewater Control Facility - 3 - 13 April 2022 Modifications Project - Outfall Relocation
San Joaquin County
State Water Resources Control Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits1 The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/post- construction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process.

For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/municipal_p ermits/
For more information on the Phase II MS4 permit and who it applies to, visit the State Water Resources Control Board at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_munici pal.shtml
Industrial Storm Water General Permit
Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014- 0057-DWQ. For more information on the Industrial Storm Water General Permit, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/industrial_ge neral_permits/index.shtml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act 1 Municipal Permits = The Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) Permit covers medium sized Municipalities (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large sized municipalities (serving over 250,000 people). The Phase II MS4 provides coverage for small municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which include military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospitals. 5-4
cont.
5-5
5-6
5-7
EXHIBIT 2
654
Regional Wastewater Control Facility - 4 - 13 April 2022 Modifications Project - Outfall Relocation
San Joaquin County
Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “non- federal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage 5-7
cont.
5-8
5-9
5-10
EXHIBIT 2
655
Regional Wastewater Control Facility - 5 - 13 April 2022 Modifications Project - Outfall Relocation
San Joaquin County
under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4709 or [email protected].

Greg Hendricks
Environmental Scientist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
5-10
cont.
5-11
5-12
5-13
EXHIBIT 2
656
From: SSMN Cultural Preservation <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 10:32 PM
To: Deedee Antypas <[email protected]>
Subject: RWCF Modifications Project (M16022) Draft Supplemental EIR Comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Jazzmyn Gegere (Brochini)
Tribal Cultural Monitor Coordinator
4630 Ben Hur Rd.

P.O. Box 186
Mariposa, CA 95338
Hello D
eeDee,
I am c
ontacting you in regard to the Notification of Consultation Opportunity the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation had received concerning the proposed project located at Stockton’s Regional Wastewater Control Facility. As of now, Stockton is out of the range of areas the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation culturally monitors. I’d recommend contacting the following Tribe for consultation. Their contact information will be listed below.

Calif
ornia Valley Miwok Tribe
Silvia Burley, Chairperson
14807 Avenida Central
La Grange, California 95329
Phone: 1 (209) 931-4567
Email: [email protected]
Thank
you,
Jazzmyn Gegere (Brochini)
Tribal Monitor Coordinator
Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation
Cell #209-742-3104
[email protected]
6-1
EXHIBIT 2
657
City o
f Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project – Outfall Relocation 1

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS
In Connection with the
Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project

CITY OF STOCKTON

INTRODUCTION
The City of Stockton (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for purposes of the Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF) Modifications Project. The City certified the RWCF Modifications Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017) on March 26, 2019. The City has prepared a supplement to the RWCF Modifications Project EIR (referred to as a Supplemental EIR) to address a change in the project.

CEQA prohibits an agency from approving or carrying out a project for which significant effects have been identified, unless the agency makes one or more of the following findings set forth in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081, subdivision (a):
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See also California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15091.)
When significant effects are subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), it means that a significant and unavoidable environmental impact would result from project implementation. If this occurs, the public agency must find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment, if the agency approves the project (PRC Section 21081[b]).

CEQA requires public agencies to prepare a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions that it requires in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects (CCR, Title 14, Section 15097[a]).

Under PRC Section 21002.1, subdivision (d), the lead agency shall be responsible for considering the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in a project.

The City, therefore, provides the following Supplemental Findings for the RWCF Modifications Project that concern potentially significant impacts to all resource areas considered in the environmental review of the Outfall Relocation Project and has adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Outfall Relocation Project concurrent with these Supplemental Findings.

CEQA COMPLIANCE
The City has prepared a Supplemental EIR to address a change in the location of the outfall through which RWCF effluent would be discharged to the San Joaquin River (referred to herein as the Outfall Relocation Project, or “project”) relative to that described and assessed in the RWCF Modifications Project EIR certified in 2019. The Final Supplemental EIR assesses the potential environmental effects of implementation of the Outfall Relocation Project, identifies the means to eliminate or reduce potentially significant impacts, and evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. The Final Supplemental EIR consists of both the Draft Supplemental EIR, as amended through responses to comments, as well as a volume with formal responses to comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR.

EXHIBIT 3
658
Supplemental Findings
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project – Outfall Relocation 2
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081 and Title 14, CCR Section 15090, the City hereby certifies that it has received the Final Supplemental EIR, and reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Supplemental EIR and received through public comments. The City additionally certifies that the Final Supplemental EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and that the Final Supplemental EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The conclusions presented in these Supplemental Findings are based on the Final Supplemental EIR and all other evidence in the administrative record.

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final Supplemental EIR and all other information in the administrative record, the City hereby adopts the following Supplemental Findings for the RWCF Modifications Project in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City adopts these Supplemental Findings in conjunction with its approval of the Outfall Relocation Project component of the RWCF Modifications Project. In making these Supplemental Findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates by reference the analysis, determinations, and conclusions of the Final Supplemental EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The substantial evidence supporting these findings and conclusions is set forth in the Final Supplemental EIR and the record of proceedings.

Project Description and Background
The City is implementing modifications to its RWCF. Modifications to the RWCF are required to maintain compliance with the RWCF National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, extend the useful life of existing facilities, improve working conditions for facility staff, and implement components of the City’s Capital Improvement and Energy Management Plan.

The RWCF currently consists of the main plant on the east side of the San Joaquin River and the tertiary plant on the west side of the river. RWCF effluent is discharged through an existing outfall to the San Joaquin River on the west bank using pipe siphons. The RWCF Modifications Project proposed to consolidate treatment facilities on the east side of the river at the main plant, but continue discharge of final effluent to the San Joaquin River using the existing outfall on the west bank. The City now proposes to discharge final effluent through a new outfall located on the east bank of the San Joaquin River adjacent to the main plant and abandon the existing west bank outfall in place. The proposed outfall includes reinstatement of an abandoned 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe that served as the outfall for the City’s treated wastewater effluent before circa 1970.

The Outfall Relocation Project consists of the following three primary elements:
 reinstatement of an existing 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe running from the RWCF to an abandoned outfall apron on the east bank of the San Joaquin River,
 modification of the outfall apron structure on the east bank to create a new outfall outlet, and  construction of a pipeline running from the Final Effluent Pump Station to the reinstated 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe.

Construction of the outfall would involve installation of a temporary cofferdam on the waterside of the San Joaquin River levee and removal of two trees at the site. Construction is expected to occur between July 1 through October 31.

Upon successful commissioning and reinstatement of the main plant outfall on the east side of the river, the existing outfall on the west side of the river would no longer be required and would be abandoned in place so that no discharge of RWCF effluent could occur through the existing outfall and all discharge would occur through the reinstated outfall on the east side of the river.

Absence of Significant New Information
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR but before certification. New information includes: (i) changes to the project; (ii) changes in the environmental setting; or (iii) additional data or other information. Section 15088.5 further provides that:

EXHIBIT 3
659
Supplemental Findings
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project – Outfall Relocation 3
[n]ew information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.

Comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR express a range of CEQA and non-CEQA issues, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the Final Supplemental EIR. Each comment has been responded to in the Final Supplemental EIR and none of the comments trigger the need to recirculate the Draft Supplemental EIR.

Having reviewed the information contained in the Draft and Final Supplemental EIR, and in the administrative record, including all comments received, as well as the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and interpretive judicial authority regarding recirculation of draft EIRs, the City hereby finds that no significant new information was added to the Draft Supplemental EIR after the public review period. The City specifically finds with regard to comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR that: no new significant environmental impact would result from the Outfall Relocation Project or from the implementation of a mitigation measure; no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result; the City has not declined to adopt any feasible project alternative or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project; and the Draft Supplemental EIR is not so fundamentally and basically inadequate in nature that it precluded meaningful public review. Recirculation of the Supplemental EIR is, therefore, unnecessary and not required by CEQA.

Environmental Impacts Summary
This section summarizes the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the Outfall Relocation Project identified in the Final Supplemental EIR, and includes the findings regarding those impacts and any mitigation measures set forth in the Final Supplemental EIR. The Final Supplemental EIR contains a full explanation of each impact, mitigation measure, and the analysis that led the City to its impact conclusions.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, where the lead agency identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the lead agency may nonetheless approve the project if it finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable significant environmental impacts.

No significant and unavoidable impacts would occur with implementation of the project.

Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less-than-Significant Level The following significant or potentially significant impacts identified in the Final Supplemental EIR will be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the implementation of the specified mitigation measures incorporated into the project.

Terrestrial Biological Resources
Impact 4.2-1: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Plant Species and Habitat
Special-status plants with potential to occur on the project site include plants associated with marsh, riparian, or aquatic habitat. Habitat suitable for some of these species is present within the San Joaquin River and on its banks. Temporary dewatering and ground disturbance for construction of the outfall could result in removal of or damage to special-status plants if present. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.2-1, “Protect and Mitigate Impacts on Special-Status Plants,” is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.

Finding: Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 into the project will reduce the potentially significant impact on special-status plant species to a less-than-significant level because it will require that the project not result in unapproved take of these species and that any species losses will be compensated for. Therefore, the project with mitigation will not result in significant impacts to special-status plant species.

EXHIBIT 3
660
Supplemental Findings
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project – Outfall Relocation 4
Impact 4.2-2: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Western Pond Turtle
Implementation of the project would include temporary dewatering of a portion of the San Joaquin River and construction within the river channel. These project components could result in disturbance to or direct loss of western pond turtle, if present, within aquatic and upland habitat. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.2-2, “Conduct Western Pond Turtle Preconstruction Surveys and Relocation,” is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.

Finding: Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.-2 into the project will reduce the potentially significant impact on western pond turtles to a less-than-significant level because it will ensure that western pond turtles are removed from the site and that nest sites are protected so that project construction will not result in mortality of individuals. Therefore, the project with mitigation will not result in significant impacts to western pond turtles.

Impact 4.2-3: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Burrowing Owl Implementation of the project would include ground disturbance that could result in disturbance to or direct loss of burrowing owls and their burrows, if present. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.2-3, “Protect Burrowing Owls,” is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.

Finding: Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-3 into the project will reduce the potentially significant impact on burrowing owls to a less-than-significant level because it will require that burrowing owls be avoided and protected from construction activity or that the City compensate for the loss of suitable occupied habitat because of construction activity. Therefore, the project with mitigation will not result in significant impacts to burrowing owls.

Impact 4.2-4: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Swainson’s Hawk, White-Tailed Kite, and Other Nesting Raptors
Implementation of the project would include tree and other vegetation removal, and construction noise, which could result in disturbance to or direct loss of nesting Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and other nesting raptors, potentially resulting in nest abandonment, failure, or mortality of chicks and eggs. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.2-4, “Protect Swainson’s Hawk, White-Tailed Kite, and Other Nesting Raptors,” is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.

Finding: Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-4 into the project will reduce the potentially significant impact on Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and other nesting raptors to a less-than-significant level because it will require that project activities will not involve removing an active nest tree or disturbing nest sites. Therefore, the project with mitigation will not result in significant impacts to Swainson’s hawk, white- tailed kite, and other nesting raptors.

Impact 4.2-5: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Song Sparrow (“Modesto” Population) and Other Nesting Birds
Implementation of the project would involve tree and other vegetation removal, which could result in disturbance to or direct loss of nesting song sparrow (“Modesto” population) and other nesting birds, potentially resulting in nest abandonment, nest failure, or mortality of chicks and eggs. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.2-5, “Protect Song Sparrow (“Modesto” Population) and Other Nesting Birds,” is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.

Finding: Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 into the project will reduce the potentially significant impact on nesting song sparrow (“Modesto” population) and other nesting birds to a less-than-significant level because it will require that project activities not remove an active nest or disturb nest sites.

EXHIBIT 3
661
Supplemental Findings
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project – Outfall Relocation 5
Therefore, the project with mitigation will not result in significant impacts to song sparrow (“Modesto” population) and other nesting birds.

Impact 4.2-6: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Bats
Implementation of the project would include construction near a bridge and other structures that could potentially provide roost habitat for common and special-status bats, particularly pallid bat. Construction noise could disturb active bat colonies, causing them to abandon their roosts or young or affect foraging behavior, affecting the survival of young or adult bats. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.2-6, “Protect Special-Status Bats,” is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.

Finding: Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-6 into the project will reduce the potentially significant impact on pallid, or other special-status, bats to a less-than-significant level because it will require surveys to confirm that bats are absent from potential roost sites or avoid disturbance during sensitive periods for bats. Therefore, the project with mitigation will not result in significant impacts to special-status bats.

Impact 4.2-7: Potential for the Project to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Waters of the United States and State
Construction of the proposed new outfall within the San Joaquin River would result in temporary dewatering of approximately 0.04 acre of the San Joaquin River and permanent fill of approximately 0.02 acre of waters of the United States and state because of apron demolition and placement of a steel pipe and riprap to create the new outfall. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in a substantial adverse effect on state and federally protected waters. Loss of wetlands and other waters of the United States and state would be a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation 4.2-7, “Compensate for Loss of Waters of the United States and State,” is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.

Finding: Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-7 into the project will reduce the significant impact on waters of the United States and waters of the state to a less-than-significant level because it will ensure no net loss of functions and acreage of waters of the United States and waters of the state. Therefore, the project with mitigation will not result in significant impacts to waters of the United States and waters of the state.

Impact 4.2-8: Potential for Project Construction to Result in Disturbance to or Loss of Riparian Habitat
Construction of the proposed outfall along the San Joaquin River levee would result in direct removal of riparian vegetation. This would be a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.2-8, “Minimize Loss of Riparian Habitat,” is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.

Finding: Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-8 into the project will reduce the significant impact on riparian habitat to a less-than-significant level because it will require replacement planting of riparian trees and restoration of understory vegetation and channel contours at the site. Therefore, the project with mitigation will not result in significant impacts to riparian habitat.

Aquatic Biological Resources
Impact 4.3-3: Potential for Project Construction to Cause Direct Fish Injury or Mortality, Resulting in Impacts on Fish Populations
Construction of the cofferdam, subsequent dewatering of the area to provide a dry work area, and restoration of natural contours of the river postconstruction have the potential to cause direct mortality or injury to special-status fishes or other fish of the lower San Joaquin River. The potential for direct mortality or injury to special-status fishes would be minimized by limiting in-river construction activities to the July 1 to October 31 period and installing a cofferdam to hydraulically isolate the outfall installation from the river. The very limited injury or EXHIBIT 3
662
Supplemental Findings
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project – Outfall Relocation 6
mortality that could potentially occur to non-special-status fish species would not occur at a level that would cause a reduction in their population. Nevertheless, it is possible that individual special-status fish could become stranded in the cofferdam footprint. The potential for direct mortality or injury to special-status fishes stranded within the cofferdam would constitute a substantial adverse effect on the special-status species and thus would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 4.3-3, “Conduct Fish Rescue and Relocation Operation,” is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the MMRP.

Finding: Incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 into the project will reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level because construction will occur during the July 1 through October 31 when no Endangered Species Act-listed salmonid juveniles or delta smelt are expected to be in the project reach of the river and thus are not expected to become entrained within the cofferdammed area; any juvenile green sturgeon present in the river during construction that become entrained are hardy and will handle being rescue-seined and placed back into the river; most, if not all non-special status fishes that become entrained within the cofferdammed area will be safely removed and returned to the San Joaquin River before the start of construction work within the cofferdammed area; and any losses of small numbers of individual non-special-status fishes within the cofferdammed area will have no population-level effects on the species. Therefore, the project with mitigation will not result in significant impacts to fish populations.

Less-than-Significant Impacts or Less Than Cumulatively Considerable Impacts The following less-than-significant impacts or less than cumulatively considerable impacts are identified in the Final Supplemental EIR.

Hydrology and Water Quality
 Impact 4.1-1: Potential for Project Construction to Affect Water Quality  Impact 4.1-2: Potential for Project Construction to Cause Increased Erosion or Affect Flood Flows  Impact 4.1-3: Potential for Project Operations to Affect Water Quality  Impact 4.1-4: Potential for the New Outfall to Cause Increased Erosion or Affect Flood Flows Aquatic Biological Resources
 Impact 4.3-1: Potential for Project Construction-related Alterations in Aquatic and Riparian Habitat to Affect Aquatic Species
 Impact 4.3-2: Potential for Project Construction-Related Underwater Noise and Vibration to Affect Fish and Their Prey Organisms
 Impact 4.3-4: Potential for the RWCF’s Thermal Plume in the San Joaquin River to Thermally Block or Substantially Delay the Migrations or Movements of Fishes Past the New Outfall  Impact 4.3-5: Potential for the RWCF Effluent Discharge to Cause Mortality or Chronic Adverse Sublethal Effects on Fish, Phytoplankton, Zooplankton, or Macroinvertebrates Moving through the Thermal Plume  Impact 4.3-6: Potential for the Abandoned-in-Place Outfall Structure to Affect Movements of Fishes or Increase Predation on Special-Status Fishes
 Impact 4.3-7: Potential for the New East Bank Outfall Structure and Thermal Plume to Cause Increased Predation on Special-Status Fishes
Cumulative
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Terrestrial Biological Resources
 Aquatic Biological Resources
EXHIBIT 3
663
Supplemental Findings
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project – Outfall Relocation 7
Alternatives
The Draft Supplemental EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the Outfall Relocation Project, including the No-Project Alternative, followed by identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Because of the project purpose and objectives (i.e., relocation of the RWCF river outfall to further consolidate facilities, maximize ability to discharge by gravity flow, and comply with NPDES permit limitations), alternatives that feasibly attain most of these project objectives are limited. The No-Project Alternative and Diffuser Outfall Alternative were carried forward for detailed analysis in the Draft Supplemental EIR with regard to whether they would reduce or avoid the significant impacts of the project.

The City finds that no new alternatives have been identified and that the feasibility of the analyzed alternatives has not changed since the Draft Supplemental EIR was circulated for public review. The City certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Draft Supplemental EIR and the administrative record, and finds, for the reasons set forth below, that each of the following alternatives cannot feasibly attain, either at all or to the same extent as the proposed project, one or more of the project objectives or fails to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the project.

1. No-Project Alternative
The No-Project Alternative constitutes no change to the RWCF Modifications Project; thus, the City would continue to implement the project as described in the RWCF Modifications Project EIR. Under the No-Project Alternative, the existing outfall on the west bank of the San Joaquin River would be used to discharge effluent from the RWCF to the San Joaquin River. This would require the installation of 2,000 linear feet of pipeline to connect the final effluent pump station to the outfall on the west bank of the river. The new construction would occur on land, and no in-river construction would occur. After the modified RWCF on the east side of the river is operational, the siphon and pumps would be required to operate 100 percent of the time to move effluent to the existing west-bank outfall. Because the existing west-bank outfall would continue to be used, requiring continued pumping of final RWCF effluent for discharge to the river, and compliance with the RWCF NPDES permit temperature limitations would be less certain, the No-Project Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives.

2. Diffuser Outfall Alternative
The Diffuser Outfall Alternative would move the outfall to the same new location identified for the project and would involve the same primary construction and installation elements described for the project except that the discharge of treated effluent to the San Joaquin River would go through a multiport bottom diffuser outfall instead of the side bank outfall as planned for the project. The preliminary design efforts identified a 72-inch diffuser outfall with a length of 130 feet and ten 16-inch ports in alternating directions as the most applicable configuration for wastewater discharge. The diffuser would be oriented perpendicular to river flow and centered in the river channel. Additionally, the diffuser ports would be angled 15 degrees from horizontal. The Diffuser Outfall Alternative may not fully achieve compliance with the RWCF NPDES permit temperature limitations, thus would not achieve all the project objectives.

3. Environmentally Superior Alternative
The State CEQA Guidelines require identification of an environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that were evaluated (Section 15126.6[e]). Table 6-1 of the Draft Supplemental EIR summarizes the environmental analyses for the Outfall Relocation Project alternatives. The No-Project Alternative would result in reduced environmental impacts compared to the project; however, it would not attain any of the project objectives. The Diffuser Outfall Alternative would result in environmental impacts similar to the project; however, it would not attain the project objective to comply with NPDES permit limitations for temperature as well as the project would.

Although the State CEQA Guidelines stipulate that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives to the project, in this instance, the Diffuser Outfall Alternative would not result in fewer significant environmental impacts, relative to the Project. Moreover, neither alternative can fully achieve all three Project objectives. All significant impacts of the project can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, and the proposed project best meets the project objectives.

EXHIBIT 3
664
Supplemental Findings
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project – Outfall Relocation 8
Additional Findings

1. These Supplemental Findings incorporate by referenc e in their entirety the text of the Supplemental EIR.

Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of the project, related mitigation measures, and the basis for determining the significance of such impacts.

2. All of the environmental effects of the Outfall Relocation Project have been adequately addressed in the Supplemental EIR and have been mitigated to a less-than-significant level or avoided.

3. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions. The Supplemental Findings address all of the potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the Outfall Relocation Project. The Supplemental EIR concluded that the impacts associated with the project are less than significant with the adoption of identified mitigation measures. As a result, the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project is not required.

4. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 requir es the lead agency approving a project to adopt an MMRP for changes to the project that it adopts or makes a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance during project implementation. The Stockton City Council adopts the MMRP for the Outfall Relocation Project and the specific mitigation measures will be monitored in conjunction with the City’s MMRP process.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Supplemental Findings, the record of proceedings consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 the RWCF Modifications Project EIR certified by the Stockton City Council on March 26, 2019;  the Supplemental EIR for the project, including, without limitation, the Draft Supplemental EIR, Final Supplemental EIR, and all of their appendices;
 all studies, EIRs, maps, rules, regulations, guidelines, permits and other documents and materials incorporated by reference in any portion of the EIRs;
 the MMRP for the project;
 matters of common knowledge, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including, without limitation, City’s adopted CEQA Procedures, and other adopted plans, policies, and programs;
 any documents expressly cited in these Supplemental Findings; and  all materials not otherwise identified which are expressly required to be in the record of proceedings by PRC Section 21167.6(e).

CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings are located at the City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department. Copies of those documents are, and at all relevant times have been and will be, available upon request at the following address. The custodian of the record of proceedings may be contacted as follows:

City of Stockton
Municipal Utilities Department
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
209.937.8700
EXHIBIT 3
665
City of Stockton
Regional Wastewater Control Facility
Modifications Project
Outfall Relocation Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017
Prepared for:

City of Stockton
Municipal Utilities Department
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
September 2022
EXHIBIT 4
666
City of Stockton
Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project Outfall Relocation Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
State Clearinghouse No. 2018092017
Prepared for:

City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
Contact: Deedee Antypas, Deputy Director of Wastewater Operations [email protected]
Prepared by:

Robertson–Bryan, Inc.
3100 Zinfandel Drive, Suite 300
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Contact: Michelle Brown, PE, Project Manager
Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

Telephone: (916) 405-8933
[email protected]
Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact: Andrea L. Shephard, PhD, Project Manager
Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Telephone: (916) 842-3179
[email protected]
September 2022
EXHIBIT 4
667

City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), the City of Stockton (City) prepared a supplement to the Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF) Modifications Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which evaluates the relocation of the RWCF outfall from the west bank of the San Joaquin River to the east bank. The Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce identified impacts to less-than-significant levels.

CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (PRC Section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[d] and 15097) require public agencies “to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required for the project because the Supplemental EIR identifies potential significant impacts related to the project implementation, and mitigation measures have been identified to reduce those impacts. This MMRP will be adopted by the Stockton City Council when it approves the project and will be kept on file at the City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department, 2500 Navy Drive Stockton, CA 95206.

PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed in a satisfactory manner before, during, and after project construction. The attached table has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the mitigation measures. The table identifies the impact, mitigation measures (as amended through the Final Supplemental EIR), monitoring responsibility, mitigation timing, and provides space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the Supplemental EIR. Mitigation measures that are referenced more than once in the Supplemental EIR are not duplicated in the MMRP table.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Unless otherwise specified herein, the City is responsible for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures under its jurisdiction according to the specifications provided for each measure and for demonstrating that the action has been successfully completed.

Inquiries should be directed to:

Deedee Antypas, Deputy Director of Wastewater Operations City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206
Email: [email protected]
The location of this information is:

City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, CA 95206

MMRP RELATION TO SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI-SPECIES

CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN COVERAGE
The City of Stockton is a permittee of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) and has opted for coverage under the SJMSCP for incidental take of covered species associated with future urban growth within the City’s service area. As such, the City is required to mitigate for project-related conversion of natural lands and special-status species through in-lieu fees, habitat land dedication, purchase of mitigation bank credits, or by proposing an alternative mitigation plan consistent with the goals of the EXHIBIT 4
668
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Stockton
2 RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project SJMSCP. The mitigation measures in this MMRP that address species covered by the SJMSCP are intended to be consistent with the goals of the SJMSCP, as required.

The City of Stockton is following the process for SJMSCP coverage for project-related impacts. The Habitat Technical Advisory Committee approved the project on January 12, 2022, after which the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), Inc. approved the outfall project’s participation in the SJMSCP at its January 27, 2022, Board meeting. The City understands that SJCOG, Inc. will dispatch a qualified biologist to the project site to conduct a pre-construction biological survey prior to project-related ground disturbance. The information collected during the survey will be used to create the project-specific Incidental Take Minimization Measures (ITMMs).

Because this MMRP has been prepared to be consistent with the SJMSCP, it is anticipated that the ITMMs will be consistent with this MMRP. However, because impacts to species covered in the SJMSCP will be mitigated through that program, if the ITMMs differ from this MMRP, the ITMMs will supersede the mitigation measures herein.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TABLE
The categories identified in the attached MMRP table are described below.  Mitigation Measure – This column provides the verbatim text of the adopted mitigation measure  Implementation Responsibility – This column identifies the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure.
 Timing – This column identifies the time frame in which the mitigation will be implemented.  Verification – This column is to be dated and signed by the person (either project manager or his/her designee) responsible for verifying compliance with the requirements of the mitigation measure.

EXHIBIT 4
669
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures1 Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification Terrestrial Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1: Protect and Mitigate Impacts on Special-Status Plants
Consistent with the avoidance and minimiza tion measures in the SJMSCP, the City will implement the following measures to mitigate the potential impact on special- status plant species:
 Before project implementation, habitat su itable for special-status plants on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified botanist when the species’ distinguishing characteristics are identifiable, such as during their typical blooming periods. This survey will be conduc ted no more than 1 year before the start of construction.

City of Stockton and qualified
botanist
Conduct preconstruction survey no
more than one year before the start
of construction of each project
element that could affect habitat for
special status plants or that
changes the flow of effluent.

Conduct these surveys when the
species’ distinguishing
characteristics are identifiable, such
as during their typical blooming
periods.

 If no special-status plants are observed on the project site, a letter report documenting the survey methods and results shall be submitted to the City, and no further mitigation is required.

City of Stockton and qualified
botanist
Following the preconstruction
survey, prepare a letter report
documenting survey methods and
results.

 All populations of slough thistle shall be avoided in accordance with the identified measures in Section 5.5.9(F) of the SJMSCP. The SJMSCP does not permit destruction of this species. If avoidance is not feasible, a compensation plan for slough thistle shall be developed in conjunction with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The plan shall determine the appropriate measures to minimize direct and indirect impacts that could occur as a result of project construction and shall describe measures to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Measures may include preserving and enhancing existing populations, creating off-site populations on project mitigation sites through seed collection or transplantation, restoring or creating suitable habitat in sufficient quantities, or paying an in-lieu fee to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat and/or individuals.

City of Stockton and qualified
botanist
Avoid populations of slough thistle
throughout construction.

If slough thistle cannot be avoided,
prepare and implement a
compensation plan for slough
thistle before the start of
construction.

 If impacts on special-status plant species cannot be avoided, the City will implement compensation requirements provided in the SJMSCP, which may include species relocation to SJMSCP preserves, seed collection for propagation on SJMSCP preserves, or payment of SJMSCP fees such that no net loss of occupied habitat and/or individuals would occur.

City of Stockton and qualified
botanist
Implement compensation
requirements provided in the
SJMSCP before the start of
construction.

 If watershield, which is not covered under the SJMSCP, is found and cannot be avoided during construction, the City will consult with CDFW to determine the appropriate measures to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals.

Mitigation measures may include preserving and enhancing existing populations, creating off-site populations on mitigation sites through seed collection or transplantation, and/or restoring or creating suitable habitat in sufficient City of Stockton and qualified
botanist
Consult with CDFW prior to project
initiation to determine appropriate
measures; develop mitigation and
monitoring plan before the start of
construction.

EXHIBIT 4
670
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Stockton
4 RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project Mitigation Measures1 Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat and/or individuals. A mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed describing how unavoidable losses of special-status plants will be compensated.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-2: Conduct Western Pond Turtle Preconstruction Surveys and Relocation
The City will implement the following measur es to avoid the potentially significant impact on western pond turtle, consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP. All mitigation listed below shall be limited to construction within 0.3 mile of potential aquatic habitat:
 A preconstruction survey for western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist before work in suitable aquatic habitat.

City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
Before construction activities for
project elements in suitable
aquatic habitat.

 If no western pond turtles are observed, a letter report documenting the survey methods and results shall be submitted to the City, and no further mitigation is required.

City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
Following the preconstruction survey,
prepare a letter report documenting
survey methods and results.

 During the dewatering of the river, a qualif ied biologist shall be present to survey for western pond turtles. If western pond turtles are observed, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall relocate the turtles to the nearest area with suitable aquatic habitat that will not be disturbed by project-related construction activities.

City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
At the time of dewatering activities
during construction.

 If nesting areas for western pond turtles are identified on the project site, a buffer area of 300 feet shall be established between the nesting site (which may be immediately adjacent to wetlands or extend up to 400 feet away from wetland areas in uplands) and the wetland located near the nesting site. These buffers shall be indicated by temporary fencing if construction has or will begin before nesting periods are ended (the period from egg laying to emergence of hatchlings is normally April to November).

City of Stockton If nesting areas for pond turtles are
identified, the buffer for those
nesting sites shall be established
before construction begins.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-3: Protect Burrowing Owls
The City will implement the following meas ures consistent with the SJMSCP to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on burrowing owl:
 The City will retain a qualified biologist to conduct focused breeding and nonbreeding season surveys for burrowing owls in areas of suitable habitat on and within 150 meters of project activities. Surveys will be conducted before the start of construction activities. Surveys will be conducted before project activity in accordance with Appendix D of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).
 If no occupied burrows are found, a letter report documenting the survey methods and results shall be submitted to the City, and no further mitigation is required.
 If burrowing owls are discovered during preconstruction surveys and can be avoided during project activities, a protective buffer around the burrow shall be City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
Conduct focused breeding and
nonbreeding season surveys in
areas that could provide burrowing
owl habitat before the start of
construction activities in these
areas during the breeding season;
if owls are discovered, establish
protective buffer around the burrow
before construction begins; do not
disturb occupied burrows during
the breeding season (February 1
through August 31); maintain
protective buffer until the end of

EXHIBIT 4
671
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project 5 Mitigation Measures1 Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification established in conjunction with the Joint Po wers Authority and consistent with the SJMSCP.
 During the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed. The development of a protective buffer shall be supported by a qualified biologist. The protective buffer will be informed by monitoring the burrowing owls’ sensitivity and will be put in place to prevent burrow destruction and disturbance to nest sites (including nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young). The 2012 CDFW staff report identifies variables to consider for the buffer, such as habitual disturbances (visual and audible), existing vegetation, and type and extent of disturbance and impact. The staff report gives general guidelines for buffers during the breeding season. It recommends that, at minimum, the protective buffer during the breeding season be 200 meters; moving up to 500 meters for high levels of disturbance. These guidelines shall be followed. If activities are allowed closer than these recommended setback distances, then a broad-scale, long-term, scientifically rigorous monitoring program that ensures that the owls are not detrimentally affected by the alternative approach shall be conducted. The protective buffer shall remain until the end of the breeding season unless a qualified biologist approved by the permitting agencies verifies through noninvasive means that either (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. After the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the burrow can be destroyed.
the breeding season (August 31)
If construction does not begin, or is
delayed for several months in an
area of burrowing owl habitat, this
survey would need to be done
again.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-4: Protect Swainson’s Hawk, White-Tailed Kite, and Other Nesting Raptors
The City will implement the following meas ures consistent with the SJMSCP to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and other nesting raptors:
 If removal of a known nest tree is required, it shall be removed between September 16 and February 14.
 If project activity would commence between February 15 and September 15, a qualified biologist shall 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 commencement.
 If no active nests are present in the survey area, a letter report documenting the survey methods and results shall be submitted to the City, and no further mitigation is required.
 If an occupied nest is present, a buffer area will be established around the nest site. CDFW guidelines recommend implementation of a 0.25-mile buffer for Swainson’s hawk and a 500-foot buffer for other raptors, but the size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist and CDFW determine that project activities would not be likely to adversely affect the nest with a smaller buffer. No project activity will commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer acti ve or that the young have fully fledged.

City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
Remove known nest tree between
September 16 and February 14;
conduct preconstruction surveys
for active nests no more than 14
days and no less than 7 days
before commencement of
construction of project elements in
the vicinity of nesting trees;
establish appropriate buffers
around active nests before
construction begins; monitor active
nests throughout construction if the
activity has potential to adversely
affect the nest.

EXHIBIT 4
672
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Stockton
6 RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project Mitigation Measures1 Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biolog ist will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-5: Protect Song Sparrow (“Modesto” Population) and Other Nesting Birds
The City will implement the following meas ures consistent with the SJMSCP to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on song sparrow (“Modesto” population) and other nesting birds:
 A qualified biologist shall conduct a precon struction survey for any project activity that would occur during the nesting bird season (March 1–August 31) and within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat, including shrubs, riparian vegetation, and trees. The survey shall be conducted wi thin 14 days before project activity begins.
 If no nesting birds are found, a letter report documenting the survey methods and results shall be submitted to the City, and no further mitigation is required.  If nests are found, the qualified biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around the nest. A 10-foot buffer for songbirds is typically sufficient to protect the nest from disturbance, but the size of the buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist. Buffer size may vary based on bird species, listing status of the species, and other factors, including distance from construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, 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 and the City, in consultation with CDFW, determine that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest.

City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
Conduct preconstruction survey
within 14 days before construction
of project elements in the vicinity of
suitable nesting habitat; establish
buffer around the nesting colony, if
present, before construction
begins; maintain setbacks during
the nesting season for the period
encompassing nest building and
continuing until fledglings leave
nests.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-6: Protect Special-Status Bats
The City will implement the following meas ures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on special-status bat specie s, consistent with the SJMSCP:
 A qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct surveys for roosting bats before construction implementation near potentia l bat roosting structures, such as bridges. Surveys will consist of daytime pedestrian surveys to look for visual signs of bats (e.g., guano) and/or evening emergence surveys to note the presence or absence of bats, if determined necessary. If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost will be determined.  If no evidence of bat roosts is found, a letter report documenting the survey methods and results shall be submitted to the City, and no further study shall be required.
 If roosts of pallid bat or other special-status bats are determined to be present, activities that could cause roost abandonment shall occur outside of the nursery and/or hibernation seasons and shall occur during dusk and/or evening hours after bats have left the roosting site.

City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
Conduct surveys before demolition
of buildings; if roosts are present
and must be removed, exclude
bats from the roosting site before
the building is removed or
renovated; seal nursery sites
before the nursery season (April
through August); seal hibernation
sites before the hibernation season
(November through March);
remove colonial roosting sites
outside of the nursery and/or
hibernation seasons and during
dusk and/or evening hours after
bats have left the roosting site.

EXHIBIT 4
673
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project 7 Mitigation Measures1 Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification Mitigation 4.2-7: Compensate for Loss of Waters of the United States and State2
The City will implement the following measures to compensate for the loss of waters of the United States and state:
 Based on aquatic resources delineation, the City will determine the exact acreage of waters of the United States and waters of the state that would be filled because of project implementation.
 The City will replace on a “no net loss” basis (minimum 1:1 ratio) (in accordance with USACE and/or the regional water quality control board [RWQCB]) the acreage and function of all wetlands and other waters that would be removed, lost, or degraded as a result of projec t implementation. Wetland habitat will be replaced at an acreage and location agreeable to USACE and the Central Valley RWQCB and as determined during the Section 401 and Section 404 permitting processes.
 The City will obtain a USACE Section 404 permit and RWQCB Section 401 water quality certification before any groundbreaking activity within 50 feet of waters of the United States or state. The City will implement all permit conditions.

City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
Prepare an aquatic resources
delineation prior to construction;
replace wetlands and other waters
prior to project completion; obtain
a USACE Section 404 permit and
RWQCB Section 401 water quality
certification before groundbreaking
activities; implement permit
conditions throughout project
construction.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-8: Minimize Loss of Riparian Habitat The City will implement the incidental take and avoidance measures in the SJMCSP for riparian habitat and the following measures:
 The City will submit a notification of Lake and Streambed Alteration to CDFW for work within the San Joaquin River and its levee. The City will comply with all conditions of the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by CDFW for the project.
 The City will replace the 0.04 acre of vall ey foothill riparian woodland habitat to be removed from the project site with habitat comprising similar ecological conditions to those provided by the habitat removed from the project area, including similar species composition and diversity and functional organization.

Riparian habitat replacement shall be at a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio for a total of 0.04 acres. Habitat restoration, enhancement, and/or replacement shall be at a location and by methods agreeable to CDFW. This may include onsite restoration of riparian habitat; restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat elsewhere on the river in the project vicinity; purchase of mitigation credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank; or any combination thereof.  The City will require restoration of preconstruction contours and herbaceous understory vegetation.

City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
Submit a notification of Lake and
Streambed Alteration and obtain a
Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement before groundbreaking
activities; comply with all
conditions of the agreement
throughout project construction;
conduct habitat restoration,
enhancement, and/or replacement
prior to project completion.

EXHIBIT 4
674
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Stockton
8 RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project Mitigation Measures1 Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification Aquatic Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: Conduct Fish Rescue and Relocation Operation The City will implement the following measur es to avoid, minimize, and mitigate this potentially significant impact on San J oaquin River special-status fishes:
 A fish rescue operation will be completed as water elevations within the cofferdam reach low levels. Fish rescue w ill be completed by qualified biologists using dip and seine nets to remove any fish remaining within the cofferdammed area. All fish rescued from inside the cofferdammed area will be placed into the San Joaquin River away from construction activities.
 After the dewatered area has been deemed free of any entrained fishes, the area will be completely dewatered using the submersible pumps. Depending on the amount of leakage between the sheet pile s, the submersible pumps may have to be operated at regular intervals to keep the work area dry.

City of Stockton and qualified
biologist
During construction activities when
dewatering is required.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.8-2: Halt Ground-disturbing Activity Upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. 3 The City shall implement cultural resource training of construction personnel to make them aware of the cultural value of the area, including the potential for tribal cultural resources to be present near the project site, and to educate them on how to best avoid impacting such resources, if encountered. If archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources are discovered during project-related construction activities all ground disturbance within a minimum of 100 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the discovery. The archaeologist shall examine the resources, assess their significance, and recommend appropriate procedures to either further investigate or mitigate adverse impacts. If the find is determined to be a significant historical resource and the archaeological resource cannot be avoided, then applicable mitigation measures for significant resources shall be completed (e.g., preservation in place, data recovery program pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2[i]). In the event that tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, the City shall notify the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria and the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe by email. During evaluation or mitigative treatment, ground disturbance and construction work could continue on other parts of the project area.

The title to all abandoned shipwrecks, archaeological sites, and historic or cultural resources on or in the tide and submerged lands of California is vested in the State and under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Commission) (Pub. Resources Code, Section 6313). In the event that archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources are discovered on State land during project City of Stockton and qualified
archaeologist
Conduct cultural resource training
before construction begins; halt
ground disturbance during
construction activities when
archaeological resources and/or
tribal cultural resources are
discovered. Immediately following
the discovery of a resource,
coordinate with the appropriate
entity regarding the disposition of
the resource.

EXHIBIT 4
675
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Stockton
RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project 9 Mitigation Measures1 Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification construction, the City will notify and consult with the Commission’s Staff Attorney.

The final disposition of archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on State land under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission must be approved by the Commission.

Mitigation Measure 4.8-3: Halt Ground-disturbing Activity Upon Discovery of Human Remains.

If human remains are discovered, all work within a minimum of 100 feet of the discovery site shall halt immediately. The City shall notify the County Coroner, as stipulated in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Coroner shall determine whether the remains are Native American and, if so, shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The Commission shall follow the stipulati ons in PRC Section 5097.98, including determination of a most likely descendent. If the Commission is unable to identify a descendant, the descendant is unable to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation, the Commission shall mediate any dispute between the parties. Where such mediation fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner shall reinter the human remains and associated funerary items with appropriate dignity on the property, in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

City of Stockton and qualified
archaeologist
During construction activities when
human remains are discovered.

Mitigation Measure 4.8-4: Halt Ground-disturbing Activity Upon Discovery of Paleontological Resources.

If fossils or other paleontological resources are encountered during construction, all work shall be halted within a 100-foot radius of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to exami ne the find and evaluate its significance. If the find is deemed to have significant scientif ic value, the paleontologist and the City shall formulate a plan to either avoid impacts or to continue construction without disturbing the integrity of the find (e.g., by carefully excavating the material containing the resources under the direction of the paleontologist followed by routine conservation, laboratory preparation, and curation). Recommendations determined by the City to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered.

City of Stockton and qualified
paleontologist
During construction activities when
paleontological resources are
discovered.

Transportation and Circulation
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: Implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan.

The City of Stockton will prepare and implement a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that addresses the specific steps to be taken before, during, and after construction City of Stockton Prepare TMP before construction;
implement TMP throughout
construction.

EXHIBIT 4
676
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Stockton
10 RWCF Modifications Project: Outfall Relocation Project Mitigation Measures1 Implementation Responsibility Timing Verification to minimize temporary construction traffic impacts. The City will be responsible for developing the TMP in consultation with the applicable transportation entities, including the following:
 Caltrans for state and federal roadway facilities, and  City of Stockton Fire Department and Police Department for emergency services.

The City shall prepare the TMP before construction. The TMP shall ensure that acceptable operating conditions on local roadways and freeway facilities are maintained during construction activities. At a minimum, the TMP shall include:
 construction schedule and time;
 description of material delivery routes, num ber of truck trips, and specification of construction vehicle travel hour limits;
 maintenance of safe and efficient acce ss routes for emergency vehicles;  manual traffic control when necessary;
 submittal of the construction TMP to local emergency response agencies and notification to such agencies shall at least 14 days before the commencement of construction that would partially or fully obstruct roadways; and  posting of contact information in case of emergency or complaint.

If necessary to minimize unexpected opera tional impacts or delays experienced during real-time construction, the City will also be responsible for modifying the TMP to address such effects.

Notes:

1. Mitigation measures related to Terrestrial and Aquatic Biological Resources, Cultural and Cultural Tribal Resources, and Transportation and Circulation are from the RWCF Modifications Project MMRP and would continue to be applicable to the project.

2. Mitigation Measure 4.2-7 has been adapted from the RWCF Modifications Project Supplemental EIR to reflect that a jurisdictional determination is not necessary because the portion of the San Joaquin River that would be affected by project implementation is a navigable waterway, and hence a water of the United States and state.

3. Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 has been adapted from the RWCF Modifications Project Supplemental EIR in response to comments from the California State Lands Commission on the Supplemental EIR.

EXHIBIT 4
677
RWCF Modifications Project
East Bank Outfall Relocation
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Stockton City Council
October 18, 2022
Agenda Item No. 15.3
678
RWCF Modifications Project
Supplemental EIR (SEIR)
• Original EIR
• Use existing pipelines to convey to outfall on west bank • CEQA and permitting to proceed to meet schedule
• EIR certified at Council Meeting on July 29, 2019
• Install temporary pipelines to serve until new outfall permitted a
nd constructed in future
• Temporary solution for approximately five years
• Purpose of East Bank Outfall Relocation Project
• Consolidate operations at Main Plant (east side of River) • Avoid cost of temporary pipelines and structures of $1M • Allow gravity discharge more than 90% of time
• Comply with NPDES Discharge Permit
679
Work No Longer Needed (Temporary)
680
East Bank Outfall Relocation Construction
681
East Bank Outfall Relocation SEIR
• Evaluation
• Located formerly-us ed outfall pipe through levee (circa 1970s) • Considered its use for east bank outfall
• Determined acceptable for Project
• Updated Design
• Pipe suitable for reuse with lining
• Modify Final Effluent Pump Station (FEPS)
• Reroute effluent pipeline to existing outfall pipe
• Extend existing outfall pipe out and down into river
682
East Bank Outfall Relocation SEIR
• Resources Analysed In the SEIR
• Hydrology
• Water Quality
• Terrestrial Biology
• Aquatic Biology
• Permitting
• Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Flood Board)-c omplete • Reclamation District 404-I n progress
• Corp of Engineers (COE)-I n progress
• Endangered Species Act (ESA): National Marine Fisheries S
ervice (NMFS), Biological Assessment & Biological Opinion • California State Lands Commission Lease
683
SEIR Review/Comment Process
• Notice of Availability: February 25, 2022
• Comment Period: February 25 to April 11, 2022
• Final EIR
• Findings of Fact
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
• Council Consideration of Final EIR
684
SEIR Findings
• No significant and unavoidable impacts
• Less- than-significant impacts
• Hydrology
• Water Quality
• Less- than-significant impacts with mitigation
• Terrestrial biology
• Aquatic biology
685
Recommendations
• Summary of Requested Actions:

1. Adopt a resolution to certify that the Final Supplemental E
nvironmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the
Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF) Modifications Project has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and finds the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the
RWCF Modifications Project.

2. Adopt the Findings of Fact.

3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

4. Authorize City Manager to execute a lease agreement with t
he California State Lands Commission.
686
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 22-0821, Version: 3

ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR THE OUTFALL

RELOCATION PROJECT COMPONENT OF THE RWCF MODIFICATIONS PROJECT,

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE PAYMENTS FOR DIRECT

MITIGATION COST IMPACTS, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO REAPPROPRIATE FUNDS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to:

1. Approve findings pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code section 3.68.070 in support of an exception to the competitive bidding process.

2. Authorize Contract Change Order (CCO)-008 to Phase 2B of the Progressive Design-Build Contract between the City and AECOM/W.M. Lyles, Joint Venture (JV) to increase the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) in the amount of $6,770,384.07 for construction of the Outfall Relocation Project component of the Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF) Modifications Project (Exhibit 1 to the Resolution).

3. Incorporate CCO-001 through CCO-008 bringing the total Phase 2B contract amount to $206,789,950.31.

4. Authorize the City Manager to reappropriate funds in the amount of $5,185,225 from the existing RWCF New Outfall Project UW20023 to the RWCF Modifications Project UW16022.

5. Authorize the City Manager to execute CCO-008 to Amendment No. 2, Phase 2B, to the Progressive Design-Build Contract.

6. Authorize the City Manager to execute payments not to exceed a total of $150,000 for the cost of direct mitigation of impacts from the Outfall Relocation Project.

It is further recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the intent of the resolution.

Summary
The Municipal Utilities Department (MUD) RWCF Modifications Project consists of key upgrades to the RWCF to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit- required effluent limits, in addition to replacing equipment and processes that are 40 to 70 years old and beyond their useful life. Upon completion of the Project, the RWCF will be modernized to meet required effluent limits and able to expand to support the community to 2045 and beyond.

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
687
File #: 22-0821, Version: 3
The RWCF Modifications Project construction is ongoing. Additional project investigation and engineering design work was completed by the JV in 2021 to determine if a project change was feasible to move the final effluent discharge from the west bank of the San Joaquin River to a rehabilitated east bank outfall structure. The results of this investigation proved the City would gain significant benefits by combining this project with the RWCF Modifications Project where the new outfall would be constructed on the east bank adjacent to the main plant and abandon the existing west bank outfall in place.

The Outfall Relocation Project (Outfall Relocation Project, or “project”) scope in CCO-008 to the RWCF Modifications Project will include the reinstatement of an abandoned 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe that served as the outfall for the City’s treated wastewater effluent before circa 1970.

Construction is planned to occur between July 1 and October 31, 2023. Upon successful commissioning and reinstatement of the outfall on the east side of the river, the existing outfall on the west side of the river will no longer be required and will be abandoned in place.

Staff recommend that the Council adopt a resolution to approve findings and authorize CCO-008 to Phase 2B of the Progressive Design-Build Contract between the City and AECOM/W.M. Lyles, JV to increase the GMP in the amount of $6,770,384.07 for construction of the Outfall Relocation Project component of the RWCF Modifications Project.

DISCUSSION
Background
On November 15, 2016, by Resolution No. 2016-11-15-1503, the Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Progressive Design-Build Contract with the AECOM/W.M. Lyles JV in the amount of $5,349,000, to perform Phase 1 design services for the RWCF Modifications Project.

Three contract change orders were issued for the Phase 1 services, bringing the total contract amount for Phase 1 to $5,508,113. The Progressive Design-Build Contract was anticipated to be executed in two phases: Phase 1 for the design through 65% complete drawings and Phase 2 for final design and construction.

The Phase 2A services advanced the design to 90% complete drawings. The Phase 2A Contract Amendment No. 1 with the AECOM/W.M. Lyles JV was $6,026,561.

On July 30, 2019, by Resolution No. 2019-07-30-1403, the Council authorized the City Manager to execute a GMP Contract Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $186,596,624 to the Progressive Design-Build Contract to complete Phase 2B, which includes final design, engineering services during construction, construction management and construction for the RWCF Modifications Project.

The City Manager has authorized CCO-001 through CCO-007 to Phase 2B because the total of these change orders was within the City Manager’s delegation of authority and appropriate to be approved administratively under Council Resolution 2021-11-02-1502. CCO-001 through CCO-007 City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
688
File #: 22-0821, Version: 3
total $13,422,942, bringing the current (without CCO-008) Phase 2B contract price to $200,019,566.24. Contract Change Orders under the GMP approach are issued only for unforeseen conditions that were not known at the time of GMP development, or changes in the scope of the project requested by the City.

The RWCF currently consists of the main plant on the east side of the San Joaquin River and the tertiary plant on the west bank of the river. RWCF final effluent is discharged through an existing outfall to the San Joaquin River on the west bank using pipe siphons. The MUD previously investigated the benefits of moving the final effluent discharge to the east bank of the San Joaquin River and included the planned project in its Capital Improvement Project Budget. Under the Modifications Project, design and construction included the improvement of facilities to continue discharge of final effluent to the San Joaquin River using the existing outfall on the west bank.

Present Situation
The Modifications Project construction is ongoing. The RWCF is required to be fully compliant with NPDES effluent limits by June 1, 2024. Additional project investigations and initial design work was completed by the JV in 2021 (under CCO-005) to determine if a project change was feasible to include moving the final effluent discharge from the west bank to a reinstated east bank outfall located on the San Joaquin River. The results of this investigation proved the City would gain significant benefits by combining this project with the Modifications Project where the new outfall would be constructed on the east bank adjacent to the main plant and abandon the existing west bank outfall in place.

If approved by Council, the work associated with CCO-008 to the RWCF Modifications Project under the Outfall Relocation Project will include the reinstatement of an abandoned 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe that served as the outfall for the City’s treated wastewater effluent before circa 1970. This project will involve installation of a temporary cofferdam during construction on the waterside of the San Joaquin River east levee and the removal of two trees at the site.

For the relocation of the outfall to the east bank of the San Joaquin River, the City has applied for the following State and Federal permits and agreements:
· Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; · Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
· California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement.

These permits, if approved, will require the City to purchase mitigation credits to address the taking of riparian and aquatic habitat. Approval of the resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute payments for these credits not to exceed a total of $150,000 for all credits.

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
689
File #: 22-0821, Version: 3
Findings
Stockton Municipal Code section 3.68.070(A)(4) provides an exception to the competitive bidding process in cases where the City Council has approved findings that support and justify the exception.

The proposed findings demonstrate the benefits of implementing CCO-008 by incorporating the Outfall Relocation Project into the RWCF Modifications Project contract. The findings are as follows:

1. The RWCF Modifications Project includes the construction of the Final Effluent Pump Station (FEPS) that will be modified with the work associated with CCO-008. The interface between the challenges of the CCO-008 scope of work and the changes to the FEPS could be problematic. The AECOM/W.M. Lyles JV team has proven onsite experience, qualifications, and staff to minimize the complexity of this construction interface that will reduce potential project delays and eliminate additional mobilization costs.

2. The CCO-008 scope of work will eliminate the need to install approximately 2,000 feet of 72- inch pipeline along with other facilities on the westside of the San Joaquin River (that would be later abandoned), resulting in approximately $1 million in project construction savings.

3. The accelerated construction of the Outfall Relocation Project will provide significant savings and regulatory compliance benefits to the City by consolidating all RWCF effluent disposal operations and maintenance activities to the east side of the San Joaquin River. Early abandonment of the tertiary facilities on the west side of the river will provide reduced power, chemical, operation & maintenance, and staffing costs.

4. Construction schedule acceleration will assure adherence to project deadlines to comply with new effluent limitations specified in the RWCF NPDES permit by June 1, 2024.

Environmental Determination
The Supplemental EIR (SEIR) will be considered by the City Council in a separate action. If the proposed SEIR resolution is approved, then the Environmental Determination is addressed.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The project to replace the existing outfall at the RWCF Tertiary Facility was first identified and budgeted in Fiscal Year 2019-20. The available funds will be reappropriated in the current fiscal year from the existing RWCF New Outfall project UW20023 to the RWCF Modification Project UW16022 in the amount of $5,185,225 for there to be sufficient funds available in the Wastewater CIP Fund, RWCF Modifications Project UW16022.There is no impact to the City’s General Fund or any other unrestricted fund as a result of taking the recommended action.

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
690
Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR THE OUTFALL RELOCATION PROJECT COMPONENT TO PHASE 2B OF THE REGIONAL WASTEWATER CONTROL FACILITY MODIFICATIONS PROJECT UW16022 ,

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE PAYMENTS FOR COST OF DIRECT MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO REAPPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM EXISTING RWCF NEW OUTFALL PROJECT UW20023 TO RWCF MODIFICATIONS PROJECT UW16022

On November 15, 2016, by Resolution No. 2016 -11-15-1503, the Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Progressive Design-Build Contract with the AECOM/W.M. Lyles JV in the amount of $5,349,000 .00, to perform Phase 1 design services for the RWCF Modifications Project. Three contract change orders were issued for the Phase 1 services, bringing the total contact amount for Phase 1 to $5,508,113.00; and

On March 26, 2019, by Resolution No. 2019 -03-26-0802, the Council took action to divide the additional Phase 2 work consistent with available funding into Phases 2A and 2B and authorized the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Progressive Design-Build Contract. The Phase 2A services advanced the design to 90% complete drawings. The Phase 2A Contract Amendment No. 1 with the AECOM/W.M.

Lyles JV is in the amount of $6,026,561.00; and

On July 30, 2019, by Resolution No. 2019-07-30-1403, the Council authorized the City Manager to execute a GMP Contract Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $186,596,624.00 to the Progressive Design-Build Contract to complete Phase 2B, which includes final design, engineering services during construction, construction management and construction for the RWCF Modifications Project; and

The City Manager has authorized CCO -001 through CCO -007 to Phase 2B because the total of these change orders is within the City Manager’s dele gation of authority and is appropriate to be approved administratively under Council Resolution 2021-11-02-1502. CCO-001 through CCO-007 total $13,422,942.00, bringing the current (without CCO-008) Phase 2B contract price to $200,019,566.24; and

The City now proposes to change the discharge of RWCF final effluent from the west bank of the San Joaquin River to a reinstated outfall located on the east bank of the San Joaquin River and abandon the existing west bank outfall in place; and

The City Council has certified a Supplement to the RWCF Modifications Project EIR (Supplemental EIR) that was completed for the Outfall Relocation Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act , has reviewed and considered 691
the information contained in the Supplemental EIR, adopts the Supplemental Findings of Fact and adopts the MMRP; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council approves findings pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code section

3.68.070 (A)(4) in support of an exception to the competitive bidding process:

a. The RWCF Modifications Project includes the construction of the Final Effluent Pump Station (FEPS) that will be modified with the work associated with CCO-008. The interface between the challenges of the CCO -008 work and the changes to the FEPS could be problematic. The AECOM/W.M. Lyles JV team has proven onsite experience, qualifications, and staff to minimize the complexity of this construction interface that will reduce potential project delays and eliminate additional mobilization costs.

b. The CCO-008 scope of work will eliminate the need to install approximately 2,000 feet of 72-inch pipeline along with other facilities on the westside of the San Joaquin River (that would be later abandoned), resulting in approximately $1 million in project construction savings.

c. The accelerated construction of the Outfall Relocation Project will provide significant savings and regulatory compliance benefits to the City by consolidating all RWCF effluent disposal operations and maintenance activities to the east side of the San Joaquin River. Early abandonment of the tertiary facilities on the west side of the river will provide reduced pow er, chemical, operation & maintenance and staffing costs.

d. Construction schedule acceleration will assure adherence to project deadlines to comply with new effluent limitations specified in the RWCF NPDES permit by June 1, 2024.

2. The City Council authorizes Contract Change Order (CCO)-008 to Phase 2B of the Progressive Design -Build Contract between the City and AECOM/W.M. Lyles, Joint Venture to increase the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) in the amount of $6,770,384.07 for construction of the Outfall Relocation Project component of the Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications Project , a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by this reference.

3. The City Council incorporates CCO-001 through CCO-008 bringing the total Phase 2B contact amount to $206,789,950.31.

4. The City Manager is hereby a uthorized to reappropriate funds in the amount of $5,185,225 from the existing RWCF New Outfall Project UW20023 to the RWCF Modifications Project UW16022.
692

5. The City Manager is authorized to execute CCO-008 to Amendment No. 2, Phase 2B, to the Progressive Design-Build Contract.

6. The City Manager is authorized to execute payments not to exceed a total of $150,000.00 for the cost of direct mitigation of impacts from the Outfall Relocation Project.

7. The City Manager is authorized to take such other actions as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED October 18, 2022 .

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
693

CITY OF STOCKTON
Contract Change Order #: ___ 8 __

Page 1 of 2 ends

August 17, 2022
Resolution/Motion No. 2019-07-30-1403
(If not required enter "NIA')
Purchase Order No. 213763 ----P-ur-ch_a_s_e ...;;O
;..;
rd;;...e_r -
#
--
M16022 - RWCF Progressive Design-Build Phase 2B Project Project Number I Project Name I Activity
Original Contract Price $186,596,624.00
Prior Change Order Total $13,422,942.24
This Change Order $6,770,384.07
Revised Contract Price $206,789,950.31
TO AECOM/WM Lyles Joint Venture. You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications of this contract.

Additional Work Performed for Above Referenced Project
A. PCO 036: Final Effluent - East Bank Outfall - Construction - This PCO is for reinstatement of the outfall to the east side of the San Joaquin River adjacent to the main plant, will allow the use of gravity discharge up to 90% of the time, significantly reduce pumping costs and energy use and eliminate the need to construct approximately 2,000 feet of pipeline along the western edge of the San Joaquin River. Cost= $6,770,384.07
Ninet y-Three (93) calendar days will be added to the Contract Time.

The substantial completion date will now be 10/31/2023. and the final completion date will now be 03/01/2024
Fully Exe[uted' F@rm: R1m�ing: O,igin,a!1 tro City Clerk; Co!i)y to Vend�r Total CCO N�.8 Cost= $6,770,384.07
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
694
EXHIBIT 1
695
EXHIBIT 1
696
EXHIBIT 1
697
EXHIBIT 1
698
EXHIBIT 1
699
EXHIBIT 1
700
EXHIBIT 1
701
EXHIBIT 1
702
EXHIBIT 1
703
EXHIBIT 1
704
EXHIBIT 1
705
EXHIBIT 1
706
RWCF Modifications Project
East Bank Outfall Relocation
Contract Change Order (CCO)-008
Stockton City Council
October 18, 2022
Agenda Item No. 15.4
707
RWCF Modifications Project
• Original Contract Approach
• Use existing pipelines to convey to existing outfall on west bank
• Allowed for CEQA and permitting to proceed to meet schedule • Install temporary pipelines to serve until new outfall permitted and constructed
• Temporary solution
• New outfall permitting to be completed within 5 years • Purpose of Outfall Relocation Project Contract Change Order (CCO)-008
• Consolidate operations on Main Plant (east side of River) • Avoid cost of temporary pipelines and structures of
approximately $1M
• Allow gravity discharge more than 90% of time
• Comply with NPDES Discharge Permit
708
East Bank Outfall Relocation Construction
709
Work No Longer Needed (Temporary)
710
East Bank Outfall Relocation CCO-008
• Evaluation
• Located formerly-used outfall pipe through levee (circa 1970s) • Considered its use for east bank outfall
• Determined acceptable for EBO
• Updated Design
• Pipe suitable for reuse with lining
• Modify Final Effluent Pump Station (FEPS)
• Reroute effluent pipeline to existing outfall pipe
• Extend existing outfall pipe out and down into river
711
East Bank Outfall Relocation CCO-008
• Permitting
• Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Flood Board) -complete • Reclamation District 404 - in progress
• Corp of Engineers (COE) - in progress
• Endangered Species Act (ESA): National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Biological Assessment & Biological Opinion
• CEQA-complete
712
East Bank Outfall Relocation CCO-008
• Remove:
• Construction of pipeline on the west bank of the river • Modifications to the weir control box on the west bank of the river
• Construction of the connection to the existing pipeline under the railroad
• Construction of a new effluent control box at the tertiary plant
• Modify the Final Effluent Pump Station to accommodate gravity flow to the east bank of the river
713
East Bank Outfall Relocation CCO-008
• Add:
• Construction of effluent pipeline to the east bank of the river • Reinstatement and upgrade of the existing pipe under the east bank levee
• Demolition of the existing apron structure on the east bank of the river
• Construction of a new outfall outlet on the east bank of the river
714
East Bank Outfall Relocation CCO-008
• Findings (3.68.070):
• Construction interface
• Avoids $1M of temporary work
• Early abandonment of Tertiary Plant
• Assure compliance with June 1, 2024, permit deadline
715
Recommendations
• Summary of Requested Actions:
• Approve findings pursuant to SMC 3.68.070
• Approve Outfall Relocation Project CCO-008 for $6.8 Million • Incorporate CCO-001 through CCO-007 (Administratively approved)
• Increase Phase 2B contract amount to $206,789,950.31
(Includes CCO-001 through CCO-008)
• Authorize City Manager to execute Outfall Relocation Project CCO-008
• Authorize City Manager to execute payments for direct mitigation; Not to exceed $150,000
716
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 22-1010, Version: 1

APPROVE THE SJAFCA MOSSDALE TRACT AREA REGIONAL FLOOD PROTECTION

DEVELOPMENT NEXUS STUDY UPDATE, IMPACT FEE UPDATE, AND COLLECTION

AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt a Resolution:

1. Adopting the updated nexus study for the Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee.

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing collection agreement for the Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee between San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency and its member agencies, including the City of Stockton.

3. Authorizing an amendment to the FY 2022-23 Fee Schedule to update the Mossdale Tract Area Regional Flood Protection Development Impact Fee (Mossdale Tract Regional Flood Impact Fee) for residential, commercial, and industrial; which includes an existing administration fee.

It is further recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

Summary
Before the Council today is the first step in the process of implementing an updated SJAFCA Mossdale Tract Regional Levee Impact Fee Program. The purpose of the update is to reflect changes and refinements in SJAFCA’s financing plan for 200-year Urban Level of Protection (“ULOP”) levee improvements for the Mossdale Tract (“Project”). New requirements in the law pertaining to development impact fees require a 30-day noticed public hearing prior to the approval of a Nexus Study to support a new or increased development impact fee. This public hearing and notice is separate from the requirement to have a noticed public hearing prior to the adoption of the fee itself. The requested action includes conducting a required public hearing and the approval of the updated Nexus Study as well as the approval of a collection agreement with SJAFCA for the fee.

As it relates to the approval of the amended Collection Agreement, of particular note for the Council’s consideration, is the incorporation of terms related to the Mossdale Tract Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“EIFD”). As described further in more detail below, the collection agreement provides the mechanism for the City to recoup its investment by way of additional allocation of Tax Increment to the Mossdale Tract EIFD.

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 1 of 9
powered by Legistar™
717
File #: 22-1010, Version: 1
The updated Nexus Study referenced above provides the basis for the proposed Regional Levee Impact Fee to ensure that new development pays its proportionate share of the levee improvement costs needed to provide Urban Level of Flood Protection (ULOP) to the Mossdale Tract Area.

The adopted Nexus Study provides an updated program cost estimate that addresses climate change and updates to program funding from other sources. It was prepared as a regional fee with the intent that each of the Local Agencies individually adopt the Regional Levee Fee and collect and remit the fees to SJAFCA.

The requested action and the next step in the process includes conducting a required public hearing to adopt the Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee.

DISCUSSION
Background
In December 2018 the City Council approved a collection agreement with SJAFCA, County of San Joaquin, and the cities of Lathrop and Manteca to collect the Mossdale Tract Regional Levee Impact Fee (“Regional Levee Fee”) to fund 200-year flood protection for the Urban/Urbanizing Areas of the Mossdale Tract Basin (“Basin”). The Regional Levee Fee has been collected since 2018 and is currently the primary local funding source for SJAFCA’s continued efforts to implement Urban Level of Flood Protection (“ULOP”) 200-year flood control improvements for the Basin.

The Regional Levee Fee Program started with the cities of Lathrop and Manteca which had, prior to 2018, implemented an interim development impact fee for ULOP within the respective portions of their jurisdictions impacted by ULOP requirements. Their programs were supplanted in November 2018 with SJAFCA’s approval of the Regional Levee Fee Program and the subsequent approval of collection agreements by each of SJAFCA’s member agencies.

Since 2018, several key factors / variables that are part of the calculations that determine the impact fee rates have changed necessitating an update to the Regional Levee Fee Program. In summary, these changes include:
· Overall Program Costs
o Since 2018, SJAFCA has incorporated the costs of Climate Adaptation Policy into the financing plan reflected in the Adequate Progress report. The update to the Fee Program will support consistency with the costs reflected in the financing plan. · EIFD Funding Approach and financing of improvements
o To generate the funding needed to cover the capital costs of the Project by the required 2028 deadline, advance funding of future impact fees is needed. The proposed EIFD provides an opportunity to issue debt and finance future fee revenues. The land use agencies collecting the development impact fee will also be City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 2 of 9
powered by Legistar™
718
File #: 22-1010, Version: 1
participants in the EIFD. As a result of participation in the EIFD, the land use agencies’ general funds will experience fiscal impacts. Fee revenues collected after the completion of the Project will be utilized to mitigate a portion of these fiscal impacts. Fee revenues collected after the completion of the Project will be directed back to the participating agencies to mitigate the fiscal impacts of financing the flood control improvement. The updated Nexus Study now reflects the use of the fee revenues after the completion of the Project and this financing approach. · Updated Development Projections
o Since the approval of the Nexus Study in 2018, updated development projection information has been provided by the land use agencies. The development planning information was refined as part of the efforts to analyze the EIFD financing approach and supporting analyses. This update to the Nexus Study incorporates these refinements in planned development.

Present Situation
SJAFCA staff and consultants have prepared drafts of the required documentation needed to implement a proposed Mossdale Tract Area Regional Impact Fee Program Update. This documentation includes the following items attached to this report:
· Draft Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee Update Nexus Study, Dated May 12, 2022 (Exhibit 1 to the Resolution). · Amended Agreement for Collection of San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee (Exhibit 2 to the Resolution) to include:
o San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee Key Terms Related to the Repayment of EIFD Payments to Land Use Entities from Impact Fees.
o San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee Credit & Reimbursement Policies.

The following discussion summarizes the attached materials and provides additional context for Council’s consideration of the recommendation.

Draft Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee Update Nexus Study
The preparation of a nexus study is the first step in the process of approving any update to a development impact fee. As part of the update to the Regional Levee Fee Program, SJAFCA is required to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act (also known as “AB 1600,” Government Code sections 66000 et seq.), as well as more recently approved legislation, AB 602 (2021), (Government Code § 65940.1, 66016.5, and 66019 and Health and Safety Code § 50466.5).

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 3 of 9
powered by Legistar™
719
File #: 22-1010, Version: 1
The Mitigation Fee Act identifies the required findings which must be made in any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a development impact fee as a condition of approval of a development project. The attached Nexus Study has been prepared in a manner that establishes an equitable development impact fee that can be imposed on all planned development projects in the Mossdale Tract that are provided ULOP. Development impact fees would be collected to continue providing the funding necessary to pay for the levee system improvements. In general, the study establishes the “nexus” between the impacts of development projects and the costs associated with the construction of public facilities to mitigate the impacts on infrastructure.

The findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act and supporting discussion for the development impact fee update are presented within the Nexus Study.

AB 602 sets forth additional procedural requirements for the preparation of a nexus study and the adoption of a development impact fee. As it relates to the identification of level of service the following must be identified and provided:

1. The existing level of service;

2. The new level of service; and

3. An explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.

In addition, AB 602 requires that the calculation of the fee on a housing development project be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if all of the following exemption findings are made:

1. An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development projects.

2. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

3. The other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller development are not charged disproportionate fees.

The AB 602 required level of service information is presented in the Nexus Study. Further, the Nexus Study presents a fee that is calculated on a Gross Developable Acreage (GDA) Basis versus a square footage basis. As such, the required AB 602 exemption findings are presented in the Nexus Study.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the proposed Updated Fee Rates documented within the Nexus Study as compared to the current fee rates in effect today. It is SJAFCA’s goal to work with each of the Member land use agencies to implement this Update with the new fee rates (Exhibit 3 to the Resolution) effective as soon as practicable.

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 4 of 9
powered by Legistar™
720
File #: 22-1010, Version: 1
TABLE 1 - Proposed Rates for Adoption
Land Use Current
Regional Fee
Rates (Per
GDA)
Updated
Regional Fee
Rates (Per
GDA)
Change from
Current Rate
Single Family Residential $19,428 $22,106 14%
Multi-Family Residential $17,691 $20,686 17%
Commercial $18,399 $20,916 14%
Industrial $15,309 $16,384 7%
TABLE 2 - Demonstrative Rates on Per Unit Basis
Land Use Basis Current
Regional Fee
Rates
Updated
Regional Fee
Rates
Change from
Current Rate
Single Family
Residential [1]
Per Unit $3,169 $3,770 19%
Multi-Family
Residential [2]
Per Unit $922 $1,095 19%
Commercial [3] Per 1,000 SF $1,442 $1,713 19%
Industrial [4] Per 1,000 SF $1,113 $1,053 -5%
[1] Current assumption is 6.13 units per GDA. Proposed assumption is 5.86 units per GDA. [2] Current assumption is 19.19 units per GDA. Proposed assumption is 18.89 units per GDA. [3] Current assumption is 12,763 SF per acre. Proposed assumption is 12,207 SF per acre. [4] Current assumption is 13,756 SF per acre. Proposed assumption is 15,553 SF per acre.

Amended Collection Agreement
The City Council entered into a collection agreement with SJAFCA’s member agencies in December 2018 as part of the initial implementation of a Regional Levee Fee Program.

As part of this update to the program, there is a need to update the collection agreement to reflect additional provisions of the updated program. With the Amended Collection Agreement, not only will the agreement provision for the collection of the Fee by the member land use agencies, but this Amended Collection Agreement will also provision for the repayment of EIFD payments consistent with Exhibit A to the Agreement, the Key Terms Related to the Repayment of EIFD Payments to Land Use Entities from Impact Fees. As noted above, the fee revenues collected after the completion of the development project will be directed back to the participating agencies to mitigate the fiscal impacts of financing the flood control improvements through the EIFD.

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 5 of 9
powered by Legistar™
721
File #: 22-1010, Version: 1
SJAFCA and the land use agencies would enter into the attached Amended Collection Agreement to collect the fee and SJAFCA would direct future funding from the fee back to the agencies pursuant to the recommended terms associated with the EIFD contributions.

SJAFCA requests that the Council delegate authority to the City Manager, to execute the Amended Collection Agreement (Exhibit 2 to the Resolution). The following summarizes the substantive terms reflected in the Amended Collection Agreement:
· As soon as the development impact fee is adopted and effective within all of the land use agencies, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, the land use agencies will commence collection of the updated development impact fee. · The land use agencies will deposit all development impact fee revenues collected, including any interest earned on funds collected, less 3% administrative costs of collection, with SJAFCA.
· SJAFCA will provide a 60-day notice to the land use agencies of any changes to the development impact fee.
· SJAFCA and the land use agencies will administer a Fee Crediting and Reimbursement Program consistent with the principles identified within the Amended Collection Agreement. (These Principles for fee crediting are the same as principles previously approved within the original November 2018 adoption of the Regional Levee Fee Program. There are no recommended changes here.)
· The Amended Collection Agreement also addresses reimbursement of the development impact fee in the event of collection errors or building permit cancellation, appeals of fee calculations or applicability, indemnity, notice and other standard legal agreement provisions. · Finally, the Amended Collection Agreement directs payments from the development impact fee back to the land use agencies participating in the EIFD commencing in 2030, pursuant to the terms described further below.

Fee Crediting and Reimbursement Principles
In November 2018, in coordination with the land use agencies, staff and Agency consultants developed and included within the collection agreement a set of Fee Crediting and Reimbursement Principles (Exhibit B) which are summarized as follows:
· Creditable Funding consists of all “Prior Advance Funding” collected and documented within a Credit & Reimbursement Analysis (Credit Study) completed by SJAFCA. · That creditable funding is applicable to all of those development projects identified within the Credit Study.
· The obligation to fund levee improvements is based on all undeveloped acreage within the identified projects in the Credit Study as of April 2017 (when Lathrop and Manteca adopted their Interim Development Fee Programs).

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 6 of 9
powered by Legistar™
722
File #: 22-1010, Version: 1
· All development with issued building permits as of January 8, 2019 (when SJAFCA’s Regional Levee Fee Program was effective) is considered to be absorbed and will have a fee obligation based upon the fee rate effective on that date.
· All funding provided will first be used to satisfy this fee obligation and will then be applied proportionately to all remaining acreage on a pro-rata basis. · Going forward, from January 8, 2019, each development permit pulled will be required to fund the remaining proportional amount of development impact fees due on an acreage basis. · Any developer-constructed facilities will be afforded credit for the construction of those facilities based upon the terms of an agreement between the land use agency and SJAFCA.

Any credits for developer construction facilities will be utilized in the same manner as Prior Advance Funding.
· In the event that a developer is due a reimbursement as a result of providing more funding than a development project’s fee obligation, reimbursements will only be provided from the collection of future fees from other development projects in the future. · Reimbursements will only be provided in the future once levee improvement program has been completed and certified, unless otherwise determined by SJAFCA that payment of such reimbursements is financially feasible and legally defensible by SJAFCA. · For land use agencies that are due a reimbursement for providing funding to advance the program in advance of January 1, 2018 (not including funding provided by Interim Seed Money Funding Agreement dated June 12, 2018), no reimbursements should be paid from development impact fees until all levee improvement Project costs are paid and the levee improvement program has been completed and certified, unless otherwise determined by SJAFCA that payment of such reimbursements is financially feasible and legally defensible by SJAFCA.
· For land use agencies due repayment pursuant to the Interim Seed Money Funding Agreement dated June 12, 2018, repayment will be made consistent with Section 6 of that agreement.

There are no changes to these policies and procedures as a result of the Amended Collection Agreement.

EIFD Repayment Terms
As part of negotiations related to the amount of Tax Increment to be allocated to the EIFD, the participating agencies and SJAFCA, parties to the Amended Collection Agreement, have incorporated the use of future development impact fees collected after the implementation of the Regional Levee Fee Program to help mitigate the impacts to participating agencies’ general funds as a result of participation in the EIFD and the allocation of Tax Increment through the EIFD. As a reminder, the tax allocation rates proposed for the EIFD are as follows:

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 7 of 9
powered by Legistar™
723
File #: 22-1010, Version: 1
ULOP Project Construction Anticipated to run through 2029 (Initial Years) Entities % (flat rate)/Initial
Base Rates
Additional EIFD
Contribution/Property
Tax Increment
Total
City of Lathrop 10% - 10%
City of Manteca 5% - 5%
City of Stockton 1% - 1%
San Joaquin County 10% 37% 47%*
*This additional contribution would be subject to priority repayment, with interest, by SJAFCA from future Mossdale Tract Area Regional Development Impact Fee revenues collected after 2029.

Stockton’s rate is lower than other Member Agencies in the Initial Years because the cost of providing services to the newly developed area is greater than the tax revenues generated through year 2035.

After 2035, revenues are estimated to cover the cost of providing services and the EIFD contributions. Following the Initial Years, the maximum portion of the total Property Tax Increment revenue allocation proposed to be apportioned to the EIFD will be 20% until such time as the cost of eligible EIFD facilities has been satisfied.

The cumulative County Additional EIFD Contributions (portion of the County Contributions making up the 37% contributions) will be repaid to the County using development impact fees on a priority basis.

The County will receive 100% of development impact fees until the cumulative Additional County EIFD Contributions are repaid with interest.

Following the repayment of the cumulative County Additional EIFD Contributions with interest from development impact fees, the fee payments would be implemented as follows. · All development impact fees received by SJAFCA after repayment to the County would be allocated and paid to the cities and the County based on their respective proportionate share of the cumulative total of each participating agency’s contributions during the Initial Years plus their contributions made after the completion of the Project. · The duration (i.e., term) of the impact fee payments to the agencies is yet to be determined.

The term will be finalized during the process of updating the SJAFCA Mossdale ULOP Program Impact Fee Nexus Study. As part of the recurring 5-Year Impact Fee Update processes, the Member Agencies will have an opportunity to weigh in on duration of the impact fee program.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of public hearings for the proposed actions was published in The Record on October 7, 2022, in accordance with the notice requirements for the nexus study and fee adoption.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
There is no immediate fiscal impact to the City related to the approval of the Nexus Study and City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 8 of 9
powered by Legistar™
724
File #: 22-1010, Version: 1
authorizing the execution of the Amended Collection Agreement.

Updating the Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee, as collected by the local land use agencies, is expected to generate approximately $88.61 million to be used toward the required improvements to Mossdale Tract Area Levee System. Complete funding for the required improvements will require additional funding sources as described in the 2021 Adequate Progress Report.

As per the existing fee program and based on future development, when collected, this Flood Protection Development Impact Fee will be deposited into a pass-through account (0000-000-220040 -780-786), and reimbursed to the SJAFCA on a biannual basis. The cost to administer fee collection and transfer fees to the SJAFCA will be funded by retaining three percent of the fee. The FY 2022-23 Fee Schedule will be amended accordingly, if approved.

City of Stockton Printed on 10/12/2022Page 9 of 9
powered by Legistar™
725
Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SJAFCA MOSSDALE TRACT AREA REGIONAL

FLOOD PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT NEXUS STUDY UPDATE, IMPACT FEE

UPDATE, AND COLLECTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

The Mitigation Fee Act (the “Act”) (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) authorizes a local agency to impose impact fees as a condition of approval of development projects to help defray the costs of public infrastructure and facilities that will be needed to serve the proposed development; and

Section 66016.5(a) of the Act requires that prior to adopting a development impact fee, a local agency must adopt an impact fee nexus study that establishes the connection between the proposed fee and t he actual impacts of development on the local public infrastructure and facilities; and

The Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008 and Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) standards require that all cities and counties within the Sacramento- San Joaquin Valley make findings related to a 200-year Urban Level of Flood Protection (“ULOP”) or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) standard of flood protection before making certain land use approvals; and

In January of 2018 the City o f Stockton (“City”), the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“SJCFCWCD”), the City of Manteca, the City of Lathrop, and the County of San Joaquin executed an Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to reform th e San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (“SJAFCA”), with a common goal of reducing flood risk in the Mossdale Tract Area (“Mossdale Tract”); and

In 2018 SJAFCA, on behalf of its member agencies, approved a nexus study and Regional Levee Fee Program to fun d 200 -year flood protection improvements for Mossdale Tract; however, several key factors affecting the fee calculations have changed in the intervening years, necessitating an update to the Regional Levee Fee Program; and

SJAFCA has prepared the Mossdal e Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee Update Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which incorporates updated costs, funding approaches, and development projections; and

In accordance with section 66016.5(a)(7) of the Act, notice was published in The Record on October 7, 2022, in accordance with the 10-day notification requirements of providing the time and place for a public hearing of the Stockton Council to consider and adopt the Nexus Study; and fee adoption; and

A public hearing was held on October 18, 2022 at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Stockton City Council (the “Council”) to hear and consider the Nexus Study and its findings, as presented by SJAFCA staff and consultants, and any written and oral 726
presentations from interested members of the public regarding the Nexus Study and the proposed development impact fee; and

The Nexus Study identifies the existing level of service and states that the existing levees protecting the Mossdale Tract do not meet state Urban Levee Design Criteria (“ULDC”) standards adopted by DWR in May 2012, and are not currently certified to provide 200-year ULOP; and

The Nexus Study finds the development impact fee will fund levee improvements that meet state ULDC standards and achieve 200 -year ULOP while offsetting th e increase in damageable property that will be placed in the levee -protected floodplain as new development occurs in the area, and that the fee is needed to implement Phase 4 levee improvements to the Mossdale Tract and repay funds advanced by developers and local agencies to support early implementation of the improvements; and

The Nexus Study includes appropriate findings that a fee charged on a gross developable acreage basis bears a reasonable relationship between the fee being charged and the burden posed by the development, and that fees charged on housing developments need not be calculated on a square footage basis, consistent with the requirements of section 66016.5(a) of the Act; and

SJAFCA has requested that the County of San Joaquin and the c ities of Lathrop, Stockton, and M anteca enter into an amended agreement to collect the proposed development impact fees as a condition of issuing building permits for new development in the Mossdale Tract within each party’s respective land use authority, and provide those funds to SJAFCA; and

SJAFCA has prepared an Amended Collection Agreement for Collection of the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee (“Collection Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit 2, for the County and the cities of Lathrop, Stockton , and Manteca to execute ; and

The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (“SJAFCA”) has directed Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc. to prepare the Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection (“ULOP”) Development Impact Fee Update dated May 12, 2022 (“Nexus Study”); and

Section 6602(a) of the Act, notice was published in The Record on October 7, 2022, providing 10 days’ notification of the time and place for a public hearing to consider and adopt the Regional ULOP Development Impact Fee; and

A public hearing was held on October 18, 2022 at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Stockton City Council (the “Council”) to hear and consider the adoption of the updated Regional ULOP Development Impact Fee; and

727
The updated development impact fee will fund levee improvements that meet ULDC standards and achieve 200 -year ULOP while offsetting the increase in damageable property that will be placed in the levee -protected floodplain as new development occurs in the area, and that the fee is needed to implement Phase 4 levee improvements to the Mossdale Tract and repay funds advanced by the developers and local agencies to support early implementation of the improvements; and

The Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public hearing of the Council ide ntified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public hearings; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council finds and declare s that the purp oses and uses of the updated Development Impact Fee , based on a n updated “Nexus Study ” prepared by SJAFCA (Exhibit 1, incorporated by this reference), the determination of the reasonable relationship between the fees’ uses and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed, are valid and adopted as set forth herein.

2. The City Council approves the amendments to the Agreement for Collection (Exhibit 2, incorporated by this reference) which specifies the framework for the method of collection of the Mossdale Flood Protection Impact Fee and specifies that a 3% administration portion of the fee would be retained by the City of Stockton to cover staff administrative costs.

3. The 2022 Flood Impact Fee rates shall be as set forth in the following table:

Proposed 2022 Mossdale Flood Protection Impact Fees

LAND USE PROPOSED REGIONAL

FEE RATES (PER GROSS

DEVELOPABLE ACRE)
Single Family Residential $22,106
Multi-family Residential $20,686
Commercial $20,916
Industrial $16,384

4. The Fiscal Year 2022-23 Fee Schedule is hereby amended to include the updated Mossdale Flood Protection Impact Fee rates for single family residential, multi- family residential, commercial and industrial. The administration fee of 3% is incorporated into the above fees and will be part of the said fee schedule (Exhibit 3, incorporated by this reference).

5. The Fee prov ided in this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days after the adoption of this resolution pursuant to California Government Code section 66017(a).

//
728

6. The City Manager is authorized to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED October 18, 2022 .

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton

ATTEST:

ELIZA M. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
729

2450 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 240
Sacramento, CA 95833
Mossdale Tract Area

Regional Urban Level of Flood
Protection Levee Impact Fee

PUBLIC DRAFT

NEXUS STUDY UPDATE

Prepared for: San Joaquin County, City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, and City of Stockton Prepared by: Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc.

Prepared on Behalf of: The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) May 12, 2022
EXHIBIT 1
730

RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE PLACEHOLDER

EXHIBIT 1
731

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary .................................................................................................................................................1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................1 Background .............................................................................................................................................1 Senate Bill 5 (2007) and ULOP Context ............................................................................................1 Regional Levee Fee Program ............................................................................................................1 Updated Regional Levee Fee Program ....................................................................................................2 Authority and Procedures .......................................................................................................................2 Assembly Bill No. 1600: Mitigation Fee Act .....................................................................................2 Assembly Bill No. 602 (2021) ............................................................................................................8 Procedural Requirements .............................................................................................................. 10 Land Use Categories............................................................................................................................. 11 Mossdale Tract Area Land Uses ........................................................................................................... 11 Planned New Development ........................................................................................................... 12 Capital Improvements and Projects ........................................................................................................ 14 Capital Costs Allocable to Planned Development ................................................................................ 14 Summary of Capital Improvements Funded by the Development Impact Fee ................................... 14 Regional Levee Fee Methodology ........................................................................................................... 17 Cost Allocation and Calculation ........................................................................................................... 17 Fee Program Implementation ................................................................................................................. 26 Regional Levee Fee Collection ............................................................................................................. 26 Fee Triggers/Applicability .................................................................................................................... 26 Fee Collection Deferral ........................................................................................................................ 26 Regional Levee Fee Program Boundary ............................................................................................... 26 Exemptions From the Fee .................................................................................................................... 27 Exceptions to the Exemptions ....................................................................................................... 27 Coverage Period ................................................................................................................................... 27 Administration Costs ............................................................................................................................ 27 Variations in Method ........................................................................................................................... 28 Fee Credit / Reimbursement for the Design and Construction of Facilities ........................................ 28 Refunds and Appeals Process .............................................................................................................. 28 Annual Inflation Adjustment ................................................................................................................ 29 Fee Program Administration ................................................................................................................... 30 Fee C
alculation ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Land Use Categorization ................................................................................................................ 30 Determining the Gross Developable Acreage (GDA) of a New Development .............................. 30 Calculation Steps .................................................................................................................................. 35 Per Unit Fee Collection for Single-Family Residential Development ................................................... 35 Fee Revenue Accounting...................................................................................................................... 35 EXHIBIT 1
732
Periodic Review and Cost Adjustment ................................................................................................. 35 Nexus Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Authority .............................................................................................................................................. 37 Summary of Nexus Findings ................................................................................................................. 37 Requirement 1: Purpose of Fee ..................................................................................................... 37 Requirement 2: Use of the Fee ..................................................................................................... 37 Requirement 3: Relationship Between Use of Fees and Type of Development ........................... 37 Requirement 4: Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development ................... 38 Requirement 5: Relationship Between Amount of Fees and Cost of Facility ............................... 38

EXHIBIT 1
733

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Planned Development Summary ........................................................................................................ 13 Table 2: Cost Estimate Summary ...................................................................................................................... 16 Table 3: Damageable Square Feet of Structure Per GDA ................................................................................. 20 Table 4: Relative Structure Damage Per GDA ................................................................................................... 21 Table 5: Relative Land Damage per GDA .......................................................................................................... 22 Table 6: Relative Property Damage Index ......................................................................................................... 23 Table 7: Apportionment of Costs Per GDA ....................................................................................................... 24 Table 8: Development Fee Rate Summary ....................................................................................................... 25 Table 9: Example ADU Fee Calculations ............................................................................................................ 34

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Levee Fee Program Boundary Map ........................................................................................4

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Planned Development Details
Appendix B – SJAFCA Project Expenditures Discount & Escalation to 2021 Dollars Appendix C – Estimated Cost Allocation BY Project and Revenue over time Appendix D – Example Gross Developable Acreage Calculation

EXHIBIT 1
734

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2018 Nexus Study Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Levee Impact Fee Final Nexus Study dated November 8, 2018
AB 1600 Assembly Bill 1600, Mitigation Fee Act
ADUs Accessory Dwelling Units
CFD Community Facilities District
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EAD Expected Annual Damage
EIFD Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GDA gross developable acreage
JADUs Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Local Agencies San Joaquin County, City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, and City of Stockton LFMA Local Flood Management Agency
LSRP Levee Seepage Repair Project
LWA Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc.

Nexus Study Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update dated XXX XX, 2022
Regional Levee Fee Mossdale Tract Area Regional Levee Fee Program SB 5 Senate Bill 5 (2007)
SFR Single-Family Residential
SJAFCA San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
ULDC Urban Levee Design Criteria
ULOP Urban Level of Flood Protection
EXHIBIT 1
735

SUMMARY
Overview
Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc. (LWA) has prepared this Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (Nexus Study) for San Joaquin County , City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, and City of Stockton (collectively the Local Agencies) in coordination with the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA). A series of levee improvements are needed to ensure that the levees surrounding the Mossdale Tract Area meet the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC), that the flood protection system can provide an Urban Level of Flood Protection (ULOP), and the requirements of Senate Bill 5 (2007) (SB 5) can be met. This Nexus Study provides the basis for the Mossdale Tract Area Regional Levee Fee Program (Regional Levee Fee) that ensures new development pays its proportionate share of the levee improvement costs needed to provide ULOP to the Mossdale Tract Area.

Background
Senate Bill 5 (2007) and ULOP Context
SB 5 defines ULOP as the “level of protection that is necessary to withstand flooding that has a 1-in-200 chance of occurring in any given year using criteria consistent with, or developed by, the California Department of Water Resources.” This bill requires all cities and counties within the Sacramento -San Joaquin Valley, as defined in California Government Code § 65007(h), to make findings related to ULOP or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standard of flood protection before: (1) entering into a development agreement for any property that is located within a flood hazard zone; (2) approving a discretionary permit or other discr etionary entitlement, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone; or (3) approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for any subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone (see California Government Code § 65865.5, 65962, and 66474.5).

Regional Levee Fee Program
The Regional Levee Fee was implemented in two steps. As described within the 2018 Adequate Progress Update prepared by LWA, the Local Agencies entered into an agreement designating SJAFCA as the Local Flood Management Agency (LFMA) responsible for planning, implementing, funding, and financing the Phase 4 levee improvements identified within the Adequate Progress Report. The Adequate Progress Report identifies several sources that would fund the Phase 4 improvements, one of which is a regional development impact fee. Before designating SJAFCA as the regional governing agency, the Cities of Lathrop and Manteca implemented interim development fee programs. In 2018, the SJAFCA structure was reorganized to include the Cities of Lathrop and Manteca and effectively becoming the regional governance entity . The Cities of Lathrop and Manteca transition ed their interim fee programs to a permanent program established and administered by SJAFCA, covering the entire Mossdale Tract Area.

EXHIBIT 1
736
Updated Regional Levee Fee Program
This Nexus Study is an update of the November 8, 2018 , Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level o f Flood Protection Levee Impact Fee Final Nexus Study (2018 Nexus Study) prepared by LWA, formally adopted by the SJAFCA Board by Resolution Number 18 -21 and effective January 8, 2019. This update reflects an updated program cost estimate that addresses climate change and updates to program funding from other sources.

This Nexus Study is being prepared as a regional fee with the intent that each of the Local Agencies individually adopt the Region Levee Fee and collect and remit the fees to SJAFCA.

Authority and Procedures
Assembly Bill No. 1600: Mitigation Fee Act
This Nexus Study has been prepared to update the established Regional Levee Fee program in accordance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600 ) as codified in Government Code § 66000 et. seq.

AB 1600 sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees.

These procedures require that “ a reasonable relationship, ” or nexus, must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition. This Nexus Study documents that reasonable relationship between the development impact fee to be levied on each land use category and the cost of the facility improvements.

Nexus Study requirements include:

1. Identifying the purpose of the fee.

2. Identifying how the fee is to be used.

3. Determining that a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

4. Determining how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

5. Demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

AB 1600 Requirement 1: Purpose of Fee
The Regional Impact Fee will provide funding for 200 -year levee improvements in compliance with SB 5 and DWR’s ULOP criteria to protect the Cities of Lathrop, Manteca, Stockton, and unincorporated portions of San Joaquin County within the Mossdale Tract Area as further described within this Nexus Study. All new planned development projects located within the area shown in Figure 1 that lie within the Mossdale Tract Area will be subject to this Regional Levee Fee as it is adopted by each Local Agency.

AB 1600 Requirement 2: Use of the Fee
Fee revenue will be used to implement Phase 4 levee improvements to the Mossdale Tract Area as well as to repay any funds advanced by developers and Local Agencies to support early implementation of th e improvements ahead of Fee payments. The improvements funded by the Fee consist of levee improvements to be implemented by SJAFCA that ensure the levees meet ULDC standards.

EXHIBIT 1
737
The levee improvements required for enhanced flood protection to meet the ULDC standard and achieve ULOP, including, among various other items, the following work:
• ULDC engineering analysis and identification of deficiencies • Design and environmental evaluation of levee improvements to cure ULDC deficiencies • Implementation of levee improvements to cure ULDC deficiencies As previously noted, this Nexus Study provides the required findings needed to impose a development impact fee pursuant to AB 1600. AB 1600 requires that the fee is to be calculated by spreading the costs among the anticipated future development in proportion to that development’s impact on the services provided. An Interim Levee F ee was imposed and collected by the Cities of Lathrop and Manteca as a condition of new development’s approval. Now that S JAFCA has been designated as the regional governance entity to administer, implement, fund, and finance the needed improvements, SJAFCA requests that each of the Local Agencies approve this updated Regional Levee Fee. SJAFCA also requests that the Local Agencies collect and remit the Fees to SJAFCA to complete the necessary work.

EXHIBIT 1
738
Figure 1: Regional Levee Fee Program Boundary Map

N
Legend
Manteca City Limit
Lathrop City Limit
Stockton City Limit
Lathrop Fee Area
Manteca Fee Area
Stockton Fee Area
San Joaquin County Fee Area
200-Year Flood Plain
EXHIBIT 1
739
AB 1600 Requirement 3: Relationship Between Use of Fees and Type of Development Development of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial land uses within the Mossdale Tract Area require improved flood control and flood protection services.

Flood risk has two aspects: the probability of flooding and the consequences that follow. An area could have a high probability of flooding, but minimal consequences because it is vacant and contains no infrastructure or people. In this case, flood risk would be considered low. Conversely, a highly urbanized communi ty that has a moderate or low probability of flooding would be considered high risk because of the greater consequences of a flood in that location (i.e., loss of life, livelihood, property, health, and human suffering).

Risk can be expressed and quantified in terms of Expected Annual Damage (EAD). EAD is the product of the probability of flooding (percent chance in any given year) and consequences (dollars of damage as a result of flooding). Without mitigation, additional development increases the EAD b y increasing developed property at risk. To protect life and property, it is important for the LFMA to maintain a high level of service (in terms of maintaining low flood risk) within the Mossdale Tract Area as development increases. To maintain the current level of EAD and reduce the level flood of risk to offset increased EAD , the LFMA must improve the flood protection facilities as development occurs.

Each development project will add to the necessity of flood protection due to the increased EAD as a result of that development. Additionally, each development project will benefit from the levee infrastructure already in place at the time of development. For the new development described in this Nexus Study to occur in the Mossdale Tract Area, levee improvements that meet the requirements of the ULDC are necessary.

AB 1600 Requirement 4: Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development As sated under AB 1600 Requirement 3, development of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial land uses within the Mossdale Tract Area require improved flood control and flood protection services to protect use and life. Each development project will add to the necessity of flood protection due to the increased EAD as a result of that development. For the new development described in this Nexus Study to occur in the Mossdale Tract Area, levee improvements that reduce the probability of flooding are necessary.

AB 1600 Requirement 5: Relationship Between Amount of Fees and Cost of Facility This study includes the following components:

1. A determination of the amount of planned development upon which the costs of the fee funded facilities will be allocated.

2. The identification of costs associated with each improvement, facility, or program funded by the fee.

3. The development of a standard metric by which to proportionately allocate the costs of the facilities between land use categories based upon a damage index that considers the relative impact to EAD.

4. A determination of the fee cost per acre for each land use category.

5. A determination of the estimated fees per unit by land use category.

6. A discussion of how the program will be administered by the land use agencies.

EXHIBIT 1
740
The Regional Levee Fee is calculated on a gross developable acreage (GDA) basis and will be collected on a per unit basis for all types of development. All development projects within the Mossdale Tract Area are subject to the fee. T o determine costs associated with the Project and the planned development upon which to allocate the costs, a planning horizon of 30 years has been assumed. The calculation and collection of the fee is assumed to occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. The details of the calculation and collection of the fee are further described within the Fee Program Administration section of this Nexus Study. Subsequent to the adoption of the Regional Levee Fee and this Nexus Study by the Local Agencies, each agency will further define the administrative procedures for the efficient administration, collection, and remittance of Regional Levee Fees.

Table S -1 provides a summary of the proposed initial per acre fee rates by land use category . Table S-2 provides the estimated initial fees per unit by land use category.

EXHIBIT 1
741
Table S-1
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Summary of DIF Rates by Land Use Category
Land Use
Single-Family Residential $22,106 Per GDA
Multi-Family Residential $20,686 Per GDA
Commercial $20,916 Per GDA
Industrial $16,384 Per GDA
Table S-2
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Estimated Fee Per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet
Land Use Estimated Fee
Single-Family Residential $3,770 / Unit @ 5.86 Units per GDA Multi-Family Residential $1,095 / Unit @ 18.89 Units per GDA Commercial $1,713 / 1,000 SF @ FAR of 12,207 SF per Acre Industrial $1,053 / 1,000 SF @ FAR of 15,553 SF per Acre Assumption
Provided for Demonstrative
Purposes Only
Initial Fee Rates [1]
[1] Per Gross Developable Acre (GDA). Initial Fee Rate for FY 2021/22 and 2022/23. Fee rates will increase each July 1 commencing July 1, 2023.

Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
742
Assembly Bill No. 602 (2021)
Level of Service Identification Requirements
This Nexus Study has also been prepared in accordance with the provisions of A ssembly B ill 602 (2021) (AB 602) as codified in Government Code § 65940.1, 66016.5, and 66019 and Health and Safety Code § 50466.5. AB 602 sets forth additional procedural requirements for the preparation of a Nexus Study and the adoption of a development impact fee. As it relates to the identification of level of service the following must be identified and provided:

1. The existing level of service;

2. The new level of service; and

3. An explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.

AB 602 Requirement 1: Existing Level of Service
Currently, the existing levees protecting the Mossdale Tract Area do not meet the updated DWR ULDC standards adopted in May 2012, and the existing levees are not currently certified to provide 200 -year protection. As such, the flood protection system does not provide ULOP as defined by DWR guidelines, and the land use related impacts imposed by SB 5 are in effect. A report prepared by a team of Professional Engineers led by Peterson Brustad, Inc., dated March 22, 2016 and later supplemented on June 18, 2021 to address Climate Change, outlined the deficiencies to the levee system and identified the needed improvements to meet DWR ULDC standards.

AB 602 Requirement 2: New Level of Service
The Regional Impact Fee, in combination with other funding sources being implemented by SJA FCA, will provide funding needed to improve the levee system compliant with DWR’s ULDC standards. As a result of these improvements, ULOP would be achieved, and the land use restrictions would be removed.

AB 602 Requirement 3: Explanation of why the New Level of Service is Appropriate As previously noted, SB 5 requires that all Cities and Counties within the Sacramento -San Joaquin Valley (which includes the Mossdale Tract Area) make findings r elated to ULOP or the national FEMA standard of flood protection before: (1) entering into a development agreement for any property that is located within a flood hazard zone; (2) approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone; or (3) approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for any subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zo ne. Essentially, without the ability to make these required findings , all new development and building permit issuances for residential development in the Mossdale Tract Area would halt. This would exacerbate the current housing shortage, result in declin ing property values overtime, and impact the economic vitality of the Mossdale Tract Area. As such, it has been determined that achieving ULOP in the Mossdale Tract Area is appropriate.

EXHIBIT 1
743
Housing Development Square Footage Basis Exemption Findings AB 602 re quires that the calculation of the fee on a housing development project be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if all of the following exemption findings are made:

1. An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development projects.

2. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

3. The other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller development are not charged disproportionate fees.

AB 602 Exemption Finding 1: Why Square Footage is Not an Appropriate Metric The Regional Levee Fee is to be charged on a GDA basis. The GDA metric is more appropriate than a square footage metric because it removes housing density from consideration with respect to the amount of fees charged for a development project. Because the immediate need for additional flood protection is driven in large part by the land use restrictions imposed by SB 5, the demand or necessary amount of flood protection doesn’t vary with respect to the number of housing units. The restrictions on the issuance of permits for new residential dwelling units by SB 5 are imposed on any dwelling units regardless of size. Thus, there should be no functional relationship between total amount of fees collected per acre of development. Because, in general, smaller housing units tend to be developed in higher density (more units and thus a greater total amount of square feet per acre) than larger housing units (fewer units and generally less total square footage per acre), the effective per unit cost of the Regional Levee Fee will be lower on smaller homes than for larger homes. Further, the total amount of Regional Levee Fees collected per acre for higher density housing (smaller homes) would be lower as compared to a fee that would be consistent on a per square foot basis. Thus, the fees are lower for smaller housing consistent with the intent of AB 602 to make smaller housing for affordable.

AB 602 Exemption Finding 2: An Alternative Basis That Bears a Reasonable Relationship The Regional Levee Fee is to be charged on a GDA basis . The GDA basis bears a reasonable relationship for the reasons discus sed in the previous section . The immediate need for flood protection for residential development is primarily driven by the SB 5 restrictions which are not related to the size and density of development. As such, the GDA basis is more equitable as it is not functionally related to size and density of development. However, it still results in a lower effective fee rate per unit for smaller more dense development. Additionally, t he methodology behind th e calculation for the GDA basis , detailed in the Regional Levee Fee Methodology section, takes into consideration the estimated total building square feet and the resulting damageable square feet of structure per acre for each land use category. Therefore, the GDA basis still bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

EXHIBIT 1
744
AB 602 Exemption Finding 3: Avoidance of Disproportionate Fees on Smaller Developments The GDA basis used in this Nexus study does not impose disproportionate fees on smaller development as the total amount of Regional Levee Fees charged is directly related to the total size of development project. As described above, more dense/smaller development projects will have a lower effective per unit fee than larger less dense development projects. Further, for development projects that do not require a subdivision map, a s described in the Fee Program Administration section, the calculation of the Regional Levee Fee provides consideration for new, smaller Single-Family development on Vacant land between 0.15 acres and 5 acres by utilizing the assumed coverage ratio of a typical Single -Family home on a standard residential lot .

This calculation ensures that smaller residential developments are not c harged a disproportional fee in comparison to larger typical Single-Family housing development.

Additionally, subsection For Additional Residential Development on Land with Existing Structures under the Fee Calculation section, addresses relatively new amendments to California law related to development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

Procedural Requirements
It is intended that the Local Agencies will individually adopt the Regional Levee Fee program pursuant to the procedural requirements of AB 1600 and AB 602. The procedures include the following:
• Conduct a Noticed Public Hearing to Adopt the Nexus Study : Each Local Agency shall conduct a noticed Public Hearing, to adopt this Nexus Study, at which oral or written presentations can be made, this may be part of a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting. This public hearing shall be noticed at least 30 days prior in accordance with Government Code § 66016.5(a)(7). • Conduct a Noticed Public Hearing to Adopt the Development Impact Fee: Each Local Agency shall conduct a noticed Public Hearing, to adopt the development fee associated with this Nexus Study, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. This public hearing shall be noticed by publication at least 10 days prior in accordance with Government Code § 6062(a). In addition, notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that any data required by Government Code § 66016(a) is available, shall be mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the Local Agency for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges.
• Provide Public Information: The Local Agency shall provide public information, at least 10 days prior to the Public Hearing, including available public data indicating the amount of estimated costs required to provide the service for which the fee is to be levied. • Adopt a Resolution or Ordinance: AB 1600 requires that any action by a local agency to levy a new fee or service charge or to approve an increase in an existing fee or service charge shall be taken only by ordinance or resolution. Each of the Local Agency City Coun cils are expected to adopt the fee by resolution and the County Board of Supervisors is expected to implement the fee through an amendment to their Ordinance Code.

EXHIBIT 1
745
Note that Government Code § 66017 states that fees adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code § 66016 (those outlined above) are effective no sooner than 60 days after final action on the adoption of the new fee or increase to an existing fee.

Land Use Categories
AB 1600 sets forth standards by which monetary exactions on development projects are measured. The need for a public facility must be reasonably related to the level of service required, which varies in proportion to a particular land use type.

The following is a list of the land use type categories utilized for the purpose of this Regional Levee Fee:
• Single-Family Residential: I ncludes structures that are single -family dwellings and duplexes.

Condominiums, half-plexes, and rural homes are included in this category. • Multi-Family Residential: I ncludes structures that are occupied by three or more families living independently of each other, under one roof. This category includes triplexes, four-plexes, apartment complexes.
• Commercial: I ncludes offices, retail facilities, hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations and car washes, medical and dental offices, banks, and any other development typically serving and open to the general public.
• Industrial: Includes development occupied by manufacturing, warehouses, processing plants, heavy and light industry, lumber yards, storage, bulk plants , truck transfer terminals, and any other development typically serving the manufacturing, storage, or processing industries.

Any development on Agricultural and/or Vacant land are not allocated costs due to the fact that only new urban development necessitates the need for the facilities funded by the fee as a result of increasing EAD .

Further details with respect to the specific s of each land use category is discussed within the Fee Program Implementation and Fee Program Administration sections of this Nexus Study.

Mossdale Tract Area Land Uses
A central principle to determining a development impact fee is to consider the amount of anticipated future growth over the time horizon of the proposed program. In this case, the scope of facilities needed to provide ULOP within t he Mossdale Tract Area are not necessarily functionally related to the amount of planned or existing development. The new facilities will provide a benefit to existing development. As described within the Adequate Progress Report, this Regional Levee Fee program is one of several sources of funding needed to construct the improvements. T he facilities funded by this fee need not be allocated to existing development as a separate funding mechanism will cover the benefit received and service provided to existing development.

This fee only applies to planned development within the Mossdale Tract Area that benefits from the facilities providing ULOP. For the purposes of determining the allocation base for the fee, planned development is all development that has been identified by the land use jurisdictions and is expected to obtain a building permit after the implementation of this fee program.

EXHIBIT 1
746
Planned New Development
Planned new development withi n Mossdale Tract Area was estimated based on extensive research and coordination with the Local Agencies and development interests. The details of the planned development estimate over the 30-year horizon of the fee program are documented in Appendix A. Additional details on the approach and methodology of data collection and synthesis, as well as a detailed summary of planned development by jurisdiction, development area, and land use type, can be found in the RD 17 Basin Financing Plan Implementation Updated Development Absorption Projections Final Updated Technical Memorandum prepared by LWA, dated August 18, 2017 and as updated by LWA since 2017 based on actual development and input from the Local Agencies. Table 1 provides a summary of planned new development by land use that is subject to the fee for the duration of the fee program . This table provides the total GDA by land use category as well as the total number of Single-Family and Multi-Family units and thousands of building square feet for Commercial and Industrial development. The number of units and square footage is provided as a reference for an estimate of the Regional Levee Fee cost per unit or thousand square feet.

EXHIBIT 1
747
Table 1
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Planned Development Summary
Land Use
Reference Table A-1 Table A-2
Single-Family Residential 1,766 10,356 Units
Multi-Family Residential 139 2,626 Units
Commercial 1,211 14,779 1k Bldg Sq Ft
Industrial 1,466 22,809 1k Bldg Sq Ft
Total 4,582
Gross Developable
Acreage (GDA)
Units or 1,000
Building Sq Ft Measure
Planned Development
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
748

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECTS
Capital Costs Allocable to Planned Development
As described above and within the 2016 Adequate Progress and each subsequent Annual Adequate Progress Report Update, a series of improvements are needed to ensure that the levee system meets ULDC and provides ULOP were identified. A detailed cost estimate has been prepared by an engineering team and a financing plan has been developed in support of the 2021 Adequate Progress Report Update to demonstrate how the LFMA, SJAFCA, intends to generate the funds needed to implement the levee improvement program.

The LFMA plan for flood protection through the year 202 9 consists of two components; (1) RD 17’s ongoing Levee Seepage Repair Project (LSRP) and (2) SJAFCA’s Phase 4 Project that will achieve ULDC 200-year flood protection for the Mossdale Tract Area.

SJAFCA is implementing the Phase 4 Project in the following outlined steps:

1. ULDC engineering analysis and identification of deficiencies (completed March 22, 2016)

2. Design and environmental evaluation of levee improvements to cure ULDC deficiencies

3. Implementation of levee improvements to cure ULDC deficiencies The Regional Levee Fee will only be levied on Planned Development within the Mossdale Tract Area. This means that the portion of the costs alloc able to existing development will not be raised th rough this fee program. As described in the 2021 Adequate Progress Report Update, the LFMA has identified various other funding sources including:
• Net revenues from RD 17’s existing Special Assessment District; • A new Overlay Assessment District;
• A new Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD); and, • State and/or Federal grant funding opportunities
Summary of Capital Improvements Funded by the Development Impact Fee The estimated costs for the Phase 4 Project and associated ULOP program implementation costs are shown in Table 2 in 2021 dollars. Appendix B provides the discount and escalation of total SJAF CA project expenditures found in the 2021 Adequate Progress Report Update. The net costs funded by this Regional Levee Fee, along with the near -term assumptions related to the specific costs and associated fee program revenues generated through 202 9 are a lso shown on Table 2. The total cost of capital improvements , repayment of the County EIFD Loan, and EIFD reimbursements to the Local Agencies total approximately $332.8 million in 2021 dollars. Based upon the financing plan detailed within the 2021 Adequate Progress Report Update, other sources of funding are estimated to contribute approximately $244.2 million which will fund existing developm ent’s portion of the costs of the Phase 4 Project. The rem aining estimated $88.6 million will be funded by Planned Development through this Regional Levee Fee program. This amount is used as the basis for calculating the Regional Levee Fee.

EXHIBIT 1
749
In the near term (through 202 9), as detailed within the 2021 Adequate Progress Report Update and summarized in Table 2, the Regional Levee Fee program is expected to generate approximately $76.2 million and cover a portion of the upfront costs of the levee improvement program.

A detailed outline of the allocated costs to each development project is identified in Appendix A. An estimate of the revenues generated by the Regional Levee Fee over time are included in Appendix C. These estimates and associated analyses support the information contained in the 2021 Adequate Progress Report Update.

EXHIBIT 1
750
Table 2
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Cost Estimate Summary & Near-Term Costs Covered by the Fee Item Estimated Cost [1]
Local Cost Funded by the Fee
SJAFCA Project Expenditures $235,358,352
County EIFD Loan Repayment $24,486,962
EIFD Reimbursement to Agencies $73,000,000
(less) Assumed other Funding Sources [2] -$244,238,456
Net Local Cost Funded by the Fee $88,606,858
Near Term Project Costs Funded by the Fee [3]
ULOP Program Planning & Implementation
Pre-Project Expenditures $3,229,308
Funding Program Implementation Costs [4] $1,554,259
Subtotal ULOP Program Planning & Implementation $4,783,568 Fix-In Place Project Soft Costs (Fee Funded) $71,436,826 Total Near Term Project Costs Funded by the Fee $76,220,394 Near Term Projected Fee Revenues
Developer Advances & Agency Funding [5] $4,782,419
Development Fee Program (Fee Revenues) $71,437,974
Total Near Term Fee Program Revenues $76,220,394
- EIFD / Overlay Assessment Bond Net Bond Proceeds
[5] Reference Table C-8.
[3] Reflects Project Costs assumed to be incurred through 2029 as detailed within the Adequate Project Report (Reference Table 4 Sources & Uses). Gross Nominal $ from APR. [4] Includes costs associated with development of other funding sources. Could include reimbursements to the Cities for bridge funding.

Source: 2021 Adequate Progress Update Report with updates by LWA as of December 2021. [2] Other funding sources include those described within the Adequate Progress Report (including escalation) as follows:
- Net revenues available from RD 17's existing Mossdale Tract Assessment District - A new SJAFCA Overlay Assessment District
- A new SJAFCA Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District [1] Costs and other revenues, reflect amounts received between 2014 & 2029 stated in 2021 dollars based on a 3% escalation rate. Present value $.

Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
751

REGIONAL LEVEE FEE METHODOLOGY
In accordance with AB 16 00, a calculation of development impact fees must be accompanied by an analysis with enough detail to justify that a thorough consideration was applied in the process of determining how the fees relate to the impacts from new development. Findings must ensure that a reasonable relationship exists between the proposed fees and the development upon which they will be levied. This section describes the methodology utilized in this report in accordance with the requirements of AB 1600.

The fee methodology utilized here includes the following steps:

1. Qualitatively determine and describe the land use categories utilized as the basis for the fee.

2. Quantify the projected growth within the benefiting area in each of the land use categories in terms of GDA.

3. Describe and estimate the capital improvement costs and their applicability to planned new development.

4. Estimate the total building footprint square feet in each land use category and the resulting damageable square feet of structure per acre for each land use category.

5. Use the estimated damageable square feet per acre, an assumed relative structure value per structure type, and the assumed flood damage percentage to estimate the average structure damage per acre per structure type.

6. Use an estimated relative land value per land use category and assumed flood damage percentage to estimate an average land damage per acre per land use category.

7. Use the estimated structure and land damages to determine an estimated total damage per acre per land use category.

8. Apply a loss of use and life safety factor to adjust the total damage per acre to determine an adjusted damage per acre per land use category.

9. Determine a relative Property Damage Index by relating the adjusted damage per acre for each land use category to that of the adjusted damage per acre for the Single-Family Residential land use category.

10. Utilize the Property Damage Index to determine the adjusted equivalent acreage which represents a weighted amount of planned development acreage by land use type within the Mossdale Tract Area.

11. Proportionately allocate the capital improvement costs to each land use category based upon the adjusted equivalent acreage.

12. Determine the cost per GDA by dividing the allocated costs by the GDA of each land use category.

13. Add to each cost per acre the costs of administration of the fee program to determine the fee amount per acre per land use category to be collected by the land use agencies.

Cost Allocation and Calculation
The purpose of allocating the capital improvements costs among the various land uses is to provide an equitable method of funding the required improvements. The key to the cost apportionment of capital improvements to different land use types is the assumption that the benefits derived from the facilities are EXHIBIT 1
752
related to land use type and that such benefits can be stated in relative terms. Only by relating the benefit received from the facilities and the services they provide to land use types can a reasonable nexus, or relationship, be established for the apportionment of costs to that land use.

Since the nature of the improvements in this Nexus Study relate to establishing ULOP in the Mossdale Tract Area, the equivalency factor determined in Step 9 above and utilized here is the Property Damage Index. The Property Damage Index is a relative factor that relates the adjusted property damages by land use to the property damage of an acre of Single-Family development. The greater the index value, the greater the impact in terms of property damage and loss of use and life associated with a possible flood. An index value closer to zero would indicate lower damage costs and loss of use and life associated with a flood. Given these facts, utilizing the P roperty Damage Index as described above is a reasonable method to allocate cost s proportionately based on land use.

The following describes the series of tables that calculate the Regional Levee Fee using the method described above:

Using the estimated total building square feet and the assumed average building stories, Table 3 determines the estimated building footprint square feet and the associated damageable square feet of structure per acre.

After calculating the d amageable square feet of structure per acre for each land use category, the value is then multiplied by the relative structure value per square foot and the assumed flood damage percentage to find the average structure damage per acre, as shown in Table 4. The relative structure value and assumed flood damage percentage a re based upon similar values utilized within the Reclamation District No. 17 Mossdale Tract Assessment Engineer’s Report prepared by Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck, Inc. dated May 15, 2008. Table 5 uses the relative land value per acre and assumed damage percentage to find the average land damage per acre. The relative land value per GDA is based upon recent land value research complete d by LWA to determine equivalent land value estimates for land within the region. Information was obtained from various sources including recently completed appraisal prices for vacant land.

By summing the average structure and land damage values per acre determined in Table 4 and Table 5, a total damage per acre can be determined. The total damage is then adjusted by a loss of use and life safety factor, a factor determined by how many hours per day individuals occupy structures in each land use category. This factor is multiplied by the t otal damage per acre to determine an adjusted damage per acre. The adjusted damage per a cre amount is then used to the find the P roperty Damage Index or equivalency factor, as illustrated in Table 6.

The Pro
perty Damage Index from Table 6 is used to determine an adjusted equivalent acreage. This amount is used to allocate the local cost to each land use category on a proportional adjusted equivalent acreage basis for each land use category. The allocated cost is then divided by the total GDA in each land use category to find the cost share per GDA . Finally, using the total local cost share and the total number of units/1,000 building square feet in Table 7, a demonstrative average cost per unit and cost per 1,000 building square feet can be determined.

EXHIBIT 1
753
Table 8 shows the allocated costs per GDA of the fee and the additional administrative charge of 3% to determine the total fee amount on a per GDA basis for each land use type.

Appendix C shows the cost allocated on each project based on the Planned Development description in Appendix A.

EXHIBIT 1
754
Table 3
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Damageable Square Feet of Structure Per GDA
Reference Table 1 Table 1
A B C=Actual or
Assumed Units
D E=C/D F=E/A
Single-Family [1] 1,766 10,356 18,640,728 1.17 15,977,767 9,047 Multi-Family [2] 139 2,626 2,363,400 2.00 1,181,700 8,501 Commercial 1,211 14,779 14,779,160 1.00 14,779,160 12,207 Industrial 1,466 22,809 22,808,545 1.00 22,808,545 15,553 Total 4,582 58,591,833 54,747,172
[2] Assumes average 900 square feet units.

Estimated
Building
Footprint Sq Ft
Damageable
Sq Ft of Structure
per GDALand Use
Gross
Developable
Acreage Units or Sq Ft
Estimated Total
Building Sq Ft
Assumed Average
Building Stories
[1] Assumes average of all Single-Family homes is 1,800 square feet per unit and average of single-story Single-Family homes is 1,540 square feet.

Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
755
Table 4
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Relative Structure Damage Per GDA
Reference Table 3
A B C D=A*B*C
Single-Family $60.00 9,047 39% $213,496
Multi-Family $60.00 8,501 39% $198,928
Commercial $70.00 12,207 72% $618,049
Industrial $50.00 15,553 79% $616,927
[1] The RD 17 Area Engineer's Report does not distinguish Single-Family from Multi-Family in the Residential land use category therefore the same relative structure value and flood damage percentage were utilized for both land uses.

Source: Reclamation District No. 17 Mossdale Tract Assessment Engineer's Report Land Use
Relative
Structure Value
Per Sq Ft [1]
Damageable
Sq Ft of Structure
per GDA
Assumed Flood
Damage
Percentage [1]
Average
Structure
Damage Per GDA
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
756
Table 5
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Relative Land Damage Per GDA
A B C=A*B
Single-Family $134,000 10% $13,400
Multi-Family $134,000 10% $13,400
Commercial $260,000 10% $26,000
Industrial $137,000 10% $13,700
Land Use
Relative Land
Value Per GDA
[1]
Assumed Flood
Damage
Percentage
Average Land
Damage Per GDA
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
757
Table 6
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Relative Property Damage Index
Reference Table 4 Table 5
A B C=A+B D E=C*D F=E/$680,687
Single-Family $213,496 $13,400 $226,896 3.00 $680,687 1.00 Multi-Family $198,928 $13,400 $212,328 3.00 $636,984 0.94 Commercial $618,049 $26,000 $644,049 1.00 $644,049 0.95 Industrial $616,927 $13,700 $630,627 0.80 $504,502 0.74 [1] A ratio of 3:1 based on 24 hours for residential uses versus 8 hours Commercial. A ratio of 3:0.8 for Industrial based upon an assumed lower use factor for Industrial Buildings.

Relative
Property
Damage Index Land Use
Average
Structure Value
Damage Per Acre
Average Land
Value Damage
Per Acre
Total Damage
Per Acre
Loss of Use and
Life Safety
Factor [1]
Adjusted Total
Damage
Per Acre
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
758
Table 7
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Apportionment of Cost Per GDA
Reference Table 1 Table 6 Table 2 Table 1
A B C=A*B D=C/4,129 E=D*$88,606,858 F=E/A G H=E/G
Single-Family 1,766 1.00 1,766 42.8% $37,902,679 $21,462 10,356 $3,660 Multi-Family 139 0.94 130 3.2% $2,791,746 $20,084 2,626 $1,063 Commercial 1,211 0.95 1,146 27.7% $24,585,694 $20,307 14,779 $1,664 Industrial 1,466 0.74 1,087 26.3% $23,326,739 $15,907 22,809 $1,023 Total 4,582 4,129 100% $88,606,858
Comparative Analysis [1]
Cost Share
per GDA
Units or
1,000
Building Sq Ft
Avg Cost per
Unit or 1,000
Building Sq Ft
[1] Single-Family and Multi-Family shown in units; Commercial and Industrial is shown in 1,000s of square feet.

Land Use
Gross
Developable
Acreage
Property
Damage Index
Adjusted
Equivalent
Acreage
Local Cost
Share
Percentage
Local
Cost Share
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
759
Table 8
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Development Fee Rate Summary
Land Use
Reference Table 7 3% Table 1
A B = A * 3% C=A+B D E=C/D
Single-Family $21,462 $644 $22,106 5.86 $3,770
Multi-Family $20,084 $603 $20,686 18.89 $1,095
Commercial $20,307 $609 $20,916 12.21 $1,713
Industrial $15,907 $477 $16,384 15.55 $1,053
[1] Single-Family and Multi-Family shown in units; Commercial and Industrial shown in 1,000s of square feet.

Cost Share
per GDA
Demonstrative Purposes Only
Fee Rate per Unit or
1,000 Building Sq Ft [1]
Units or 1,000
Building Sq Ft/Acre
Fee Rate
Per GDA
Administrative
Fee
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
760

FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The Regional Levee Fee calculations presented in this Nexus Study are based on the best improvement cost estimates, administrative cost estimates , and land use information available at this time. If costs change significantly, if the type or amount of new projected development changes, or if other assumptions significantly change such as federal or state standards, this Nexus Study and the program should be updated accordingly.

Regional Levee Fee Collection
This Nexus Study is being prepared as a regional fee with the intent that each of the Local Agencies individually adopt the Region Levee Fee and collect and remit the fees to SJAFCA. It is expected that a greements will be entered into with the respective land use agencies in the Mossdale Tract Area to remit the Regional Levee Fee to SJAFCA to complete the Project. It is expected that subsequent to the adoption of this Nexus Study , each Local Agency will develop formal procedures needed for the efficient administration and collection of the fee.

These Administrative Procedures are expected to clarify any specific condition s that would trigger the collection of the Regional Levee Fee as well as clarify the specific conditions that may exempt a property from the Regional Levee Fee as further described in the subsection Exemptions From the Fee , below. The procedures will also specify how the Local Agency will ensure the appropriate imposition of the fee through a development condition as well as any specifics as to the calculation and collection of the fee. The procedures will allow for variations in the method of payment as described in this section.

Fee Triggers/Applicability
The Fee will apply to all Planned Development in the Mossdale Tract Area that creates a flood protection impact. Planned Development is defined as all development that is required to obtain a building permit within the Mossdale Tract Area. Fee collection will take place prior to issuance of a building permit by the Local Agency.

Fee Collection Deferral
As stated above, Fee collection is to take place prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Collection of the fee may be deferred beyond this point if the Local Agency has adopted an agency-wide fee deferral program applicable to all development projects. Any other deferral of Fee collection must be incorporated into a Local Agency’s conditions of approval of the proposed development and/or into a development agreement or other contractual arrangement for the project. In all cases, Fee collection must take place before Final Inspection or Certificate of Occupancy as applicable.

Regional Levee Fee Program Boundary
The Regional Levee Fee calculations are based upon the total costs of the levee improvement program and estimated amount of development within the 200-y ear floodplain in the Mossdale Tract Area which encompasses the entire benefit area. By virtue of the cost allocation process, this Regional Levee Fee program EXHIBIT 1
761
will generate a proportional amount of fee revenue from the share of Planned Development within each of the Local Agencies. Figure 1 illustrates the Regional Levee Fee Program Boundary.

Exemptions From the Fee
The following land uses and/or development projects are exempt from the Regional Levee Fee:

1. Agricultural: Development projects on a gricultural land including development of Rural Residential parcels greater than 5 Acres in size.

2. Pre-Existing Structures: Development projects that require a building permit and are not increasing the amount of new structure square footage are exempt from the fee if the project involves adding less than 300 new square feet. Projects adding more than 300 square feet are subject to the fee and the fee will be applicable to the additional square footage in excess of 300 new square feet.

3. Replacement due to Damage : Development projects that are a replacement, in kind , because of damage (such as fire damage or other natural disaster). Any additional square footage in excess of 300 new square feet will be subject to the fee (reference No. 2 above).

4. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Development projects considered to be Accessory Dwelling Units by the permitting agency and are less than 750 square feet.

5. Structures Raised Above the 200 -Year Floodplain Elevation : Development projects with structures raised above the 200-year flood elevation as determined by the Local Agencies or structures removed from the 200 -year floodplain by flood control improvements that meet the design standards applicable to the federal-state flood control system as determined by the Local Agencies.

6. Open Space: Any development project that takes place on open space land.

7. Public Agency Owned Land (including federal, state, and local agencies ): Any development project located on land owned by a government agency and is to be used solely for public use.

Exceptions to the Exemptions
With written approval from the Local Agency having jurisdiction, any or all portions of the proposed fees may be waived if it can be determined that a proposed project will not derive permanent benefit from the improvements for which the fees are collected (i.e., it can be shown that the property does not benefit from the flood protection). Written fee waivers may be available on a case -by-case basis for certain temporary structures, such as a mobile temporary structure used for construction management purposes.

Coverage Period
The Regional Levee Fee is to be collected beginning the 61st day after the adoption of the Resolution approving the fee, as adopted by the SJAFCA Board of Directors and for 30 -years thereafter, unless further amended or repealed.

Administration Costs
The estimated cost of administration for the Regional Levee Fee has been included in the fee rates shown in Table S-1, Table S-2 and Table 8. The proposed administrative fee is 3% of the cost of the fee. However, to EXHIBIT 1
762
the extent each L ocal Agency has its own process for determining the administrative cost of the fee, this amount may be adjusted by each L ocal Agency accordingly. These administrative costs will cover the following:
• The development and administration of the Regional Levee Fee Program. • Accounting costs associated with the Regional Levee Fee. • Annual review of the fee program costs, fees, and policies. • Annual reporting requirements associated with the fee program. • Any other ongoing and recurring administrative procedures associated with the program.

Variations in Method
The Local Agencies will allow for variations in the method of fee payment, including:
• Use of any lawfully created Assessment District or Community Facilities District (CFD) to finance fee payment;
• Voluntary accelerated payment of the fee at the time of filing of any application for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or an earlier land use application, at the then-applicable rate; and, • The collection of fees or other payments to fund improvements by the land use jurisdictions that are to be used by agreement to directly fund or reimburse the cost of the facilities funded by the fee.

The use of these alternative payment mechanisms and the collection of the Regional Levee Fee may vary among the Local Agenc ies, however, in any case, the alternative method of payment will be documented within an agreement or memorandum by the Local Agency.

Fee Credit / Reimbursement for the Design and Construction of Facilities Developers may fund the planning, design, and construction of a portion of the facilities funded by the fee in exchange for credits against their individual project’s fee obligation. In the event that a developer agrees to advance fund fees or directly plan, design, construct, and/or deliver facilities, a Local Agency will enter into a separate agreement with the developer specifying the level of fee credit, the process for receiving the credit, and the terms for utilizing the credit, in exchange for the planning, design, construction, and delivery of the facilities. In the event the value of the fee credit exceeds the Regional Levee Fee obligation and a reimbursement might be due, the agreement would also specify the specific terms upon which a reimbursement would be provided. Any fee credits and/or reimbursements will be provided in a manner consistent with SJAFCA adopted fee crediting policies. No credit for the Regional Levee Fee or reimbursement will be provided to a developer before entering into a credit and/or rei mbursement agreement with the applicable Local Agency.

Refunds and Appeals Process
An applicant who has paid the Regional Levee Fee may request that such fee be refunded at any time prior to commencement of the development, although to do so would terminate any approved application or permit.

Refunds will be made according to the policies and procedures of the Local Agencies and SJAFCA, as they are EXHIBIT 1
763
developed, and may reflect deductions to compensate for handling and administrative costs incurred by the Local Agencies and SJAFCA in processing the fee calculation, collection, and refund request.

Appeals regarding the determination of the applicability and amount of the development fee are to be made in writing to the SJAFCA Executive Director. The Executive Director shall respond to the appeal request in writing within 30 days. The Executive Director’s determination may be appealed to the SJAFCA Board of Directors. Any determination by the Board of Directors shall be considered final.

Annual Inflation Adjustment
The Regional Fee shall be adjusted each succeeding July 1 st, commencing July 1, 2023, to reflect inflationary costs. The base fee rate shown in this study shall increase annually by the ratio which the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (20 Cities) for the most recent December bears to the December 2021 index.

EXHIBIT 1
764

FEE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
The following describes the general procedures for the administration of the Regional Levee Fee. Each Local Agency’s staff may develop more detailed administrative procedures or implement more specific policies after the adoption of the program to more efficiently administer the program and provide needed clarification in certain circumstances.

Fee Calculation
To calculate the Regional Levee Fee the following information is required:
• Land use category of the new development
• The Gross Developable Acreage (GDA) of the New Development as defined below • The current fee rates
The following provides detailed information on each requirement.

Land Use Categorization
Each Local Agency’s respective building department will determine the correct Regional Levee Fee rate by classifying the proposed development into one of the following four land use categories:
• Single-Family Residential
• Multi-Family Residential
• Commercial
• Industrial
To classify the proposed development into one of the four land use categories, the agency will us e the following information:
• The land use type from each Local Agency’s zoning code that applies to the land upon which the development is proposed; and
• The descriptions of the four land use categories in this report found in the Land Use Categories discussion on Page 11.

Determining the Gross Developable Acreage (GDA) of a New Development A GDA of a New Development, for purposes of this fee calculation, is determined as described below:

For New Development of Vacant Land
In the case where a N ew Development is being constructed on vacant land or land that has not previously been developed:

EXHIBIT 1
765
Residential Land Uses
• For Single-Family residential projects that consist of residential uses that require a Tentative and Final Map (i.e. more than 4 units), the GDA is the gross acreage of the large lot parcel or resulting parcels excluding major dedicated public land uses, such as major arterials, major collectors , drainage, utilities corridors, parks, schools, and other public facilities. An example calculation of GDA for this case is shown in Appendix D.
• For all other Single-Family residential projects that have impacts to the Mossdale Tract Area facilities the GDA is determined as follows:
o For parcels up to 0.15 acres, the GDA is the actual acreage of the parcel. o For parcels greater than 0.15 acres but less than 5 acres, the acreage is based on an assumed coverage ratio of a typical Single-Family home on a standard residential lot.

The GDA will be calculated by multiplying the square footage 1 of the residential structure by three and expressing this square footage in terms of acres ( dividing by 43,560 square feet per acre). However, in no case will this resulting amount exceed the actual acreage of the parcel.
• For all Multi-Family residential projects, GDA is determined to be equivalent to the entire gross acreage of the parcel being developed.

Nonresidential Land Uses (Commercial and Industrial)
• For Retail/Office/Industrial/Commercial projects, GDA is determined by the actual acreage of the parcel where a structure being constructed less major dedicated public land uses, such as major arterials, major collectors, drainage, utilities corridors, parks, schools, and other public facilities.

For Development on Land with Existing or Pre-Existing Structures In the case of expansion in excess of 300 square feet of an existing structure or the construction of a new structure within two years after demolition of a previous structure, GDA will be calculated as follows:

Residential Land Uses
• For a residential expansion project, if the project involves the addition of new square footage of 300 square feet or more, the GDA will be calculated by multiplying the square footage of the expansion in excess of 300 square feet by three then expressing this square footage in terms of acres (dividing by 43,560 square feet per acre.)
• For residential replacement projects, if the project involves development of a new residential structure after the demolition of a pre-existing structure (regardless of the use of the pre-existing structure), and the new structure is larger than the demolished structure by more than 300 square feet, the GDA will be calculated by multiplying the net new square footage in excess of 300 square 1 Square Footage can be generally classified as all square footage of the structure exc luding the square footage of garages, porches, decks, external entryways, awnings, carports, driveways, breezeways, out -buildings, carriage houses, sheds, and other similar non - habitable portion of the structure.

EXHIBIT 1
766
feet by three then expressing this square footage in terms of acres (dividing by 43,560 square feet per acre) . The net new square footage in excess of 300 square feet will be determined by subtracting the documented previously existing structure square footage plus 300 square feet from the new structure square footage.
• For a residential development project that involves development of a new residential structure, separate from the existing structure, please see the follow section, For Additional Residential Development on Land with Existing Structures.

Nonresidential Land Uses
• For Retail/Office/Commercial or Industrial expansion projects, if the project involves the addition of new square footage of 300 square feet or more, the GDA will be calculated by calculating the total net new square footage in excess of 300 square feet and expressing this square footage in terms of acres (dividing by 43,560 square feet per acre). • For Retail/Office/Commercial or Industrial replacement projects, if the project involves development of a new nonresidential structure after the demolition of a pre- existing structure (regardless of the use of the pre -existing structure) and the new struct ure is larger than the demolished structure by more than 300 square feet, the GDA will be calculated by calculating the total net new square footage in excess of 300 square feet and expressing this square footage in terms of acres (dividing by 43,560 square feet per acre). The net new square footage in excess of 300 square feet will be determined by subtracting the documented habitable square footage of the previously existing structure from the new square footage. • For a Retail/Office/Commercial or Industrial project that involves development of a new nonresidential structure , separate from the existing structure, the GDA will be calculated by calculating the total net new square footage and expressing this square footage in terms of acres (dividing by 43,560 square feet per acre).

For Additional Residential Development on Land with Existing Structures This section addresses the impacts of amendments to California law, effective January 1, 2020, related to ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) on Regional Impact Fee Program . Chapter 653, Statutes of 2019 (Senate Bill 13, Section 3), Chapter 655, Statutes of 2019 (Assembly Bill 68, Section 2), and Chapter 659 (Assembly Bill 881, Section 1.5 and 2.5) build upon recent changes to ADU and JADU law (Government Code Section 65852.2, 65852.22 and Health & Safety Code Section 17980.12), collectively “ADU Law” , and further address barriers to the development of ADUs and JADUs.

This section relies on the information provided in the State of California – Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency, Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development memorandum issued by Zachary Olmstead, Deputy Director, dated January 10, 2020, regarding Local Agency Accessory Dwelling Units. The State of California memorandum is attached hereto for reference.

The ADU Law impacts the Regional Levee Fee by requiring new exemptions or limitations based on the size of an ADU. The ADU Law requires that ADUs up to 750 square feet be exempt from impact fees and impact fees EXHIBIT 1
767
for an ADU of 750 square feet or larger be proportional to the relationship of the ADU to the primary dwelling unit (Government Code § 65852.2 (f)(3)).

Residential Accessory Dwelling Units
• For ADUs and JADUs less than 750 square feet, the Regional Levee Fee will not be collected. • For ADUs of 750 square feet or more, the Fee will be calculated proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. First the fee for the existing primary residence needs to be calculated, then the proportionate fee for the ADU will be calculated using this information.

Table 9 provides example ADU calculations based on the Single -Family Residential (SFR) Fee rate per GDA calculated in this Nexus Study.

EXHIBIT 1
768
Table 9
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Example ADU Fee Calculations
Description Formula Example 1 [1] Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Existing Residence
SFR Fee Rate A $22,105.73 $22,105.73 $22,105.73 $22,105.73 $22,105.73 Acres B 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.25
Square Feet C 1,500 1,500 1,500 2,500 2,500
Existing Residence Fee D = A*B $3,536.91 $3,536.91 $3,536.91 $5,526.43 $5,526.43 New ADU
Square Feet E 700 900 1,200 1,200 900
Ratio to Existing F = E/C N/A 0.60 0.80 0.48 0.36
New ADU Fee G = D*F $0.00 $2,122.14 $2,829.52 $2,652.68 $1,989.51 [1] ADU is less than 750 square feet and therefore is exempt from the Fee.

Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
769
Calculation Steps
The following steps are required to calculate the development fee:

1. Determine the land use category based on the characteristics of the New Develop and the descriptions of the land use categories.

2. Determine the GDA of the New Development using the definition of GDA above.

3. Determine the total Regional Levee Fee by multiply the fee rate from step 1 and the GDA from step 2.

This is the fee applicable to the New Development.

Per Unit Fee Collection for Single-Family Residential Development The above steps describe the calculation of the Regional Levee Fee on a New Development basis. In the case where a New Development is for subdivision of Single-Family Residential units and the fee has been calculated for an entire subdivision, the fee may be collected at the issuance of each building permit (and deferred to Final Inspection) for each residential unit. In this case, each Local Agency will determine the per unit GDA by dividing the GDA of the entire subdivision by the number of Single -Family units in the subdivision. This resulting per unit GDA will be multiplied by the current fee rate at the time of payment to determine the per unit fee cost.

Fee Revenue Accounting
The revenues raised by payment of the Regional Levee Fee shall be placed in a separate fund established by the SJAFCA (the Regional Levee Fee Fund). Separate and special accounts may be established in the Regional Levee Fee Fund and used to account for collected revenues, along with any interest earnings. Each Local Agency will remit the collected funds to SJAFCA pursuant to the terms of the collection agreement executed between SJAFCA and the Local Agency.

Periodic Review and Cost Adjustment
SJAFCA will periodically review actual project costs and Regional Levee Fee collections to determine if any updates to the program are warranted. The periodic review will occur no less than every eight years. During these reviews, the following aspects will be analyzed:
• Changes to the Improvements to be funded by the Regional Levee Fee program • Changes in the cost to update or administer the Regional Levee Fee program • Changes in annual financing costs
• Changes in assumed land uses
• Changes in other funding sources
Any changes to the Regional Levee Fee based on the periodic update will be presented to the Local Agency’s Board for approval before an increase of the fee will take effect.

EXHIBIT 1
770
Pursuant to Government Code § 66001(d), the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fee account or fund, and annually thereafter, each Local Agency is required to make all the following findings about that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended:
• Identify the purpose for which the fee is to be used. • Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. • Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to fulfill the Phase 4 improvements. • Designate the approximate dates that the funding referred to in the above paragraph is expected to be deposited in the appropriate account or fund.

SJAFCA must refund the unexpended or uncommitted revenue portion for which a need could not be demonstrated in the above findings unless the administrative costs exceed the amount of the refund.

EXHIBIT 1
771

NEXUS FINDINGS
Authority
This report has been prepared in support of t he Regional Levee Fee in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in AB 1600, codified in California Government § 66000 et. seq. This code section sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. The procedures require that a “reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.”
Specifically, each Local Agency imposing a fee must:

1. Identifying the purpose of the fee.

2. Identifying how the fee is to be used.

3. Determining that a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

4. Determining how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

5. Demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Summary of Nexus Findings
The Regional Levee Fee to be collected by each Local Agency is calculated based on applicability of planned new development to the capital improvement project and standardized acreage proportion of the land use category to the total cost of the improvement. With this approach, the following findings are made regarding the Regional Levee Fee.

Requirement 1: Purpose of Fee
The capital improvement s funded by the Regional Levee Fee are necessary to serve new Residential, Commercial, and Industrial development as described in the 2016 Adequate Progress Report and each subsequent Annual Adequate Progress Report Update.

Requirement 2: Use of the Fee
The Regional Levee Fee will be used to design and construct levee improvements that meet ULDC standards to provide ULOP for the Mossdale Tract Area as further described in the 2016 Adequate Progress Report and each subsequent Annual Adequate Progress Report Update approved by SJAFCA.

Requirement 3: Relationship Between Use of Fees and Type of Development Development of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial land uses within the Mossdale Tract Area will require improved flood control and flood protection services . This Regional Levee Fee, in conjunction with other funding sources, will fund the improved SJAFCA flood protection system that will provide ULOP.

EXHIBIT 1
772
Requirement 4: Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development Each Residential, Commercial, and Industrial development project adds to the incremental need for flood protection because of the increase in damage that would occur as a result of an uncontrolled flood, and the increased burden that the damages will place on the Local Agencies and SJAFCA. For the new development described in this Nexus Study to occur within the Mossdale Tract Area, the level of flood control needs to be improved to provide ULOP to the Area.

Requirement 5: Relationship Between Amount of Fees and Cost of Facility The appropriate common use factor for allocating costs to each land use is the Relative Property Damage Index. Table 6 shows the respective Relative Property Damage Index for each land use.

SJAFCA, acting as LFMA has estimated the total cost of the required facilities. The allocation of the costs based on the acres adjusted by the Property Damage Index has been presented in Table 7. The result is the cost of the improvements attribu ted to each acre of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial development. This allocation demonstrates the relationship between the amount of fee and the cost of the portion of the facility attributed to the specific type of development upon which the fee is imposed.

EXHIBIT 1
773
APPENDIX A – PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DETAILS
Summary of Planned Development

1. Development that is expected to take place over the next 30 -years is subject to the Fee. Development projections through 2060, as described in the RD 17 Basin Financing Plan Implementation Updated Development Absorption Projections Final Updated Technical Memorandum prepared by LWA , dated August 18, 2017, and as updated by LWA since 2017 based on actual development and input from the Local Agencies, have been utilized to determine the amount of development expected to take place over the next 30-years.

2. The Mossdale Tract Area includes over 6,345 acres of highly developed agricultural lands that produce a variety of crops . The basin also includes urban areas within San Joaquin County, the Cities of Lathrop, Manteca, and Stockton, and the urbanizing areas between these cities (as shown in Figure 1). The area subject to the Regional Levee F ee is expected to increase by approximately 1,766 Single-Family GDA, 139 Multi-Family GDA, 1,274 Commercial GDA, and 1,543 Industrial GDA over the ensuing 30 -Years (Table A1).

3. Growth in the City of Lathrop subject to the Regional Levee Fee is expected to amount to approximately 775 Single-Family GDA, 47 Multi-Family GDA, 496 Commercial GDA, and 724 Industrial GDA.

4. Growth in the City of Manteca subject to the Regional Levee Fee is expected to amount to approximately 793 Single-Family GDA, 39 Multi-Family GDA, 359 Commercial GDA, and 391 Industrial GDA.

5. Growth in the City of Stockton subject to the Regional Levee Fee is expected to amount to approximately 40 Single-Family GDA, 53 Multi-Family GDA, 127 Commercial GDA, and 214 Industrial GDA.

6. Growth within the currently unincorporated portions of San Joaquin County that would ultimately be annexed into one of the Cities that would be subject to the Regional Levee Fee is estimated as follows. As described further below, assumptions were made in order to estimate the amount of development that would occur outside of the current City limits.
a. City of Lathrop to annex 24 Commercial GDA.
b. City of Manteca to annex 141 Single-Family GDA, 28 Commercial GDA, and 137 Industrial GDA. c. City of Stockton to annex 178 Commercial GDA.

City of Lathrop
Active projects on vacant parcels identified by City staff include Central Lathrop Specific Plan, Crossroads/Industrial, Gateway, South Lathrop Specific Plan, East Lathrop, Mossdale Landing, Mossdale Landing East, Mossdale Landing South, and Sharpe Depot . PDFs and excel files that analyze development potential, undeveloped properties, and land use were provided by City staff to summarize total developable acreage for each project. City of Lathrop staff identified the potential for future development outside of the current City limits. Specific development projects have not been identified.

City of Manteca
Active projects on vacant parcels identified by City staff include Airport/Daniels, Alma Apartments, Center Point South, Cerri, Denali, Embarcadero, Family Entertainment Zone, HWY 120, Kiper, Lewis Estates, Oakwood Trails, Oleander, Railroad Industrial, Sundance, Telles & Wilson, Terra Ranch, The Trails of Manteca, Villa Ticino EXHIBIT 1
774
West, Wackerly, Yosemite Greens, and Yosemite/Fishback. L and use summaries were provided by City staff to summarize total developable acreage by proje ct. City of Lathrop staff identified the potential for future development outside of the current City limits. Specific development projects have not been identified.

City of Stockton
Active projects on vacant parcels identified by City staff include the undeveloped portions of Weston Ranch and South Airport. City of Stockton staff identified the potential for future development outside of the current City limits. The City of Stockton is currently updating its General Plan and the General Plan will nee d to conform to the requirements of the Delta Plan. Specific development projects have not been identified.

Assumptions were made regarding the amount of development outside of the City limits and these assumptions have been reviewed by stakeholders working on the development of Adequate Progress Reports.

It is expected that as the City of Stockton finalizes its General Plan update and additional information is obtained over time, future updates of this report will reflect new information.

EXHIBIT 1
775

Planned Development Details
Table A-1 .................................................................................................................... Total Developable Acreage Table A-2 ............................................................................... Total Developable Dwelling Units and Square Feet

EXHIBIT 1
776
Table A-1
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Total Developable Acreage
Area / Project Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Total Acreage City of Lathrop
Central Lathrop 827.9 40.8 301.4 0.0 1,170.2
Mossdale Landing 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 6.0
Mossdale Landing East 0.0 3.3 31.5 0.0 34.7
Mossdale Landing South 32.7 5.8 17.1 0.0 55.5
South Lathrop 0.0 0.0 9.3 184.2 193.5
Lathrop Gateway 0.0 0.0 123.9 190.8 314.7
Lathrop Crossroads 0.0 0.0 2.6 55.7 58.3
Historic/East Lathrop 0.0 0.0 30.5 103.9 134.3
Sharpe Depot 0.0 0.0 0.0 227.9 227.9
Subtotal City of Lathrop 860.6 49.9 522.2 762.5 2,195.1 City of Manteca
Railroad Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.7 105.7
Center Point South 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
Telles & Wilson 37.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1
Villa Ticino West 0.0 0.0 0.0 242.2 242.2
Yosemite Greens 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2
Kiper 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2
Alma Apartments 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 10.8
Yosemite/Fishback 17.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 22.3
Family Entertainment Zone 0.0 0.0 132.3 0.0 132.3
Embarcadero 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.9 35.9
Airport/Daniels 0.0 19.7 49.8 0.0 69.5
HWY 120 0.0 0.0 129.7 27.6 157.3
Oakwood Trails 157.2 0.0 47.2 0.0 204.4
Denali 105.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 118.0
Sundance 52.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.7
The Trails of Manteca 294.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 294.1
Cerri 123.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 123.6
Terra Ranch 24.8 10.3 0.0 0.0 35.1
Wackerly 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9
Lewis Estates 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9
Oleander 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.7
Subtotal City of Manteca 881.4 40.8 377.4 411.8 1,711.5 City of Stockton [3]
Weston Ranch 44.9 55.7 133.2 0.0 233.8
South Airport 0.0 0.0 0.0 225.0 225.0
Subtotal City of Stockton 44.9 55.7 133.2 225.0 458.8
San Joaquin County
Oakwood Shores 18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6
Future Lathrop Annex 0.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 25.2
Future Manteca Annex 156.8 0.0 29.3 144.3 330.4
Future Stockton Annex 0.0 0.0 187.1 0.0 187.1
Subtotal San Joaquin County 175.4 0.0 241.6 144.3 561.2 Total Developable Land 1,962.3 146.3 1,274.4 1,543.6 4,926.7 Gross Acreage to GDA Adjustment Factor 90.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% Total GDA 1,766.0 139.0 1,210.7 1,466.5 4,582.2
Source: Final Update Technical Memorandum RD 17 Basin Financing Plan Implementation Updated Development Absorption Projections, August 18, 2017 prepared by LWA with data later updated by LWA based on input from SJAFCA member agency staff.

Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
777
Table A-2
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Total Developable Dwelling Units and Square Feet
Area / Project Single-Family Multi-Family Totals Commercial Industrial Totals City of Lathrop
Central Lathrop 4,968 613 5,581 3,283 0 3,283
Mossdale Landing 0 0 0 66 0 66
Mossdale Landing East 0 50 50 343 0 343
Mossdale Landing South 196 87 283 186 0 186
South Lathrop 0 0 0 101 2,809 2,910
Lathrop Gateway 0 0 0 1,349 2,909 4,258
Lathrop Crossroads 0 0 0 29 606 635
Historic/East Lathrop 0 0 0 332 1,584 1,915
Sharpe Depot 0 0 0 0 3,475 3,475
Subtotal City of Lathrop 5,164 750 5,914 5,687 11,383 17,070 City of Manteca
Railroad Industrial 0 0 0 0 691 691
Center Point South 0 0 0 0 99 99
Telles & Wilson 294 0 294 0 0 0
Villa Ticino West 0 0 0 0 4,000 4,000
Yosemite Greens 99 0 99 0 0 0
Kiper 115 0 115 0 0 0
Alma Apartments 0 268 268 0 0 0
Yosemite/Fishback 102 0 102 69 0 69
Family Entertainment Zone 0 0 0 1,729 0 1,729
Embarcadero 0 0 0 0 469 469
Airport/Daniels 0 295 295 651 0 651
HWY 120 0 0 0 1,696 361 2,056
Oakwood Trails 676 0 676 412 0 412
Denali 315 0 315 170 0 170
Sundance 289 0 289 0 0 0
The Trails of Manteca 1,268 0 1,268 0 0 0
Cerri 495 0 495 0 0 0
Terra Ranch 102 200 302 0 0 0
Wackerly 60 0 60 0 0 0
Lewis Estates 54 0 54 0 0 0
Oleander 116 0 116 0 0 0
Subtotal City of Manteca 3,985 763 4,748 4,727 5,619 10,346 City of Stockton [3]
Weston Ranch 267 1,113 1,380 1,262 0 1,262
South Airport 0 0 0 0 3,921 3,921
Subtotal City of Stockton 267 1,113 1,380 1,262 3,921 5,183 San Joaquin County
Oakwood Shores 107 0 107 0 0 0
Future Lathrop Annex 0 0 0 275 0 275
Future Manteca Annex 833 0 833 383 1,886 2,268
Future Stockton Annex 0 0 0 2,446 0 2,446
Subtotal San Joaquin County 940 0 940 3,103 1,886 4,989 Total 10,356 2,626 12,982 14,779 22,809 37,588
Units Square Feet
Source: Final Update Technical Memorandum RD 17 Basin Financing Plan Implementation Updated Development Absorption Projections, August 18, 2017 prepared by LWA with data later updated by LWA based on input from SJAFCA member agency staff.

Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
778
APPENDIX B – SJAFCA PROJECT EXPENDITURES DISCOUNT & ESCALATION TO 2021 DOLLARS
Table B-1 .................................................... SJAFCA Project Expenditures Discount & Escalation to 2021 Dollars Table B-2 ................................................................................................ County EIFD Loan Repayment Schedule Table B-3 ...................................................................................................... EIFD Revenue Repayment Schedule

EXHIBIT 1
779
Table B-1
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
SJAFCA Project Expenditures Discount & Escalation
Year
Total SJAFCA Project
Expenditures
Discount / Escalation to
2021 Dollars
2014 $719,212 $884,540
2015 $719,212 $858,776
2016 $789,704 $915,483
2017 $1,001,181 $1,126,838
2018 $61,170 $66,842
2019 $215,845 $228,990
2020 $296,015 $304,896
2021 $927,295 $927,295
2022 $6,109,023 $5,931,091
2023 $4,578,590 $4,315,760
2024 $44,531,401 $40,752,540
2025 $51,401,717 $45,669,760
2026 $53,939,064 $46,528,310
2027 $51,538,640 $43,162,800
2028 $46,749,904 $38,011,950
2029 $7,185,728 $5,672,480
Total $270,763,701 $235,358,352
Note:

Discount Formula: PV2021 = FVYear * (1 + 0.03)^-(Year-2021) Escalation Formula: FV2021 = PVYear * (1 + 0.03)^(2021-Year) Source: 2020 Adequate Progress Report Update
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
780
Table B-2
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
County EIFD Loan Repayment Schedule
Year
Annual DIF
Revenue [3]
Revenue Dedicated
to Repayment
Remaining
Fee Revenue
Ending County
Loan Balance
Reference Table C-3
2016 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2017 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2018 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2019 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2020 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $303,501.88 $0.00 $303,501.88 $0.00 2021 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,359,232.26 $0.00 $5,359,232.26 $0.00 2022 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,123,403.80 $0.00 $10,123,403.80 $0.00 2023 $0.00 $0.00 $670,974.51 $7,537,641.36 $0.00 $7,537,641.36 $670,974.51 2024 $670,974.51 $20,129.24 $1,488,921.27 $5,374,398.44 $0.00 $5,374,398.44 $2,180,025.01 2025 $2,180,025.01 $65,400.75 $2,151,985.02 $5,955,610.47 $0.00 $5,955,610.47 $4,397,410.78 2026 $4,397,410.78 $131,922.32 $2,917,456.83 $5,055,639.42 $0.00 $5,055,639.42 $7,446,789.93 2027 $7,446,789.93 $223,403.70 $3,644,078.03 $4,230,005.31 $0.00 $4,230,005.31 $11,314,271.65 2028 $11,314,271.65 $339,428.15 $4,379,119.24 $3,842,944.41 $0.00 $3,842,944.41 $16,032,819.04 2029 $16,032,819.04 $480,984.57 $5,078,149.92 $3,563,169.61 $0.00 $3,563,169.61 $21,591,953.54 2030 $21,591,953.54 $647,758.61 $0.00 $3,505,366.94 $3,505,366.94 $0.00 $18,734,345.21 2031 $18,734,345.21 $562,030.36 $0.00 $3,371,931.57 $3,371,931.57 $0.00 $15,924,443.99 2032 $15,924,443.99 $477,733.32 $0.00 $2,818,838.81 $2,818,838.81 $0.00 $13,583,338.50 2033 $13,583,338.50 $407,500.15 $0.00 $3,387,055.15 $3,387,055.15 $0.00 $10,603,783.50 2034 $10,603,783.50 $318,113.51 $0.00 $3,341,888.34 $3,341,888.34 $0.00 $7,580,008.66 2035 $7,580,008.66 $227,400.26 $0.00 $2,787,263.21 $2,787,263.21 $0.00 $5,020,145.71 2036 $5,020,145.71 $150,604.37 $0.00 $2,529,715.08 $2,529,715.08 $0.00 $2,641,035.00 2037 $2,641,035.00 $79,231.05 $0.00 $1,899,031.64 $1,899,031.64 $0.00 $821,234.42 2038 $821,234.42 $24,637.03 $0.00 $1,245,384.98 $845,871.45 $399,513.53 $0.00 2039 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,211,576.38 $0.00 $1,211,576.38 $0.00 2040 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,147,708.83 $0.00 $2,147,708.83 $0.00 2041 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,829,622.39 $0.00 $1,829,622.39 $0.00 2042 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,829,622.39 $0.00 $1,829,622.39 $0.00 2043 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,835,687.33 $0.00 $1,835,687.33 $0.00 2044 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,469,360.01 $0.00 $1,469,360.01 $0.00 2045 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,469,360.01 $0.00 $1,469,360.01 $0.00 2046 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,469,360.01 $0.00 $1,469,360.01 $0.00 2047 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,451,287.04 $0.00 $1,451,287.04 $0.00 2048 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,430,574.20 $0.00 $1,430,574.20 $0.00 2049 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,430,574.20 $0.00 $1,430,574.20 $0.00 2050 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $220,916.65 $0.00 $220,916.65 $0.00 2051 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $206,255.21 $0.00 $206,255.21 $0.00 2052 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $155,346.30 $0.00 $155,346.30 $0.00 2053 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $155,346.30 $0.00 $155,346.30 $0.00 2054 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $155,346.30 $0.00 $155,346.30 $0.00 2055 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $145,781.84 $0.00 $145,781.84 $0.00 2056 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $87,684.35 $0.00 $87,684.35 $0.00 2057 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38,785.81 $0.00 $38,785.81 $0.00 2058 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38,785.81 $0.00 $38,785.81 $0.00 2059 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38,785.81 $0.00 $38,785.81 $0.00 2060 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $4,156,277.38 $20,330,684.81 $95,049,789.84 $24,486,962.19 $70,562,827.64 Source: LWA, EPS
[1] Represents the additional EIFD allocation above the base County allocation of 10 percent eligible for repayment. [2] Assumed 3 percent annual interest rate reflective of 2 percent plus the annual County treasury yield (estimated at 1%) applied to the prior year ending balance. [3] Represents development impact fee revenue for all development within the Mossdale Tract boundaries as estimated by LWA included in Appendix A.

Development Fee Revenue Allocation
Additional
County EIFD
Contribution [1]
Annual
Interest
Accrued [2]
Beginning
County Loan
Balance
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
781
Table B-3
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
EIFD Revenue Repayment Schedule
Fiscal Year
Ending
Lathrop Manteca Stockton County
Total EIFD
Revenue
Beginning
Balance
Fee Revenue for
Repayment [1] Ending Balance
Reference Table B-2
2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2023 $58,543 $19,577 $2,200 $850,840 $931,161 $0 $0 $931,161 2024 $110,211 $53,516 $4,488 $1,888,050 $2,056,266 $931,161 $0 $2,987,426 2025 $152,452 $80,855 $6,118 $2,728,859 $2,968,284 $2,987,426 $0 $5,955,710 2026 $198,704 $117,093 $7,268 $3,699,528 $4,022,593 $5,955,710 $0 $9,978,303 2027 $246,620 $145,464 $9,059 $4,620,931 $5,022,074 $9,978,303 $0 $15,000,377 2028 $298,458 $170,849 $10,983 $5,553,012 $6,033,302 $15,000,377 $0 $21,033,679 2029 $348,069 $196,197 $12,358 $6,439,429 $6,996,052 $21,033,679 $0 $28,029,731 2030 $515,760 $581,368 $179,175 $2,020,721 $3,297,024 $28,029,731 $0 $31,326,755 2031 $588,890 $655,415 $198,377 $2,294,279 $3,736,961 $31,326,755 $0 $35,063,716 2032 $639,365 $733,207 $218,281 $2,537,438 $4,128,290 $35,063,716 $0 $39,192,007 2033 $505,615 $594,970 $178,211 $2,044,214 $3,323,010 $39,192,007 $0 $42,515,017 2034 $544,651 $658,355 $207,001 $2,257,967 $3,667,974 $42,515,017 $0 $46,182,991 2035 $584,910 $724,777 $235,997 $2,479,601 $4,025,284 $46,182,991 $0 $50,208,275 2036 $624,668 $782,732 $266,334 $2,690,088 $4,363,823 $50,208,275 $0 $54,572,098 2037 $665,961 $836,682 $298,069 $2,900,689 $4,701,401 $54,572,098 $0 $59,273,499 2038 $702,717 $884,456 $331,256 $3,098,381 $5,016,811 $59,273,499 $399,514 $63,890,796 2039 $740,754 $927,405 $363,415 $3,275,850 $5,307,424 $63,890,796 $1,211,576 $67,986,644 2040 $780,116 $972,006 $395,157 $3,457,937 $5,605,216 $67,986,644 $2,147,709 $71,444,151 2041 $831,445 $1,016,848 $429,041 $3,665,782 $5,943,116 $71,444,151 $1,829,622 $75,557,644 2042 $885,329 $1,054,788 $464,390 $3,870,920 $6,275,427 $75,557,644 $1,829,622 $80,003,449 2043 $941,373 $1,093,960 $501,264 $4,084,087 $6,620,684 $80,003,449 $1,835,687 $84,788,445 2044 $473,522 $537,350 $255,713 $2,039,708 $3,306,292 $84,788,445 $1,469,360 $86,625,378 2045 $502,232 $557,130 $268,914 $2,140,446 $3,468,722 $86,625,378 $1,469,360 $88,624,740 2046 $532,085 $577,553 $282,578 $2,244,928 $3,637,143 $88,624,740 $1,469,360 $90,792,524 2047 $563,122 $598,639 $296,719 $2,353,288 $3,811,769 $90,792,524 $1,451,287 $93,153,005 2048 $595,390 $620,410 $311,130 $2,464,763 $3,991,692 $93,153,005 $1,430,574 $95,714,123 2049 $628,932 $642,887 $325,804 $2,579,411 $4,177,035 $95,714,123 $1,430,574 $98,460,584 2050 $663,797 $666,094 $340,979 $2,698,256 $4,369,126 $98,460,584 $220,917 $102,608,794 2051 $700,034 $690,055 $356,671 $2,821,445 $4,568,205 $102,608,794 $206,255 $106,970,743 2052 $737,375 $714,792 $373,069 $2,948,810 $4,774,046 $106,970,743 $155,346 $111,589,444 2053 $776,172 $740,332 $388,644 $3,079,107 $4,984,254 $111,589,444 $155,346 $116,418,351 2054 $816,479 $766,700 $404,716 $3,214,103 $5,201,998 $116,418,351 $155,346 $121,465,003 2055 $858,353 $793,923 $421,304 $3,353,963 $5,427,542 $121,465,003 $145,782 $126,746,764 2056 $901,850 $821,828 $438,422 $3,498,578 $5,660,678 $126,746,764 $87,684 $132,319,758 2057 $947,030 $848,508 $456,208 $3,645,921 $5,897,668 $132,319,758 $38,786 $138,178,640 2058 $993,956 $875,989 $473,836 $3,795,567 $6,139,348 $138,178,640 $38,786 $144,279,202 2059 $1,042,691 $904,294 $492,011 $3,950,446 $6,389,442 $144,279,202 $38,786 $150,629,858 2060 [2] $1,093,301 $933,448 $510,750 $4,110,737 $6,648,236 $150,629,858 $0 $157,278,095 Total $23,790,934 $24,590,453 $10,715,910 $117,398,078 $176,495,375 $19,217,281 Source: EPS
[1] Repayment of general EIFD Revenue Contributions by agencies will only begin once repayment of the County EIFD Loan amount has been satisfied.

Estimated Repayment CalculationEstimated EIFD Revenue Contribution Prepared by LWA 05/11/22 P:\1801000 SJAFCA Mossdale\1801011 Regional DIF\Models\1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
782
APPENDIX C – ESTIMATED COST ALLOCATION BY PROJECT AND REVENUE

OVER TIME

Table C-1 ............................................................ Estimated Cost per Unit by Project (Residential Development) Table C-2 .......................... Estimated Cost per 1,000 Sq. Ft. by Project (Commercial & Industrial Development) Table C-3 ................................................................................ Total Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate Table C-4 ................................................................ Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate – Single-Family Table C-5 ................................................................. Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate - Multi-Family Table C-6 .................................................................. Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate - Commercial Table C-7 ...................................................................... Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate – Industrial Table C-8 ............................................................................................. Developer Advances and Agency Funding

EXHIBIT 1
783
Table C-1
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Estimated Cost Per Unit by Project (Residential Development) Area / Project
Reference Table A-1 Table A-1 Table 7 Table A-2
A B C=(A*$21,462) +
(B*$20,084)
D=(C/$88,606,858) E F=C/E
City of Lathrop
Central Lathrop 745.1 38.8 $16,770,424 18.9% 5,581 $3,005 Mossdale Landing 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Mossdale Landing East 0.0 3.1 $62,391 0.1% 50 $1,248
Mossdale Landing South 29.4 5.5 $740,749 0.8% 283 $2,617 South Lathrop 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Lathrop Gateway 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Lathrop Crossroads 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Historic/East Lathrop 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Sharpe Depot 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Subtotal City of Lathrop 774.5 47.4 $17,573,564 19.8% 5,914 $2,972 City of Manteca
Railroad Industrial 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Center Point South 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Telles & Wilson 33.4 0.0 $717,191 0.8% 294 $2,439
Villa Ticino West 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Yosemite Greens 11.0 0.0 $235,265 0.3% 99 $2,376
Kiper 11.0 0.0 $235,651 0.3% 115 $2,049
Alma Apartments 0.0 10.3 $206,824 0.2% 268 $772
Yosemite/Fishback 15.3 0.0 $327,787 0.4% 102 $3,214
Family Entertainment Zone 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Embarcadero 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Airport/Daniels 0.0 18.7 $375,680 0.4% 295 $1,273
HWY 120 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Oakwood Trails 141.5 0.0 $3,036,619 3.4% 676 $4,492
Denali 94.5 0.0 $2,028,147 2.3% 315 $6,439
Sundance 47.4 0.0 $1,017,608 1.1% 289 $3,521
The Trails of Manteca 264.7 0.0 $5,680,742 6.4% 1,268 $4,480 Cerri 111.2 0.0 $2,387,415 2.7% 495 $4,823
Terra Ranch 22.3 9.8 $674,973 0.8% 302 $2,235
Wackerly 11.6 0.0 $249,172 0.3% 60 $4,153
Lewis Estates 8.9 0.0 $191,612 0.2% 54 $3,548
Oleander 20.5 0.0 $439,277 0.5% 116 $3,787
Subtotal City of Manteca 793.3 38.8 $17,803,964 20.1% 4,748 $3,750 City of Stockton
Weston Ranch 40.4 52.9 $1,929,892 2.2% 1,380 $1,399
South Airport 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Subtotal City of Stockton 40.4 52.9 $1,929,892 2.2% 1,380 $1,399 San Joaquin County
Oakwood Shores 16.7 0.0 $358,499 0.4% 107 $3,350
Future Lathrop Annex 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Future Manteca Annex 141.1 0.0 $3,028,506 3.4% 833 $3,636 Future Stockton Annex 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Subtotal San Joaquin County 157.8 0.0 $3,387,005 3.8% 940 $3,603 Average Allocated
Cost per Unit
Single-Family
Acreage
Multi-Family
Acreage
Allocated
Cost Share
Single &
Multi-Family Units
Cost Share
Percentage
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
784
Table C-2
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Estimated Cost Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. by Project (Commercial & Industrial Development) Area / Project
Reference Table A-1 Table A-1 Table 7 Table A-2
A B C=(A*$21462) +
(B*$20084)
D=(C/$88,606,858) E F=C/E
City of Lathrop
Central Lathrop 286.4 0.0 $5,814,901 6.6% 3 $1,771,475
Mossdale Landing 5.7 0.0 $116,366 0.1% 0 $1,771,435
Mossdale Landing East 29.9 0.0 $606,810 0.7% 0 $1,771,501 Mossdale Landing South 16.2 0.0 $329,014 0.4% 0 $1,771,466 South Lathrop 8.8 175.0 $2,963,021 3.3% 3 $1,018,304
Lathrop Gateway 117.7 181.3 $5,273,104 6.0% 4 $1,238,364 Lathrop Crossroads 2.5 52.9 $892,008 1.0% 1 $1,404,914
Historic/East Lathrop 28.9 98.7 $2,157,363 2.4% 2 $1,126,284 Sharpe Depot 0.0 216.5 $3,444,357 3.9% 3 $991,176
Subtotal City of Lathrop 496.1 724.4 $21,596,943 24.4% 17 $1,265,216 City of Manteca
Railroad Industrial 0.0 100.4 $1,597,418 1.8% 1 $2,312,752 Center Point South 0.0 0.4 $5,983 0.0% 0 $60,503
Telles & Wilson 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Villa Ticino West 0.0 230.1 $3,660,209 4.1% 4 $915,052
Yosemite Greens 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Kiper 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Alma Apartments 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Yosemite/Fishback 5.0 0.0 $101,858 0.1% 0 $1,476,209
Family Entertainment Zone 125.7 0.0 $2,553,020 2.9% 2 $1,476,229 Embarcadero 0.0 34.1 $542,199 0.6% 0 $1,156,371
Airport/Daniels 47.3 0.0 $961,057 1.1% 1 $1,476,233
HWY 120 123.3 26.2 $2,920,113 3.3% 2 $1,420,122
Oakwood Trails 44.9 0.0 $911,131 1.0% 0 $2,209,232
Denali 12.4 0.0 $250,788 0.3% 0 $1,476,265
Sundance 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
The Trails of Manteca 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Cerri 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Terra Ranch 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Wackerly 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Lewis Estates 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Oleander 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 0 $0
Subtotal City of Manteca 358.5 391.2 $13,503,777 15.2% 10 $1,305,161 City of Stockton
Weston Ranch 126.6 0.0 $2,570,054 2.9% 1 $2,036,590
South Airport 0.0 213.8 $3,400,382 3.8% 4 $867,279
Subtotal City of Stockton 126.6 213.8 $5,970,437 6.7% 5 $2,903,868 San Joaquin County
Oakwood Shores 0.0 0.0 $0 0.0% 5 $0
Future Lathrop Annex 23.9 0.0 $486,316 0.5% 0 $0
Future Manteca Annex 27.8 137.1 $2,745,198 3.1% 38 $73,034 Future Stockton Annex 177.8 0.0 $3,609,763 4.1% 38 $96,036 Subtotal San Joaquin County 229.5 137.1 $6,841,277 7.7% 80 $85,341 Average Allocated
Cost per 1,000 Sq.

Commercial
Acreage
Industrial
Acreage
Total
Allocated 1000's Square Feet
Cost Share
Percentage
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
785
Table C-3
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Total Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate
Year Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Total Fee Revenue Table C-4 Table C-5 Table C-6 Table C-7
2016 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
2017 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
2018 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
2019 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
2020 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 303,502 $ 303,502
2021 $ 2,485,413 $ 183,567 $ 163,774 $ 2,526,478 $ 5,359,232 2022 $ 5,690,433 $ 372,055 $ 2,017,116 $ 2,043,801 $ 10,123,404 2023 $ 3,069,552 $ 405,073 $ 1,714,059 $ 2,348,958 $ 7,537,641 2024 $ 1,703,064 $ 268,000 $ 1,273,890 $ 2,129,444 $ 5,374,398 2025 $ 2,054,116 $ 311,783 $ 1,402,940 $ 2,186,772 $ 5,955,610 2026 $ 1,895,298 $ 377,056 $ 1,367,707 $ 1,415,579 $ 5,055,639 2027 $ 1,409,182 $ 303,348 $ 1,428,018 $ 1,089,457 $ 4,230,005 2028 $ 1,329,348 $ 43,582 $ 1,380,907 $ 1,089,107 $ 3,842,944 2029 $ 1,329,777 $ 43,381 $ 1,466,601 $ 723,410 $ 3,563,170 2030 $ 1,363,687 $ 38,561 $ 1,683,497 $ 419,622 $ 3,505,367 2031 $ 1,363,687 $ 38,561 $ 1,550,062 $ 419,622 $ 3,371,932 2032 $ 1,363,473 $ 118,897 $ 916,848 $ 419,622 $ 2,818,839 2033 $ 1,027,165 $ 80,336 $ 1,035,642 $ 1,243,912 $ 3,387,055 2034 $ 1,025,877 $ 80,336 $ 1,035,825 $ 1,199,850 $ 3,341,888 2035 $ 578,827 $ 80,336 $ 985,038 $ 1,143,063 $ 2,787,263 2036 $ 398,332 $ 80,336 $ 907,507 $ 1,143,540 $ 2,529,715 2037 $ 398,332 $ 80,336 $ 639,864 $ 780,499 $ 1,899,032 2038 $ 398,332 $ 33,138 $ 492,438 $ 321,477 $ 1,245,385 2039 $ 398,332 $ 0 $ 491,767 $ 321,477 $ 1,211,576
2040 $ 1,546,609 $ 0 $ 279,623 $ 321,477 $ 2,147,709
2041 $ 1,209,658 $ 0 $ 298,488 $ 321,477 $ 1,829,622
2042 $ 1,209,658 $ 0 $ 298,488 $ 321,477 $ 1,829,622
2043 $ 1,209,658 $ 0 $ 305,189 $ 320,840 $ 1,835,687
2044 $ 1,209,658 $ 0 $ 259,702 $ 0 $ 1,469,360
2045 $ 1,209,658 $ 0 $ 259,702 $ 0 $ 1,469,360
2046 $ 1,209,658 $ 0 $ 259,702 $ 0 $ 1,469,360
2047 $ 1,209,658 $ 0 $ 241,629 $ 0 $ 1,451,287
2048 $ 1,209,658 $ 0 $ 220,917 $ 0 $ 1,430,574
2049 $ 1,209,658 $ 0 $ 220,917 $ 0 $ 1,430,574
2050 $ 0 $ 0 $ 220,917 $ 0 $ 220,917
2051 $ 0 $ 0 $ 206,255 $ 0 $ 206,255
2052 $ 0 $ 0 $ 155,346 $ 0 $ 155,346
2053 $ 0 $ 0 $ 155,346 $ 0 $ 155,346
2054 $ 0 $ 0 $ 155,346 $ 0 $ 155,346
2055 $ 0 $ 0 $ 145,782 $ 0 $ 145,782
2056 $ 0 $ 0 $ 87,684 $ 0 $ 87,684
2057 $ 0 $ 0 $ 38,786 $ 0 $ 38,786
2058 $ 0 $ 0 $ 38,786 $ 0 $ 38,786
2059 $ 0 $ 0 $ 38,786 $ 0 $ 38,786
Total 41,715,755.2 2,938,680.2 25,840,892.1 24,554,462.3 $95,049,790 Revenue by Land Use
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
786
Table C-4
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate - Single-Family Year Lathrop Manteca Stockton
Unincorp
County Total Fee Revenue
Table D13 Table D7 Table D10 Table D16 Table 8
Fee Rate/Acre $ 21,462
2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2021 61.4 47.7 6.7 0.0 115.8 $ 2,485,413
2022 179.0 72.7 13.5 0.0 265.1 $ 5,690,433
2023 23.9 90.0 13.5 15.7 143.0 $ 3,069,552
2024 0.0 52.4 11.3 15.7 79.4 $ 1,703,064
2025 3.3 76.8 0.0 15.7 95.7 $ 2,054,116
2026 3.3 69.4 0.0 15.7 88.3 $ 1,895,298
2027 3.3 46.7 0.0 15.7 65.7 $ 1,409,182
2028 3.3 43.0 0.0 15.7 61.9 $ 1,329,348
2029 3.3 43.0 0.0 15.7 62.0 $ 1,329,777
2030 3.3 44.6 0.0 15.7 63.5 $ 1,363,687
2031 3.3 44.6 0.0 15.7 63.5 $ 1,363,687
2032 3.3 44.6 0.0 15.7 63.5 $ 1,363,473
2033 3.3 44.6 0.0 0.0 47.9 $ 1,027,165
2034 3.2 44.6 0.0 0.0 47.8 $ 1,025,877
2035 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 $ 578,827
2036 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 18.6 $ 398,332
2037 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 18.6 $ 398,332
2038 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 18.6 $ 398,332
2039 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 18.6 $ 398,332
2040 56.4 15.7 0.0 0.0 72.1 $ 1,546,609
2041 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 $ 1,209,658
2042 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 $ 1,209,658
2043 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 $ 1,209,658
2044 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 $ 1,209,658
2045 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 $ 1,209,658
2046 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 $ 1,209,658
2047 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 $ 1,209,658
2048 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 $ 1,209,658
2049 56.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.4 $ 1,209,658
2050 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2051 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2052 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2053 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2054 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2055 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2056 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2057 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2058 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
Total 860.6 881.4 44.9 156.8 1,943.7 $41,715,755
Single-Family Acres By Jurisdiction
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
787
Table C-5
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate - Multi-Family
Year Lathrop Manteca Stockton
Unincorp
County Total Fee Revenue
Table D13 Table D7 Table D10 Table D16 Table 8
Fee Rate/Acre $ 20,084
2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2021 1.6 0.0 7.5 0.0 9.1 $ 183,567
2022 8.5 2.6 7.5 0.0 18.5 $ 372,055
2023 12.3 7.9 0.0 0.0 20.2 $ 405,073
2024 5.4 7.9 0.0 0.0 13.3 $ 268,000
2025 5.4 10.1 0.0 0.0 15.5 $ 311,783
2026 5.4 5.8 7.5 0.0 18.8 $ 377,056
2027 5.4 2.2 7.5 0.0 15.1 $ 303,348
2028 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 $ 43,582
2029 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 $ 43,381
2030 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 $ 38,561
2031 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 $ 38,561
2032 1.9 0.0 4.0 0.0 5.9 $ 118,897
2033 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 $ 80,336
2034 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 $ 80,336
2035 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 $ 80,336
2036 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 $ 80,336
2037 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 $ 80,336
2038 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 $ 33,138
2039 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2040 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2041 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2042 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2043 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2044 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2045 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2046 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2047 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2048 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2049 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2050 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2051 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2052 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2053 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2054 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2055 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2056 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2057 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2058 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
Total 49.9 40.8 55.7 0.0 146.3 $2,938,680
Multi-Family Acres By Jurisdiction
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
788
Table C-6
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate - Commercial
Year Lathrop Manteca Stockton
Unincorp
County Total Fee Revenue
Table D13 Table D7 Table D10 Table D16 Table 8
Fee Rate/Acre $ 20,307
2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2021 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 $ 163,774
2022 40.1 12.7 44.6 1.9 99.3 $ 2,017,116
2023 40.1 16.5 24.0 3.8 84.4 $ 1,714,059
2024 40.1 16.5 2.3 3.8 62.7 $ 1,273,890
2025 40.1 20.3 2.3 6.3 69.1 $ 1,402,940
2026 38.4 20.3 2.3 6.3 67.4 $ 1,367,707
2027 38.4 21.4 2.3 8.3 70.3 $ 1,428,018
2028 38.4 19.1 2.3 8.3 68.0 $ 1,380,907
2029 38.4 23.3 2.3 8.3 72.2 $ 1,466,601
2030 49.1 23.3 2.3 8.3 82.9 $ 1,683,497
2031 42.5 23.3 2.3 8.3 76.3 $ 1,550,062
2032 12.4 22.2 2.3 8.3 45.2 $ 916,848
2033 12.4 22.2 2.3 14.1 51.0 $ 1,035,642
2034 12.4 22.2 2.3 14.1 51.0 $ 1,035,825
2035 12.4 22.2 2.3 11.6 48.5 $ 985,038
2036 12.4 18.4 2.3 11.6 44.7 $ 907,507
2037 12.4 5.2 2.3 11.6 31.5 $ 639,864
2038 12.4 3.8 2.3 5.7 24.3 $ 492,438
2039 12.4 3.8 2.3 5.7 24.2 $ 491,767
2040 0.0 3.8 2.3 7.6 13.8 $ 279,623
2041 0.9 3.8 2.3 7.6 14.7 $ 298,488
2042 0.9 3.8 2.3 7.6 14.7 $ 298,488
2043 0.9 3.8 2.3 8.0 15.0 $ 305,189
2044 0.9 3.8 2.3 5.7 12.8 $ 259,702
2045 0.9 3.8 2.3 5.7 12.8 $ 259,702
2046 0.9 3.8 2.3 5.7 12.8 $ 259,702
2047 0.9 3.8 2.3 4.8 11.9 $ 241,629
2048 0.9 3.8 2.3 3.8 10.9 $ 220,917
2049 0.9 3.8 2.3 3.8 10.9 $ 220,917
2050 0.9 3.8 2.3 3.8 10.9 $ 220,917
2051 0.0 3.8 2.5 3.8 10.2 $ 206,255
2052 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 7.7 $ 155,346
2053 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 7.7 $ 155,346
2054 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 7.7 $ 155,346
2055 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.8 7.2 $ 145,782
2056 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.3 $ 87,684
2057 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 $ 38,786
2058 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 $ 38,786
2059 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 $ 38,786
Total 522.2 377.4 133.2 239.7 1,272.5 $25,840,892
Commercial Acres By Jurisdiction
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
789
Table C-7
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Development Impact Fee Revenue Estimate - Industrial
Year Lathrop Manteca Stockton
Unincorp
County Total Fee Revenue
Table D13 Table D7 Table D10 Table D16 Table 8
Fee Rate/Acre $ 15,907
2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2020 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 $ 303,502
2021 90.8 68.0 0.0 0.0 158.8 $ 2,526,478
2022 64.3 64.2 0.0 0.0 128.5 $ 2,043,801
2023 64.3 83.4 0.0 0.0 147.7 $ 2,348,958
2024 64.3 69.6 0.0 0.0 133.9 $ 2,129,444
2025 64.3 73.2 0.0 0.0 137.5 $ 2,186,772
2026 64.3 24.7 0.0 0.0 89.0 $ 1,415,579
2027 64.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 68.5 $ 1,089,457
2028 64.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 68.5 $ 1,089,107
2029 41.9 3.6 0.0 0.0 45.5 $ 723,410
2030 22.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 26.4 $ 419,622
2031 22.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 26.4 $ 419,622
2032 22.8 3.6 0.0 0.0 26.4 $ 419,622
2033 22.8 3.6 23.0 28.9 78.2 $ 1,243,912
2034 22.8 3.6 20.2 28.9 75.4 $ 1,199,850
2035 22.8 0.0 20.2 28.9 71.9 $ 1,143,063
2036 22.8 0.0 20.2 28.9 71.9 $ 1,143,540
2037 0.0 0.0 20.2 28.9 49.1 $ 780,499
2038 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 20.2 $ 321,477
2039 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 20.2 $ 321,477
2040 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 20.2 $ 321,477
2041 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 20.2 $ 321,477
2042 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 20.2 $ 321,477
2043 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 20.2 $ 320,840
2044 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2045 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2046 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2047 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2048 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2049 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2050 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2051 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2052 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2053 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2054 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2055 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2056 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2057 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2058 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
2059 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 0
Total 762.5 411.8 225.0 144.3 1,543.6 $24,554,462
Industrial Acres By Jurisdiction
Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
790
Table C-8
Mossdale Tract Area: Regional ULOP Levee Impact Fee
Developer Advances and Agency Funding
Funding Source Amount
Lathrop $1,005,305
Lathrop Gateway/Lazares $3,720
Manteca $962,125
Others $476,131
RD 17 $126,300
Richland $1,349,453
River Islands $15,500
Saybrook $712,480
SJ County $65,703
Stockton $65,703
Total $4,782,419
Source: City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, LWA
Note: For additional funding source details refer to the Mossdale Tract Program 2021 Annual Adequate Progress
Report Update for Urban Level of Protection dated June 25, 2021 and the Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Advance Funding Credit and Reimbursement Policies and Procedures Study dated October 15, 2019.

Prepared by LWA 1801101 ULOP Mossdale Regional Fee Model 2022 0512 EXHIBIT 1
791
APPENDIX D – EXAMPLE GROSS DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE CALCULATION For this example calculation, the Gross D evelopable Acreage (GDA) fo r Lot 1 –B on the a ttached M aps is calculated.

Map D-1 shows the overall tentative map for the “Wheeler Ranch” project. Map D-2 is an enlargement of Lot 1–B with an indication of acreage to be subtracted from the large lot map when determining GDA. Note:

For purposes of the fee calculation, the City may require the small lot final map to provide a calculation of GDA.

STEP 1
Goal: From the tentative map, determine the gross acreage for the large lot.

Solution:

In this case, the gross acreage for the large lot by the unit is given in the land use table. Lot 1– B’s gross acreage is stated as 38.3 acres. This includes the allocable portion of parks/open space that is not indicated as its own unit, as well as major collectors and arterials.

STEP 2
Goal: Subtract all acreage in Major Roads, Parks, Open Space, and other property that will ultimately be publicly owned.

Solution: In this case, the densities indicated in the land use table, based on the note, exclude the allocable area of arterials and collector streets. If the density is divided by the number of units, the result is the acreage of the unit without allocable major roads.

Lot 1–B has 147 lots, and a density of 4.1 units/acre.
147/4.1 = 35.9 acres. Therefore, there were 2.4 acres of major roads included in the unit acreage stated in the land use table (38.3 acres - 35.9 acres = 2.4 acres).

Subtract all open space. Lot 1–B includes two park areas: one of 1.3 acres and one of 0.5 acres.

35.9 acres - (1.3 acres + 0.5 acres) = 34.1 acres.

No additional ultimately publicly owned property is remaining in the Lot; therefore, the GDA for Lot 1–B is 34.1 acres.

Furthermore, the GDA per unit is 0.232. This is the “Project” acreage to be used for determining the Per Unit Fee Rate for each Levee Fee charged at Building Permit.

EXHIBIT 1
792
MAP D-1
EXHIBIT 1
793
Gross Acreage—38.3 Acres per Land Use Table
Less Major Roads—(2.4 Acres)
Less Parks and Open Space—(1.8 Acres)
Gross Developable Acres for Fee = 34.1 Acres
MAP D-2
Wheeler Ranch Unit 1-B—Example Gross Developable Acreage Calculation EXHIBIT 1
794
EXHIBIT 2
795
WHEREAS, SJAFCA, through certain state legislation and through the execution of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, has legal authority to prescribe, revise and collect fees as a condition of development of land (JEPA Section 7 .m) for the purpose of assisting in the financing of flood control facilities, including the authority to make such fees applicable to development of land within the County, Stockton, Lathrop, and Manteca (collectively, "the Land Use Agencies").

WHEREAS, SJAFCA exercised this authority for the purpose of assisting in the financing of levee improvements and related flood risk reduction measures necessary to provide at least a 200-year level of flood protection to lands within the 200-year floodplain along the San Joaquin River in the Mossdale Tract Area ("Program Area") and to thereby offset the increase in damageable property that is placed in the levee protected floodplain as new development occurs in this area.

WHEREAS, SJAFCA prepared a Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee Nexus Study ("Nexus Study") dated November 8, 2018 that described and determined the applicable Mossdale Tract Area Regional Urban Level of Flood Protection Development Impact Fee ("DIF").

WHEREAS, SJAFCA has now prepared an updated Nexus Study, dated February 23, 2022, that again describes and determines an updated DIF.

WHEREAS, each of the Parties has adopted or will adopt the updated Nexus Study which creates an updated DIF for the Program Area.

WHEREAS, SJAFCA has requested that the Land Use Agencies, as a condition of issuance of a building permit for new development in the Program Area, as shown on Figure 1 in the Nexus Study, that is within each of the Land Use Agency's land use authority, collect and transmit to SJAFCA the updated DIF for the development project for which such building permit is to be issued.

WHEREAS, the Land Use Agencies are willing and desire to collect the DIF and to transmit the DIF to SJAFCA, and the Land Use Agencies and SJAFCA desire to set forth the standards applicable to the collection of the DIF. l777538vl
AMENDED Agreement for Collection of San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency Development Impact Fee

Page 2 of 13 ends

City Council and Concurrent AuthoritiesOctober 18, 2022

City Council and Concurrent Authorities
October 18, 2022