Waterford City Council
September 5, 2024

AGENDA

WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING

WATERFORD CITY HALL, CITY COUNCIL
CHAMBERS 101 “E” STREET, WATERFORD, CA

CALL TO ORDER &
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Goeken
INVOCATION: Elder Fred Webb, Seventh Day Adventist Church ROLL CALL:

Mayor: Charlie Goeken
Vice Mayor: Jill Kitchens
Council Members: Christine Harris, Jamie Hilton, Elizabeth Talbott ADOPTION OF AGENDA:

A member of the City Council motions to accept the items on the agenda for consideration as presented, or motions for any additions, including emergency items, or items pulled from consideration.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION:

Declaration by City Council members who may have a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered.

1. 1a: PRESENTATION: Waterford Historical Society Presentation

2. This is the portion of the meeting specifically set aside to invite public comments regarding any matters not appearing on the agenda and within the jurisdiction of the City Council or the Successor Agency. Individual audience participation is limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. We encourage you to share your name and address or submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.

3. All Matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine by the Council and will be adopted by one action of the Council unless any Council Member desires to discuss any item or items separately. In that event, the Mayor will remove that item from the Consent Calendar and action will be considered separately.
3a: MOTION: Waiving all Readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, except by title. 3b: RESOLUTION: Adopting Resolution 2024-40, Approving the Warrant Register in the Amount of $1,492,683.59 for the Period of July 30 to September 19, 2024.

WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING – September 5, 2024 - 6:30 PM

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

PRESENTATIONS

ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR
3c: MOTION: Approving Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held August 1, 2024.

4. 4.

5. 5a: ORDINANCE: Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 2024-05 amending Waterford municipal code title 8, entitled “Health and Safety,” by amending chapter 8.34 entitled “Marijuana and Cultivation”. (Pitcock)
5b: RESOLUTION: Resolution 2024-42, Approving Planning Commission Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Rezone No. 2024-01 and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. VTSM 2024-01 for the Waterstone at Waterford Project.

ORDINANCE: Ordinance 2024-06, Approving Planning Commission Recommendation to Introduce an Ordinance approving and adopting Rezone of 4.81± acres; as to Assessor Parcel Number 080-023-036 from Residential Single (RS) District to Planned Community (PC) 2024-01 (PC #2024-01).

RESOLUTION: Resolution 2024-43, Approving Planning Commission Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. VTSM 2024-01 to subdivide a 4.81± acre parcel into thirty (30) single-family residential lots. (Niskanen)

6. 6a: MOTION: Approving the “Downtown Flag Decorations” and Authorizing Staff to place the order. (Statzer)
6b: RESOLUTION: Approving Resolution 2024-41, Adopting the SB 533 Workplace Violence Prevention Policy. (Krause)
6c: MOTION: Approving an Agreement between the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and the City of Waterford, for Improvements completed during “Tim Bell Water and Sewer Project” and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. (Statzer)
6d: MOTION: Awarding Bid and Approving an Agreement with Tennyson Electric LLC, in the Amount of $518,275.00 for Project No. 2024-03, “Yosemite and Pasadena Signalization Improvements” and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. (Statzer)

7. 8.
8a: City Project List

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER WATERFORD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

GENERAL BUSINESS

FINAL READINGS

PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. 9a: City Staff
9b: City Council

10. 11.

12. NOTICE
REPORTS: Copies of the staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection at the front counter at City Hall during normal business hours.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: If you wish to address the City Council or the Successor Agency on any item not on the printed agenda, prior to the start of the meeting, or prior to addressing the City Council or the Successor Agency, complete and submit a speaker card and deliver it to the City Clerk. (Please note, speaker cards are not required, however completing a speaker card enables staff to better follow up with you later, if necessary and attribute your comments to you in the minutes of the meeting). When the Mayor calls for “Communications from the Audience,” stand or raise your hand and the Mayor will ask you to approach the podium and state your name and city of residence. It is the policy of the City Council that they will not act on any matter not appearing on the posted agenda. The purpose of the discussion is to permit a member of the public to raise an issue or problem and to permit the City Council to ask questions for clarification of the issue or problem, provide information to the public, provide direction of the City Staff, or schedule the matter for a future meeting. Please hold all comments to five (5) minutes.

PUBLIC COMMENTS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THE PRINTED AGENDA: Members of the public are entitled to directly address the City Council or the Successor Agency concerning any item that is described on the agenda during consideration of that item. If during a public hearing, the Mayor will direct when the hearing has opened for public comment. If you wish to address the City Council or the Successor Agency on any item listed on this agenda, please complete a speaker card and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of that item. (Please note, speaker cards are not required, however completing a speaker card enables staff to better follow up with you later, if necessary and attribute your comments to you in the minutes of the meeting.) When your name is called proceed to the podium and state your name and city of residence.

WRITTEN MATERIAL INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD: Citizens wishing to introduce written material into the record at the public hearing on any item are requested to provide a copy of the written material to the City Clerk prior to the public hearing date and/or prior to the opening of the public hearing so that the material may be distributed to the City Council prior to the public hearing.

NOTICE REGARDING CHALLENGES TO DECISIONS: Pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, California Government Code Section 65009 and or California Public Resources Code Section 21177, if you wish to challenge in court any decisions (regarding planning, zoning and/or environmental decisions), you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice/agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.

LIVE AND ON-DEMAND VIDEO RECORDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY: The meeting of the Waterford City Council/Successor Agency can be watched live and on-demand from the City’s website at www.cityofwaterford.org.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA): In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disabilityrelated modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (209) 874-2328 ext. 101 or email:
[email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two-full business days before the start of the meeting General Information: The Waterford City Council meets on the 1st and 3rd Thursdays of each month at 6:30PM., unless otherwise noticed.

Council Agenda’s: Copies of City Council Agenda and agenda related writings or documents will be made available for public inspection at the front counter at City Hall located at 101 “E” Street, Waterford, CA 72 hours prior to the meeting, or at the time of the scheduled meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT / RECESS

STAFF/COUNCIL COMMENTS AND MEETING REPORTS

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
8/27/2024
Patricia Krause, CMC, City Clerk Date
Presentations 1a
September 5, 2024
Patricia Krause, City Clerk / Administrative Services Director City Council Staff Report
SUMMARY:

Sharolyn Casey will give a presentation about the History of Waterford.

ANALYSIS:

Sharolyn Casey will give a presentation about the History of Waterford.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVES:

Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENTS:

N/A
Presentation: Waterford Historical Society Presentation Consent Calendar 3a
September 5, 2024
Patricia Krause, City Clerk / Administrative Services Director City Council Staff Report
Motion: Waive Readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, Except by Title.

SUMMARY:

It is recommended that the City Council approve the waiver of readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, except by title.

ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to California Government Code §36934, approval of the waiver of readings will allow Ordinances and Resolutions to be introduced by title only and acted upon without the need to read the entire text of the item into the public record. The documents related to proposed Ordinances and Resolutions are available for review by the public on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall.

FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

N/A
ALTERNATIVES:

1. Direct the City Clerk to read the entire text of resolutions and ordinances prior to approval and adoption.

2. Take no action.

ATTACHMENTS:

N/A
Consent Calendar 3b
September 5, 2024
Patricia Krause, City Clerk / Administrative Services Director City Council Staff Report
Resolution: Adopting Resolution 2024-40, Approving the Warrant Register in the Amount of $1,492,683.59 for the Period of July 30 to September 19, 2024.

SUMMARY:

Consider approving the Warrant Register for the period of July 30 to September 19, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

As per Government Code Section §41004, a listing of all payments the City has made for goods and services need to be approved by City Council on a regular basis. This Warrant Register includes payments and payroll made for the period of July 30 to September 19, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Payments for this period total $1,492,683.59.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

N/A
ALTERNATIVES:

1. Take no action.

2. Provide staff with further direction.

ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution #2024-40
• Check Register Report

WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL

DATE TOTAL
PAYROLL 8/5/2024 $ 40,824.33
8/19/2024 $ 40,298.63
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 7/30/2024 $ 195,278.63
8/5/2024 $ 22,353.55
8/8/2024 $ 1,171,826.11
8/19/2024 $ 22,102.34
TOTAL $ 1,492,683.59
Passed and Adopted by the City Council of Waterford at a regular meeting held on By the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

PATRICIA KRAUSE, CMC, CITY CLERK CHARLIE GOEKEN, MAYOR
RESOLUTION 2024-40
RESOLUTION # 2024-40
September 5, 2024
The City of Waterford does hereby reserve, determine and order as follows:

SECTION 1: That in accordance with Section 37202 of the Government Code that the City Manager hereby certifies to the accuracy of the following demands and the availability of funds for the payment thereof.

SECTION 2: That the following claims and demands are subject to audit as required by law, and that the same are hereby set forth.

User:

Printed: 08/05/2024 - 10:07AM
'trish'
Payroll
Include Partial: FALSE
ACH Check Register
Batch: 00005.08.2024
Check Date Check Number Employee No Employee Name Amount 08/05/2024 0 1002 3,940.62
08/05/2024 0 1008 2,229.44
08/05/2024 0 1017 1,949.45
08/05/2024 0 1018 1,449.58
08/05/2024 0 2005 2,861.44
08/05/2024 0 2006 3,168.89
08/05/2024 0 2010 911.92
08/05/2024 0 2012 2,230.77
08/05/2024 0 2020 4,004.01
08/05/2024 0 2024 1,767.08
08/05/2024 0 2028 1,817.91
08/05/2024 0 2030 1,961.73
08/05/2024 0 2031 4,373.04
08/05/2024 0 2033 1,462.67
08/05/2024 0 2035 1,929.40
08/05/2024 0 2036 1,306.47
08/05/2024 0 2037 1,306.47
08/05/2024 0 2038 1,515.26
08/05/2024 0 3002 134.93
08/05/2024 0 3010 124.20
08/05/2024 0 3012 126.35
08/05/2024 0 3013 126.35
08/05/2024 0 3014 126.35
Total Employees: 23 Total: 40,824.33
PR- ACH Check Register (08/05/2024 - 10:07 AM) Page 1
User:

Printed: 08/19/2024 - 10:37AM
'trish'
Payroll
Include Partial: FALSE
ACH Check Register
Batch: 00019.08.2024
Check Date Check Number Employee No Employee Name Amount 08/19/2024 0 1002 4,333.85
08/19/2024 0 1006 534.04
08/19/2024 0 1008 2,227.03
08/19/2024 0 1017 1,949.45
08/19/2024 0 1018 1,445.83
08/19/2024 0 2005 2,350.95
08/19/2024 0 2006 3,168.89
08/19/2024 0 2010 903.04
08/19/2024 0 2012 2,230.77
08/19/2024 0 2020 4,264.89
08/19/2024 0 2024 1,950.70
08/19/2024 0 2028 2,038.66
08/19/2024 0 2030 1,744.22
08/19/2024 0 2031 2,759.38
08/19/2024 0 2033 1,738.41
08/19/2024 0 2035 1,587.06
08/19/2024 0 2036 1,306.47
08/19/2024 0 2037 1,306.47
08/19/2024 0 2038 1,820.34
08/19/2024 0 3002 134.93
08/19/2024 0 3010 124.20
08/19/2024 0 3012 126.35
08/19/2024 0 3013 126.35
08/19/2024 0 3014 126.35
Total Employees: 24 Total: 40,298.63
PR- ACH Check Register (08/19/2024 - 10:37 AM) Page 1
User:

Printed: 07/30/2024 - 12:21PM
trish
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
Accounts Payable
Batch: 00030.07.2024
Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 102200 ABS DIRECT, INC Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: False 136425 RECYLING FLYER INSERT - JULY 2024 553.62 07/30/2024 1010-000-2764 136427 PAST DUE STATEMENTS FOR JUNE 22.93 07/30/2024 5070-800-7190 136427 PAST DUE STATEMENTS FOR JUNE 91.73 07/30/2024 5050-700-7190 136427 PAST DUE STATEMENTS FOR JUNE 22.94 07/30/2024 5072-800-7190 136427 PAST DUE STATEMENTS FOR JUNE 91.73 07/30/2024 5071-800-7190 136435 JULY STATEMENTS W/RECYLING FLYER INSERT 101.91 07/30/2024 5070-800-7190 136435 JULY STATEMENTS W/RECYLING FLYER INSERT 101.91 07/30/2024 5072-800-7190 136435 JULY STATEMENTS W/RECYLING FLYER INSERT 407.64 07/30/2024 5050-700-7190 136435 JULY STATEMENTS W/RECYLING FLYER INSERT 407.65 07/30/2024 5071-800-7190 MP-20240717 PREPAID POSTAGE 190.00 07/30/2024 5072-800-7540 MP-20240717 PREPAID POSTAGE 190.00 07/30/2024 5070-800-7540 MP-20240717 PREPAID POSTAGE 760.00 07/30/2024 5050-700-7540 MP-20240717 PREPAID POSTAGE 760.00 07/30/2024 5071-800-7540 Check Total: 3,702.06
Vendor: 110900 AT&T MOBILITY Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: False X07242024 IPAD CONNECTIVITY - 06/17 TO 07/16/2024 44.73 07/30/2024 1010-110-7811 Check Total: 44.73
Vendor: 144410 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (7173) Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False 0061316071924 INTERNET - MUSEUM 07/19 THROUGH 08/18/2024 86.23 07/30/2024 1010-550-7811 Check Total: 86.23
Vendor: 110800 CHUCK'S AUTO PARTS Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: False 918182 COOLANT FOR JOHN DEERE 6430 20.48 07/30/2024 5050-700-7420 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/30/2024 - 12:21 PM) Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 20.48
Vendor: 115200 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: False SL241148 SIGNALS & LIGHTING - APRIL THROUGH JUNE 2024 2,750.15 07/30/2024 1010-310-7820 Check Total: 2,750.15
Vendor: 115705 DG TIRES & WHEELS Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: False 860737 2 NEW TIRES FOR 2007 DODGE QUAD CAB 440.00 07/30/2024 5050-700-7430 Check Total: 440.00
Vendor: 200753 GREGORY DONGES Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: False 07302024 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE - PANTS 37.74 07/30/2024 1010-580-7580 07302024 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE - PANTS 37.75 07/30/2024 1010-310-7580 Check Total: 75.49
Vendor: 118800 FINANCIAL CREDIT NETWORK, INC Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: False 06302024 COLLECTION FOR ACT# 005925-000 SCHAFER 28.93 07/30/2024 5070-800-7190 06302024 COLLECTION FOR ACT# 005925-000 SCHAFER 28.93 07/30/2024 5071-800-7190 06302024 COLLECTION FOR ACT# 005925-000 SCHAFER 72.33 07/30/2024 5050-700-7190 06302024 COLLECTION FOR ACT# 005925-000 SCHAFER 14.47 07/30/2024 5072-800-7190 Check Total: 144.66
Vendor: 122560 GUARDIAN Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: False 07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 0.91 07/30/2024 5090-110-7120
07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 5.07 07/30/2024 5072-800-7120
07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 15.69 07/30/2024 1010-310-7120 07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 10.21 07/30/2024 1010-580-7120 07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 1.42 07/30/2024 1010-430-7120
07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 3.65 07/30/2024 1010-560-7120
07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 60.35 07/30/2024 5071-800-7120 07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 78.31 07/30/2024 5050-700-7120 07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 0.91 07/30/2024 1010-210-7120
07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 21.17 07/30/2024 1010-410-7120 07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 13.65 07/30/2024 5070-800-7120 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/30/2024 - 12:21 PM) Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 3.65 07/30/2024 2210-260-7120
07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 12.64 07/30/2024 1010-110-7120 07172024 AUGUST PREMIUMS 0.18 07/30/2024 1010-550-7120
Check Total: 227.81
Vendor: 124500 HOWK SYSTEMS Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: False 0325448-IN TROUBLE SHOOT SCADA - HICKMAN WELL 950.00 07/30/2024 5072-800-7420 Check Total: 950.00
Vendor: UB*01924 CHRISTINE MCCRUMB Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: False Refund Check 012391-000, 212 RIVER BEND LN 138.43 07/23/2024 5070-000-2010 Check Total: 138.43
Vendor: 131900 MID-VALLEY PUBLICATIONS Check Sequence: 12 ACH Enabled: False 344282 LEGAL NOTICE# 14442 - NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS 129.50 07/30/2024 1010-110-7720 Check Total: 129.50
Vendor: 200738 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: False 10873787 COBRA ADMIN - JULY 2024 200.00 07/30/2024 1010-110-7190 Check Total: 200.00
Vendor: 135325 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: False 3915-298161 JOHN DEERE 6430: ARTIC FREEZE 59.61 07/30/2024 5050-700-7420 Check Total: 59.61
Vendor: 136600 PG&E Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: False 1072630078-07 SERVICE PERIOD: 06/14 THROUGH 07/15/2024 4.33 07/30/2024 1010-310-7820 1072630078-07 SERVICE PERIOD: 06/14 THROUGH 07/15/2024 4.33 07/30/2024 1010-580-7820 1549682036-07 SERVICE PERIOD: 06/14 THROUGH 07/15/2024 8.66 07/30/2024 1010-560-7820 3023936607-07 SERVICE PERIOD: 06/14 THROUGH 07/15/2024 37.00 07/30/2024 1010-210-7820 5334599333-07 SERVICE PERIOD: 06/14 THROUGH 07/15/2024 8.66 07/30/2024 1010-110-7820 Check Total: 62.98
Vendor: 141221 ROLFE CONSTRUCTION Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: False AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/30/2024 - 12:21 PM) Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 6 PROGRESS PAYMENT #6 - TIM BELL PROJECT 138,117.15 07/30/2024 5075-800-8022 6 PROGRESS PAYMENT #6 - TIM BELL PROJECT 34,529.29 07/30/2024 4350-700-8300 Check Total: 172,646.44
Vendor: 209939 DYLAN SNAPP Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: False 141 PATROL SERVICES - JULY 2024 175.00 07/30/2024 5050-700-7300 141 PATROL SERVICES - JULY 2024 175.00 07/30/2024 5071-800-7300 141 PATROL SERVICES - JULY 2024 50.00 07/30/2024 5072-800-7300 141 PATROL SERVICES - JULY 2024 100.00 07/30/2024 5070-800-7300 Check Total: 500.00
Vendor: 144700 SPRINGBROOK HOLDING COMPANY LLC Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: False TM INV-007944 PS ONLY BEACON INTERFACE 483.00 07/30/2024 5071-800-7610 TM INV-007944 PS ONLY BEACON INTERFACE 138.00 07/30/2024 5070-800-7610 TM INV-007944 PS ONLY BEACON INTERFACE 690.00 07/30/2024 5050-700-7610 TM INV-007944 PS ONLY BEACON INTERFACE 69.00 07/30/2024 5072-800-7610 Check Total: 1,380.00
Vendor: 143300 THATCHER COMPANY, INC. Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: False 2024250103785 CHLORINE - WELL #303 BONNIE BRAE 1,436.36 07/30/2024 5071-800-7510 2024250103788 CHLORINE - WELL #1 & #2 FOUNTAIN DRIVE 855.19 07/30/2024 5070-800-7510 2024250103789 CHLORINE - WELL #302 REINWAY 1,086.07 07/30/2024 5071-800-7510 2024250103793 CHLORINE - WELL #286 REINWAY 1,054.22 07/30/2024 5071-800-7510 2024250103794 CHLORINE - WELL #242 DORSEY ST 600.43 07/30/2024 5071-800-7510 2024250103795 CHLORINE - WELL #272 LAKE RD - HICKMAN 632.29 07/30/2024 5072-800-7510 2024250103796 CHLORINE - WELL #309 6TH ST - HICKMAN 979.57 07/30/2024 5072-800-7510 Check Total: 6,644.13
Vendor: 150567 TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: False 07222024 HICKMAN POWER - 06/21 THROUGH 07/21/2024 1,755.70 07/30/2024 5072-800-7820 Check Total: 1,755.70
Vendor: 152800 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF NORTHERN CA & NV Check Sequence: 21 ACH Enabled: False 1324432024 USA TICKET RENEWAL 19.32 07/30/2024 5072-800-7510 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/30/2024 - 12:21 PM) Page 4 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 1324432024 USA TICKET RENEWAL 193.20 07/30/2024 5050-700-7510 1324432024 USA TICKET RENEWAL 135.25 07/30/2024 5071-800-7510 1324432024 USA TICKET RENEWAL 38.64 07/30/2024 5070-800-7510 Check Total: 386.41
Vendor: 131501 USA BLUEBOOK Check Sequence: 22 ACH Enabled: False INV00425755 WATER DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES - TUBING 27.89 07/30/2024 5071-800-7510 INV00425755 WATER DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES - TUBING 7.98 07/30/2024 5070-800-7510 INV00425755 WATER DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES - TUBING 3.99 07/30/2024 5072-800-7510 INV00429163 WASTE WATER DEPARTMENT - MANHOLE HOOKS & SLEDGE HAMMER/PICK 637.14 07/30/2024 5050-700-7510 Check Total: 677.00
Vendor: 157700 WILSON FAMILY PLUMBING, INC. Check Sequence: 23 ACH Enabled: False 12680 WATER LEAK REPAIR: YOSEMITE & WESTERN 2,256.82 07/30/2024 5071-800-7410 Check Total: 2,256.82
Total for Check Run:

Total of Number of Checks:
195,278.63
23 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/30/2024 - 12:21 PM) Page 5 User:

Printed: 08/05/2024 - 11:27AM
trish
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
Accounts Payable
Batch: 00005.08.2024
Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 105201 BANK OF THE WEST (IRS TAXES) Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: True PR Batch 00005.08.2024 FICA Employer Portion 234.06 08/05/2024 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 FICA Employer Portion PR Batch 00005.08.2024 Medicare Employer Portion 844.54 08/05/2024 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 Medicare Employer Portion PR Batch 00005.08.2024 FICA Employee Portion 234.06 08/05/2024 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 FICA Employee Portion PR Batch 00005.08.2024 Federal Income Tax 6,353.02 08/05/2024 1010-000-2220 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 Federal Income Tax PR Batch 00005.08.2024 Medicare Employee Portion 844.54 08/05/2024 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 Medicare Employee Portion Check Total: 8,510.22
Vendor: 108350 CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: True PR Batch 00005.08.2024 EDD TRAINING TAX 6.10 08/05/2024 1010-000-2260 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 EDD TRAINING TAX PR Batch 00005.08.2024 STATE UNEMPLOYMENT 95.40 08/05/2024 1010-000-2260 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 STATE UNEMPLOYMENT PR Batch 00005.08.2024 CALIFORNIA SDI 640.64 08/05/2024 1010-000-2260 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 CALIFORNIA SDI PR Batch 00005.08.2024 State Income Tax 2,119.88 08/05/2024 1010-000-2230 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 State Income Tax Check Total: 2,862.02
Vendor: 154101 MISSION SQUARE - 303352 Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False PR Batch 00005.08.2024 DEFERRED COM-457 - EMPLOYER PD 231.23 08/05/2024 1010-000-2285 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 DEFERRED COM-457 - EM PR Batch 00005.08.2024 DEFERRED COMP 457 - % 1,002.00 08/05/2024 1010-000-2280 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 DEFERRED COMP 457 - % PR Batch 00005.08.2024 DEFERRED COMP-457 545.00 08/05/2024 1010-000-2280 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 DEFERRED COMP-457 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 457 LOAN REPAY 325.85 08/05/2024 1010-000-2280 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 457 LOAN REPAY Check Total: 2,104.08
Vendor: 139400 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: True PR Batch 00005.08.2024 EMPLOYEE PERS CONTRIBUTION 3,764.65 08/05/2024 1010-000-2270 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 EMPLOYEE PERS CONTR PR Batch 00005.08.2024 EMPLOYER PAID PERS 4,913.19 08/05/2024 1010-000-2270 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 EMPLOYER PAID PERS AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/05/2024 - 11:27 AM) Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 8,677.84
Vendor: 148050 STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: False PR Batch 00005.08.2024 UNION DUES 199.39 08/05/2024 1010-000-2290 PR Batch 00005.08.2024 UNION DUES Check Total: 199.39
Total for Check Run:

Total of Number of Checks:
22,353.55
5 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/05/2024 - 11:27 AM) Page 2 User:

Printed: 08/07/2024 - 9:20AM
trish
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
Accounts Payable
Batch: 00008.08.2024
Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 103400 ANSWERNET Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: False 112-90018 ANSWERING SERVICE: 07/30 THROUGH 08/26/24 22.06 08/08/2024 5050-700-7810 112-90018 ANSWERING SERVICE: 07/30 THROUGH 08/26/24 22.06 08/08/2024 5071-800-7810 112-90018 ANSWERING SERVICE: 07/30 THROUGH 08/26/24 11.04 08/08/2024 1010-310-7810 Check Total: 55.16
Vendor: 105896 AYERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: False 589171 INTERNET - CITY HALL "AUGUST" 174.00 08/08/2024 1010-110-7811 589257 INTERNET - WWTP "AUGUST" 84.00 08/08/2024 5050-700-7811 Check Total: 258.00
Vendor: 105975 BELKORP AG, LLC Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False 1000817 JOHN DEERE 6430 - COMPLETE SERVICE 3,276.53 08/08/2024 5050-700-7420 Check Total: 3,276.53
Vendor: 108025 CALIFORNIA CONSULTING, INC. Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: False 7043 GRANT WRITING RETAINER - AUGUST 2024 3,000.00 08/08/2024 1010-110-7190 Check Total: 3,000.00
Vendor: 110800 CHUCK'S AUTO PARTS Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: False 917171 BELT REPLACEMENT 14.55 08/08/2024 1010-580-7420
Check Total: 14.55
Vendor: 157859 CLEARLY IP INC Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: False 10913451 VOIP SRVICES - AUGUST 2024 573.98 08/08/2024 1010-110-7810 10913451 VOIP SRVICES - AUGUST 2024 8.28 08/08/2024 5072-800-7810 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2024 - 9:20 AM) Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 10913451 VOIP SRVICES - AUGUST 2024 49.66 08/08/2024 5071-800-7810 10913451 VOIP SRVICES - AUGUST 2024 82.77 08/08/2024 5050-700-7810 10913451 VOIP SRVICES - AUGUST 2024 24.83 08/08/2024 5070-800-7810 10913451 VOIP SRVICES - AUGUST 2024 131.23 08/08/2024 1010-210-7810 Check Total: 870.75
Vendor: 117630 EYEMED Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: False 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 7.14 08/08/2024 5072-800-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 42.19 08/08/2024 5071-800-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 2.88 08/08/2024 1010-210-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 8.00 08/08/2024 2210-260-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 2.88 08/08/2024 5090-110-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 1.60 08/08/2024 1010-430-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 12.24 08/08/2024 5070-800-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 35.68 08/08/2024 1010-310-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 17.85 08/08/2024 1010-110-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 8.00 08/08/2024 1010-560-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 22.04 08/08/2024 1010-580-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 92.23 08/08/2024 5050-700-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 0.58 08/08/2024 1010-550-7120 166382543 AUGUST PREMIUMS 14.61 08/08/2024 1010-410-7120 Check Total: 267.92
Vendor: 121000 GILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: False 07312024 REINWAY PARK BIN RENTAL - JULY 2024 303.17 08/08/2024 1010-580-7410 Check Total: 303.17
Vendor: 138700 LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC. Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: False 44141062 CYLINDER RENTAL - 06/20 THROUGH 07/20/2024 45.36 08/08/2024 1010-310-7510 Check Total: 45.36
Vendor: 136625 PIONEER MARKET WATERFORD Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: False 08012024 OPERATING SUPPLIES - WATER & BREAKROOM 37.99 08/08/2024 1010-580-7510 08012024 OPERATING SUPPLIES - WATER & BREAKROOM 44.30 08/08/2024 1010-110-7732 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2024 - 9:20 AM) Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference 08012024 OPERATING SUPPLIES - WATER & BREAKROOM 3.80 08/08/2024 5072-800-7510 08012024 OPERATING SUPPLIES - WATER & BREAKROOM 70.22 08/08/2024 5050-700-7510 08012024 OPERATING SUPPLIES - WATER & BREAKROOM 26.58 08/08/2024 5071-800-7510 08012024 OPERATING SUPPLIES - WATER & BREAKROOM 7.60 08/08/2024 5070-800-7510 08012024 OPERATING SUPPLIES - WATER & BREAKROOM 37.99 08/08/2024 1010-310-7510 08012024 OPERATING SUPPLIES - WATER & BREAKROOM 67.70 08/08/2024 1010-110-7510 Check Total: 296.18
Vendor: 200693 PLATINUM DIRT WORX LLC Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: False 1 WWTP ROAD STABILIZATION - PROGRESS #1 535,969.19 08/08/2024 4350-700-8300 Check Total: 535,969.19
Vendor: 139055 PROCLEAN SUPPLY Check Sequence: 12 ACH Enabled: False 596155 OPERATING SUPPLIES - BATHROOM & CLEANING 56.76 08/08/2024 1010-110-7510 596155 OPERATING SUPPLIES - BATHROOM & CLEANING 55.19 08/08/2024 5071-800-7510 596155 OPERATING SUPPLIES - BATHROOM & CLEANING 55.20 08/08/2024 1010-580-7510 596155 OPERATING SUPPLIES - BATHROOM & CLEANING 55.20 08/08/2024 1010-310-7510 Check Total: 222.35
Vendor: 130200 ROBBINS BROWNING GODWIN & MARCHINI LLP Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: False 71524 LEGAL SERVICES - JULY 2024 3,037.52 08/08/2024 1010-110-7194 Check Total: 3,037.52
Vendor: 141221 ROLFE CONSTRUCTION Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: False 7 - FINAL TIM BELL WATER & SEWER - FINAL PAYMENT 83,357.07 08/08/2024 5075-800-8022 Pay # 5 TIM BELL WATER & SEWER - FINAL PAYMENT 257,865.27 08/08/2024 5075-800-8022 Pay # 5 TIM BELL WATER & SEWER - FINAL PAYMENT 64,466.32 08/08/2024 4350-700-8300 Check Total: 405,688.66
Vendor: 144700 SPRINGBROOK HOLDING COMPANY LLC Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: False INV-018053 CIVIC PAY - JULY 2024 418.25 08/08/2024 5071-800-7610 INV-018053 CIVIC PAY - JULY 2024 597.50 08/08/2024 5050-700-7610 INV-018053 CIVIC PAY - JULY 2024 119.50 08/08/2024 5070-800-7610 INV-018053 CIVIC PAY - JULY 2024 59.75 08/08/2024 5072-800-7610 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2024 - 9:20 AM) Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 1,195.00
Vendor: 146900 STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: False 2324-60 SHERIFF CONTRACT - JUNE 2024 163,294.61 08/08/2024 1010-210-7170 Check Total: 163,294.61
Vendor: 148600 STILES TRUCK BODY & EQUIPMENT, INC. Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: False 70906 2007 BOOM TRUCK - HYDRAULIC REPAIR 500.00 08/08/2024 1010-580-7430 Check Total: 500.00
Vendor: 148626 SUTTER HEALTH PLUS Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: False 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 5,350.61 08/08/2024 5050-700-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 129.73 08/08/2024 1010-430-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 1,404.32 08/08/2024 1010-110-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 1,939.21 08/08/2024 1010-310-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 901.35 08/08/2024 1010-580-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 427.45 08/08/2024 5072-800-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 299.09 08/08/2024 1010-410-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 86.26 08/08/2024 5070-800-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 -998.33 08/08/2024 5071-800-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 299.23 08/08/2024 1010-210-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 310.81 08/08/2024 2210-260-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 310.81 08/08/2024 1010-560-7120 3300418 PREMIUMS: SEPTEMBER 2024 149.62 08/08/2024 5090-110-7120 Check Total: 10,610.16
Vendor: 200761 TBS CONTRACTORS Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: False 4 PECAN & DORSEY IMPROVEMENTS - FINAL RETENTION 33,739.69 08/08/2024 2080-460-8290 Check Total: 33,739.69
Vendor: 150500 THORSEN'S INC. Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: False 1150238 AC REPAIR - PUBLIC WORKS BLDG: NEED TO REPLACE FAN MOTOR 438.75 08/08/2024 1010-310-7410 1150423 AC REPAIR - PUBLIC WORKS BLDG: REPLACE FAN MOTOR 730.95 08/08/2024 1010-310-7410 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2024 - 9:20 AM) Page 4 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 1,169.70
Vendor: 131501 USA BLUEBOOK Check Sequence: 21 ACH Enabled: False INV00425852 WATER DEPT - PUMPS, VALVES & TUBING 801.16 08/08/2024 5072-800-7420 INV00425852 WATER DEPT - PUMPS, VALVES & TUBING 1,602.32 08/08/2024 5070-800-7420 INV00425852 WATER DEPT - PUMPS, VALVES & TUBING 5,608.13 08/08/2024 5071-800-7420 Check Total: 8,011.61
Total for Check Run:

Total of Number of Checks:
1,171,826.11
21 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2024 - 9:20 AM) Page 5 User:

Printed: 08/19/2024 - 11:03AM
trish
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
Accounts Payable
Batch: 00019.08.2024
Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 105201 BANK OF THE WEST (IRS TAXES) Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: True PR Batch 00019.08.2024 Medicare Employee Portion 844.07 08/19/2024 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 Medicare Employee Portion PR Batch 00019.08.2024 Medicare Employer Portion 844.07 08/19/2024 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 Medicare Employer Portion PR Batch 00019.08.2024 FICA Employee Portion 234.06 08/19/2024 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 FICA Employee Portion PR Batch 00019.08.2024 Federal Income Tax 5,551.46 08/19/2024 1010-000-2220 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 Federal Income Tax PR Batch 00019.08.2024 FICA Employer Portion 234.06 08/19/2024 1010-000-2240 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 FICA Employer Portion Check Total: 7,707.72
Vendor: 108350 CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: True PR Batch 00019.08.2024 EDD TRAINING TAX 3.57 08/19/2024 1010-000-2260 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 EDD TRAINING TAX PR Batch 00019.08.2024 STATE UNEMPLOYMENT 59.21 08/19/2024 1010-000-2260 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 STATE UNEMPLOYMENT PR Batch 00019.08.2024 CALIFORNIA SDI 640.29 08/19/2024 1010-000-2260 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 CALIFORNIA SDI PR Batch 00019.08.2024 State Income Tax 1,772.98 08/19/2024 1010-000-2230 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 State Income Tax Check Total: 2,476.05
Vendor: 154101 MISSION SQUARE - 303352 Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False PR Batch 00019.08.2024 DEFERRED COMP 457 - % 1,002.00 08/19/2024 1010-000-2280 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 DEFERRED COMP 457 - % PR Batch 00019.08.2024 DEFERRED COM-457 - EMPLOYER PD 231.23 08/19/2024 1010-000-2285 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 DEFERRED COM-457 - EM PR Batch 00019.08.2024 457 LOAN REPAY 325.85 08/19/2024 1010-000-2280 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 457 LOAN REPAY PR Batch 00019.08.2024 DEFERRED COMP-457 1,045.00 08/19/2024 1010-000-2280 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 DEFERRED COMP-457 Check Total: 2,604.08
Vendor: 139400 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: True PR Batch 00019.08.2024 EMPLOYER PAID PERS 5,169.50 08/19/2024 1010-000-2270 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 EMPLOYER PAID PERS PR Batch 00019.08.2024 EMPLOYEE PERS CONTRIBUTION 3,945.65 08/19/2024 1010-000-2270 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 EMPLOYEE PERS CONTR AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/19/2024 - 11:03 AM) Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Pmt Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 9,115.15
Vendor: 148050 STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: False PR Batch 00019.08.2024 UNION DUES 199.34 08/19/2024 1010-000-2290 PR Batch 00019.08.2024 UNION DUES Check Total: 199.34
Total for Check Run:

Total of Number of Checks:
22,102.34
5 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/19/2024 - 11:03 AM) Page 2 Consent Calendar 3c
September 5, 2024
Patricia Krause, City Clerk / Administrative Services Director City Council Staff Report
Motion: Approving Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held August 1st, 2024.

SUMMARY:

Consider approving minutes from the August 1st, 2024 Regular City Council meeting.

ANALYSIS:

Approve Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on August 1st, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

N/A
ALTERNATIVES:

1. Direct the City Clerk to make amendments to the minutes and bring them back for approval at a future City Council meeting.

2. Take no action.

ATTACHMENTS:
• City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of August 1st, 2024.

MINUTES

WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR

MEETING WATERFORD CITY HALL, CITY
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 101 “E” STREET,

WATERFORD, CA
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR GOEKEN AT: 6:30 pm
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Goeken
INVOCATION: Pastor Dave McGaffee, Assembly of God Church ROLL CALL PRESENT:

Mayor Goeken
Vice Mayor Kitchens
Councilmember Harris
Council Member Hilton
ABSENT: Council Member Talbott
STAFF PRESENT:

Michael Pitcock, City Manager
Patricia Krause, City Clerk / Administrative Services Director Lonnie Statzer, Public Works Director
Corbett Browning, City Attorney
David Mullins, Police Chief
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (CM Hilton / VM Kitchen / 4-0) to adopt the Agenda.

AYES: Goeken, Harris, Hilton, Kitchens, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Talbott
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4-0.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION:

None.

WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING – August 1, 2024 - 6:30 PM

1. 2.

None

3. 3a: MOTION: Waiving all Readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, except by title. 3b: RESOLUTION: Adopting Resolution 2024-39, Approving the Warrant Register in the Amount of $1,145,784.25 for the Period of July 8 to July 22, 2024. 3c: MOTION: Approving Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held July 18, 2024. 3d: MOTION: Approving the Appointment of Dean Gray to the Planning Commission, for a 2-Year Term Ending July 2026 by majority vote of the City Council as provided in Waterford Municipal Code Section 2.24.010.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (CM Hilton / CM Harris / 4-0) to adopt the Consent Calendar.

AYES: Goeken, Harris, Hilton, Kitchens, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Talbott
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4-0.

4. 5.

6. 6a: MOTION: Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (STRGBA) Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Member Agencies. (Pitcock)
ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (VM Kitchens / Hilton / 4-0) to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (STRGBA) Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Member Agencies.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

PRESENTATION

GENERAL BUSINESS

FINAL READINGS

ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR

PUBLIC HEARINGS
AYES: Goeken, Harris, Hilton, Kitchens, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Talbott
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4-0.
6b: MOTION: Designating a Voting Delegate and Alternate to the League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting. (Krause)
ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (CM Goeken / VM Kitchens / 4-0) to Designate a Voting Delegate and Alternate to the League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting.

AYES: Goeken, Harris, Hilton, Kitchens, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Talbott
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4-0.
6c: RESOLUTION: Approving Resolution 2024-38, Opposing Conveyance of Groundwater out of the Modesto Subbasin and outside the City’s Municipal Water System District. (Pitcock) ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (CM Hilton / CM Harris / 4-0) Approving Resolution 2024-38, Opposing Conveyance of Groundwater out of the Modesto Subbasin and outside the City’s Municipal Water System District.

AYES: Goeken, Harris, Hilton, Kitchens, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Talbott
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4-0.

7. 8.
8a: City Project List

9. 9a: City Staff
Public Works Director Statzer gave Council an update on the park improvement list and has so far spent $60,000 of the $100,000 allocated.

Sgt. Ciscero updated the calls for service, citations and vehicle thefts for July. Sgt. Ciscero reminded Council that National Night Out is being held on August 6th, 2024.

City Clerk informed council of the nomination period dates for the election on November 5th, 2024.

City Attorney Browning had no comments.

STAFF/COUNCIL COMMENTS AND MEETING REPORTS

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER WATERFORD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY City Manager Pitcock informed the Council that the Waterstone Subdivision project would be coming to Council in the near future for a zoning change. Mr. Pitcock updated the Council on the AM/PM project as well as potential residential development. City Manager Pitcock informed the Council that he would be on vacation for part of the following week and would be out of phone range. 9b: City Council
Councilmember Hilton had no comments.

Vice Mayor Kitchens had no comments.

Councilmember Harris stated she is looking forward to National Night Out.

Mayor Goeken thanked the Museum for the luncheon they provided and welcomed his new Granddaughter.

10. ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (CM Hilton / CM Harris / 4-0) to adjourn the meeting at 6:44 PM.

AYES: Goeken, Harris, Hilton, Kitchens, Talbott
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Talbott
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 4-0.

11. 12. 12.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Waterford City Council at a regular meeting held on September 5, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

CITY OF WATERFORD:
________________________
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia Krause, CMC, City Clerk

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT / RECESS

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
General Business 5a
September 5, 2024
Mike Pitcock, City Manager
City Council Staff Report
Ordinance: Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 2024-05 amending Waterford municipal code title 8, entitled “Health and Safety,” by amending chapter

8.34 entitled “Marijuana and Cultivation”
SUMMARY:

The City Council is being asked to approve the Introduction and First reading of Ordinance 2024- 01 amending Waterford municipal code title 8, entitled “Health and Safety,” by amending chapter 8.34 entitled “Marijuana and Cultivation.”
ANALYSIS:

At the July 18, 2024 council meeting, the City Council made a request that staff bring back a proposed ordinance amendment to reduce the number of cannabis dispensaries permitted in the City from two (2) to one (1). The attached ordinance amendment is provided for consideration and direction. Should the council wish to amend the ordinance, council would need to approve the Introduction and First Reading and a Final Reading and Approval will be brought to council on September 19, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Currently only one dispensary is doing business in Waterford and no reduction in revenue is expected.

However, not allowing a second dispensary to open could curtail possible revenue in the future.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

N/A
ALTERNATIVES:

1. Not approve the Ordinance. This would allow a second dispensary to do business in the future.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Ordinance Amendment.

ORDINANCE 2024-05
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-05

AN ORDINANCE OF THE WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING WATERFORD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 8, ENTITLED “HEALTH AND SAFETY,” BY AMENDING CHAPTER 8.34 ENTITLED “MARIJUANA AND CULTIVATION”
WHEREAS, the City of Waterford is amending Municipal Code Title 8, entitled “HEALTH AND SAFETY,” by amending Chapter 8.34 entitled “Marijuana and Cultivation.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Title 8, Chapter 8.34 entitled “Marijuana and Cultivation” is hereby amended as follows:

Stricken through text represents deletions to the Waterford Municipal Code, and underlined text represents additions to the Waterford Municipal Code.

TITLE 8

HEALTH AND SAFETY
Chapter 8.34 Cannabis Regulations
Article 1. Cannabis Business Pilot Program

8.34.040 Cannabis Dispensary Dispensaries.

A. One (1) cannabis dispensary Up to two (2) cannabis dispensaries may be permitted pursuant to a development agreement and a conditional use permit, subject to the requirements in Title 17 of the Waterford Municipal Code.

B. Cannabis dispensary dispensaries shall only be allowed within fully enclosed buildings.

C. Any commercial cannabis activity related to delivery shall maintain all applicable state licenses and locally required permits and licenses.

D. Cannabis dispensary All cannabis dispensaries shall maintain all applicable state licenses and comply with all of the following:

1. Floor Plan. A scaled floor plan for each level of each building that makes up the business site, including the entrances, exits, walls, and operating areas.

2. Site Plan. A scaled site plan of the business site, including all buildings, structures, driveways, parking lots, landscape areas, and boundaries.

ORDINANCE 2024-05

3. Statement of Owner’s Consent. Written consent of the owner or landlord of the proposed site to operate a cannabis dispensary, specifying the street address and parcel number.

4. Security.
i. Security Surveillance Cameras. Security surveillance cameras and a video recording system shall be installed to monitor all doors into the buildings on the business site, the parking lot, loading areas, and all exterior sides of the property adjacent to the public rights of way. The cameras and recording system shall be of adequate quality, color rendition, and resolution to allow the identification of any individual present on the business site. The recording system shall be capable of exporting the recorded video in standard MPEG formats to another common medium, such as a DVD or USB drive. ii. Security Video Retention. Video from the security surveillance cameras shall be recording at all times (twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week) and the recording shall be maintained for at least ninety (90) days. The video recordings shall be made available to the City upon request.
iii. Alarm System. Professionally and centrally-monitored fire, robbery, and burglar alarm systems shall be installed and maintained in good working condition. The alarm system shall include a private security company that is required to respond to every alarm.

5. Odor Control. A detailed plan describing the air treatment system, or other methods that will be implemented to prevent cannabis odors from being detected outside the business site.

6. Tax Compliance. A cannabis dispensary shall maintain any applicable tax certificates and permits, and timely remit any taxes due to the appropriate government entity.

7. Insurance. A cannabis dispensary shall maintain certificates of commercial general liability insurance and endorsements and certificates of all other insurance related to the operation of the cannabis business.

8. Waste Management Plan. A cannabis dispensary shall submit and comply with an approved commercial cannabis waste management plan describing how commercial cannabis waste will be disposed.

SECTION 2. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by the California Constitution and State law.

SECTION 3. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) which is the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this

ORDINANCE 2024-05
Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. To the extent the provisions of the Waterford Municipal Code as amended by this Ordinance are substantially the same as the provisions of that Code as they read immediately prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, then those provisions shall be construed as continuations of the earlier provisions and not as new enactments.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of adoption and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 7. ENACTMENT: Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage and adoption thereof, this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Stanislaus, State of California, together with names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Waterford this 5
th day of September, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

CITY OF WATERFORD
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

PATRICIA KRAUSE, CMC, City Clerk CORBETT J. BROWNING, City Attorney Public Hearing Item 5b
September 5, 2024
Mark Niskanen, Planning Manager
City Council Staff Report
City Council to Consider Adoption of the Following:

Resolution: Resolution 2024-42, Approving Planning Commission Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Rezone No. 2024-01 and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. VTSM 2024-01 for the Waterstone at Waterford Project.

Ordinance: Ordinance 2024-06, Approving Planning Commission Recommendation to Introduce an Ordinance approving and adopting Rezone of 4.81± acres; as to Assessor Parcel Number 080-023-036 from Residential Single (RS) District to Planned Community (PC) 2024-01 (PC #2024-01).

Resolution: Resolution 2024-43, Approving Planning Commission Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. VTSM 2024-01 to subdivide a 4.81± acre parcel into thirty (30) single-family residential lots.

SUMMARY:

Rezone and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2024-0001, hereto referred to as “Proposed Project” consists of rezoning the subject parcel from RS, Residential Single to PC, Planned Community and to subdivide the 4.81± acre parcel into thirty (30) single-family residential lots. The Proposed Project is located east of Tim Bell Road and south of Modesto Irrigation District’s Waterford Lower Main Canal lateral; the subject property is identified as Assessor Parcel Number 080-023-036. A Location Map, which illustrates the Proposed Project’s location, is provided below:

The City’s Vision 2025 General Plan designates the subject property for Low-Density Residential (LDR) land uses, and it is zoned Residential Single (RS). The subject property is bounded by the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) canal to the north, single-family residential properties along Tisdell Drive and Enid Drive to the east, Bentley Street and single-family residential properties to the south, and Tim Bell Road to the west. The table below depicts the subject property’s surrounding Vision 2025 General Plan land use designations and zoning:

Land Use Zoning Designation General Plan Designation
North Residential Residential Single (RS) Low Density Residential (LD) East Residential Residential Single (RS) Low Density Residential (LD) South Residential Residential Single (RS) Low Density Residential (LD) West Residential Public/Semipublic (PS) and
Residential Single (RS)
Low Density Residential (LD)
and Open Space/Parks (OS)
ANALYSIS:

The applicant is proposing to Rezone 4.81± acres from Residential Single (RS) to Planned Community (PC) and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for the development of a subdivision consisting of thirty (30) new single-family residential lots.

General Plan
As noted above, the subject property is designated for Low Density Residential (LD) land uses per the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan. The LD land use designation allows for a density range of four (4) to six (6) dwelling units per gross acre and “consists primarily of single-family detached housing, but a diversity of single-family housing types, such as condominium and zero-lot-line units can be developed.” The Proposed Project consists of a density of six (6) dwelling units per gross acre, and therefore is consistent with the land use designation provided by the City’s Vision 2025 General Plan. In addition, the Proposed Project is consistent with the following Vision 2025 General Plan Policies:

Policy L-1.2 Encourage a diversity of building types, ownership, prices, designs, and site plans for residential areas throughout the City.

Policy L-1.3 Encourage a diversity of lot sizes in residential subdivisions.

Policy L-1.6 Continue to pursue quality single-family and higher density residential development.

Policy L-1.8 Create livable and identifiable residential neighborhoods.

Rezone from Residential Single (RS) to Planned Community (PC) A component of the Proposed Project is to rezone the subject property from Residential Single (RS) to Planned Community (PC) 2024-01. The RS zone district allows for single-family residential development with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, which is typical of the RS zone district. The Applicant is proposing a PC to allow for site specific development standards for the subdivision.

Chapter 17.30: PC Planned Community District defines the requirements for Planned Community developments. The purpose of the PC is to “encourage creative and efficient land uses, to encourage mixed or multiple projects, to permit variations from the density, height and other standards in the various zones and to permit development based on a high standard of performance and design.” The table below depicts the development standards contained in the RS zone district (Chapter 17.20 of the City’s Municipal Code) and the proposed PC.

Development Standard RS Zone District Proposed PC
Lot Dimensions
Lot Size (Minimum) 6,000 square feet 3,500 square feet
Lot Width (Minimum) Interior - 55-feet
Corner – 65-feet
Interior – 45-feet
Corner – 45-feet
Lot Coverage (Maximum) 40% 55%
Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 15-feet 15-feet
Rear 10-feet 8-feet
Side Interior – 5-feet
Corner – 10-feet
Interior – 5-feet
Corner – 10-feet
As illustrated above, the Proposed Project includes variations of development standards from the RS zone district including lot size, width, and setbacks. As it pertains to lot size, the 3,500 square foot standard applies only to Lots 2, 3, and 4. On average, lots within the Proposed Project are within the 5,000 – 6,000 square foot range.

The development of lands zoned PC are also required to adhere to a development schedule (Section

17.30.080 of the City’s Municipal Code), which defines the timing in which the project will be initiated and developed. The Applicant has represented that development of the Proposed Project, should it be approved by the City of Waterford, will be initiated in Spring 2025 and will be built in one (1) phase.

City staff has reviewed the proposed Rezone and associated development standards and recommends approval to the Planning Commission.

Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
The Applicant is requesting a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Attachment 4) as part of the overall application, which would subdivide the existing parcel into 30 single family residential lots. The purpose of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is to create new parcels for the development of single-family residential units. Access to the Proposed Project will be provided via extending Enid Drive and its connection to Tim Bell Road. Enid Drive will connect easterly to its existing location.

The Applicant will be required to install frontage improvements along Tim Bell Road, which includes curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on Tim Bell Road as it crosses the MID canal. A Way will be installed and stubbed to the south to accommodate future development for properties located immediately south of the Proposed Project. Perimeter fencing includes a masonry wall along the canal and wood fencing to the south, east, and west. All utilities, including water, sewer, and storm drainage will be provided by the City of Waterford.

The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and has determined that the map is complete and complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16 of the City’s Municipal Code).

PLANNING COMMISSION:

On July 23, 2024, the Planning Commission held a regularly scheduled public hearing to consider the Proposed Project. Upon completion of the presentation, the Planning Commission opened the hearing for Public Comment. In attendance were residents who live in the adjacent neighborhood and along Enid Drive. Residents stated that they do not oppose the Proposed Project; however, the same residents do not want Enid Drive extended from its current end point through to Tim Bell Road. Residents expressed concerns regarding traffic speeds and child safety should Enid Drive be extended through to Tim Bell Road. Both the Developer and City Staff discussed traffic calming measures included as part of the design presented to the Planning Commission including the curvature of Enid Drive. Further, the Developer agreed to meet with residents of the neighborhood to discuss additional measures which could be included as part of the final design. Subsequent deliberation by the Planning Commission took place, resulting in a three (3) to one (1) vote, adopting Resolutions No. 2024-04, -05, and -06, recommending to the City Council of the City of Waterford to approve the Proposed Project with an added condition for traffic calming. The singular nay vote was strictly based on the Commissioner’s opinion that staff should present a traffic calming resolution to the Planning Commission prior to the Planning Commission taking action.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time and resources have been utilized for the processing of this application. However, the applicant has paid the applicable application fees for this Rezone and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.

The Proposed Project will also pay the applicable Building Permit Fees at the time of Building Permit issuance, and annex into CFD 2019-01 to allow for long-term maintenance of public facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

City staff has prepared and circulated an Initial Study to evaluate possible environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. The Public Review Draft Initial Study was released for public review on May 21, 2024, which concluded on June 20, 2024. City staff posted the Public Review Draft Initial Study in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and mailed copies of the Notice of Availability to properties within a 300-foot radius of the Project site. In total, the City received one (1) written comment letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). City staff’s review of the written comment letter received determined that the CRWQCB did not raise any concerns above what was analyzed in the Public Review Draft Initial Study.

Therefore, based on the evaluation contained in the Public Review Draft Initial Study, City staff has determined that the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, City staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 4f) in accordance with Article 6 of the CEQA Guidelines and is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

In accordance with Section 17.79.020(c) of the WMC, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Waterford News on July 9. In addition, Public Notices were distributed on July 9, 2024, via U.S. Mail to residents within a 300-foot radius of the Project Site. As of the writing of this Staff Report, the City has not received any comments.

ODINANCE REVISION PROCESS:

Ordinance 2024-XX is before the City Council for a public hearing to consider approving the Introduction and First Reading by title only. A summary of the Ordinance will be published in the Waterford News and will come back to the City Council as a public hearing item at the next council meeting to consider the Second Reading by title and Adoption. After adoption, an Ordinance Summary will be published in the Waterford News and will become effective and in full force on and after thirty (30) days of its passage and adoption.

ATTACHMENTS:
4a: City Council Resolution No. 2024-42 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) 4b: City Council Ordinance No. 2024-06 (Rezone)
4c: City Council Resolution No. 2024-43 (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map) 4d: Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
4e: Floor Plans and Colored Elevations
4f: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 2024-04, -05, and -06

WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-42

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD CITY

COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR REZONE NO. RZ 2024-01 AND
VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. VTSM
2024-01; FOR ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 080-023-036
(TIM BELL ROAD)
WHEREAS, a request has been submitted by FH Land Investment, LLC (4805 Sisk Road, Modesto, CA 95357) Applicant on behalf of the Property Owner of Record (Mr. David Hendrick) as to Assessor Parcel Number 080-023-036, for a zone change of said property from Residential Single (RS) to Planned Community 2024-01 (PC #2024-01), to allow a single-family residential development and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision to subdivide the 4.81± acre parcel into thirty (30) single-family residential lots, located on Tim Bell Road; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is located in the Low Density Residential (LD) land use designation of the City’s General Plan Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and may involve potentially significant effects on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the Lead Agency has prepared and circulated for public and agency review an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) addressing the potential environmental effects of the proposed project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to adopt the IS/MND also identifying the date of this meeting was published in the Waterford News; and,
WHEREAS, a copy of the IS/MND is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a special public hearing on July 23, 2024, and recommended that the City Council approve a Negative Declaration for RZ 2024-01 and VTSM 2024-01; and
WHEREAS, the notice of the special public hearing on the proposed Rezone and VTSM was published in the Waterford News, a newspaper of general circulation, on August 20, 2024; and WHEREAS, notices of the special public hearing on the proposed Rezone and VTSM were mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the property, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, on August 20, 2024; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

RES 2024-42
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Waterford makes the following findings and determinations:

1. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City of Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan, and specifically, the Low Density Residential (LD) land use designation assigned by the Vision 2025 General Plan.

2. The site is physically suitable for the density and/or intensity of the Proposed Project.

The proposed density is approximately six (6) dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the LD land use density range of 4 – 6 dwelling units per acre.

3. The Proposed Project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. a. As per Sections 15182 and 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, this Project is within the scope of the projects covered by the Vision 2025 General Plan Final EIR.

4. A Notice of Determination pertaining to this matter shall be filed with the County Clerk within five (5) business days of this resolution, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Documents and materials related to the IS/MND shall be maintained at Waterford City Hall.

5. Constitutionality, severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word of this resolution is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the resolution. The Planning Commission of the City of Waterford hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section(s), subsection(s), sentence(s), clause(s), phrase(s), or word(s) be declared invalid.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL that it approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Rezone No. RZ 2024-01 and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. VTSM 2024-01.

The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Waterford, Stanislaus County, at a special meeting held on September 5, 2024, moved for adoption by Council Member ________ and duly seconded by Council Member _________; passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RES 2024-42
RES 2024-42

CITY OF WATERFORD
_________________________________
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Corbett J. Browning, City Attorney
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia Krause, CMC, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A – INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RES 2024-42
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE
WATERSTONE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
Waterford, CA
May 2024
Prepared for:

City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, CA 95386
Prepared by:

BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.
802 W. Lodi Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240
RES 2024-42
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE
WATERSTONE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
Waterford, CA
May 2024
Prepared for:

City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, CA 95386
209-874-2328
Prepared by:

BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.
802 W. Lodi Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240
209-224-8213
www.basecampenv.com
RES 2024-42
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. General Project Information v
B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected vi
C. Lead Agency Determination vii
Chapter 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Brief 1-1

1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 1-1

1.3 Project Background 1-2

1.4 Environmental Evaluation Checklist Terminology 1-3

1.5 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 1-4 Chapter 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Overview 2-1

2.2 Project Location 2-1

2.2 Project Details 2-2

2.4 Permits and Approvals 2-3
Chapter 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION FORM

3.1 Aesthetics 3-1

3.2 Agriculture Resources 3-3

3.3 Air Quality 3-5

3.4 Biological Resources 3-10

3.5 Cultural Resources 3-17

3.6 Energy 3-19

3.7 Geology and Soils 3-21

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-26

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-29
RES 2024-42
ii

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-32

3.11 Land Use and Planning 3-36

3.12 Mineral Resources 3-39

3.13 Noise 3-39

3.14 Population and Housing 3-44

3.15 Public Services 3-46

3.16 Recreation 3-49

3.17 Transportation 3-50

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 3-55

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems 3-57

3.20 Wildfire 3-61

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-63
Chapter 4.0 REFERENCES

4.1 Document Preparers 4-1

4.2 References Cited 4-1

4.3 Persons Consulted 4-5
Chapter 5.0 NOTES RELATED TO EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5-1

APPENDICES
A. Air Quality Modeling Results
B. Biological Resource Materials
C. Cultural Resource Materials
D. Geotechnical Investigation - Site A
E. Transportation Impact Analysis
RES 2024-42
iii

LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-11 2-1 Project Sites 2-1
3-1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status 3-6
3-2 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds and Estimated Project Emissions 3-8 3-3 Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in Project Vicinity 3-12 3-4 Exterior Noise Limits by Receiving Land Use 3-40
3-5 Maximum Construction Noise Limits by Receiving Land Use 3-41 3-6 Construction Equipment Noise Levels 3-42
3-7 Intersection Operations under Existing Conditions Without and 3-53 With Projects

LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Regional Project Location 1-5
1-2 USGS Map 1-6
1-3 Aerial Photo 1-7
1-4A Site A Assessor Parcel Map 1-8
1-4B Site B Assessor Parcel Map 1-9
1-4C Site C Assessor Parcel Map 1-10
2-1 Site A Tentative Subdivision Map 2-4
2-2 Site B Tentative Subdivision Map 2-5
2-3 Site C Tentative Subdivision Map 2-6
RES 2024-42
iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT AB Assembly Bill
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ARB California Air Resources Board
BMP Best Management Practice
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEnviroScreen California Communities Environmental Health Screening CALGreen California Green Building Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dBA A-weighted decibel
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHG greenhouse gas
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
LOS Level of Service
MID Modesto Irrigation District
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District StanCOG Stanislaus Council of Governments
StanRTA Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
RES 2024-42
v
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. General Project Information
Project Title: Waterstone Residential Subdivisions
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Waterford
101 E Street
Waterford, CA 95386
Contact Person and Phone Number: Mark Niskanen, Planning Manager 209-599-8377
Project Locations: At and near intersection of Bonnie Brae Avenue and Tim Bell Road, Waterford, CA
Project Sponsor Name and Address: UC Construction Company 4805 Sisk Road
Salida, CA 95368
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (all three sites) Zoning: RE – Rural Estates (Site #1), RS – Residential
Single (Sites #2 and #3)
Project Description: The project proposes a Tentative Subdivision Map for each of three sites that would subdivide each of
the three sites into single family residential lots, the total of which would be 113. Site A would be
subdivided into 30 lots, Site B would be subdivided
into 29 lots, and Site C would be subdivided into
54 lots. Public streets and utilities would be
provided on each site. All three sites would be
rezoned to PC, Planned Community.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: All three sites are in northern Waterford. Site A is bounded by residential development to the east and
southwest and by vacant land to the south. The
MID Waterford Lower Main Canal forms the
northern site boundary. Site B is surrounded by
residential development of varying densities and
vacant land, and the Modesto Irrigation District
(MID) Main Canal forms the approximate northern
site boundary. Site C is bounded by residential
development on its northwest and southeast
RES 2024-42
vi
corners and by vacant land along its northeastern
boundary. The Waterford Lower Main Canal forms
the southern site boundary, and Tim Bell Road
forms the western boundary.

Other Public Agencies Whose
Approval is Required: Modesto Irrigation District (encroachment).

Have California Native American All requesting tribes notified, and tribes traditionally and culturally no consultation was requested. affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation
begun?
B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below may be significantly affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” prior to mitigation.

Mitigation measures that would avoid potential effects or reduce them to a less than significant level have been prescribed for each of these effects, as described in the checklist and narrative on the following pages, and in the Summary Table at the end of Chapter 1.0. ⬜ Aesthetics ⬜ Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
⬜ Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources ⬜ Energy
Geology/Soils ⬜ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
⬜ Hazards/Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
⬜ Land Use ⬜ Mineral Resources
⬜ Noise ⬜ Population/Housing ⬜ Public Services
⬜ Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
⬜ Utilities/Service
Systems
⬜ Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
RES 2024-42
RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-1 May 2024

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Brief
This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Waterstone Residential Subdivisions Project (project). The project, which consists of three sites, is in northern Waterford in Stanislaus County (Figures 1-1 through 1-4C). UC Construction Company is the project applicant. The IS/MND has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

For the purposes of this CEQA analysis, the City of Waterford (City) is the Lead Agency for the project.

The project proposes a Tentative Subdivision Map for each of three sites that would subdivide each site into single-family residential lots, the total of which would be 118. Site A would be subdivided into 30 lots, Site B would be subdivided into 34 lots, and Site C would be subdivided into 54 lots. Public streets and utilities would be provided on each site, with connections to existing roadways in the area. To accommodate the proposed subdivisions, all three sites are proposed to be rezoned from their current zoning to PC, Planned Community. The rezoning, along with the Tentative Subdivision Maps, would require approval from the Waterford City Council, with the recommendation of the Waterford Planning Commission.

1.2 Purpose of Initial Study
CEQA requires that public agencies document and consider the potential environmental effects of the agency’s actions that meet CEQA’s definition of a “project.” Briefly summarized, a “project” is an action that has the potential to result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. A project includes the agency’s direct activities as well as activities that involve public agency approvals or funding. Guidelines for an agency’s implementation of CEQA are found in the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3).

Provided that a project is not exempt from CEQA, the first step in the agency’s consideration of its potential environmental effects is the preparation of an Initial Study.

The purpose of an Initial Study is to determine whether the project would involve “significant” environmental effects, as defined by CEQA, and to describe feasible mitigation measures that would avoid significant effects or reduce them to a level that is less than significant. If the Initial Study does not identify significant effects, then the agency ordinarily prepares a Negative Declaration. If the Initial Study notes significant effects but also identifies mitigation measures that would reduce these significant effects to a level that is less than significant, then the agency ordinarily prepares a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If, however, a project would involve significant effects that cannot be readily mitigated, then the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report. The RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-2 May 2024
agency may also decide to proceed directly with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report without first preparing an Initial Study.

The proposed project is a “project” as defined by CEQA and is not exempt from CEQA consideration. The City has determined that the project may potentially have significant environmental effects and therefore requires preparation of an Initial Study. This Initial Study describes the proposed project and its environmental setting, discusses the potential environmental effects of the project, and identifies feasible mitigation measures that would eliminate any potentially significant environmental effects of the project or reduce them to a level that would be less than significant. The Initial Study considers the project’s potential for significant environmental effects in the following subject areas:
● Aesthetics
● Agricultural Resources
● Air Quality
● Biological Resources
● Cultural Resources
● Energy
● Geology and Soils
● Greenhouse Gas Emissions
● Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
● Hydrology and Water Quality
● Land Use and Planning
● Mineral Resources
● Noise
● Population and Housing
● Public Services
● Recreation
● Transportation/Traffic
● Tribal Cultural Resources
● Utilities and Service Systems
● Wildfire
● Mandatory Findings of
Significance (including
Cumulative Impacts)
This Initial Study concludes that the project would have potentially significant environmental effects, but that all of these effects would be avoided or reduced to a level that would be less than significant with identified mitigation measures. The project applicant has accepted the obligation to implement all the mitigation measures. As a result, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and has issued a Notice of Intent to adopt the IS/MND for the project. The Notice of Intent, located just inside the cover of this document, shows the time available for public comment on the IS/MND.

1.3 Project Background
The three project sites are currently vacant with no existing structures. The Waterford General Plan, adopted in 2007, has designated all three project sites as Low Density Residential, which allows for single-family residential development, up to 6.0 dwellings per gross acre. The zoning for Sites A and C is currently RS – Residential Single, while Site B is zoned RE – Rural Estates. Both zones allow for single-family residences, but the RE zone allows less density of residential development than the RS zone.

The current Waterford Housing Element, an element of the Waterford General Plan, is designed to guide future housing development in Waterford in accordance with anticipated housing needs. Waterford was allocated a need of 525 housing units in the Regional Housing Needs Plan, prepared by the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG), for the 2014 to 2023 planning period. In addition, since Waterford did not have a Housing RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-3 May 2024
Element for the previous planning period of 2007 to 2014 certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, allocations made by StanCOG for that planning period were combined with those for the current planning period. Therefore, the combined need is 882 housing units. Of these housing units, 368 would be for above moderate-income households, and the remainder would be for households of moderate or lower income. It is anticipated that most of the total 882 units, including all above moderate-income units, would be provided by new construction. An inventory of vacant sites that could potentially be used for residential development included the three project sites (City of Waterford 2018).

The City has recently submitted a draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, after releasing the document for public review and comment. This Housing Element Update, which covers the years 2023 to 2031, states that StanCOG has determined the City would need to provide 557 housing units during the planning period, including 181 units for low- and very lowincome households. The City has identified a total of 278.4 net acres that are potentially available for single-family, multifamily, and mixed use residential development, which could realistically result in an additional 1,779 housing units (City of Waterford 2024).

1.4 Environmental Evaluation Checklist Terminology
The project’s potential environmental effects are evaluated in the Environmental Evaluation Checklist presented in Chapter 3.0 of this IS/MND. The checklist includes a list of environmental considerations against which the project is evaluated. For each question, the City determines whether the project would involve 1) a Potentially Significant Impact, 2) a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated, 3) a Less Than Significant Impact, or 4) No Impact.

A Potentially Significant Impact occurs when there is substantial evidence that the project would involve a substantial adverse change to the physical environment, i.e., the environmental effect may be significant, and mitigation measures have not been defined that would reduce the impact to a level that would be less than significant. If there is a Potentially Significant Impact entry in the Initial Study, then an EIR is required. No Potentially Significant Impacts are identified in this Initial Study.

An environmental effect that is Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated is a Potentially Significant Impact that can be avoided or reduced to a level that is less than significant with the application of defined mitigation measures. This Initial Study identifies several impacts that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

A Less Than Significant Impact occurs when the project would involve an environmental impact, but the impact would not cause a substantial adverse change to the physical environment that would require mitigation. This Initial Study identifies several impacts that are considered Less than Significant.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-4 May 2024
A determination of No Impact is self-explanatory. This Initial Study identifies several areas of environmental concern in which the project would have No Impact.

This IS/MND identifies certain potentially significant environmental effects that would be mitigated by implementation of existing provisions of law and standards of practice related to land use planning and environmental protection. Such provisions are identified and considered in the environmental impact analysis, and the degree to which they would reduce potential environmental effects is discussed. These protections are considered part of the existing regulatory environment and are assumed to counter the potential environmental effects of the project as discussed. Additional mitigation measures are described in this Initial Study when existing environmental protections are not adequate to avoid potential environmental effects or to reduce them to a level that is less than significant.

1.5 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures Table 1-1, which follows Figures 1-1 through 1-5, summarizes the results of the Environmental Evaluation Checklist and associated narrative discussion in Chapter 3.0 of this IS/MND. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed project are listed in the left-most column of this table. The level of significance of each impact is indicated in the second column. Feasible mitigation measures that are considered necessary to avoid or minimize any identified significant impacts are shown in the third column, and the significance of the impact after mitigation measures are applied is shown in the fourth column.

As previously noted, all potentially significant environmental effects identified in the IS/MND would be avoided or reduced to a level that would be less than significant with existing environmental protection measures or mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. For other issues, the project would have no impact or would have impacts that are less than significant.

RES 2024-42
BaseCamp
Figure 1-1
BaseCamp Environmental REGIONAL PROJECT LOCATION
San Diego Imperial
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
Ventura Los Angeles
Santa Barbara
Kern San Luis
Obispo
Inyo
Tulare
Kings Monterey
Fresno
San
Benito
Mono
Madera
Mariposa
Tuolumne
Calaveras
Amador Sacramento
Alpine
Santa
Clara
San
Joaquin
Contra
Costa
Merced
Marin
Solano
Stanislaus Alameda
Santa Cruz
San Mateo
San Francisco
www.csac.counties.org

PROJECT LOCATIONS
State Route 120
RES 2024-42
BaseCamp
Figure 1-2
BaseCamp Environmental USGS MAP

PROJECT SITES
SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle Map, Waterford CA, 2021.

RES 2024-42
Figure 1-3
BaseCamp Environmental AERIAL PHOTO SOURCE: Google Earth SITE B
SITE C
SITE A
RES 2024-42
Figure 1-4A
BaseCamp Environmental SITE A ASSESSOR PARCEL MAP

PROJECT LOCATION
SITE A
RES 2024-42
Figure1-4B
BaseCamp Environmental SITE B ASSESSOR PARCEL MAP

PROJECT LOCATION
SITE B
RES 2024-42
Figure 1-4C
BaseCamp Environmental SITE C ASSESSOR PARCEL MAP

PROJECT LOCATION
SITE C
RES 2024-42
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-11 May 2024
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.1 AESTHETICS
a) Scenic Vistas LS None required -
b) Scenic Resources and Highways NI None required -
c) Visual Character and Quality LS None required -
d) Light and Glare LS None required -

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a) Agricultural Land Conversion LS None required -
b) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or Williamson
Act Contract
NI None required -
c) Conflict with Forest Land Zoning NI None required -
d) Forest Land Conversion NI None required -
e) Conversion or loss of Farmland, Forestland, and
Timberland
NI None required -

3.3 AIR QUALITY
a) Consistency with Air Quality Plans LS None required - b) Cumulative Emissions LS None required -
c) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors LS None required -
d) Odors and Other Emissions LS None required -
RES 2024-42
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-12 May 2024
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Special-Status Species PS BIO-1: If project construction commences during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1 through
September 15), a pre-construction survey for nesting Swainson’s hawk shall be conducted within one-quarter mile of the construction site. If active nests are found, then a qualified biologist shall determine the need, if any, for temporal restrictions on construction. The determination shall utilize criteria set forth by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee in its 2000 report
Determining a Project’s Potential for Impacting Swainson’s Hawk. Any temporal restrictions advised by the biologist shall be implemented by the project.

BIO-2: If project construction commences during the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a pre-construction survey for nesting burrowing owls shall be completed on the construction site in accordance with CDFW guidelines described in the 1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If owls are present on the site, the biologist shall specify setbacks, construction timing or other mitigation needed to avoid significant effects on owls.

LS
b) Riparian and Sensitive Habitats, NI None required - c) Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands NI None required -
d) Fish and Wildlife Movement PS BIO-3: If tree removal is proposed during the general avian nesting season (March 1 through July 31), a preconstruction survey for all species of nesting birds shall be conducted. If active nests for any bird species are found, work in the vicinity of the nests shall be delayed until the young have fledged. No survey shall be required if tree removal occurs outside the general avian nesting season.

LS
e) Local Biological Requirements NI None required -
RES 2024-42
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-13 May 2024
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
f) Habitat Conservation Plans NI None required -

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Historic Resources NI None required -
b) Archaeological Resources PS CULT-1: If buried cultural or paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing
activities, work shall stop within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find. If necessary, the archaeologist or paleontologist will develop appropriate treatment
measures in consultation with the City of Waterford Community Development Department and other agencies
as appropriate. Treatment measures may include, but are not limited to, preservation in place or excavation under supervision of a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist.

LS
c) Human Burials LS None required -

3.6 ENERGY
a) Consumption of Energy Resources LS None required -
b) Conflict with Energy Plans LS None required -

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a-i) Fault Rupture Hazards NI None required -
a-ii) Seismic Ground Shaking LS None required -
a-iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure LS None required - a-iv) Landslides NI None required -
b) Soil Erosion LS None required -
RES 2024-42
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-14 May 2024
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
c) Geologic Instability PS GEO-1: The project applicant shall implement the recommendations contained in the report titled
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation -Update, Proposed Subdivision, Site-2 Tim Bell Road (APN: 080-023-036), Waterford, California, prepared by North American
Technical Services, Inc. on February 8, 2024. These recommendations address site preparation, fill placement and compaction, fill materials, temporary construction slopes, and foundations and slabs, among other issues.

These recommendations shall be implemented for design
and construction work on all three project sites.

LS
d) Expansive Soils PS Mitigation Measure GEO-1. LS
e) Adequacy of Soils for Sewage Disposal NI None required - f) Paleontological Resources PS Mitigation Measure CULT-1. LS

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a) Project GHG Emissions LS None required -
b) Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans LS None required -

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Hazardous Materials Transport, Use and Disposal LS None required - b) Upset and Accident Conditions LS None required -
c) Release of Hazardous Materials near Schools NI None required - d) Hazardous Materials Sites NI None required -
e) Public Airports NI None required -
f) Emergency Response and Evacuations PS HAZ-1: Prior to the start of project construction, the developer shall prepare and implement a Traffic Control LS
RES 2024-42
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-15 May 2024
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
Plan, which shall include such items as traffic control requirements, resident notification of access closure, and daily access restoration. The contractor shall specify dates and times of road closures or restrictions, if any, and shall ensure that adequate access will be provided for emergency vehicles. The Traffic Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Public Works and shall be coordinated with Waterford Police Services (Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department) and the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District if construction will require road closures or lane restrictions. g) Wildland Fire Hazards LS None required -

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Water Quality LS None required -
b) Groundwater Supplies and Recharge LS None required - c-i, ii, iii) Drainage Patterns and Runoff LS None required - c-iv) Flooding Hazards NI None required -
d) Release of Pollutants in Flood, Tsunami, or Seiche
Zones
NI None required -
e) Conflicts with Water Quality or Groundwater
Management Plans
LS None required -

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Division of Established Community NI None required - b) Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies and
Regulations
LS None required -
RES 2024-42
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-16 May 2024
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
a, b) Availability of Mineral Resources NI None required

3.13 NOISE
a) Generation of Noise Exceeding Local Standards PS NOISE-1: The City shall establish the following as conditions of approval for any permit that results in the use of construction equipment:
• In accordance with Waterford Municipal Code
Chapter 8.22, construction activities shall not occur between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends and
legal holidays.
• All construction equipment powered by internal
combustion engines shall be properly muffled and
maintained. Quiet construction equipment,
particularly air compressors, are to be selected
whenever possible.
• All stationary noise-generating construction
equipment such as generators or air compressors are
to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive
receptors nearest the project site.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is
prohibited, and in no case shall idling exceed five minutes per State regulation.

LS
RES 2024-42
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-17 May 2024
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between constructionrelated noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
b) Exposure to Groundborne Vibrations LS None required - c) Public Airport and Private Airstrip Noise NI None required -

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Unplanned Population Growth LS None required -
b) Displacement of Housing or People NI None required -

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
a-i) Fire Protection LS None required -
a-ii) Police Protection LS None required -
a-iii) Schools LS None required -
a-iv) Parks LS None required -
a-v) Other Public Facilities LS None required -

3.16 RECREATION
a, b) Recreational Facilities LS None required -

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
a) Conflicts with Transportation Programs and
Plans
LS None required -
RES 2024-42
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-18 May 2024
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b)
LS None required -
c) Traffic Hazards LS None required -
d) Emergency Access LS None required -

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a, b) Tribal Cultural Resources PS Mitigation Measure CULT-1 LS

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Relocation or Construction of Utility Facilities PS UTIL-1: Prior to final approval of the site plan, the project applicant shall prepare an improvement plan that shall show the locations of proposed utility lines and other facilities. The improvement plan(s) shall show how these facilities would connect to existing City utility systems and demonstrate compliance with City standards and
specifications pertinent to these facilities. The Waterford Department of Public Works shall review and approve the improvement plan.

LS
b) Water Supplies LS None required -
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity LS None required -
d, e) Solid Waste Services LS None required -

3.20 WILDFIRE
a) Emergency Response Plans and Emergency
Evacuation Plans
NI None required -
b) Exposure of Project Occupants to Wildfire
Hazards
NI None required -
RES 2024-42
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 1-19 May 2024
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
c) Installation and Maintenance of Infrastructure NI None required - d) Risks from Runoff, Post-Fire Slope Instability, or
Drainage Changes
NI None required -

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Findings on Biological and Cultural Resources PS Mitigation measures in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 above. LS b) Findings on Cumulatively Considerable Impacts LS None required - c) Findings on Adverse Effects on Human Beings LS None required - Notes: NI = No Impact; LS = Less Than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 2-1 May 2024

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Overview
The project proposes to subdivide three parcels in northern Waterford that are in proximity to each other into residential lots (see Figure 1-3). Table 2-1 lists the three project sites, with their Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs), their sizes, and proposed number of residential lots.

TABLE 2-1

PROJECT SITES
Site* APN Acres
Current
Zoning
Current GP
Designation
GP
density
(du/ac)
Proposed
Residential
Lots
Proposed
Density
(du/ac)
A 080-023-036 4.81 RS Low Density
Residential

4.0-6.0 30 6.24
B 080-021-028 (portion)
080-021-007 (portion)

7.18 RE Low Density
Residential

4.0-6.0 34 4.74
C 080-023-004 8.09 RS Low Density
Residential

4.0-6.0 54 6.67
TOTAL 20.08 118
* See Figure 1-3 for site locations.

2.2 Project Location
Project Site A is adjacent to and southeast of the intersection of Tim Bell Road and the Waterford Lower Main Canal operated by the Modesto Irrigation District (MID). This site consists of the parcel APN 080-023-036. Project Site B is located at the end of Quicksilver Street and Goldmine Avenue. Site B consists of the northern and central portions of parcels APN 080-021-028 and APN 080-021-007, which are adjacent to each other. Project Site C is adjacent to and north of Site A, east of Tim Bell Road. The Waterford Lower Main Canal separates Sites A and C. The MID Main Canal parallels the northeastern boundary of Site C, which consists of the parcel APN 080-023-004.

The project sites are shown on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Waterford, California, 7.5- minute quadrangle map as within Sections 27 and 28, Township 3 South, Range 11 East, Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian. The approximate latitude and longitude of Project Site A are 37° 38ʹ 46ʺ North and 120° 45ʹ 14ʺ West, respectively. The approximate latitude and longitude of Project Site B are 37° 38ʹ 55ʺ North and 120° 45ʹ 30ʺ West, respectively. The approximate latitude and longitude of Project Site C are 37° 38ʹ 50ʺ North and 120° 45ʹ 15ʺ West, respectively.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 2-2 May 2024

2.3 Project Details
The project proposes a Tentative Subdivision Map, per California Government Code Section 66426 et seq, for each of the three sites, totaling 20.08 acres, that would subdivide them into lots for single-family residences. Table 2-1 above shows the number of residential lots resulting from the subdivision of each of the sites. A more detailed description is provided below.

Site A
As indicated in Table 2-1, Site A consists of APN 080-023-036, which is approximately

4.81 acres. The project proposes to subdivide Site A into 30 residential lots ranging in size from 4,545 square feet to 8,074 square feet (Figure 2-1). Access to Site A would be provided by extension of the existing Enid Drive from the east onto the site, eventually connecting with Tim Bell Road along the western site boundary. Two side streets are proposed to be installed south of the Enid Drive extension. The width of the on-site streets would be approximately 50 feet.

Along the boundary with the existing residence to the west, a drainage swale would be installed with two pairs of NDS Flo-Well units, in stacked arrangement, with 12-inch grates. These units would be interconnected with 40 linear feet of a four-inch diameter perforated pipe laid in a deep rock trench approximately two feet wide and eight feet deep.

No other special features are proposed at this time.

As a result of discussions with MID, the project applicant has agreed to remove four existing concrete irrigation structures/valves connecting Site A with the bordering Waterford Lower Main Canal. The project applicant has also agreed to abandon existing irrigation lines on the site in place. The pipeline abandonment can be accomplished in Accordance with MID Standard Detail C55, “Concrete Plug for Concrete Pipeline”, or the contractor may elect to pump the entire pipeline full of concrete.

Site B
Site B consists of the northern and central portions of APNs 080-021-028 and 080-021- 007, which when combined would total approximately 7.18 acres. The total residential lot area would be 4.39 acres. The project proposes to subdivide Site B into 34 residential lots, ranging in size from approximately 4,047 square feet to 9,928 square feet (Figure 2-2).

Access to Site B would be provided by extensions of the existing Quicksilver Street and Goldmine Avenue from the west onto the site, with an internal street connecting the extensions. A cul-de-sac would extend south of the Goldmine Avenue extension to provide access to some of the parcels. The width of the on-site streets would be approximately 50 feet. No other special features are proposed at this time.

Site C
Site C consists of APN 080-023-004, which is approximately 8.09 acres. The project proposes to subdivide Site C into 54 residential lots, ranging in size from approximately 4,041 square feet to 8,007 square feet (Figure 2-3). Access to Site C would be provided by RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 2-3 May 2024
two streets extending east from Tim Bell Road, north of the intersection of Tim Bell Road and Bonnie Brae Avenue. Internal streets and a cul-de-sac would provide access to the lots.

The width of the on-site streets would be approximately 50 feet. No other special features are proposed at this time.

Other Project Features
It is expected that future development on the project sites would connect to the water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems operated by the City of Waterford. A sewer easement approximately 20 feet in width is proposed to be extended from Site B to Bonnie Brae Avenue. Water and sewer lines are available in the vicinity of the project sites; however, storm drainage facilities may need to be extended to, or constructed on, all the sites. Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, discusses the provision of facilities in more detail.

All internal streets would be constructed in accordance with City standards and specifications. As noted in Waterford General Plan Implementing Action 2.6.e, the City requires the provision of sidewalks in all new developments, except in industrial areas.

2.4 Permits and Approvals
All three project sites are designated by the Waterford General Plan as Low Density Residential. Sites A and C are zoned RS, Residential Single; however, Site B is zoned RE, Rural estates. The existing General Plan designations would be retained for the project sites. However, all three sites are proposed to be rezoned from their current zoning to PC, Planned Community, which permit variations from the density, height, and other standards in the various zones, including the residential zones.

Rezoning decisions are made by the Waterford City Council, with a recommendation from the Waterford Planning Commission. A decision on the proposed Tentative Subdivision Maps is also made by the City Council, with Planning Commission recommendation.

Encroachment permits from the City’s Public Works Department are required for any project work within local streets. An encroachment permit from MID would be required for any work that may affect the nearby laterals. Other permits and approvals that would be required from other agencies include the Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

RES 2024-42
Figure 2-1
BaseCamp Environmental SITE A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

DWG:

CHECKED:

SHEET
OF
REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION BY JOB #:

RES 2024-42
Figure 2-2
BaseCamp Environmental SITE B TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

DWG:

CHECKED:

SHEET
OF
REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION BY JOB #:

RES 2024-42
Figure 2-3
BaseCamp Environmental SITE C TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

DWG:

CHECKED:

SHEET
OF
JOB #:

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-1 May 2024

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following environmental evaluation considers the potential environmental effects of City approval of the proposed project, as described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description. The format of this evaluation is based on the Environmental Checklist presented in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
The project sites are mostly vacant and covered with grass and weeds. Trees are found in the northern part of Site B and scattered throughout Sites A and C. Outside of the trees, the most prominent visual feature on or adjacent to the project sites are the MID laterals that divide Sites A and C and border Site B. All three sites are within an urbanizing area of the City, with a mix of residential development and vacant land.

California Public Resources Code Section 21099 states that the aesthetic and parking impacts of residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant. While the project is proposed for residential development and may be considered an infill project, it is not within a transit priority area. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria of Section 21099, and the aesthetic impacts of the project are analyzed below.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-2 May 2024
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Scenic Vistas.

The City’s General Plan EIR defines a scenic vista as typically a rural area containing natural visual elements that can be seen from a distance. However, the General Plan EIR does not explicitly identify any scenic vistas from Waterford. Based on the definition provided, the most likely scenic vistas available from the project sites are views of the Sierra Nevada mountains and foothills to the east.

The project proposes the eventual development of single-family residences. These structures are relatively low in height and therefore would not substantially views of the Sierra Nevada. Project impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant. b) Scenic Resources.

As described above, the project sites are vacant and covered mostly with grass and weeds.

Trees are on two of the project sites; however, they are mostly ornamental. None are considered to have substantial scenic value. No other outstanding scenic resources are on the project sites.

According to the Caltrans list of designated scenic highways, there is only one officially designated state scenic highway within Stanislaus County: Interstate 5 from the San Joaquin County line to the Merced County line (Caltrans 2019). This scenic highway is in southwestern Stanislaus County, well away from the project sites. Stanislaus County does not have any designated scenic highways. The project would have no impact on scenic resources or scenic highways.
c) Visual Character and Quality.

Public views of Site B are currently from the ends of Quicksilver Street and Goldmine Avenue. While the visual character of Site B would change with proposed future development, this development would be consistent with the existing residential development in the area. As noted in b) above, no significant scenic resources are found on Site B.

Public views of Sites A and C are mainly from Tim Bell Road along their western boundaries. Existing views of the project sites are generally the same – vacant areas covered mostly with grass and weeds, with few distinctive visual features other than the trees and the MID laterals. As with Site B, the project proposes development of the two sites with a residential land use, which would be similar in visual character to the existing residential development in the vicinity. Project impacts on visual character and quality are considered less than significant.
d) Light and Glare.

The project would introduce lighting from new residential buildings and streetlights.

Project lighting would be similar to that in existing development in the area, mainly exterior RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-3 May 2024
lighting on buildings and along streets. As such, existing residential areas are unlikely to experience a noticeable increase in indirect illumination from project lighting.

Glare is mainly a result of sunlight reflection off flat building surfaces, with glass and reflective metal surfaces typically contributing to the highest degree of reflectivity. Glare from proposed residential development is expected to be limited, as the materials used would not typically be reflective. Project impacts related to light and glare are considered less than significant.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
Currently, the project sites are vacant and not used for agriculture. A review of Google Earth aerial photographs indicates that none of the project sites have been used for agriculture for at least the past 20 years.

The Important Farmland Maps, prepared by the California Department of Conservation as part of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, designate the viability of lands for farmland use, based on the physical and chemical properties of the soils. The maps categorize farmland, in decreasing order of soil quality, as “Prime Farmland,” “Farmland of Statewide Importance,” and “Unique Farmland," which together comprise "Farmland” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, as well as other categories. According to the 2018 Important Farmland Map of Stanislaus County, the project sites have land designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance (FMMP 2018).

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-4 May 2024
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Agricultural Land Conversion.

The project would facilitate urban development of land classified as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, which are Farmland as defined in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The total amount of converted Farmland would be approximately the same as the total project size – 20.08 acres.

The Waterford General Plan has designated all three project sites for residential development, and the City has zoned all three sites for such development. Given their relatively small sizes, it is unlikely that agriculture would be economically feasible for these sites in the future. Moreover, given the existence of residential development near these areas, there would likely be conflicts between potential agricultural operations and this development. Given this, the project sites are unlikely to be used for agriculture, and project impacts on Farmland conversion are considered less than significant. b) Agricultural Zoning and Williamson Act Lands.

The project sites are currently designated and zoned for residential use, not for agriculture.

The Williamson Act preserves agricultural land by means of a contract between the landowner and local government that keeps the contracted land in agricultural use in exchange for a lower property tax assessment. The project sites are not under a Williamson Act contract. The project would have no impact on agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts.
c, d) Forest Lands.

There are no forest lands on the project sites or in the vicinity. Neither the project sites nor any land in the vicinity is zoned as forest land or timberland. The project would have no impact on forest lands.
e) Indirect Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land.

The project sites are adjacent to urban development that is served by existing street and utility infrastructure provided by the City. The utility infrastructure would be extended to the project sites from the existing developed areas. There are no agricultural lands designated near the project sites, outside of land beyond the Main Canal. No infrastructure is proposed to be extended beyond the canal. The project would have no impact on indirect conversion of agricultural lands. As noted, there are no forest lands in the area, so the project would have no impact on indirect conversion of forest land.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-5 May 2024

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollutant control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
The project area is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which includes Stanislaus County and all or part of seven other Central Valley counties. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has jurisdiction over most air quality matters in the Air Basin. The SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing programs and regulations required by both the federal and California Clean Air Acts. Under their respective Clean Air Acts, both the State of California and the federal government have established ambient air quality standards for six criteria air pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. California has standards for four additional criteria pollutants under its Clean Air Act.

Table 3-1 shows the current attainment status of the Air Basin relative to the federal and State ambient air quality standards for the criteria pollutants. Except for ozone and particulate matter, the Air Basin is in attainment of, or unclassified for, all federal and State ambient air quality standards. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. The SJVAPCD currently has a 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard and the 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1- Hour Ozone Standard to attain federal ambient air quality standards for ozone.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid and liquid particles suspended in air, including dust, pollen, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) are subject to regulation, as both can be inhaled into the lungs. The SJVAPCD currently has a 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards to attain federal ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan to maintain its current PM10 attainment status.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-6 May 2024
TABLE 3-1

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Primary Standards State Standards
Ozone - One hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment/Severe Ozone - Eight hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2023.

CO is an odorless, colorless gas that is toxic in high concentrations. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels and is emitted directly into the air, unlike ozone. The main source of CO in the San Joaquin Valley is on-road motor vehicles (SJVAPCD 2015). The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is in attainment/unclassified status for CO; as such, the SJVAPCD has no CO attainment plans. However, high CO concentrations may occur in areas of limited geographic size referred to as “hotspots,” which are ordinarily associated with areas of heavy traffic volumes and congestion.

In addition to the criteria pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has also identified other air pollutants as toxic air contaminants (TACs) - pollutants that are carcinogenic (i.e., cause cancer) or that may cause other adverse short-term or long-term health effects. Diesel particulate matter, considered a carcinogen, is the most common TAC, as it is a product of combustion in diesel engines. Other TACs are less common and are typically associated with industrial operations. However, the dispensing of fuel at fueling stations has the potential to emit TACs such as benzene, toluene, and naphthalene, among others.

The City received and reviewed a comment letter on the project from SJVAPCD dated March 4, 2024. The comment letter listed regulations that are potentially applicable to the project. Regulations potentially applicable to the project are summarized below:

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-7 May 2024
Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions)
Rules 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions, predominantly dust/dirt, generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, landfill operations, etc.

Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)
This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.

Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
This rule sets limits on the volatile organic compounds, a component of ROG, allowed in various paints and other coatings.

Rule 4901 (Wood-Burning Fireplaces and Heaters)
This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood-burning fireplaces and heaters. Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood-burning fireplace, low-mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood-burning heater.

Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)
Rule 9510, also known as the Indirect Source Rule, is intended to reduce or mitigate construction and operational emissions of NOx and PM10 generated by new development, either directly by the incorporation of mitigation into projects and/or by payment of off-site mitigation fees. Construction emissions of NOx and PM10 exhaust must be reduced by 20% and 45%, respectively. Operational emissions of NOx and PM10 must be reduced by 33.3% and 50%, respectively. Rule 9510 applies to residential projects of 50 units or more. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to this rule.

In 2015, the SJVAPCD adopted a revised Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. The Guide defines an analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for the assessment of air quality impacts for projects within SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction (SJVAPCD 2015). Row 1 of Table 3-2 shows the CEQA thresholds for significance for pollutant emissions within the SJVAPCD for both project construction and project operations. Projected construction and operational emissions from the project are shown in the subsequent rows, along with a determination as to whether the applicable significance threshold is exceeded.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Air Quality Plan Consistency.

The project’s construction and annual operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) computer program, a modeling RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-8 May 2024
program recommended by SJVAPCD. The full CalEEMod results for the project are available in Appendix A of this IS/MND, and the results are summarized in Table 3-2 above. As indicated by Table 3-2, none of the project construction and operational emissions would exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. As the significance thresholds were established in part to ensure consistency with the objectives of the air quality plans adopted by the SJVAPCD, the project would therefore be consistent with these plans.

TABLE 3-2

SJVAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

AND ESTIMATED PROJECT EMISSIONS
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Significance Thresholds1 10 10 100 27 15 15
Construction Emissions2 0.45 2.36 2.36 <0.01 0.76 0.38 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Operational Emissions3 1.72 0.57 4.79 0.01 0.81 0.32
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Note: All figures are in tons per year and are “unmitigated” (i.e., emissions that do not include project features or mitigations that would reduce emissions).
1 Applies to both construction and operational emissions. 2 Maximum unmitigated emissions in a calendar year.
3 Annual unmitigated emissions.

Sources: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.22, SJVAPCD 2015.

While project emissions would not be significant, as defined by the SJVAPCD significance thresholds, the project would still be required to observe applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. As noted, SJVAPCD Regulation VIII contains measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. Dust control provisions are also routinely included in site improvement plans and specifications, along with construction contracts. In addition, the project would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510, which requires reductions in NOx and particulate matter emissions from both project construction and project operations.

Implementation of these actions would further reduce estimated project emissions that are already considered less than significant without mitigation. b) Cumulative Emissions.

As noted in a) above, project operational emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Future attainment of federal and State ambient air quality standards is a function of successful implementation of the SJVAPCD’s attainment plans.

Consequently, the application of significance thresholds for criteria pollutants is relevant to the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. Pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s guidance, if project-specific emissions would be less than the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, the RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-9 May 2024
project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SJVAPCD is in nonattainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards. Cumulative impacts on air quality would be less than significant.
c) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors.
“Sensitive receptors” refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality, mainly children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality. Land uses where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time also may be called sensitive receptors; these include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (SJVAPCD 2015). The nearest land uses to the project sites that may be considered sensitive receptors are residences east and southwest of Site A, surrounding Site B, and west and northwest of Site C.

As indicated in Table 3-2 above, the project would not emit pollutants at levels that would exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds. These significance thresholds were established in part to ensure consistency with the objectives of the air quality plans adopted by the SJVAPCD, which were prepared in part to meet federal air quality standards designed to protect human health. The pollutant emissions generated by the proposed development would be consistent with pollutants generated by existing residential development, which is limited.

As noted, CO hotspots may occur in areas with heavy traffic volumes and congestion. CO hotspots have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to emissions that violate state and/or federal CO standard even if the broader Air Basin is in attainment for federal and state levels. A project would create no violations of the CO standards if neither of the following criteria are met (SJVAPCD 2015):
● A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or
● A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity (See Section 3.17, Transportation, for an explanation of LOS).

As discussed in Section 3.17, Transportation, a Transportation Impact Analysis for the project was conducted, in which potential impacts on LOS at eight intersections were evaluated under existing conditions with the project. Under such conditions, all intersections would maintain an LOS above E. As such, no CO hotspots that could potentially affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity would develop. Overall, project air quality impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. d) Odors and Other Emissions.

The project may result in localized odors during construction from equipment and vehicle emissions. However, these odor emissions would be temporary and would readily dissipate RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-10 May 2024
before affecting surrounding land uses. Construction activities associated with the project would also generate TACs, mainly diesel particulate matter from equipment and vehicle exhaust. These emissions are likewise temporary and would cease when construction work is completed. No TACs would be generated by the residential development after construction. Project impacts related to odors and other emissions would be less than significant.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
Biological Communities
The majority of the Waterford area outside the City limits consists of agricultural lands that support non-native annual grasses and forbs, when they are not being cultivated for annual crops, orchard, or irrigated pasture. As a result, little undisturbed natural habitat remains in RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-11 May 2024
the area except along the Dry Creek and Tuolumne River corridors. Eight biological communities were documented in the Waterford area; non-native annual grassland, artificially created seasonal wetland, drainage, mixed riparian woodland, agricultural field, orchard and vineyard, irrigated pasture, and developed (City of Waterford 2006a).

BaseCamp Environmental conducted a visit of all three project sites. Given existing conditions on the three project sites, non-native annual grassland appears to be the predominant biological community. Non-native annual grasslands consist of dense to sparse covers of annual grasses that often grow with a variety of showy annual forbs, both native and non-native. Germination occurs with the onset of the late fall rains; growth, flowering, and seed-set occur from winter though spring and plants are typically senescent through the summer and fall dry season. Grasslands support insects, amphibians, reptiles, and small birds and animals that are preyed on by other wildlife. Representative species include red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American kestrels, great-horned owl, California voles, deer mice, California ground squirrels, and coyotes (City of Waterford 2006a).

The site visits indicated that all three project sites were covered with mostly grasses and weeds. A portion of Site A is being used as pasture for at least one horse that was observed.

A blackberry shrub and other shrubs were observed on Site C. There are few trees on Sites B and C, but there are more on Site A. No blue elderberry shrubs, habitat for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, were observed. Other than the horse and common birds, no animal life was observed.

Special-Status Species
Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Act. Special-status species also include other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitats. Special-status plants also include species considered rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, such as those plant species identified on Lists 1A, 1B and 2 in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California by the California Native Plant Society.

In addition, special-status plants may include other species that are considered sensitive or of special concern due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on List 3 in the California Native Plant Society Inventory.

Table 3-3 provides a summary of the listing status and habitat requirements of specialstatus species that have been documented in the greater project vicinity or for which there is potentially suitable habitat in the greater project vicinity. This information is based on searches of the California Natural Diversity Database, managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the IPaC database, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Appendix B contains the results of both database searches. Table 3-3 also includes an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of each of these species on the site.

Habitats available on the sites are fragmented and isolated by surrounding urban RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-12 May 2024
development. The table excludes fish species, as there is no aquatic habitat on any of the project sites.

TABLE 3-3

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING

IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Fed.

Status1
State
Status2
CNPS
List3 Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Plants
Stinkbells Fritillaria
agrestis
None None 4 Foothill
woodland,
chaparral, valley
grassland,
wetland-riparian.

Grows in heavy
soils, particularly
clay.

Unlikely: the sites do not
provide suitable habitat
for this species; clay soils
not found on the sites.

Beaked clarkia Clarkia
rostrata
None None 1B Cismontane
woodland and
valley and
foothill
grassland.

Unlikely: the sites do not
provide suitable habitat
for this species.

Colusa grass Neostapfia
colusana
T E 1B Large, deep
vernal pools.

Unlikely: there are no
vernal pools or seasonal
wetlands on the sites.

San Joaquin
Valley Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia
inaequalis
T E 1B Vernal pools Unlikely: there are no
vernal pools or seasonal
wetlands on the sites.

Greene’s
tuctoria
Tuctoria
greenei
E R 1B Vernal pools
within the
Central Valley.

Unlikely: there are no
vernal pools or seasonal
wetlands on the sites.

Birds
Tricolored
blackbird
Agelaius
tricolor
None T N/A Nests in dense
brambles and
emergent
wetland
vegetation
associated with
open water
habitat.

Unlikely: the sites do not
provide suitable habitat
for this species.

Swainson’s
hawk
Buteo
swainsoni
None T N/A Breeds in stands
of tall trees in
open areas.

Requires
adjacent suitable
foraging habitats
such as
grasslands or
Possible: the sites provide
small areas of potential
foraging habitat, albeit of
low quality. Nesting
habitat has been identified
along the nearby
Tuolumne River and Dry
Creek.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-13 May 2024
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Fed.

Status1
State
Status2
CNPS
List3 Habitat Potential for Occurrence
alfalfa fields
supporting
rodents.

Burrowing owl Athene
cunicularia
None SC N/A Open, dry annual
or perennial
grasslands,
deserts and
scrublands
characterized by
low-growing
vegetation.

Possible: a few features
on Site C may be ground
squirrel burrows. None of
them contained evidence
of past or present
burrowing owl activity.

Mammals
San Joaquin
kit fox
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
E T N/A Grasslands and
scrublands. Oak
woodland, alkali
sink scrubland,
and vernal pool
and alkali
meadow
communities
also provide
habitat.

Unlikely: the sites do not
provide suitable habitat
for this species.

Reptiles and Amphibians
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
T T N/A Breeds in
seasonal water
bodies such as
deep vernal
pools or stock
ponds. Requires
small mammal
burrows for
summer refugia.

Unlikely: there are no
areas within or near the
sites that could provide
breeding habitat for this
species, and the sites are
not suitable for
aestivation.

Western
spadefoot
Spea
hammondii
PT SC N/A Shallow streams
with riffles and
seasonal
wetlands, such as
vernal pools in
annual
grasslands and
oak woodlands.

Unlikely: the sites do not
provide suitable habitat
for this species.

Northwestern
pond turtle
Actinemys
marmorata
PT SC N/A Marshes,
streams, rivers,
ponds, and lakes.

Unlikely: the sites do not
provide suitable habitat
for this species.

Invertebrates
Vernal pool
tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus
packardi
E None N/A Vernal pools and
seasonally wet
depressions
within the
Central Valley.

Unlikely: there are no
vernal pools or seasonal
wetlands on the sites.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-14 May 2024
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Fed.

Status1
State
Status2
CNPS
List3 Habitat Potential for Occurrence
Vernal pool
fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
lynchi
T None N/A Vernal pools and
seasonally
inundated
depressions
within the
Central Valley.

Unlikely: there are no
vernal pools or seasonal
wetlands on the sites.

Conservancy
fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
conservatio
E None N/A Vernal pools and
seasonal
wetlands.

Unlikely: there are no
vernal pools or seasonal
wetlands on the sites.

Species is known from
one area west of Modesto.

Valley
elderberry
longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
T None N/A Elderberry
shrubs in the
Central Valley
and surrounding
foothills.

None: No blue elderberry
shrubs are / reported on
the sites.

American
bumble bee
Bombus
pensylvanicus
C None N/A Prefers habitats
offered by
farmlands and
open fields,
where they nest
below the grass
or underground.

Unlikely: range is
predominantly in the
eastern United States.

Monarch
butterfly
Danaus
plexippus
C None N/A Variety of
habitats in
California,
primarily
associated with
coastal
environments;
larvae dependent
on milkweed.

Unlikely: although this
species may fly over the
sites during its migration,
the sites do not provide
suitable habitat for this
species.
1 T = Threatened; E = Endangered; C = Candidate; PT – Proposed Threatened. 2 T = Threatened; E = Endangered; SC=State of California Species of Special Concern, R = Rare. 3 1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 4 = Limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in California; N/A = not applicable.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Special-Status Species.

As indicated by Table 3-3, most of the special-status species that have been identified in the Waterford area are unlikely to occur on the project sites, due to lack of suitable habitat and fragmentation by past urban development. Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl were identified as the only species that could possibly occur on the sites. Swainson’s hawk, listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, has been observed in the Waterford area. At least one of the sites potentially contains burrows that could be used by burrowing owl, a State Species of Special Concern. Mitigation described below would RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-15 May 2024
minimize potential impacts of project construction on these two special-status species should either be found on the sites. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce project impacts on special-status species to a level that would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1: If project construction commences during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting Swainson’s hawk within one-quarter mile of the construction site. If active nests are found, then a qualified biologist shall determine the need, if any, for temporal restrictions on project construction. The determination shall utilize criteria set forth by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee in its 2000 report Determining a Project’s Potential for Impacting Swainson’s Hawk. Any temporal restrictions advised by the biologist shall be implemented by the project.

BIO-2: If project construction commences during the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a pre-construction survey for nesting burrowing owls shall be completed on the construction site in accordance with CDFW guidelines described in the 1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If owls are present, the biologist shall specify setbacks, construction timing or other mitigation needed to avoid significant effects on owls. b) Riparian and Other Sensitive Habitats.

As there are no streams on or near the project sites, there is no riparian habitat. The only riparian areas identified are along the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek (City of Waterford 2006a). None of the project sites are on or near these streams. The only sensitive habitats outside the riparian areas are seasonal wetlands northeast of the Waterford city limits (City of Waterford 2006a) which are distant from the project sites. The project would have no impact on riparian or other sensitive habitats.
c) Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

Waters of the U.S. include navigable waterways, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands.

More specifically, Waters of the U.S. encompass territorial seas, tidal waters, and non-tidal waters, along with perennial and intermittent creeks and drainages; lakes, seeps, and springs; emergent marshes; riparian wetlands; and seasonal wetlands. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must be secured prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters. Waters of the State, subject to oversight by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with jurisdiction over the affected water, include isolated wetlands not covered by federal regulations.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-16 May 2024
A search of the National Wetlands Inventory, the results of which are available in Appendix B, indicates no wetlands or Waters of the U.S. on the project sites. The nearest identified Waters of the U.S. are the MID canals, and proposed development would not affect these canals. A site visit by BaseCamp staff found no evidence of any Waters of the State on the project sites. The project would have no impact on State or federally protected wetlands or waters.
d) Fish and Wildlife Movement.

As noted, there are no streams on or near the project sites. The project sites are not a part of any known wildlife migration corridor and are unlikely to provide migration opportunities, given their locations amid urban development. However, the project sites contain trees that potentially could be used by raptors and other migratory birds during their nesting seasons. Some of these birds could be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. If these trees are removed during nesting seasons for these birds, the project would have a direct, adverse impact. Mitigation presented below would reduce impacts on any nesting birds on the project site.

Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts on nesting migratory birds to a level that would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

BIO-3: If tree removal is proposed during the general avian nesting season (March 1 through July 31), a pre-construction survey for all species of nesting birds shall be conducted. If active nests for bird species are found, work in the vicinity of the nests shall be delayed until the young have fledged. No survey shall be required if tree removal occurs outside the general avian nesting season.
e) Local Biological Requirements.

The Waterford General Plan contains several policies related to the conservation of biological resources. However, only Policy OS-A-1c appears to have been codified.

Waterford Municipal Code Section 17.72.060 requires projects to be reviewed for environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA and to have any significant environmental impacts mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. This IS/MND complies with this section of the Municipal Code. There are no other local ordinances or other requirements related to biological resources that are applicable to this project. The project would have no impact related to local biological requirements. f) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans.

No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Conservation Community Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans apply to the project sites. The project would have no impact related to habitat conservation plans.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-17 May 2024

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
The project site lies within the ethnographically reported territory of the Northern Valley Yokuts, whose lands once extended from the San Joaquin River near Mendota north to the confluence of the San Joaquin and Calaveras Rivers. Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, discusses the Yokuts and potential tribal cultural resources in more detail, as well as applicable statutes.

Waterford began as Bakersville, named for pioneer William W. Baker who may have established a ferry crossing the Tuolumne River prior to 1866 but did homestead 160 acres on the south bank of the Tuolumne River near the future Tuolumne River bridge at Waterford. The first ferry franchise recorded was in 1866 for the Waterford Ferry owned by Charles Dallas. The Waterford Ferry Company operated from 1866 until 1889 when it was replaced by the first bridge crossing opened in 1889, until it was replaced in 1914, and again replaced in 1964 with what is now the F Street Bridge. The name Bakersville was changed to Waterford in 1870, named for an established ford of the Tuolumne River here.

The center of town was relocated to the west and north in 1892 to adjoin the Stockton & Tulare Railroad, which was purchased by Southern Pacific Railroad in 1897. Waterford was incorporated as a city in 1969.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Historical Resources.

The Central California Information Center conducted a search of its databases for recorded historical buildings or structures in the vicinity of the site. The results of the search, available in Appendix C, indicated no records of historical resources on the project sites.

The MID Main Canal has been recorded, but it has not been evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or local lists (CCIC 2024). In any case, future development associated with the project would not affect the canal. No other historical resources have been identified on the project sites.

The project would have no impact on historical resources.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-18 May 2024
b) Archaeological Resources.

The Central California Information Center search found no formally recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within the project area (CCIC 2024). However, it is possible that previously unknown subsurface archaeological resources could be uncovered during development of the project sites. Alteration or damage to such resources would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation described below would require work to be stopped when cultural resources are uncovered until these resources can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and recommendations made for their proper disposition. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential cultural resource impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

CULT-1: If buried cultural or paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find. If necessary, the archaeologist or paleontologist will develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Waterford Community Development Department and other agencies as
appropriate. Treatment measures may include, but are not limited to, preservation in place or excavation under supervision of a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist.
c) Human Burials.

As with other cultural resources, it is not expected that any human burials, particularly those of Native Americans, would be uncovered by future development of the project sites.

However, it is conceivable that future development could uncover a previously unknown burial.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) describes the procedure to be followed when human remains are uncovered in a location outside a dedicated cemetery. All work in the vicinity of the find shall be halted, and the County Coroner shall be notified to determine if an investigation of the death is required, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If it is determined that the remains are Native American in origin, then the County Coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the most likely descendants of the deceased Native American, and the most likely descendants may make recommendations on the disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods with appropriate dignity. If a most likely descendant cannot be identified, the descendant fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendations of the most likely descendant, then the landowner shall rebury the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-19 May 2024
Compliance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) would ensure that any human remains and associated grave goods encountered during project construction would be treated with appropriate dignity. Project impacts on human remains would be less than significant.

3.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
Electricity and natural gas are major energy sources for residences and businesses in California. In Stanislaus County, electricity consumption in 2022 totaled approximately 5,245 million kilowatt-hours, of which approximately 2,026 million kilowatt-hours were consumed by residential uses and the remainder by non-residential uses (CEC 2024a).

Natural gas is another major energy source. In Stanislaus County, natural gas consumption in 2022 totaled approximately 203 million therms, of which approximately 62 million therms were consumed by residential uses and the remainder by non-residential uses (CEC 2024b).

Motor vehicle use also accounts for substantial energy usage. Approximately 236 million gallons of fuel were consumed annually in Stanislaus County, of which approximately 197 million gallons were gasoline and 39 million gallons were diesel fuel (StanCOG 2022).

The State of California has adopted comprehensive energy efficiency standards as part of its Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24. Part 6 of Title 24 is referred to as the California Energy Code. In 2009, the California Building Standards Commission adopted a voluntary Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which became mandatory in 2011. CALGreen sets forth mandatory measures, applicable to new residential and nonresidential structures as well as additions and alterations, on water efficiency and conservation, building material conservation, and interior environmental quality. It also mentions energy efficiency, although CALGreen defers to the Energy Code for actions. The City has adopted the 2022 versions of both the California Energy Code and CALGreen.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-20 May 2024
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Project Energy Consumption.

Project construction would involve fuel consumption and use of other non-renewable resources. Construction equipment used for such improvements typically runs on diesel fuel or gasoline. The same fuels typically are used for vehicles that transport equipment and workers to and from a construction site. The ARB is actively working to reduce emissions from construction equipment by requiring such equipment to meet zero and nearzero emission standards. Construction-related fuel consumption would be finite, shortterm, and consistent with construction activities of a similar character. This energy use would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Electricity may be used for equipment operation during construction activities. It is expected that more electrical construction equipment will be used in the future, as it would generate fewer air pollutant emissions. This electrical consumption would be consistent with construction activities of a similar character; therefore, the use of electricity in construction activities would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption would be reduced. Moreover, under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard, a greater share of electricity would be provided from renewable energy sources over time, so less fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity would occur.

According to the most recent Residential Energy Consumption Survey by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, average annual energy consumption by single-family detached residences in the western United States was 10,330 kWh of electricity per household and 52,700 cubic feet of natural gas per household (EIA 2018). Based on these factors, development on the project sites at buildout would consume approximately 1,146,630 kilowatt-hours of electricity and 5,849,700 cubic feet of natural gas (approximately 609.6 therms) annually.

The project would be required to comply with the adopted California Energy Code and CALGreen in effect at the time of project approval. Compliance with these standards would reduce energy consumption associated with project operations, although reductions from compliance cannot be readily quantified. Gasoline and diesel fuel consumption associated with fueling station projects are typically associated with passenger vehicle and truck traffic stopping for fuel and/or for convenience store items. Excessive fuel consumption resulting from these vehicle trips is not anticipated, especially since actions at the federal and State level are being taken to improve vehicle fuel economy (Congressional Research Service 2021).

Overall, project construction and operations would not consume energy resources in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Project impacts related to energy consumption are considered less than significant.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-21 May 2024
b) Consistency with Energy Plans.

The City does not have adopted plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. However, the City has adopted the 2022 versions of the California Energy Code and CALGreen, which contain provisions that promote energy efficiency. The project would be required to comply with the requirements of these two codes, which are designed to forward State energy conservation goals. Project impacts related to energy plans would be less than significant.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
iv) Landslides? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-22 May 2024
Environmental Setting
The project sites are in the San Joaquin Valley in central California. The Valley is filled with thick sedimentary rock sequences that were deposited as much as 130 million years ago. Large alluvial fans have developed on each side of the Valley. The project sites are underlain by the Riverbank Formation (Wagner et al. 1991). The Riverbank Formation, ranging in depth from 1 to 200 feet, consists of weathered gravel, sand, and silt that were deposited from 130,000 to 450,000 years ago (DWR 2014).

The project sites are relatively flat with minimal slope. The soils on the project sites are listed below (SCS 1964; NRCS 2007, 2024):
• Greenfield sandy loam, deep to hardpan – A well-drained soil found in nearly level to very gently sloping alluvial fans. Permeability is moderately rapid; runoff is very slow. The erosion hazard is slight.
• Hanford fine sandy loam, deep over silt – A well-drained soil found in nearly level to very gently sloping alluvial fans. Permeability is moderately rapid; runoff is very slow. The erosion hazard is slight.
• Madera sandy loam – A moderately well-drained soil found in very gently undulating old fans. Permeability is very slow; runoff is very slow. The erosion hazard is slight.
• Montpelier coarse sandy loam – A well-drained soil found in gently undulating high old fans. Permeability is slow; runoff is very slow. The erosion hazard is slight.

No active faults have been identified in Stanislaus County other than the Ortigalita Fault, which traverses the southwestern corner of the county. However, Stanislaus County is subject to a range of ground-shaking intensities, mainly from faults outside the county.

Using the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale as a reference, the eastern half of the county can be expected to have an intensity of VI or VII, producing minor to moderate damage (Stanislaus County 2016). On September 18-19, 2023, a series of earthquakes occurred in southwestern Stanislaus County, including one of 4.5 magnitude centered approximately nine miles southwest of the community of Westley. No damage or injuries were reported to have occurred in Waterford from these earthquakes.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-i) Fault Rupture Hazards.

As noted, the project sites are not on a known earthquake fault. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, enacted in 1972 and subsequently amended, requires the delineation of Special Studies Zones along known active faults in California. Cities and counties must regulate certain development projects within the zones. The project sites are not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (California Geological Survey 2023).

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-23 May 2024
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, requires mapping of seismic hazard zones and sets requirements for projects located within such zones. The project sites are not within a seismic hazard zone map prepared under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (California Geological Survey 2023). Based on this information, the project would have no impact related to fault rupture hazards.
a-ii) Seismic Ground Shaking.

The project sites are potentially subject to seismic shaking, mainly from earthquakes occurring outside Stanislaus County. The City has adopted the 2022 California Building Code, which contain seismic design criteria that must be incorporated into project design to ensure that improvements can withstand anticipated ground shaking from maximum credible earthquakes on active faults within the region. Compliance with the adopted California Building Code would reduce seismic ground shaking impacts to a level that would be less than significant.
a-iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure.

The seismic-related ground failure discussed in the Waterford General Plan EIR is liquefaction. Liquefaction is the phenomena whereby strong, cyclic ground motions during an earthquake transform a soil mass from a solid to a liquid state. The process involves densification and pore pressure increases in a saturated soil mass. The occurrence of liquefaction is strongly dependent upon the strength and duration of ground shaking, the depth to saturated soil, and local soil properties. It most readily occurs in loose, Holoceneage soil with a near-surface groundwater table, typically within 50 feet of the ground surface (City of Waterford 2006a).

Based on information in a geotechnical investigation conducted for Site A, the current groundwater level in the vicinity of the project sites is approximately 119 feet (North American Technical Services 2024). Given this depth to the groundwater table, it is unlikely that liquefaction would occur on the project sites. Therefore, project impacts related to seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant. a-iv) Landslides.

The project sites are in a topographically flat area, and there are no areas of steep slopes in the vicinity. The Waterford General Plan EIR states that all areas along the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek channels should be considered subject to landslide activity (City of Waterford 2006a). The project sites are not along either of these streams. The project would have no impact related to landslides.
b) Soil Erosion.

As noted, the soils on the project sites have only a slight erosion hazard. However, the construction and grading associated with site preparation and construction of the project would temporarily increase the exposure of soils on the project site to water and wind erosion.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-24 May 2024
Dust control measures noted in Chapter 6.0, Air Quality, would reduce potential wind erosion impacts of the project, particularly the watering of exposed soils. In addition, construction activities that would disturb more than an acre of land would need to obtain a Construction General Permit from the SWRCB. The Construction General Permit would require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP would include implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize adverse water quality impacts from erosion and sedimentation. BMPs fall within the categories of Temporary Soil Stabilization, Temporary Sediment Control, Wind Erosion Control, Tracking Control, Non-Storm Water Management, and Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.

With implementation of Construction General Permit conditions and dust control measures, potential erosion resulting from construction activities would be minimized. No erosion is expected after project work is completed, with the project sites being paved and landscaped. Project impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant. c) Geologic Instability.

The Waterford General Plan EIR states that bluff areas along the north bank of the Tuolumne River, west of the Hickman Bridge, exhibit a high degree of instability, as do some of the bluffs along the south bank of the river from the bridge to the east. No other areas of instability have been identified (City of Waterford 2006a).

As part of the City’s development review program, individual development projects are typically required to prepare soils reports to evaluate the project site’s soil stability. As a result of these studies, specific project-level mitigation measures are required as part of the project’s conditions of approval (City of Waterford 2006a). A geotechnical investigation had been prepared for Site A, which is available in Appendix D of this document. It concluded that proposed improvements on Site A are feasible, provided the preliminary recommendations in the report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project (North American Technical Services 2024). These recommendations, provided in the mitigation measure below, would be applicable to the other two sites along with Site A. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce project impacts related to geologic instability to a level that would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

GEO-1: The project applicant shall implement the recommendations contained in the report titled Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation -Update, Proposed Subdivision, Site-2 Tim Bell Road (APN: 080-023-036), Waterford, California, prepared by North American Technical Services, Inc. on February 8, 2024. These recommendations address site preparation, fill placement and compaction, fill materials, temporary construction slopes, and foundations and slabs, among other issues. These recommendations shall be implemented for design and construction work on all three project sites.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-25 May 2024
d) Expansive Soils.

Both Greenfield sandy loam and Madera sandy loam contain clay. Soils with high clay content typically have the potential to be expansive. Expansive soils can lead to damage of buildings and supporting infrastructure if not addressed. Concentrations of expansive soils are known to exist in the developable areas of the City and its urban expansion area (City of Waterford 2006a).

As noted, as part of the city’s development review program, individual development projects are typically required to prepare soils reports to evaluate the project site’s soil stability. As a result of these studies, specific project-level mitigation measures are required as part of the project’s conditions of approval (City of Waterford 2006a). The geotechnical investigation prepared for Site A contains recommendations regarding soils, including those applicable to expansive soils. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that these recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. With implementation of this mitigation measure, project impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1. e) Adequacy of Soils for Sewage Disposal.

The project would not require any onsite sewage disposal systems. All proposed development on the project sites would connect to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. The project would have no impact related to soil adequacy for sewage disposal.
f) Paleontological Resources.

The Riverbank Formation underlying the project sites has been a source of paleontological resources. These include ground sloth, dire wolf, horse, rabbit, birds, wood rat, bison, camel, coyote, antelope, deer, and mammoth, as well as clams, fish, turtles, frogs, and snakes. The paleontological sensitivity of the Riverbank Formation is classified as “high” (Stanislaus County 2016).

Given the previous agricultural use of the project site, it is unlikely that intact paleontological resources would be found; however, there is the possibility that unknown resources could be uncovered during project construction. Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would require work to be stopped when paleontological resources are uncovered until these resources can be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist and recommendations made for their disposition. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce paleontological resource impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-26 May 2024

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
Background
A greenhouse gas (GHG) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range, trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere. There are several types of GHGs, which are both naturally occurring and generated by human activity. Increased atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are considered a primary contributor to global climate change, which is a subject of concern for the State of California. Potential climate change impacts occurring in the San Joaquin Valley include higher temperatures, longer and more severe droughts, more intense precipitation events, and more frequent and extensive wildfires (Fernandez-Bou et al. 2021).

Unlike the criteria air pollutants described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, GHGs have no “attainment” standards established by the federal or State government. In fact, GHGs are not generally thought of as traditional air pollutants because their impacts are global in nature and not directly health-related, while air pollutants mainly affect the general region of their release to the atmosphere and can have adverse human effects. Nevertheless, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that GHG emissions endanger both the public health and public welfare under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act due to their impacts associated with climate change (EPA 2009).

GHG emissions in California in 2020, the most recent year for which data are available, were estimated at approximately 369.2 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) – a decrease of approximately 24% from the peak level in 2004. Transportation was the largest contributor to GHG emissions in California, with 37% of total emissions - a smaller share than in recent years, most likely due to reduced traffic volume during the COVID-19 lockdown. Other significant sources include industrial activities, with approximately 20% of total emissions, and electric power generation, both in-state and imported, with approximately 16% of total emissions (ARB 2022a). No information on GHG emissions from Waterford is available.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-27 May 2024
GHG Reduction Plans
The State of California has implemented GHG emission reduction strategies through AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires total statewide GHG emissions to reach 1990 levels by 2020, or an approximately 29% reduction from 2004 levels. For the target year of 2020, state GHG emissions were 369.2 million metric tons CO2e, which was 61.8 million metric tons CO2e below the AB 52 target (ARB 2022a). It should be noted that the 2020 GHG emissions were most likely affected by the lockdown ordered by the State that year in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which in turn affected traffic volumes and economic activity contributing to GHG emissions.

In 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 became law. SB 32 extends the GHG reduction objectives of AB 32 by mandating statewide reductions in GHG emissions to levels that are 40% below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The State has adopted an updated Scoping Plan that sets forth strategies for achieving the SB 32 target, which is 260 million metric tons CO2e. The 2017 Scoping Plan proposes various measures to achieve the 2030 target. Most of these are State measures, such as use of the cap-and-trade program, the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Plan, and achievement of the 50% renewable sources of electricity in the Renewables Portfolio Standard. The updated Scoping Plan continues many existing programs such as low-carbon fuel standards, renewable energy, and methane reduction strategies, along with a proposed 20% reduction in GHG emissions from refineries. It also addresses for the first time GHG emissions from the natural and working lands of California, including the agriculture and forestry sectors (ARB 2017).

In 2022, ARB adopted an update to the Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress towards achieving the SB 32 2030 reduction target and lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. Proposed strategies to achieve these reductions include rapid movement to zero-emission transportation, phasing out fossil fuel use for heating homes and buildings, restricting use of chemicals and refrigerants that are thousands of times more powerful at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, expanded development of renewable energy sources, increased use of natural and working lands for incorporating and storing carbon, and greater employment of carbon removal technology (ARB 2022b).

The SJVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan in 2008 and issued guidance for development project compliance with the plan in 2009. The guidance adopted an approach that relies on the use of Best Performance Standards to reduce GHG emissions. Specified projects implementing Best Performance Standards would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. Other projects shall demonstrate a 29% reduction in project-specific (i.e., operational) GHG emissions from business-as-usual conditions to show a less-than-significant cumulative impact (SJVAPCD 2009). The City does not have a GHG reduction plan, nor is the project one of the specified projects for which Best Performance Standards were established.

California also has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard, the intent of which in part is to reduce the use of fossil fuels, a main source of GHG emissions. The Renewables Portfolio Standard requires electricity retailers in the state by the end of 2020 to generate 33% of electricity they sell from renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-28 May 2024
geothermal, and hydroelectric from small generators. Almost of the electricity retail sellers reported meeting the 2020 compliance target (CPUC 2022). In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which increased the electricity generation requirement from renewable sources to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Project GHG Emissions and Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans.

GHG emissions from project construction and operations were estimated using CalEEMod.

Detailed results are available in Appendix A of this IS/MND. Total estimated GHG emissions during the construction period were approximately 1,433 metric tons CO2e, with the maximum emissions for one calendar year being 439 metric tons CO2e. There was practically no difference between the “unmitigated” construction GHG emissions modeled by CalEEMod and the GHG emissions that included actions that mitigate emissions (“mitigated”). Construction emissions are temporary and would cease when project work is completed.

CalEEMod estimated that the project would generate “business-as-usual” (unmitigated) operational GHG emissions of approximately 1,080 metric tons CO2e annually. The project contains features that would reduce GHG emissions, and it must comply with other requirements that would likewise reduce emissions. These include the following:
● Building energy efficiency would exceed 2019 Title 24 standards. ● In accordance with Senate Bill X7-7, new development would implement water conservation measures that lead to a 20% reduction in indoor and outdoor water use.

With these features and requirements, mitigated project operational GHG emissions would be approximately 1,071 metric tons CO2e annually - a reduction of approximately 1% from the business-as-usual level.

SJVAPCD has not established quantitative significance thresholds for GHG emissions.

However, the nearby Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District has established a quantitative threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year to determine significance of project GHG emissions for CEQA purposes (SMAQMD 2021). This threshold applies to both construction and operational emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 allows for the use of significance thresholds established by other agencies.

The maximum project GHG construction emissions for a year are below the threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO2e. Based on this, project GHG construction emissions are considered less than significant. In any event, GHG construction emissions would be limited due to the length of time of construction activity, and these emissions would cease once work is completed. Project operational GHG emissions, both unmitigated and mitigated, would also be below this significance threshold.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-29 May 2024
GHG emissions are inherently reduced by the infill nature of the project. The State of California has comprehensive GHG regulatory requirements, with laws and regulations requiring reductions that affect project emissions. The project is subject to several State regulations applicable to project design, construction, and operation that would reduce GHG emissions, increase energy efficiency, and ensure compliance with the Scoping Plan.

Legal mandates to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles, for example, would reduce project-related vehicular emissions. Other mandates that would reduce GHG emissions include reducing per capita water consumption and imposing waste management standards to reduce methane and other GHGs from solid wastes.

As discussed in Section 3.6, Energy, the project would be subject to codes that require energy efficiency measures, which would reduce the demand for electricity produced by fossil fuels – a major source of GHG emissions. Also, as discussed in Section 3.6, attainment of the targets of the Renewables Portfolio Standard would reduce the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuels, further reducing GHG emissions from energy sources.

Based on the information provided above, the project would be consistent with GHG reduction plans of the State. Project impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with GHG emission reduction plans would be less than significant.

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-30 May 2024
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
Hazardous material sites of all statuses are recorded in the GeoTracker database, maintained by the SWRCB, and the EnviroStor database, maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). A search of the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases found no record of active hazardous material sites on or within one-half mile of the project sites (SWRCB 2024, DTSC 2024).

The regulation of hazardous materials at the federal level is primarily under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which creates a framework for the transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. The U.S. Department of Transportation sets regulations for the transport of hazardous materials, such as gasoline and diesel fuels. Several state agencies regulate the transportation and use of hazardous materials, including the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Emergency Services.

Within the California Environmental Protection Agency, the DTSC has primary authority to enforce hazardous materials regulations.

On the local level, the Stanislaus County Environmental Health Department is approved by the State as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). A CUPA administers the Hazardous Material Business Plan, California Accidental Release Prevention, Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act, Hazardous Waste Generator, Hazardous Waste Onsite Treatment and Underground Storage Tank programs to minimize potential risks to public health and safety.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Hazardous Material Transportation, Use, and Storage.

Proposed project development of single-family residences would use a limited quantity of hazardous materials, mainly cleaning products and pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers for landscaping. None of these materials would be stored or used in large quantities.

Therefore, project impacts related to transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
b) Upset and Accident Conditions.

Construction activities on the project sites may involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents, and thus create a potential for hazardous material spills. Construction and maintenance vehicles would transport and use fuels in ordinary quantities. Fuel spills, if any occur, would typically be minimal and would not typically have significant adverse effects. In accordance with SWPPP requirements (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils), RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-31 May 2024
contractors have absorbent materials at construction sites to clean up minor spills. All construction work will be required to follow the existing City ordinances related to construction-related hazards, materials usage, and disposal.

As noted in a) above, proposed project development would use a limited quantity of hazardous materials. As such, upset and accident impacts related to the residences would be limited. Project impacts related to upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
c) Release of Hazardous Materials near Schools.

The closest existing school to any of the project sites is Waterford Middle School, approximately one-quarter mile southwest of Site A. As noted in a) above, proposed project development would not involve significant amounts of hazardous materials. Any releases of hazardous materials used by project development would be limited and infrequent and would not have the potential to reach Waterford Middle School. The project would have no impact related to hazardous material releases near schools. d) Hazardous Material Sites.

As noted, the project sites do not have a recorded hazardous material site regulated by the State of California, nor are there any such sites within one-half mile of the project sites.

The project would not disturb or be constructed on or near any hazardous material sites.

The project would have no impact on hazardous material sites. e) Public Airports.

There are no public or public-use airports in Waterford. The nearest public airport, Oakdale Municipal Airport, is approximately eight miles to the north. The project site is not within any of the airport’s safety zones, and it is outside the Airport Influence Area as indicated in the Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Stanislaus County 2016).

The project would not affect, or be affected by, Oakdale Municipal Airport operations. The project would have no impact related to public airports. f) Emergency Response and Evacuations.

Project construction activity along roadways adjacent to the project sites, along with construction equipment and vehicle traffic, could potentially disrupt vehicle traffic flow on these roads. This would not be a concern regarding Site B development, as existing streets would remain open. However, construction work along Tim Bell Road at Sites A and C could lead to the restriction of travel lanes on this road. This could potentially affect emergency vehicles responding to calls from the project vicinity, and it also could hinder any evacuations that may use these roads as evacuation routes.

All construction work in City streets shall comply with the encroachment permit issued by the City. Waterford Municipal Code Chapter 12.24 sets forth provisions regarding encroachment permits, which typically include conditions related to traffic control. In addition, mitigation identified below would require a Traffic Control Plan from the developer indicating the traffic controls that would be implemented, in coordination with RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-32 May 2024
the Waterford fire and police agencies. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce construction impacts on emergency vehicle traffic to a level that would be less than significant.

Once construction work is completed, emergency vehicle traffic on local roads would not be obstructed by any project features, nor would the project interfere with any evacuations that may use these roads. Project impacts on emergency response and evacuations would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

HAZ-1: Prior to the start of project construction, the developer shall prepare and implement a Traffic Control Plan, which shall include such items as traffic control requirements, resident notification of access closure, and daily access restoration. The contractor shall specify dates and times of road closures or restrictions, if any, and shall ensure that adequate access will be provided for emergency vehicles. The Traffic Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Public Works and shall be coordinated with Waterford Police Services (Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department) and the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District if construction will require road closures or lane restrictions. g) Wildland Fire Hazards.

The project sites are in an urbanized area, which is not susceptible to wildland fire hazards.

The most significant open space areas susceptible to wildland fires are the project sites themselves. The project would reduce the existing fire hazard on these sites by replacing the existing weedy vegetation with buildings, pavement and landscaping. Project impacts related to wildland fire hazards would be less than significant. Refer to Section 3.20, Wildfire, for additional discussion.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-33 May 2024
stream or river runoff or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜ ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
Surface Waters
As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, there are no surface streams, wetlands, or other bodies of water on or in the immediate vicinity of the project sites. The Tuolumne River is approximately two-thirds of a mile to the south. The nearest surface water features are the MID Main Canal and the Waterford Lower Main Canal managed by MID. The MID Main Canal parallels the northern boundary of Site C and forms the northern boundary of Site B. The Waterford Lower Main Canal divides Site A from Site C.

Surface water quality in the Waterford area is maintained through the City’s compliance with the SWRCB’s Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, which is a general permit issued to small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) statewide, as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program authorized by the federal Clean Water Act.

Groundwater
The project site is within the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin, which covers an area of approximately 245,253 acres between the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers in northern Stanislaus County. The City relies solely on groundwater for its drinking water (see Section

3.19, Utilities and Service Systems). Groundwater levels measured at the City of Waterford wells range from 68 to 82 feet below ground surface. The City has experienced a decrease in the groundwater surface elevation of nearly 15 feet in recent years (City of Waterford 2016).

The State’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies that must assess conditions in their local water basins RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-34 May 2024
and adopt locally based Groundwater Sustainability Plans for sustainable use of groundwater and avoidance of overdraft. Plans for “critically overdrafted” basins must be completed and adopted by January 31, 2020, while plans for high- and medium-priority basins have an adoption deadline of January 31, 2022. The Modesto Subbasin has been designated a high-priority basin.

The City is a member of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association, which prepared and submitted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Modesto Subbasin to the California Department of Water Resources in January 2022.

The GSP analyzed groundwater conditions in the Subbasin based on water levels measurements from approximately 450 wells and prepared an annual water budget from this information. Based on the basin setting and water budget analysis, the GSP developed sustainable management criteria that were subject to a sustainable conditions analysis to determine a sustainable water yield for the Subbasin. To achieve this sustainable yield, the GSP identified 13 projects and management actions, which mainly involve direct or in-lieu groundwater recharge, as well as water conservation and stormwater capture. One of the proposed projects is a surface water pump station and storage tank project in the Waterford/Hickman area (Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers GBA 2022).

The Department of Water Resources recently determined that the Modesto Subbasin GSP is “incomplete,” identifying deficiencies that need corrective action. It is unknown at this time if this determination will lead to substantial changes in the GSP that may affect the Waterford area.

The groundwater quality in the Waterford area is good in general, with no major water quality concerns. However, two City wells currently use a granular activated carbon treatment system to remove an agricultural chemical found to exceed its maximum contaminant level, and another well is limited to non-potable use only due to elevated levels of manganese (City of Waterford 2016).

Flooding
Potential flooding hazards are designated on maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA maps focus on areas potentially subject to inundation by a 100-year flood (i.e., a flood of such magnitude that occurs on average once every 100 years). According to FEMA Map Panel 06099C0369E, the project sites are not within a flood hazard area (FEMA 2008).

In 2007, the State of California approved SB 5 and a series of related Senate and Assembly bills intended to set new flood protection standards for urban areas in the Central Valley.

The SB 5 bills establish the State standard for flood protection in these areas as protection from the 200-year frequency flood of three feet depth or more. Urban and urbanizing areas must be provided with 200-year flood protection no later than 2025. Best Available Maps drafted by the California Department of Water Resources do not show the project sites within a 200-year floodplain under SB 5 jurisdiction (DWR 2023).

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-35 May 2024
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Water Quality.

The project would not involve any direct effects on surface waters; none exist on or adjacent to the sites. Project construction work could have an impact on surface water quality due to exposure of soils to potential erosion, which could lead to sediments being transported and released to streams. As discussed above, there are no streams or other water bodies on or near the project sites. Moreover, as described in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, construction activities that would disturb more than an acre of land area would need to obtain a Construction General Permit, which would require preparation of a SWPPP that includes construction BMPs to control soil erosion, runoff, and waste discharges, including methods to clean up contaminants if they are released. Implementation of the SWPPP would reduce potential surface water quality impacts from construction activities to a level that would be less than significant.

It is expected that project development would connect to the City’s storm drainage system.

As a condition of project approval, the project would be required to comply with the City’s MS4 permit requirements. Implementation of this action would ensure that stormwater generated on the project site would not result in the violation of any water quality standards.

Project impacts on water quality would be less than significant. b) Groundwater Supplies and Recharge.

Future project development would connect to the City’s water service, which relies solely on groundwater. The most recent Consumer Confidence Report indicates that water from the City wells meets all California Department of Health Services drinking water standards (City of Waterford 2022). As described in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the project would generate an estimated water demand of 54,230 gallons per day, or approximately 60.79 acre-feet per year. As of 2016, the City used 1,413 acre-feet per year; therefore, the impact of the project on groundwater supplies would be small; based on an analysis conducted in Section 3.19, adequate groundwater supplies would exist for the project.

The project would reduce potential recharge areas on the sites, but these sites have been designated by the city for urban development. The project would not be expected to interfere substantially with overall recharge of the Modesto Subbasin such that there would be an adverse effect on aquifer volume or the groundwater table in the area. Moreover, Waterford Municipal Code Section 17.20.050 requires residential development to conform to setback requirements that would leave unpaved space, which would be available for groundwater recharge. Conformance with City storm drainage will require installation of post-construction Best Management Practices that will include runoff detention and infiltration features that will reduce runoff from the sites and help maintain existing recharge. Project impacts on groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-36 May 2024
c-i, ii, iii) Drainage Patterns and Runoff.

The project would change drainage patterns and increase runoff at the project sites due to the addition of impervious surfaces such as building footprints and parking areas. All development on the project sites would be served by the City’s utility systems, including the storm drainage system. Because of this, the project would not change drainage patterns such that increased erosion, siltation, or flooding would occur on- or off-site. As discussed in a) above, storm water collected from the project site would ultimately be treated and discharged in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City’s MS4 permit. Project impacts related to drainage patterns and runoff would be less than significant. c-iv) Flooding Hazards.

As noted, the applicable FEMA floodplain map does not designate any of the project sites as being within a flood zone. FEMA generally designates areas at risk from a 100-year flood within Zone A or a variant thereof. Since the project site is not within Zone A, it is not considered by FEMA to be within a special flood hazard area. The project sites are not within a 200-year floodplain as defined by the SB 5 bills. The project would have no impact related to flooding hazards.
d) Release of Pollutants in Flood, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones.

As described in c-iv) above, the project sites are not within any designated flood zones, plus they are designated for residential development. Therefore, it is unlikely that any flooding would occur that would lead to the release of significant amounts of hazardous materials. The project sites are not on or near any large bodies of water; therefore, the site would not experience tsunami or seiche hazards. The project would have no impact related to the release of pollutants in flood, tsunami, or seiche zones. e) Conflicts with Water Quality or Groundwater Management Plans.

As discussed in a) above, project storm drainage would be subject to the City’s NPDES MS4 permit, which is intended to maintain water quality in the Waterford area. As noted, the Modesto Subbasin GSP includes a pump station and storage tank project in the Waterford/Hickman area. The project would not interfere with its implementation, assuming no changes are made. Project impacts on water quality and sustainable groundwater plans would be less than significant.

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-37 May 2024
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
The project sites are currently vacant with no structures. As noted, the MID Main Canal is along the northern boundary of Sites B and C, while an MID lateral divides Sites A and C.

Site B is at the ends of Quicksilver Street and Goldmine Avenue, while Sites A and C are bounded by Tim Bell Road on the west. No roads exist on the project sites.

A residential subdivision has been developed east of Site A, with less intensive residential development to the southwest and west, along with the Waterford Dog Park across Tim Bell Road. Vacant land is south of Site A. A residential subdivision has been developed west of Site B along Quicksilver Street and Goldmine Avenue. Less intensive residential development has occurred to the south and east of this site, mixed with some open space area. Site C is mostly undeveloped. There are a few single-family residences adjacent to the northwest corner of this site, and limited development adjacent to the southeast corner.

The City of Waterford General Plan, adopted in 2007, guides development within the City and its Planning Area, in part by designating parcels for specific types of development. The land use designation for all three project sites is Low Density Residential. The Low Density Residential designation is intended to allow for single-family residential dwellings served by City services. This designation consists primarily of single-family detached housing, but a diversity of single-family housing types, such as condominium and zero lot- line residential units, can be developed (City of Waterford 2007). As noted in Chapter 1.0, Introduction, the City is in the process of updating the Housing Element to its General Plan.

Waterford Municipal Code Title 17, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, was adopted for the general purpose of promoting and protecting public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. A more specific purpose is to guide the physical development of Waterford to achieve progressively the general arrangement of land use described and depicted in the City’s General Plan. The current City zoning for Sites A and C is RS - Residential Single Family. The purpose of the RS zone is to provide single-family residential dwellings served by City services throughout the city of Waterford. The current City zoning for Site B is RE - Rural Estates. The RE zone is intended to allow development that can accommodate non-intensive agricultural uses, residential and some types of commercial and industrial uses, while serving as a buffer between agricultural and residential lands within and adjacent to the city of Waterford.

The State has enacted SB 535, which seeks to address the adverse environmental impacts of projects that disproportionately affect minority and/or lower income communities, particularly those already burdened with environmental problems. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has developed the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) to identify “environmental justice” or “disadvantaged” communities, as part of SB 535. CalEnviroScreen measures pollution and population characteristics of each U.S. Census tract in California using 20 RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-38 May 2024
indicators such as air and drinking water quality, waste sites, toxic emissions, asthma rates, and poverty. It then applies a formula to generate a score that rates the level of cumulative impacts on each Census tract. A Census tract that scores in the top 25% is considered a disadvantaged community. The project site is within Census Tract 6099002801, which according to CalEnviroScreen has an overall score of 62 (OEHHA 2024). This is not within the top 25 percent; therefore, the project site is not within a disadvantaged community as defined by SB 535.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Division of Established Community.

A common definition of “community” is a group of people living in the same area. By this definition, the “division of an established community” is a division of an existing residential area. The project would be built on vacant sites designated for residential development. Project development would be consistent with and contribute to the existing pattern of residential development in the project vicinity. The project would have no impact related to the division of an established community.
b) Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations.

The project proposes residential development on three nearby sites. Proposed residential development would also be consistent with the existing RS zoning on Sites A and C; however, proposed development on Site B would not be consistent with the current RE zoning, which allows a maximum residential density of one dwelling unit for every three acres. As part of the project application, all three project sites would be rezoned from their current zoning to PC, Planned Community. The PC zone is intended to encourage creative and efficient residential land uses, to encourage mixed or multiple use projects, to permit variations from density, height, and other standards in the various zones and to permit development based on a high standard of performance and design. All residential uses, when consistent with the General Plan, are allowed in PC districts, subject to City Council approval of the development plan and schedule.

The proposed residential development on all three sites would be consistent with the existing Low Density Residential designation of the General Plan. Because of this, the proposed rezoning is not expected to substantially change the environmental impact analysis conducted for the General Plan, and the project woud not result in any new or more severe conflicts with environmental policies in the General Plan.

This IS/MND analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. For all environmental issues, the project would have no significant environmental impacts related to Waterford land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. These are discussed under the applicable environmental issue elsewhere in this document. No potential conflicts have been identified in other issue sections. Project impacts regarding conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are considered less than significant.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-39 May 2024

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
As mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, the California Geological Survey has classified mineral resource development potential of lands in counties into an appropriate Mineral Resource Zone. No mineral resource deposits have been identified on the project sites. Oil and natural gas deposits have been identified throughout the Central Valley; however, the project sites contain no active oil or gas wells. The nearest active oil/natural gas well is approximately 0.70 miles to the south of the project (DOGGR 2024).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Availability of Mineral Resources.

The project sites do not have any identified mineral resources, nor do they have any existing mineral extraction activities, including oil or gas wells. The City’s General Plan has not designated the project sites as having locally important mineral resources. The project would have no impact on mineral resources.

3.13 NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-40 May 2024
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Environmental Setting
Assessment of noise impacts focuses on the “ambient" noise level, which is the general noise level in a project area. The principal noise source in Waterford is traffic on State Route 132 and the Oakdale/Waterford Highway, both roads constituting major arterial roadways within the city limits (City of Waterford 2006a). The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is primarily defined by traffic on local streets and roads. These include Tim Bell Road, traffic on which has been identified as a future noise source (City of Waterford 2006a).

City standards and policies established in the Noise Element of the Waterford General Plan are designed to protect community residents from noise impacts and to establish criteria to mitigate noise-generating land uses and development, based on A-weighted decibels (dBA). According to the Noise Element, exterior noise levels in residential areas up to a maximum of 60 dBA are considered “acceptable,” while noise levels between 60 and 70 dBA are considered “conditionally acceptable.” The maximum interior noise level considered acceptable for buildings in residential areas is 45 dBA (City of Waterford 2007).

Waterford Municipal Code Chapter 8.22 contains provisions designed to reduce noise impacts. Under this ordinance, it is unlawful for any person to willfully or negligently make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes any discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. Chapter

8.22 sets exterior noise limits based on receiving land uses. Table 3-4 shows these exterior noise limits. In addition, the maximum allowable interior noise levels for multifamily residential units are 45 dBA during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

TABLE 3-4

EXTERIOR NOISE LIMITS BY RECEIVING LAND USE
Receiving Land Use
Maximum Exterior Noise Level (dBA)
Daytime (7:00 a.m.
– 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime (10:00 p.m.
– 7:00 a.m.)
One-, two-family residential1 55 45
Multifamily residential public space 55 50
Some multiple dwellings (commercial) 60 55
Note: Levels not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes in any hour. 1 Levels are suburban levels.

Source: Waterford Municipal Code Chapter 8.22.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-41 May 2024
Chapter 8.22 of the Municipal Code also prohibits specified activities that generate noise, with limited exemptions. Among the prohibited activities are construction and demolition work between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends and legal holidays. In addition, where technically and economically feasible, such work shall be conducted so that noise from mobile and stationary equipment shall not exceed the sound levels across residential or commercial property lines as set forth in Table 3-5 below.

TABLE 3-5

MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION NOISE LIMITS BY RECEIVING LAND USE Land Use
Maximum Noise Level (dBA)
Weekdays
Weekends and Legal
Holidays
Mobile Equipment
R-1 and R-2 Residential 75 60
R-3 and Above Multifamily Residential 80 65
Commercial and Industrial 85 70
Stationary Equipment
R-1 and R-2 Residential 60 50
R-3 and Above Multifamily Residential 65 55
Commercial and Industrial 70 60
Source: Waterford Municipal Code Chapter 8.22.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Generation of Noise Exceeding Local Standards.

The project is expected to increase ambient noise levels due to an increase in traffic generated by the proposed residential development. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis conducted for the project, most of this traffic would occur on Tim Bell Road and Bonnie Brae Avenue. Traffic from Site B would affect local streets and OakdaleWaterford Highway (Fehr and Peers 2024). Noise levels along these streets and roads would be affected accordingly.

The Waterford General Plan EIR conducted a noise analysis of future development of Waterford, with a focus on noise generated by traffic and its impact on lands adjacent to roadways. The EIR stated that the development review process for subdivisions and zoning entitlements will be utilized to moderate noise increases through the application of RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-42 May 2024
improvement conditions such as sound walls, buffers, and other acceptable sound attenuation techniques. The increase will be within the limits established for the various uses permitted in these unimproved areas and therefore will be considered acceptable, and not substantial, within the context of an urban environment (City of Waterford 2006a).

Because of this, and because the proposed development is consistent with existing General Plan designations, project impacts related to traffic noise increases are considered less than significant.

Temporary noise impacts would occur with project construction, mainly from construction equipment and from worker vehicle traffic. As shown in Table 3-6, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at 50 feet.

TABLE 3-6

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Type of Equipment
Maximum Level
(dBA at 50 feet)
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: FHWA 2006.

Caltrans defines a significant increase due to construction noise as an increase of 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels. Construction noise was evaluated as occurring at the center of the site to represent average noise levels generated over the duration of construction across the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences adjacent to the eastern and southwestern boundaries of Site A and to the western boundary of Site B. It is expected that construction noise levels at these residences would exceed City standards for exterior noise levels. This could result in sleep interference if activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours. Therefore, project construction noise impacts are considered significant.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-43 May 2024
Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. As noted, the Waterford Municipal Code prohibits activities are construction and demolition work between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekends and legal holidays. In addition, mitigation described below would minimize the construction noise that reaches the sensitive receptors, thereby reducing impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

NOISE-1: The City shall establish the following as conditions of approval for any permit that results in the use of construction equipment:
• In accordance with Waterford Municipal Code Chapter 8.22, construction activities shall not occur between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends and legal holidays.
• All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible.
• All stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as generators or air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited, and in no case shall idling exceed five minutes per State regulation.
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
b) Exposure to Groundborne Vibrations.

Groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is typically associated with transportation facilities, although it is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of groundborne vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving, and operating heavy earth-moving equipment.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-44 May 2024
Other than operation of construction equipment during construction, the project would not involve these potential noise sources. In most cases, vibration induced by typical construction equipment does not result in adverse effects on people or structures. Noise from the equipment typically overshadows any meaningful ground vibration effects on people (Caltrans 2013). In any case, any vibrations generated by construction activities would cease once construction work is completed, and project operations would not generate any vibrations. Project impacts related to groundborne vibrations would be less than significant.
c) Public Airport and Private Airstrip Noise.

As noted in Section 3.9, Hazards, the nearest public airport is Modesto City-County Airport, approximately six miles to the south. The noise contours delineated in the Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan show the project site is well outside the Modesto Airport 60-dBA noise contour, the outermost contour (Stanislaus County 2016). The 60-dB contour is located approximately the same distance from the project site as the airport. Therefore, the project site would likely experience exterior noise from airport operations below 45 dB, the maximum allowable exterior noise level at nighttime for residential and other noise-sensitive land uses. No private airstrips were identified within two miles of the project site. The project would have no impact related to airport and airstrip noise.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
According to the 2020 U.S. Census, the population of Waterford was 9,099, an increase of approximately 7.6 percent from its 2010 U.S. Census population of 8,456. By comparison, the population of California increased by 6.1 percent during the same period, and the population of Stanislaus County increased by 7.5 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). The estimated population of Waterford as of January 1, 2023 is 9,042 (California Department of Finance 2023).

The California Department of Finance estimated a total of 2,786 housing units in Waterford in 2023. Of that total, 2,236 were single-family detached units - typical houses - RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-45 May 2024
approximately 80.3 percent of the total. Another 364 were multifamily units in buildings of five or more, which was approximately 13.1 percent of the total. By comparison, approximately 9.9 percent of all housing units in Stanislaus County were in multifamily units of five or more (California Department of Finance 2023).

The Housing Element, as noted in Chapter 1.0, Introduction, is an element of the City’s General Plan. The City originally adopted its current Housing Element in 2016. After subsequent revisions, it was found in compliance with Housing Element law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in 2018. The Housing Element is designed to coordinate residential development and renewal efforts in ways that are consistent with the overall economic and social values of the City. It must show that the City can accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs as allocated by the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. For the planning period of the Housing Element (2014- 2023), the housing fair share for Waterford is 882 units, of which 356 units would be for low- and very low-income households and the remainder for moderate- and above moderate-income households (City of Waterford 2018).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Unplanned Population Growth.

The proposed project would involve tentative maps and a rezoning of one site to allow for the construction of single-family residences totaling 118 units. Based on the average number of persons per household in Waterford of 3.37 (California Department of Finance 2023), the population of the project sites at buildout would be approximately 398.

As noted in Section 3.11, Land Use, Sites A and C are designated Low Density Residential by the City General Plan, which allows for residential development. Therefore, development on these two sites would not lead to an increase in population not anticipated by the adopted General Plan.

The project proposes a rezoning of Site B from RE to PC. Under the RE zone, the maximum residential development density allowed is one dwelling unit per three acres. Therefore, the maximum number of dwelling units currently allowed on Site B would be two dwelling units. By contrast, the project would allow for the construction of 29 dwelling units on Site B. This would mean an estimated increase in population from approximately 7 to 98.

However, the Waterford General Plan designates Site B as Low Density Residential. As such, population estimates developed for the General Plan from anticipated land uses already consider the Low Density Residential designation of Site B. Therefore, there would be no unplanned population increases since the General Plan designation of Site B would not change. Project impacts related to unplanned population increases would be less than significant.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-46 May 2024
b) Displacement of Housing or People.

The project sites are vacant; therefore, the project would not displace any existing housing or people residing on-site. The project would have no impact on displacement of housing or people.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
i) Fire protection? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
ii) Police protection? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
iii) Schools? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
iv) Parks? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
v) Other public facilities? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
Fire protection services for the City of Waterford are provided by the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. The Fire District provides fire and emergency medical services in a 199-square mile area that includes unincorporated Stanislaus County and the Cities of Waterford and Riverbank. It has 56 full-time personnel and two part-time personnel that staff five fire stations. The Fire District responded to 5,603 incidents in 2022 (SCFPD 2024).

The Fire District maintains one fire station within the City limits: Station 24 at 129 E Street.

The station houses one Type 1 engine, one Type 3 Brush engine, one water rescue boat, and one OES Type 1 engine. This station is staffed with three personnel 24 hours per day, seven days per week. (SCFPD 2024). The General Plan indicates that the maintenance of a ratio of one firefighter per 1,000 population is desirable (City of Waterford 2007).

Law Enforcement
Since 1998, law enforcement services for the City of Waterford are provided by the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department under contract with the City. The Sheriff’s Department maintains an office at 115 E Street under the name of Waterford Police Services. Waterford Police Services currently has 7 deputies, one sergeant and a chief RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-47 May 2024
assigned. The deputies are split up into two squads and work one day shift, one swing shift, and one graveyard shift, each shift being 12 hours. In 2023, the average response time of Waterford Police Services to calls was 3.81 minutes (Michael Parker electronic mail).

The General Plan indicates that the maintenance of a ratio of one sworn officer per 1,000 population is desirable (City of Waterford 2007).

Schools
The project sites are within the boundaries of the Waterford Unified School District, which provides public educational services from transitional kindergarten to 12th grade for approximately 1,760 students as of the 2021-22 school year. The School District currently operates one elementary school, one intermediate school, one junior high school, and two high schools, one of which is a continuation school (Waterford Unified School District 2021). Students residing within the project sites would attend all these schools except for the continuation school, attendance of which would be decided on an individual basis by the School District.

Other Public Services
There are five parks in Waterford, along with trails, greenways, and other recreational facilities. Section 3.16, Recreation, provides more information. Parks and recreational facilities within Waterford are managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department.

Other public services in Waterford include the Nora Ballard Public Library, a branch of the Stanislaus County Library system. The library, located at 324 E Street, is open five days per week and offers public computers, a library document station, and a self-serve kiosk.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-i) Fire Protection Services.

The project would increase demand for fire protection service, as new residential buildings would be constructed and occupied. Based on the desired firefighter ratio, Station 24 is currently understaffed, and the project would add to this situation.

However, while the proposed development would make an incremental addition to the responsibilities of the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District, it would not involve a significant effect on the Fire District’s fire protection responsibilities or ability to provide services to the Fire District as a whole. Moreover, Station 24 is approximately 0.6 miles from the project sites, so no new facilities would be needed to improve response times from Station 24 to the project sites. The Fire District indicated that it could adequately serve the project site and did not indicate a need for new or expanded fire facilities to provide service (Ciera Sansing electronic mail).

Project development would be subject to the California Fire Code adopted at the time of development approval. The Fire Code sets requirements for fire flow, fire hydrant locations, and access roads, which would aid firefighters. Project impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-48 May 2024
a-ii) Police Protection Services.

The project would increase demand for police protection service, as new residential development would be constructed and occupied. However, while the proposed development would make an incremental addition to the responsibilities of the Waterford Police Services, it would not involve a significant effect on its police protection responsibilities or ability to provide services to the City as a whole.

The Waterford Police Services station would be less than three-quarters mile from the project sites. Response times from the police station to the project sites are anticipated to be similar to the average response time to emergency calls. The Chief of Waterford Police Services stated that the project site can be adequately served (Michael Parker electronic mail). No new or expanded facilities would be required. Project impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant.
a-iii) Schools.

Because residential development is proposed for construction in the future, the project would likely generate a direct demand for school services in the Waterford Unified School District. The School District imposes development impact fees of $4.79 per square foot of residential development, which would be used for school construction; under State law, the payment of development impact fees is considered adequate mitigation for the potential impact of a project on school facilities. Therefore, project environmental impacts related to schools would be less than significant.
a-iv) Parks.

The project would likely generate a population increase that would in turn affect existing usage of existing City parks. Existing parks are expected to accommodate the small additional demand resulting from the project without requiring new or expanded park facilities. The project would contribute to the ongoing improvement of the Waterford park system through payment of park fees as discussed in the following section. Project environmental impacts related to parks would be less than significant. See Section 3.16, Recreation, for a more detailed analysis.
a-v) Other Public Facilities.

The project may generate an additional demand for library services provided by the Nora Ballard Library. However, the existing facility is expected to accommodate this demand.

The project would not result in a substantial need for new or expanded library facilities.

Project environmental impacts related to library services would be less than significant.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-49 May 2024

3.16 RECREATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
Parks and recreational services within Waterford are provided by the City of Waterford through its Parks and Recreation Department. As noted in Section 3.15, Public Services, the City operates five parks, including mini-parks (less than 0.1 to 1.5 acres), a neighborhood park, and a community park. The nearest City park to the project site is Beard Park, an 11.6-acre community park just west of the intersection of Bonnie Brae Avenue and Tim Bell Road. Beard Park has a playground, ballfields, tennis courts, horseshoe pits, and a community center. The City Parks and Recreation Department also maintains a series of linear greenways.

The City is currently pursuing the development of the Tuolumne River Parkway. This facility would consist of access, trail, park, and riverfront improvements along an approximately 1.25-mile open space corridor along the north bank of the Tuolumne River.

The Parkway is proposed to be constructed in four phases, of which only the first two phases have been defined at this time (City of Waterford 2023).

All residential subdivisions are required to either dedicate land or pay in-lieu fees for park purposes, per Waterford Municipal Code Section 16.13.050. A park and recreation construction fee shall be assessed for any mobile home lot or residential dwelling unit constructed in the city. The fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the revenue and expense account called a “park and recreation construction fee fund.” This fund shall be used solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of the public park, playground, and recreational facilities of the City, and for the installation and development of playground and recreational facilities owned by the elementary and high school districts provided these facilities and improvements are accessible to the public outside of the school operating hours.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-50 May 2024
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Recreational Facilities.

As indicated in Section 3.15, Public Services, the project could generate an additional demand for City park and recreational services. However, it is expected that the existing parks can accommodate the increase in demand. It is expected that the project would pay in-lieu fees to satisfy the park requirements set forth in Waterford Municipal Code Section

16.13.050. This would offset potential impacts of demand for park and recreational services by the residential component of the project. Therefore, project environmental impacts related to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Substantially increase hazards to a geometric design feature (e g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e g, farm equipment)?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Information on traffic for this section is provided by a Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the project by Fehr and Peers. Appendix E contains a copy of the analysis.

The analysis evaluated traffic impacts at eight intersections, three of which would be created by the project under existing conditions without and with the projects.

Environmental Setting
Transportation Facilities
Five primary roadways were evaluated in the transportation analysis:
• Tim Bell Road is a two-lane, north-south collector that provides access between Yosemite Boulevard/SR 132 and residential homes to the north. In the study area, it has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). As noted, Tim Bell Road is along the western boundaries of Sites A and C.
• Bonnie Brae Avenue is a two-lane, east-west collector that provides access between Tim Bell Road and the Oakdale-Waterford Highway. It intersects Tim Bell Road RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-51 May 2024
adjacent to the southwest corner of Site C. Bonnie Brae Avenue has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
• Bentley Street is a two-lane, east-west collector that provides access between Yosemite Avenue/SR 132 and the commercial developments and Waterford Middle School on Bentley Street, as well as the residential homes west of Tim Bell Road. Bentley Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. • Yosemite Boulevard (SR 132) is a two-lane, east-west arterial that is a Caltrans facility. It provides a regional connection between Coulterville and communities/destinations to the east, including Yosemite National Park, and Modesto and ultimately Interstate 580 to the west. In the vicinity of the project sites, Yosemite Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 35 mph.
• Oakdale-Waterford Highway is a two lane north-south arterial that provides access between the City of Waterford and the City of Oakdale. It also provides connection to other arterial and collector streets north of Waterford that provide access to Modesto and SR 99. It is maintained by the City of Waterford in the City limits and by Stanislaus County in the unincorporated County. In the vicinity of the project sites, Oakdale-Waterford Highway has a posted speed limit of 45 mph.

Tim Bell Road is classified and signed as a Class III Bike Route; however, there is limited signage and no striping. Sidewalks are present along both sides of Tim Bell Road between Welch Street and Main Street, but a sidewalk gap exists between Main Street and Bonnie Brae Avenue and between C Street and Yosemite Boulevard. Between Welch Street and C Street, sidewalks are generally only present on the east side of the road.

Bonnie Brae Avenue is classified and signed as a Class III Bike Route, and sidewalks are present on the north side between Oakdale-Waterford Highway and approximately 175 feet east of Ranchwood Court. However, a sidewalk gap is present between Ranchwood Court and Tim Bell Road.

Waterford is served by the Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority (StanRTA). StanRTA offers fixed route service between Waterford and Modesto on Route 50. Buses on Route 50 run every hour, beginning at 5:45 a.m. weekdays and at 7:45 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays. The last Route 50 bus run begins in Modesto at 6:45 p.m. weekdays and at 4:45 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. The closest transit stop to the project sites is on E Street and Bentley Avenue in downtown Waterford. StanRTA also offers paratransit service to Waterford seven days a week. Neither the City’s General Plan nor StanCOG’s Unmet Transit Needs Analysis Report (StanCOG 2024) has identified any planned or necessary transit improvements near the project sites.

Regulatory Framework
Circulation Element Policy CIR 1.12 of the City’s General Plan states that all major intersections and roadway segments should maintain LOS D or better. LOS is a quantitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade from A (the best) to F (the worst) is assigned. LOS is no longer used to determine the environmental impacts of RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-52 May 2024
projects related to transportation, as explained below. However, the Transportation Impact Analysis evaluated the effects of the project on LOS to determine consistency with the City’s General Plan policy.

The State of California has recently added Section 15064.3 to the CEQA Guidelines, which is meant to incorporate SB 743 into CEQA analysis. SB 743 was enacted in 2013 with the intent to balance congestion management needs and the mitigation of the environmental impacts of traffic with statewide GHG emission reduction goals, mainly by developing an alternative mechanism for evaluating transportation impacts. Section 15064.3 states that VMT is the preferred method for evaluating transportation impacts, rather than LOS. The VMT metric measures the total miles traveled as a result of a given project. Unlike LOS, VMT accounts for the total environmental impact of transportation associated with a project, including use of non-vehicle travel modes.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has issued a Technical Advisory on the evaluation of CEQA transportation impacts based on VMT. Based on OPR’s extensive review of the applicable research and an assessment by the ARB quantifying the need for VMT reduction to meet the State’s long-term climate goals, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is 15 percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold. More specifically, for residential projects, OPR suggests that a proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact (OPR 2018).

The City of Waterford has not adopted VMT impact thresholds for general use. For this project, the Transportation Impact Analysis developed a VMT threshold based on direction from City staff. This figure was estimated using a custom data set from StreetLight Data, which is based on anonymized locational records, passively collected from smart phones and connected vehicles, down to the U.S. Census block group level. Based on these data, the Citywide average home-based VMT per capita is 28.34. The City has determined that a significant impact would occur if the proposed project’s home-based VMT per capita exceeds this Citywide average home-based VMT per capita.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Conflicts with Transportation Programs and Plans.

Motor Vehicles
Traffic operations at the eight intersections studied in the Transportation Impact Analysis were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours for both existing conditions and for existing conditions with all three development projects. The results of the evaluations, available in Appendix E and shown in Table 3-7, indicated that traffic at all eight study intersections would operate at LOS C or better under both conditions. Therefore, LOS at traffic intersections would operate above the minimum LOS D standard set in the City’s General Plan, even with development of all three sites.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-53 May 2024
TABLE 3-7

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS

WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECTS
Intersection
Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus
Three Projects
Delay
(sec.)1 LOS
Delay
(sec.)1 LOS
Tim Bell Rd/Bonnie Brae Ave SSSC AM 1 (9) A (A) 1 (9) A (A) PM 2 (9) A (A) 2 (10) A (A)
Tim Bell Rd/Bentley St AWSC AM 8 A 8 A
PM 8 A 8 A
Tim Bell Rd/Welch St AWSC AM 8 A 8 A
PM 8 A 8 A
Tim Bell Rd/Yosemite Blvd SSSC AM 3 (16) A (C) 3 (17) A (C) PM 3 (20) A (C) 3 (22) A (C)
Oakdale-Waterford
Hwy/Tweed St
SSSC AM 2 (11) A (B) 2 (11) A (B)
PM 2 (13) A (B) 2 (13) A (B)
Tim Bell Rd/Enid Dr SSSC AM 1 (9) A (A)
PM 1 (9) A (A)
Tim Bell Rd/”B” St SSSC AM 1 (10) A (A)
PM 1 (10) A (A)
Tim Bell Rd/”A” Way SSSC AM 1 (10) A (A)
PM 1 (10) A (A)
Bold indicates LOS does not meet City criteria.

Notes: SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control; AWSC = All-Way Stop Control; LOS = Level of Service 1 For AWSC intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For SSSC intersections, intersection delay is reported seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection and (worst-case) movement.

Source: Fehr and Peers 2024.

The proposed projects would construct sidewalks along all interior streets and project frontages consistent with City requirements. For Site A, a contiguous sidewalk would be provided on Enid Drive between Tim Bell Road and Tisdell Drive. Sidewalks would also be constructed on Tim Bell Road along the project frontage and along the Waterford Lower Main Canal to the north. For Site B, this would result in contiguous sidewalks between the project site and Oakdale-Waterford Highway along Goldmine Avenue and Quicksilver Street. For Site C, contiguous sidewalks along internal streets would provide a connection to Tim Bell Road, which would connect to the sidewalks being constructed to the south with Site A. The proposed projects would not disrupt or interfere with any existing or planned pedestrian improvements, nor would they result in a physical change that is inconsistent with any policies in the City of Waterford General Plan.

The only existing bicycle facilities directly adjacent to the project site are on Tim Bell Road and Bonnie Brae Avenue, which are both classified and signed as a Class III Bike Route.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-54 May 2024
The proposed projects would not disrupt or interfere with the existing facilities and would not result in any physical change that is inconsistent with policies in the City of Waterford General Plan. As noted, there are no bus routes or bus stops in the vicinity of the project sites. As such, the project would not disrupt or interfere with these existing facilities.

In summary, the project would not substantially conflict with applicable plans or policies related to transportation, either for motor vehicles or for alternative modes of transportation, as defined under the current framework for evaluating the transportation environmental impacts of a project. Project impacts related to transportation programs and plans would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

The Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been revised to include a question regarding consistency of the project with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

Section 15064.3(b) states that VMT is the preferred method for evaluating transportation impacts, rather than the commonly used LOS. Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) sets forth the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts using the preferred VMT metric.

As noted, the Transportation Impact Analysis developed a VMT threshold indicating a significant impact if the project’s home-based VMT per capita would exceed the existing Citywide average home-based VMT per capita. The project sites are in two different block groups. The average home-based VMT per capita figures for these two block groups were used to evaluate project VMT. The existing block groups were determined to be generally representative of the proposed projects, and it is anticipated that future residents would have similar trip making characteristics as the existing residents in these block groups.

Based on these data, the proposed projects are estimated to generate an average homebased VMT per capita of 27.73, which is lower than the Citywide average home-based VMT per capita of 28.34. Therefore, the project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Project impacts would be less than significant. c) Traffic Hazards.

The project would create new intersections and roadways that would be designed to comply with the City of Waterford Improvement Standards and the Waterford Municipal Code.

City improvement standards and the Municipal Code include design criteria to ensure residential subdivisions would meet or exceed uniform levels of sound engineering practices. The design criteria address speed, sight distance and clear zones, roadway grade, curve radius, intersection spacing and lighting and more. Intersection signing and striping would be designed to meet applicable industry standards from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets by the American Associations of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Applicable to Sites A and C, Section 16.03.110 of the Waterford Municipal Code requires that when local street intersections are off set, the offset must be a minimum 100 feet centerline to centerline. Bonnie Brae Avenue and Tim Bell Road are classified as collector streets; however, the City has not established a minimum off-set necessary for collectors.

Due to a posted speed limit of 25 mph, low volumes on Bonnie Brae Avenue, and RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-55 May 2024
anticipated low volumes on the proposed side streets, the City of Waterford has confirmed the proposed intersection spacing for Sites A and C is acceptable.

No other potential traffic hazards were identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis.

Project impacts regarding traffic hazards would be less than significant. d) Emergency Access.

Section 16.03.120 of the Municipal Code requires each tentative tract or parcel map provide at least two different routes for ingress and egress. All three proposed development projects have two access routes. Therefore, the project would provide adequate access for vehicles, including emergency vehicles. Moreover, each development application would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Fire Department, which would review for consistency with City design criteria to ensure safe vehicle access is provided, including for emergency vehicles. Project impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
As noted in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the project site is within the ethnographically reported territory of the Northern Valley Yokuts, who lived in the northern San Joaquin Valley from around Bear Creek north of Stockton to the bend in the San Joaquin River near Mendota. In general, the Yokuts were seasonally mobile hunter-gatherers with semipermanent villages. Seasonal movements to temporary camps occurred to exploit food RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-56 May 2024
resources in other environmental zones. The Northern Valley Yokuts relied heavily on acorns as a food staple, along with salmon and other fish (City of Waterford 2006a).

The Yokuts first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers visited the area in the late 1700s. These early visits were followed by expeditions to recover individuals who had escaped from the missions located further west. The Northern Valley Yokuts were far more affected by missions than were the other Yokut groups. The loss of individuals to the missions, the influence of runaway neophytes, various epidemics in the 1800s, and the arrival of settlers and miners contributed to the disintegration of Yokut culture (City of Waterford 2006a). Despite this, the Yokuts tribe continues to exist today; the Nototomne/North Valley Yokut Tribe, Inc., represents the Northern Valley Yokuts in the region.

AB 52
In 2015, the California Legislature enacted AB 52, which focuses on consultation with Native American tribes to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on tribal cultural resources, which are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.” When a tribe requests consultation with a CEQA lead agency on projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated geographical area, the lead agency must provide the tribe with notice of a proposed project within 14 days of a project application being deemed complete or when the lead agency decides to undertake the project if it is the agency’s own project. The tribe has up to 30 days to respond to the notice and request consultation; if consultation is requested, then the local agency has up to 30 days to initiate consultation.

Matters which may be subjects of AB 52 consultation include the type of CEQA environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, and project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation of the tribal cultural resource that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. The consultation process ends when either (1) the resource in question is not considered significant, (2) the parties agree to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource, or (3) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Regardless of the outcome, a lead agency is still obligated under CEQA to mitigate any significant environmental effects, as explicitly noted in AB 52.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Tribal Cultural Resources.

As noted in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the Central California Information Center conducted a records search for historical and archaeological resources and other items of cultural significance. The report states that no discoveries of potential prehistoric resources within or near the project sites have been reported. Additionally, no resources that are known to have value to local cultural groups have been formally reported (CCIC 2024).

Notification letters, available in Appendix C, were sent to potentially interested tribes inviting them to consult on the project per AB 52. Letters were sent to representatives of RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-57 May 2024
seven tribes: Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe, Northern Valley Yokut/ Ohlone Tribe, Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, Tule River Indian Tribe, and Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. To date, none of these tribes has sent a response to the City requesting consultation.

While there is no recorded evidence of known cultural resources on the project site, there is a potential for unknown resources, which may be associated with Native American tribes, to be uncovered during project construction. Types of archaeological sites that could occur in Waterford include, but are not limited to, occupation sites, indicated by structural features such as house pits, ceremonial locations, and remains of sweathouses and storage structures, which are often found in areas that have been organically enriched by the accumulation of domestic debris (City of Waterford 2006a).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, described in Section 3.5, sets forth procedures for the treatment and disposition of uncovered resources. Also, as noted, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e) sets forth procedures to be followed should any human remains be uncovered, with special requirements for burials determined to be Native American. Impacts on tribal cultural resources are considered less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1.

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-58 May 2024
Environmental Setting
The City of Waterford provides potable water service to City residents and businesses, except for a portion of southeastern Waterford that is served by the separate River Pointe water system. Both the City and the River Pointe water systems are connected. Source water for the City, as well as for the River Pointe system, is local groundwater aquifers.

The City does not currently use surface water. The City owns and operates six water production wells with a total production capacity for the system of 2,875 gallons per minute, along with approximately 91,000 feet of distribution pipe of various sizes and conditions but no storage capacity. The City has approximately 2,260 service connections, all of which have water meters (City of Waterford 2016). Eight-inch diameter PVC water lines are beneath Quicksilver Street and Goldmine Avenue west of Site B. A six-inch diameter PVC water line is beneath Enid Drive east of Site A, and a two-inch diameter steel water line is beneath Tim Bell Road along Sites A and C.

MID operates the Main Canal, which forms the northern boundary of Site B. The MID Main Canal conveys water from Modesto Reservoir to downstream laterals that provide irrigation water to MID customers. MID also manages the Waterford Lower Main Canal, a lateral that was formerly operated by the Waterford Irrigation District before its merger with MID. This lateral extends westward from the Main Canal through the northern and western portions of Waterford before leaving the city altogether. As noted, this lateral separates Site A from Site C.

The City provides wastewater collection and treatment services for City residents and businesses. The City owns and operates a wastewater collection system comprised of gravity sewers, force mains, and three lift stations (City of Waterford 2006b). Sewer lines six inches in diameter are underneath Quicksilver Street and Goldmine Avenue west of Site B. A six-inch diameter line is located along the Tim Bell Road frontage of Site A, and an eight-inch diameter line is beneath Enid Drive east of this site. No known sewer lines currently serve Site C.

All the City’s wastewater is currently conveyed to and treated at a single wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which lies just south of Riverside Drive, on a bluff above the northern bank of the Tuolumne River. The current capacity of the WWTP is 1.0 million gallons per day. Current discharge requirements for the treatment plant are prescribed under Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 94-100 and the associated monitoring and reporting program, which was adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB in 1994 (City of Waterford 2006c).

The City provides storm water collection services for City residents and businesses. The primary drainage pattern for the city of Waterford is south towards the Tuolumne River.

Most runoff flows to the Tuolumne River through eight storm drains. However, two drain lines that collect storm water in the northern portion of the city drain into the MID Main Canal along the northern boundary of the city. Waterford has been subject to localized flooding, and several improvements have been installed to drain the area. These improvements include storm and detention ponds with lift/pump stations (City of RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-59 May 2024
Waterford 2006a). The three project sites currently are not served by any storm drainage facilities. As described in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the City’s drainage system is subject to SWRCB’s Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, which is a general MS4 permit issued as part of the NPDES program.

The City contracts with Waste Management, Inc. to provide refuse collection and disposal services for residences. Commercial and construction wastes are collected by a variety of permitted haulers. Solid waste collected in Waterford is deposited in the Fink Road Landfill in southwestern Stanislaus County. The Fink Road Landfill is at approximately 50 percent capacity (CalRecycle 2023). It was scheduled to close in December 2023, but the closure date has been extended to 2050.

Electrical service in Waterford is provided by MID. There is an electrical substation in Waterford, and major (60-kilovolt) electric transmission lines run through the area. PG&E provides natural gas service to the city. The transmission lines and pipelines run parallel with existing transportation corridors, minimizing the effects on land use activities (City of Waterford 2006a).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Relocation or Construction of Utility Facilities.

The project would require the extension of utility lines to the project sites. Existing water and sewer lines beneath Quicksilver Street and Goldmine Avenue are anticipated to be extended onto Site B to provide water and sewer service. The water and sewer line extensions would be part of the development of Site B, which currently has no water or sewer facilities. As such, the extension of these lines would have no significant impact outside the impact of developing Site B.

Similarly, Sites A and C are anticipated to be provided water and sewer service through extension from existing lines in the area. However, it is not known if the existing two-inch diameter water line beneath Tim Bell Road would adequately serve development on these two sites. Also, a sewer line would need to be extended to serve Site C, as there are currently no lines adjacent to this site. It is anticipated that an extension of the existing sewer line beneath Tim Bell Road that currently ends near Bonnie Brae Avenue would be necessary to provide sewer service to Site C. Inadequate water and sewer facilities could lead to adverse impacts such as insufficient water pressure for residences, inadequate fire flows, and ruptures leading to releases of water and raw sewage. Waterford Municipal Code Chapter 16.07 requires that an application for a tentative subdivision map include information on the proposed source of water supply and method of sewage disposal, along with preliminary engineering calculations that demonstrate the adequacy of the design of the proposed improvements.

In addition, storm drainage facilities would need to be installed to serve development at all three sites. Existing storm drainage facilities are not on or near any of the three sites.

Waterford Municipal Code Chapter 16.03 sets forth design requirements for stormwater detention basins, among other facilities.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-60 May 2024
All these facilities would be constructed either on the project sites or within the right-ofway of existing roads. As such, their construction would not have a significant environmental impact separate from development of the project sites in general. However, due to concern with the provision of water service from the existing Tim Bell Road line plus storm drainage concerns, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. The mitigation measure would reduce impacts related to relocation or installation of infrastructure to a level that would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

UTIL-1: Prior to final approval of the site plan, the project applicant shall prepare an improvement plan that shall show the locations of proposed utility lines and other facilities. The improvement plan(s) shall show how these facilities would connect to existing City utility systems and demonstrate compliance with City standards and specifications pertinent to these facilities. The Waterford Department of Public Works shall review and approve the improvement plan(s).
b) Water Supplies.

The project would connect to the City’s water system, which is supplied exclusively by groundwater. According to the City’s Water Master Plan, many of the Waterford service area wells are past their useful life and will need to be replaced. Although no additional source capacity is needed in the near term, the City should anticipate some or all the aging wells will fail. In addition, there are concerns about the lowering groundwater table and nearby “cones of depression” that indicate the groundwater supply may not be as reliable a source as it has been historically (City of Waterford 2016).

The Water Master Plan estimates that average water demand is 145 gallons per capita per day (City of Waterford 2016). Based on the projected population of the project sites of 398 (see Section 3.14, Population and Housing), the estimated water demand would be 57,710 gallons per day, or approximately 64.64 acre-feet per year. As noted, the water demand for the City was 1,413 acre-feet per year (see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality).

Concerns about the long-term capability of the City’s water system to provide water for anticipated future development. The City acknowledges that future availability of groundwater may be limited due to the implementation of groundwater sustainability legislation. Therefore, reliance exclusively on groundwater may not be feasible, although pursuit of additional groundwater sources is considered an option (City of Waterford 2016).

The connection of the City’s water system with the River Pointe system provided the City with more access to water. The River Pointe system was originally developed to supply both the River Pointe development and another development that was not constructed and has been abandoned. Therefore, the two water wells that were developed as part of the River Pointe system are oversized for the system, and excess water is available for City use. The amount of water available from the River Pointe system, less 20 percent reduced capacity for fire protection needs, is approximately 420 million gallons per year, or 1,289 RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-61 May 2024
acre-feet per year. In 2023, 38.51 million gallons of water were pumped from the River Pointe wells (Pitcock 2024).

Since anticipated project use would be approximately 61.92 acre-feet per year, the City would have adequate water available from the River Pointe water system. The City would not need to obtain additional water supplies for the project. Therefore, project impacts on water supply would be less than significant.
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity.

The project would result in a small increase in wastewater flows to the City’s system. All wastewater generated by the project would be treated at the City’s wastewater treatment plant, which as noted has a current treatment capacity of 1.0 million gallons per day.

According to the City’s Sewer System Master Plan, the average dry weather flow generated by low-density residential development is 1,215 gallons per acre per day (City of Waterford 2006b). Therefore, the project at full development is expected to generate approximately 24,397 gallons of wastewater per day. The WWTP treated approximately 207 million gallons of wastewater in 2023, or 567,123 gallons per day (Pitcock 2024). Therefore, even with the wastewater from the project, the WWTP would have adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flow. No additional capacity would be required. Project impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. d, e) Solid Waste Services.

The project would contribute to the solid waste disposal stream from the City and place demands on existing landfill operations and capacity. CalRecycle posted a solid waste generation rate for commercial retail uses from a solid waste guide for development projects in Santa Barbara County. According to this source, a conservative estimate of the amount of solid waste generated by single-family residential use is 12.23 pounds per household per day (CalRecycle 2019). Based on this, the estimated amount of solid waste that would be generated by project development would be approximately 1,382 pounds per day, or approximately 252 tons per year.

As noted, the Fink Road Landfill has approximately half of its capacity remaining.

Therefore, this landfill would have adequate capacity to accommodate the solid waste that would be generated by the project at buildout. The project would comply with applicable state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste as discussed above. Project impacts on solid waste would be less than significant.

3.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-62 May 2024
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ⬜ ⬜ ⬜
Environmental Setting
Wildland fires in Stanislaus County are generally limited to the foothills on either side of the county. Fire hazard severity in the foothills is very high in the western portion of the county and high along the eastern edge (Stanislaus County 2016). The unincorporated and/or undeveloped areas adjacent to the city of Waterford’s urban planning area are predominantly irrigated cropland. As the city annexes rural areas, agricultural management practices sometimes result in weeds and grasses growing in such a manner as to create a fire hazard. Wildland fire hazards are reduced by enforcement of city building and fire codes, use of green belting, prescription burning to control fuel load, weed abatement, and implementation of other fire safe practices (City of Waterford 2006a).

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program identifies fire threat based on a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior. These two factors are combined in determining the following Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. These zones apply to areas designated as State Responsibility Areas – areas in which the State has primary firefighting responsibility. Waterford is not within a State Responsibility Area, and it is not in any designated fire hazard zone (Cal Fire 2022).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Emergency Response Plans and Emergency Evacuation Plans.

The project site is not part of a State Responsibility Area, and the Cal Fire map indicates the site is not designated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a zone of higher severity. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards, project construction is not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area, and project operations would not obstruct any roadways. The project would have no impact related to wildfire emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. b) Exposure of Project Occupants to Wildfire Hazards.

The project site is currently vacant and covered with grasses and weeds. The project would reduce the existing fire hazard on the parcel by replacing existing vegetation with urban RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-63 May 2024
development. Cal Fire maps indicate that the project sites are not in high fire hazard zones.

The project would have no impact related to exposure of project occupants to wildfire hazards.
c) Installation and Maintenance of Infrastructure.

The project proposes the installation of urban development and the extension of utilities.

The installation of these facilities is not expected to exacerbate the wildfire risk on the project sites, as explained in b) above. The project would have no impact related to infrastructural exacerbation of wildfire hazards.
d) Risks from Runoff, Post-Fire Slope Instability, or Drainage Changes.

The project site is in a topographically flat area. There are no natural streams that cross the site. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. The project would have no impact related to risks from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
c) Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
⬜ ⬜ ⬜
a) Findings on Biological and Cultural Resources.

The potential biological resource and cultural resource impacts of the revised project were described in this IS/MND in Section 3.4, Biological Resources; Section 3.5, Cultural RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 3-64 May 2024
Resources; and Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. Potentially significant environmental effects on biological and cultural resources were identified, but implementation of mitigation measures described in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 would reduce these effects to a level that would be less than significant. b) Findings on Cumulatively Considerable Impacts.

A cumulative impact is an environmental impact that may result from the combination of two or more environmental impacts associated with the proposed project with each other, or the combination of one or more project impacts with related environmental impacts caused by other projects.

As has been noted, the project is consistent with the land use designation of the Waterford General Plan; as such, the project is not expected to introduce any new or more severe environmental impacts not otherwise analyzed in the Waterford General Plan EIR, including impacts related to noise and transportation. The preparers of the Transportation Impact Analysis for the project considered the EIR analysis of cumulative impacts related to traffic as sufficient to describe the potential cumulative impacts of the project (Carly Hoyt electronic mail).

For project-specific effects identified as potentially significant, mitigation measures would reduce these effects to a level that would be less than significant, so the project would not make a considerable contribution to potential cumulative impacts. None of the potential environmental effects addressed individually in this IS/MND would combine with other effects to result in a cumulatively considerable effect. c) Findings on Adverse Effects on Human Beings.

Potential adverse project effects on human beings were discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.7, Geology and Soils (seismic hazards); Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (flooding); Section 3.17, Transportation (traffic hazards); and Section 3.20, Wildfire. For most aspects of these issues, no potential adverse effects on human beings were identified. Potential adverse effects that were identified would be reduced to levels considered less than significant through compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and City ordinances and standards, along with mitigation measures where necessary.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 4-1 May 2024

4.0 REFERENCES

4.1 DOCUMENT PREPARERS
This IS/MND was prepared by BaseCamp Environmental, Inc. for use by and under the supervision of the City of Waterford Planning Division. The following persons were involved in preparation of the IS/MND:

City of Waterford
Mark Niskanen, Contract Planner
Michael Arroyo, Contract Planner
Mike Pitcock, City Manager
Rob Marler, City Engineer
BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.

Charlie Simpson, Principal
Terry Farmer, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner
Krista Simpson, Maps/Graphics
Rayanna Beck, Research and Document Production

4.2 REFERENCES CITED
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017.
______. 2022a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. October 26, 2022.
______. 2022b. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2018. Stanislaus County Important Farmland 2018, Sheet 1 of 2 (map).

California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). 2024. Well Finder – CalGEM GIS. Available online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/. Accessed January 10, 2024.

California Department of Finance. 2023. Report E-5, Report E-5 - Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State - January 1, 2021-2023.

Sacramento, California, May 2023.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 4-2 May 2024
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). 2022. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Stanislaus County (map).

November 21, 2022.

California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle). 2019. Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ WasteCharacterization/General/Rates#Commercial. Accessed August 7, 2019. ______. 2023. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Fink Road Landfill (50-AA-0001).

Available online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/ Details/992?siteID=3733. Accessed August 22, 2023.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor database, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/. Accessed January 10, 2024.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. ______. 2019. List of Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Available online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ scenic_hwy.htm. August 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2014. Geology of the Northern Sacramento Valley. June 2014, updated September 22, 2014. ______. 2023. Best Available Maps. Available online at https://gis.bam.water.ca.gov/ bam/. Accessed August 4, 2023.

California Energy Commission. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2024a. Electricity Consumption by County – Stanislaus County 2022. Available online at ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed February 2, 2024. ______. 2024b. Gas Consumption by County – Stanislaus County 2022. Available online at ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed February 2, 2024.

California Geological Survey. 2023. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps.

Available online at maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ regulatorymaps/. Accessed July 31, 2023.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2024.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Available online at oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/ draft-calenviroscreen-40. Accessed January 25, 2024.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2022. 2022 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report. November 2022.

Central California Information Center (CCIC). 2024. Records Search File #: 12785N.

Project: Waterford Subdivision, Bonnie Brae and Tim Bell Road, Waterford.

January 26, 2024.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 4-3 May 2024
City of Waterford. 2006a. The City of Waterford General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. August 2006.
______. 2006b. City of Waterford Sewer System Master Plan. Prepared by RMC Water and Environment. February 2006.
______. 2006c. City of Waterford Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan. Prepared by RMC Water and Environment. March 2006.
______. 2007. City of Waterford General Plan Update Vision 2025. June 21, 2007. ______. 2016. City of Waterford Water Master Plan 2016. Prepared by Shoreline Environmental Engineering. April 2016.
______. 2018. Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan Final Housing Element 2014 – 2023.

July 2018.
______. 2022. Waterford 2022 Annual Water Quality Report for the Waterford Water System 5010006.
______. 2023. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tuolumne River Parkway Project.
______. 2024. 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, HCD Review Draft.

Prepared by J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning. March 2024.

Congressional Research Service. 2021. Vehicle Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Standards: Frequently Asked Questions. Updated June 1, 2021.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06099C0369E, Stanislaus County, California and Incorporated Areas. Effective date September 26, 2008.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.

Fehr and Peers. Carly Hoyt. 2024. Waterford Residential Development Projects, Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Report. February 15, 2024.

Fernandez-Bou, Angel Santiago, J. Pablo Ortiz-Partida, Chantelise Pells, Leticia M.

Classen-Rodriguez, Vicky Espinoza, Jose M. Rodríguez-Flores, Lorenzo Booth, Julia Burmistrova, Alan Cai, Ariadna Cairo, John A. Capitman, Spencer Cole, Humberto Flores-Landeros, Alexander Guzman, Mahesh L. Maskey, Dalia Martínez- Escobar, Pedro Andres Sanchez-Perez, Jorge Valero-Fandiño, Joshua H. Viers, Leroy Westerling, and Josué Medellín-Azuara. 2021. Regional Report for the San Joaquin Valley Region on Impacts of Climate Change. California Natural Resources Agency. Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2021-003.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 4-4 May 2024
North American Technical Services, Inc. 2024. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Update, Proposed Subdivision, Site-2 Tim Bell Road (APN: 080-023-036), Waterford, California. February 8, 2024.

Pitcock, Michael. 2024. Current Water/Wastewater Availability. Memorandum from City of Waterford, March 12, 2024.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2021. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County: Chapter 6 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Adopted February 26, 2021.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Final Staff Report – Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. December 17, 2009. ______. 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Adopted March 19, 2015.
______. 2023. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Valley Attainment Status. Available online at http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed July 28, 2023.

Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Banking Agency (GBA). 2022. Modesto Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Prepared by Todd Groundwater.

January 2022.

Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District (SCFPD). 2024. Website https://www.scfpd.us/. Accessed January 25, 2024.

Stanislaus Council of Governments. (StanCOG). 2022. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. June 2022. ______. 2024. Fiscal Year 2024/25 Adopted Unmet Transit Needs Analysis Report.

Adopted February 21, 2024.

Stanislaus County. 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.

Prepared by ICF International. April 2016.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. GeoTracker database, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed January 10, 2024.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Census 2020 Geography Profile - Waterford city, California.

Available online at https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007.

Soil Survey of Stanislaus County, California, Northern Part.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 4-5 May 2024
______. 2024. Custom Soil Resource Report for Eastern Stanislaus Area, California.

Available online through https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. January 10, 2024.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1964. Soil Survey, Eastern Stanislaus Area, California.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018. 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Energy Consumption and Expenditures Tables. Table CE4.10: Annual household site end‐use consumption by fuel in the West - averages, 2015. Release date May 2018.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Endangerment and Cause of Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 239, pp. 66496-66546. December 15, 2009.

Wagner, D. L., E. J. Bortugno, and R. D. McJunkin. 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, Regional Geologic Map Series.

Waterford Unified School District. 2021. 2021-22 LCFF Budget Overview for Parents Data Input Sheet.

4.3 PERSONS CONSULTED
Michael Arroyo. J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning.

Jim Freitas. Associated Engineering Group.

Carly Hoyt. Fehr and Peers.

Rob Marler. City Engineer, City of Waterford.

Mark Niskanen. Vice President, J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning.

Michael Parker. Chief, Waterford Police Services.

Michael G. Pitcock. City Manager, City of Waterford.

Ciera Sansing. Administrative Assistant II, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District.

RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 5-1 May 2024

5.0 NOTES RELATED TO EVALUATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, RES 2024-42
Waterstone Subdivisions IS/MND 5-2 May 2024
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

RES 2024-42
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY MODELING RESULTS
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
1 / 81
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
2 / 81

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.12. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.13. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated

3.14. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated

3.15. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated

3.16. Paving (2028) - Mitigated

3.17. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated

3.18. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated

3.19. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
3 / 81

3.20. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
4 / 81

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
5 / 81

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
6 / 81

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
7 / 81

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
8 / 81

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
9 / 81

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
10 / 81

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Waterford 3 Subdivisions
Construction Start Date 4/1/2025
Operational Year 2030
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 16.4
Location 37.64775609791974, -120.75602045251063
County Stanislaus
City Waterford
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2223
EDFZ 15
Electric Utility Modesto Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.22

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
11 / 81
Single Family
Housing
118 Dwelling Unit 38.3 230,100 1,382,117 — 374 —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Construction C-12 Sweep Paved Roads
Energy E-1 Buildings Exceed 2019 Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards
Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.39 31.7 31.1 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 6,788 Mit. 2.47 22.2 36.4 0.06 0.92 7.80 7.90 0.84 3.97 4.07 6,788 % Reduced 27% 30% -17% — 33% 61% 63% 33% 61% 64% —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 25.2 29.8 29.1 0.06 1.23 9.36 10.6 1.14 3.69 4.83 6,770 Mit. 25.2 4.50 36.2 0.06 0.12 3.74 3.87 0.12 1.46 1.58 6,770 % Reduced — 85% -24% — 90% 60% 63% 89% 60% 67% — RES 2024-42 Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
12 / 81
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.45 12.9 13.0 0.02 0.54 3.60 4.14 0.50 1.60 2.10 2,649 Mit. 2.07 4.55 14.4 0.02 0.17 1.47 1.63 0.16 0.64 0.80 2,649 % Reduced 15% 65% -11% — 69% 59% 61% 68% 60% 62% —
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.45 2.36 2.36 < 0.005 0.10 0.66 0.76 0.09 0.29 0.38 439 Mit. 0.38 0.83 2.64 < 0.005 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.03 0.12 0.15 439 % Reduced 15% 65% -11% — 69% 59% 61% 68% 60% 62% —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.39 31.7 31.1 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 6,788 2026 1.26 10.3 15.1 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.77 0.35 0.09 0.44 3,018 2027 1.21 9.83 14.9 0.03 0.34 0.38 0.72 0.31 0.09 0.41 3,004 2028 1.16 9.34 14.8 0.03 0.30 0.38 0.69 0.28 0.09 0.37 2,992 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 3.28 29.8 29.1 0.06 1.23 9.36 10.6 1.14 3.69 4.83 6,770 2026 1.24 10.4 14.6 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.77 0.35 0.09 0.44 2,982 2027 1.19 9.88 14.5 0.03 0.34 0.38 0.72 0.31 0.09 0.41 2,969 2028 25.2 9.38 14.4 0.03 0.30 0.38 0.69 0.28 0.09 0.37 2,958 2029 25.2 0.81 1.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 190 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.43 12.9 13.0 0.02 0.54 3.60 4.14 0.50 1.60 2.10 2,649 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
13 / 81
2026 0.89 7.39 10.5 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.54 0.25 0.07 0.32 2,136 2027 0.85 7.04 10.4 0.02 0.24 0.27 0.51 0.22 0.07 0.29 2,127 2028 2.45 5.68 8.78 0.01 0.19 0.21 0.40 0.17 0.05 0.22 1,721 2029 2.07 0.07 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.26 2.36 2.36 < 0.005 0.10 0.66 0.76 0.09 0.29 0.38 439 2026 0.16 1.35 1.92 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.06 354 2027 0.16 1.28 1.89 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.05 352 2028 0.45 1.04 1.60 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.04 285 2029 0.38 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.60

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.47 22.2 36.4 0.06 0.92 7.80 7.90 0.84 3.97 4.07 6,788 2026 0.51 3.28 17.0 0.03 0.08 0.38 0.46 0.08 0.09 0.17 3,018 2027 0.50 3.26 16.8 0.03 0.08 0.38 0.46 0.08 0.09 0.17 3,004 2028 0.50 3.23 16.7 0.03 0.08 0.38 0.46 0.08 0.09 0.17 2,992 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.72 4.50 36.2 0.06 0.12 3.74 3.87 0.12 1.46 1.58 6,770 2026 0.50 3.33 16.5 0.03 0.08 0.38 0.46 0.08 0.09 0.17 2,982 2027 0.49 3.30 16.4 0.03 0.08 0.38 0.46 0.08 0.09 0.17 2,969 2028 25.2 3.27 16.3 0.03 0.08 0.38 0.46 0.08 0.09 0.17 2,958 2029 25.2 0.81 1.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.03 190 Average Daily —
RES 2024-42 — — — — — — — — — —
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
14 / 81
2025 0.59 4.55 14.4 0.02 0.17 1.47 1.63 0.16 0.64 0.80 2,649 2026 0.35 2.36 11.8 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.33 0.05 0.07 0.12 2,136 2027 0.35 2.34 11.7 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.33 0.05 0.07 0.12 2,127 2028 2.04 1.96 9.81 0.01 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.04 0.05 0.09 1,721 2029 2.07 0.07 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.11 0.83 2.64 < 0.005 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.03 0.12 0.15 439 2026 0.06 0.43 2.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 354 2027 0.06 0.43 2.14 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 352 2028 0.37 0.36 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 285 2029 0.38 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.60

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12.4 4.09 51.9 0.13 3.79 3.66 7.45 3.65 0.93 4.58 8,317 Mit. 12.4 4.06 51.9 0.13 3.79 3.66 7.45 3.65 0.93 4.58 8,260 % Reduced < 0.5% 1% < 0.5% — < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% 1% Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.4 4.33 44.0 0.13 3.79 3.66 7.45 3.65 0.93 4.58 7,981 Mit. 11.4 4.31 44.0 0.13 3.79 3.66 7.45 3.65 0.93 4.58 7,925 % Reduced < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% 1% Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.45 3.12 26.3 0.06 0.91 3.54 4.45 0.87 0.90 1.78 6,526 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
15 / 81
Mit. 9.44 3.10 26.2 0.06 0.90 3.54 4.45 0.87 0.90 1.77 6,470 % Reduced < 0.5% 1% < 0.5% — < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% 1% Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.72 0.57 4.79 0.01 0.17 0.65 0.81 0.16 0.16 0.32 1,080 Mit. 1.72 0.56 4.79 0.01 0.17 0.65 0.81 0.16 0.16 0.32 1,071 % Reduced < 0.5% 1% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% 1%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.60 2.19 19.1 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 4,202 Area 8.74 1.42 32.6 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,895
Energy 0.03 0.48 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 1,917 Water — — — — — — — — — — 108
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 193
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total 12.4 4.09 51.9 0.13 3.79 3.66 7.45 3.65 0.93 4.58 8,317 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.22 2.50 17.9 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 3,885 Area 8.17 1.35 25.9 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,877
Energy 0.03 0.48 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 1,917 Water — — — — — — — — — — 108
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 193
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total
RES 2024-42

11.4 4.33 44.0 0.13 3.79 3.66 7.45 3.65 0.93 4.58 7,981 Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
16 / 81
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.19 2.30 16.9 0.04 0.03 3.54 3.57 0.03 0.90 0.93 3,876 Area 6.23 0.33 9.13 0.02 0.84 — 0.84 0.81 — 0.81 430
Energy 0.03 0.48 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 1,917 Water — — — — — — — — — — 108
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 193
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total 9.45 3.12 26.3 0.06 0.91 3.54 4.45 0.87 0.90 1.78 6,526 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.58 0.42 3.09 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.17 642 Area 1.14 0.06 1.67 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 71.3 Energy 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 317 Water — — — — — — — — — — 17.8
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 31.9
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 0.27
Total 1.72 0.57 4.79 0.01 0.17 0.65 0.81 0.16 0.16 0.32 1,080

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.60 2.19 19.1 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 4,202 Area 8.74 1.42 32.6 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,895
Energy 0.03 0.46 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 1,883 Water — — — — — — — — — — 86.0
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 193
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
17 / 81
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total 12.4 4.06 51.9 0.13 3.79 3.66 7.45 3.65 0.93 4.58 8,260 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.22 2.50 17.9 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 3,885 Area 8.17 1.35 25.9 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,877
Energy 0.03 0.46 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 1,883 Water — — — — — — — — — — 86.0
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 193
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total 11.4 4.31 44.0 0.13 3.79 3.66 7.45 3.65 0.93 4.58 7,925 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.19 2.30 16.9 0.04 0.03 3.54 3.57 0.03 0.90 0.93 3,876 Area 6.23 0.33 9.13 0.02 0.84 — 0.84 0.81 — 0.81 430
Energy 0.03 0.46 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 1,883 Water — — — — — — — — — — 86.0
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 193
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total 9.44 3.10 26.2 0.06 0.90 3.54 4.45 0.87 0.90 1.77 6,470 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.58 0.42 3.09 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.17 642 Area 1.14 0.06 1.67 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 71.3 Energy < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 312 Water — — — — — — — — — — 14.2
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 31.9
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — 0.27
Total 1.72 0.56 4.79 0.01 0.17 0.65 0.81 0.16 0.16 0.32 1,071 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
18 / 81

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 3,437
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 3.04 2.73 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 471
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.55 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 77.9
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 125 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
19 / 81
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 3,437
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 3.04 2.73 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 471
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
20 / 81
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.55 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 77.9
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 125 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
21 / 81
Off-Road 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 5,314 Equipment
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.27 2.60 2.48 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 437
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 1.62 1.62 — 0.83 0.83 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.47 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 72.3
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.29 0.29 — 0.15 0.15 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.05 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 146 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.0 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
22 / 81
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.50 2.59 28.3 0.05 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 5,314
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.21 2.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 437
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.63 0.63 — 0.32 0.32 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
23 / 81
Off-Road 0.01 0.04 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 72.3 Equipment
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.06 0.06 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.05 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 146 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
24 / 81
Off-Road
Equipment

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23— 1.23 1.14— 1.14 6,622
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 9.20 9.20— 3.65 3.65—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23— 1.23 1.14— 1.14 6,622
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 9.20 9.20— 3.65 3.65—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.66 6.10 5.82 0.01 0.25— 0.25 0.23— 0.23 1,361
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 1.89 1.89— 0.75 0.75—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.11 1.06 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.04— 0.04 225
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.35 0.35— 0.14 0.14—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.09 0.06 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 167 Vendor 0.00
RES 2024-42

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
25 / 81
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 148 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 31.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.64 4.43 35.3 0.06 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 6,622
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
26 / 81
Off-Road
Equipment

0.64 4.43 35.3 0.06 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 6,622
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.91 7.26 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 1,361
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.74 0.74 — 0.29 0.29 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.17 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 225 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.05 0.05 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.06 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 167 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 148 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —
RES 2024-42 — — — — — — — — — —
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
27 / 81
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 31.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.12 1.40 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 259
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.21 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 42.9
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
28 / 81
Daily, Summer — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 301 Vendor 0.01 0.39 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 286 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 33.5 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.54 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.10 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
29 / 81
Off-Road 0.04 0.30 1.60 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 259 Equipment
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.06 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 42.9 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.15 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 301 Vendor 0.01 0.39 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 286 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 33.5 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.54 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.10 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
30 / 81
Daily, Summer — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 1,718
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 284
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.11 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 331 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 281 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.13 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 295 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 281 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
31 / 81
Worker 0.11 0.09 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 218 Vendor 0.01 0.26 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 201 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 36.0 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 33.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 2.01 10.6 0.02 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 1,718
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.37 1.93 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 284
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
32 / 81
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.11 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 331 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 281 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.13 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 295 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 281 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.09 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 218 Vendor 0.01 0.26 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 201 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 36.0 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 33.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 2,405
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
33 / 81
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.74 6.71 9.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 1,718
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 1.22 1.69 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 284
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.10 1.84 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 324 Vendor 0.01 0.34 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 275 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.12 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 289 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 275 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.08 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 213 Vendor 0.01 0.25 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 196 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —
RES 2024-42 — — — — — — — — — —
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
34 / 81
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 35.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 32.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 2.01 10.6 0.02 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 1,718
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.37 1.93 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 284
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17
RES 2024-42

0.10 1.84 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 324
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
35 / 81
Vendor 0.01 0.34 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 275 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.12 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 289 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 275 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.08 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 213 Vendor 0.01 0.25 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 196 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 35.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 32.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 2,406
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
36 / 81
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.49 4.40 6.38 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 1,186
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.80 1.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 196
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.08 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 318 Vendor 0.01 0.33 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 268 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.11 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 284 Vendor 0.01 0.35 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 268 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.05 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 144 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 132 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 21.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
37 / 81

3.14. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 2.81 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 2.81 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 1.39 7.31 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 1,186
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.25 1.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 196
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.08 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 318 Vendor 0.01 0.33 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 268 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
38 / 81
Worker 0.13 0.11 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 284 Vendor 0.01 0.35 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 268 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.05 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 144 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 132 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 21.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Paving (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.69 6.63 9.91 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 1,516
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.69 6.63 9.91 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 1,516
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily —
RES 2024-42 — — — — — — — — — —
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
39 / 81
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 1.00 1.49 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 228
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.18 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 37.8
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 117 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 105 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.69 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
40 / 81

3.16. Paving (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 1.93 10.6 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 1,516
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 1.93 10.6 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 1,516
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.29 1.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 228 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.05 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 37.8 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
41 / 81
Worker 0.06 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 117 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 105 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.69 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.17. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 134
Architectural
Coatings

25.1 — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
42 / 81
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 9.44 Architectural
Coatings

1.77 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.56 Architectural
Coatings

0.32 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 56.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.68 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
43 / 81

3.18. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 134
Architectural
Coatings

25.1 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 9.44 Architectural
Coatings

1.77 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.56 Architectural
Coatings

0.32 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 56.7 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
44 / 81
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.68 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.19. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 134
Architectural
Coatings

25.1 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 11.0 Architectural
Coatings

2.06 — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
45 / 81
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.82 Architectural
Coatings

0.38 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 55.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.72 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.20. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
46 / 81
Daily, Summer — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 134
Architectural
Coatings

25.1 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 11.0 Architectural
Coatings

2.06 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.82 Architectural
Coatings

0.38 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 55.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.72 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
47 / 81
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

3.60 2.19 19.1 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 4,202 Total 3.60 2.19 19.1 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 4,202 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

3.22 2.50 17.9 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 3,885 Total 3.22 2.50 17.9 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 3,885 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

0.58 0.42 3.09 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.17 642
Total 0.58 0.42 3.09 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.17 642 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
48 / 81

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

3.60 2.19 19.1 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 4,202 Total 3.60 2.19 19.1 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 4,202 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

3.22 2.50 17.9 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 3,885 Total 3.22 2.50 17.9 0.04 0.03 3.66 3.69 0.03 0.93 0.96 3,885 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

0.58 0.42 3.09 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.17 642
Total 0.58 0.42 3.09 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.17 642

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1,304
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1,304
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
49 / 81
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1,304
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1,304
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 216
Total — — — — — — — — — — 216

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1,296
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1,296
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1,296
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1,296
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 215
Total — — — — — — — — — — 215

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
50 / 81
Daily, Summer — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Single Family
Housing

0.03 0.48 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 614
Total 0.03 0.48 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 614 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

0.03 0.48 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 614
Total 0.03 0.48 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 614 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 102
Total 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 102

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

0.03 0.46 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 586
Total 0.03 0.46 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 586 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing

0.03 0.46 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 586
Total 0.03 0.46 0.20 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 586 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
< 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 97.1
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
51 / 81
Total < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 97.1

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 2.86 1.35 25.9 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,877 Consumer
Products

4.92 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.38 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.58 0.06 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 18.0 Total 8.74 1.42 32.6 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,895 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 2.86 1.35 25.9 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,877 Consumer
Products

4.92 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.38 — — — — — — — — — —
Total 8.17 1.35 25.9 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,877 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.12 0.06 1.06 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 69.8 Consumer
Products

0.90 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.07 — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
52 / 81
Landscape
Equipment

0.05 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.47 Total 1.14 0.06 1.67 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 71.3

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 2.86 1.35 25.9 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,877 Consumer
Products

4.92 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.38 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.58 0.06 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 18.0 Total 8.74 1.42 32.6 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,895 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 2.86 1.35 25.9 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,877 Consumer
Products

4.92 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.38 — — — — — — — — — —
Total 8.17 1.35 25.9 0.09 3.72 — 3.72 3.58 — 3.58 1,877 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.12 0.06 1.06 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 69.8 Consumer
Products

0.90 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.07 — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
53 / 81
Landscape
Equipment

0.05 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.47 Total 1.14 0.06 1.67 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 71.3

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 108
Total — — — — — — — — — — 108
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 108
Total — — — — — — — — — — 108
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 17.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — 17.8

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
54 / 81
Single Family — — — — — — — — — — 86.0
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — 86.0
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 86.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — 86.0
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 14.2
Total — — — — — — — — — — 14.2

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 193
Total — — — — — — — — — — 193
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 193
Total — — — — — — — — — — 193
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 31.9
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
55 / 81
Total — — — — — — — — — — 31.9

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 193
Total — — — — — — — — — — 193
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 193
Total — — — — — — — — — — 193
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 31.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — 31.9

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total
RES 2024-42 — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
56 / 81
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.27
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.27

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.65
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.27
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.27

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
57 / 81

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
58 / 81
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
59 / 81
Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Type
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
60 / 81
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered —
RES 2024-42 — — — — — — — — — —
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
61 / 81
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total
RES 2024-42 — — — — — — — — — — —
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
62 / 81
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
63 / 81
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 4/1/2025 6/10/2025 5.00 50.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/11/2025 7/23/2025 5.00 30.0 — Grading Grading 7/24/2025 11/6/2025 5.00 75.0 —
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
64 / 81
Building Construction Building Construction 11/7/2025 9/8/2028 5.00 740 — Paving Paving 9/9/2028 11/25/2028 5.00 55.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/26/2028 2/11/2029 5.00 55.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving
RES 2024-42
Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
65 / 81
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
66 / 81

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 40.7 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 12.1 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
67 / 81
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 8.14 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 40.7 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
68 / 81
Building Construction Vendor 12.1 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 8.14 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 446,209 148,736 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
69 / 81
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 45.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 225 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 1.25 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,114 1,126 1,009 401,720 5,085 5,139 4,606 1,833,868
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
70 / 81

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,114 1,126 1,009 401,720 5,085 5,139 4,606 1,833,868

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 57
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 57
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 6
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 6
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 57
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
71 / 81
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 57
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 6
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 6
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
446208.75 148,736 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
72 / 81
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 991,506 478 0.0330 0.0040 1,909,814

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 986,035 478 0.0330 0.0040 1,824,264

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 4,510,759 22,342,373

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 3,608,608 17,873,899

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 102 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
73 / 81
Single Family Housing 102 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
74 / 81

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
75 / 81

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 24.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
76 / 81
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
77 / 81
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 72.8
AQ-PM 53.7
AQ-DPM 8.05
Drinking Water 92.6
Lead Risk Housing 32.0
Pesticides 89.4
Toxic Releases 26.3
Traffic 1.99
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 63.7
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 16.6
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 64.4
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
78 / 81
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 64.0
Cardio-vascular 87.1
Low Birth Weights 20.7
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 61.4
Housing 8.86
Linguistic 48.2
Poverty 60.5
Unemployment 76.1

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 38.0341332
Employed 33.54292314
Median HI 40.56204286
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 20.73655845
High school enrollment 24.08571795
Preschool enrollment 28.57692801
Transportation —
Auto Access 55.28037983
Active commuting 45.77184653
Social —
2-parent households 78.90414475
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
79 / 81
Voting 42.2302066
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 74.23328628
Park access 43.92403439
Retail density 2.091620685
Supermarket access 13.17849352
Tree canopy 76.58154754
Housing —
Homeownership 63.76235083
Housing habitability 74.63107917
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 65.18670602 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 65.17387399
Uncrowded housing 63.4800462
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 38.84255101
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 63.3
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 23.0
Cognitively Disabled 50.3
Physically Disabled 52.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 12.5
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
80 / 81
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 37.8
Elderly 72.3
English Speaking 32.2
Foreign-born 39.3
Outdoor Workers 4.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 80.5
Traffic Density 2.3
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 70.9
Other Decision Support—
2016 Voting 61.5
RES 2024-42
Waterford 3 Subdivisions Detailed Report, 4/19/2024
81 / 81

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 62.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 40.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Vehicle Data H-S and H-O trips generally confined to Waterford area.

RES 2024-42
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE MATERIALS
RES 2024-42
Element_Type Scientific_Name Common_Name Element_Code Federal_Status State_Status CDFW_Status CA_Rare_Plant_Rank Quad_Code Quad_Name Data_Status Taxonomic_Sort Animals -
Birds
Buteo swainsoni Swainsons hawk ABNKC19070 None Threatened - - 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped and Unprocessed
Animals - Birds -
Accipitridae -
Buteo swainsoni
Animals -
Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened SSC - 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped Animals - Birds - Icteridae -
Agelaius tricolor
Animals -
Birds
Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl ABNSB10010 None None SSC - 3712067 WATERFORD Unprocessed Animals - Birds - Strigidae -
Athene
cunicularia
Animals - Fish Cottus gulosus riffle sculpin AFC4E02140 None None SSC - 3712067 WATERFORD Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Cottidae - Cottus
gulosus
Animals - Fish Lavinia
exilicauda
exilicauda
Sacramento
hitch
AFCJB19012 None None SSC - 3712067 WATERFORD Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Cyprinidae -
Lavinia
exilicauda
exilicauda
Animals - Fish Mylopharodon
conocephalus
hardhead AFCJB25010 None None SSC - 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped and Unprocessed
Animals - Fish -
Cyprinidae -
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
Animals - Fish Hysterocarpus
traskii traskii
Sacramento-San
Joaquin tule
perch
AFCQK02012 None None - - 3712067 WATERFORD Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Embiotocidae -
Hysterocarpus
traskii traskii
Animals - Fish Entosphenus
tridentatus
Pacific lamprey AFBAA02100 None None SSC - 3712067 WATERFORD Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Petromyzontidae
- Entosphenus
tridentatus
Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus
keta
chum salmon AFCHA02020 None None - - 3712067 WATERFORD Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae -
Oncorhynchus
keta
Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 11
steelhead -
Central Valley
DPS
AFCHA0209K Threatened None - - 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped and Unprocessed
Animals - Fish -
Salmonidae -
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 11
Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop.
11 chinook salmon -
Central Valley
spring-run ESU
AFCHA0205L Threatened Threatened - - 3712067 WATERFORD Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae -
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop.
11 Animals - Fish Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop.
13 chinook salmon -
Central Valley
fall / late fall-run
ESU
AFCHA0205N None None SSC - 3712067 WATERFORD Unprocessed Animals - Fish - Salmonidae -
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop.
13 Animals -
Insects
Bombus
pensylvanicus
American
bumble bee
IIHYM24260 None None - - 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped Animals - Insects - Apidae -
Bombus
pensylvanicus
Animals -
Insects
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
IICOL48011 Threatened None - - 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped Animals - Insects - Cerambycidae -
Desmocerus
RES 2024-42
californicus
dimorphus
Plants -
Vascular
Fritillaria agrestis stinkbells PMLIL0V010 None None- 4.2 3712067 WATERFORD Unprocessed Plants - Vascular - Liliaceae -
Fritillaria agrestis
Plants -
Vascular
Clarkia rostrata beaked clarkia PDONA050Y0 None None- 1B.3 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped Plants - Vascular - Onagraceae -
Clarkia rostrata
Plants -
Vascular
Neostapfia
colusana
Colusa grass PMPOA4C010 Threatened Endangered- 1B.1 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped Plants - Vascular - Poaceae -
Neostapfia
colusana
Plants -
Vascular
Orcuttia
inaequalis
San Joaquin
Valley Orcutt
grass
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered- 1B.1 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped Plants - Vascular - Poaceae -
Orcuttia
inaequalis
Plants -
Vascular
Tuctoria greenei Greenes tuctoria PMPOA6N010 Endangered Rare- 1B.1 3712067 WATERFORD Mapped Plants - Vascular - Poaceae -
Tuctoria greenei
RES 2024-42
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Stanislaus County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
RES 2024-42
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Mammals
1 2

NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
RES 2024-42
Reptiles
Amphibians
Insects
Crustaceans

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
RES 2024-42
Flowering Plants
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Colusa Grass Neostapfia colusana
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5690
Threatened
Greene's Tuctoria Tuctoria greenei
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1573
Endangered
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Grass Orcuttia inaequalis
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5506
Threatened
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".
1 2
3 RES 2024-42
There are bald and/or golden eagles in your project area.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoidingand-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-mayoccur-project-action NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
RES 2024-42
probability of presence  breeding season  survey effort  no data Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions.

Migratory birds
RES 2024-42
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoidingand-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-mayoccur-project-action 1 2
3 NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
RES 2024-42
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
RES 2024-42
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
RES 2024-42
probability of presence  breeding season  survey effort  no data

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Belding's Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
California Thrasher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Lawrence's Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tricolored Blackbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Yellow-billed Magpie
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area.

When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very RES 2024-42
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

RES 2024-42
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

RES 2024-42
Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

RES 2024-42
Waterford Subdivisions
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, [email protected]
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
February 16, 2024
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km
1:7,523
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

RES 2024-42
APPENDIX C
CULTURAL RESOURCE MATERIALS
RES 2024-42

Date: 1/26/2024 Records Search File #: 12785N
Project: Waterford Subdivision, Bonnie Brae
and Tim Bell Road, Waterford
Rayanna Beck
BaseCamp Environmental [email protected]
802 West Lodi Ave.

Lodi, CA 95240
209-224-8213
Dear Ms. Beck:

We have conducted a non-confidential extended records search as per your request for the abovereferenced project area located on the Waterford USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Stanislaus County.

Search of our files includes review of our maps for the specific project area and the immediate vicinity of the project area, and review of the following:

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976)
California Historical Landmarks
California Points of Historical Interest listing
Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) and the Archaeological Resources Directory (ARD)
Survey of Surveys (1989)
Caltrans State and Local Bridges Inventory
General Land Office Plats
Other pertinent historic data available at the CCaIC for each specific county The following details the results of the records search:

Prehistoric or historic resources within the project area:
• There are no formally recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or historic buildings or structures within the project area.
• The General Land Office Survey Plat for T3S R11E (dated 1854) does not reference any historic features in Sections 27 and 28.
• The Official Map of the County of Stanislaus, California (1906) shows H. Beard as the

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties RES 2024-42
landowner in Sections 27 and 28, T3S R11E.
• The 1916 and 1953 editions of the Waterford USGS quadrangles reference the Modesto Main Canal north of the project areas, and the alignment of Tim Bell Road.

Prehistoric or historic resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area: The Modesto Main Canal has been recorded in Stanislaus County as P-50-002002 and is referenced in the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) as not having been evaluated for the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or for Local Listing.

Resources that are known to have value to local cultural groups: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

Previous investigations within the project area: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

Recommendations/Comments:

Please be advised that a historical resource is defined as a building, structure, object, prehistoric or historic archaeological site, or district possessing physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old. Since the project area has not been subject to previous investigations, there may be unidentified features involved in your project that are 45 years or older and considered as historical resources requiring further study and evaluation by a qualified professional of the appropriate discipline.

If the current project does not include ground disturbance, further study for archaeological resources is not recommended at this time. If ground disturbance is considered a part of the current project, we recommend further review for the possibility of identifying prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources.

If the proposed project contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement (45 years in age or older) it is recommended that the resource/s be assessed by a professional familiar with architecture and history of the county. Review of the available historic building/structure data has included only those sources listed above and should not be considered comprehensive.

If at any time you might require the services of a qualified professional the Statewide Referral List for Historical Resources Consultants is posted for your use on the internet at http://chrisinfo.org
If archaeological resources are encountered during project-related activities, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources.

RES 2024-42
If human remains are discovered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires you to protect the discovery and notify the county coroner, who will determine if the find is Native American. If the remains are recognized as Native American, the coroner shall then notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 authorizes the NAHC to appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who will make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.

Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

We thank you for contacting this office regarding historical resource preservation. Please let us know when we can be of further service. Thank you for submitting the signed Access Agreement Short Form. Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email from the Financial Services office ($150.00), payable within 60 days of receipt of the invoice.

If you wish to include payment by Credit Card, you must wait to receive the official invoice from Financial Services so that you can reference the CMP # (Invoice Number), and then contact the link below:
https://commerce.cashnet.com/ANTHROPOLOGY
Sincerely,
E. A. Greathouse E. A. Greathouse, Coordinator
Central California Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
* Invoice Request sent to: [email protected], CSU Stanislaus Financial Services RES 2024-42
RES 2024-42
RES 2024-42
RES 2024-42
RES 2024-42
RES 2024-42
RES 2024-42
RES 2024-42
APPENDIX D
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION – SITE A
RES 2024-42

CONSTRUCTION

INSPECTION & MATERIALS

TESTING LABORATORY
4713 ENTERPRISE WAY * SUITE 4 * MODESTO * CALIFORNIA * 95356 * 209-545-1108

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION-UPDATE

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
SITE-2 TIM BELL ROAD (APN: 080-023-036)

WATERFORD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

ATTENTION: MR. SHAWN FITZPATRICK

FH LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC
4805 SISK ROAD

SALIDA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:

NORTH AMERICAN TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
4713 ENTERPRISE WAY, SUITE 4
MODESTO, CALIFORNIA 95356
NATS JOB NO.: 23-834G-B FEBRUARY 8, 2024
RES 2024-42

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES..............................................................................1

1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................1

1.2 Scope of Services .......................................................................................................1

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................1

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING................................................................2

3.1 Field Investigation......................................................................................................2

4.0 GEOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................3

4.1 General Setting ..........................................................................................................3

4.2 Geologic Conditions ...................................................................................................3

4.2.1 Quaternary Riverbank Formation ................................................................4

4.3 Groundwater Conditions............................................................................................4

4.4 Geologic Hazards .......................................................................................................5

4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture ..................................................................................5

4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting..........................................................................6

4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation ..........................................7

4.4.4 Landsliding ..................................................................................................8

4.4.5 Flooding ......................................................................................................9

4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils................................................................9

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................9

5.1 General....................................................................................................................10

5.2 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................10

5.3 Site Excavation.........................................................................................................12

5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction ................................................................................12

5.5 Fill Materials ............................................................................................................12

5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes ...............................................................................13

5.7 Foundation and Slab Recommendations ..................................................................14

5.7.1 Foundations ..............................................................................................15

5.7.2 Foundation Settlement..............................................................................15

5.7.3 Foundation Setback...................................................................................16

5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs ..............................................................................16

5.8 Seismic Design Criteria.............................................................................................17

5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ....................................................................18

5.10 Exterior Flatwork....................................................................................................21

5.11 Drainage ................................................................................................................21

5.12 Slopes....................................................................................................................22

5.13 Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM).............................................................22

5.14 Vehicular Pavements and Site Improvements ........................................................23

5.15 Plan Review ...........................................................................................................24

5.16 Construction Observation ......................................................................................24

6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION.........................................................................................25 RES 2024-42

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 SITE INDEX MAP
FIGURE 2 EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A REFERENCES

APPENDIX B BORING LOGS

APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND METHODS

APPENDIX D STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 1
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1 Introduction
North American Technical Services, Inc. (NATS) has completed a geotechnical investigation and report providing conclusions and recommendations for the proposed Subdivision (APN: 080-023- 036) on Tim Bell Road in Waterford, California. Preliminary geotechnical recommendations for excavations, fill placement, and foundation design for the proposed improvements are presented herein.

1.2 Scope of Services
The scope of services provided included:
 Review of readily available geologic and geotechnical reports.  Coordination of utility mark-out and location.
 Excavation of eight exploratory borings and soil sampling utilizing a truck-mounted drill rigs.  Laboratory testing of selected soil samples.
 Description of site geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards.  Preparation of this preliminary geotechnical investigation report.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The projectsite is a roughly 4.81-acre site (APN: 080-035-008) located immediately east of Tim Bell Road and immediately south of the MID Main Canal in Waterford, California. The site is bounded by an existing subdivision on the east, vacant land on the north and single family residential on all other sides. Existing site conditions are illustrated on Figures 1 and 2. The property proposed for RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 2
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
improvements is currently vacant, and being used as horse pasture. Based on historic aerial photography (Google Earth Pro 7.3.6.9245, Build Date: December 29, 2022), the project site has been vacant and no significant changes were observed dating back to at least 1985.

Preliminary plans titled “Development Sketch ‘6’ Waterford Site 2” (Sheet 1, 1” =30’) by Associated Engineering Group showsthe proposed project to include 28 new single family residential lots and new paved access roadway. The project is also expected to include utilities, landscaping, drainage and other associated improvements. At the time our field work was performed the site had a low cover of grass and weeds. Based on site and review and topography, the area proposed for improvements is generally level at an approximate elevation of 168± to 172± feet above mean sea level (msl).

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation
NATS conducted the recent field investigation for the subject site on November 28, 2023 and December 11, 2023 which included a geologic reconnaissance and excavation of eight exploratory borings. The borings were excavated with truck-mounted drill rig equipment utilizing four-inchdiameter, solid-stem augers. The borings extended to a maximum depth of approximately 60.0 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected by driving a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler using a (350 ft-lb per blow) rope and cathead RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 3
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
actuated drop-hammer, and bulk samples were collected from the drill cuttings.

The soils from the exploratory borings were logged in the field by a NATS geotechnical representative, and were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System via visual and tactile methods. The field descriptions have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Percolation testing was also performed at the site and tests results are being forwarded under separate cover. Boring log information is included in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the explorations are presented on Figure 2.

4.0 GEOLOGY

4.1 General Setting
The site lies within San Joaquin Valley, which represents the southern portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province in Central California. The "Great Valley" is a gently-sloping to essentially-flat alluvial plain situated east of the Coast Ranges and west of the Sierra Nevada. Depositional history within the valley is typified by accumulations of basin and river sediments. Earth materials in the southern portions of the "Great Valley" consist of river deposits, which can vary significantly in grain size and texture based on local relationship with the alluvial source or eroding agent.

4.2 Geologic Conditions
Regional geologic mapping by Wagner, E.J., Bortugno, E.J., and McJunkin, R.D. (1991) indicates the RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 4
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
near surface geologic unit underlying the site consists of Arkosic Alluvium of the Quaternary Riverbank Formation. Descriptions of the geologic units encountered are presented below.

4.2.1 Quaternary Riverbank Formation
Quaternary Riverbank Formation was encountered from groundsurface to the maximum depth of the explorations and generally consisted of an upper 4± to 8± ft thick layer of very loose to medium dense silty sand (SM), and below the silty sand included hard clay and gravelly clay (CL), medium dense to very dense clayey/silty gravel with sand (GC) and clayey sand (SC). This unit is anticipated at depth throughout the site.

4.3 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered in the recent borings that were advanced to a maximum explored depth of approximately 60.0 feet bgs. Based on the California Department of Water Resources Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Data Viewer (https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels), the most current groundwater level in the vicinity of the site is indicated to be on the order of 119± feet depth in (spring 2023) and high groundwater level was at 99± feet depth in 2011.

While groundwater conditions may vary, especially following periods of sustained precipitation or irrigation, it is generally not anticipated to adversely affect shallow construction activities or the completed improvements, if irrigation is limited and proper site drainage is designed, installed, and RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 5
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
maintained per the recommendations of the project civil engineer. However, groundwater could have the potential to perch within the underlying soils, especially above clayey or cemented layers or during or following heavy rains or the rainy season. Such occurrences could impact grading, compaction and/or foundation excavation activities.

4.4 Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazards that were considered to have potential impacts to site development were evaluated based on field observations, literature review, and laboratory test results. It appears that geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by shaking from earthquakegenerated ground motions. The following paragraphs discuss the geologic hazards considered and their potential risk to the site.

4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture
In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, (ACT), the State of California established Earthquake Fault Zones around known active faults. The purpose of the ACT is to regulate the development of structures intended for human occupancy near active fault traces in order to mitigate hazards associated with surface fault rupture.

According to the California Geological Survey (Special Publication 42, Revised 2018), a fault that has had surface displacement within the last 11,700 years is defined as a Holoceneactive fault and is either already zoned or pending zonation in accordance with the ACT.

RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 6
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
There are several other definitions of fault activity that are used to regulate dams, power plants, and other critical facilities, and some agencies designate faults that are documented as older than Holocene (last 11,700 years) and younger than late Quaternary (1.6 million years) as potentially active faults that are subject to local jurisdictional regulations.

Based on the site reconnaissance and review of referenced literature, the site is not located within a local or State-designated Earthquake Fault Zone, no known active fault traces underlie or project toward the site, and here are no known potentially active fault traces underlie or project toward the site. Based on above, fault surface rupture potential is considered to be low at the subject site.

4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting
The United States Geological Survey (USGS), with support of State Geological Surveys, and reviewed published work by various researchers, have developed a Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of faults and associated folds that are believed to be sources of earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 6.0 that have occurred during the Quaternary (the past 1.6 million years).

The faults and folds within the database have been categorized into four Classes (Class A-D).

The classes are based on the level of evidence confirming that a Quaternary fault is of tectonic origin and whether the structure is exposed for mapping or inferred from fault RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 7
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
related deformational features. Class A faults have been mapped and categorized based on age of documented activity ranging from Historical faults (activity within last 150 years), Latest Quaternary faults (activity within last 15,000 years), Late Quaternary (activity within last 130,000 years), to Middle to late Quaternary (activity within last 1.6 million years). The Class A faults are considered to have the highest potential to generate earthquakes and/or surface rupture, and the earthquake and surface rupture potential generally increases from oldest to youngest.

The evidence for Quaternary deformation and/or tectonic activity progressively decreases for Class B and Class C faults. When geologic evidence indicates that a fault is not of tectonic origin it is considered to be a Class D structure. Such evidence includes joints, fractures, landslides, or erosional and fluvial scarps that resemble fault features, but demonstrate a non-tectonic origin.

The nearest known Class A faults are the Foothills Fault (late Quaternary), which is located approximately 28.89 kilometers northeast of the site and the Great Valley Thrust Fault (undifferentiated Quaternary), which is located approximately 43.0 kilometers southwest of the site.

4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation
Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 8
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
during earthquake-induced shaking and behave like a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Seismic settlement can occur with or without liquefaction; it results from densification of loose soils.

As indicated above, groundwater is anticipated at depths of greater than 99 feet, therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to be very low. The potential for seismic settlement cannot be entirely precluded within the very loose and loose sands in their current condition, therefore, the subgrade soils are recommended to be overexcavated and replaced as engineered fill as indicated below. Aftersuch grading has been completed, the potential for significant seismic settlement is considered to be low.

4.4.4 Landsliding
Landslides are not mapped in the site area and were not encountered during the recent field exploration. Based on the preliminary investigation findings, the nearest sloping feature is the Tuolumne River bank located over ½ miles south of the project site. Other than the Tuolumne River the area surrounding the site is relatively level for at least 1 mile in all directions. Based on the geometry of the surrounding terrain and lack of steeply sloping ground in the vicinity of the site, landsliding is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the project site.

RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 9
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B

4.4.5 Flooding
Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency mapping (FEMA 2012), site improvement areas are located within Zone X (unshaded), which is defined as: “Minimal Flood Hazard Risk Areas Outside the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain”. Therefore, subject to the review of the project civil engineer, the potential for flooding at the site is generally considered to be low.

4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils
Based on the presence of the upper soil layer which includes very loose and loose silty sands, it is recommended that the soils be overexcavated and properly compacted beneath proposed improvement areas as recommended herein and as determined to be necessary during construction. Based on the field data, site observations, and experience with similar soils in the vicinity of the site, after over-excavation and compaction of surficial soils is completed, the improvements are not expected to be subject to significant compressibility under the anticipated loads.

Based on the upper silty sand materials encountered in our study, the near-surface materials are non-plastic and generally anticipated to exhibit a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less).

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 10
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B

5.1 General
NATS concludes that the proposed improvements on the site are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the preliminary recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Recommendations for the proposed earthwork and improvements are included in the following sections and Appendix D. However, recommendations in the text of this report supersede those presented in Appendix D should conflicts exist. These preliminary recommendations should either be confirmed as appropriate or updated following required excavations and observations during site preparation.

5.2 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, areas to receive distress sensitive improvements should be cleared of existing debris, and deleterious materials. Objectionable materials, such as debris and vegetation not suitable for structural backfill should be properly disposed of off-site.

In the areas of proposed structures, unsuitable surficial soils should be removed in their entirety. In addition, to limit the potential for settlement, over excavations should be conducted to remove existing very loose soils to a minimum depth of one foot below the bottom of all proposed foundations, two feet below existing grade, or to the depth of competent native materials, whichever is greatest. If loose or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of overexcavations, additional excavation to the depth of suitable material may be necessary.

RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 11
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
Remedial excavations should extend laterally at least five feet beyond the limits of the proposed improvements or the distance resulting from a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) extended down to suitable material, where feasible. If overexcavations encroach upon property lines or adjacent structures the temporary excavation should generally be sloped at a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, to the prescribed overexcavation depth.

Overexcavations for proposed surface improvement areas, such as pavement or flatwork should be conducted to a minimum depth of two feet below existing or proposed subgrade or to the depth of suitable material, whichever is deeper.

If encountered, existing below-ground utilities should be redirected around the proposed structure.

Existing utilities at an elevation to extend through the proposed footings should generally be sleeved and caulked to minimize the potential for moisture migration below the building slabs.

Abandoned pipes exposed by grading should be securely capped or filled with minimum two-sack cement/sand slurry to help prevent moisture from migrating beneath foundation and slab soils.

A geotechnical representative from NATS should observe the exposed ground at the base of overexcavations prior to placement of compacted fill or improvements, to verify the competency of exposed subgrade materials. After approval by this office, the exposed subgrades to receive fill should be scarified a minimum of eight inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2% above optimum RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 12
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent (as evaluated by ASTM D 1557).

5.3 Site Excavation
Based on NAT’s observations, shallow excavations at the site should generally be feasible using well-maintained heavy-duty construction equipment run by experienced operators.

5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction
Following the recommended overexcavation and removal of loose or disturbed soils, subgrade areasto receive fills should be scarified approximately eight inches;moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent.

Fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent at a minimum of 2 percent above optimum moisture content as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The optimum lift thickness for fill soil depends on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness. Fill placement and compaction should be conducted in conformance with local ordinances, and should be observed and tested by a NATS geotechnical representative.

5.5 Fill Materials
RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 13
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
Properly moisture conditioned low expansion potential, silty sand soils derived from the on-site over-excavations are considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials should be screened of organics and materials generally greater than three inches in maximum dimension and thoroughly mixed to achieve a consistent blend of material. Irreducible materials greater than three inches in maximum dimension should not be used in shallow fills (within three feet of proposed grades). In utility trenches, adequate bedding should surround pipes.

Imported fill, if necessary, beneath structures and flatwork should have an Expansion Index of 20 or less (per ASTM D 4829). Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soils engineer before being transported to the site. For retaining walls, backfill located within a 45-degree wedge extending up from the bottom of the heel foundation of the wall should consist of soil having an Expansion Index of 20 or less (ASTM D 4829) with less than 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The upper 12 to 18 inches of wall backfill should consist of lower permeability soils, in order to reduce surface water infiltration behind walls. The project structural engineer and/or architect should detail proper wall back-drains, including gravel drain zones, fills, filter fabric, and perforated drain pipes.

5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes
The following recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. On-site native soils are considered Type B, existing undocumented RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 14
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
fill is not expected to be encountered, although, if present would be considered Type C soil; recommended slope ratios are provided in Table 5.6.

TABLE 5.6

RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS

SOIL TYPE SLOPE RATIO
(Horizontal: vertical) MAXIMUM HEIGHT
B (Riverbank Formation) 1:1 (OR FLATTER) 10 Feet
C (Undocumented Fill) 1.5:1 (OR FLATTER) 5 Feet
Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while excavations exist, according to Cal-OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment, or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes.

5.7 Foundation and Slab Recommendations
The following recommendations are for preliminary design purposes only. These foundation recommendations should be re-evaluated after review of the project grading and foundation plans, and after completion of rough grading of the building pad areas. Upon completion of rough pad grading, if clayey materials are present, Expansion Index of near surface soils should be verified, and these recommendations should be updated, if necessary.

RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 15
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B

5.7.1 Foundations
Recommendations presented below are based on foundations established within compacted engineered fill consisting of very low expansion potential near surface soils.

Following the recommended preparatory grading, continuous and isolated spread footings are anticipated to be suitable for use at this site. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on allowable bearing values of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for minimum 12-inch wide footings embedded a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent subgrade elevation. Isolated footings should be at least 24 inches in minimum dimension.

The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for short-duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Based on the recommended preparatory grading, it is anticipated that all footings will be founded entirely in properly compacted engineered fill materials. Footings should not span cut to fill interfaces.

Minimum reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 5 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom, or as per the project structural engineer. The structural engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement.

The structural engineer should provide recommendations for reinforcement of any spread footings and footings with pipe penetrations. Footing excavations should generally be maintained at above optimum moisture content until concrete placement.

5.7.2 Foundation Settlement
RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 16
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
The maximum total static settlement is expected to be on the order of 1.0 inch and the maximum differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 0.5 inch.

5.7.3 Foundation Setback
Footings for structures should be designed such that the horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is at least 20 feet. In addition, footings should bear beneath a 1:1 plane extended up from the nearest bottom edge of adjacent trenches and/or excavations. Deepening of affected footings may be a suitable means of attaining the prescribed setbacks.

5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs
Lightly loaded interior concrete slabs for non-traffic areas should be a minimum of 5.0 inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #4 reinforcing bars placed on maximum 18-inch centers, each way, at or above mid-slab height, but with proper cover.

More stringent recommendations based on traffic or other concentrated loading per the project structural engineer supersede these recommendations, as applicable.

In moisture-sensitive floor areas, a suitable vapor retarder of at least 15-mil thickness (with all laps or penetrations sealed or taped) overlying a four-inch layer of consolidated aggregate base or gravel (with SE of 30 or more) should be installed. An optional maximum two-inch layer of similar material may be placed above the vapor retarder to help protect RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 17
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
the membrane during steel and concrete placement. This recommended protection is generally considered typical in the industry. If proposed floor areas or coverings are considered especially sensitive to moisture emissions, additional recommendations from a specialty consultant should be obtained. NATS is not an expert at preventing moisture penetration through slabs. A qualified architect or other experienced professional should be contacted if moisture penetration is a more significant concern.

Slabs subjected to heavier loads, racking, or vehicular traffic will require thicker structural slab sections and/or increased reinforcement. A 110-pci subgrade modulus is considered suitable for elastic design of minimally embedded improvements such as slabs-on-grade.

Subgrade materials should be maintained or brought to a minimum of two percent or greater above optimum moisture content until slab underlayment and concrete are placed.

5.8 Seismic Design Criteria
The seismic ground motion values listed in the table below were derived in accordance with the ASCE 7-16 Standard that is in the 2022 California Building Code. This was accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on the soil properties at the site, and calculating site coefficients and parameters using the ASCE 7 online Hazard Tool. Seismic ground motion values are based on the approximate site coordinates of 37.911856° latitude and –120.614782° longitude which represent the approximate center of the project site. These values are intended for the design of structures to resist the effects of earthquake ground motions.

RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 18
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
TABLE 5.8

SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES
2022 CBC AND ASCE 7-16
PARAMETER VALUE 2022 CBC/ASCE 7-16

REFERENCE
Site Class D (Stiff Soil) ASCE 16, Chapter 20
Mapped Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SS

0.533 Figure 1613.2.1 (1)
Mapped Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, S1

0.23 Figure 1613.2.1 (2)
Seismic Coefficient, Fa 1.374 Table 1613.2.3 (1)
Seismic Coefficient, Fv -- Table 1613.2.3 (2)
MCE Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SMS

0.732 Section 1613.2.3
MCE Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SM1
-- Section 1613.2.3
Design Spectral Response
Acceleration, Parameter SDS

0.488 Section 1613.2.5(1)
Design Spectral Response
Acceleration, Parameter SD1
-- Section 1613.2.5 (2)
Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM 0.308 ASCE 16, Section 11.8.3 It is anticipated that the project will meet the requirements provided in ASCE 11.4.8, Exception 2, which permits the use of code-based ground motion values if the seismic response coefficient Cs is amplified by 1.5 times forthe period range T≥1.5Ts using equations 12.8-3 and 12.8-4. If the proposed improvements have a period in the range exceeding 1.5Ts, then the base shear coefficient must be increased as required by ASCE 7-16

5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures
RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 19
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
Lateral loads acting against structures may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting soil or passive pressure acting against structures. If frictional resistance is used, allowable coefficients of friction of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction multiplied by the dead load) for concrete cast directly against compacted fill or native material is recommended. A design passive resistance value of 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 2,000 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance.

If proposed, retaining walls backfilled using granular soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid unit weights given in Table 5.9 below.

Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) over six feet high due to earthquake motions may be calculated based on work by Seed and Whitman (1970). The total lateral earth pressure against a properly drained and backfilled cantilever retaining wall above the groundwater level can be expressed as:

TABLE 5.9
EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (Gh)
(pounds per cubic foot)

WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL

SLOPE BACKFILL
2:1 (HORIZONTAL:

VERTICAL)

CANTILEVER WALL
(YIELDING) 45 55
RESTRAINED WALL 55 65
RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 20
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
PAE = PA + ΔPAE
For non-yielding (or “restrained”) walls, the total lateral earth pressure may be similarly calculated based on work by Wood (1973):

PKE = PK + ΔPKE
Where PA/b = Static Active Earth Pressure = GhH
2 /2
PK/b = Static Restrained Wall Earth Pressure = GhH
2 /2
ΔPAE/b = Dynamic Active Earth Pressure Increment = (3/8) kh γH2 ΔPKE/b = Dynamic Restrained Earth Pressure Increment = kh γH2 b = unit length of wall (usually 1 foot)
kh = 1/2* PGAm (PGAm given previously
Gh = Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight
H = Total Height of the retained soil
γ = Total Unit Weight of Soil ≈ 135 pounds per cubic foot *It is anticipated that the 1/2 reduction factor will be appropriate for proposed walls that are not substantially sensitive to movement during the design seismic event. Proposed walls that are more sensitive to such movement could utilize a 2/3 reduction factor. If any proposed walls require minimal to no movement during the design seismic event, no reduction factor to the peak ground acceleration should be used. The project structural engineer of record should determine the appropriate reduction factor to use (if any) based on the specific proposed wall characteristics.

The static and increment of dynamic earth pressure in both cases may be applied with a line of action located at H/3 above the bottom of the wall (SEAOC, 2013).

RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 21
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
These values assume non-expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. Measures should be taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include free-draining backfill materials and sloped, perforated drains. These drains should discharge to an appropriate off-site location. Waterproofing should be as specified by the project architect.

5.10 Exterior Flatwork
Flatwork should be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect to reduce the potential for cracking in exterior flatwork caused by minor movement of subgrade soils and concrete shrinkage. Additionally, it is recommended that flatwork be installed with at least number 4 reinforcing bars at 18-inch centers, each way, at or above midheight of slab, but with proper concrete cover, or with other reinforcement per the applicable project designer. Flatwork that should be installed with crack control joints includes driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. Subgrade materials should be maintained at a minimum of two percent above optimum moisture content until the time of concrete placement.

5.11 Drainage
Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate erosion-reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 22
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements at a gradient of at least two percent for a distance of at least five feet. However, the project civil engineers should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site.

Generally, NATS recommends against allowing water to infiltrate building pads or adjacent to slopes. Some agencies are encouraging the use of storm-water cleansing devices. Use of such devices tends to increase the possibility of adverse effects associated with high groundwater including slope instability and liquefaction.

5.12 Slopes
Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics slopes, if proposed, should be constructed at ratios of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. These slope inclinations should exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5. Although properly constructed slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be somewhat erodible. Therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion-resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes. Typically, soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will creep laterally. NATS recommends against building distress-sensitive hardscape improvements within five feet of slope crests.

5.13 Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM)
RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 23
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) may be used in deepened footing excavation areas, building pads, and/or adjacent to retaining walls or other structures, provided the appropriate following recommendations are also incorporated. Minimum overexcavation depths recommended herein beneath slabs, flatwork, and other areas may be applicable beneath CLSM if/where CLSM is to be used, and excavation bottoms should be observed by NATS prior to placement of CLSM. Prior to CLSM placement, the excavation should be free of debris, loose soil materials, and water. Once specific areas to utilize CLSM have been determined, NATS should review the locations to determine if additional recommendations are appropriate.

CLSM should consist of a minimum three-sack cement/sand slurry with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 100 psi (or equal to or greater than the maximum allowable short term soil bearing pressure provided herein, whichever is higher) as determined by ASTM D4832. If reexcavation is anticipated, the compressive strength of CLSM should generally be limited to a maximum of 150 psi per ACI 229R-99. Where re-excavation is required, two-sack cement/sand slurry may be used to help limit the compressive strength. The allowable soils bearing pressure and coefficient of friction provided herein should still govern foundation design. CLSM may not be used in lieu of structural concrete where required by the structural engineer.

5.14 Vehicular Pavements and Site Improvements
Recommended pavement sections for auto drive/parking and truck drive/loading areas are presented in the table below. Two options are presented below. Option 1 is for construction of RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 24
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
asphaltic concrete pavements and Option 2 is for construction of concrete pavements. The pavement sections presented below are based on a laboratory determined Resistance “R”- Value.

All Class II aggregate base should meet or exceed Caltrans Standard Specifications (including Minimum R-Value=78). For onsite design it is assumed that the upper 12 inches of subgrade and all base materials are properly compacted to 95% relative compaction at above optimum moisture content.

TABLE 5

RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESS
Traffic Area
Assumed
Traffic
Index
Subgrade
“R”-Value
Option 1: Asphalt Pavements Option 2: PCC
Concrete
Pavements
PCC/CL2 AB
(inches)
AC
Thickness
(inches)
Class II
AB Thickness
(inches)
Auto Drive
/Parking

5.0 44 3.0 4.0 5.5/6.0
Truck Drive
/Loading 6.0 44 3.0 6.0 6.0/6.0
Please note that these pavement sections may not be acceptable for city or public street repair or improvements. The Traffic Indexes (TI’s) used in the calculations of pavement sections were assumed, sections for other TI’s can be provided if desired from data in-hand upon your request.

5.15 Plan Review
NATS should be authorized to review the project grading and foundation plans prior to commencement of earthwork in order to provide additional recommendations, if necessary.

5.16 Construction Observation
RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 25
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions observed in the soil borings. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be confirmed by NATS during construction with respect to anticipated conditions. Upon completion of precise grading, if necessary, soil samples will be collected to evaluate as-built Expansion Index. Foundation recommendations may be revised upon completion of grading, and as-built laboratory tests results. Additionally, soil samples should be taken in pavement subgrade areas upon rough grading to refine pavement recommendations as necessary.

Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that NATS will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthworks should be observed and tested in accordance with recommendations contained within this report. NATS should evaluate footing excavations before reinforcing steel placement.

6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. This report is prepared for the project as described. It is not prepared for any other property or party.

RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation-UPDATE Page 26
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2
APN: 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No.: 23-834G-B
The recommendations provided herein have been developed in order to reduce the postconstruction movement of site improvements related to soil settlement. However, even with the design and construction recommendations presented herein, some post-construction movement and associated distress may occur.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside NATS’s involvement. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.

NATS’s conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, NATS should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided subject to NATS remaining as authorized geotechnical consultant of record. This report is for use of the project as described. It should not be utilized for any other project.

RES 2024-42
Geotechnical Investigation – UPDATE
Proposed Subdivision – Site 2 Page 27
APN; 080-023-036, Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
February 8, 2024 NATS Job No. 23-834G
NATS appreciates this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the underground.

Respectfully submitted,

NORTH AMERICAN TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC
Sergio Carrera, PE T Alan Krause
Staff Geologist
25 RES 2024-42
4713 ENTERPRISE WAY * SUITE 4 * MODESTO * CALIFORNIA * 95356 * 209-545-1108

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES
RES 2024-42

REFERENCES

1. American Society for Civil Engineers, 2016, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”, ASCE/SEI 7-16.

2. ASTM, 2002, “Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort,” Volume 04.08

3. Bryant, W.A., compiler, 2017, Fault number 723, Vernalis fault, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 02/01/2021 01:58 PM.

4. California Building Code, 2019, “California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2,” California Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, June.

5. FEMA, 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 200 of 1225 Map Number 06047C0200G, Merced County, California and Incorporated Areas

6. Frankel, A.D., Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, R.L. Harmsen, S.C., Cramer, C.H., Perkins, D.M., and Rukstales, K.S., 2002, Documentation for the 2002 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-420, 33 p.

7. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., Revised 2018, “Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972,” California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.

8. Jennings, Charles W., 1994, “Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas” with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions.

9. SEAOC, Blue Book-Seismic Design Recommendations, “Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls”, Article 09.10.010, October 2013.

10. Seed, H.B., and R.V. Whitman, 1970, “Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads”, in Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

11. Wagner, E.J., Bortugno, E.J., and McJunkin, R.D., 1991, Geologic Map of San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, California 1:250,000, Map No. 5A, Sheet 1 of 5.

12. Wood, J.H. 1973, Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, Report EERL 73-05.

Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.

RES 2024-42

APPENDIX B

BORING LOGS
RES 2024-42

SITE INDEX MAP

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
Waterford Site-2 Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
NATS JOB NO.
23-834G-B
SCALE
NTS

DATE FIGURE
1/4/24 1
RES 2024-42

EXPLORATION MAP

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
Waterford Site-2 Tim Bell Road
Waterford, California
NATS JOB NO.
23-834G-B
SCALE
NTS

DATE FIGURE
1/4/24 2
RES 2024-42

DEFINITION OF TERMS

PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES

LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES,

LITTLE OF NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES,

NON-PLASTIC FINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,

PLASTIC FINES

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR

NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES

INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY

OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE

SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,

ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

GRAIN SIZES

GRAVEL SAND

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200
CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

ADDITIONAL TESTS
(OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS)
MAX- Maximum Dry Density PM- Permeability PP- Pocket Penetrometer GS- Grain Size Distribution SG- Specific Gravity WA- Wash Analysis SE- Sand Equivalent HA- Hydrometer Analysis DS- Direct Shear EI- Expansion Index AL- Atterberg Limits UC- Unconfined Compression CHM- Sulfate and Chloride RV- R-Value MD- Moisture/Density Content , pH, Resistivity CN- Consolidation M- Moisture COR - Corrosivity CP- Collapse Potential SC- Swell Compression SD- Sample Disturbed HC- Hydrocollapse OI- Organic Impurities REM- Remolded
FIGURE: BL1
GW

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT IS
LESS THAN 50

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT IS
GREATER THAN 50
SANDS

MORE THAN

HALF OF
COARSE

FRACTION IS

SMALLER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE

GRAVELS

MORE THAN

HALF OF
COARSE

FRACTION IS

LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
CLEAN

GRAVELS
< 5% FINES

GRAVELS

WITH FINES
CLEAN
SANDS
< 5% FINES
SANDS

WITH FINES

COARSE GRAINED SOILS

MORE THAN HALF OF

MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT

FINE GRAINED SOILS

MORE THAN HALF OF

MATERIAL IS SMALLER
THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

BOULDERS COBBLES SILTS AND CLAYS
RES 2024-42
Depth (Feet)
Bulk SampleDriven TypeBlows/FootDry Density (pcf)Moisture (%)U.S.C.S. SymbolGraphic Log BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests

DESCRIPTION
Block or Chunk Sample
Bulk Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler)
Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample
Groundwater Table
Soil Type or Classification Change
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries queried (?)]
"SM" Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils exist in situ as bedrock
FIGURE: BL2
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
2 2 SM
3 SM
2 7
20 81.8
CL
SC
50+
DRILL DATE:

No free groundwater Encountered
Total Depth = 10.5 ft,
PP=2.5 tsf
BORING: B-1
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford NATS
Laboratory Tests
Very dense, orange brown, damp, clayey fine to coarse SAND DRILLER: 1
with fine gravel
EGS
3 4" Auger
Bulk from cuttings
23-834G-B
AK
12/11/2023
As Above
Loose, brown, damp, silty fine SAND
Hard, gray, dry, low plastic CLAY
Boring Grout Backfilled 12/11/23
0 5
10 15
20 25
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
4 6 SM
7 85.4 2.3
SM
3 3
5 SM
GC
13 20
25 No free groundwater Encountered
Boring Grout Backfilled 12/11/23
As Above
12/11/2023
As Above, loose
Medium dense, brown, damp, silty fine SAND
4" Auger
Bulk from cuttings
23-834G-B
AK
DRILLER: 1
EGS
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford NATS 3
Laboratory Tests
Dense, brown, damp, clayey fine gravel w/sand
BORING: B-2
DRILL DATE:

Total Depth = 11.5 ft,
0 5
10 15
20 25
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
5 7 SM
11 5
5 GM
6 10
20 GM
18 No free groundwater Encountered
Boring Grout Backfilled 12/11/23
DRILL DATE:

Total Depth = 11.5 ft,
BORING: B-3
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford NATS
Laboratory Tests
DRILLER: 1
As Above, dense
EGS
3 4" Auger
Bulk from cuttings
23-834G-B
AK
Medium dense, orange brown, silty fine GRAVEL with sand 12/11/2023
Medium dense, brown, damp, silty fine SAND
0 5
10 15
20 25
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
1 1 SM
1 9 GC
25 30
6 8 GC
11 No free groundwater Encountered
Boring Grout Backfilled 12/11/23
DRILL DATE:

Total Depth = 11.5 ft,
Very dense, light brown, damp, clayey fine GRAVEL w/ sand BORING: B-5
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford NATS
Laboratory Tests
DRILLER: 1
As Above, Medium dense
EGS
3 4" Auger
Bulk from cuttings
23-834G-B
AK
12/11/2023
Very loose, brown, damp, silty fine SAND
0 5
10 15
20 25
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
1 1 SM
2 SM
2 12
24 CL
GC
50+
Very dense, orange brown, damp, clayey fine GRAVEL w/ sand 12/11/2023
As Above
Very loose, brown, damp, silty fine SAND
4" Auger
Bulk from cuttings
23-834G-B
AK
DRILLER: 1
No free groundwater Encountered
Boring Grout Backfilled 12/11/23
Total Depth = 8.5 ft, Auger Refusal
EGS
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford NATS 3
BORING: B-4 Laboratory Tests

39.8%<#200
NP
Hard, orange brown, damp, fine gravelly CLAY
DRILL DATE:
0 5
10 15
20 25
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
1 1 SM
2 1 SM
2 4
CL
11 17 GC
30 No free groundwater Encountered
Boring Grout Backfilled 12/11/23
Stiff, gray, damp, low plastic CLAY
12/11/2023
Very loose, brown, damp, silty fine SAND
4" Auger
Bulk from cuttings
23-834G-B
AK
DRILLER: 1
Dense, orange brown, damp, clayey fine GRAVEL w/ sand
EGS
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford NATS 3
BORING: B-6 Laboratory Tests

48.8%<#200
As Above
NP
DRILL DATE:

Total Depth = 11.5 ft,
0 5
10 15
20 25
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
SM
12/11/2023
Boring Grout Backfilled 12/11/23
4" Auger
Bulk from cuttings
23-834G-B
AK
DRILLER: 1
EGS
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford NATS 3
Laboratory Tests
Loose, brown, damp, silty fine SAND
BORING: B-7
Total Depth = 2.0 ft,
RV=44
No free groundwater Encountered
DRILL DATE:
0 5
10 15
20 25
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
SM
CL
CL
CL
GM
CL
CL
11/28/2023
Medium dense, brown, damp, silty fine SAND
23-834G-B
AK
Hard, brown, damp, low plastic CLAY
1 As Above
As Above
EGS
3 4" Auger/CME-75
Laboratory Tests
Dense, gray, dry, silty fine GRAVEL with sand
Very stiff, brown, damp, low plastic CLAY
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford DRILLER: H1 Drilling
As Above
Bulk from cuttings
cont'd on p. 2
BORING: B-8
DRILL DATE:
0 5
10 15
20 25
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
DRILL DATE:

As Above
Very stiff, brown, damp, low plastic CLAY
Cont'd on P. 3
BORING: B-8 (Cont'd)
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford H1 Drilling
As Above
Laboratory Tests
DRILLER: 2
As Above
As Above
EGS
3 11/28/2023
As Above
4" Auger/CME-75
Bulk from cuttings
23-834G-B
AK
25 35
40 45
50 30
RES 2024-42
PROJECT: SHEET: of
JOB NO: DRILL METHOD:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: Depth (Feet) Bulk Sample Driven Type Blows/6 Inches Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) U.S.C.S. Symbol Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
CL
Cl
CL
3 4" Auger/CME-75 11/28/2023
Bulk from cuttings
23-834G-B
AK
DRILLER: 3
As Above
EGS
Site-2 Tim Bell Rd, Waterford H1 Drilling
Laboratory Tests
As Above
BORING: B-8 (Cont'd)
Very stiff, brown, damp, low plastic CLAY
No free groundwater Encountered
Total Depth = 60.0 ft,
DRILL DATE:

Boring Grout Backfilled 11/28/23
50 60
65 70
75 55
RES 2024-42

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND METHODS
RES 2024-42

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
Laboratory Testing Program
Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used.

Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B.

In-Place Moisture and Density
The in-place moisture content and densities of selected samples were determined using relatively undisturbed soil samples.

US Sieve No. 200 Wash Analysis
The amount of material finer than the No. 200 sieve in soil by washing was performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D 1140-17.

Resistance “R”-value
A Resistance “R”-value was performed on a selected representative sample according to CTM 301.

Atterberg Limits
Atterberg Limits were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D 4318.

RES 2024-42

LOCATION MOISTURE DENSITY
% PCF
B-1/5' 81.8
B-2/1' 2.3 85.4

LOCATION PERCENT PASSING CLASSIFICATION
#200 SIEVE
B-4/1' 39.8 SM
B-6/1' 48.8 SM

LOCATION LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC INDEX
B-4/1' -- NP
B-6/1' -- NP

LOCATION
B-7/ 0.0-2.0' 44

DEPTH R-VALUE

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D4318
DEPTH
(feet)

1.0-2.5

1.0-2.5
(feet)

0.0-2.0
DEPTH
(feet)
200 WASH ANALYSIS

1.0-2.5
RESISTANCE "R"-VALUE
CALTEST 301

1.0-2.5

5.0-5.5

1.0-2.5

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

MOISTURE & DENSITY
ASTM D 4829
DEPTH
(feet)

LABORATORY SUMMARY
RES 2024-42

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Sample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liquid Limit (%) Plasticity Index Classification 0 0 - - 0
0 0 - - 0
NATS JOB NUMBER: 0 FIGURE: C-1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
2"
1"
3/4"
1/2"3/8"
4 8

1.5"
10 1620
3040
50 100
200
RES 2024-42

APPENDIX D

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
RES 2024-42
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
Page D-1
Section 1 - General
North American Technical Services, Inc. (NATS) presents the following standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report shall supersede the recommendations and or requirements as specified herein. The project geotechnical consultant shall interpret disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or specifications contained herein.

Section 2 - Responsibilities of Project Personnel
The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to general conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative.

The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project.

The Contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements.

Section 3 - Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction site meeting should be arranged by the owner and/or client and should include the grading contractor, design engineer, geotechnical consultant, owner’s representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities.

Section 4 - Site Preparation
The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc.

The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations.

STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING