Agenda packet — West Sacramento City Council, March 5, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

WEST SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL AND WEST SACRAMENTO REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR

AGENCY & WEST SACRAMENTO FINANCING AUTHORITY
City Council Regular Meeting
MARCH 5, 2025 AGENDA
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
Verna Sulpizio Hull, Mayor Pro Tem
Quirina Orozco, Council Member
Norma Alcala, Council Member
Dawnté Early, Council Member
Aaron Laurel, City Manager
Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney
6:30 PM Closed Session Call to Order
7:00 PM Regular Meeting Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Land Acknowledgment
The meeting will be held at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FUNCTION – PART I

1. PRESENTATIONS BY THE PUBLIC ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA WITHIN THE

JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL
The Council is prohibited from discussing issues not on the agenda brought to them at this time.

According to State Law (the Brown Act), items must first be noticed on the agenda before any discussion or action.

PRESENTATIONS

2. City Manager's Office
CONSIDERATION OF PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH AND

HONORING THE RIVER CITY HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS WRESTLING TEAM Objective: The objective of this report is to recognize and celebrate the River City High School Girls Wrestling team for winning a historic league championship.

Recommendation: It is respectfully recommended that the City Council adopt the proclamation recognizing March as Women’s History Month and honoring the River City High School Girls Wrestling Team for their outstanding achievements.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone wishing to address the Council, or any agenda item, may fill out the Request to Speak card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the completion of staff presentation. Items on the Consent Agenda will be considered in one motion and the Request to Speak card should be turned in prior to the first item on Consent.
1 3. Community Development
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S

CERTIFICATION OF THE LIBERTY EIR AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5112
Objective: The purpose of this item is to facilitate the City Council’s hearing of appeals of the Planning Commission’s Certification of the Liberty Project EIR and approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) No. 5112 that would create 1,195 parcels (1,503 units).

Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing regarding two appeals of the Planning Commission’s certification EIR and approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and 2. Adopt Resolution 25-31 (Attachment 18): o Finding that, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the Liberty EIR is not required prior to its certification or approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112 because no “significant new information” (as that term is used in Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR after notice of public review was provided pursuant to Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines; o Finding that the Planning Commission acted appropriately in determining that the Liberty EIR reflects the independent judgement of the City as lead agency, and acted appropriately in adopting the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations. and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Liberty Project; o Finding that Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112 is consistent with the West Sacramento General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted on January 30, 2025, prepared for the Project; and o Dening the Goddard and Keasling Appeals and confirming the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR and its approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112.

CONSENT AGENDA

4. Capital Projects
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 25-29 AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET; APPROVE AMENDMENT 3 OF THE CONTRACT FOR SERVICES FOR TESCO CONTROLS INC.; AMENDMENT 1 TO VEOLIA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

AND CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AWARD TO XYLEM WATER SOLUTIONS USA INC. FOR THE

SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA) SYSTEM UPGRADES PROJECT (CIP 22024)
Objective: The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information to adopt Resolution 25-29 approving an amendment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget, approve Amendment 3 of the Contract for Services with Tesco Controls, Inc, approve Amendment 1 to the contract with Veolia Water Technologies, Inc, and award a contract for services to Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc. for the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Upgrade project (CIP 22024).

Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: 1) Find that the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) project is exempt from CEQA analysis under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15301 and that the Class 1 Categorical Exemption (interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances) and that the determination represents the independent 2 judgment of the City; 2) Adopt Resolution 25-29, approving an amendment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget to fund the completion of the SCADA System Upgrade Project by reallocating funds from the Central Water Tank Rehabilitation/Recoating project (CIP 22076); 3) Approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 3 to the contract for services with Tesco Controls Inc., in the amount of $64,323.71 and approve additional contract contingency of $532,592.11; 4) Approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the contract for services with Veolia Water Treatment Technologies Inc. in the amount of $3,500 in substantially the form attached; 5) Approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Contract for Services with Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc., in the amount of $44,796, with contract contingency of $13,431 (30%); 6) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute contract amendments or change orders up to the approved contingency; 7) Authorize the City Manager, of his designee, to execute nonsubstantive changes or modifications to the services contracts, with approval from the City Attorney; and 8) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to extend the term of the contract, if necessary.

5. Capital Projects
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 WITH MAXIMUS

DEVELOPMENT FOR THE HOMELESS EMERGENCY HOUSING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 51047 & 51048)
Objective: The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information for the approval of Change Order No. 4 to the construction contract with Maximus Development Inc., for the Homeless Emergency Housing Facility Improvement Project (CIP 51047 & 51048).

Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Change Order No. 4 to the construction contract with Maximus Development Inc., in the amount of $114,939.22; 2) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments or change orders up to $30,000; 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute non-substantive changes or modifications, with approval from the City Attorney; and 4) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to further extend the term of the contract, if necessary.

6. Fire
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 25-21 ACKNOWLEDGING THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO FIRE DEPARTMENT’S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 13146.2 AND 13146.3 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
Objective: Per California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4, this item requires the Fire Department to report the status of state mandated inspections to its administering authority.

Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council consider and adopt Resolution 25-21 acknowledging the Fire Department’s efforts to comply with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.

REGULAR AGENDA
3 NONE
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FUNCTION – PART II

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS / ASSIGNMENTS
Bikeshare Policy Steering Committee --------------------------------------------Guerrero, Alternate - Early City/County 2x2 ----------------------------------------------------Guerrero/Orozco, Alternate – Sulpizio Hull City/School 2x2 ------------------------------------------------------Guerrero/Sulpizio Hull, Alternate - Alcala Executive Commission to Address Homelessness --------------------Sulpizio Hull, Alternate - Orozco EIFD Public Financing Authority-----------------------------------------------Guerrero, Alcala, Sulpizio Hull League of California Cities --------------------------------------------------- Alcala, Alternate – Sulpizio Hull Local Agency Formation Commission ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Alcala Port District Commission ---------------------------------------------------------Guerrero, Early, Sulpizio Hull Remote Access Network ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Guerrero River City Regional Stadium Financing Authority------------------------------------------Guerrero, Orozco Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) ------------------------Early; Alternate - Guerrero Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Board --------------Orozco; Alternate - Sulpizio Hull West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency JPA ----------------------------Alcala; Alternate - Orozco Yolo Animal Servies Planning Agency JPA----------------------------Guerrero; Alternate – Sulpizio Hull Yolo County Housing Authority-------------------------------------------------Early, Alternate - Sulpizio Hull Yolo Transportation District -----------------------------------------------------Early, Alternate - Sulpizio Hull Yolo Habitat Conservancy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sulpizio Hull Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District ----------------------------Alcala; Alternate – Sulpizio Hull Yolo Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Agency-------------------------Sulpizio Hull; Alternate - Early

COUNCIL INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES
Delta Protection Commission -------------------------------------------------------Vacant; Alternate - Vacant New Hope Community Development Corporation---------------------------------Early; Alternate - Alcala Yolo County Consolidated Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board--------Sulpizio Hull

8. PART II
A. Council Calendar
B. City Manager Report
C. City Attorney Report
D. Staff Direction from City Council Members
E. Future Agenda Item Requests by Council
Request from Mayor Pro Tem Sulpizio Hull to present a City Council proclamation at the March meeting to commemorate Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV) which is March 31 Request from Councilmember Orozco to present a City Council proclamation in honor of Joyce Nazabal, who distributes the the West Sacramento Town Planner each year, at a future meeting
F. Adjourn
4 I, Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the March 5, 2025 regular and closed session meetings of the West Sacramento City Council, Redevelopment Successor Agency and Financing Authority was posted February 28, 2025 at the rear entrance at City Hall, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, CA and was available for public review. __________________________________________
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
NOTE: If you challenge the nature of a proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

The agenda and agenda reports are also available on the City’s website at www.cityofwestsacramento.org City Council meetings are broadcast live on Wave Cable Channel 20 and rerun the next day at 12:00 PM and the following Saturday at 6:00 PM.

All public materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are also made available for public inspection on the City’s website at:
www.cityofwestsacramento.org. Any document provided at the meeting by staff or by the public will be provided by the City Clerk upon request by phone at (916) 617-4500, or by email at: [email protected].

If you need assistance to participate in this meeting, including translation support, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 916-617-4500 or [email protected]. Notifying the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to the meeting will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting.

Si necesita ayuda para participar en esta reunión o servicios de traducción, comuníquese con la Oficina del Secretario Municipal al 916-617-4500 o [email protected]. Notificar a la Oficina del Secretario Municipal al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión ayudará al personal a garantizar que se puedan hacer arreglos razonables para proporcionar accesibilidad a la reunión.

Los dispositivos de escucha asistida están disponibles en esta reunión. 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 5, 2025 ITEM # 2
SUBJECT:

PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

AND HONORING THE RIVER CITY HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS WRESTLING TEAM INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X ] Staff
[ ] Other
Paul Hosley, Public Information Officer
City Manager’s Office
ATTACHMENT [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [ X ] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to recognize and celebrate the River City High School Girls Wrestling team for winning a historic league championship.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council adopt a proclamation recognizing March as Women’s History Month and honoring the River City High School Girls Wrestling Team for their outstanding achievements.

BACKGROUND
Women’s History Month is celebrated annually in March to recognize and honor the contributions of women in shaping history, culture, and society. This year’s theme, “Women Who Advocate for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion,” highlights the importance of breaking barriers and fostering opportunities for women and girls in all areas, including sports.

The River City High School (RCHS) Girls Wrestling Team has exemplified these values through their dedication, perseverance, and excellence in athletics. The team finished their league competition undefeated and secured the Monticello Empire League tournament championship. Their accomplishments underscore the increasing opportunities and recognition for women in wrestling, a sport that has seen significant growth in female participation over the past decade.

ANALYSIS
The proclamation acknowledges the achievements of the RCHS Girls Wrestling Team and highlights the program’s remarkable growth, from just two participants a decade ago to 18 student-athletes this season. The City of West Sacramento recognizes the significance of these accomplishments, not only as athletic victories, but also as milestones in advancing gender equity in sports.

Environmental Considerations
N/A
Commission Recommendation
N/A
Strategic Plan Integration
This action aligns with the city's values of inclusivity, diversity, and youth development.

Alternatives
N/A
Coordination and Review
N/A
Budget/Cost Impact
N/A

ATTACHMENT
Proclamation
6 PROCLAMATION

OF THE WEST SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL

RECOGNIZING RIVER CITY HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS WRESTLING TEAM WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento proudly celebrates Women’s History Month by honoring the achievements and contributions of women in our community; and WHEREAS, the River City High School Girls Wrestling Team demonstrated outstanding skill, determination, and teamwork throughout the season, finishing their league competition undefeated and securing the Monticello Empire League tournament championship; and WHEREAS, the River City High School Girls Wrestling Program has grown tremendously over the past decade, expanding from just two participants to 18 dedicated student-athletes this season; and
WHEREAS, the program has not only fostered excellence at the high school level but has also produced collegiate-level wrestlers, including Michelle Kamyshin, who went on to win a junior college national championship, Mariam Sharik, who is currently wrestling at Baker University in Kansas, and Noa Arnold, who is wrestling at Simpson College in Iowa; and WHEREAS, the success of these athletes is a testament to their hard work, the dedication of their coaches, and the growing support for women’s wrestling in West Sacramento and beyond.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City Council of the City of West Sacramento hereby recognizes and congratulates the River City High School Girls Wrestling Team for their historic championship, commends their contributions to the advancement of women's athletics, and celebrates their role in inspiring future generations of female athletes.

PROCLAIMED this 5th day of March, 2025.

ATTEST:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 5, 2025 ITEM # 3
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S

CERTIFICATION OF THE LIBERTY EIR AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5112
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Justin Hardy, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this item is to facilitate the City Council’s hearing of appeals of the Planning Commission’s Certification of the Liberty Project EIR and approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) No. 5112 that would create 1,195 parcels (1,503 units).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the public hearing regarding two appeals of the Planning Commission’s certification EIR and approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and

2. Adopt Resolution 25-31 (Attachment 18):
o Finding that, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the Liberty EIR is not required prior to its certification or approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112 because no “significant new information” (as that term is used in Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR after notice of public review was provided pursuant to Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines;
o Finding that the Planning Commission acted appropriately in determining that the Liberty EIR reflects the independent judgement of the City as lead agency, and acted appropriately in adopting the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations. and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Liberty Project;
o Finding that Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112 is consistent with the West Sacramento General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted on January 30, 2025, prepared for the Project; and o Dening the Goddard and Keasling Appeals and confirming the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR and its approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112.

BACKGROUND
The Liberty Project is being proposed by the landowner, the Paik Family Trust ("Applicant”), as an approach to developing approximately 342 acres of undeveloped land in the Northeast Village of Southport, as defined by the Southport Framework Plan. Liberty is one of three large projects proposed in the larger Southport area. The other two, Yarbrough (713 acres) and River Park (434 acres), are located in the Southwest and Southeast Villages, respectively. As shown in Attachment 4, the Liberty site is generally bounded on the east by the Sacramento River setback levee; on the south by Davis Road; on the west by the Clarksburg Branch Line Trail (CBLT); and on the north (from east to west) by Linden Road, Bastone Estates, the Linden Acres community, the Linden South subdivision, and the Parlin Ranch residential development. In 2013, the Applicant submitted plans proposing the development of a primarily residential community consisting of 1,503 single-family detached, single-family attached, and multi-family residences. The Project would also include supportive uses such as a centrally located recreation area called “The Commons” that would contain private recreational amenities and a small neighborhood commercial site permitting with up to 10,000 square feet of retail and service uses. Finally, the project calls for an integrated network of parks and open spaces, including a community park, several neighborhood and pocket parks, and greenbelts.

The Liberty Project consists of several documents that require City approval prior to development proceeding.

The following are brief descriptions of each.
8 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 2 ends

Liberty Specific Plan
California State Planning and Land Use Law establishes specific plans as a way to provide a greater level of specificity than a community-wide general plan for planning areas of special interest or value to a city or county.

They are tools to implement general plans that can be initiated and prepared either by local government planning agencies or by private interests. Once adopted, specific plans become part of the local government’s planning framework. To comply with State Law, specific plans must include the following: a land use map or diagram; a description of the infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed land uses; development standards; an explanation of how land use regulations, development standards, and infrastructure improvements will be implemented (including financing measures); and an explanation of the relationship of the specific plan to the applicable general plan. To address these requirements, the Applicant prepared the Liberty Specific Plan (LSP), which consists of a combination of detailed narrative, maps, tables, and charts. The Applicant and City Staff have collaborated to ensure that the LSP not only addresses the requirements of State Law, but does so in a fashion that will facilitate ongoing implementation. This includes ensuring that information is presented in a fashion that enables objective interpretation by the City Council, Planning Commission, City staff, and other stakeholders, including existing and future residents and prospective development interests.

The City Council has the authority to adopt specific plans based on recommendations by the Planning Commission. State Law stipulates that specific plans may be adopted either by resolution or by ordinance, with the caveat that provisions of specific plans that establish the zoning for the specific plan area must be adopted by ordinance. Because the land use, development, and design standards in the LSP would effectively operate as the zoning for the area covered by the LSP, it requires adoption by ordinance. State Law further requires that specific plans be subject to public hearings by both the local planning commission and the legislative body, after which the specific plan must be adopted by the legislative body to be in effect. In the case of the LSP, the West Sacramento Planning Commission is responsible for conducting a public hearing in advance of formulating and conveying recommendations to the City Council for its consideration. The Council is then responsible for considering the Commission’s recommendations in conjunction with conducting its own hearing process prior to adopting the LSP.

Ultimately, the City of West Sacramento will have regulatory authority over the implementation of the LSP, including ensuring that development is consistent with it. In exercising this authority, the City will account for the interests of the community stakeholders, including current and future residents of the area. A variety of private sector stakeholders will also play key roles in implementing the vision of the specific plan, ranging from the original landowner/applicant to an assortment of successors in interest.

The Draft LSP under consideration was published in September 2024 and revised by the Applicant in January 2025 to address comments received during the Planning Commission hearing process.

Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
In conjunction with preparing the LSP, the Applicant prepared a proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) that will grant the Applicant vesting rights to develop the Liberty property, thereby providing a significant level of certainty for the Applicant and subsequent parties in interest and protecting against changes in development standards and fees that may occur after the map’s approval. The Planning Commission has primary authority to review and approve vesting tentative maps; they are only considered by the City Council if the Planning Commission decision is appealed. The City Council ministerially approves final maps; ministerial acts in California mean that the applications must be approved if they meet all conditions of the vesting tentative map and are in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act.

The Draft Liberty VTSM (Attachment 5) was published in September 2024 and revised by the Applicant in January 2025 to address comments received during the Planning Commission hearing process and to maintain consistency with the revised Draft LSP.

Development Agreement
To clearly establish the Applicant’s development rights, as well as responsibilities associated with development of the property, the City collaborated with the Applicant to prepare a Development Agreement (DA). In addition to detailing the development rights the Applicant will receive, the DA describes the public facilities and services the Applicant will construct or contribute to the construction of, as well as other financial contributions the Applicant will provide. The City Council has the authority to approve development agreements, with Planning Commission recommendations.

The Draft Liberty DA was published in September 2024.
9 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 3 ends

General Plan, Southport Framework Plan, and Zoning Code Amendments To ensure consistency with the City’s existing planning and regulatory framework, the Applicant and the City have coordinated to prepare amendments to the General Plan, Southport Framework Plan, and Zoning Code.

The City Council has approval authority for these amendments, with Planning Commission recommendations.

Environmental Compliance
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that has the potential to cause an adverse impact to the environment be subject to the preparation and review of an environmental impact report (EIR). In August 2017, the City published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (Attachment 6) that describes the potential physical effects on the environment that could result from development in accordance with the LSP. The DEIR was available for a comment period of 45 days, during which the City received comments from other public agencies and interested organizations and individuals, and has been continuously available for review on the City’s website since it was published August 2017. Based on those comments and consistent with CEQA requirements, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (Attachment 7) that was published in September 2024. The FEIR includes responses to all comments received during the review period, as well as proposed changes to the DEIR to provide clarifying information to the reader and/or to remedy typographical mistakes. The City must certify that the DEIR and FEIR together have addressed the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA. To support certification, City staff prepared Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 8) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 9) as required by CEQA to ensure that the mitigation commitments established in the EIR are implemented to their intended effect as the Project develops. Because of its authority to approve the VTSM, the Planning Commission was responsible for certifying the EIR for the Liberty Project.

Planning Commission Meetings/Hearings
In June 2024, the Planning Commission commenced its meeting process to consider the Liberty Project. The process consisted of the following meetings:

1. June 6, 2024, Informational Workshop: The Planning Commission conducted an informational workshop to share information concerning the LSP and the forthcoming public hearing process and to provide an opportunity for the Commission and members of the public to ask questions and provide comments about the Project. The City received five comment letters/messages in advance of the Workshop and heard testimony from six members of the public during the Workshop.

2. October 17, 2024, Hearing: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the LSP and related land use approvals. After receiving a presentation from City staff and accepting public comments, the Commission voted to continue the hearing until its November 7, 2024, meeting. The intent of the continuance was to provide time for the Applicant to respond to concerns expressed in written comments and hearing testimony. This time was also intended to provide an opportunity for the Applicant to confer with interested community stakeholders.

3. November 7, 2024, Hearing: Prior to the hearing, City staff and the Applicant concurred that additional time was needed to publish the Revised Draft LSP and Revised Draft VTSM to reflect Applicantproposed revisions responding to public comments. Following a brief presentation, the Planning Commission heard testimony from several community members. The Commission then voted to continue the hearing until December 19, 2024

4. December 19, 2024, Hearing: Prior to the hearing, City staff determined that more time was required to prepare for further consideration of the Project. Accordingly, the Commission voted to continue the hearing until January 30, 2025.

5. January 30, 2025, Hearing: Following a staff presentation and public testimony, the Planning Commission voted to certify the Liberty EIR (Resolution 25-1PC, Attachment 1), approve the Revised Draft VTSM (25-3PC, Attachment 2), and recommend City Council approval of all other actions associated with the Liberty Project (Resolution 25-2PC). Resolution 25-2PC covered recommendations to adopt the LSP, approve the Development Agreement, and amend the General Plan, Southport Framework Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map.
10 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 4 ends

Appeals of Planning Commission Actions
As described above, the actions for which the Planning Commission has primary authority may be appealed to the City Council. Chapter 1.08 of Title 1 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code and Administrative Policy IIIA-3 outline the procedures for filing appeals and City Council consideration of such appeals, with the intent of efficiently, expeditiously and fairly resolving issues. Appeals must be initiated by written application filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the action(s) being appealed. Through the written application, appellants must describe specific facts regarding the nature of the appeal and explain how any actions being appealed affect their interests. Within ten days after the filing of a valid application, the City Clerk must set a date for a hearing on the appeal.

Two of the actions that the Planning Commission took at its January 30, 2025, hearing are subject to appeal to the City Council: certification of the EIR (Resolution 25-1PC) and approval of the VTSM (25-3PC). The Planning Commission’s approval of recommendations to the City Council (Resolution 25-2PC) is not an appealable action.

On February 4, 2025, the City Clerk received an appeal form and “Exhibits” (see Attachment 10) from Kimber Goddard, a resident of West Sacramento. The reason provided states, “The appeal is taken as to Item #4 on the Planning Commission Agenda of January, 30 2025, and hereby appeals each and every appealable act, action and decision pertaining thereto, including but not limited to, any and all Resolutions as applicable, Findings of Fact, EIR or other Certifications, Adoptions, Statements of Overriding Concern, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Programs, Ordinances and Zoning Code Additions or Amendments, Map Changes, General Plan Amendments, Southport Specific and Framework Plan Amendments, Development Agreements as applicable, Vesting Tentative Map Approvals, Vesting tentative Map Revisions, Proposals, Agreements and any and all other acts, actions and approvals relative to Agenda Item #4, The Liberty Specific Plan.” On February 24th, Mr. Goddard submitted a demand that additional materials be included in the administrative record (see Attachment 11).

On February 6, 2025, the City Clerk received an appeal form and accompanying letter (see Attachment 12) from Matthew Keasling of Taylor, Wiley & Keasling representing Mark Gill, a resident of the Parella Estates neighborhood in Southport. The reason provided states, “An appeal of the Planning Commission’s January 30, 2025 decision to certify the Liberty Project's Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and approve the Liberty Project's tentative subdivision map.” The reasons stated are, “1. The Liberty Project EIR does not comply with state requirements and should not have been certified (see Attached letter re: specific violations). 2. The Liberty Project's approved tentative subdivision map does not comply with clear provisions of the Liberty Specific Plan, subsection 5.2.1.1." The attached letter is a copy that was submitted on January 29th a day before the Planning Hearing. On February 24th, additional appeal detail was received by the City (see Attachment 13).

The claims made by each appellant are further described below, along with City staff responses to each.

Responses to Appeals
Under the “Analysis” section below, this staff report describes each of the City’s responses to specific claims made by each of the appellants. These responses are supplemented and, in some cases informed, by separately prepared responses issued by the Applicant and representatives of relevant City departments.

On February 21, 2025, the Applicant’s attorney, Kevin Kemper, submitted a letter, “Applicant Response to Appeals,” that addresses both appeals (see Attachment 14). This response was encompassing of both appeals.

On February 27, 2025, the City Attorney’s Office issued a memo that addresses the application of the CEQA standards applicable to this project (See Attachment 15, Addressing both appeals). The staff report is intended to further clarify staff’s position that the process of review and certification of the EIR and approval of the VTSM have been executed appropriately and that the requirements of CEQA and the Subdivision Map Act have been met.

On February 25, 2025, the City’s Flood Protection Manager issued a memo to the City Council generally describing flood risk in West Sacramento and the efforts to enhance flood protection (Attachment 16).

The West Sacramento Fire Chief prepared a memo to the City Council with the subject “City Evacuation Planning and Response” (Attachment 17). It explains the City’s preparedness to initiate an evacuation or partial evacuation of West Sacramento residents in the event of an emergency affecting any part of the city. 11 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 5 ends

ANALYSIS
As described above, the City received two appeals, one from Mr. Goddard and one from Mr. Keasling. The claims made in each appeal are summarized below along with City staff response to each. In preparing the summaries and responses, staff has attempted to capture the substantive content of each claim and, in doing so, has prepared corresponding labels (i.e., the labels are not necessarily as provided by the appellants).

Goddard Appeal
On February 6, 2025, Mr. Goddard submitted his appeal along with two exhibits (A and B) that are intended to support his claims regarding the Commission’s actions. The appeal form and exhibits are provided in Attachment 10. On February 24, 2025, Mr. Goddard submitted a letter demanding various materials to be included in the administrative record (Attachment 11); this letter does not add information to or elaborate on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s January 30, 2025, actions.

Goddard Claim #1: General CEQA Deficiency and Remedy
Mr. Goddard generally claims that “new information” became available and “substantial and unforeseen environmental impacts” occurred between the publication of the Draft EIR in August 2017 and the Planning Commission certification of the Final EIR in January 2025. He suggests that “a Supplemental, Amended and/or New EIR is required” and that recirculation the EIR is needed.

Staff Response: As further explained in the responses to specific claims below, Mr. Goddard provides no credible evidence of new information or substantial and unforeseen environmental impacts. The decision not to recirculate an EIR is entitled to deference under CEQA, and the burden is on appellant to prove that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, he makes no compelling case for further environmental analysis and recirculation.

Goddard Claim #2: EIR Evaluation of Flooding
The appeal takes issue with the EIR’s evaluation of flooding impacts under Impact WQ-7, claiming that there was a “dramatic change in risk assessment” and that “new and more severe flood risk information became available.” He bases these claims on the FEIR’s revision of the impact severity conclusion under Impact WQ-7 from “Less Than Significant with Mitigation” to “Significant and Unavoidable.” In presenting his argument, Mr.

Goddard asserts that the City’s efforts to enhance flood protection have been ineffective and that no future efforts will ever be sufficient to protect Southport from flooding.

Staff Response: The appeal letter accurately observes that the FEIR updated the impact significance conclusion for Impact WQ-7 from “Less Than Significant with Mitigation” to “Significant and Unavoidable.” However, the letter inaccurately claims that there was a change in the risk assessment; there was no change in the DEIR’s description of flooding risk. In fact, the Liberty DEIR includes the following verbatim citation from the General Plan Update EIR, including its conclusions of a significant and unavoidable flooding impact pending completion of ongoing levee improvements. “The risk of flooding to the City of West Sacramento by the Sacramento River is significant and has prompted ongoing implementation of new projects under the WSLIP [West Sacramento Levee Improvement Program] to enhance the levee system and ultimately provide 200‐year level of flood protection throughout the city. Implementation of Policy S‐2.6 and Safety Program 11 will require the City to comply with the Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008 and any subsequent amendments, thus ensuring that 200‐year flood protection will be provided (City of West Sacramento 2015).

Furthermore, all new development is required to demonstrate 200‐year flood protection or to contribute in‐lieu fees toward making physical improvements to the existing levee system (City of West Sacramento 2011). The end result of the WSLIP will be 100‐year and 200‐year flood protection.

However, it will be many more years until the flood protection goal is achieved, and in the meantime, new development in the City of West Sacramento that occurs prior to completion of improvements ensuring full protection will not have 100‐year flood protection. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable until the WSLIP is complete and the required flood protection for development protected by the levee system is obtained.”
Thus, as further cited in the Liberty FEIR, the facts, analysis, and conclusions were not new; they instead reflected the facts, analysis, and conclusions reached regarding the flooding impact in the General Plan Update EIR, which the City Council certified in November 2016. Furthermore, the Liberty EIR actually expands on the General Plan EIR by including two mitigation measures (none were included in the General 12 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 6 ends

Plan EIR). Mitigation Measure WQ-7a requires either that housing construction be phased to occur after the 100- and 200-year flood protection goals have been met or in-lieu fees be paid prior to issuance of the first grading permit to support funding of physical improvements to the existing levee system. Mitigation Measure WQ-7b will require the Developer to notify property purchasers of flood susceptibility; notify future homebuyers and tenants of flood protection improvement status; ensure new construction meets FEMA and City Floodplain Management Ordinance standards; ensure levee setbacks are consistent with local, regional, State, and Federal standards; and ensure new development does not jeopardize City’s NFIP or CRS eligibility.

Mr. Goddard’s suggestion that new and more severe flood risk information became available is not supported by any evidence. To the contrary, the City’s Flood Protection Manager has prepared a memo to the City Council summarizing the facts concerning the City’s efforts to improve flood protection throughout West Sacramento, and specifically in Southport (Attachment 16). This includes evidence of enhancements to the levee system that have lessened the risk of flooding, as well as explanations of forthcoming improvements that will further lessen risk. The memo also describes regional efforts that have decreased West Sacramento’s susceptibility to flooding (e.g., Folsom Dam enhancements, expansion of the Sacramento Weir and the setback levee north of the weir).

Goddard Claim #3: Emergency Evacuation
Mr. Goddard states that the EIR does not properly analyze risk associated with emergency evacuation. In doing so, he asserts that “flood risks have grown over time” and the Southport roadway network is insufficient to accommodate emergency evacuations, with “one way out of the community to the South, and four ways out to the North.” He also cites a 2024 Lake County court case in which, he claims, “emergency exit risks was held to create increased hazards.”
Staff Response: The assertion that flood risks have grown over time is not supported by any facts. It is instead belied by the facts cited in the City’s Flood Management staff memo to the City Council (see Attachment 16). Second, as documented in a separate memo to the City Council from West Sacramento’s Fire Chief, “the City is well prepared to initiate an evacuation or partial evacuation of our residents.” (Attachment 17). Thus, the DEIR’s conclusion under Impact HAZ-7 that “Development of the LSP area would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan” remains accurate. Furthermore, the appeal letter misstates the currentlyavailable evacuation routes. There are three northbound roadways (Jefferson Boulevard, Lake Washington Boulevard, Village Parkway) and two southbound roadways (Jefferson Boulevard, South River Road); a fourth northbound route would be provided by the planned extension of Enterprise Boulevard across the Deep-Water Ship Channel.

Goddard Claim #4: Schools
Mr. Goddard claims that a school was eliminated from the Liberty Project and EIR “as a mitigation measure.” Staff Response: Mr. Goddard is correct that the references to the Washington Unified School District (WUSD) property being part of the Liberty Project have been revised; the WUSD property is not owned by the Applicant. The revision, however, had nothing to do with mitigating any risk, let alone flooding risk. As page 3-2 of the FEIR explains, The characterization of a potential school site and school being a component of the Project is inaccurate. The property discussed is owned by the Washington Unified School District and is not part of the Project. Any plans for the development of the property would be the responsibility of the District (a separate governmental agency), not the Liberty applicant nor the City. Accordingly, Section 2.4.3 (K-8 School Site) has been deleted from the EIR.

Goddard Claim #5: Characterization of Flood Risk
In Exhibit B to his appeal form, Mr. Goddard cites a description from HDR Engineering as evidence of flood risk in West Sacramento, just as he did in public testimony at the October 17, 2024, Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Goddard also questions the City’s compliance with State legislative requirements for providing flood protection. This includes references to SB 5 (2007), SB 901 (2022), and SB 586 (2024), the latter two of which he suggests involved impropriety on the part of West Sacramento.

Staff Response: The HDR citation is purportedly from an undated HDR publication titled “HDR National Engineering Excellence Review.” The City has identified the cited language on the HDR website in a description of an “Envision Platinum Award for Sustainable Infrastructure” that was given to the West 13 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 7 ends

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA) in recognition of its efforts to implement the Southport Levee Improvement Project. The HDR website describes the pre-project risk (as cited by the appellant) before proclaiming that “The project brings the levee into compliance with federal and state levee design criteria, as well as providing opportunities for ecosystem restoration and public recreation.” Among other things, SB 5 defined the urban level of flood protection to be “the level of protection that is necessary to withstand flooding that has a 1-in-200 chance of occurring in any given year” (i.e., 200-year protection). It established a deadline of 2025 for achieving 200-year protection. SB 5 also prohibited local governments within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from entering into a development agreement for property within a flood hazard zone without specific findings (see Attachment 16, Flood Protection Memo).

Citing delays in the processes associated with completing projects necessary for certifying 200-year protection (e.g., obtaining Federal and State project approvals and permits and securing financing for projects), SB 901 extended West Sacramento’s compliance deadline to 2030 and SB 586 further extended the deadline to 2040. As explained in the memo, the City is on track to complete required projects by 2037.

Goddard Clam #6: Hearing Process
In Exhibit B, Mr. Goddard implies that the City has conducted an insufficient hearing process and that the Mayor has purposefully appointed a “weak Planning Commission” that is implicitly incapable of performing its duties.

Staff Response: As described in the staff report for the Planning Commission’s January 30, 2025, hearing, the City held a Planning Commission public workshop on June 6, 2024, to present an overview of the Liberty project and to provide an opportunity for the Commission and the public to ask questions about the Project and the forthcoming public hearing process. Starting on October 17, 2024, the Commission then held four public hearings, each of which provided opportunities for public testimony. Thus, with almost eight months from the October Commission workshop to the January hearing, the City has not pushed the Liberty project “forward for approval, full bore,” as Mr. Goddard states. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has been deliberate in its consideration of the Project, as reflected in its decisions to continue the hearing three times to ensure that it had sufficient time and information to render its decisions. Finally, per the City’s insistence, the Applicant expanded the notification radius from 500 feet to 1,000 feet (this occurred for both EIR Notice of Preparation scoping meetings, the Planning Commission’s workshop and hearings), providing a broader public outreach than otherwise required by the Municipal Code or State law (which requires a 300-foot noticing radius).

Keasling Appeal
As noted above, in the appeal form dated February 6, 2025, Mr. Keasling states two reasons for his appeal. The first is his contention that the EIR does not comply with state requirements, should not have been certified, and should be revised and recirculated. This contention is further elaborated in a letter addressed to the Planning Commission, dated January 29, 2025, which is included as an attachment to the appeal form. The second is his belief that the VTSM is inconsistent with the Draft LSP, a claim that is further explained in the February 24, 2025, letter that Mr. Keasling addressed to the Mayor and City Council. The following summaries and staff responses first address the VTSM claim and then each of the EIR claims.

Keasling Claim #1: Consistency of VTSM with Draft LSP
Mr. Keasling claims the Planning Commission approved the VTSM inappropriately because it is inconsistent with the LSP. Specifically, he claims it does not comply with Section 5.2.1.1 of the Draft LSP.

Staff Response: First, Subsection 5.2.1.1 in the LSP is a narrative description of the Single-Family Detached (SFD) designation from the Land Use Plan. Second, while the appeal does not explicitly state the nature of the purported compliance problem, the appellant’s testimony at the Planning Commission hearings suggests that it concerns the language describing the density transition depicted on the Land Use Plan. The entirety of that description, as included in the January 2025 version of the Liberty Specific Plan (i.e., the version recommended by the Planning Commission at the January 30th hearing), is as follows:

In keeping with the village concept established by the Southport Framework Plan and reflected in the City’s General Plan, the Land Use Plan establishes a development pattern with more intensive uses in the center of the Liberty community, with a gradual transition to lower intensity uses on the periphery of the community. This includes the placement of Estate Lots in areas adjacent to existing very-low-density residential neighborhoods.
14 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 8 ends

In stating his case otherwise, the appellant has relied on his (and his clients’) interpretation of the word “adjacent,” suggesting that the Parella Estates properties are adjacent to the proposed Liberty properties.

This is not the case. The western edge of the Liberty property, as currently defined, abuts the right-of-way for the Clarksburg Branch Line Trail (CBLT). The CBLT lies in a separate legal parcel that is 100 feet wide, beyond which to the west is another 20-foot right-of-way that abuts the eastern edge of the Parella properties. As shown in the approved VTSM and the Draft LSP, at the southern edge of the Liberty project, there is also an existing drainage ditch in a 30-foot-wide parcel between the eastern edge of the CBLT and the western edge of the new residential properties in Liberty. To the north of that, west of the relocated NC10 detention basin, there is also a 105-foot easement in a separate parcel for the Lower Northwest Interceptor pipeline. Most of this easement is in a greenbelt designated as Open Space in the Draft LSP.

Thus, for the full length of the western edge of the Liberty project, there are at least three parcels and 150 feet between the Liberty residential properties and the Parella Court properties. The separation between the Parella Estates and Liberty property lines range from 250 feet west of the NC-10 detention basin to 150 feet in the southwest corner. It should be also noted this land between the western edge of Liberty and Parella Estates are public maintained lands. This does not satisfy the City’s definition of “adjacent.” Specifically, it does not meet the City Zoning Code definition (Section 17.51.020): “Adjacent. Directly abutting, having a common boundary or property line, or contiguous to.”
Furthermore, Mr. Keasling’s February 24, 2025, letter states, “We contend that, even if you amend the General Plan and adopt the Liberty Specific Plan, the Liberty tentative subdivision map is still inconsistent with section 5.2.1.1 of the proposed Specific Plan and cannot be sustained. More specifically, that section of the Specific Plan states: In keeping with the village concept established by the Southport Framework Plan and reflected in the City’s General Plan, the Land Use Plan establishes a development pattern with more intensive uses in the center of the Liberty community, with a gradual transition to lower intensity uses on the periphery of the community. This includes the placement of Estate Lots in areas adjacent to existing verylow-density residential neighborhoods.” The western edge of the Liberty site, to the east of the Parella Estates properties, has long been designated Low Density Residential (LR) in the City’s General Plan. The project design is consistent with this designation, which calls for 1.1 to 6.0 units per gross acres and the corresponding zoning, which is R-1-B and permits lots of no less than 6,000 square feet. This reflects the densities anticipated for the area in the Southport Framework Plan. The Parella Estates lots are part of the Rural Core, as depicted in Figure 3-1 from the General Plan, with a Rural Residential (RR) land use designation and Rural-Residential Agricultural (RRA) zoning. The eastern edge of the Rural Core in the Northeast Village extends to the Clarksburg Branch Line Trail and does not reach into the Liberty site. During the October 17th and November 7th Planning Commission hearings, the Commission requested that the Applicant and the Parella Estates homeowners coordinate to determine if they could identify a common ground. In response, the Applicant revised the LSP Land Use Map and the VTSM to address the comments from the Parella Estates homeowners with respect to lot sizes. The revised map eliminated a street, increased lot sizes from 6,000 to approximately 9,500 square feet, and reoriented the front elevations of the lots to face east (as opposed to toward the Parella Estates properties to the west). These revisions were part of the Planning Commission’s approval on January 30, 2025.

Mr. Keasling’s February 24, 2025, letter further states that the western edge of Liberty is inconsistent with what is proposed adjacent to Bastone Court. Per the Zoning Code’s definition, as noted above, the Bastone Court properties are adjacent to Liberty, while the Parella Estates properties are not, so the situations are not comparable.

Keasling Claim #2: Recirculation
Mr. Keasling’s January 29, 2025, letter asserts that the City should be required to recirculate the EIR “to address significant new information that has occurred as a result of changes in the regulatory and physical environment since the publication of the Draft EIR in 2017 and because of a new significant and unavoidable impact identified for the first time in the Final EIR published in October 2024.” Staff Response: First, as further discussed in point-by-point responses below, changes in the regulatory environment do not warrant recirculation of an EIR; the statutes and guidelines in effect at the time of release of the Notice of Preparation for the EIR govern the content of the EIR. Second, neither the physical environment nor the planned uses in the area affected by the Liberty Project have changed materially since publication of the Draft EIR. The Parella Estates neighborhood developed as anticipated/analyzed in both the General Plan and the Liberty DEIR, with low density single family large lots. Third, as also discussed 15 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 9 ends

below, no new impacts have been identified; while the DEIR’s severity classification of one impact (WQ-7) was corrected in the FEIR, the associated assessment of flooding risk is the same as in the DEIR, as well as in the EIR for the overarching policy document, the City’s General Plan.

Keasling Claim #3: Chapter 3.1. Aesthetics
The appellant states that the EIR “does not address the visual impacts of the Project on the adjacent and nearby development that occurred after the publication of the Draft EIR in 2017.” He further refers to these new developments as “sensitive receptors” with respect to light and glare impacts. Finally, he concedes that the EIR has identified visual impacts as significant and unavoidable.

Staff Response: In evaluating the visual impacts associated with development of the Liberty Project, the EIR does not distinguish between existing and future “viewer groups;” it concludes that visual impacts will be significant and unavoidable irrespective of the viewer group. It is important to bear in mind that while the Parella Estates neighborhood had not yet developed when the Liberty DEIR was released in 2017, even then the Liberty property was bordered to the north and south by existing single-family homes. Mr. Keasling provides no facts showing why aesthetic and other impacts to residents of the Parella Estates development – separated from Liberty as it will be by the Clarksburg Branch Line Trail – will be different and more severe than impacts to the neighborhoods north and south of Liberty that existed in 2017. The EIR concedes that the development of Liberty may be seen as unfavorable by some, just as the development of Parella Estates may have been seen as unfavorable to some, including “sensitive receptors” in adjacent areas.

While no mitigation measures have been identified to lessen the impact, the Liberty Project has committed to map revisions to address the requests by the Parella Estates homeowners addressing concerns for visual intrusion. This includes reorientation of the nearest residential lots in Liberty so that backyards in Liberty face the CBLT, across from Parella Estates. It also includes planting of new, fast-growing trees adjacent to the CBLT in the area where none now exist and increasing lot sizes.

Keasling Claim #4: Chapter 3.3. Air Quality
The appellant states that legal precedent established following publication of the DEIR should cause the air quality chapter of the EIR to be revised and the entire document to be recirculated. He also claims the modeling of air quality impacts should be updated to deploy modeling techniques not yet established when the DEIR was prepared.

Staff Response: Neither the CEQA statutes or CEQA Guidelines, or case law, requires the analysis in a DEIR, once circulated, to be updated when new court cases are decided or new laws, statutes, or regulations are enacted. The body of law in effect at the time of release of the Notice of Preparation governs the content of the EIR. The suggestion otherwise is a recurring claim however, not supported by CEQA Guidelines.

Keasling Claim #5: Chapter 3.4, Biological Resources
Mr. Keasling observes that the FEIR updated a reference in the DEIR’s Biological Resources setting discussion (Section 3.4). Instead of referring to the Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) as being “in the draft stage,” the EIR now refers to it having been “approved in October 2018.” He proceeds to note that the FEIR does not refer to “other” regulatory changes that occurred following publication of the DEIR. He also suggests that new biological research should be conducted and incorporated into the EIR and implies that there is documentation of new species foraging in and around the Liberty property, including the Bald Eagle.

Staff Response: While Mr. Keasling is correct that the references to the HCP/NCCP have been updated to reflect its changed status (i.e., draft to approved), the updated references do not affect the EIR’s analysis or impact conclusions. Furthermore, the claim that the EIR needs to be recirculated, as with other similar claims, is without legal basis. Additionally he claims that there is documented evidence that the Bald Eagle is foraging in the area. While staff is aware that birdwatchers have recently reported seeing Bald Eagles near the Yolo Bypass, there is no evidence that the eagles are foraging on or adjacent to the Liberty property. Furthermore, as noted in the FEIR, the DEIR includes a discussion of the California Essential Habitat Connectivity (CEHC) Project, including its identification of large, relatively natural blocks of habitat (Natural Landscape Blocks) across California and Essential Connectivity Areas (ECAs). It identifies three Natural Landscape Blocks northwest, southwest, and southeast of the Liberty study area and the ECAs that connect these areas to the west and south of the study area; the CEHC does not identify any key migratory areas within the study area, even though migrating birds may pass through the area, as noted by the 16 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 10 ends

commenter. As mitigation for potential effects on wildlife species in the study area, the Applicant will be required to pay mitigation fees to support the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). Among the areas preserved by the HCP/NCCP are wetlands used by migrating waterfowl, including those cited in the CEHC. This includes the Yolo Bypass, which lies approximately 2½ miles from the edge of the Liberty Project.

Keasling Claim #6: Chapter 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mr. Keasling states that Chapter 3.7 of the EIR “should be updated and recirculated to address changes in greenhouse gas analysis, thresholds, and mitigation that have occurred since the Draft EIR was published in 2017.”
Staff Response: Nothing in the CEQA statutes, CEQA Guidelines, or case law requires the analysis in an EIR to be updated when new analysis methods, impact thresholds, or mitigation strategies have been established if those changes occur following circulation of a DEIR.

Keasling Claim #7: Chapter 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mr. Keasling states that a 2024 court decision in Lake County compels the City to update the analysis of evacuation planning, wildfire risk, and flooding risk. The appellant further states that the Liberty has “only a single evacuation route (Village Parkway).”
Staff Response: Neither the facts nor the timing of the Lake County case have any relevance to the Liberty EIR. Also, the assertion that there is only one evacuation route serving the Liberty project is inaccurate as there are currently five roadways connecting Southport to the north and south. The proposed Enterprise Bridge, to which the Applicant is contributing funding, will provide additional access in the future.

Keasling Claim #8: Chapter 3.9. Hydrology and Water Quality Mr. Keasling states that corrections in the FEIR’s characterization of flooding impacts (Impact WQ-7) and the enhancement of mitigation requirements “represent ‘new significant information’ that warrants recirculation of the EIR, because they involve a new significant and unavoidable impact and a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact.”
Staff Response: Mr. Keasling describes the FEIR description under Impact WQ-7, which refers to a correction to reconcile the Liberty EIR with the General Plan Update EIR, which the City Council certified in November 2017. This does not constitute new information, since there was no change in the DEIR’s description of flooding risk, including the following verbatim citation of the General Plan Update EIR’s conclusions of a significant and unavoidable flooding impact pending completion of ongoing levee improvements.
“The risk of flooding to the City of West Sacramento by the Sacramento River is significant and has prompted ongoing implementation of new projects under the WSLIP to enhance the levee system and ultimately provide 200‐year level of flood protection throughout the city. Implementation of Policy S‐2.6 and Safety Program 11 will require the City to comply with the Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008 and any subsequent amendments, thus ensuring that 200‐year flood protection will be provided (City of West Sacramento 2015). Furthermore, all new development is required to demonstrate 200‐year flood protection or to contribute in‐lieu fees toward making physical improvements to the existing levee system (City of West Sacramento 2011). The end result of the WSLIP will be 100‐year and 200‐year flood protection. However, it will be many more years until the flood protection goal is achieved, and in the meantime, new development in the City of West Sacramento that occurs prior to completion of improvements ensuring full protection will not have 100‐year flood protection. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable until the WSLIP is complete and the required flood protection for development protected by the levee system is obtained.” Thus, as also cited in the Liberty FEIR, the facts, analysis, and conclusions were not new; they instead reflected the facts, analysis, and conclusions reached regarding the flooding impact in the General Plan Update EIR. The appellant’s assertion that there was a new impact evaluation added to the EIR is not accurate. Furthermore, the Liberty EIR actually expands on the General Plan EIR by including two mitigation measures (none were included in the General Plan EIR). Mitigation Measure WQ-7a requires either that housing construction be phased to occur after the 100- and 200-year flood protection goals have been met or in-lieu fees be paid prior to issuance of the first grading permit to support funding of physical improvements to the existing levee system. This is entirely consistent with not only the General Plan EIR, 17 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 11 ends

but also Chapter 15.50 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code, which has – since 2007 – provided for the payment of flood in-lieu fees as a mechanism for demonstrating compliance with the City’s goal of obtaining 200-year flood protection. Mitigation Measure WQ-7b will require the Developer to notify property purchasers of flood susceptibility; notify future homebuyers and tenants of flood protection improvement status; ensure new construction meets FEMA and City Floodplain Management Ordinance standards; ensure levee setbacks are consistent with local, regional, State, and Federal standards; and ensure new development does not jeopardize City’s NFIP or CRS eligibility.

Keasling Claim #9: Chapter 3.10. Land Use
Mr. Keasling states that events that occurred after publication of the DEIR (e.g., development of Parella Estates, Capital Estates, and Newport Meadows, completion of Village Parkway) “constitute significant new information that warrants the recirculation of the EIR.” He also suggests that Chapter 3.10 be “recirculated to address potential land use compatibility issues with Parella Estates and Capital Estates.” Staff Response: The buildout of Parella Estates, Capital Estates, and Newport Meadows and the completion of Village Parkway have long been contemplated in the City’s General Plan and the Liberty DEIR analysis assumed that they would develop as planned, and none involved changes in land use regulations. Simply stated, they are not “new information” from a CEQA perspective. Furthermore, in its evaluation of Land Use Impacts (Chapter 3.10), the EIR concludes that the Liberty Project would not physically divide an established community (Impact LU-1) and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation (Impact LU-2). These are indicators of “land use compatibility” and they account for the type and intensity of development called for in the General Plan and the Southport Framework Plan, including aforementioned projects above.

Keasling Claim #10: Chapter 3.12. Noise
Mr. Keasling states that the Parella Estates and Capital Estates projects were not accounted for as “sensitive receptors” in the Liberty DEIR analysis and that they “constitute significant new information that requires recirculation of the EIR.”
Staff Response: As previously noted, the Parella Estates and Capital Estates projects developed consistently with the General Plan and zoning incorporated into the project background portion of the Liberty DEIR. In addition, and as noted under the Aesthetics section, no evidence has been provided to suggest that noise impacts to the Parella Estates properties will be significantly more severe than the impacts to other residential neighborhoods existing when the DEIR was released. The DEIR analyzes noise impacts based on two types of noise source: construction-related activity and operational activity (e.g., traffic, HVAC systems, outdoor recreation activities, storm drain pumps and boosters). The impact analyses and mitigation measures for both types of noise account for development that is in place when the noise source exists. For instance, construction-related noise impacts and mitigation measures account for effects on the noise sensitive uses that are in place when construction activity is ongoing, which includes Parella Estates and Capital Estates. The DEIR concludes that such impacts will be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation measures intended to reduce the severity of these impacts, including on Parella Estates and Capital Estates. However, there are elements of the DEIR that aid in addressing noise reductions such as addressing truck traffic minimization S-7.9, an acoustical study S-7.10 for new development that has the potential to generate noise that exceed the levels contained in Tables S-7.1 through Table S-7.4.

Furthermore, it shall be noted the VTSM conditions of approval specifically #21 with regards to the time when construction activity can occur, condition #22 which provides contact signage information for residents to contact, and condition 23 requiring all construction equipment to access the Project site via Village Parkway, unless needed for connection or extending existing infrastructure.

Keasling Claim #11: Chapter 3.16. Transportation/Traffic Mr. Keasling states that Chapter 3.16 should be revised and recirculated to provide analysis consistent with requirements that were enacted after publication of the DEIR. He maintains that a “more comprehensive evaluation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts” should be completed based on impact thresholds created after publication of the DEIR, claiming that the DEIR VMT analysis is “grossly inadequate, uses an inappropriate baseline of the Southport Framework Plan, and does not comply with current legal standards.” It is also stated that the DEIR traffic analysis should be based on “current” conditions.

Staff Response: Mr. Keasling contends the DEIR should have been prepared to address requirements that were not in effect when the DEIR was published. Neither the CEQA statutes or CEQA Guidelines, or case 18 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 12 ends

law, requires the analysis in a DEIR, once circulated, to be updated when new laws, statutes, or regulations are enacted. The requirements in effect at the time of release of the Notice of Preparation for the DEIR govern the content of the EIR. For instance, Mr. Keasling’s claim that the DEIR’s evaluation of VMT effects is “grossly inadequate” fails to recognize that the analysis predated the establishment of legal standards for such an analysis. California's Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) law, Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), went into effect for new projects on July 1, 2020. Liberty was submitted in 2013 with the EIR circulated in 2017. Therefore, VMT is not required to be analyzed for this project.

Required Findings and Analysis for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map As described in the Staff Report for the January 30, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, Section 16.20.040 of the City of West Sacramento Municipal Code stipulates that a tentative map may be approved or conditionally approved by the Planning Commission if it finds the following:

A. The tentative map is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and any applicable specific plans;
B. The tentative map is in conformance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16 of the Municipal Code) and Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code); and C. The tentative map is in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act The VTSM was prepared in concert with the Draft LSP, which was, in turn, prepared to be consistent with the West Sacramento General Plan, the Southport Framework Plan, and Resolution 06-63. Based on this analysis, Finding A can be met in the affirmative.

City Staff has reviewed the proposed VTSM and has determined that the submittal conforms with relevant sections of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code, as well as the California Subdivision Map Act.

Based on this determination, Findings B and C can be met in the affirmative.

Resolution 25-3PC, as approved by the Planning Commission on January 30, 2025, cites the findings required to comply with both the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act in approving the VTSM.

Environmental Considerations
In approving Resolution 25-1PC on January 30, 2025, the Planning Commission determined the certification of the EIR satisfied the requirements of State law, pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.), and the City’s environmental thresholds of significance.

Commission Recommendation
On January 30, 2025, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing for the Liberty EIR Certification and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) 5112 and the Development Agreement amendments, the Liberty Specific Plan. Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt Resolutions 24-1PC (Certifying the Liberty EIR) and Resolution 24-3PC (Adoption of the Liberty VTSM 5112), thereby recommending the City Council approve the following resolution and ordinances:
 Ordinance 25-2 (City Council adoption of Liberty Specific Plan)  Ordinance 25-3 (City Council amendment of Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Southport Framework Plan)  Resolution 25-18 (City Council amendment of General Plan 2035)  Ordinance 25-4 (City Council approval of the Development Agreement).

Strategic Plan Integration
The recommended item supports the Council’s 2022 Strategic Plan Policy Agenda Goal of the Southport Framework Plan Refinement as the Framework Plan was developed to provide “…an overall vision and guide for Southport as it develops.” This project would contribute to providing more housing variety, amenities to the area, and mixed-use opportunities as well as sustainable efforts associated with the master plan.

Alternatives
The City Council’s primary alternatives are summarized below.

1. Conduct the public hearing and deny both appeals, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s January 30, 2025, actions and adopting Resolution 25-31 (Attachment 18). 19 Appeal of Liberty EIR Certification and VTSM 5112
March. 5 2025

Page 13 ends

2. Uphold the Goddard Appeal for one or more of the following reasons:
a. Find that the required findings for approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map cannot be made for specific reasons articulated by the Council and deny the requested VTSM. b. Find that the CEQA analysis is not the appropriate level of environmental review and direct staff to perform additional environmental analysis or recirculate all or a portion of the EIR (specify impacts to be addressed or portion to be recirculated) prior to City Council’s consideration of the request.

3. Uphold the Keasling Appeal for one or more of the following reasons:
a. Find that the required findings for approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map cannot be made for specific reasons articulated by the Council and deny the requested VTSM. b. Find that the CEQA analysis is not the appropriate level of environmental review and direct staff to perform additional environmental analysis or recirculate all or a portion of the EIR (specify impacts to be addressed or portion to be recirculated) prior to City Council’s consideration of the request.

4. Continue the item to a future date and request that additional information be provided at that time.

Alternative 1 is staff’s recommendation. While staff believes the analysis presented in this report is correct, staff is prepared to effectuate Alternative 2 and or 3 or any of the options presented by staff at the Council’s direction. If Council selects alternative 2 or 3, Staff would return to Council at a subsequent meeting with a resolution that implements this Alternative. Staff is prepared to implement Alternative 4 at the Council’s direction.

Coordination and Review
This report was written and reviewed in coordination with the Planning, Development Engineering and Transportation and Mobility Divisions of the Community Development Department, Fire Department, West Sacramento Flood Control Agency, and the City Attorney’s office.

Budget/Cost Impact
The applicant is paying for staff’s review of the project through a reimbursement agreement.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Resolution 25-1PC (Planning Commission Certification of the EIR) Attachment 2. Resolution 25-3PC (Planning Commission approval of VTSM No. 5112) Attachment 3. Planning Commission Staff Report (January 30, 2025, Hearing) Attachment 4. Liberty Vicinity Map
Attachment 5. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112 (Link) Attachment 6. Liberty DEIR (Link)
Attachment 7. Liberty FEIR (Link)
Attachment 8. Liberty Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations (Link) Attachment 9. Liberty Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Link) Attachment 10. Goddard #1 Appeal Form/Exhibits A and B, February 4, 2025 Attachment 11. Goddard #2 Demand for Materials, February 24, 2025 Attachment 12. Keasling #1 Appeal Form/Attached Letter, February 6, 2025 Attachment 13. Keasling #2 Letter to Mayor and City Council, February 24, 2025 Attachment 14. Liberty Applicant Response to Appeals, February 21, 2025 Attachment 15. City Attorney’s Office Memorandum on appeals Attachment 16. Flood Protection Memo
Attachment 17. Fire Chief Memo on Emergency Evacuation
Attachment 18. Resolution 25-31 City Council Resolution on Appeal Attachment 19 –Public Comments
20 Attachment 1
21 22
Attachment 2
23 24

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

ERRATA MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Guerrero and City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
Justin Hardy, Senior Planner
CC:

Aaron Laurel, City Manager
Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager
Jeff Mitchell, City Attorney
DATE: March 5, 2025
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Agenda – Item 3 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S CERTIFICATION OF THE

LIBERTY EIR AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5112
The attached, Resolution 25-3PC, replaces Attachment 2 for Item 3 on tonight’s agenda. 25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 Attachment 4
40 Attachment 10
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 Attachment 12
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 JOHN M. TAYLOR
JAMES B. WILEY
MATTHEW S. KEASLING
JESSE J. YANG
MARISSA C. FUENTES

TAYLOR, WILEY & KEASLING

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS
500 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 1150
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
TELEPHONE: (916) 929-5545
February 24, 2025
Mayor Guerrero and City Council
City of West Sacramento
1110 W. Capitol Ave. 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission actions of January 30, 2025, with respect to the Liberty Project’s Tentative Subdivision Map and Certification on an EIR Dear Mayor Guerrero and City Councilmembers:

Taylor, Wiley & Keasling represents Mark Gill, a resident of Parella Estates, a largelot neighborhood adjacent to the proposed project site for the Liberty Specific Plan project (“Project”). On Mr. Gill’s behalf, we appealed the Planning Commission’s actions of January 30, 2025, when the Commission certified the environmental impact report (EIR) and approved the tentative subdivision map for the Project. The stated basis for the appeal is that (1) “[t]he approved map does not comply with clear provisions of the specific plan,” and (2) “[t]he EIR does not comply with state requirements and should not have been certified.” This letter elaborates on those objections.

1. The Approved Map Does Not Comply with the Proposed Provisions of the Liberty Specific Plan
While the Planning Commission certified the EIR and took final action on the Liberty tentative subdivision map, that approval is contingent upon your Council approving the requested General Plan Amendment and adoption of the Liberty Specific Plan. Should you not approve those legislative actions, the map cannot be effectuated because it is inconsistent with the current General Plan designation in several ways.

We contend that, even if you amend the General Plan and adopt the Liberty Specific Plan, the Liberty tentative subdivision map is still inconsistent with section 5.2.1.1 Attachment 13
89 West Sacramento City Council
February 24, 2025

Page 2 ends

of the proposed Specific Plan and cannot be sustained. More specifically, that section of the Specific Plan states:

Parella Estates is an “existing very-low-density residential neighborhoods” and the parcels approved next to it are not Estate Lots. Therefore, the approved subdivision map does not comply with the clear and unequivocal language in the Specific Plan that states, “placement of Estate Lots in areas adjacent to existing very-low-density residential neighborhoods.”
To be clear, as currently depicted in the appealed map, Liberty’s “Estate Lots” are located adjacent to Bastone Court - where the existing lots are 1-1.25 acres, Asante Lane - where existing lots are 1-1.8 acres, Tamarack Road - where existing lots are 0.5 acres, and Davis Road - where existing lots are 1-5 acres. However, “Estate Lots” are not included adjacent to Parella Court where existing homes are on 1-1.5 acre lots.1 To the extent that those other neighborhoods are considered “very-low-density residential,” so to then is Parella Estates. As such, the approved map does not comply with the Specific Plan to which it will be subject and, therefore, the appeal should be granted and the tentative subdivision map must be denied.

2. The EIR Should Not Have Been Certified Due to Numerous Legal Defects and Recirculation is Necessary
On January 29, 2025, on behalf of Mr. Gill and residents of Parella Estates, we submitted the attached letter to the Planning Commission that detailed our concerns with respect to the EIR for the Project. Specifically, that letter identified several environmental issues that should have warranted recirculation of the EIR, including, but not limited to, the identification of a new significant and unavoidable impact related to flooding. 1 It warrants noting that the Liberty Tentative Subdivision Map has been revised to now include “Estate Lots” adjacent to the five southernmost Parella Court lots (though it had to modify the definition of an estate lot from a minimum ¼-acre lot size to a minimum 1/5-acre lot size in order to make that claim); however, the map still includes lots at greater densities adjacent to two thirds of the Parella Court homes. 90 West Sacramento City Council
February 24, 2025

Page 3 ends

In response to our letter of January 29, 2025, the Planning Commission received a letter from the applicant’s attorney Kevin Kemper. That letter responded to our comments with the assertion that recirculation is not required to address changes in statues, regulations, or case law that arise after a notice of preparation has been issued for a project. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 30, 2025, the Commission also heard from City Attorney, Jeffrey Mitchell, who was of a similar opinion and recommended that the Commission certify the EIR.

Contrary to the positions of Kemper and Mitchell, changes in environmental laws and regulations can warrant recirculation if such changes result in “significant new information” that was not presented in the Draft EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).) Courts have required recirculation where the Final EIR discloses a new significant environmental effect that was not previously analyzed in the Draft EIR or shows a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (recirculation required when Final EIR disclosed for the first time a potentially significant impact of reduced river flows on aquatic species such as migrating salmon resulting from the proposed groundwater extraction for the project); Spring Valley Lake Association v. City of Victorville, 248 Cal.App.4th 91 (2016) (recirculation required when revised air quality and hydrology/water quality analyses introduced in the Final EIR disclosed a potential inconsistency with several general plan air quality policies and implementation measures); We Advocate Through Environmental Review v. County of Siskiyou, 78 Cal.App.5th 683 (3d Dist. 2022) (recirculation required when the projected GHG emissions for the project substantially increased between the Draft EIR and the Final EIR).

In this case, among other issues identified in the prior letter, the Final EIR disclosed for the first time a significant and unavoidable impact related to flooding. As explained in our prior letter, the impact was identified as significant, but capable of being mitigated to less-than-significant in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR made substantial changes to the mitigation for this impact and changed the significance of that impact after mitigation to significant and unavoidable. This change alone should warrant recirculation, notwithstanding the other significant environmental impacts that are discussed in our prior letter.

For the reasons discussed in our previous letter, the EIR does not comply with CEQA. The EIR should be recirculated to include the information described in our letter and to ensure that the public has an opportunity to review and comment with respect to 91 West Sacramento City Council
February 24, 2025

Page 4 ends

the new significant and unavoidable impact related to flood protection. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City Council grant our appeal, rescind the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR and approval of the tentative subdivision map for the Project, direct the applicant to bring forward a subdivision map in which Estate Lots are proposed next to all neighboring “very-low-density residential neighborhoods,” and direct City staff to recirculate the EIR to address the issues outlined in our letter before bringing the Project back to the Commission for its reconsideration.

Very truly yours,
Matthew S. Keasling
cc: Aaron Laurel, City Manager
Jesse J. Yang, Taylor, Wiley, & Keasling
Ashley Rossi, Parella Court
Mark Gill, Parella Court
92 JOHN M. TAYLOR
JAMES B. WILEY
MATTHEW S. KEASLING
JESSE J. YANG
MARISSA C. FUENTES

TAYLOR, WILEY & KEASLING

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS
500 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 1150
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
TELEPHONE: (916) 929-5545
January 29, 2025
Planning Commissioners
City of West Sacramento
1110 W. Capitol Ave. 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Re: Liberty Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2016052012) Dear Chair Delgado and Commissioners:

Taylor, Wiley & Keasling represents residents of Parella Estates, which is a largelot neighborhood that has been constructed over the last several years in West Sacramento. Parella Estates is located close to the Liberty Specific Plan Project (“Project”), along the Project’s western border, and many of the Parella Estates homes back up to the project site.

We have many concerns about the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project – with the overarching issue being the substantial time that has elapsed since the analysis was conducted coupled with changes to the regulatory and physical environments that occurred during the 7.5-year period of stagnation. To elaborate, the Draft EIR for the Project was released in August 2017, more than seven years ago. The City recently published the Final EIR for the Project in October 2024. However, the Final EIR did very little to update the now outdated and legally deficient EIR. For the reasons addressed below, the EIR does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and should not be certified by your Commission.

Recirculation. A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR or becomes available after the Draft EIR is published but before the Final EIR is certified. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).) “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include information concerning the following:
1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
93 Planning Commissioners
January 29, 2025

Page 2 ends

2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. 4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).) As discussed below, the EIR should be recirculated to address significant new information that has occurred as a result of changes in the regulatory and physical environment since the publication of the Draft EIR in 2017 and because of a new significant and unavoidable impact identified for the first time in the Final EIR published in October 2024.

Chapter 3.1. Aesthetics. The aesthetics chapter of the EIR does not address the visual impacts of the Project on the adjacent and nearby development that occurred after the publication of the Draft EIR in 2017. The EIR should be revised and recirculated to address the subsequent development of Parella Estates and Capital Estates, which introduced new sensitive receptors immediately west of the project site. The proposed project could result in a substantial degradation of the existing character or quality of the project site or its surroundings and light and glare impacts, two impacts already identified as significant and unavoidable without consideration of the additional impacts on Parella Estates and Capital Estates.

Chapter 3.3. Air Quality. The air quality chapter of the EIR should be revised and recirculated to address the requirement of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, i.e., the “Friant Ranch” decision, which required EIRs to address the health effects of proposed projects. Also, the air quality modeling should be updated to incorporate any changes in air quality modeling that have occurred since the Draft EIR was published seven years ago.

Chapter 3.4, Biological Resources. The Final EIR included one minor change to the Draft EIR, noting that the Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) was adopted 2018. However, the Final EIR does not address other regulatory changes that have occurred since the Draft EIR was published in 2017, such as the change in how “waters of the United States” are defined under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency 94 Planning Commissioners
January 29, 2025

Page 3 ends

(2023) 598 U.S. 651. Moreover, new biological resources surveys should be conducted and incorporated in the EIR to address any changes in the physical environment that have occurred since the Draft EIR was published seven years ago, including but not limited to, considerable growth of habitat located on the Project site, establishment and maturity of the adjacent bypass levee riparian habitat, and the documented presence of new species foraging such as the bald eagle.

Chapter 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The greenhouse gas chapter of the EIR should be updated and recirculated to address changes in greenhouse gas analysis, thresholds, and mitigation that have occurred since the Draft EIR was published in 2017.

Chapter 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. In recent California court decision, Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222, the Court of Appeal found that an EIR for a mixed-use development project in Lake County violated CEQA for, among other things, failing to adequately analyze and/or mitigate for that project’s impacts on evacuation routes and wildfire risk. In the case of Liberty Specific Plan, the EIR concluded that the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to both evacuation plans (Impact HAZ-7) and wildfire risk (Impact HAZ-8). However, in light of Bonta v. County of Lake and given the Project having only a single evacuation route (Village Parkway) and potential for flooding impacts, as discussed below, the EIR should be recirculated to address impacts on evacuation routes and wildfire risk.

Chapter 3.9. Hydrology and Water Quality. The Draft EIR identified a significant impact associated with the placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area (Impact WQ-7). However, the Draft EIR concluded that the impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-7, which would require phasing of residential developments to occur after the flood protection goal is achieved. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-33 to 34.) The Final EIR changed the significance of Impact WQ-7 to significant and unavoidable, noting: “The reason for these changes is to correct typographical errors that were made in preparing the Draft EIR that resulted in conclusions inconsistent with those reached in the General Plan Update Final EIR.” (Final EIR, p. 3-8.) The Final EIR also made substantial modifications to Mitigation Measure WQ-7, which now allows for the payment of in-lieu fees instead of phasing the residential components of the project until the completion of the necessary flood protection measures. (Final EIR, p. 3-9.) These are not mere “typographical” corrections, as suggested in the Final EIR. Rather, the changes introduced for the first time in the Final EIR represent “new significant information” that warrants recirculation of the EIR, because they involve a new significant and unavoidable impact and a substantial increase 95 Planning Commissioners
January 29, 2025

Page 4 ends

in the severity of a previously identified impact with respect to Impact WQ-7. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).)
Chapter 3.10. Land Use. Since the Draft EIR was published in 2017, substantial land use changes have occurred in the vicinity of the project site including the development of Parella Estates, Capital Estates, the completing and utilization of Village Pkwy, and the continued development of Newport Meadows. These substantial new developments constitute significant new information that warrants the recirculation of the EIR. The land use chapter of the EIR should be recirculated to address potential land use compatibility issues with Parella Estates and Capital Estates.

Chapter 3.12. Noise. Since the Draft EIR was published in 2017, the development of Parella Estates and Capital Estates has introduced new sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. These new noise receptors constitute significant new information that requires recirculation of the EIR. Thus, the noise chapter of the EIR should be recirculated to address potential noise impacts of the Project on nearby residents of Parella Estates and Capital Estates.

Chapter 3.16. Transportation/Traffic. The transportation/traffic chapter should be revised and recirculated to provide analysis consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, which was adopted in 2018, after the Draft EIR was published. The revised chapter should provide a more comprehensive evaluation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts in light of new local and regional VMT thresholds that have been developed since the Draft EIR was published in 2017. The EIR’s discussion of VMT - to the extent that one exists - is grossly inadequate, uses an inappropriate baseline of the Southport Framework Plan, and does not comply with current legal standards. In addition, the analysis of traffic operations should be updated based on current traffic volumes and conditions. Since preparation of the traffic operations analysis, Village Parkway has been completed and has become a major corridor for commuters during the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic is no longer speculative and should be analyzed given the now existing conditions plus the Project. Furthermore, we are confident that updated analysis of the intersections of South River Road at 15th Street and at the Eastbound I-80 onramp in the existing plus Project condition and under the cumulative condition with the addition of the Oakland Athletics will identify new significant impacts.

Finally, and of great importance, “[p]ublic participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement…” (CEQA Guidelines § 15201.) The exorbitant amount of 96 Planning Commissioners
January 29, 2025

Page 5 ends

time that elapsed between the public review period on the Draft EIR to the now proposed certification has served to exclude participation by many members of the public that will be impacted by this Project. Effectively, the more than seven-year delay has deprived the public of its legal right to participate in the CEQA process.

For the reasons discussed above, the EIR does not comply with CEQA. The EIR should be recirculated to include the information described above and to ensure that the public has an opportunity to review and comment with respect to the new significant and unavoidable impact related to flood protection. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend that City staff recirculate the EIR to address the issues outlined above prior to voting to recommend approval or denial of the Project.

Very truly yours,
Matthew S. Keasling
cc: Ashley Rossi and Mark Gill
Jesse J. Yang, Taylor, Wiley, & Keasling
97 1
Kevin M. Kemper
Attorney at Law
16788 Placer Hills Road, Suite E
Meadow Vista, CA 95722
916-337-8414
[email protected]
February 21, 2025
Mayor Martha Guerrero
and Members of the City Council
City of West Sacramento
1110 W. Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Re: Liberty Specific Plan – Applicant Response to Appeals from January 30, 2025 Planning Commission Decisions.

Dear Mayor Guerrero and Council Members:

I represent the Paik Survivors Trust, project applicant and developer of the Liberty Specific Plan. We are in receipt of the following appeals of the January 30 Planning Commission decisions with respect to the Liberty project:
• Appeal dated February 6, 2025 from Matthew Keasling, by the Law Firm of Taylor, Wiley and Keasling, on behalf of Mark Gill.
• Appeal dated February 4, 2025 from Kimber Goddard.

This letter responds to the contentions made in both these Appeals, some of which are overlapping and duplicative. For simplicity of reference, our responses are organized by topic.

1. Passage of Time Between Circulation of the Draft EIR and Certification by the Planning Commission.

Both appeals assert that the passage of time from when the Draft EIR was circulated (2017) and the present day compel recirculation. While this argument may have a certain facial appeal, it is not the law under CEQA. The appeals cite no authority for the proposition that an EIR becomes stale on the basis of the passage of time alone. However, a number of cases under CEQA have come to the opposite conclusion. See Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385 (2005 project approvals based on an EIR certified in 1989); Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2013) (2009 General Plan update could rely on an EIR certified in 1998); Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose [(2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 689, (eight years passed between the certification of a final EIR and preparation of an addendum for a city recycled water project). Under CEQA, the basic requirement for recirculation is triggered when a new significant environmental 98 2
impact would result from the project, or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigated. See CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a). If these factors are not met, recirculation of a Draft EIR is not required, regardless of the passage of time between initial circulation and project approval.

It is further observed that in many cases, Mr. Keasling’s appeal describes changes in regulatory guidance or other matters as “new significant information” that compels recirculation.

However, the arguable existence of “new information” is not one of the factors that triggers recirculation under CEQA. It is a factor that would require preparation of a supplemental EIR after certification occurs, but this is not applicable here. See Public Resources Code §21166(c).

2. Aesthetic Impacts
Mr. Keasling’s appeal claims that the construction of homes in the Parella Estates neighborhood represents “new information” that was not considered in the Draft EIR, and that recirculation is required as a result. This is not a valid argument under CEQA. It should be noted that while the construction of homes within the Parella Estates community largely occurred after 2017, the change in these lots from vacant to occupied does not create a “new” environment impact, or any environmental impact at all as far as the Liberty Specific Plan is concerned. The Draft EIR recognizes that the land now known as Parella Estates was designated for single family residential uses on large lots. In the Aesthetic Impacts section of the Draft EIR (Under Impact AES-1) it is observed that development of the Liberty Specific Plan would result in urban development on land that is currently vacant. The Aesthetic Impacts section recognizes that the “cultural environment consists of older, lower density rural development south of Davis Road and west of the Clarksburg Branch Line Trail.” (DEIR at 3.1-12). While the Draft EIR recognizes that the development of the project may be seen as a continuation of the existing development that surrounds the project site, changes associated with development may be regarded by some as a negative impact due to the conversion of open space to urban use. See DEIR at 3.1-15. Accordingly, impacts in this regard were regarded as significant and unavoidable. Development of the Parella Estates lots does not change this analysis or this conclusion. Buildout of Parella Estates with single family residential homes was accomplished as a matter of right, because this use was consistent with existing zoning.

This buildout was anticipated by the Draft EIR, and impacts from the project on surrounding uses and vistas was analyzed. Nothing has changed from a CEQA perspective. See CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(a) (EIR examination should be limited to changes in existing physical conditions as they exist when the Notice of Preparation is published). Light and glare impacts on nearby properties are addressed under Impact AES-3, which also identifies mitigation measures but concludes that impacts in this regard are significant and unavoidable. See DEIR at p. 3.1-17. Mr. Keasling’s letter does not suggest that these mitigation measures are infeasible, or propose additional mitigation measures that would, in his opinion, reduce impacts to less than significant. Accordingly, the standards for recirculation have not been met here.

3. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mr. Keasling’s appeal states that changes in CEQA requirements for analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions compel recirculation of the Draft EIR. CEQA does not require that the analysis in a Draft EIR, once circulated, be updated every time there is a new case decision or change in statute or regulation. These are not factors identified in the regulatory requirements for 99 3
recirculation under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. CEQA Guidelines §15007(b) makes it clear that amendments to the CEQA Guidelines apply prospectively only, and new requirements in amendments will apply to steps in the process not yet undertaken by the date when agencies must comply with the amendments. CEQA Guidelines §15007(c) states that if a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any content requirements in guideline amendments taking effect before the document is approved.

Given the provisions of CEQA Guidelines §15007, Mr. Keasling’s argument regarding an obligation to update the analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, materials is not well taken. Mr. Keasling does not point to any specific areas in which the analysis in the Draft EIR is inadequate, apart from insisting that the analysis should have anticipated case decisions that were not yet issued, or regulations not yet adopted.

4. Biological Impacts
Regarding the analysis of Biological Impacts in the Draft EIR, it is recognized that the project site presently consists of land that is considered to be foraging habitat for raptors. See Draft EIR at pp.3.4-20. Primarily, the raptor species in question are the Swainson’s Hawk, the Northern Harrier and the White-Tailed Kite. The Applicant is not aware of any “documented” occurrence of the Bald Eagle on the project site, and Mr. Keasling’s appeal does not reference any documented occurrence. It should be noted that the project impacts related to loss of foraging habitat were regarded as less than significant in the Draft EIR. See Impact BIO-2 and related discussion.

However, the Liberty project has provided for mitigation for loss of Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat, consistent with the Yolo County HCP/NCCP, in the form of 360 acres of mitigation bank credit.

5. Hazards
Both appeals claim that the analysis of emergency evacuation in the Draft EIR is inadequate, based in the decision of Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.4th 1222. The appellants misconstrue this decision and its application to this Project. In Bonta, the court found that the EIR in question failed to adequately analyze the effects on public safety from evacuation, where the project in question was concluded to result in an increase in fire risk compared to existing conditions. In this case, the Draft EIR for the Liberty Specific Plan concludes that the project would result in a reduction in wildfire risk because the project area is largely surrounded by development, and development of the site would reduce fire risk by eliminating the majority of brush and fuel on the site. See DEIR at 3.8-14. However, the analysis of hazards in the EIR is not limited to wildfire risk, risks associated with flooding, and flood protection, are also addressed.

It should be noted that the City is continually updating its plans for emergency evacuation, not just with respect to the Liberty project but City-wide. The Project Development Agreement, at Section 7.4.20, provides for additional funding for the City’s continuing emergency evacuation and management plans. Draft EIR Impact HAZ-7 analyzes the potential for the project to impair or interfere with implementation of the City’s emergency response or evacuation plans, and concluded that impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 100
4 6. Flood Control
Both the Keasling and Goddard appeals claim that the description of flood risk in the Final EIR as “significant and unavoidable” is a matter that compels recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA. While the requirements for recirculation are stated above, and need not be repeated here, this is not a valid argument under CEQA.

The issue of Flood Control and the application of the City’s General Plan threshold is addressed at length in the Staff Report, as well as the Final EIR. As explained in the Final EIR, the conclusion that impacts associated with placement of housing in the 100-year floodplain is based upon the City’s General Plan Update EIR, which recognized as a City-wide matter that until all WSLIP levee improvements are completed, that risk to new development in the City would be significant and unavoidable in the meantime. See Final EIR at pp. 3-8-10. Following the City’s adoption of the General Plan Update, it would have been anomalous for the Draft EIR to offer a different and lesser conclusion regarding impact significance, and one inconsistent with the General Plan. This circumstance does not trigger recirculation of the EIR, as the change in impact characterization is not associated with the project itself, but rather the City’s adopted General Plan that applies City-wide. It is therefore not a “new” impact of the project. It must further be acknowledged that between 2017 and the present, much has been accomplished in terms of increased flood protection in the Southport area through construction and completion of improvements associated with the Southport Levee Improvement Project by WSAFCA. The statements in the Goddard appeal that flood safety has worsened over the last decade, and not improved, is simply incorrect. Finally, it is observed that significant construction of homes has occurred in the Southport area apart from Liberty in this timeframe, including the homes in Parella Estates that are of concern to Mr. Keasling.

The General Plan Update EIR does not contain any mitigation measures with respect to flood risk, while the Draft EIR for the project imposes mitigation as originally identified, in the form of Mitigation Measures WQ-7a and WQ-7b as described in the Final EIR. Neither Mr. Keasling or Mr. Goddard argue that there are factors with respect to the Liberty Specific Plan project that distinguish flood risk on the project site compared to the risk City-wide that was assessed and addressed in the General Plan Update EIR.

7. Land Use and Noise Impacts
Mr. Keasling’s arguments with respect to Land Use and Noise impacts are based on the claim that the development of Parella Estates and Capitol Estates has introduced new sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. It should first be recognized that these projects, along with the Liberty Specific Plan, are all residential in nature. The large-lot single family residences on the western edge of the Liberty Specific Plan are comparable to the residential uses in Parella Estates, especially since recent changes to the project have been made at the request of Parella Estates residents to increase the similarity. To that extent, impacts are both similar and reciprocal.

This is acknowledged by the Draft EIR. The Land Use section of the EIR notes that the land to the west of the Clarksburg Branch Line Trail (i.e. Parella Estates) is comprised of single family residences on large lots. The same is noted in the Noise section in the Draft EIR. See DEIR at 101
5 p.3.12-13. Impacts of the project from noise during construction and operation are analyzed in the Draft EIR. No effort is made by Mr. Keisling to show that this analysis is deficient, particularly as it relates to traffic noise, which would be the largest source of project-related increases in noise.

8. Transportation Analysis
CEQA imposes no obligation to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR on the basis of revisions to the CEQA Guidelines adopted in 2018 with respect to traffic analysis of vehicle miles travelled (VMT). See CEQA Guidelines §15007. On this very issue, CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(c) makes it clear that the application of the new VMT methodology was to take effect on July 1, 2020 and to apply prospectively, as per §15007. See also Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 (adoption of GHG thresholds by local air district did not require supplemental analysis). Based on this, the State Office of Planning and Research has issued guidance that the VMT methodology required by SB 743 and implemented by CEQA Guidelines §15064.3 does not apply to CEQA documents released for public review prior to July 1, 2020.

9. Opportunity for Public Participation
It must be recognized that the span of time between the release of the Draft EIR in 2017 to the present has not deprived the public in general, or Mr. Keasling in particular, of the right to participate in the CEQA process for this project. The Final EIR contains a comment letter on the Draft EIR from Mr. Keasling personally, dated October 3, 2017. This letter can be found at page 2- 41 of the Final EIR. Mr. Goddard did not submit any comments on the Draft EIR.

The Liberty Specific Plan has been the subject of numerous planning workshops, not to mention prior Planning Commission hearings from October 17, 2024 to today. But CEQA case law does address the style of participation, and discourages perfunctory arguments being made at the last minute of a lengthy process simply to preserve an appeal. See CREED v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515 (last minute objections and arguments were not “fairly presented” to the lead agency and thus did not exhaust administrative remedies) and Coalition for Student Action v. City of Fullerton (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1197 (“it was never contemplated that a party to an administrative hearing should make only a perfunctory or ‘skeleton’ showing in the hearing and thereafter obtain an unlimited trial de novo, on expanded issues, in the reviewing court.”).

Conclusion
It is clear that these appeals are little more than an effort to “weaponize” the CEQA process.

Mr. Keasling’s apparent goals are to further achieve his client’s objectives with regard to further changes to the project land plan. Many significant mapping changes have already been made to the Liberty project plan, at the last minute and at great internal expense, in order to address the concerns of the Parella Estates residents. These changes were made without regard to whether there would be continuing opposition to the project from Mr. Keasling and his client. The Liberty team believes that the project, both as originally proposed and revised, will not have a significant effect on the residents of Parella Court, beyond what has been described in the Draft EIR.

Mr. Goddard’s goals are unclear, except that he is a serial appellant of significant land use projects in the City. We believe that Mr. Goddard’s appeal misconstrues both the analysis of flood 102
6 risk in the Draft and Final EIR, as well as the City’s efforts together with partner agencies to plan and prepare for flood mitigation in the region.

Accordingly, the Liberty team respectfully requests the City Council to deny the appeals and affirm the January 30, 2025 decisions and recommendations of the Planning Commission.

Best regards,
Kevin Kemper
CC: Jeff Mitchell, City Attorney
Bob Lagomarsino, City of West Sacramento
Justin Hardy, City of West Sacramento
Terry Teeple, Project Manager
103

4905-7011-9968.2 007203.526
1331 Garden Hwy, 2nd Floor | Sacramento, CA 95833 T. (916) 321-4500 | F. (916) 321-4555 www.kmtg.com

MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Guerrero & Members of the City Council
Aaron Laurel, City Manager
FROM: Jeffrey A. Mitchell, City Attorney
DATE: February 27, 2025
RE: Liberty Project - Keasling Appeal
This memo provides a response to the issues raised by the administrative appeal filed by Matt Keasling of the Taylor, Wiley and Keasling law firm on behalf of Mark Gill ("Appellant") on February 5, 2025 ("Keasling Appeal"), challenging the City of West Sacramento ("City") Planning Commission's January 30, 2025, decision to certify the Liberty Project's Environmental Impact Report and approve the Liberty Project's tentative subdivision map. This memo addresses only the issues related to the CEQA claims.

The Appellant provided a letter ("Letter") to the Planning Commission on January 29, 2025, listing concerns about the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Liberty Project. The Letter described the Final EIR as legally deficient for several reasons, but all claims were encompassed within the concern about the time between the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. Appellant specifically requested the Planning Commission not certify the EIR.

After the Planning Commission certified the EIR, Appellant submitted an appeal on February 5, 2025, attaching the Letter to the appeal form. The Letter, the appeal, as well as subsequent correspondence from counsel Matt Keasling ("Mr. Keasling") provided on February 24, 2025 (which are collectively referred to here as the Keasling Appeal), contains assertions pertaining to the tentative subdivision map and to potential CEQA impacts of the Project.

The Paik Survivors Trust, the project applicant ("Applicant") responded to the Letter on January 30, 2025. The Applicant also provided a response on February 21, 2025, addressing the concerns presented by all appellants.

The Keasling Appeal claims the City should undertake supplemental review and recirculate the EIR due to the following issues: (1) Aesthetics; (2) Air Quality; (3) Biological Resources; (4) Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (5) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (6) Hydrology and Water Quality; (7) Land Use; (8) Noise; and (9) Transportation/Traffic. Appellant also describes concerns with Public Participation but does not claim this is a requirement for supplemental review and recirculation. This memo addresses this final topic as is it related to CEQA claims.

Attachment 17
104
Mayor Guerrero & City Staff
February 27, 2025

Page 2 ends

4905-7011-9968.2 007203.526
A. Legal Standard for Supplemental Review Under CEQA
The Keasling Appeal correctly identifies the legal standard for recirculation under CEQA, then states that the "EIR should be recirculated to address significant new information that has occurred as a result of changes in the regulatory and physical environment since the publication of the Draft EIR in 2017 and because of a new significant and unavoidable impact identified for the first time in the Final EIR published October 2024."
A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. … New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect…that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
(CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR § 15088(a))
An agency's determinations that recirculation is not required will be upheld if that decision is supported by substantial evidence. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1135. Reasonable doubts are to be resolved in favor of the agency's determination and decision. 6 Cal. 4th at 1135. The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 850; Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal. App. 5th 609, 632. We conclude staff's recommendation to deny the appeal is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and that Mr. Keasling has not met the burden of demonstrating that recirculation is required.

Aesthetics
The Keasling Appeal claims the aesthetics chapter of the EIR does not address the visual impacts of the Project on the adjacent and nearby development that occurred after the publication of the Draft EIR in 2017. The Applicant answers this claim by noting that the claim is not "new" information, thus not triggering the requirement for supplemental review. 105
Mayor Guerrero & City Staff
February 27, 2025

Page 3 ends

4905-7011-9968.2 007203.526
Under CEQA, the issue of aesthetics “is not the judging of the individual beauty of the [p]roject, but rather [the] physical elements of the preexisting environment the [p]roject may significantly impact.” (Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 376.) Aesthetic issues “include impacts on public and private views and on the historic character of the project site and surrounding area.” (Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016), 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 577.) Aesthetic issues also include the environmental impact of light and glare caused by a project. (See, e.g., Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1038; Guidelines, appen. G.)
Despite Appellant's comments to the contrary, the Draft EIR did identify and evaluate the aesthetic impact of the Liberty Project. There was a discussion about the impact of urban development on land that was vacant and recognized that the development of the project could be seen as a continuation of the existing developments that surrounded the project site. This led to a determination that the impacts were significant and unavoidable. The development of Parella Estates and Capital Estates is not new information that had not been contemplated in the EIR, but a projection that came to fruition. These developments were anticipated in the City's General Plan and therefore have not changed anything from a CEQA perspective.

As Appellant has not identified significant changes in the project, increases in the severity of an environmental impact, or feasible mitigation measures that would clearly lessen a significant environmental impact of the project, the standards for supplemental review and recirculation have not been met.

Air Quality
The Keasling Appeal appears to claim that the air quality chapter of the EIR should be revised to meet the amended CEQA guidelines published after the Draft EIR was released. "Amendments to the guidelines apply prospectively only. New requirements in amendment will apply to steps in the CEQA process not yet undertaken by the date when agencies must comply with the amendments." (14 CCR § 15007(b).) "If a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is set out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved." (14 CCR § 15007(c).)
As there is no requirement to update documents every time there is a new requirement or modification to the regulations, there is no obligation to submit the EIR to supplemental review or recirculation.

Biological Resources
The Keasling Appeal claims that there have been several regulatory changes that have occurred since the Draft EIR was published. It also claims that there is a lack of additional surveys to address changes in the environment that have occurred since the Draft EIR, including the "documented" presence of new species foraging such as the bald eagle. The Applicant responded that they were unaware of any documented sightings of bald eagles in the area, but that the EIR did evaluate the impact related to loss of foraging habitats. 106
Mayor Guerrero & City Staff
February 27, 2025

Page 4 ends

4905-7011-9968.2 007203.526
As noted above, there is no obligation for a supplemental review if the document met the content requirements in effect when the document was sent out for public review. Nor has Appellant provided any evidence for the contention that there are documented sightings of bald eagles in the vicinity of the Liberty Project. As Appellant has not identified significant changes in the project, increases in the severity of an environmental impact, or feasible mitigation measures that would clearly lessen a significant environmental impact of the project, the standards for supplemental review and recirculation have not been met.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Keasling Appeal claims the EIR should be updated and recirculated to address changes in greenhouse gas analysis, thresholds, and mitigation that have occurred since the Draft EIR was published.

As noted above, there is no requirement to submit to supplemental review when the documents met the content requirements in effect when the document was sent out for public review. Therefore, there is no obligation to submit the EIR to supplemental review or recirculation.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Keasling Appeal argues that, in light of the Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 decision, there is a need for supplemental review to address the impacts on evacuation routes and wildfire. The Appellant states that the evacuation plans and the wildfire risks need to be reassessed. The Applicant argues that the Draft EIR has addressed concerns about wildfire and concluded the risk of wildfire will be reduced due to a significant reduction in brush and fuel on the site.

Appellant misconstrues the decision in Bonta. The court in Bonta found that the EIR in question failed to adequately analyze the effects on public safety from evacuation, where the project in question was found to result in an increase in fire risk compared to existing conditions. The errata for the EIR in question outlined that the increased human habitation in a wildlife-urban interface increased the fire risk. This information was not present in the Final EIR, nor was the testimony presented at the hearing regarding the adoption of the EIR. Neither form of information corrected the deficiencies in the EIR. The delay likewise prevented public participation in evaluating this new information. For the Liberty Project, the EIR does evaluate the susceptibility to wildfire danger and flood risk.

As for the evacuation route concerns, the published decision did not describe the deficiencies in the emergency evacuation plan other than to say that the EIR did not contemplate the impact the development had on the existing community's emergency evacuation routes. Unlike Bonta, the Draft EIR for Liberty has evaluated the risk associated with emergency evacuations. Additionally, as noted in the memo provided by Fire Chief Steve Binns, the City is continually updating its plans for emergency evacuations as a whole, not just this specific project.

The Keasling Appeal has not identified significant changes in the project, increases in the severity of an environmental impact, or feasible mitigation measures that would clearly lessen a significant environmental impact of the project. Therefore the standards for supplemental review and recirculation have not been met.
107
Mayor Guerrero & City Staff
February 27, 2025

Page 5 ends

4905-7011-9968.2 007203.526
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Keasling Appeal discusses the differences between the Draft EIR and the Final EIR regarding the flood impact, noting that the Draft EIR concluded the impact could be mitigated to lessthan-significant, but the Final EIR changed the impact to significant and unavoidable, presenting "new significant information" that requires recirculation. As discussed below, recirculation is not required.

The Final EIR for Liberty incorporated the flood risk information to be consistent with the General Plan Update. It also includes mitigation measures consistent with the Draft EIR: Mitigation Measures WQ-7a and WQ-7b.

As described above and in the Staff Report, the FEIR does not identify any "new" impacts. It simply makes the Liberty EIR consistent with the General Plan EIR's conclusion that flood impacts are significant and unavoidable. As documented in Mr. Dirksen's memo and the staff report, significant improvements to the City's levee system have been made and continue to be made, and that situation is not different than it was at the time the DEIR was released. Therefore, there is no need for a supplemental review or recirculation based on the differences in the Final EIR.

Land Use

Appellant claims that there have been significant changes in the vicinity of the project site since the Draft EIR was circulated, therefore a supplemental review is required to address potential land use compatibility issues. Applicant responded that the changes in the vicinity were anticipated in the Draft EIR, and the land use is comparable to the residential use of the surrounding projects. To that extent, the impacts for those projects are similar and reciprocal.

The Keasling Appeal has not argued that the Draft EIR was insufficient or lacking in any manner. Nor has Appellant identified any mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR or Final EIR that are not feasible, nor did he propose additional mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant, the standards for supplemental review or recirculation have not been met.

Noise
This claim is similar to the claim under land use, that there has been significant development since the Draft EIR was completed in 2017, creating new sensitive receptors in the vicinity. The Applicant responded similarly that the changes in the vicinity were anticipated. It was noted that the referenced projects are all residential, with the same potential for noise. Applicant also noted that impacts from the noise of the construction were also analyzed in the Draft EIR.

Page 6 ends

4905-7011-9968.2 007203.526
Transportation/Traffic
Appellant claims that, as there has been significant change in traffic with the completion of the Village Parkway, the EIR does not comply with CEQA Guidelines that were adopted after the Draft EIR was published. The Applicant responds as above, that there is no requirement for supplemental review for new guidelines. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3 specifies that the requirements for analyzing transportation impacts are prospectively applied, beginning on July 1, 2020.

As there is no requirement to update documents every time there is a new requirement or modification to the regulations, there is no obligation to submit the EIR to supplemental review or recirculation.

Public Participation
As an additional comment on this process, Appellant argues that the extended time between the Draft and Final EIR excludes participation by many members of the public. Despite Appellant's concerns, there has been public participation, including comments submitted by Mr. Keasling that have been included in the Final EIR. Additionally, as reported in the Staff Report submitted by Justin Hardy, Senior Planner, there was a public workshop on June 6, 2024, to present an overview of the Liberty project and to provide an opportunity for the Commission and the public to ask questions about the Project and the public hearing process. Starting on October 17, 2024, there were four public hearings, each with opportunities for public testimony. It appears there were several opportunities for members of the community to make their concerns known.

Nothing in this claim creates an obligation for supplemental review or recirculation.

Conclusion
As discussed above, Appellant identified several concerns he has with the Liberty project, but none of which triggers the requirement for a supplemental review or recirculation before the EIR is certified. Therefore, the certification of the EIR should be upheld. 109

4935-7733-2768.2 007203.526
1331 Garden Hwy, 2nd Floor | Sacramento, CA 95833 T. (916) 321-4500 | F. (916) 321-4555 www.kmtg.com

MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Guerrero & Members of the City Council
Aaron Laurel, City Manager
FROM: Jeffrey A. Mitchell, City Attorney
DATE: February 27, 2025
RE: Liberty Project – Goddard Appeal
This memo provides a response to the issues raised by the administrative appeal filed by Kimber Goddard ("Mr. Goddard") on February 4, 2025 ("Goddard Appeal"), challenging the City of West Sacramento ("City") Planning Commission's January 30, 2025, decision to certify the Liberty Project's Environmental Impact Report and approve the Liberty Project's tentative subdivision map.

The Goddard Appeal, as well as subsequent correspondence from Mr. Goddard on February 23, 2025 (which are collectively referred to here as the Goddard Appeal), contain general assertions pertaining to potential CEQA impacts of the Project, a request for a separate appeal hearing from any other potential claims, and general criticisms of the City Planning Commission and City staff. This memo primarily addresses those aspects of the Goddard Appeal that relate to CEQA compliance, including claims contained in subsequent email correspondence from Mr. Goddard to the extent those claims bear on the CEQA issues raised in the Goddard Appeal.

The Paik Survivors Trust, the project applicant ("Applicant") provided a response on February 21, 2025, addressing the concerns presented by all appellants.

The Goddard Appeal claims the City should undertake supplemental environmental review and recirculate the EIR because of: (1) new information presented in the Final EIR and (2) the City's evacuation planning.

A. Legal Standard for Supplemental Review Under CEQA
A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. … New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect…that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation 110
Mayor Guerrero & Members of the City Council
February 27, 2025

Page 2 ends

4935-7733-2768.2 007203.526
measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
(CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR § 15088(a))
B. Analysis of Goddard Appeal CEQA Claims

1. New Information Presented in Final EIR
The Goddard Appeal appears to claim that supplemental environmental review and recirculation is needed to properly assess a significant change between the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. Specifically, he claims that there is new information presented in the Final EIR which was not identified in the draft EIR that affected the analysis of the flood risk for the project. The Applicant responded to the claims, stating that the Final EIR was not affected by "new" information but an update to the City's adopted General Plan. As discussed below, recirculation is not required.

City of West Sacramento adopted a General Plan Update that applies to the entire city. The General Plan provides that, until the WSLIP levee improvements are completed, the flood risk to all new developments were significant and unavoidable. The memo from the Flood Protection Manager Paul Dirksen provides the background for flood protection projects for West Sacramento as a whole, and also discusses whether development of the Liberty Project has the potential to increase the severity of the flood risk identified in both the General Plan and Liberty EIRs. The Final EIR for Liberty incorporated the flood risk information to be consistent with the General Plan Update. It also includes mitigation measures consistent with the Draft EIR: Mitigation Measures WQ-7a and WQ-7b.

The Applicant is correct that there is no "new" information presented. As described above and in the Staff Report, the FEIR does not identify any "new" impacts. It simply makes the Liberty EIR consistent with the General Plan EIR's conclusion that flood impacts are significant and unavoidable.

As documented in Mr. Dirksen's memo and the staff report, significant improvements to the City's levee system have been made and continue to be made, and that situation is not different than it was at the time the DEIR was released. Therefore, there is no need for a supplemental review or recirculation based on the revisions in the Final EIR.

2. Emergency Evacuation
The Goddard Appeal argues that there are insufficient routes for evacuation in the event the development floods. Mr. Goddard cites Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 to support his argument, stating the case holds that the increased risk to fire evacuation routes was a significant environmental health and safety impact that required proper analysis under CEQA. Applicant disputes this interpretation, arguing that the case required analysis of the effect on the evacuation plan when the project itself increased the fire risk. The Applicant is correct. 111
Mayor Guerrero & Members of the City Council
February 27, 2025

Page 3 ends

4935-7733-2768.2 007203.526
The court in Bonta found that the conclusory discussion of the project's potential impact of exacerbating wildfire ignitions failed to provide meaningful information for the environmental assessment required by CEQA. The errata for the EIR in question outlined in one paragraph that the increased human habitation in a wildlife-urban interface increased the fire risk. This information was not present in the Final EIR, nor was the testimony presented at the hearing regarding the certification of the EIR. Additionally, neither form of information corrected the deficiencies in the EIR. For the Liberty Project, the EIR does evaluate the susceptibility to wildfire danger and flood risk.

The Goddard Appeal has not identified significant changes in the project, increases in the severity of an environmental impact, or feasible mitigation measures that would clearly lessen a significant environmental impact of the project. Therefore the standards for supplemental review and recirculation have not been met.

C. Discussion of Goddard Appeal non-CEQA Claims
The Goddard Appeal contains other considerations, one alleged to be purely informational, and the other a request for alternate hearing procedures. Neither of these claims identify any legal inadequacies in the Planning Commission's decisions.

1. Premature Notice of Determination Issue
The Goddard Appeal includes a discussion about the timing for a Notice of Determination ("NOD") subsequent to the City Council's approval of a project. Mr. Goddard notes he believes the NOD attached to the back of the staff report was inappropriate when the report was submitted to the Planning Commission for approval on the Liberty Project. Mr. Goddard did not identify any legal deficiencies in which the City Council must make a determination, and we believe the practice of including a proposed NOD is common and perfectly legal.

2. Demand for Multiple Independent Appeals Hearings
The Goddard Appeal demands that, in the event there is more than one appeal filed, Mr. Goddard will be scheduled for a separate hearing with the City Council to present special evidence, witnesses or arguments without any limitations. Mr. Goddard cites to Pub. Res. Code § 21151 that states "[i]f a nonelected decision making body of a local lead agency certifies an environmental impact report, approves a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, or determines that a project is not subject to this division, that certification, approval, or determination may be appealed to the agency’s elected decision making body, if any." Mr. Goddard does not refer to any authority stating he has the right to independent hearing. Nor does he identify any legal deficiencies in the City Council hearing both appeals at the same hearing, and we believe none exist. As a practical matter Mr. Goddard's approach could allow for a project to be tied up indefinitely in a long series of appeal hearings. For example, a number of residents of the Parella Estates neighborhood spoke at one or more of the Planning Commission meetings for the project. If each of them filed an appeal and requested a separate meeting, 112
Mayor Guerrero & Members of the City Council
February 27, 2025

Page 4 ends

4935-7733-2768.2 007203.526
the Council would, under Mr. Goddard's approach, be required to hold a separate hearing for each of them. Neither state law nor the City's administrative hearing process requires separate hearings, and we recommend against it.

Conclusion
For the reasons described above, none of the triggers for supplemental review or recirculation under the CEQA Guidelines are present. Therefore, the certification of the EIR should be upheld. 113
4910-2275-4593.1 007203.526
City of West Sacramento
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Paul Dirksen, Flood Protection Manager
DATE: February 25, 2025
SUBJECT: Responses to Liberty Development Appeal
History
The levees protecting the city of West Sacramento have performed well, with no major levee failures since they were constructed in the early 1900’s by farmers pushing dirt up toward the river and the use of dredged materials from the river by clam shell excavators. The levees weren’t engineered to any standards and relied on compaction and gravity to withstand the hydraulic forces of the Sacramento River. The materials weren’t homogeneous and there are many areas where the levee is composed of sandy material. These poor soils resulted in levee deficiencies such as: through-seepage, under-seepage and erosion along the riverbank.

The FEMA map for West Sacramento is from 1995. The map shows that most of the city is protected by levees from a 100 year event, or 1% chance of flooding in any given year due to a levee failure or over-topping during larger flood events. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused catastrophic failures in New Orleans and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) re-wrote the standards for federal levees. The City of West Sacramento went from having over 300-year flood protection to less than 100 year flood protection. The City engaged in an investigative campaign to evaluate the city’s levee system and in 2006, property owners passed a flood assessment to raise funds for the local share of costs to repair the levees and requested a formal re-evaluation by USACE of the levees protecting the city. The USACE initiated a General Re-evaluation Report in 2009 and completed it in 2015. That report led to the West Sacramento Project, which was authorized by Congress in 2016 in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nations Act. Although the Project was authorized in 2016, funding wasn’t provided until FY 2019 and it wasn’t until 2022 that the Project received a New Start, meaning that the federal government was going to fund the Project to completion. The funding delay coupled with the covid pandemic delayed WSAFCA’s ability to address the next most significant levee deficiencies following congressional authorization.

WSAFCA’s locally led projects
Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection Bond Act, was passed by California voters in November 2006 and included funding for flood control structure repair.

Through the Early Implementation Program (EIP) and Urban Flood Risk Reduction (UFRR) program, California allocated $1.2 billion of Proposition 1E funds to provide “worst first” improvements to address urban flood risk improvements as identified in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.

The West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA), a Joint Powers Authority formed in 1994 between the City of West Sacramento and Reclamation Districts 537 and 900, has been advancing a comprehensive program of activities referred to as the West Sacramento Levee Improvement Program (WSLIP). The WSLIP includes: (1) partnering with the State to construct improvements along several high risk reaches of levee protecting the City in advance of the federal Project; 2) partnering with the USACE and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (State) to implement the federally recognized West Sacramento Project (Project); and (3) Attachment 16
114
4910-2275-4593.1 007203.526
community outreach regarding the existing flood risk and improved emergency response planning. The primary goal of WSAFCA and the WSLIP is to achieve at least a 200-year level of flood protection (.5% chance for levee failure in any given year) for the city as quickly as possible.

Completed Projects
Using Prop 1E and local funds, WSAFCA partnered with the State to make improvements to the levees protecting the City while the GRR was in progress. Since 2006, WSAFCA, the State, and the USACE have expended approximately $317.2 million for the planning, design, land acquisition, and construction toward completion of the Project using a “worst first” criteria, that is prioritized projects to provide the greatest risk reduction first. Four EIP projects were completed including the I Street, CHP, Rivers and Southport. These projects were all led by WSAFCA and completed before the USACE received authorization in 2022 to design and construct the remainder of the Project.
• The I Street Project was completed in 2008 and at cost of $3.3 M and corrected underand through-seepage as well as levee geometry deficiencies. • The River’s EIP project was completed in 2011 at a cost of $21.4 M and corrected under- and through-seepage and freeboard deficiencies.
• The California Highway Patrol and Sacramento Bypass EIP Project was completed in 2011 at a cost of $11.5M and corrected water-side erosion and through-seepage deficiencies.
• The Southport EIP Project was the most ambitious project that WSAFCA undertook, and it was completed in 2018. It included 1.4 miles of fix-in-place levee improvements and

3.8 miles of a setback levee. This project cost over $180M and corrected for under- and through seepage, erosion and seismic deficiencies. The Southport Project is unique because of the setback levee, slurry walls within the levee, a seepage berm, and the setback levee, which significantly reduces the potential for erosion because the water isn’t up against the levee all year and the area between the setback levee and remnant levee is planted with riparian tress and other understory plants, which reduces the hydraulic power of the Sacramento River.

Federal Project
The USACE completed its first phase of the Project, the Yolo Bypass Levee – South in 2023.

This fall the project experienced waterside slumping before a series of heavy rains and the Yolo Bypass filled with run-off from the Sacramento River. The US Army Corps mobilized quickly and developed and implemented levee repairs by building up an adjacent levee behind the existing levee and placing rock at the levee toe in anticipation of the winter storm that would fill the Yolo Bypass with water. A final and permanent design and construction later this year.

Current/Future Effort
Construction of the Yolo Bypass Levee – North is completed this calendar year and WSAFCA is still negotiating with a property owner for a PGE easement to provide power to the new pump station, that was constructed as part of the project. Several projects are currently in design by the USACE and include four contracts along the Sacramento River North Levee (contracts 1S, 2S, 3E and 4E), and the Stone Lock Closure.

Including the segments currently in design or construction, there are eleven levee segments that remain to complete the Project. The current schedule has all segments completed by 2037.

American and Sacramento River System Improvements
In addition to the levee improvements completed by WSAFCA, DWR and the USACE, there have been system improvements that help reduce West Sacramento’s flood risk. Additional gates added to the Folsom Dam allow for early and more controlled release from Folsom lake, 115
4910-2275-4593.1 007203.526
modulating flows and reducing some of the erosive forces from uncontrolled releases. The expansion of the Sacramento Weir and the setback levee north of the weir will reduce the flows in the Sacramento River during high water events. The weir will be operational for the 2025 flood season.

SB 5 Urban Level of Flood Protection 2007
“Urban level of flood protection” means the level of protection that is necessary to withstand flooding that has a 1-in-200 chance of occurring in any given year using criteria consistent with, or developed by, the Department of Water Resources. “Urban level of flood protection” shall not mean shallow flooding or flooding from local drainage that meets the criteria of the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection.

Requires city to make findings of adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will achieve the urban level of flood protection West Sacramento levee improvement accomplishments toward adequate progress:
 West Sacrament General Re-evaluation Report- USACE determined a federal interest for the WSLIP. Chief’s Report completed 2016. 116
4910-2275-4593.1 007203.526
 Sacramento West Bank Project – USACE led construction of setback levee at mouth of Stone Lock at Sacramento River
 Early Implementation Projects- CHP/Rivers/ I St./ Southport  New Start Construction Authority from Congress, committing the Federal Government to complete the West Sacramento Project
 WSAFCA developed an Adequate Progress Financial Plan (Financial Plan) that includes an implementation schedule and assumptions for the timing and amount of federal, State, and local funding appropriations required to complete the WSLIP structural improvements by 2030.

SB 901 City of West Sacramento flood risk reduction project (2022) SB 901 extended the deadline for West Sacramento to achieve 200 year flood protection to 2030. This extension was requested and necessary due to the delay in receiving federal funding after the project was authorized in 2016 as well as because the time to design and construct levee improvements takes seven years to complete.

This bill re-affirms the State of California’s commitment to its share of funding the WSLIP and authorizes the State to dissolve Maintenance Area 4 and allow for RD 900 to take over levee maintenance for the area currently being maintained by the State, from the Sacramento Weir to the Tower Bridge.

SB 586- Flood Management: Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley (2024) SB 586 extends the deadline to achieve 200 year flood protection for the city until 2040 and extends the State’s funding commitment to the West Sacramento Project. This bill also requires that by 2028 and every 5 years thereafter that the city reports to the legislature on the plans and actions taken to improve flood protection for the community.

Liberty Project
WSAFCA is aware that there are three large development projects planned for the Southport community, Yarborough, Liberty and River Park. Liberty and River Park are immediately adjacent to the Southport levee improvements that were completed in 2018 and Yarborough is adjacent to the Deep Water Ship Channel east levee. Provided that none of the developments encroach on the levees and their respective features that protect the city, WSAFCA doesn’t believe that these development projects create an increased flood risk for Southport or the city.

117
City of West Sacramento
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council
FROM: Steve Binns, Fire Chief
DATE: March 5, 2025
SUBJECT: City Evacuation Planning and Response
Regarding the subject of evacuation in West Sacramento, first and foremost, the City is well prepared to initiate an evacuation or partial evacuation of our residents. The Police Department has the legal authority to initiate and manage an evacuation, small or large, and is trained to do so. In the event of a large-scale incident, the City’s Emergency Operation Center (EOC) will be activated, and the decision and organization of an evacuation will be decided and coordinated within the EOC, including input from City management and emergency services. As each emergency presents its own specific challenges, we cannot have a generic route plan; instead, we create the route plan to accommodate those challenges during the incident to best manage the flow of vehicles and people as deemed most appropriate.

From a pre-incident planning perspective, the City has an evacuation plan and updates the plan regularly. With that, through the Yolo County Joint Emergency Management System (JEMS) for which we are members, we have finalized the 2024 Yolo County Evacuation Annex update. We are currently, however, taking the plan a step further and amending it to be more West Sacramento-centric where applicable. The content of the comprehensive and interoperable plan, strategies, and guidance it provides in general, will not change.

Additional to the current plan update, we have amended existing tools (Everbridge/Alert Yolo) and added a new tool (Genasys) in an effort to prepare our citizens for a potential evacuation addressing the subjects of notification and mapping, respectively. To inform the public of the updated plan and tools, we have a multifaceted plan to get the information out. We have already used social media, as well as sent utility billing inserts to all residents and businesses in West Sacramento. The last component of our marketing strategy will be public workshops where we will welcome the public to learn about not only these new and updated tools, but our emergency management efforts as a whole. Once we have finalized our current plan edits, we will begin scheduling workshops, which should begin this spring.

For more information, a web link has been provided below. From this page, the public can access the information detailed in this memo as well as other important emergency management/disaster preparedness planning documents and links.
https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/fire/emergencymanagement/plans-and-publications To address any new development in the City, we will amend our plan, associated documents, and maps as necessary. With specific regard to the Liberty development agreement, it includes language (7.4.20 Evacuation and Emergency Management Plan Update) and funding for the plan update inclusive of the project.

Attachment 17
118
ATTACHMENT 18
RESOLUTION 25-31

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
DENYING THE APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S CERTIFICATION

OF THE LIBERTY EIR AND THE LIBERTY VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5112
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2013, an application was submitted for the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) for the Liberty Project as well as other related land use entitlement including an amendment to the General Plan, an amendment to the Southport Framework Plan, adoption of the Liberty Specific Plan, and an amendment to the Zoning Code and adoption of a Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Liberty VTSM includes approximately 342 acres comprising 1,195 lots (1,503 units) designed in three phases; and
WHEREAS, the Liberty DEIR was dutifully processed and two Notice of Preparation scoping meetings were held on May 24, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Liberty DEIR was dutifully processed and circulated in August 2017 pursuant to CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, the Liberty Final EIR was released on August 8, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study session on the Liberty Specific Plan Project, including the EIR and VTSM on June 6, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Liberty Specific Plan Project, including the EIR and VTSM on October 17, 2024; and continued the hearing until November 7, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Liberty Project on November 7, 2024, receiving public comments and continued the hearing until December 19, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the Liberty Project on December 19, 2024, and continued the hearing until January 30, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the Liberty Project on January 30, 2025; and following the conclusion of the January 30 continued public hearing, the Planning Commission certified the Liberty EIR, and found that the VTSM was consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the City of West Sacramento General Plan and Subdivision Map Act, and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Planning Commission found that the VTSM was consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the City of West Sacramento General Plan and Subdivision Map Act, Certified the Liberty EIR by Resolution 25-1PC, approved the VTSM, substantially in the form as attached to the staff report, by Resolution 25-3PC, subject to City Council approval of the other land use entitlements for the Liberty Project, and recommended that the Council approve the other land use entitlements for the Liberty Project by Resolution 25-31; and 119
WHEREAS, the City received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the Liberty EIR and approval of the VTSM on February 4, 2025 from Kimber Goddard (the “Goddard Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, the City received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the Liberty EIR and approval of the VTSM on February 6, 2025 from Matt Keasling of the Taylor, Wiley, and Keasling law firm on behalf of Mark Gill (the “Keasling Appeal”); and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the Liberty EIR its approval of the VTSM for the Liberty Project on March 5, 2025; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council take the following actions:
1) Finds that, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the Liberty EIR is not required prior to its certification or to approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112 because no “significant new information” (as that term is used in Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR after notice of public review was provided pursuant to Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines.
2) Finds that the Planning Commission acted appropriately in determining that the Liberty EIR reflects the independent judgement of the City as lead agency, acted appropriately in adopting the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations. and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Liberty Project. 3) Finds that Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112 is consistent with the West Sacramento General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted on January 30, 2025, prepared for the Project; and
4) Denies the Goddard and Keasling Appeals and confirms the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR and its approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST: Approved as to form:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney CODIFY X UNCODIFY ___
120

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

ERRATA MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Guerrero and City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
Justin Hardy, Senior Planner
CC:

Aaron Laurel, City Manager
Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager
Jeff Mitchell, City Attorney
DATE: March 5, 2025
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Agenda – Item 18 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S CERTIFICATION OF THE

LIBERTY EIR AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5112
The attached, Resolution 25-31, replaces Attachment 18 for Item 3 on tonight’s agenda. The language was update following the withdraw of Mr. Matthew Keasling’s appeal. 121
122
ATTACHMENT 18
RESOLUTION 25-31

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S CERTIFICATION

OF THE LIBERTY EIR AND THE LIBERTY VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5112
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2013, an application was submitted for the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) for the Liberty Project as well as other related land use entitlement including an amendment to the General Plan, an amendment to the Southport Framework Plan, adoption of the Liberty Specific Plan, and an amendment to the Zoning Code and adoption of a Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Liberty VTSM includes approximately 342 acres comprising 1,195 lots (1,503 units) designed in three phases; and
WHEREAS, the Liberty DEIR was dutifully processed and two Notice of Preparation scoping meetings were held on May 24, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Liberty DEIR was dutifully processed and circulated in August 2017 pursuant to CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, the Liberty Final EIR was released on October, 2024; and WHEREAS,the Vesting Tentaive Subdivision map No. 5112 was realased On October, 2024 and released as a revised version on January, 2025 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study session on the Liberty Specific Plan Project, including the EIR and VTSM on June 6, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Liberty Specific Plan Project, including the EIR and VTSM on October 17, 2024; and continued the hearing until November 7, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Liberty Project on November 7, 2024, receiving public comments and continued the hearing until December 19, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the Liberty Project on December 19, 2024, and continued the hearing until January 30, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the Liberty Project on January 30, 2025; and following the conclusion of the January 30 continued public hearing, the Planning Commission certified the Liberty EIR, and found that the VTSM was consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the City of West Sacramento General Plan and Subdivision Map Act, and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Planning Commission found that the VTSM was consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the City of West Sacramento General Plan and Subdivision Map Act, Certified the Liberty EIR by Resolution 25-1PC, approved the VTSM, substantially in the form as attached to the staff report, by Resolution 25-3PC, subject to City Council approval of the other land use entitlements for the Liberty Project, and recommended that the Council approve the other land use entitlements for the Liberty Project by Resolution 25-31; and
WHEREAS, the City received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the Liberty EIR and approval of the VTSM on February 4, 2025 from Kimber Goddard 123
(the “Goddard Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the Liberty EIR its approval of the VTSM for the Liberty Project on March 5, 2025; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council take the following actions:
1) Finds that, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the Liberty EIR is not required prior to its certification or to approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112 because no “significant new information” (as that term is used in Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR after notice of public review was provided pursuant to Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines.
2) Finds that the Planning Commission acted appropriately in determining that the Liberty EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency, acted appropriately in adopting the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations. and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Liberty Project. 3) Finds that Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112 is consistent with the West Sacramento General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted on January 30, 2025, prepared for the Project; and
4) Denies the Goddard Appeal and confirms the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR and its approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5112.

AYES: NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST: Approved as to form:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney

CODIFY X UNCODIFY
124
From: Cusmir, Jennifer
To: Hardy, Justin
Subject: FW: Test
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 11:02:24 AM
Good morning,
This comment was submitted today. If I remember correctly, the comments that we received prior to the publication of the agenda for the Yarborough hearing were included with the staff report.

Jennifer Cusmir, CMC, MPA
City of West Sacramento | City Clerk
1110 West Capitol Ave | West Sacramento, CA 95691
Office: (916) 617-4528
[email protected]
From: tom mcduffie <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 10:49 AM
To: Cusmir, Jennifer <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Test
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: tom mcduffie <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:46 AM
Subject: Test
To: tom mcduffie <[email protected]>
Public Hearing Notice Response
March 5, 2025
[email protected]
West Sacramento breached Southern Pacific Railroad leaves that provided a strong level of protection for these three communities.

Levees which serve to promote flood control between Broderick, Bryte, and West Sacramento just to gain access, without providing flood gates Attachment 19
125
is risky.

River Levee protection is so especially important as the Township of Washington (Broderick) has been prone to flood in the early years. The interior levees are as important as the riverbank levees and yet we breach the levees weekening our safety.

The ship canal levee is as serious as the river levee and should be higher, allowing safe assembly for residents, I am sure that it has been spoken of in your emergency plan.

Davis Road serves as a six-foot levee road, six feet higher than the Liberty Island Subdivision. One half of the roadway width was abandoned in the early 1900’s by the Bondholders committee to accommodate a drainage ditch to collect and store water, false information has been provided to the city that Davis Road is a 50-foot road rather than an estimated twenty-six foot +/- pathway for residents.

As a condition for development, Liberty Subdivision must submit for 200-year flood protection certification signed off by the state agency in control of levee protection prior to breaking ground for all our safety.

Respectfully Submitted,
126
From: Cusmir, Jennifer
To: Hardy, Justin
Cc: Mitchell, Jeff; Berlin, Amanda; Bob Lagomarsino
Subject: FW: Objection to the Liberty Development_March 5, 2025 Meeting Date: Thursday, February 27, 2025 9:28:21 AM
Justin,
We received the comment below this morning regarding Liberty.

Thank you,
Jennifer Cusmir, CMC, MPA
City of West Sacramento | City Clerk
1110 West Capitol Ave | West Sacramento, CA 95691
Office: (916) 617-4528
[email protected]
From: Katie Thornton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 6:22 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Objection to the Liberty Development_March 5, 2025 Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Members,
I would like to express my objection to the Liberty Development. This development, like others, is based on a study that is 8 years old. A lot has happened in this country and on this planet in the last 8 years. Two big concerns are population growth and the ever-changing, unpredictable climate. Basically, we have a lot more people, traffic, and weather.

To move forward with this project with no changes in the roads, schools, and levees makes zero sense. We have not prepared the city for any of this growth and development. We weren't prepared 8 years ago, and we certainly aren't prepared now.

Jefferson Blvd. and Southport are the only two exits out of this area. If the levees fail, people will be trapped. It makes no sense to put more people here without an exit plan. We have one high school. It is already bursting at the seams.

This community is not ready for Liberty without some further examination. Basing any of this 127
development on an 8 year old study is unacceptable and the citizens here will not stand for it.

Thank you,
K. Thornton
Bridgeway Island Resident / Homeowner since 2018
128
4910-3952-6691.1 007203.526

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Guerrero and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
Justin Hardy, Senior Planner
DATE: March 4, 2025
SUBJECT: Item 3 – Liberty Project Appeals
Item 3 on your March 5 agenda is a hearing to consider two appeals of actions taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 30. Staff was informed today that one of those appeals – filed on behalf of Mark Gill by Matthew Keasling of the law firm Taylor, Wiley & Keasling – has been withdrawn. A copy of the letter withdrawing the appeal is included as Attachment A. As explained in Mr. Keasling's letter withdrawing the appeal, the Applicant (the Paik Family Trust) has agreed to make certain changes to the Liberty Specific Plan. These changes are set forth in Section 1 of an agreement between the Paik Family Trust and residents of the Parella neighborhood. A copy of this agreement is included as Attachment B.

Staff's recommendation concerning the second appeal, by Kimber Goddard, remains unchanged.
129
JOHN M. TAYLOR
JAMES B. WILEY
MATTHEW S. KEASLING
JESSE J. YANG
MARISSA C. FUENTES

TAYLOR, WILEY & KEASLING

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS
500 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 1150
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
TELEPHONE: (916) 929-5545
March 4, 2025
Mayor Guerrero and City Council
City of West Sacramento
1110 W. Capitol Ave. 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Re: Withdrawal of the Appeal of Planning Commission actions of January 30, 2025, with respect to the Liberty Project’s Tentative Subdivision Map Dear Mayor Guerrero and City Councilmembers:

On behalf of Mark Gill and neighbors of Parella Court, I hereby withdraw our appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Liberty Tentative Subdivision Map.

We no longer contest the approval of the map and will not be presenting arguments at your appeal hearing on Wednesday, March 5, 2025. The decision to withdraw the appeal is the direct result of commitments from the applicant that are anticipated to be memorialized in the Liberty Specific Plan and/or Development Agreement. For now, we preserve the CEQA claims submitted to the Planning Commission as those comments may pertain to the Specific Plan.

Very truly yours,
Matthew S. Keasling
cc: Aaron Laurel, City Manager
Jesse J. Yang, Taylor, Wiley, & Keasling
Ashley Rossi, Parella Court
Mark Gill, Parella Court
Attachment A
130
Attachment B
131
132
133
134
135
136
137

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 5, 2025 ITEM # 4
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 25-29 AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET; APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 3 FOR THE CONTRACT FOR SERVICES FOR TESCO CONTROLS INC.; AMENDMENT 1 TO VEOLIA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AWARD TO XYLEM WATER SOLUTIONS USA INC. FOR THE SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA) SYSTEM UPGRADES PROJECT (CIP 22024)
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:

Inambao Lifanu, Project Manager II
Capital Projects Department
Chris Kania, Water Treatment Superintendent
Public Works Operations & Maintenance
Department
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
ATTACHMENT [X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X ] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information to adopt Resolution 25-29 approving an amendment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget, approve Amendment 3 of the Contract for Services with Tesco Controls, Inc, approve Amendment 1 to the contract with Veolia Water Technologies, Inc, and award a contract for services to Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc. for the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Upgrade project (CIP 22024).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1) Find that the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) project is exempt from CEQA analysis under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15301 and that the Class 1 Categorical Exemption (interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances) and that the determination represents the independent judgment of the City;
2) Adopt Resolution 25-29, approving an amendment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget to fund the completion of the SCADA System Upgrade Project by reallocating funds from the Central Water Tank Rehabilitation/Recoating project (CIP 22076);
3) Approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 3 to the contract for services with Tesco Controls Inc., in the amount of $64,323.71 and approve additional contract contingency of $532,592.11;
4) Approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the contract for services with Veolia Water Treatment Technologies Inc. in the amount of $3,500 in substantially the form attached;
5) Approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Contract for Services with Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc., in the amount of $44,796, with contract contingency of $13,431 (30%); 6) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute contract amendments or change orders up to the approved contingency;
7) Authorize the City Manager, of his designee, to execute non-substantive changes or modifications to the services contracts, with approval from the City Attorney; and 8) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to extend the term of the contract, if necessary.

BACKGROUND
The City of West Sacramento owns, maintains, and operates a range of water treatment and distribution infrastructure, including the George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant, seven (7) reservoirs and pump stations, one (1) booster station, fourteen (14) sewer stations, and eight (8) stormwater stations. These facilities house essential equipment such as pumps, control valves, and monitoring instrumentation, all of which are connected through the City's SCADA system.

The existing SCADA system has become obsolete and is no longer supported by its manufacturer, making an upgrade necessary. The project will involve the selection and procurement of Human Machine Interface (HMI) 138 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Upgrade Project (CIP 22024) March 5, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

software and system integrator to enhance monitoring, control, and security. The upgrade will improve automation capabilities, strengthen cybersecurity, and modernize communication technologies.

On March 8, 2022, Tesco Controls, Inc., (Tesco Controls) was awarded a $1,400,000 contract for the SCADA system upgrade. Work completed to date includes programming logic control board (PLC) upgrades at remote sites. The remaining tasks involve updating the radio & video surveillance system, virtualizing core SCADA infrastructure, and centralizing system documentation for stakeholders. Additional upgrades to PLC hardware on the filter system will be completed by Leopold Xylem Systems, with USFilter (Veolia) handling the startup and software programming. Bockmon Woody Electric, Inc., will execute electrical installations, including antennas, towers, and transmitter panels. Tesco Controls will continue providing essential hardware and technical support.

ANALYSIS
Tesco Controls was selected as the SCADA system integrator and is responsible for upgrading legacy systems at the George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant, originally installed in 2002. During the project’s execution, it became evident that additional funding is required due to unforeseen conditions, extended timelines, and new change orders that exceeded the initial contingency budget.

Staff recommend reallocating $1,000,000 from the Central Water Tank Rehabilitation/Recoating project (CIP 22076) to ensure the completion of this critical infrastructure upgrade. The additional funds will cover costs for change orders, contract amendments, purchases, staff charges and miscellaneous expenses related to completion of the project. The Central Water Tank Rehabilitation/Recoating project remains in its initial phase, allowing for a temporary fund transfer without immediate impact on its progress.

Environmental Considerations
Notice of Exemption (NOE) was issued at the start of the project on December 19, 2018. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 19 is the section that defines what projects or categories are allowed to be considered Categorically Exempt. Under section 15301 Class 1, operations such as repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are considered ·exempt from CEQA. The SCADA Upgrades project falls within the following Class 1 Categorical Exemption:
a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances.

Commission Recommendation
The SCADA Upgrades was presented to the Environment and Utilities Commission at the December 10, 2018 meeting, and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council consider approval and award of a contract.

Strategic Plan Integration
Not applicable.

Alternatives
The City Council may decide to:
1) Approve the recommended actions as stated above; or
2) Modify the recommended action; or
3) Deny the recommended action or cancel the project.

Staff recommends Alternative 1 as the most efficient way to keep moving on this important project.

Coordination and Review
This report was prepared by the Capital Projects Department in coordination with and review by the Public Works Department and the Finance Department.

Budget/Cost Impact
To ensure the successful completion of the SCADA System Upgrade project (CIP 22024), staff proposes reallocating $1,000,000 from the Central Water Tank Rehabilitation/Recoating Project (CIP 22076). This transfer will provide the necessary funds to address critical project requirements without significantly impacting the progress of the Central Water Tank project.
139
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Upgrade Project (CIP 22024) March 5, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

Table 1: Funding Transfer Summary (CIP 22076 to CIP 22024)

SOURCE TRANSFER-IN TRANSFER-OUT
Central Tank Rehabilitation/Coating Project
CIP 22076 $ 1,000,000.00
USES
Amendment 3 - Tesco Controls Inc. $ 64,323.71
Amendment 1 - Veolia $ 3,500.00
Contract for Services - Xylem $ 44,796.00
Staff Time $ 150,000.00
Contingency - project closeout, FAT (Factory
Acceptance Tests), unforeseen conditions,
miscellaneous contract amendments, change
orders, and sales taxes.
$ 737,380.29
Total Additional Funds to be Transferred $ 1,000,000.00 $ (1,000,000.00)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 25-29

2. CPC22-077 Tesco Contract Amendment 3

3. CPC24-090 Veolia Amendment 1

4. CPC25-033 Xylem Water Solutions Contract

5. Vicinity Map
140
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 25-29

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET FOR THE SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT (CIP 22024)
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the biennial Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2018/19; and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for the Upgrade of the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) (CIP 22024) was approved by Council on December 19, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the current CIP project for the upgrade of the existing SCADA System includes implementation of improvements that highlight simplicity, standardization, modernization, enhanced functionality, increased reliability, redundancy of critical points, and improvement of the overall user experience; and
WHEREAS, to date, project upgrades at 25 remote sites and stations have been completed, including existing sewage collection stations (14), existing stormwater stations (3), and existing water distribution stations (8); and
WHEREAS, the project continues to progress with remaining work still to be completed including radio and video surveillance system upgrade, SCADA software system upgrades, startup, proprietary vendor services and commissioning; and WHEREAS, based on additional scope plus contingencies, City staff is requesting and recommending reallocation of $1,000,000 from the Central Water Tank Rehabilitation/Recoating project (CIP 22076) to ensure the completion of this critical infrastructure upgrade; Additional funds will cover costs for change orders, contract amendments, purchases, staff charges and project contingencies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City staff, and any other information provided during public meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento as follows:
1) The City Council hereby approves amendments to the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2024/25 as listed below:

SOURCES
$1,000,000 507-9621-5530/507-22076-5800 Central Water Tank Rehab/Recoat $1,000,000 507-9621-4990/507-22024-4990 Tsfr in from 22076 $1,000,000 TOTAL SOURCES
USES
$1,000,000 507-9621-5530/507-22024-5800 SCADA System Upgrade $1,000,000 507-9621-5950/507-22076-5950 Transfer out from 22076 $1,000,000 TOTAL SOURCES
*Note: Interfund Transfers are not included in total sources and uses to avoid duplication of total costs.
141
Resolution 25-29

Page 2 of 2 ends

2) The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution.
3) This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the West Sacramento City Council this 5th day of March 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
142
Attachment 2
CPC22-077 Tesco Controls, Inc
SCADA System Upgrade Project
Expires 2/5/2026
AMENDMENT NO. 3
to the

CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
between the

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
and

TESCO CONTROLS, INC
Dated March 16, 2022
This Amendment No. 3 to the Contract for Services between the City of West Sacramento and Tesco Controls, Inc., is made and entered into this 19th day of February 2025. Except as expressly amended herein, the March 16th, 2022, Contract for Services is in full force and effect.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on March 2022 City Council approved a professional services contract with Tesco Controls Inc. (TESCO) to provide SCADA server equipment, PLC/RTU design, engineering and upgrades, for the Water Treatment Plant, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain SCADA systems in the amount of $2,048,150; and
WHEREAS, TESCO performed a Radio Survey per contract, to determine the equipment and labor required for the eventual upgrade of radio & antenna upgrade and network configuration system; and
WHEREAS, Amendment 1 was executed on February 22, 2024 to extend the term through February 5th, 2026.

WHEREAS, Amendment 2 was executed on April 10, 2024 to perform the radio and antenna upgrade and network configuration; and
WHEREAS, TESCO provided a quote for a radio panel dated January 16, 2025 to continue the radio network configuration system upgrade; and WHEREAS, the City and TESCO Controls, Inc., desire to amend said contract.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by parties hereto to amend said agreement as follows:

I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services as set forth in the Contract for Services dated March 16, 2022, shall be revised to reflect additional work and materials for the radio & antenna network configuration system upgrade as outlined in Exhibit A.

II. COMPENSATION:

The compensation as set forth in the initial Contract for Services dated March 16, 2022, shall be increased by $64,323.71 and total compensation shall not exceed $2,956,843.71 without the City’s written approval.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as the date herein set forth.

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
By:

Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager
143
Attachment 2
CPC22-077 Tesco Controls, Inc
SCADA System Upgrade Project
Expires 2/5/2026

TESCO CONTROLS, INC
By:

Delven Diaz, Director of Sales

APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:

Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney
ATTEST:

By: ________________________________________________________ Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
144
Corporate Office
8440 Florin Road, Sacramento, CA 95828
P.O. Box 299007, Sacramento, CA 95829
PH: 916.395.8800 FX: 916.429.2817
File Ref. «location» Page | 1 of 3
To: West Sacramento, City of Quote Date: February 6, 2025 Attn: Lifanu Inambao Quote No.: COQ8 Rev01
Re: City of West Sacramento
City Wide SCADA Upgrades
Project No.: T-53471X1
Dear Lifanu:

Thank you for your continued interest in TESCO products, services, and solutions. We are pleased to quote the following scope of work pertaining to the above-referenced project. This quotation includes only the materials/services described below.

Reason for Change Order
As per City of West Sacramento to add additional Radio Panel.

Scope of Supply
Item Qty Description
1 1 Scope Item 1A:
 Radio Panel
$18,122.14
2 Lot Professional Services:
 Project Management
 Engineering
 Manufacturing Services – fabrication, manufacturing, assembly, equipment wiring, factory testing
 Networking/Communications/Telemetry
 Trade labor & Electrical Installation as required
 Field Service – product quality review, verification of product installation, product parameter adjustments, product programming, software upload/download as required, instrument/ device signal spanning, product/equipment reconfiguration as required, product function checks, and product startup.
 Onsite Training
 O&M Manuals

Subtotal:

Tax:
$41299.30
$59421.44
$4902.27
TOTAL (Including applicable sales tax): $64,323.71
Clarifications
 This quote includes trade labor, electrical installation services, and field wire terminations.  Unless otherwise stated above, the following is not included within this quotation:
 Instrumentation mounting components, brackets, stanchions, sunshields, etc.  Local control stations and/or field mounted disconnects.

Att 4
145
Change Order Quotation TESCO CONTROLS
File Ref. «location» Page | 2 of 3
 Instrumentation, devices, components, or equipment not defined by the above quotation.  Fiber optic patch panels, cable, splicing or terminations.  Any 3rd party independent testing, harmonic testing/analysis, power coordination study, or Arc-Flash Hazard Analysis (AFHA) study.
 Interconnection or loop diagrams for equipment not furnished by TESCO.

Terms and Conditions
 Quote is firm for 30 days unless otherwise stated.
 No work will proceed for the above-referenced changes until TESCO receives written approval of this change order quotation in the form of an approved change order.  Product/Equipment Submittals: A Submittal Schedule will be provided approximately XX weeks after receipt of written change order approval. Generation of submittal(s) may be subject to availability of specified material components; supply-chain constraints may impact material item selections, therefore, may impact submittal lead-times. Schedules may be subject to 3rd party provider submittal lead-times and schedules.  Information Submittals: Information Submittals are dependent on the approval of Product/Equipment Submittals. An updated Submittal Schedule will be provided after receiving approval of corresponding Product/Equipment Submittal showing schedule and lead-times for Information Submittals.  Delivery: Shipment(s) related to this change order quotation are anticipated to commence approximately XXXX weeks minimum after Product/ Equipment Submittal approval; however, delivery schedule(s) will be contingent on supply-chain availability and variability for material component selections, therefore, lead-times are subject to change. Please note that approval of this change order quotation may impact/delay schedules and lead-times related to the primary project scope. Delivery schedules will be confirmed and provided after receiving Product/Equipment Submittals approval.
 Field Service deployment will be scheduled approximately 8-10 weeks upon approval of change order. Any and all requests to reschedule a Field Service Technician previously confirmed to be onsite will result in an additional 8–10 week lead time from the date of the request to reschedule.  Approval of change order will require a contract time extension of 10-14 weeks.  Approval must be received on or before 02/21/25 to avoid shipping delays or additional costs related to field modifications.
 Lead-Time & Supply Chain Impacts: Due to the supply chain impacts imposed by the pandemic, all quoted lead-times are subject to change.
 Storage Terms: Any item of the product on which shipment is delayed by Buyer may be placed in storage by Seller at Buyer’s expense and risk. If a delay in shipment is requested by Buyer after an order has been entered and accepted:
 a. No charge will be made if the request for delay is made more than six (6) weeks before acknowledged shipping date and the requested delay is for a period not in excess of thirty (30) days.  b. A charge will be made if the requested delay exceeds a period of thirty (30) days or if the request is made within six (6) weeks of the acknowledged shipping date. Seller will advise Buyer of the charge within ten (10) days of receiving Buyer’s request for delay.
 c. If the product is within six (6) weeks of the acknowledged shipping date, then Seller has the option of completing, invoicing and storing the product and charging one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month, or the maximum percentage permitted by law, whichever is lesser, of the established price for such product, plus storage cost.
 TESCO price is Ex Works (EXW) per INCOTERMS, freight allowed.  Product startup will commence once the product is properly installed and powered up. If buyer requests or schedules product startup and seller is unable to conduct startup due to product not being properly installed, powered, or ready for startup (including being put into full service or full operation), then a fee of $1500 will be charged to buyer to remobilize seller for product startup.  TESCO carries liability insurance, with full worker's compensation coverage.  TESCO warranties against defect in design workmanship and materials for a period of one year from date of product startup, and does not exceed 18 months from the date of shipment from the factory.  Invoices will be billed in accordance with a customer-approved schedule of values and customer-approved pay application.

Att 4
146
Change Order Quotation TESCO CONTROLS
File Ref. «location» Page | 3 of 3
 Terms are net 45 days on approved credit. Shipment release requires the following:
 Accounts with sub-par credit will require 50% down-payment upon order and 50% payment at pickup (prior to shipment).
 Accounts with approved credit, all milestone progress payments must be current for releasing shipment or deploying services.
 Interest will be applied to all past due invoices. Buyer shall pay to Seller all invoiced amount within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date of such invoice. Flow-down provisions are not accepted. In the event any payment becomes past due, Buyer shall pay interest on all late payments, calculated daily and compounded monthly at the rate of 1.5% per month. Buyer shall also reimburse Seller for all reasonable costs incurred by Seller in collecting any late payments, including attorneys' fees and court costs.  Price Escalation: If between the proposal date and actual procurement and through no fault of the Seller, the relevant cost of labor, material, freight, tariffs, and other Seller costs combined relating to the contract, increase by greater than 2.5% of the overall contract price, then the contract price shall be subject to escalation and increased. Such increase shall be verified by documentation and the amount of contract price escalation shall be calculated as either the actual increased cost to the Seller or, if agreed by the Parties, the equivalent increase of a relevant industry recognized third-party index, and in both cases without any additional profit or margin being added.
 All merchandise sold is subject to lien laws.
 A processing fee of up to 4% will be added for credit card payments.  TESCO’s liabilities shall not exceed 10% of TESCO’s total order value.  Final retention to be paid within 10 days after the project notice of completion.

Please feel free to contact us at (916) 873-1280 to discuss any questions or comments you may have regarding this quotation.

Sincerely,

TESCO CONTROLS
Harwinder Wahla
Project Management
[email protected]
Att 4
147
KRUGER 1500 Garner Road Suite C, Raleigh NC 27610 · (888) 578-4378 · FAX # (919) 661-4568 QUOTE
QUOTE
FROM
QUOTE NO:
1500 Garner Road, Suite C QUOTE DATE:

Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 USA EXPIRATION DATE: 1/11/2025 TPO CX640059 2 weeks ARO
1 $3,500.00
NA
LABOR
QUOTE NO:

Veolia Water Technologies, Inc. (dba Kruger) Tom O'Shea Aftermarket Regional Manager – West
980.201.1951
PHONE 888-578-4378 FAX 919-661-4568 Tom.O'[email protected] Contact Name: Chris Kania
Phone: (916) 617.4870
Email: [email protected]
Company:

Address:

George Kristoff WTP
400 North Harbor Boulevard
West Sacramento, CA 95605
Sales
Person Job EQUIPMENT SERIAL #. Payment Terms DELIVERY TERMS DELIVERY SCHEDULE Net 30 Days
DDP, Prepaid & Add
Destination*
qty PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE LINE TOTAL
To update the Control Panel Drawings. Not Including any update to the Loop Diagrams as they depict the field wiring that already exists ALL PRICES SUBJECT TO COST AND AVAILABILITY AT TIME OF ORDER.

PRICES EXCLUDES PACKAGING, FREIGHT (INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC),CUSTOMS, DUTIES, BROKERAGE, FEES AND APPLICABLE TAXES.

PRICES EXCLUDES INSTALLATION LABOR, STARTUP, & TRAINING SHIPPING CHARGES ARE PREPAID AND ADDED TO THE INVOICE ORYOUR FREIGHT ACCOUNT.

MINIMUM ORDER $50.00.

SUBTOTAL $3,500.00
ESTIMATED FREIGHT*
Sales Tax
$3,500.00
*If customer's shipping method is preferred (FOB), enter your freight carrier & account number:

A SIGNED QUOTATION IS REQUIRED TO PROCESS ORDER. PLEASE SIGN BELOW.

Signed By:______________________________________________________________________________ Date:_______________________ Potential Balance
0121224
12/12/2024
0121224
This quote is valid for 5 days
42059912
ACTIFLO PROGRAMMING-Additional
[[Confidential, Do not share with third parties]]
IF YOU SUBMIT A PO, PLEASE REFERENCE VEOLIA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (DBA KRUGER) QUOTATION NUMBER TO PROCESS ORDER.

The Buyer is responsible for inspecting the equipment upon delivery and documenting any damage in writing on the delivery tickets. Signing delivery tickets without the notation of damage or missing items deems the equipment acceptable.

The pricing is expressly contingent upon the items in this quotation & is subject all terms stated herein, including all attached Veolia Water Technologies, Inc. (dba Kruger) Standard Terms of Sale. No additional terms contained within Owner's and/or Engineer's Plans, Specifications & Purchase Orders shall apply to nor become a part of this Quote.

Company information -
Company Name:

Shipping Address:

Please complete this section if you have not previously provided this informa Attachment 3
CPC24-090 Veolia A2
148
KRUGER 1500 Garner Road Suite C, Raleigh NC 27610 · (888) 578-4378 · FAX # (919) 661-4568 City/State/Zip:

Telephone number:

Fax number:

Please complete this section if you prefer to pay by credit card.

I/We understand that the part(s), invoice(s) or sales orders(s) ordered / listed above will be charged to the credit card noted upon order acknowledgement. Additionally, items ordered will not be processed until confirmation/authorization of charge is made. If the charge is for labor, a charge confirmation/authorization will be performed prior to labor commencement. If the credit card is denied, Kruger will notify the cardholder to obtain an alternative form of payment prior to processing the order
Card Number:

Expiration Date:

Authorization (CID) #:

Card Holder Name:

Card Holder Phone #:

Company Name:

Billing Address:

City/State/Zip:

My signature below is my company’s acknowledgement and acceptance of this order including all stated terms and conditions, is an acknowledgement that I am authorized to sign this document on behalf of my company, and further authorizes Kruger to use the information entered in this section (if any) to process credit card payment for this order.
(OPTIONAL) Credit Card Section -
Signed by: Date:

Printed Name: Title:

Visa MasterCard AMEX
3 digit # located on back of card
DELIVERY ACCEPTANCE: At the time of delivery, Customer shall inspect the Equipment, for visible damages, defects, or missing items and shall immediately notify the delivery carrier and Seller in writing of the same. If Buyer (a) fails to note damages, defects, or missing items in writing to carrier and Seller in writing, (b) signs delivery tickets, bills of lading, or other shipping documents without notation of damages, defects, or missing items, or (c) fails to conduct such inspection upon delivery, Equipment will be deemed accepted by the Buyer on the delivery date for the purposes of documenting the visible damages, defects or missing items at such time, and transferring the Risk of Loss for the Equipment to the Buyer. For the avoidance of doubt, such transfer shall not affect the Parties’ other contractual obligations, including Seller’s warranty obligations under paragraph 6. Buyer is responsible for ensuring that it is capable of accepting the delivery of Equipment.

Veolia Water Technologies, Inc. (dba Kruger) - Standard Terms of Sale – Parts Orders Att 2
149
KRUGER 1500 Garner Road Suite C, Raleigh NC 27610 · (888) 578-4378 · FAX # (919) 661-4568

1. Applicable Terms. These terms govern the purchase and sale of the equipment and related services, if any (collectively, "Equipment"), referred to in Seller’s purchase order, quotation, proposal or acknowledgment, as the case may be ("Seller’s Documentation"). Whether these terms are included in an offer or an acceptance by Seller, such offer or acceptance is conditioned on Buyer’s assent to these terms.

Seller rejects all additional or different terms in any of Buyer’s forms or documents.

2. Payment. Buyer shall pay Seller the full purchase price as set forth in Seller’s Documentation. Unless Seller’s Documentation provides otherwise, freight, storage, insurance and all taxes, duties or other governmental charges relating to the Equipment shall be paid by Buyer. If Seller is required to pay any such charges, Buyer shall immediately reimburse Seller. All payments are due within 30 days after receipt of invoice. Buyer shall be charged the lower of 1 ½% interest per month or the maximum legal rate on all amounts not received by the due date and shall pay all of Seller’s reasonable costs (including attorneys’ fees) of collecting amounts due but unpaid. All orders are subject to credit approval.

3. Delivery. Delivery of the Equipment shall be in material compliance with the schedule in Seller’s Documentation. Unless Seller’s Documentation provides otherwise, Delivery terms are DDP, Prepaid & Add Destination

4. Ownership of Materials. All devices, designs (including drawings, plans and specifications), estimates, prices, notes, electronic data and other documents or information prepared or disclosed by Seller, and all related intellectual property rights, shall remain Seller’s property.

Seller grants Buyer a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use any such material solely for Buyer’s use of the Equipment. Buyer shall not disclose any such material to third parties without Seller’s prior written consent.

5. Changes. Seller shall not implement any changes in the scope of work described in Seller’s Documentation unless Buyer and Seller agree in writing to the details of the change and any resulting price, schedule or other contractual modifications. This includes any changes necessitated by a change in applicable law occurring after the effective date of any contract including these terms.

6. Warranty. Subject to the following sentence, “Supplier warrants to Purchaser that the Equipment shall materially conform to the description in

7. Indemnity. Seller shall indemnify, defend and hold Buyer harmless from any claim, cause of action or liability incurred by Buyer as a result of third party claims for personal injury, death or damage to tangible property, to the extent caused by Seller's negligence. Seller shall have the sole authority to direct the defense of and settle any indemnified claim. Seller’s indemnification is conditioned on Buyer (a) promptly, within the Warranty Period, notifying Seller of any claim, and (b) providing reasonable cooperation in the defense of any claim.

8. Force Majeure. Neither Seller nor Buyer shall have any liability for any breach (except for breach of payment obligations) caused by extreme weather or other act of God, strike or other labor shortage or disturbance, fire, accident, war or civil disturbance, delay of carriers, failure of normal sources of supply, act of government or any other cause beyond such party's reasonable control.

9. Cancellation. If Buyer cancels or suspends its order for any reason other than Seller’s breach, Buyer shall promptly pay Seller for work performed prior to cancellation or suspension and any other direct costs incurred by Seller as a result of such cancellation or suspension.

10. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING ELSE TO THE CONTRARY, SELLER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE OR OTHER INDIRECT DAMAGES, AND SELLER’S

TOTAL LIABILITY ARISING AT ANY TIME FROM THE SALE OR USE OF THE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID FOR THE EQUIPMENT. THESE LIMITATIONS APPLY WHETHER THE LIABILITY IS BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY OR ANY OTHER THEORY.

11. Miscellaneous. If these terms are issued in connection with a government contract, they shall be deemed to include those federal acquisition regulations that are required by law to be included. These terms, together with any quotation, purchase order or acknowledgement issued or signed by the Seller, comprise the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties (the “Agreement”) and supersede any terms contained in Buyer’s documents, unless separately signed by Seller. No part of the Agreement may be changed or cancelled except by a written document signed by Seller and Buyer. No course of dealing or performance, usage of trade or failure to enforce any term shall be used to modify the Agreement. If any of these terms is unenforceable, such term shall be limited only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable, and all other terms shall remain in full force and effect. Buyer may not assign or permit any other transfer of the Agreement without Seller’s prior written consent. The Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina without regard to its conflict of laws provisions.

Supplier’s RFP and shall be free from defects in material and workmanship. Supplier shall have no other liability to Purchaser under warranty, tort or any other legal theory. If Purchaser gives Supplier prompt written notice of breach of this warranty within ninety days (90) on electrical supplies, one (1) year on mechanical supplies from delivery, (the "Warranty Period"). Supplier shall, at its sole option and as Purchaser’s sole remedy, repair or replace the subject parts or refund the purchase price thereof. If Supplier determines that any claimed breach is not, in fact, covered by this warranty, Purchaser shall pay Supplier its then customary charges for any repair or replacement made by Supplier and there shall be a thirty-five percent (35%) re-stocking charge. Supplier’s warranty is conditioned on Purchaser’s (a) operating and maintaining the Equipment in accordance with Supplier’s instructions, (b) not making any unauthorized repairs or alterations, and (c) not being in default of any payment obligation to Supplier. Supplier’s warranty does not cover damage caused by chemical action or abrasive material, misuse or improper installation. THE WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION ARE SUPPLIER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIES AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY BELOW. SUPPLIER MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE. “ Att 2
150
KRUGER 1500 Garner Road Suite C, Raleigh NC 27610 · (888) 578-4378 · FAX # (919) 661-4568

12. Escalation. If during the performance of the contract, the price of labor, material, freight, and other costs significantly increase, through no fault of Veolia, the price shall be equitably adjusted and subject to escalation. A significant price increase shall mean any price increase from proposal date to material procurement greater than 2.0% from stated prices. Delays and costs associated with a Force Majeure event shall also be equitably adjusted and subject to a change in price and/or schedule. Escalation to be based on cost increases, (without additional profit, overhead or margin) and shall include labor, material, freight, and other costs to Veolia that occur in the specified time period. Any revisions or changes requested by the customer will be priced on a case-by-case basis. Such price increases shall be documented through third party sources.

13. Veolia takes all issues surrounding probity and confidentiality very seriously in all of its dealings with competitors and stakeholders.

In this spirit and for the sake of transparency, we inform you that the publicly traded parent company Veolia Environnement S.A., recently acquired a 29.9% interest in Suez S.A (“Suez”) and launched a public bid for the remainder of Suez’ share capital. Consistent with our commitment to competition law compliance, Veolia will continue to act entirely independent of Suez until all relevant antitrust approvals of Veolia’s acquisition of Suez have been obtained and we will of course let you know if this would change before the end of the tender proceedings. Specifically, none of Veolia’s representatives sit on the board of Suez, Veolia has no influence over the strategy or operations of Suez, and Veolia has no access to competitively sensitive information about Suez’s operations. Accordingly, Veolia’s ongoing project to acquire Suez will have no effect on our participation in, or response to, this tender.

Att 2
151
KRUGER 1500 Garner Road Suite C, Raleigh NC 27610 · (888) 578-4378 · FAX # (919) 661-4568 WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (DBA KRUGER) - FIELD SERVICE CONDITIONS

1. NOTICE: After we receive your authorized purchase order, a minimum of TWO WEEKS notice is required to schedule field service work and to make travel arrangements, if at all possible.

2. RESCHEDULING: After the field service work is agreed upon, it is scheduled at the convenience of both parties. If, in fact, the Field Service Engineer arrives on site and for unknown reasons beyond the control of Kruger, the field service work is canceled, or re-scheduled, customer will be billed for incurred expenses.

3. OUTSIDE EQUIPMENT RENTAL/LEASE: Kruger is not responsible for scheduling nor paying for outside equipment, i.e., crane, boom truck, etc.

4. LUBRICANTS: Kruger is not responsible for supplying lubricants of any kind.

5. INSTALLATION: If the service includes installation of parts, plant maintenance staff will be required to provide as-needed support to Kruger's Field Service Engineer for the duration of the installation.

6. SCAFFOLDING: In the event that scaffolding is required the plant will be required to supply the needed items.

Att 2
152
KRUGER 1500 Garner Road Suite C, Raleigh NC 27610 · (888) 578-4378 · FAX # (919) 661-4568 VEOLIA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (DBA KRUGER) - STANDARD TERMS OF SALE - SERVICE ORDERS The terms and conditions set forth below govern all work or services requested by Client as described and set forth in the Quote of Veolia Water Technologies, Inc. ("Veolia") attached hereto. The provisions of said Quote govern the scope of services to be performed, including the time schedule, compensation, and any other special terms.

These terms and conditions shall apply unless expressly stated to the contrary or inconsistent with said Quote.

1. COMPENSATION. For services performed on a lump sum basis, Client agrees to compensate Veolia in accordance with the payment schedule (milestone payments or otherwise) specified in the Quote.

2. INVOICES AND PAYMENT. Unless otherwise stated in the Quote, invoices will be submitted as work is performed and payment is due within thirty (30) days of the invoice. Payment of invoices shall be in U.S. dollars. Client shall notify Veolia within fifteen (15) days of receipt of invoice of any charges associated with the invoice that Client disputes and contends that Client does not owe to Veolia. If Client so notifies Veolia, and if only a portion of the invoice is disputed, Client shall pay the undisputed portion within thirty (30) days of receipt or such portion shall be deemed delinquent. Any charges disputed by Client in good faith will not be deemed delinquent. However, should Veolia have to resort to legal action to collect disputed charges and Veolia is successful in such action, then Veolia will be entitled to recover its legal fees and expenses and collect interest at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2%) percent per month on the collected disputed charges beginning thirty (30) days after receipt by Client of the invoice first containing the collected disputed charge. Client will be charged interest at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2%) percent per month on the unpaid balance on all delinquent invoices. In the event that Client terminates or suspends Veolia’s services or work prior to completion, Client shall pay, upon demand by Veolia, all outstanding invoices. Invoices not paid on demand when services are terminated or suspended shall be deemed delinquent. All costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and personnel costs incurred by Veolia to collect charges associated with delinquent invoices, or which are in dispute between Client and Veolia, shall be paid by Client. Veolia reserves the right to cease or suspend any or all work or services under this Agreement, upon five (5) days’ written notice to Client, in the event Client fails to pay Veolia’s invoices to Client when due and payable under this Agreement or if, in the Veolia’s reasonable opinion, Client’s financial condition or other circumstances reasonably suggest a future inability to pay and, thus, do not warrant Veolia’s ongoing performance of its work or services.

3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Veolia shall be an independent contractor and shall be fully independent in performing the services or work and shall not act or hold itself out as an agent, servant or employee of Client. This paragraph applies equally to Client.

4. VEOLIA’S LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SERVICES. The sole and exclusive warranty which Veolia makes with respect to the services is that the same shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices, and in compliance with the specifications provided to Veolia by Client; but only to the extent disclosed to and accepted by Veolia. Claims for defects, deficiencies, errors or omissions or any other claims for defective services must be made in writing within thirty (30) business days of Client’s discovery of such alleged defect, deficiency, error or omission or other claim (including defects that would have been discovered by a reasonably prudent investigation). In the event Veolia’s performance of the services or any portion thereof, fails to conform to the above stated limited warranty, Veolia shall expeditiously initiate re-performance of the nonconforming services, or upon the mutual agreement of the parties, refund the amount of compensation paid to Veolia for such nonconforming services.

THE FOREGOING ARE THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIES PROVIDED BY VEOLIA, AND ARE IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES. VEOLIA MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN FACT OR IN LAW, WHETHER STATUTORY, WRITTEN OR ORAL. VEOLIA DISCLAIMS, AND CLIENT WAIVES, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

5. CLIENT’S WARRANTY. Client warrants that a) it will provide to Veolia all available information regarding the site, structures, facilities, buildings and land involved with the work and that such information shall be true and correct; b) that all work (which it performs that is likely to affect Veolia’s work, if any) shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices; c) and it has title to or will provide right of entry or access to all property necessary to perform the work.

6. INDEMNITY. Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 8 below, Veolia shall indemnify, defend and hold Client harmless from any claim, cause of action or liability incurred by Client as a result of third party claims for personal injury, death or damage to tangible property, to the extent caused by Veolia's negligence or willful misconduct. Veolia shall have the sole authority to direct the defense of and settle any indemnified claim. Veolia’s indemnification is conditioned on Client (a) promptly notifying Veolia of any claim, and (b) providing reasonable cooperation in the defense of any claim. Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 8 below, Client agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Veolia harmless from and against any claim, cause of action or liability incurred by Veolia as a result of death or bodily injuries to any person, destruction or damage to any tangible property caused by Client’s negligence or willful misconduct.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNIFICATION PROVISION. Client agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Veolia from and against all losses, liabilities, claims, suits, costs, damages, investigation and clean-up costs, fines, penalties, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, resulting from or relating to the actual alleged or threatened discharge, escape or release of toxic, hazardous, offensive, or dangerous materials, substances, chemicals or wastes at, on, into, or from the Property or facilities, except to the extent that any such loss is caused by the negligence or willful misconduct by Veolia or its officers, directors, or employees. This provision shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement and the Contract for any reason.

Att 2
153
KRUGER 1500 Garner Road Suite C, Raleigh NC 27610 · (888) 578-4378 · FAX # (919) 661-4568

8. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES/LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Neither Party shall be liable to the other for loss of anticipated or actual profit, loss of revenue, loss of use, loss of production, business interruption or any similar damage or for indirect, special, incidental, consequential, exemplary or punitive damages of any kind whether arising in contract, in tort (including negligence), or by operation of law. Veolia’s total liability, whether arising from or based upon breach of warranty, breach of contract, tort, including negligence, errors and omissions, strict liability, indemnity or any other cause or basis whatsoever, is expressly limited to the net fee received by Veolia. This provision limiting Veolia’s liability shall survive the termination, cancellation or expiration of the Agreement.

9. INSURANCE. During the performance or services or work under this Agreement, Veolia will, at its own expense, carry Workers’ Compensation Insurance/Employer's Liability Insurance within limits required by law; Commercial General Liability Insurance for bodily injury and for property damage; and Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage. At Client’s request, Veolia shall provide a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating Veolia’s compliance with this section. Such Certificate of Insurance shall provide that said insurance shall not be reduced in coverage or canceled until at least ten (10) days after written notice has been provided to Client.

10. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party shall be responsible or liable to the other for default or delay in the performance of any of its obligations hereunder (other than the payment of money for services already rendered) caused in whole or in part by strikes or other labor difficulties or disputes; governmental orders or regulations; war, riot, fire, explosion; terrorism, acts of God; extreme weather, storms named by NOAA, or any other causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the respective party. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of the delay. The party so prevented from complying shall within a reasonable time of its knowledge of the disability advise the other party of the effective cause, the performance suspended or affected and the anticipated length of time during which performance will be prevented or delayed and shall make all reasonable efforts to remove such disability as soon as possible, except for labor disputes, which shall be solely within said party's discretion. The party prevented from complying shall advise the other party when the cause of the delay or default has ended, the number of days which will be reasonably required to compensate for the period of suspension and the date when performance will be resumed. Any additional costs or expenses accruing or arising from the delaying event shall be solely for the account of Client.

COVID-19: Veolia shall not be held liable in the event of a non-compliance with its obligations set forth herein to the extent such non-compliance is due to the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic including without limitation (i) obligation to comply with the legislation enacted or measures taken by the authorities to address the Covid-19 pandemic (including mandatory closures, requisitions, transport limitations, social distancing requirements), (ii) observance of hygiene and security rules and recommendations resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, (iii) inability to supply or distribute to relevant personnel appropriate personal protective equipment for the tasks to be performed, as a result of shortages of supply resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, (iv) inability of a Veolia subcontractor or supplier to comply with its obligations for the reasons mentioned above; and to the extent the resulting impediments cannot be reasonably overcome.”
In the event such consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic render Veolia's performance hereunder more onerous than could have been anticipated at the date hereof the parties shall negotiate alternative contractual terms, including for delivery/performance dates or service levels, which reasonably allow for the impact of the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic referred to hereinabove.

11. NOTICE. Any notice, communication, or statement required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and deemed to have been sufficiently given when delivered in person or sent by United States mail or email, to the physical or email address of the party for whom it is intended, or to such other address for either party as the party may by written notice designate.

12. ASSIGNMENT/SUBCONTRACT. Neither party hereto shall assign this Agreement or any part thereof or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the other party hereto (except in the event that substantially all of the assets of the Client’s facility are sold). Veolia shall have the right to subcontract any portion of the work.

13. MODIFICATION. In the event modifications and/or changes are requested by Client after services have been performed, which, modifications and/or changes are through no fault of Veolia, or in the event additional work not covered by the Agreement is requested by Client, Veolia shall have the right to review such requests and notify Client of the effect on price, schedule or any other obligations assumed by Veolia under this Agreement. Subject to the availability of required resources and on a schedule compatible with Veolia’s other schedules and commitments, Veolia shall initiate work on any such changes.

14. DELAYED AGREEMENTS AND INFORMATION. The performance by Veolia of its obligations under this Agreement is contingent upon the Client performing its obligations in a timely manner and cooperating with Veolia to the extent required for completion of the work. Delays by Client in providing information or approvals, or performing its contractual obligations may result in an adjustment of contract price and schedule.

15. CONSTRUCTION PHASE. To the extent the work is related to or followed by construction work by others, Veolia shall not be responsible for the means, methods, techniques, schedule, sequences or procedures of construction contractors, or the safety precautions and programs incident thereto, and shall not be responsible for the construction contractor's failure to perform the work in accordance with its contractual requirements. Veolia will not direct, supervise or control the work of Client’s contractors or Client’s subcontractors.

16. REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION. All devices, designs (including drawings, plans and specifications), estimates, prices, notes, electronic data and other documents or information prepared or disclosed by Veolia, and all related intellectual property rights, shall remain Veolia’s property. Veolia grants Client a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use any such material solely for Client’s use of the work. Client shall not disclose any such material to third parties without Veolia’s prior written consent.

Att 2
154
KRUGER 1500 Garner Road Suite C, Raleigh NC 27610 · (888) 578-4378 · FAX # (919) 661-4568

17. LIMITED USE OF REPORT. Any report prepared as part of the work will be prepared solely for the use of Client. Third parties are not to rely upon the report, unless both Veolia and Client consent in writing to such reliance. In the event that Client provides the report to a third party without Veolia’s written consent, Client will indemnify Veolia for any resulting loss or harm.

18. DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL. It is understood and agreed that Veolia is not, and has no responsibility as, a generator, operator, owner, treater, or storer of pre-existing substances or wastes found or identified at work sites. Veolia shall not directly or indirectly assume title to such substances or wastes and shall not be liable to third parties alleging that Veolia has or had title to such materials. Client will indemnify and hold harmless Veolia from and against all incurred losses, damages, costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising or resulting from actions brought by third parties alleging or identifying Veolia as a generator, operator, storer, treater or owner of pre-existing substances or wastes found or identified at work sites.

19. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION. In the event the work is terminated or suspended by Client prior to the completion of the services contemplated hereunder, Veolia shall be paid for: (i) the services rendered to the date of termination or suspension, (ii) the demobilization costs, (iii) the costs incurred with respect to non-cancelable commitments, and (iv) reasonable services provided to effectuate a professional and timely project termination or suspension.

20. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of North Carolina.

Any litigation shall be heard in a state or federal court in Wake County, North Carolina.

21. HEADINGS AND SEVERABILITY. Headings preceding the text of enumerated sections are inserted solely for convenience and shall not constitute a part of the Agreement nor affect the meaning, content, effect or construction of this Agreement. Every part, term or provision of this Agreement is severable from all others. Notwithstanding any possible future finding by a duly constituted authority that a particular part, term or provision is invalid, void or unenforceable, this Agreement has been made with the clear intention that the validity and enforceability of the remaining parts, terms and provisions shall not be affected thereby.

22. MISCELLANEOUS. Veolia takes all issues surrounding probity and confidentiality very seriously in all of its dealings with competitors and stakeholders. In this spirit and for the sake of transparency, we inform you that the publicly traded parent company Veolia Environnement S.A., recently acquired a 29.9% interest in Suez S.A (“Suez”) and launched a public bid for the remainder of Suez’ share capital. Consistent with our commitment to competition law compliance, Veolia will continue to act entirely independent of Suez until all relevant antitrust approvals of Veolia’s acquisition of Suez have been obtained and we will of course let you know if this would change before the end of the tender proceedings. Specifically, none of Veolia’s representatives sit on the board of Suez, Veolia has no influence over the strategy or operations of Suez, and Veolia has no access to competitively sensitive information about Suez’s operations. Accordingly, Veolia’s ongoing project to acquire Suez will have no effect on our participation in, or response to, this tender.

23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The terms and conditions set forth herein, along with the Quote, constitute the entire Agreement and understanding of the parties relating to the work or services provided by Veolia to Client, and merge and supersede all prior agreements, commitments, representations, writings and discussions between them, and shall be incorporated in all work orders, purchase orders and authorizations unless otherwise so stated by typed or handwritten, but not by pre-printed, words therein. The terms and conditions may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both parties.

24. ESCALATION. If during the performance of the contract, the price of labor, material, freight, and other costs significantly increase, through no fault of Veolia, the price shall be equitably adjusted and subject to escalation. A significant price increase shall mean any price increase from proposal date to material procurement greater than 2.0% from stated prices. Delays and costs associated with a Force Majeure event shall also be equitably adjusted and subject to a change in price and/or schedule. Escalation to be based on cost increases, (without additional profit, overhead or margin) and shall include labor, material, freight, and other costs to Veolia that occur in the specified time period. Any revisions or changes requested by the customer will be priced on a case-by-case basis. Such price increases shall be documented through third party sources.

Att 2
155
Attachment 4
CPC25-033 Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

Expires 12/18/26

CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
THIS CONTRACT is made on March 5, 2025, by and between the CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO (“City”), and Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc., (“Consultant”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the City desires Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc., to provide software engineering programming services, for the Water Treatment Plant, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain SCADA systems;
WHEREAS, the Consultant has presented a proposal for such services to the City, dated March 17, 2023, (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) and is duly licensed, qualified and experienced to perform those services;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES:

A. Consultant shall do all work, attend all meetings, produce all reports and carry out all activities necessary to completion of the services described in Exhibit “A”. This Contract and its exhibits shall be known as the “Contract Documents.” Terms set forth in any Contract Document shall be deemed to be incorporated in all Contract Documents as if set forth in full therein. In the event of conflict between terms contained in these Contract Documents, the more specific term shall control. If any portion of the Contract Documents shall be in conflict with any other portion, provisions contained in the Contract shall govern over conflicting provisions contained in the exhibits to the Contract.

B. Consultant enters into this Contract as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. The Consultant shall have no power or authority by this Contract to bind the City in any respect. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to be inconsistent with this relationship or status. All employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors hired or retained by the Consultant are employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors of the Consultant and not of the City. The City shall not be obligated in any way to pay any wage claims or other claims made against Consultant by any such employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors, or any other person resulting from performance of this Contract.

C. The Consultant agrees it has satisfied itself by its own investigation and research regarding the conditions affecting the work to be done and labor and materials needed, and that its decision to execute this Contract is based on such independent investigation and research.

2. TERM OF CONTRACT
A. The services of Consultant are to commence upon receipt of written notice to proceed from the City, and shall be undertaken and completed in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “B” and terminate on December 18, 2026.
156
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
2 B. Consultant’s failure to complete work in accordance with the Schedule of Performance may result in delayed compensation as described in Section 3.

C. The City Manager or his or her designee may, by written instrument signed by the Parties, extend the duration of this Contract for a period equal to the original term of this Contract in the manner provided in Section 5, provided that the extension does not require the payment of compensation in excess of the maximum compensation set forth in Section 3, Compensation.

3. COMPENSATION:

A. The Consultant shall be paid[monthly for the actual fees, costs and expenses for all time and materials required and expended, but in no event shall total compensation exceed Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Six Dollars ($44,796), without City’s prior written approval. Consultant's fees shall be as specified in the Schedule of Fees, which is attached hereto an incorporated herein as Exhibit "C".

B. Said amount shall be paid upon submittal of a monthly billing showing completion of the tasks that month. Consultant shall furnish City with invoices for all expenses as well as for all materials authorized by this Contract. The invoices shall be submitted with the monthly billings.

If Consultant’s performance is not in conformity with the Schedule of Performance, payments may be delayed or denied, unless the Consultant’s failure to perform in conformity with the Schedule of Performance is a documented result of the City’s failure to conform with the Schedule of Performance, or if the Schedule of Performance is extended pursuant to Section 5.

C. If the work is halted at the request of the City, compensation shall be based upon the proportion that the work performed bears to the total work required by this Contract, subject to Section 4.

4. TERMINATION:

A. This Contract may be terminated by either party, provided that the other party is given not less than 30 calendar days’ written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate.

B. The City may temporarily suspend this Contract, at no additional cost to City, provided that the Consultant is given written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of temporary suspension. If City gives such notice of temporary suspension, Consultant shall immediately suspend its activities under this Contract.

C. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Contract, Consultant shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Contract by Consultant, and the City may withhold any payments due to Consultant until such time as the exact amount of damages, if any, due the City from Consultant is determined.

D. In the event of termination, the Consultant shall be compensated as provided for in this Contract, except as provided in Section 4C. Upon termination, the City shall be entitled to all work, including but not limited to, appraisals, inventories, studies, analyses, drawings and data estimates performed to that date in accordance with Section 7 hereof.

5. AMENDMENTS, CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS:
157
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
3 Amendments, changes or modifications in the terms of this Contract may be made at any time by mutual written agreement between the parties hereto and shall be signed by the persons authorized to bind the parties hereto.

6. EXTENSIONS OF TIME:

Consultant may, for good cause, request extensions of time to perform the services required hereunder. Such extensions shall be authorized in advance by the City in writing and shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Contract or the attached Work Program in the manner provided in Section 5.

7. PROPERTY OF CITY:

A. It is mutually agreed that all materials prepared by the Consultant under this Contract shall become the property of the City, and the Consultant shall have no property right therein whatsoever. Immediately upon termination, the City shall be entitled to, and the Consultant shall deliver to the City, all data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries and other such materials as may have been prepared or accumulated to date by the Consultant in performing this Contract which is not Consultant’s privileged information, as defined by law, or Consultant’s personnel information, along with all other property belonging exclusively to the City which is in the Consultant’s possession.

B. Additionally, it is agreed that the parties intend this to be a contract for services and each considers the products and results of the services to be rendered by Consultant hereunder (the “Work”) to be a work made for hire. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the Work (and all rights therein, including, without limitation, copyright) belongs to and shall be the sole and exclusive property of the City.

8. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS:

A. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of federal, State and local governments, and shall commit no trespass on any public or private property in performing any of the work authorized by this Contract
B. Consultant warrants to the City that it is licensed by all applicable governmental bodies to perform this Contract and will remain so licensed throughout the progress of the Work, and that it has, and will have, throughout the progress of the Work, the necessary experience, skill and financial resources to enable it to perform this Contract.

FOR WORK SUBJECT TO PREVAILING WAGES
C. The work contemplated under this Contract is a public work for the purposes of Labor Code section 1720, and is subject to the payment of prevailing wages. Accordingly, Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Exhibit "E".

9. WARRANTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES - CONSULTANT:

A. Consultant agrees and represents that it is qualified to properly provide the services set forth in Exhibit “A” in a manner which is consistent with the generally accepted standards of Consultant’s profession.
158
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
4 B. Consultant agrees and represents that the work performed under this Contract shall be in accordance with applicable federal, State and local law in accordance with Section 17A hereof.

C. Consultant shall designate a project manager who at all times shall represent the Consultant before the City on all matters relating to this Contract. The project manager shall continue in such capacity unless and until he or she is removed at the request of the City, is no longer employed by Consultant, or is replaced with the written approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

D. Consultant shall provide corrective services without charge to the City for services which fail to meet the above professional and legal standards and which are reported to Consultant in writing within sixty (60) days of discovery. Should Consultant fail or refuse to perform promptly its obligations, the City may render or undertake performance thereof and the Consultant shall be liable for any expenses thereby incurred.

10. SUBCONTRACTING:

None of the services covered by this Contract shall be subcontracted without the prior written consent of the City, which will not be unreasonably withheld. Consultant shall be as fully responsible to the City for the negligent acts and omissions of its contractors and subcontractors, and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by them, as it is for the negligent acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Consultant.

11. ASSIGNABILITY:

Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Contract whether by assignment or novation, without the prior written consent of the City which will not be unreasonably withheld.

However, claims for money due or to become due Consultant from the City under this Contract may be assigned to a financial institution, or to a trustee in bankruptcy, without such approval.

Notice of any assignment or transfer whether voluntary or involuntary shall be furnished promptly to the City.

12. INTEREST IN CONTRACT:

Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any of its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors has any interest, nor shall they acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the subject of the Contract, nor any other interest which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of its services hereunder. Consultant shall make all disclosures required by the City’s conflict of interest code in accordance with the category designated by the City, unless the City Manager determines in writing that Consultant’s duties are more limited in scope than is warranted by the category designated by the City code and that a narrower disclosure category should apply. Consultant also agrees to make disclosure in compliance with the City conflict of interest code if, at any time after the execution of this Contract, City determines and notifies Consultant in writing that Consultant’s duties under this Contract warrant greater disclosure by Consultant than was originally contemplated. Consultant shall make disclosures in the time, place and manner set forth in the conflict of interest code and as directed by the City.

13. MATERIALS CONFIDENTIAL:
159
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
5 All of the materials prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to performance of this Contract are confidential and Consultant agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City, except by court order.

14. LIABILITY OF CONSULTANT-NEGLIGENCE:

Consultant shall be responsible for performing the work under this Contract in a manner which is consistent with the generally-accepted standards of the Consultant’s profession and shall be liable for its own negligence and the negligent acts of its employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors. The City shall have no right of control over the manner in which the work is to be done but only as to its outcome, and shall not be charged with the responsibility of preventing risk to Consultant or its employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors.

15. INDEMNITY AND LITIGATION COSTS:

Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, agents, and employees against all claims, damages, demands, liability, costs, losses and expenses, including without limitation court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising from Consultant's negligent acts or negligent failure to act, errors, omissions or willful misconduct incident to the performance of this Contract except such loss or damage caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the City. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive termination or suspension of this Contract.

Consultant shall protect, hold free and harmless, defend and indemnify the City, its consultants, and each of their officers, employees and agents, from any and all liability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims or judgments, including attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its employees or anyone else employed by the Consultant in the performance of professional design services under this agreement, to the extent of the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

To the extent permitted by Civil Code section 2782.8, for all other claims unrelated to the provision of professional design services, the Consultant shall protect, hold free and harmless, defend and indemnify the City, its consultants, and each of their officers, employees and agents, from any and all liability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims or judgments, including attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, which arise out of or are in any way connected with the Consultant’s, or its subcontractors’ or suppliers’, performance under this agreement or failure to comply with any of the obligations contained in the agreement. This indemnity shall imply no reciprocal right of the Consultant in any action on the agreement pursuant to California Civil Code section 1717 or section 1717.5. To the fullest extent legally permissible, this indemnity, defense and hold harmless agreement by the Consultant shall apply to any and all acts or omissions unrelated to the provision of professional design services, whether active or passive, on the part of the Consultant or its agents, employees, representatives, or subcontractor’s agents, employees and representatives, resulting in claim or liability, irrespective of whether or not any acts or omissions of the parties to be indemnified hereunder may also have been a contributing factor to the liability, except such loss or damage which was caused by the active negligence, the sole negligence, or the willful misconduct of the City.

16. CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE INSURANCE:
160
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
6 A. Consultant shall not commence any work before obtaining, and shall maintain in force at all times during the duration and performance of this Contract, the policies of insurance specified in this Section. Such insurance must have the approval of the City as to limit, form, and amount, and shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A VII (an NR rating is acceptable for Worker’s Compensation insurance written with the State Compensation Insurance Fund of California).

B. Prior to execution of this Contract and prior to commencement of any work, the Consultant shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and copies of endorsements providing evidence of coverage for all policies required by the Contract. The Consultant and its contractors and subcontractors shall, at their expense, maintain in effect at all times during the performance of work under the Contract not less than the following coverage and limits of insurance, which shall be maintained with insurers and under forms of policy satisfactory to the City. The maintenance by Consultant and its contractors and subcontractors of the following coverage and limits of insurance is a material element of this Contract. The failure of Consultant or of any of its contractors or subcontractors to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of this Contract. Approval of the insurance by the City shall not relieve or decrease any liability of Consultant.

1. Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance a. Worker’s Compensation - Insurance to protect the Consultant, its contractors and subcontractors from all claims under Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Acts, including Longshoremen’s and Harbor Worker’s Act (“Acts”), if applicable. Such coverage shall be maintained, in type and amount, in strict compliance with all applicable state and Federal statutes and regulations.

The Consultant shall execute a certificate in compliance with Labor Code Section 1861, on the form provided in the Contract Documents.
b. Consultant shall provide a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant.

2. Commercial General Liability Insurance
a. The insurance shall be provided on form CG0001, or its equivalent, and shall include coverage for claims for bodily injury or property damage arising out of premises/operations, products/completed operations, contractual liability, and subconsultant’s work and personal and advertising injury resulting from actions, failures to act, or operations of the insured, or by its employees or agents, or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by the insured. The amount of insurance coverage shall not be less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 general and products/completed operations aggregates. b. The commercial general liability insurance shall also include the following:
i. Endorsement equivalent to CG 2010 0714 naming the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional 161
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
7 insureds. The endorsement shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
ii. Endorsement stating insurance provided to the City shall be primary as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it, to the payment or satisfaction of any defense expenses, loss, or judgment.
iii. Provision or endorsement stating that the Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

3. Commercial Automobile Insurance
a. The insurance shall include, but shall not be limited to, coverage for claims for bodily injury or property damage for owned, non-owned, and hired automobiles resulting from actions, failures to act, or operations of the insured, or by its employees or agents, or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by the insured. The amount of insurance coverage shall not be less than $1,000,000 per accident.
b. The commercial automobile insurance shall include the same endorsements required for the commercial general liability policy (see Section

16.B.2.b).

4. Professional Liability. The Consultant and its contractors and subcontractors shall secure and maintain in full force, during the term of this Contract and for five years thereafter, professional liability insurance policies appropriate to the respective professions and the work to be performed as specified in this Contract. The limits of such professional liability insurance coverage shall not be less than $1,000,000 per claim.

C. In addition to any other remedy the City may have, if Consultant fails to maintain the insurance coverage as required in this Section, the City may obtain such insurance coverage as is not being maintained, in form and amount substantially the same as is required herein, and the City may deduct the cost of such insurance from any amounts due or which may become due Consultant under this Contract.

D. No policy required by this Contract shall be suspended, cancelled, terminated by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits unless Consultant has provided thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the City.

E. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions in excess of $10,000 must be declared to, and approved by, the City.
162
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
8 F. The requirement as to types, limits, and the City’s approval of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant are not intended to, and shall not in any manner, limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations assumed by Consultant under the Contract.

17. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:

A. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of, shall observe and comply with, and shall cause any and all persons, firms or corporations employed by it or under its control to observe and comply with, applicable federal, state, county and municipal laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees which in any manner affect those engaged or employed on the work described by this Contract or the materials used or which in any way affect the conduct of the work.

B. Consultant shall not engage in unlawful employment discrimination. Such unlawful employment discrimination includes, but is not limited to, employment discrimination based upon a person’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, gender, citizenship, or sexual orientation.

C. Consultant shall maintain and make available for inspection by the City and its auditors accurate records of all of its costs, disbursements and receipts with respect to any work under this Contract. Such inspections may be made during regular office hours at any time until six (6) months after the final payments under this Contract are made to the Consultant.

D. This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relative to the services specified herein and no modification hereof shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by a writing signed by both parties to this Contract. There are no understandings, agreements, conditions, representations, warranties or promises, with respect to this Contract, except those contained in or referred to in the writing.

E. All notices that are required to be given by one party to the other under this Contract shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given if delivered personally or enclosed in a properly addressed envelope and deposited in a United States Post Office for delivery by registered or certified mail addressed to the parties at the following addresses:

City:

City of West Sacramento
C/O Inambao Lifanu
1110 West Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Email: [email protected]

Consultant: Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc
C/O Mr. Todd Zimmerman
108 Tomlinson Drive Suite 400
Zelienople , PA 16063
Email: [email protected]

163
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
9 F. This Contract shall be interpreted and governed by the laws of the State of California.

G. Any action arising out of this Contract shall be brought and maintained in Yolo County California, regardless of where else venue may lie.

H. In any action brought by either party to enforce the terms of this Contract, each party shall be bear responsibility for its attorney’s fees and all costs regardless of whether one party is determined to be the prevailing party.
[Signatures on following page]
164
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
10 CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
By: __________________________
Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager
ATTEST:

By: _________________________________
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _______________________
Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
By: _________________________
Todd Zimmerman – Regional Manager
165
Attachment 4
CPC25-033 Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

Expires 12/18/26

EXHIBIT A
Consultant Proposal/Scope of Work
166
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
167
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
168
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
169
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
170
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025
171
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025

EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Performance
Contract Start Date March 5, 2025
Contract End Date December 18, 2026
172
CPC24-090
Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

March 5, 2025

EXHIBIT C
Schedule of Fees
173
Attachment 4
CPC25-033 Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc.

Expires 12/18/26

EXHIBIT D
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR CODE § 3700
[Labor Code § 1861]
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.

CONSULTANTS
By:

Todd Zimmerman, Regional Sales Manager
174

EXHIBIT E

LABOR COMPLIANCE

1. PREVAILING WAGE
A. The Work contemplated herein constitutes a public work within the meaning of Labor Code sections 1720 and 1771. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and upon any Subcontractor, to pay not less than the said specified prevailing rates of wages to all workers employed by them under the Contract in accordance with Labor Code section 1774. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") of the State of California has determined the general prevailing rate of wages of per diem wages in the locality in which the work is to be performed for each craft or type of worker needed to execute the Contract. The Consultant acknowledges that it has examined the prevailing rate of per diem wages as established by the DIR. Copies of the current schedules for prevailing wages are on file at City Hall, and the contents of those schedules are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Consultant shall post a copy of the applicable prevailing wage determinations at each job site, along with any other work place posters required by law.

B. The City will not recognize any claims for additional compensation because of the payment of prevailing wages. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by the Consultant in determining its proposal, and will not under any circumstances be considered as the basis of a claim against the City.

C. By executing this Contract Consultant warrants that it has registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with Labor Code section 1725.5.

2. PREVAILING WAGE RECORDS
A. The Consultant and each subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll record which shows the name, address, social security number, correct work classification (in accordance with the wage decision), both straight and overtime worked each day and week, and hourly rate of pay, gross wages earned, deductions made and net wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker or other employee paid by the Consultant /subcontractor in connection with the Work. These payroll records shall be certified and shall be made available at Consultant's principal office. These records shall be maintained during the course of the Work. The Consultant and all subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection by City representatives upon request and shall permit such representatives to interview employees during the work hours on the job site.

B. The City shall notify the Consultant in writing of any discrepancies or violations that are discovered during such inspections. Written notification pursuant to this Section shall include the actions that will be necessary to resolve the discrepancies and/or violations. The Consultant shall be held entirely responsible for the prompt resolution of all non-compliances with the prevailing wage laws, including those pertaining to all subcontractors and any lower-tier subcontractors. The Consultant shall forfeit as penalty to the City the amount specified by law for each calendar day or portion thereof for each worker (whether employed by the Consultant or any subcontractor) paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under the Contract in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code and in particular, Section 1775.

C. To the extent applicable, Consultant and subcontractors shall maintain and furnish to the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR"), a certified copy of each weekly payroll (but no less often than monthly), with a statement of compliance signed under penalty of perjury. Such certified payroll reports shall be transmitted electronically to the DIR.

D. The City will not recognize any claims for additional compensation because of the payment of the prevailing wages. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by the Consultant 175
in entering into the Contract, and will not under any circumstances, other than delays caused by the City, or the City’s agents, be considered as the basis of a claim against the City.

3. Labor Discrimination
Attention is directed to Section 1735 of the Labor Code, which reads as follows:
“No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of their race, color, national origin or ancestry, physical handicap, mental condition, marital status, or sex of such person, except as provided in Section 12940 of the Government Code, and every General Contractor for public works violating this section is subject to all the penalties imposed for a violation of this chapter.”
4 Eight-Hour Day Limitation
(a) In accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code, and in particular, Sections 1810 to 1815 thereof, inclusive, incorporated herein by reference, eight hours labor shall constitute a day's work, and no worker in the employ of Consultant, or any Subcontractor, doing or contracting to do any part of the work contemplated by the Contract, shall be required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of those provisions; provided that subject to Labor Code Section 1815, a worker may perform work in excess of either eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours during any one week upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours during any one week at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. (b) The Consultant and each Subcontractor shall also keep an accurate record showing the names and actual hours worked of all workers employed by them in connection with the Contract. This record shall be open at all reasonable hours to the inspection of the City. It is hereby further agreed that, except as provided in (a) above, the Consultant shall forfeit as a penalty to the City the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of the Contract by the Consultant or by any of its Subcontractors for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in and one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of Sections 1810 through 1815.

5. Compliance with State Requirements for Employment of Apprentices (a) The Consultant's attention is directed to Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code. Provisions of said Section pertaining to employment of registered apprentices are hereby incorporated by reference into this Contract. As applicable, the Consultant or any Subcontractor employed by the Consultant in the performance of this Contract shall take such actions as necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 1777.5. 176
N
A
0 MILES
I
I
L.

I
I
I
.J
_,,,,. --- -
\
\
),
\
'
'
'
I
I
----
_,. _,.

CITYWIDE SCADA UPGRADES
Located at various sewer utility stations
throughout the city.

Attachment 5A
....
\
\
I
I
/
• Project Location
- Interstate
Major Road
Minor Road
: = : City Limits
CITY It OF = WEST

SACRAMENTO
Prepared on
2/27/2025 by
Cierras
Department
City of West
Sacramento

SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADES PROJECT - VICINITY MAP
177
N
A
0 MILES
I
I
L.

I
I
I
•
.J
_,,,,. --- -
\
\
),
\
'
'
'
I
I
----
_,. _,.

CITYWIDE SCADA UPGRADES
Located at various water utility stations throughout
the city.

Attachment 5B
....
\
\
I
I
/
• Project Location
- Interstate
Major Road
Minor Road
: = : City Limits
CITY It OF = WEST

SACRAMENTO
Prepared on
2/27/2025 by
Cierras
Department
City of West
Sacramento

SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADES PROJECT - VICINITY MAP
178
N
A
0 MILES
I
I
L.

I
I
I
.J
_,,,,. --- -
\
'
'
'
I
I
----
_,. _,.

CITYWIDE SCADA UPGRADES
Located at various stormwater utility stations
throughout the city.

Attachment 5 C
....
\
I
\
\
I
I
/
• Project Location
- Interstate
Major Road
Minor Road
: = : City Limits
CITY It OF = WEST

SACRAMENTO
Prepared on
2/27/2025 by
Cierras
Department
City of West
Sacramento

SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADES PROJECT - VICINITY MAP
179

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 5, 2025 ITEM # 5
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 WITH

MAXIMUS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE HOMELESS EMERGENCY HOUSING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 51047 & 51048)
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Timothy Spinelli, Senior Project Manager
Capital Projects Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information for the approval of Change Order No. 4 to the construction contract with Maximus Development Inc., for the Homeless Emergency Housing Facility Improvement Project (CIP 51047 & 51048).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1) Approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Change Order No. 4 to the construction contract with Maximus Development Inc., in the amount of $114,939.22; 2) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments or change orders up to $30,000; 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute non-substantive changes or modifications, with approval from the City Attorney; and
4) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to further extend the term of the contract, if necessary.

BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2024, the City Council approved the purchase of the former El Tejon and Pick Wick motels, located at 1821 West Capitol Avenue and 1809 West Capitol Avenue, respectively, to expand the City’s homeless emergency housing options. The City closed escrow on both properties in August 2024.

These two sites will also assist in transitioning participants from two other homeless emergency housing program locations, the former Rodeway Inn and Flamingo Motel, which are scheduled to close in December 2025 and mid-2026. These homeless emergency housing programs provide non-congregate interim housing to unhoused individuals with the goal of transitioning participants into permanent housing. Program participants also receive case management and other supportive services to help prepare them for this transition.

Both motel sites require varying levels of rehabilitation to be ready for occupancy by program participants. To support the necessary rehabilitation work and future program operations, the City was awarded $2.6 million in State Behavioral Health Bridge Housing (BHBH) Program funds by Yolo County, of which $380,000 is specifically designated for repairs. Additionally, the City Council authorized an allocation of $482,660 in local Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support needed repairs at both motel sites. The repair work will help ensure that program participants are placed in units that meet minimum health and safety requirements, reducing the likelihood of future unexpected repairs.

On November 20, 2024, the City Council approved a construction contract with Maximus Development Inc. to repair and renovate the former motels. During the course of work, unforeseen conditions resulted in three change orders that fell within the approved contract contingency. Additional construction work is still required before full occupancy by the housing program.

ANALYSIS
In acquiring the two former motel sites, City staff contracted with Thurmond Consulting to perform a site assessment to identify necessary repairs and renovations to safely house the program participants. This assessment was used to develop the scope of work for the Invitation to Bid. Unforeseen conditions have expanded the scope of work, leading to the approval of three change orders within the contract’s authorized contingency. Additional construction work is still required before the housing program can fully occupy the sites.

As a result, the construction contract needs to be amended to authorize the allocation of additional grant funds. 180
Homeless Emergency Housing Construction Contract Change Order No. 4 March 5, 2025

Page 2 ends

The requested additional funding falls within the allocated grant funding (CDBG and BHBH) approved by City Council for this project.

Table 1: CIP 50147 & 51048 Homeless Emergency Housing Facility Improvements Grant Appropriations
Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program (CIP 51048) $380,000.00 Community Development Block Grant (CIP 51047) $482,660.00 Total Grant Appropriations $862,660.00
Construction Contract (CIP 51047) $544,000.00
Change Orders #1-3 (within Contingency) (CIP 51048) $162,459.04 Total To Date $706,459.04
Change Order 4 (Current Request CIP 51048))
Additional Requested Funds $114,939.22
Change Order Contingency Requested $30,000.00
New Contract Total $851,398.26
Environmental Considerations
The Homeless Emergency Housing Facility Improvements Project is exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6 Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Section 15301. Class 1 consists of operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. A Notice of Exemption was filed on 11/20/24 at the time the City Council approved the construction contract with Maximus Development Inc. to repair and renovate the former motels.

Commission Recommendation
Not applicable.

Strategic Plan Integration
The recommended actions address Homelessness and Communitywide Impacts, which is on the Council’s 2024 Strategic Plan Management Agenda.

Alternatives
The Council’s primary alternatives are summarized below:
1) Approve the recommended actions as described above in this report. 2) Modify or defer the recommended actions.
3) Not approve the recommended actions or cancel the project.

Coordination and Review
This report was prepared by the Capital Projects Department and coordinated with, and reviewed by, the Economic Development and Housing Department and the Finance Department.

Budget/Cost Impact
City Council previously authorized an allocation of $380,000 (CIP 51048) in BHBH funds and $482,660 (CIP 51047) in CDBG funds to support necessary repairs at both motel sites. The change order seeks to increase the construction contract with Maximus Development Inc. by $114,939.22 from CIP 51048. No additional funding is being requested.

ATTACHMENTS

1. CPC24-300 Maximus Contract Change Order No. 4

2. Vicinity Map
181
Homeless Emergency Housing Construction Contract Change Order No. 4 March 5, 2025

Page 3 ends

182
CPC24-300 Request Date: 3/5/2025
P0170916 Change Order # 4
Council Date N/A
Vendor:

Project:

Submitted by: Contractor Reviewed by: Division Manager/Department Head Maksim Semenenko, Owner Jaipal Chahal, Division Manager Date [email protected]
Reviewed by: Project Manager Approved by:

Tim Spinelli, Senior Project Manager Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager Date City Budget Approval:

Susana Jackson, Finance Manager Date
Approved as to form: Attest:

Jeff Mitchell, City Attorney Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk Date

CHANGE ORDER
Cost Center #
400-9900-5530 / 400-51048-5866
Net change by previous Change Orders:

CONTRACTOR agrees that the amount of increase or decrease in the contract sum specified in this change order shall constitute full compensation for the work required by this change order, including but not limited to all compensation for the additional and/or revised work specified herein, and shall fully compensate CONTRACTOR for any and all direct and indirect costs that may be incurred by CONTRACTOR in connection with such additional and/or revised work, including any changes, disruptions or delays in work schedules or in the performance of other work by CONTRACTOR.

The time for performance of the Contract will increase 30 working days by reason of the work described by this Change Order. Except as herein above expressly provided, CONTRACTOR further agrees that the performance of the work specified in this Change Order or the rescheduling of other project work made necessary by this Change Order, shall not constitute a delay which will extend the time limit for completion of the work as said term is used in the Contract between CITY and CONTRACTOR for the project.

Maximus Development Inc.

Homeless Emergency Housing Facility Improvements
Description:
$162,459.04
$706,459.04
Upon mutual acceptance of this document the City of West Sacramento, hereinafter referred to as "City"' and your firm, hereinafter referred to a "Contractor", in accordance with the terms and conditions of the original contract documents, you are hereby directed to make the following change or changes for the consideration set forth below:

Change order 4: Sewer repairs for the west El Tejon building, replacement of broken windows, removal of an interior office wall.

The original contract sum was: $544,000.00
The contract sum prior to this Change Order was:
$114,939.22
Contracts initially approved by Council also require City Attorney and City Clerk Signatures Contract #
Purchase Order #
$821,398.26
The contract sum will be increased by this Change Order:

New contract sum including all Change Orders:
183
Contractor License # 905488
Maximus Development Inc.

Change order
Sewer Line Replacement for West side of El Tejon building and North Side of Smith Building
12/23/24
Proposal for Sewer Line Replacement for West side of El Tejon building and North Side of Smith Building, currently sewer line is exposed and has standing water. Replacement is needed. Total for replacement is $69,653.71
This includes labor and material, material to be used is 4” abs. 184
PROJECT: LABOR HRS RATE REG O.T.

CONTRACTOR: Laborer/Demo Re. 140.0 $ 69.80 $ 9,772.00
Description: Sewer Replacment West Side of El Tejon building and North side of Smith Building O.T. $ 90.42 $ - Cement Mason Concrete Reg 24.0 $ 78.00 $ 1,872.00
SHIFTS D.T $ 102.10 $ -
Reg. Hrs OT Hrs. RATE OT Rate TOTAL Equipment Operator Reg 50.0 $ 94.00 $ 4,700.00 $ - O.T. $ 124.26 $ -
$ 75.00 $ - Plumber Reg 150.0 $ 94.00 $ 14,100.00

12.0 - $ 55.00 $ 660.00 O.T. $ 124.26 $ -
$ 45.00 $ - Carpenter Reg $ 94.00 $ -
$ 35.00 $ - O.T. $ 123.50 $ -
140.0 $ 48.00 $ 6,720.00 Supervisor Reg $ 94.00 $ -
$ - O.T. $ 123.50 $ -
$ - Trucking Reg $ 94.00 $ -
$ - O.T. $ 124.26 $ -
$ - Reg $ -

8.0 $ 38.00 $ 304.00 O.T. $ -
$ - Reg $ -
$ - $ - O.T. $ -
Reg $ -
O.T. $ -
Reg $ -
O.T. $ -
Reg $ -
AMOUNT O.T. $ -
$ - Reg $ -

5.0 $ 1,100.00 O.T. -

1.0 $ 425.00 $ 30,444.00 $ -
$ 13,000.00
$ - TOTAL REGULAR HOURS 30,444.00
$ - LABOR SURCHARGE 26% 7,915.44
$ - TOTAL O.T. HOURS -
$ - LABOR SURCHARGE 26% -
$ - SUB-TOTAL REG. O.T.
$ - SUBSISTENCE/ PER DIEM days $100 per day
$ - SUB-TOTAL LABOR 38,359.44
$ - MARKUP 15% (Overhead/Profit) 5,753.92
$ - TOTAL COST LABOR 44,113.36
TOTAL MATERIAL VENDORS $ 14,525.00 COST MATERIAL VENDORS 14,525.00 COST OF EQUIPMENT 7,684.00
INV. DATE AMOUNT SUB-TOTAL EQUIP. VENDORS 22,209.00
MARKUP 15% (Overhead/Profit) 3,331.35

SUB-CONTRACTORS -
SUB-CONTRACTORS 5% (Overhead/Profit) -
TOTAL $ - TOTAL COST THIS REPORT $ 69,653.71

SUB-CONTRACTORS
Additional days to Contract: 0

SUB-TOTAL LABOR
4" abs/ coupling misc./ plumbing material
Fuel $ 220.00
Dump Fee $425
State of California, Labor Surcharge and Equipment Rental Rates $ 7,684.00 MATERIAL & VENDORS Quantity Unit Price
Plate Compactor
Mini Excavator
Sheep Foot compactor
Dust Collector/filters
Core Drill
Jumping Jack
Sawcutter
Temp. Fence
Hammer Jack
concrete pump
Bobcat/skid steer
Change Order Request # Sewer Replacement
Emergency Homeless Shelter West Sacramento
Maximus Development Inc.

Equipment Rental Rates
Excavator
Mini Dump
Truck/trailer
185
Contractor License # 905488
Maximus Development Inc.

Change Order
Managers O:ice Wall Removal
1/20/25
Homeless Emergency Housing Facility Improvements
The inteior wall in the entry space of Managers o<ice that splits the entry way of the o<ice is requested to be removed, wall removal cost is $5,303.63 this is for demo and haul away and patch work/drywall repair and paint.
186
PROJECT: LABOR HRS RATE REG O.T.

CONTRACTOR: Laborer/Demo Re. 32.0 $ 69.80 $ 2,233.60
Description: Removal of wall in entry space of Managers office O.T. $ 90.42 $ - Cement Mason Concrete Reg $ 78.00 $ -
SHIFTS D.T $ 102.10 $ -
Reg. Hrs OT Hrs. RATE OT Rate TOTAL Equipment Operator Reg $ 94.00 $ - $ - O.T. $ 124.26 $ -
$ 75.00 $ - Plumber Reg $ 94.00 $ -
- $ 55.00 $ - O.T. $ 124.26 $ -
$ 45.00 $ - Carpenter/ Glazer Reg 8.0 $ 94.00 $ 752.00
$ 35.00 $ - O.T. $ 123.50 $ -
$ 48.00 $ - Supervisor Reg $ 94.00 $ -
$ - O.T. $ 123.50 $ -
$ - Trucking Reg $ 94.00 $ -
$ - O.T. $ 124.26 $ -
$ - Reg $ -
$ 38.00 $ - O.T. $ -
$ - Reg $ -
$ - $ - O.T. $ -
Reg $ -
O.T. $ -
Reg $ -
O.T. $ -
Reg $ -
AMOUNT O.T. $ -
$ - Reg $ -
$ - O.T. -

2.0 $ 850.00 $ 2,985.60 $ -
$ - TOTAL REGULAR HOURS 2,985.60
$ - LABOR SURCHARGE 26% 776.26
$ - TOTAL O.T. HOURS -
LABOR SURCHARGE 26% -
SUB-TOTAL REG. O.T.
$ - SUBSISTENCE/ PER DIEM days $100 per day
$ - SUB-TOTAL LABOR 3,761.86
$ - MARKUP 15% (Overhead/Profit) 564.28
$ - TOTAL COST LABOR 4,326.13
TOTAL MATERIAL VENDORS $ 850.00 COST MATERIAL VENDORS 850.00

COST OF EQUIPMENT -
INV. DATE AMOUNT SUB-TOTAL EQUIP. VENDORS 850.00
MARKUP 15% (Overhead/Profit) 127.50

SUB-CONTRACTORS -
SUB-CONTRACTORS 5% (Overhead/Profit) -
TOTAL $ - TOTAL COST THIS REPORT $ 5,303.63

SUB-CONTRACTORS
Additional days to Contract: 15 days
plastic $ 16.00
misc nails/ screws etc. $ 300.00
caulk $ 15.50
plywood $ 30.03
interior door $ 138.78
inteior trim $ 80.00

SUB-TOTAL LABOR
foam $ 16.05
tape $ 27.00
masking paper $ 13.92
Fuel $ 220.00
Dump Fee $425
State of California, Labor Surcharge and Equipment Rental Rates $ - MATERIAL & VENDORS Quantity Unit Price
Plate Compactor
Mini Excavator
Sheep Foot compactor
Dust Collector/filters
Core Drill
Jumping Jack
Sawcutter
Temp. Fence
Hammer Jack
concrete pump
Bobcat/skid steer
Change Order Request # Managers Office Entry wall Removal Emergency Homeless Shelter West Sacramento
Maximus Development Inc.

Equipment Rental Rates
Excavator
Mini Dump
Truck/trailer
187
Contractor License # 905488
Maximus Development Inc.

Change Order
Window Replacement
1/20/25
Homeless Emergency Housing Facility Improvements
There are 28 windows that are broken or in very poor shape and need replacment.

We are proposing retrofit windows to be used for replacement. The total for this change order for 28 windows is $39,981.88. or $1,427.92 this includes labor and material. 188
PROJECT: LABOR HRS RATE REG O.T.

CONTRACTOR: Laborer/Demo Re. 84.0 $ 69.80 $ 5,863.20
Description: approximately 28 windows need replacement (retrofit windows) O.T. $ 90.42 $ - Cement Mason Concrete Reg $ 78.00 $ -
SHIFTS D.T $ 102.10 $ -
Reg. Hrs OT Hrs. RATE OT Rate TOTAL Equipment Operator Reg $ 94.00 $ - $ - O.T. $ 124.26 $ -
$ 75.00 $ - Plumber Reg $ 94.00 $ -
- $ 55.00 $ - O.T. $ 124.26 $ -
$ 45.00 $ - Carpenter/ Glazer Reg 84.0 $ 94.00 $ 7,896.00 $ 35.00 $ - O.T. $ 123.50 $ -
$ 48.00 $ - Supervisor Reg $ 94.00 $ -
$ - O.T. $ 123.50 $ -
$ - Trucking Reg $ 94.00 $ -
$ - O.T. $ 124.26 $ -
$ - Reg $ -
$ 38.00 $ - O.T. $ -
$ - Reg $ -
$ - $ - O.T. $ -
Reg $ -
O.T. $ -
Reg $ -
O.T. $ -
Reg $ -
AMOUNT O.T. $ -
$ - Reg $ -
$ - O.T. -

1.0 $ 425.00 $ 13,759.20 $ -

50.0 $ 802.50
$ - TOTAL REGULAR HOURS 13,759.20
$ - LABOR SURCHARGE 26% 3,577.39
$ - TOTAL O.T. HOURS -

1.0 $ 300.00 LABOR SURCHARGE 26% -

60.0 $ 930.00 SUB-TOTAL REG. O.T.
$ - SUBSISTENCE/ PER DIEM days $100 per day

28.0 $ 12,912.76 SUB-TOTAL LABOR 17,336.59

40.0 $ 2,060.00 MARKUP 15% (Overhead/Profit) 2,600.49
$ - TOTAL COST LABOR 19,937.08
TOTAL MATERIAL VENDORS $ 17,430.26 COST MATERIAL VENDORS 17,430.26

COST OF EQUIPMENT -
INV. DATE AMOUNT SUB-TOTAL EQUIP. VENDORS 17,430.26
MARKUP 15% (Overhead/Profit) 2,614.54

SUB-CONTRACTORS -
SUB-CONTRACTORS 5% (Overhead/Profit) -
TOTAL $ - TOTAL COST THIS REPORT $ 39,981.88

SUB-CONTRACTORS
Additional days to Contract: 15 days
plastic $ 16.00
misc nails/ screws etc. $ 300.00
caulk $ 15.50
plywood $ 30.03
window $ 461.17
vinyl trim $ 51.50

SUB-TOTAL LABOR
foam $ 16.05
tape $ 27.00
masking paper $ 13.92
Fuel $ 220.00
Dump Fee $425
State of California, Labor Surcharge and Equipment Rental Rates $ - MATERIAL & VENDORS Quantity Unit Price
Plate Compactor
Mini Excavator
Sheep Foot compactor
Dust Collector/filters
Core Drill
Jumping Jack
Sawcutter
Temp. Fence
Hammer Jack
concrete pump
Bobcat/skid steer
Change Order Request # 28 Windows Replacement
Emergency Homeless Shelter West Sacramento
Maximus Development Inc.

Equipment Rental Rates
Excavator
Mini Dump
Truck/trailer
189
190

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 5, 2025 ITEM # 6
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 25-21 ACKNOWLEDGING THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO FIRE DEPARTMENT’S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 13146.2 AND 13146.3 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [ X ] Staff
[ ] Other
Bryan Jonson, Fire Marshal
Fire Department
ATTACHMENT [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [ X ] Action

OBJECTIVE
Per California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4, this item requires the Fire Department to report the status of state mandated inspections to its administering authority.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council consider and adopt Resolution 25-21 acknowledging the Fire Department’s efforts to comply with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.

BACKGROUND
In September of 2018, Senate Bill 1205 was approved by the Governor and added Section 13146.4 to the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). The new addition to the HSC requires that every fire department/district conduct mandated inspections of certain structures, including schools, hotels, motels, lodging houses and apartment houses for compliance with building standards, per HSC Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 and shall report to its administering authority on its compliance with HSC Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

ANALYSIS
Per the requirement of HSC 13146.4, this item and its accompanying attachments serve to meet its intended purpose. The attached Resolution 25-21 summarizes the Fire Department’s efforts to comply with HSC Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3, which detail that the Fire Department conducted 26 of 26 E (Educational) occupancy and 153 of 153 R-1/2 (Residential) occupancy inspections for the 2023/2024 fiscal year. Attachment 2 includes a list of all E and R-1/2 occupancies as well as inspection dates for those facilities.

Environmental Considerations
This item is not a project that is subject to CEQA, because it is not an activity that may cause either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c), § 15378(a).)
Commission Recommendation
Not Applicable
Strategic Plan Integration
Not Applicable
Alternatives
Not Applicable
Coordination and Review
This report was coordinated and reviewed by the Fire Department.

Budget/Cost Impact
Cost for conducting these inspections is part of the general service of the division and its overall budget.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 25-21

2. Occupancy list and inspection dates
191
RESOLUTION 25-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO ACKNOWLEDGING THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO FIRE DEPARTMENT’S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 13146.2 AND 13146.3 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
WHEREAS California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments that provide fire protection services to report annually to its administering authority on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 require all fire departments that provide fire protection services to perform annual inspections in every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, and apartment house for compliance with building standards; and
WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento Fire Department has conducted 26 of 26 E (Educational) occupancy and 153 of 153 R-1/2 (Residential) occupancy inspections for the 2023/2024 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of West Sacramento intends this Resolution to fulfill the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code regarding acknowledgment of the West Sacramento Fire Department’s compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of West Sacramento expressly acknowledges the measure of compliance of the City of West Sacramento Fire Department with the California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 in the area encompassed by the City of West Sacramento.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of March 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
192
2023-2024 SB 1205 Mandated Inspection List

RECORD ID RECORD NAME ADDR FULL BLOCK DESCRIPTION DATE INSPECTION FP-50326 Sunset Village Apartments 1611 MADRONE AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 7/11/2023 FP-50859 Zocon LLC 506 B ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 7/14/2023 FP-50852 805 Riverfront Apartments 805 RIVERFRONT ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 7/14/2023 FP-50772 Venecia Apartments 604 6TH ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 7/24/2023 FP-50570 ECO GREEN LLC 614 3RD ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/3/2023 FP-50748 613 Maple St Apartments 613 MAPLE ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/3/2023 FP-50749 617 Maple St Apartments 617 MAPLE ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/3/2023 FP-50460 Residential Care - West Sacramento Nursing and Rehabilitation Center 751 ELM ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/24/2023 FP-50572 DON AND JONI TABOADA 461 WALNUT ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/24/2023 FP-50574 531 Maple St Apartments 531 MAPLE ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/24/2023 FP-50578 NATHAN'S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 620 5TH ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 8/24/2023 FP-50575 652-662 WALNUT 652 WALNUT ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/25/2023 FP-50879 2144 Hickory Way Apartments 2144 HICKORY WAY WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/25/2023 FP-50342 Harbor Village Apartments 2125 EVERGREEN AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 8/25/2023 FP-50878 Evergreen Apt / West Sac Housing Dev Corp 2139 EVERGREEN AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/28/2023 FP-50887 932-934 Briarwood Dr Apts 932 BRIARWOOD DR WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/28/2023 FP-50888 2125 Oakmont Way / 2124 Hickory Way Apartments 2125 OAKMONT WAY WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 8/28/2023 FP-50581 4th Street Apartments 324 4TH ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 8/28/2023 FP-50582 400 Westacre Rd 400 WESTACRE RD WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 9/5/2023 FP-50889 1808 Proctor Ave Apartments 1808 PROCTOR AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 9/5/2023 FP-50690 Laminar Investments LLC 950 SIMON TER WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 9/13/2023 FP-50306 The Rivermark Apartments 959 BRIDGE ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 9/13/2023 FP-50548 SPRINGHILL SUITES / NIHAL DEVELOPMENT LLC 3455 REED AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 9/13/2023 FP-50247 Westwood Vistas Apartments 731 F ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 9/21/2023 FP-50593 East Yolo Apartments 1505 SACRAMENTO AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 9/22/2023 FP-50599 WSAC APTS LLC 621 MAPLE ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 9/22/2023 FP-50635 2200 Oakmont Way Apartments 2200 OAKMONT WAY WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 9/22/2023 FP-50615 411 Harbor Blvd Apartments 411 HARBOR BLVD WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 9/25/2023 FP-50610 402 G St Fourplex 402 G ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 9/26/2023 FP-50341 Mosaic Gardens at Holly Court Apartments 445 MAPLE ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 9/28/2023 FP-50600 731 MAPLE ST APARTMENTS 731 MAPLE ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/3/2023 FP-50692 Riverbend Apartments 555 DOUGLAS ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 10/3/2023 FP-50577 Eklund Apartments 640 7TH ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/6/2023 FP-50587 Premiere LLC 1049 JEFFERSON BLVD WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/6/2023 FP-50588 1634 Sacramento Ave Apartments 1634 SACRAMENTO AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/11/2023 FP-50718 709 Sunset Ave 709 SUNSET AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/11/2023 FP-50330 West Gateway Place Apartments 820 DELTA LN WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 10/11/2023 FP-50609 608 6th Street Apartments 608 6TH ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/16/2023 FP-50622 421 D Street Apartments 421 D ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 10/16/2023 FP-50592 MARIA DE SOUSA RENTALS 817 SUNSET AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/17/2023 FP-50605 217 6TH ST APARTMENTS 217 6TH ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/17/2023 FP-50606 461 MAPLE ST APARTMENTS 461 MAPLE ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/17/2023 FP-50621 708 Bryte Ave Apts 708 BRYTE AVE WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/17/2023 FP-50623 RIVERA APARTMENTS 427 D ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/17/2023 FP-50284 Extended Stay America 795 STILLWATER RD WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 10/17/2023 FP-50611 SIKICH AND SONS LLC 316 6TH ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (More than 10 units) 10/17/2023 FP-50628 West Sacramento Investors, LLC 224 5TH ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95605 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/23/2023 FP-50620 215 6TH STREET APARTMENTS 215 6TH ST WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 R-1/2 Occupancies (3-10 units) 10/25/2023

Page 1 of 4 ends

West Sacramento City CouncilMarch 5, 2025

West Sacramento City Council
March 5, 2025