CITY OF MANTECA REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR STORM … - Zones... · The Oakwood Lake Water District entered into a Professional Services Agreement for the Feasibility Study with NV5

CITY OF MANTECA

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

FOR

STORM DRAIN ZONES 36 & 39

ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL and PERMITTING

CIP #20004

Issued: August 5, 2019

Due: September 9, 2019


FOR

STORM DRAIN ZONES 36 & 39

ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL and PERMITTING

I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Manteca (City) is soliciting proposals from firms for Consulting Engineering

Services. The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to select a qualified consultant to

assist the Community Development Department in preparing plans, specifications,

environmental documents, and obtaining permits and approvals from various agencies for a

new storm drain outfall to the San Joaquin River.

II. PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Oakwood Lake Water District owns and manages certain property including the on-site

sewer treatment plant that processes the effluent from the Oakwood Shores residential

development. Over the course of time, the sewage treatment plant has proven inadequate to

keep up with the development. Moreover, as development continues to occur within the

southwest quadrant of the City of Manteca, there is no permanent solution in place to

discharge stormwater. One potential solution is to discharge the stormwater around Oakwood

Lakes to the San Joaquin River.

In discussions with the Oakwood Lake Water District, the District and City were able to enter

into a contractual relationship that is mutually beneficial to both entities. The District will be

able to discharge sewer effluent to the Wastewater Quality Control Facility for treatment and

the City may be able to discharge stormwater through District property that provides access

to the San Joaquin River.

On September 19, 2017, the City Council approved a Cost Sharing Agreement with the

Oakwood Lake Water District and the City of Manteca for a joint Drainage / Wastewater

Feasibility Study. The joint Drainage / Wastewater Feasibility Study addresses the merits,

challenges, and costs associated with long-term solutions for storm drain and sewer

discharges. The Oakwood Lake Water District entered into a Professional Services

Agreement for the Feasibility Study with NV5 to perform the work. Later, this Agreement

was transferred to Drake Haglan and Associates as the Project Manager changed firms.

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, following a brief PowerPoint presentation by Dave Richard,

with Drake Haglan, the Manteca City Council received and filed the Drainage / Wastewater

Feasibility Report at its regular meeting. At the City Council meeting, I pointed out that the

Final Report is not a “design document” but is meant to be utilized as a tool selecting the

preferred routing for the future storm drain and sewer infrastructure and highlighting some of

the environmental challenges should the projects move forward.

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018, Kevin Jorgensen (City Engineer), Sandy Mathews with

Larry Walker Associates, Bert Michalczyk with the Oakwood Lake Water District, and I met

with Patrick Pulupa, Executive Officer for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality

Control Board. The purpose of the meeting was to update Patrick on the progress to reach a

mutually beneficial agreement for a regional solution on wastewater and stormwater drainage

between the Oakwood Lake Water District and the City of Manteca. The focus of the

discussion was to identify potential regulatory hurdles to installing a new stormwater outfall

and to obtain assurance that the Central Valley Water Board would be able to approve the

stormwater drainage solution.

Patrick noted that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is most

concerned about water quality and this concern is focused on eliminating the Oakwood Lakes

wastewater discharge. Trading out a stormwater discharge for the current wastewater

discharge would be beneficial from a water quality perspective.

On Tuesday, April 16, 2019, the City Council unanimously approved the Wastewater

Services Agreement between the Oakwood Lake Water District and the City of Manteca and

authorized the City Manager to sign the Agreement and all associated documents.

Additionally, the Oakwood Shores Owner’s Association and the City entered into the

accompanying Easement Option Agreement on May 23, 2019.

III. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

JUSTIFICATION: Currently, there is no permanent storm drain system or solution to serve

Storm Drain Zone 39 in southwest Manteca. Zone 39 is outside of the SSJID boundaries;

therefore, stormwater cannot be discharged into SSJID's laterals and drains. Additionally, by

including Storm Drain Zone 36 as tributary to the proposed storm drain backbone

infrastructure, it would alleviate pressure on the French Camp Outlet Canal.

DESCRIPTION: Retain the services of a Civil Engineering Consultant, teamed with an

Environmental Consultant, to provide the backbone design for a storm drain conveyance

system, lift station, and outfall to serve Zones 36 and 39. The Environmental Consultant

would be responsible to prepare the CEQA Initial Study and follow-on environmental

documents and obtain all environmental permits and regulatory approvals, with assistance

from City staff, which would include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California

Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Reclamation

District 17, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and supporting reports and

assessments necessary to support the permit applications and associated approvals.

Additional regulatory approvals and permits may be identified during the design process.

IV. PROJECT SERVICES

1. Design and engineer improvement plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate of

probable cost for the following storm drain amenities:

a. 72-inch Storm Drain, Open Cut (size to be verified)

b. 72-inch Storm Drain Manholes (size to be verified)

c. Outfall Pump Station

d. Force Main to San Joaquin River

e. San Joaquin River Outfall Structure

f. Connection to Existing Storm Drain System

g. Pavement Removal and Replacement

h. Other Necessary Appurtenances

2. Provide environmental services to obtain ALL necessary permits and ALL agency

approvals not limited to the following:

a. Initial Study in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the

National Environmental Policy Act

b. Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report in accordance with

the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act

c. Permits:

i. CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification

ii. CWA Section 404 Permit

iii. CWA Section 408 Permit

iv. Central Valley Flood Protection Board Permit

v. 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement

vi. San Joaquin County Encroachment Permit

vii. City of Manteca Encroachment Permit

viii. Construction Stormwater General Permit (Preliminary Construction

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan)

d. Agency Approvals:

i. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

ii. Central Valley Flood Protection Board

iii. Reclamation District 17

iv. California Department of Fish and Wildlife

v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

vi. National Marine Fisheries Service

vii. State Historic Preservation Office

viii. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ix. Bay Delta Office

3. Provide professional land surveying services to draft recordable easements to allow the

storm drain force main to reach the San Joaquin River as follows:

a. Easement down Aplicella Court, or

b. Easement through Reclamation District 17 property just south of Aplicella Court

c. Easements may also be necessary for the Pump Station and Outfall Structure

4. Public Meetings with PowerPoint Presentations:

a. Attend and prepare for three (3) Public/Community Meetings during the

design/environmental process to provide citizens notice, an opportunity to voice

concerns, and respond to those concerns at a subsequent meeting

b. Attend and prepare for two (2) Planning Commission meetings – one meeting for a

general update and one meeting during the environmental process

c. Attend and prepare for two (2) City Council meetings – one meeting for a general

update and one meeting during the environmental process

5. Provide bidding assistance and construction management services as follows:

a. Prepare bid tabulation as part of, and included in, the project specifications

b. Answer pre-bid questions from contractors; issue Q&A documents and addendums as

necessary

c. Attend pre-bid meetings (2) on site with City and contractors

d. Receive, catalog, review, comment, and distribute Requests For Information

e. Receive, catalog, review, comment, and distribute Required Submittals

f. Attend on-site construction meetings every two weeks during the construction period

V. MATERIALS FURNISHED BY CITY

The City will make the following documents available:

1. Oakwood Lake Water District-City of Manteca Joint Drainage/Wastewater Feasibility

Study

2. Executed Oakwood Lake Water District-City of Manteca Wastewater Services

Agreement

3. Executed Oakwood Shores Owner’s Association-City of Manteca Easement Option

Agreement

4. City of Manteca Email Updates to Interested Parties

5. Letter from Tera Land Group (expressing storm drainage concerns)

6. Sample Professional Services Agreement

7. Insurance Requirements for Professional Services

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pre-Application Meeting Notes

All software, data, reports, surveys, drawings, and other documents furnished to the

Consultant by City for the Consultant's use in the performance of services shall be made

available only for use in performing the assignment and shall remain the property of the City.

Work product resulting from the Storm Drain Zones 36 & 39 Engineering, Environmental &

Permitting effort shall be owned by the City.

VI. CONTRACT TYPE

The Professional Services Agreement for this project is planned to be a time and materials

contract with a total not to exceed amount. Any services provided by the Consultant, that are

not specifically covered by the Agreement, will not be reimbursed unless previously

approved in writing by the City. It is the Consultant’s responsibility to recognize and notify

the City when services not covered under the Contract have been requested or may become

necessary.

VII. MINORITY BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

The City encourages participation from Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs),

Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (UDBEs), Women-owned Business

Enterprises (WBEs), and Disabled Veterans Business Enterprises (DVBEs). However, there

is no specified DBE/UDBE/DVBE/WBE contract goal for this project.

VIII. QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals will be accepted until 3:00 p.m., Pacific Time, on Thursday, September 9, 2019.

Five hardbound (5) copies of the Proposal, and 1 (one) electronic copy in .pdf format on a

Flash Drive are to be submitted to:

Greg Showerman

Community Development Department

City of Manteca

1001 W. Center Street

Manteca, CA 95337

All Proposals are to be submitted in a sealed package, clearly marked with “Proposal - Storm

Drain Zones 36 & 39 Engineering, Environmental & Permitting.” Fees for professional

engineering services are to be submitted in a sealed envelope separate from the Proposal, but

attached, clearly marked with “Storm Drain Zones 36 & 39 Engineering, Environmental &

Permitting.”

The City reserves the right to accept or reject late proposals at its sole discretion.

The City does not recognize the U.S. Postal Service, or any other organization, as their agent

for the purposes of accepting Proposals. All Proposals received after the deadline may be

rejected and returned unopened. No extensions will be granted.

Proposers shall include the following information.

1. COVER LETTER & MEMORANDA

Provide the following information:

a. A statement requesting the City to evaluate the submitted proposal based upon the

tasks identified in the Work Plan for the Storm Drain Zones 36 & 39 Engineering,

Environmental & Permitting

b. Identification of all proposed sub-consultants including description of the work to be

performed by the prime firm and each sub-consultant firm proposed for the project

c. Indicate the location of the office from which the work will be performed

d. Acknowledgement of any and all addenda

e. A signed statement by an officer of the firm attesting that all information in the

proposal is true and correct

2. CONTRACT TERMINATION CIRCUMSTANCES

Provide a response to the following question: Has your firm ever been terminated from a

contract?

If Consultant has been terminated from a contract, describe the facts and circumstances in

detail, on a separate sheet.

3. TECHNICAL CONTENT

The technical content of the Proposal shall include the following:

a. Qualifications, Related Experience, and References

This section of the Proposal should establish the ability of the proposed team to

satisfactorily perform the required work by reasons of: experience in performing

work of the same or similar nature; demonstrated experience working with the City

directly involved in this project (or similar districts and cities); staffing capability;

work load; record of attaining schedules on similar projects; and supportive client

references. Specifically:

1. Provide a brief profile of the firm, including the types of services offered; the year

founded; form of the organization (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship);

number, size and location of offices; number of employees.

2. Provide a general description of the firm's current financial condition; identify any

conditions (e.g., bankruptcy, pending litigation, planned office closures,

impending merger) that may impede ability to complete the project.

3. Describe the firm's experience in performing work of a similar nature to that

solicited in this RFP, and the participation in such work by the key personnel

proposed for assignment to this project. Highlight the firm’s experience and key

personnel’s experience with similar improvement plans/projects, environmental

work, permitting, and agency approvals.

4. Provide a brief description of the project team, key staff and subconsultants, and

discussion of their relevant experience as it relates to this project.

5. Provide a minimum of three (3) references who can discuss the firm’s and project

team’s qualifications to deliver the project Work Plan tasks. The references shall

be knowledgeable and able to discuss the qualifications of the firm and project

team correlating with the work experience cited. Furnish the name, title, address

and telephone number of the person(s) at the client’s organization who are most

knowledgeable about the work performed.

6. Provide a list of past joint-work by the offeror and each sub-consultant, if

applicable. The list should clearly identify the project and provide a summary of

the roles and responsibilities of each party.

b. Statement of Understanding and Approach

In this section, provide a description of the methodology the firm will use to complete

the Work Plan tasks identified in this RFP. Discuss and describe the firm’s experience

working on similar projects and provide a statement of the services your firm feels

differentiates your firm from others. Additionally, as a part of the summary, identify

the responsibilities of the City and the responsibilities of the firm.

c. Proposed Team, Staffing and Project Organization

This section of the Proposal should discuss and identify key personnel, qualifications

and assignments, specifically:

1. Identify the person who is a registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of

California who will approve and stamp the Storm Drain Zones 36 & 39

Engineering, Environmental & Permitting plans and specifications. Include

education, experience and applicable professional credentials.

2. Furnish brief resumes [not more than two (2) pages each] for the proposed Project

Manager and other key personnel (resumes are included in the total page count).

3. Identify key personnel proposed to perform the work in the specified tasks and

include major areas of subcontract work. Include the person's name, current

location, proposed position for this Project, current assignment, level of

commitment to that assignment, availability for this assignment, and how long

each person has been with the firm.

4. Include a Project organization chart that clearly delineates communication /

reporting relationships among the Project staff, including subconsultants.

5. Include a statement that key personnel will be available to the extent proposed for

the duration of the Project, acknowledging that no person designated as "key" to

the Project shall be removed or replaced without the prior written concurrence of

the City.

d. Work Plan

A final Scope of Services will be negotiated with the selected consultant. Consultant

shall provide a proposed Scope of Services and narrative to illustrate their

understanding of the specific project needs, requirements, and potential risks.

The Scope of Services shall include thorough details with specific task descriptions to

demonstrate that the proposer has considered all aspects of the proposal.

The Scope of Services should include detailed discussions of the means and methods

for achieving the following objectives and requirements below. The Scope of

Services should also identify additional environmental permits or approvals not

identified that the proposer believes will be needed to successfully accomplish the

project.

1. City Council of Manteca Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration or

Environmental Impact Report in compliance with the California Environmental

Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

2. Obtaining the following Permits:

i. CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification

ii. CWA Section 404 Permit

iii. CWA Section 408 Permit

iv. Central Valley Flood Protection Board Permit iv. 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement

v. San Joaquin County Encroachment Permit

vi. City of Manteca Encroachment Permit

viii. Construction Stormwater General Permit (Preliminary Construction

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan)

3. Obtaining the following Agency Approvals (at a minimum):

i. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

ii. Central Valley Flood Protection Board

iii. Reclamation District 17

iv. California Department of Fish and Wildlife

v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

vi. National Marine Fisheries Service

vii. State Historic Preservation Office

viii. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ix. Bay Delta Office

4. Providing recordable easement documents to allow the storm drain force main to

reach the San Joaquin River as follows:

i. Easement down Aplicella Court, or

ii. Easement through Reclamation District 17 property just south of Aplicella

Court.

iii. Easements for Pump Station and Outfall Structure.

5. Public Meetings with PowerPoint Presentations:

a. Attend and prepare for three (3) Public/Community Meetings during the

design/environmental process to provide citizens notice, an opportunity to

voice concerns, and respond to those concerns at a subsequent meeting

b. Attend and prepare for two (2) Planning Commission meetings – one meeting

for a general update and one meeting during the environmental process

c. Attend and prepare for two (2) City Council meetings – one meeting for a

general update and one meeting during the environmental process

6. Provide bidding assistance and construction management services as follows:

i. Prepare bid tabulation as part of, and included in, the project specifications

ii. Answer pre-bid questions from contractors; issue Q&A documents and

addendums as necessary

iii. Attend pre-bid meetings (2) on site with City and contractors

iv. Receive, catalog, review, comment, and distribute Requests For Information

v. Receive, catalog, review, comment, and distribute Required Submittals

vi. Attend on-site construction meetings every two weeks during the construction

period

e. Deliverables

Provide a list of deliverables that the proposer plans to provide to the City upon

completion of services. List should include at minimum the following:

1. Four (4) hard copies of bound CEQA report documents

a. Initial Study

b. Draft Mitigated Neg. Dec. or EIR

c. Final Mitigated Neg. Dec. or EIR

2. PDF and Word versions of all environmental documents, supporting reports and

assessments, and permit applications.

3. PowerPoint presentation for Planning Commission and City Council to

accompany certification of the Environmental Document.

4. Four half-size sets of improvement plans and specification books at each of the

following milestones:

a. 30% complete

b. 60% complete

c. 90% complete

d. Bid documents (plans and specifications)

c. Conformed documents (plans and specifications)

5. PDF and AutoCAD versions of plans and PDF and WORD versions of

specifications at each of the above milestones.

f. Appendices

Information considered pertinent to this project and which has not been specifically

solicited in any of the aforementioned sections may be placed in a separate appendix

section. Consultants are cautioned, however, that this does not constitute an invitation

to submit large amounts of extraneous materials; appendices should be relevant and

brief.

4. CONTRACT COMMENTS

Provide a written discussion of any proposed deviations to the included Professional

Services Agreement. Please note that the City reserves the right to disqualify any

Consultant that does not provide a complete written discussion of its contractual

objections or to disqualify any Consultant based on objections that the City considers

non-negotiable. The City does not anticipate making substantive changes to its Terms and

Conditions, but reserves the right to do so upon final contract negotiation.

5. ENTIRE PROPOSAL PACKAGE

The Consultant’s statement of qualifications package is limited to 30 (8 ½” x 11”) pages

double-sided. Charts and schedules may be included in 11” x 17” format and will count

towards the page count. Proposals shall not include any unnecessarily elaborate or

lengthy promotional material. Lengthy narratives are discouraged, and presentations

should be brief and concise. Page limit does not include the outside cover, section

dividers, cover letters, or appendices. Statements that do not contain the required

information or submittals that do not contain the required number of copies may be

rejected.

6. CHANGES

At any time during the procurement process, if a firm makes any changes to proposed key

personnel or sub-consultants; they must notify the City in writing of those proposed

changes. The City reserves the right to accept or reject such proposed changes or to revise

the evaluation scoring to reflect the proposed staffing changes.

7. HOURLY RATES

A copy of the Consultant’s proposed hourly rates shall be included with each submittal.

Rate Schedules must indicate that they are valid for the term of the agreement or must

provide an escalation factor that applies for the term of agreement. The hourly rate

schedule is to be included in the body of the proposal.

8. FEE PROPOSAL/REQUIREMENTS

The proposal is not to include a fee proposal. The fee proposal shall be submitted in a

separate sealed envelope.

a. The consultant’s fee proposal shall contain the flowing:

1. The fee proposal shall be submitted for the consultant services outlined in the

proposed scope of work. The basis of payment for the services provided under

this agreement shall be a Time and Materials, Not-To-Exceed fee.

2. The consultant shall submit a breakdown of the anticipated costs based on tasks

outlined in the Work Plan. Indicate the anticipated number of staff hours and

hourly rates. Include all anticipated materials and equipment costs that will be

necessary in completing each task.

3. Fee proposals shall also be broken out to clearly identify the tasks described in the

proposed Scope of Work.

4. Fee proposals should include a category for, and itemize, anticipated reimbursable

expenses separate from professional expenses.

IX. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSALS

The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all qualifications/proposals, or any

item or part thereof, or to waive any informalities or irregularities in the proposals. The City

reserves the right to withdraw or cancel this RFP at any time without prior notice and the

City makes no representation that any contract will be awarded to any firm responding to this

RFP. The City reserves the right to re-issue a new RFP for the same or similar services. The

City reserves the right to postpone proposal openings for its own convenience.

Qualifications/proposals received by the City are public information and must be made

available to any person upon request. Submitted proposals are not to be copyrighted.

X. CONSULTANT SELECTION

The primary objective of the City is to select a qualified firm to perform necessary services

for the City at a fair and reasonable fee. To that end, the City has established the following

criteria for the selection process:

Rejections:

All Proposals will be reviewed to determine conformance with the RFP requirements. Any

Proposals that the City deems incomplete, conditional, or non-responsive to the requirements

of the RFP may be rejected. As was stated above, the City reserves the right to reject any and

all Proposals as well.

The selection process shall be fair, open, and competitive.

The selection of the consultant firm preferred for this project will be based on clearly

stated objectives.

Selection of consultants/firms preferred for this project shall be based upon demonstrated

competence, professional qualifications, experience, and capabilities to perform the

required services.

Scoring Criteria:

1. Understanding the Project and project approach (25 pts)

2. Work Plan (20 pts)

3. Responsiveness to the RFP (15 pts)

4. Experience and qualifications of the firm, project manager, key personnel, and sub-

consultant’s qualifications on similar projects:

a. Experience of the firm (10 pts)

b. Experience of the project manager (10 pts)

c. Experience of key personnel (10 pts)

d. Experience of sub-consultants (10 pts)

e. Information obtained from references (0 pts – can be used to deduct points)

TOTAL 100 points

Upon review of the Proposals, the City may, but is not required to, invite several firms to an

interview at the City of Manteca, 1001 W. Center Street, Manteca, CA 95337. The City

reserves the right not to conduct interviews and negotiate a Professional Services Agreement

for consulting engineering services with the consultant with the highest ranked proposal.

XI. NEGOTIATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT

The opportunity to negotiate a Professional Services Agreement for consulting engineering

services for this study may be awarded to the consultant who is deemed the most responsible

and responsive to the RFP, demonstrates the greatest technical qualifications, experience and

skill to complete this project in conformance with intent of the RFP, and is in the opinion of

the City, the most advantageous and suitable to meet the specific needs for this project. The

City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to negotiate with any responsible,

responsive firm. The City is under no obligation to issue contracts for the subject services.

The final agreement and Scope of Services will be negotiated. When the highest ranked

consultant is identified, the sealed cost estimate will be opened and negotiations will begin

with said consultant. Consultants are encouraged to include in their proposal any comments

relating to the terms and conditions of the included standard Professional Services

Agreement. In addition, Consultants are reminded that any comments regarding the terms

and conditions included in the standard Agreement must be noted in the proposal. The City

reserves the right to disqualify any firm that does not provide written comments it has

relative to terms and conditions. The City does not anticipate making any substantive

changes to its terms and conditions.

In the event that contract negotiations are unsuccessful with the consultant submitting the

highest-ranked proposal, the City reserves the right to reject the highest-ranked proposal and

move to negotiate with the consultant submitting the next highest-ranked proposal. This

process may continue until a negotiated contract can be agreed to by both parties to the

satisfaction of the City.

XII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The selected consultant will not be prevented from participating in future projects to the

extent that no direct conflict of interest exists at the time. The determination of a conflict of

interest, direct or incidental, shall be at the sole discretion of the City.

XIII. SCHEDULE FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION

Issue Request for Proposals August 5, 2019

Written Questions Before 3:00 PM, August 26, 2019

Proposals Due Before 3:00 PM, September 9, 2019

Select Consultant October 14, 2019 (tentative)

City Council Award November 5, 2019 (tentative)

Notice to Proceed November 14, 2019 (tentative)

Dates are subject to change. Schedule updates will be posted on City’s internet website: https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Pages/RequestForProposal.aspx

Any questions or comments to this RFP shall be submitted, on or before the date & time

shown above, in writing to:

Greg Showerman, Community Development Director

[email protected]

Attachments:

Attachment 1 Oakwood Lake Water District-City of Manteca Joint Drainage/Wastewater

Feasibility Study

Attachment 2 Executed Oakwood Lake Water District-City of Manteca Wastewater Services

Agreement

Attachment 3 Executed Oakwood Shores Owner’s Association-City of Manteca Easement

Option Agreement

Attachment 4 City of Manteca Email Updates to Interested Parties

https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Pages/RequestForProposal.aspx

mailto:[email protected]

Attachment 5 Letter from Tera Land Group (expressing storm drainage concerns)

Attachment 6 Sample Professional Services Agreement

Attachment 7 Insurance Requirements for Professional Services

Attachment 8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pre-Application Meeting Notes

Attachment 1

Oakwood Lake Water District-City of Manteca Joint

Drainage/Wastewater Feasibility Study

OAKWOOD LAKE WATER DISTRICT – CITY OF MANTECA

JOINT DRAINAGE/WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL REPORT

July 2018

Joint Drainage/WW Feasibility Study i 226117-0000207.00

July 2018 i:\18006 - olwd-manteca joint drainageww study - oakwood lake wd\documents\tmfinal\20180712 report.docx



FINAL REPORT

CONTENTS

1.0 Background Information Database ...................................................................................... 4

2.0 Description of Existing Drainage and Wastewater Systems................................................ 4

2.1 Drainage Systems ............................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Wastewater Systems ......................................................................................................... 7

3.0 Discussion of Future Master Planned Facilities................................................................... 9

3.1 Zone 39 Master Plan ........................................................................................................ 9

3.2 2012 Manteca Wastewater Collection System Master Plan........................................... 10

4.0 Summary of Design Criteria .............................................................................................. 10

4.1 Drainage ......................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Wastewater ..................................................................................................................... 11

5.0 Summary of Construction Constraints ............................................................................... 12

6.0 Summary of Environmental Constraints ............................................................................ 14

7.0 Wastewater Alternatives .................................................................................................... 14

7.1 Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 14

7.2 Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................................................. 21

7.3 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 21

8.0 Drainage Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 24

8.1 Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 24

8.2 Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................................................. 27

8.3 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 39

9.0 Implementation Considerations ......................................................................................... 41

9.1 Construction Phasing...................................................................................................... 41

9.2 Institutional Arrangements ............................................................................................. 41

9.3 CEQA and Permitting Strategy ...................................................................................... 42

10.0 References .......................................................................................................................... 49

Joint Drainage/WW Feasibility Study ii 226117-0000207.00


APPENDICES

Appendix A – April 30, 2018, Zone 39 Stakeholders Meeting – List of Attendees

Appendix B – Example of New Outfall Requirements

Appendix C – Constraints Analysis prepared by Environmental Planning Partners

Appendix D – Drainage Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations

Appendix E – Combined Drainage from Zone 36 and Zone 39

Appendix F – Example of Cost Allocation of Drainage Improvements

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Joint Drainage/Wastewater Feasibility Study Summary of Background

Information Database ...................................................................................................... 4

Table 2 Oakwood Lake Water District Existing Pump Station Information ............................... 8

Table 3 Oakwood Lake Water District WWTP Influent Wastewater Flows September

2016 - August 2017 ......................................................................................................... 8

Table 4 Oakwood Lake Water District – City of Manteca Joint Drainage/Wastewater

Feasibility Study Wastewater Conveyance Alternatives Engineer’s Opinion of

Probable Construction Cost .......................................................................................... 19

Table 5 Wastewater Conveyance Alternatives for Connection to City System Summary

of Evaluation Criteria/Importance Factor ..................................................................... 21

Table 6 Evaluation Matrix for Wastewater Conveyance Alternatives for Connection to

City System ................................................................................................................... 23

Table 7 Oakwood Lake Water District – City of Manteca Joint Drainage/Wastewater

Feasibility Study Drainage Alternatives Engineer’s Opinion of Probable

Construction Cost .......................................................................................................... 27

Table 8 Potential Source Control BMPs that Could be Included in Master Plan

Developments ................................................................................................................ 30

Table 9 Bioretention (Estimated) Pollutant Removal Efficiencies ........................................... 32

Table 10 Horton Parameters for Infiltration ................................................................................ 34

Table 11 Oakwood Lake Inflow Summary during Select Storm Events ..................................... 35

Table 12 Representative Detention Basin Results for Proposed Zone 39 Developments ........... 36

Table 13 Maximum Computed Oakwood Lake Water Surface Elevations (ft) from

Various Drainage Scenarios .......................................................................................... 38

Table 14 Regional Drainage Alternatives Summary of Evaluation Criteria/Importance

Factor ............................................................................................................................ 39

Table 15 Evaluation Matrix for Regional Drainage Alternatives ................................................ 40

Joint Drainage/WW Feasibility Study iii 226117-0000207.00


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Overview of Development in Zone 39 ............................................................................ 3

Figure 2 Drainage Facilities .......................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3 Sewer Facilities ............................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4 Underground Utility Cross-Sections ............................................................................. 13

Figure 5 Wastewater Facilities – Alternative 1 ........................................................................... 16



Figure 8 Drainage Alternatives ................................................................................................... 25

Figure 9 Tentative Project Design and Permitting Schedule ....................................................... 48

Joint Drainage/WW Feasibility Study 1 226117-0000207.00




FINAL REPORT

July 2018

The Oakwood Lake Water District (OLWD) and the City of Manteca (City) are collaborating on a

joint drainage/wastewater feasibility study (Study) to identify/evaluate regional drainage

alternatives within Zone 39 and City wastewater service options for the OLWD [Oakwood Shores

development (Oakwood Shores) and an existing mobile home park (MHP)]. As an alternative to

annexation into the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) with subsequent discharge to the

French Camp Outlet Canal (FCOC), regional drainage from properties in Zone 39 would be routed

through Oakwood Shores and thereby affect OLWD and/or homeowner association (HOA)

facilities prior to discharge to the San Joaquin River. Properties in Zone 39 likely interested in

participating in a regional solution are illustrated in Figure 1.

In terms of wastewater service, OLWD operates and maintains an onsite wastewater treatment

plant (WWTP), effluent storage facilities, and land application areas for effluent disposal. As

noted earlier, OLWD serves Oakwood Shores and the MHP. Oakwood Shores has 313 occupied

units as of 31 December 2017 and will build out to 436 units as currently approved; the MHP has

57 occupied units and is built out. OLWD wastewater treatment and reclamation facilities are

permitted by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board).

Compliance with waste discharge requirements established by the Regional Board has proved

problematic and OLWD has experienced a number of exceedances in effluent water quality

requirements, operating requirements, and flow limitations. The existing treatment facility is

operating above its current treatment capacity. The facility is also very maintenance intensive.

OLWD is currently in discussions with the Regional Board to address the non-compliance issues;

the likely outcome of those discussions will be a Time Schedule Order (or similar enforcement

vehicle). Therefore, the need to replace or overhaul the WWTP to improve reliability and to bring

the facility into compliance has prompted OLWD to explore wastewater service options with the

City.

In preparing the Study, the following methodology was used:

1. Background information from multiple technical and anecdotal sources was collected and

summarized

2. Design criteria, assumptions, constraints, and opportunities that may impact alternatives

were identified

3. Drainage and wastewater options were developed and feedback was solicited from key

stakeholders, particularly the HOA and Zone 39 stakeholders

4. Drainage and wastewater service options were analyzed considering economic, non-

economic, and environmental factors



5. Superior options were identified and implementation steps were described in a technical

report

Completion of the feasibility study would not have been possible without significant contributions

from agency staff. The efforts of the following staff are gratefully acknowledged:

Oakwood Lake Water District

Bert Michalczyk, PE – District Engineer

City of Manteca

Greg Showerman, PE, SE – Community Development Director

Mark Houghton, PE – Public Works Director

Kevin Jorgensen, PE – City Engineer

To date, four technical memoranda (TM) have been submitted for OLWD/City review: TM 1.0,

Summary of Existing Conditions [1]; 2) TM 2.0, Feasibility Study (50% Submittal) [2]; 3) TM 2.1,

Feasibility Study (Draft Final Submittal) [3]; and 4) TM 2.2, Feasibility Study (Pre-Final) [4].

Results from the various technical memoranda were shared with the HOA and Zone 39

stakeholders and input was solicited. The final report incorporates comments from City/District

staff, the HOA, and Zone 39 stakeholders. A list of attendees/participants in an April 30, 2018,

meeting between agency/consultant staff and Zone 39 stakeholders is included for reference in

Appendix A.

A discussion of background information, design criteria, wastewater/drainage alternatives,

probable costs, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/permitting strategy, and

implementation considerations are found in this final report, organized as follows: 1) Background

Information; 2) Description of Existing Drainage and Wastewater Systems; 3) Discussion of

Future Master Planned Facilities; 4) Summary of Design Criteria; 5) Summary of Construction

Constraints; 6) Summary of Environmental Constraints; 7) Wastewater Alternatives; 8) Drainage

Alternatives; and 9) Implementation Considerations. Each is presented below.

120

MC

KIN

LE

Y A

VE

BRONZAN RD

C

H

I

A

V

A

R

I

W

A

Y

C

A

S

T

E

L

L

I

N

A

W

A

Y

AP

LIC

ELLA

CT

S M

CK

IN

LE

Y A

VE

ATHERTON DR

D

R

E

D

G

E

R

C

U

T

NILE RD

DANIELS ST

W

A

L

T

H

A

L

L

S

L

O

U

G

H

S

A

N

J

O

A

Q

U

I

N

R

O

V

E

R

WOODWARD WAY

WOODWARD WAY

R

A

I

L

R

O

A

D

CO

MO

D

R

BE

LLA

LA

GO

W

AY

L

A

K

E

W

E

T

H

E

R

B

E

E

N:\226117-0000207.00\Cadd\Exhibits\TM 2.2\Figure 1-Land Use.dwg SD 4/30/2018

LEGEND

AG (AGRICULTURE)

GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)

LDR (LOW DENSITY RES.)

HDR (HIGH DENSITY RES.)

BIP (BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL PARK)

OS (OPEN SPACE)

P (PARK)

PQP (PUBLIC/QUAZI-PUBLIC)

UR-VLDR (UR-VERY LOW DENSITY RES.)

ZONE 39 BOUNDARY

1" = 650'

13006500

FIGURE 1

OAKWOOD LAKE WATER DISTRICT/CITY OF MANTECA


NOTES

1. DRAWING REFLECTS LAND USE SHOWN IN THE CITY OF

MANTECA GENERAL PLAN MAP IN NOVEMBER 2015.

MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO REFLECT THE EXISTING

LAKES AT OAKWOOD SHORES.



1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION DATABASE

Technical reports, record drawings, master plans, and design guidelines were collected to develop

the background information database. A summary of background documents and their purpose in

development of the project is provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1


SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION DATABASE

Background Document Purpose in Project Development

Manteca 2012 Wastewater Collection System

Master Plan Update [5]

Confirm sewer sizing/inverts design criteria/future

wastewater flows, optimum point of connection for service

to Oakwood Shores

Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan [6] Confirm drainage strategy for Zone 39

City of Manteca Standard Plans and

Specifications [7]

Define current City standards for drainage/wastewater

systems

Groundwater Study Summary Report [8] Establish groundwater levels and water surface elevations

in lake

Evaluation of Water Levels in Oakwood Lake [9] Define water surface elevations in lake

Lake Emergency Pump Station Plans [10] Confirm pump station capacity/conditions/ opportunities for

incorporation into drainage alternative

Manteca Sewer Force Main Connection Plans for

Oakwood Shores [11]

Consider as possible sewer service option

Oakwood Lake Unit No. XX-4 Plans [12] Confirm existing sewer collection system layout/lift station

capacities

Oakwood Lake Subdivision Offsite [13] Identify sewer system connectivity and hydraulic grade

lines

Oakwood Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant [14] Confirm effluent pump station invert

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

Existing drainage and wastewater systems are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. A brief description

follows below.

MANTECA

WQCF

N:\226117-0000207.00\Cadd\Exhibits\TM 2.2\Figure 2-Drainage.dwg AM 4/30/2018

1" = 600'

6003000

FIGURE 2



N:\226117-0000207.00\Cadd\Exhibits\TM 2.2\Figure 3-Sewer.dwg AM 4/30/2018

1" = 600'

1,2006000

FIGURE 3



2.1 Drainage Systems

With the exception of Drain 11 near the southerly boundary of Zone 39, there are no regional

drainage facilities in the Study area. Within Oakwood Shores, there are a number of local storm

drains ranging in diameter from 12- to 30-inches that discharge to either of the two lakes within the

development. A 36-inch cross connection between the two lakes helps maintain comparable water

levels. A storm drain outfall constructed along Chiavari Way discharges to the San Joaquin River

and can be used in conjunction with an emergency pump station to drain the lakes in the event of

high water levels. The condition of the outfall, however, is unknown and long-term reliability may

be problematic. Pump station capacity ranges from 5 to 7 cubic feet per second (cfs). Operation of

the emergency pump station is rare and refurbishment of electrical systems may be required if

long-term operation is desired. The referenced storm drain outfall had previously been permitted

by the State [15], but the permit has expired and will require renewal.

To the east and northeast of Zone 39, there is considerable drainage infrastructure jointly used by

the City and SSJID in Zones 24 and 36. Drains 7, 8, and 9 ultimately converge north of State

Route 120 (SR-120) forming the FCOC, a large drainage ditch that receives agricultural tailwater

during the irrigation season and significant volumes of stormwater during the winter.

Undergrounding of select reaches of Drain 7, Drain 8, and the FCOC is currently planned across

City property north of SR-120 in support of development of the Family Entertainment Zone. Based

on an agreement between the City and SSJID, discharge of local stormwater to the joint use

facilities is restricted to controlled pumping from detention basins.

Development of properties within Zone 39 will require construction of a regional drainage

network. If future Zone 39 facilities rely on discharge to SSJID facilities within Zone 24 and

Zone 36, annexation of properties within Zone 39 by SSJID would be required. Current

annexation costs to SSJID are $2,600/acre excluding infrastructure costs for conveying drainage

from Zone 39. Required infrastructure would likely include construction of the South Drain Pump

Station, a large-diameter force main crossing of SR-120, and connection to the FCOC. Total costs

for a regional drainage solution involving SSJID are projected at $7.5 million [16] which includes:

a $2.5 million SSJID annexation fee, $2.5 million for the South Drain Pump Station, $1.0 million

for the bore and jack large-diameter force main crossing under SR-120, and $1.0 million for the

additional force main connection/discharge to FCOC. Interest is strong among Zone 39 property

owners to identify a less-costly alternative that avoids reliance on annexation to and use of SSJID

facilities.

2.2 Wastewater Systems

Wastewater from Oakwood Shores is collected in a series of gravity sewers ranging in diameter

from 6- to 10-inches and conveyed via a series of lift stations/force mains to an onsite WWTP. The

collection system includes three lift stations with capacities from 170 to 350 gpm as summarized in

Table 2. Lift Station No. 1 lifts wastewater for subsequent gravity flow to Lift Station No. 2. Both

Lift Stations No. 2 and No. 3 then pump directly to the WWTP. Plant effluent is pumped through a

6-inch diameter force main to two storage ponds and reuse areas along Chiavari Way.



TABLE 2

OAKWOOD LAKE WATER DISTRICT

EXISTING PUMP STATION INFORMATION

Designation Number

of Pumps

Capacity

(gpm)

TDH

(ft)

Horsepower

(hp)

Force Main

Diameter (in)

Pump Station No. 1 2 210 25 3 6



East of Oakwood Shores within the City, wastewater is conveyed by gravity through a trunk sewer

network ranging in diameter from 30- to 60-inches. The trunk sewer network is generally located

in Woodward Avenue until the pipeline is routed north across SR-120 and ultimately to the

Manteca Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF). Effluent from the WQCF is discharged to

the San Joaquin River through a 36-inch diameter pipeline near OLWD storm drain outfall.

Wastewater flows from Oakwood Shores and the adjacent MHP are summarized in Table 3.

Wastewater flows average approximately 71,000 gallons/day (gpd) with maximum monthly flows

reaching 121,000 gpd. Wastewater flows are expected to increase 30 percent at buildout of

Oakwood Shores.

TABLE 3

OAKWOOD LAKE WATER DISTRICT WWTP

INFLUENT WASTEWATER FLOWS

SEPTEMBER 2016 - AUGUST 2017

Month Average Daily

Flow, gpd

Peak Daily

Flow, gpd

Sep-16 49,967 82,000

Oct-16 51,032 74,500

Nov-16 52,000 65,000

Dec-16 54,323 68,000

Jan-17 61,516 79,000

Feb-17 76,286 121,000

Mar-17 83,161 100,000

Apr-17 85,933 95,000

May-17 86,548 114,000

Jun-17 85,667 116,000

Jul-17 82,645 91,000

Aug-17 82,000 104,000

Average Flow 70,907

Max Flow 121,000



As noted earlier, the OLWD WWTP has experienced multiple issues with regulatory compliance.

The operational capacity of the facility is considerably less than the stated design capacity

resulting in process upsets and poor effluent quality. The lack of plant capacity also serves as a

constraint to future building within Oakwood Shores by Lafferty Communities (dba Oakwood

Ventures LT II). A major overhaul of the WWTP has been planned to correct deficiencies and to

improve performance. Budgetary costs for the WWTP upgrade are projected at $3.5 million with

Oakwood Ventures LT II contributing approximately $2.0 million with the $1.5 million balance

funded by OLWD [17]. Connection to the City wastewater collection system represents an

alternative to the WWTP replacement project and a potential opportunity to lower long-term

monthly wastewater fees to OLWD customers.

3.0 DISCUSSION OF FUTURE MASTER PLANNED FACILITIES

Future facilities within Zone 39 are addressed in the 2013 Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan

(2013 SDMP) [6]. The 2012 Manteca Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2012

WWCSMP) [5] identified a possible service connection for Oakwood Shores to the City system.

Both drainage and wastewater master plan improvements are discussed below and illustrated in

Figures 2 and 3.

3.1 Zone 39 Master Plan

Zone 39 is located outside of the SSJID service area and properties cannot discharge stormwater to

SSJID facilities without prior annexation. An exception was granted however for the Dutra Estates

subdivision in the northeast quadrant of Zone 39 which is allowed to discharge to Drain 8 for an

annual fee paid to SSJID until regional facilities are constructed in Zone 39. Because of the desire

to explore options outside of annexation to SSJID, the City developed a stormwater disposal

strategy that did not involve connection to SSJID facilities such as Drain 8 and the FCOC. The

disposal strategy consisted of a series of detention basins within the developable areas with

controlled pumping and monitoring systems that would discharge to a regional network and

pumping plant. Stormwater would eventually be routed to Walthall Sough via a swale and outfall.

Upon completion of the regional facilities, Dutra Estates would discontinue discharge to Drain 8

and connect to the regional pump station. Because of significant permitting issues with the US

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), discharge to the Walthall Slough as envisioned in the 2013

SDMP has proven problematic.

The other potential permanent storm drain system, rather than piping around Oakwood Lake as

described above, involves annexing Zone 39 into the SSJID boundary. Currently, the City and

SSJID have an agreement that triggers construction of the South Drain Pump Station when the

storm runoff in Drain 8 reaches 47.2 cfs. The South Drain Pump Station would be sized to convey

all storm runoff from Zone 39 and other tributary areas south of SR-120 and pump it via a force

main under SR-120 and discharge into the FCOC.

Although discharging stormwater from Zone 39 to the Walthall Slough is specifically addressed in

the 2013 SDMP (page 9), this is not considered a viable permanent solution. For economic and

environmental reasons, the City currently has no plans to pursue this option as a permanent storm

drain system for Zone 39.



3.2 2012 Manteca Wastewater Collection System Master Plan

The 2012 WWCSMP established a blueprint for long-term wastewater service for areas south of

SR-120. The 2012 WWCSMP identified a series of projects to complete the South Manteca Trunk

Sewer network with a connection to the Manteca WQCF while eliminating the need for multiple

pumping stations and force mains for developments along Woodward Avenue, east of McKinley

Avenue. For planning purposes, wastewater service to Zone 39 properties including Oakwood

Shores was assumed with a series of pumping stations and force mains ranging in size from 8- to

18-inch diameter connected to a 30-inch trunk sewer in Woodward Avenue. Wastewater flows

from Oakwood Shores and the MHP were projected at approximately 375,000 gpd (average dry

weather flow). Pump station capacities (peak wet weather flow) were projected at 1.1 million

gallons per day (mgd) and 2.3 mgd for pumping plants at Oakwood Shores and The Trails of

Manteca, respectively.

4.0 SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA

Design assumptions for drainage and wastewater systems are presented below.

4.1 Drainage

Planning and design of stormwater collection, conveyance, and storage systems are predicated on

the following assumptions:

1. Runoff is attenuated through detention basins prior to discharge to regional facilities.

Detention basins will be sized to store a 10-yr, 48-hr event. Detention basins will empty

either by gravity or pumps, over a 96-hr period. The bottom elevation of the detention

basin will be a minimum of 2 ft above the groundwater elevation.

2. The high-water level in the storage system will be a minimum of 1 ft below the lowest

grade elevation of the property served.

3. Minimum pipe diameter of storm drains will be 12-inches. Pipe velocities will range from

2.5 to 10.0 feet per second (ft/sec). Storm drains will have a minimum cover of 30-inches.

4. Manholes will be located at junction points, changes in alignment, and changes in pipe

size. Manholes will be spaced every 300 ft for pipe diameters less than 21-inches and 500

ft for pipe diameters greater than 21-inches.

5. Detention basin pump stations will be designed to discharge the 10-yr, 48-hr storm volume

from the basin during a period of not less than 96 hrs. Pump stations will be equipped with

a minimum of one standby unit. Pump stations will be designed with trash racks and

sediment dams.

6. Drainage channels will be designed to confine the peak 100-yr discharge with 2 ft of

freeboard.



7. Water surface elevation (WSEL) in the San Joaquin River at the railroad bridge crossing

near the OLWD storm drain outfall is: (a) 20.6 ft for 10-yr event; (b) 28.0 ft for 100-yr

event; and, (c) 29.0 ft for 200-yr event. All elevations reference NAVD88 datum.

8. Under Alternative 2 where drainage is routed to the lakes as described in Section 8.1B in

the Study, the highest WSEL in Oakwood Shores lake is 11.8 ft based on an evaluation of

long-term groundwater levels/lake levels [9]. If elevations exceed 11.8 ft, draining of the

lake via emergency pumping to maintain a maximum WSEL of 11.8 ft will be assumed.

4.2 Wastewater

Assumptions for the design of underground utility systems include the following:

1. Criteria for the design of gravity sewers are listed below:

a. The minimum depth of cover is 8 ft.

b. The maximum depth of cover is 30 ft.

c. Manholes are spaced every 400 ft for pipe diameter sizes ranging from 8- to 18-inches,

every 500 ft for pipe diameters ranging from 21- to 30-inches, and every 600 ft for pipe

diameters larger than 30-inches. Additionally, manholes are assumed at every junction

or change in pipe diameter.

d. Gravity sewers will be sized to flow 70-80 percent full.

e. Pipe velocities will range from 2-6 ft/sec.

2. The following design criteria will be used for force mains:

a. Minimum cover of 3 ft.

b. Velocities range from 2-6 ft/sec.

c. Plug valves will be installed every 1,000 ft and at major crossings.

d. Tracer wire will be provided.

e. Force mains will be constructed of PVC, AWWA C900/C905 materials.

3. Pump stations will be designed to meet the following criteria:

a. Duplex pump/lift stations for peak flow up to 2 mgd with each pump designed to meet

100 percent of peak flow.

b. Pump and impeller sizes will be selected with operating points within 60-115 percent of

the pump’s best efficiency point.



c. Pumps will be equipped with variable frequency drives to allow for pumps to meet a

variety of flow ranges.

d. Wet well inverts are approximated by assuming 8 ft minimum cover for upstream

gravity sewers and an average slope of 0.0042 from the furthest point within a sewer

shed.

e. Static lift is calculated as the difference between the wet well invert and the upstream

springline of the trunk sewer immediately downstream of the lift station.

5.0 SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINTS

Based on initial feedback from OLWD and City staff, supplemented by field observations, the

following construction constraints are apparent for wastewater and drainage alternatives:

1. Upgrade of the existing emergency lake pump station is likely required if this facility is to

be considered as part of a long-term regional drainage solution. Upgrade of the pump

station would include improvements to the pump station lake inlet structure.

2. Pipeline installation within streets within Oakwood Shores will likely require pavement

overlay beyond the trench limits to mitigate potential complaints from residents regarding

street condition. To the maximum extent possible, pipelines should be sited outside of the

paved travel way within the subdivision. Other public agency including OLWD right-of-

way (ROW) located back of curb can be utilized for pipeline installation.

3. Sewer lift stations serving Oakwood Shores generally consist of wet well, submersible

pumps, and free-standing electrical panels. OLWD will retain responsibility for wastewater

facilities within OLWD boundaries along with off-site pipelines connected to the City

trunk sewer network.

4. Construction of additional pipelines within subdivision streets may be more complex

because of the number of existing utilities (see Figure 4).

5. Improvements to the storm drain outfall (or a parallel outfall) through an existing flood

control levee would require, as a minimum, a permit from the State of California Central

Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) and Reclamation District 17 (RD-17) if the levee

falls within their jurisdiction. Approvals from the CVFPB and RD-17 would likely trigger

actions by the USACE, National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), the California

Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Regional Board. An example of likely

requirements for a new outfall through a federal/RD-17 levee is included in Appendix B.

23'-0"23'-0"

6'-0"12'-0"

23'-0"23'-0"

7'-0"

SIDEWALK

6'-0"12'-0"

12'-0"

10'-0" PG&E

EASEMENT

11'-8

1

2

"

10'-0"

20'-0"

PG&E EASEMENT

12" W

DEPTH ± 3.0'

18" SD

DEPTH ± 11.9'

6" W

DEPTH ± 3.0'

18" SD

DEPTH ± 11.9'

10" SS

DEPTH ± 19.3'

36" EFF

CITY OF MANTECA WQCF EFFLUENT LINE

DEPTH ± 5.5'

6" EFM

OLWD EFFLUENT FORCEMAIN

DEPTH ± 3.0'

(E) POWER POLE

10" SS

DEPTH ± 19.3'

7'-0"

SIDEWALK

16'-3

1

2

"

℄ R

OA

D

UNION PACIFIC

RAILROAD R.OW.

7'-0"

SIDEWALK

7'-0"

SIDEWALK

℄ R

OA

D

6'-0"

GROUND EL. ±0.0'

GROUND EL. ±0.0'

N:\226117-0000207.00\Cadd\Exhibits\TM 2.2\Figure 4-CrossSection.dwg SD 4/30/2018

FIGURE 4





6.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

A constraints analysis was prepared by Environmental Planning Partners (EPP) based on a site

visit/job walk of the potential construction corridors and a review of available databases. The

constraints analysis is included in Appendix C for reference. The constraints analysis focused on

local biological and cultural resources and possible actions that might be required to avoid impacts

during construction. Mitigations could include setbacks from biologically sensitive areas, seasonal

work constraints, exclusion from specific sites, and construction monitoring. Depending on the

selected construction corridor, consultation/permits may be required from the CDFW. Biological

resources that were considered include Swainson’s Hawk, California Tiger Salamander, Western

Burrowing Owl, American Badger, San Joaquin Kit Fox, Valley Elderberry longhorn beetle, and

rare plants. Because of the suitability of habitat and known occurrences of certain species,

additional detailed surveys will likely be required during project design and environmental

documentation preparation.

7.0 WASTEWATER ALTERNATIVES

Three alternatives were explored for connecting the OLWD sewer system with the City. A

discussion of the three alternatives is provided below. Figures 5-7 illustrate the respective

alternatives. An opinion of probable construction costs for each alternative is also provided.

7.1 Description of Alternatives

All three alternatives utilize components of the existing OLWD sewer system to convey

wastewater to the City collection system. Each of the alternatives includes upgrading one or more

existing pump stations at Oakwood Shores. Alternatives 2 and 3 would eliminate one pump

station in OLWD’s existing system.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 takes advantage of the existing OLWD sewer system by re-routing flow from Pump

Station No. 2 which was directed to the WWTP to Pump Station No. 3. A proposed 10-inch

gravity pipeline will redirect flow at the WWTP site from Pump Station No. 2 to Pump Station

No. 3. Upgrades to Pump Station No. 3 will be necessary to convey wastewater to a future

manhole in Woodward Avenue downstream of the discharge from the future Trails of Manteca

Pump Station. A proposed 8-inch, 3,000 ft long sanitary sewer force main will convey flow

easterly along Aplicella Court to Woodward Avenue. Alignment of the force main within RD-17

ROW may be explored. At the Aplicella Court and Woodward Avenue intersection, the force

main will be routed north for 850 ft and then head east within Woodward Avenue. From the future

manhole, wastewater will flow by gravity through an 18-inch sewer to a connection to an existing

City 30-inch trunk sewer. The length of the 18-inch sewer is approximately 2,870 ft. The 18-inch

sewer would be shared by OLWD and the Trails of Manteca (see Figure 5).

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 redirects wastewater from Pump Station No. 3 to Pump Station No 2 and gravity

flows from Pump Station No. 2 to Pump Station No. 1, which will be modified to pump

wastewater along Bronzan Road to a manhole south of SR-120. A proposed 6-inch force main will



connect Pump Station No. 3 to the existing 6-inch effluent force main. Construction of an

interconnection between the existing 6-inch effluent force main and the 8-inch force main from

Pump Station No. 2 will allow OLWD to accommodate future development. Wastewater collected

from Aplicella Court will be pumped to the existing wet well at Pump Station No. 2 from Pump

Station No. 3. To eliminate the need for Pump Station No. 2, a proposed 10-inch gravity sewer

line will connect the Pump Station No. 2 wet well to Pump Station No. 1. Service laterals between

Pump Station No. 2 and Pump Station No. 1 will need to be re-connected to the new 10-inch

gravity sewer. Pump Station No. 1 will be upgraded to pump wastewater from Oakwood Shores to

the connection into the City system. A proposed 8-inch force main will convey wastewater

7,360 ft to the existing 60-inch City trunk sewer south of SR-120 (see Figure 6). The route of the

force main within OLWD ROW (existing and to be acquired in the future) is intended to avoid

construction within subdivision streets.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 repurposes the existing 6-inch effluent force main from the WWTP to convey

wastewater to Pump Station No. 1 where wastewater will be pumped along Bronzan Road to an

existing 60-inch trunk sewer south of SR-120. A 10-inch gravity will feed wastewater to a

proposed pump station downstream of the existing effluent pump station at the WWTP,

eliminating the need for Pump Station No. 3. The existing 8-inch force main at Pump Station

No. 2 will be connected to the 6-inch effluent force main. Similar to Alternative No. 2, Pump

Station No. 1 will be upgraded to convey wastewater along Bronzan Road to a connection to the

60-inch trunk sewer at Atherton Drive. The same proposed 7,360 ft of force main described in

Alternative 2 will convey water from Pump Station No. 1 into the City sewer system (see

Figure 7).

Repurposing of the existing 6-inch effluent force main will require a detailed construction

sequencing plan to minimize any interruptions to WWTP operation. A temporary pumping/ return

piping network is anticipated between the WWTP and a nearby effluent storage pond to allow for

limited work periods when the effluent force main is removed from service for modification.

Temporary storage of plant effluent with subsequent return to the effluent pump station for

conveyance off-site represents a convenient method to avoid impacts to effluent disposal practices.

N:\226117-0000207.00\Cadd\Exhibits\TM 2.2\Figure 5-Sewer - Alt 1.dwg AM 4/30/2018

1" = 600'

1,2006000

FIGURE 5

NOTES:

1. REDIRECT FLOW FROM PUMP STATION

NO. 2 TO PUMP STATION NO. 3.

2. UPGRADE PUMP STATION NO. 3 TO

CONVEY WASTEWATER TO A FUTURE

MANHOLE DOWNSTREAM OF FUTURE

TRAILS OF MANTECA PUMP STATION.

3. WASTEWATER FROM OLWD AND TRAILS

OF MANTECA WOULD FLOW BY GRAVITY

THROUGH AN 18" SS CONNECTION TO THE

CITY COLLECTION SYSTEM.

N:\226117-0000207.00\Cadd\Exhibits\TM 2.2\Figure 6-Sewer-Alt 2.dwg AM 4/30/2018

1" = 600'

1,2006000

FIGURE 6

NOTES:

1. REROUTE WASTEWATER FROM PUMP

STATION NO. 3 TO PUMP STATION NO. 2.

2. CONNECT PUMP STATION NO. 2 WET

WELL TO THE EXISTING MANHOLE AT

CHIVARI WAY AND CASTELLINA WAY.

3. CONSTRUCT 10" SS GRAVITY PIPELINE TO

PUMP STATION NO. 1. RECONSTRUCT

LATERALS TO THE PROPOSED LINE.


CONVEY WASTEWATER ALONG BRONZAN

RD TO THE EXISTING MANHOLE SOUTH

OF SR-120.

5. APPROXIMATELY 1,550 LF OF R.O.W. WILL

BE REQUIRED TO EXTEND THE

PROPOSED 8" SSFM FROM BRONZAN

ROAD TO ATHERTON DRIVE.

N:\226117-0000207.00\Cadd\Exhibits\TM 2.2\Figure 7-Sewer-Alt 3.dwg AM 4/30/2018

1" = 600'

1,2006000

FIGURE 7

NOTES:

1. ROUTE WASTEWATER FROM PUMP

STATION NO. 3 TO A PROPOSED PUMP

STATION NEAR (E) EFFLUENT / BACKWASH

PUMP STATION. .

2. RE-PURPOSE EXISTING EFFLUENT FORCE

MAIN TO CONVEY WASTEWATER TO PUMP

STATION NO. 1.

3. RECONFIGURE PUMP STATION NO. 2 TO

DISCHARGE INTO THE EXISTING EFFLUENT

FORCE MAIN TO CONVEY FLOW TO PUMP

STATION NO. 1.


CONVEY WASTEWATER ALONG BRONZAN

ROAD TO AN EXISTING MANHOLE SOUTH

OF SR-120.

5. APPROXIMATELY 1,550 LF OF R.O.W. WILL

BE REQUIRED TO EXTEND THE PROPOSED

8" SSFM FROM BRONZAN ROAD TO

ATHERTON DRIVE.



Probable Construction Costs

A summary of probable construction costs for the three wastewater conveyance alternatives is

presented in Table 4.

TABLE 4



WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVES

ENGINEER’S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

Item

No. Description Unit Qty

Unit

Cost ($)

Total

Cost ($)

Alternative 1

1.01 48-inch Sanitary Sewer Manhole EA 1 4,000 4,000

1.02 10-inch Sanitary Sewer, Open Cut Reach End of 8-inch

Sanitary Sewer Force Main from Pump Station No. 2 to

Pump Station No. 3 LF 400 100 40,000

1.03 Connect Proposed 8-inch Sanitary Sewer Force Main to

Existing Pump Station No. 3 EA 1 10,000 10,000

1.04 8-inch Sanitary Sewer Force Main, Open Cut Reach from

Aplicella Court to Woodward Avenue LF 3,030 125 379,000

1.05 8-inch Sanitary Sewer Force Main, Open Cut Reach along

Woodward Avenue to Future Trails of Manteca Pump

Station LF 4,650 125 581,000

1.06 18-inch Sanitary Sewer, Open Cut Reach along Woodward

Avenue to South McKinley Avenuea LF 2,870 150 430,000

1.07 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole EA 1 35,000 35,000

1.08 8-inch Plug Valves EA 8 4,000 32,000

1.09 Upgrade Pump Station No. 3 LS 1 100,000 100,000

1.10 Pavement Removal and Replacement LF 10,500 15 158,000

Subtotal - Alternative 1 1,769,000

Construction Contingency 20% 354,000

Summary of Probable Construction Cost - Alternative 1 2,123,000



TABLE 4 (continued)



WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVES


Item

No. Description Unit Qty

Unit

Cost ($)

Total

Cost ($)

Alternative 2

2.01 6-inchSewer Force Main, Open Cut Reach Pump Station No.

3 to Existing 6-inch Effluent Force Main LF 530 80 42,000

2.02 Interconnection between Existing 6-inch Effluent Force

Main and Existing 8-inch Sanitary Sewer Force Main LS 1

10,000 10,000

2.03 Connection from Existing 6-inch Effluent Force Main to

Existing Pump Station No. 2 LS 1

35,000 35,000

2.03 10-inch Sanitary Sewer, Open Cut Reach Pump Station No.

2 to Pump Station No. 1 LF 3,600 100 360,000

2.04 Reconnect Existing Sewer Laterals along Chiavari Way EA 48 1,500 72,000

2.05 48-inch Sanitary Sewer Manhole EA 11 4,000 44,000



Pump Station No. 1 along Bronzan Road LF 7,360 125 920,000

2.08 Connection to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole LS 1 35,000 35,000






Alternative 3

3.01 Proposed Pump Station near Existing Effluent Pump Station LS 1 150,000 150,000

3.02 6-inch Sanitary Sewer Force Main, Open Cut Reach Pump

Station No. 3 to Existing 6-inch Effluent Force Main LF 530 80 42,000

3.03 Connect Existing 6-inch Effluent Force Main to Pump

Station No. 1 LS 1

35,000 35,000



Pump Station No. 1 along Bronzan Road LF 7,360 125 920,000

3.06 Connection to Existing Manhole LS 1 35,000 35,000






a 18-inch sanitary sewer may be a reimbursable cost under City PFIP program. Based on flow contributions, OLWD share of costs

would be approximately 1/3.



7.2 Analysis of Alternatives

To determine the possible hydraulic impacts from discharge of peak wet weather flows from

Oakwood Shores to the existing City collection system, the City wastewater collection system

master plan hydraulic model was utilized. Considering master plan buildout flows, wastewater

discharges for the three alternatives were applied and the capacity of the downstream system

components were reviewed. In all cases, no surcharging of sewers was predicted with only

minimal changes in available pipeline capacity. With the only exception occurring at the SR-120

crossing, pipelines will flow less than 80 percent full with the contribution from Oakwood Shores.

The 48-inch pipeline crossing would experience flows at 90 percent of pipeline capacity.

One impact common to all three alternatives to be considered in any future implementation

strategy relates to the loss of non-potable water (WWTP effluent) for irrigation of landscaped areas

within Oakwood Shores. Currently, effluent from the WWTP augments other irrigation supplies

for common areas along the streets of the development. If wastewater service is obtained from the

City, the source of non-potable water would no longer exist for irrigation. Replacement of this

source (approximately 70,000 gpd) with potable water would generate costs of $60,000/yr based

on the current OLWD billing rate for potable water.

7.3 Comparison of Alternatives

Each of the wastewater alternatives were evaluated considering economic and non-economic

factors using an evaluation matrix and weighted ratings. These factors are summarized in Table 5.

TABLE 5

WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVES FOR CONNECTION TO CITY SYSTEM

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA/IMPORTANCE FACTOR

Evaluation Criteria Description Importance

Factor

Construction cost Relative magnitude of capital investment 1.0

Operations/maintenance

requirements

Relative magnitude of long-term recurring costs 0.5

Available vs. needed ROW Relative amount of ROW available for

construction

0.7

Public inconvenience and

safety

Relative level of traffic control required and

potential impacts to homeowner

access/emergency vehicles egress/ingress

0.7

Environmental impacts Potential to impact sensitive biological resources 0.5

In evaluating an alternative, a score of 1-5 was selected for each criterion. Low scores reflected an

inferior alternative while a score of 5 signified a superior strategy when considering a specific

evaluation criterion. As an example, for the criterion “Available vs. needed ROW,” if the

alternative required ROW acquisition, the alternative would be assigned a low score. In contrast,

alternatives that can be constructed within the existing ROW would receive a higher score. By

then applying the importance factor to each criterion score, a weighted score could be calculated



and aggregated to identify a preferred alternative. This process is summarized in Table 6. As

shown in the referenced table, Alternative 1 has the highest score in the evaluation.

Another factor favoring Alternative 1 is the ability to expand services beyond Oakwood Shores to

include development adjacent to Wetherbee Lake. Under this scenario, wastewater would be

conveyed around Walthall Slough via a trenchless crossing with a connection to Pump Station

No. 3.



TABLE 6

EVALUATION MATRIX FOR WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVES

FOR CONNECTION TO CITY SYSTEM

Criteria Importance

Factor

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Comments

Value Weighted Value Weighted Value Weighted

Construction cost 1.0 3 3.0 2 2.0 5 5.0 Alternative 3 has the lowest capital cost but

relies on reuse of existing 13-yr old plant

effluent force main. Alternative 2 costs may

increase during construction due to

unforeseen utility conflicts with McKinley

Avenue interchange improvements.


requirements

0.5 3 1.5 5 2.5 1 0.5 Alternative 2 eliminates the need for Pump

Station No. 2, thereby reducing annual

energy costs. Because of a reliance on an

existing pipeline, more maintenance and

inspection of this asset is anticipated under

Alternative 3.

Available vs. needed

ROW

0.7 5 3.5 1 0.7 1 0.7 Alternative 1 can be constructed within

existing OLWD or RD-17 ROW.

Alternatives 2 and 3 require acquisition of

ROW east of McKinley Avenue.

Public inconvenience

and safety

0.7 3 2.1 3 2.1 5 3.5 Alternative 3 pipeline construction can be

located outside of vehicle travel path within

OLWD ROW, therefore minimizing

potential inconveniences. Alternatives 2

and 3 have limited areas of construction in

paved roads.

Environmental impacts 0.5 5 2.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 Construction east of McKinley Avenue is

adjacent to undeveloped area with multiple

biological resources that may trigger

mitigations and extend construction

timeline.

Totals 12.6 7.8 10.2



8.0 DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES

To route and discharge stormwater runoff from the proposed developments within Zone 39, three

alternatives were evaluated. Each alternative is described below. An opinion of probable

construction costs for each alternative is also provided.

8.1 Description of Alternatives

Alternative 1 conveys runoff westerly and ties into the existing storm drain line(s) near the current

Oakwood Lake outfall. Alternative 2 also carries runoff westerly, but the discharge location is

Oakwood Lake. Alternative 3 includes conveyance of drainage westerly to the existing WWTP

site to a future pump station that will discharge to a new river outfall. Figure 8 provides a

graphical representation of these alternatives. Further discussion of each alternative is included

below.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 proposes an approximately 11,320 ft long 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP),

gravity driven storm drain line along Bronzan Road and Chiavari Way. The upstream and

downstream termini are approximately 1,500 ft east of the Bronzan Road and McKinley Avenue

intersection and near the existing 18-inch and 20-inch storm drain lines at the lake outfall,

respectively. These two existing storm drain lines combine into one line, which then continues

westerly through the right bank (looking downstream) San Joaquin River levee, to its ultimate

outfall location into the San Joaquin River.

Because of the elevation drop over the pipeline length, a pump station will be necessary at the

downstream tie-in location to lift the discharge to meet the existing storm drain lines and provide

positive head in relation to potential downstream losses and the San Joaquin River water levels

during storm events. The pump station would likely be located near the existing emergency lake

pump station. Discharge to the existing storm drain line will be limited to the permitted capacity

of 18.6 mgd (approximately 28.8 cubic feet per second (cfs)).

MANTECA

WQCF

1" = 600'

6003000

FIGURE 8

N:\226117-0000207.00\Cadd\Exhibits\TM 2.2\Figure 8 - Drainage Facilties.dwg SD 4/30/2018



Alternative 2

Alternative 2 utilizes a 42-inch RCP gravity storm drain along Woodward Avenue to convey

stormwater runoff. The storm drain is proposed to run approximately 6,800 ft from the Woodward

Avenue and South McKinley Avenue intersection to its outfall into Oakwood Lake (south lake).

Upon re-activation, the existing pump station within Oakwood Lake would be used under

emergency conditions when lake levels rise above acceptable levels (i.e., maximum WSEL of

11.8 ft). Due to the additional inflow from the proposed developments which will further raise lake

levels during storm events, it is anticipated that the use frequency of the pump station will

increase. To minimize water surface elevation increases in the lake during storm events, pumping

capacity will be increased to the permitted value of 18.6 mgd (approximately 28.8 cfs) from the

current capacity of 5-7 cfs. As part of this alternative, it will be necessary to upgrade the lake

pump station to meet these increased operational demands.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1, with the exception that the pipeline runs along the

southerly side of Oakwood Lake. Specifically, Alternative 3 proposes the use of a 42-inch RCP

gravity storm drain line that runs approximately 10,900 ft from the Woodward Avenue and South

McKinley Avenue intersection, westerly along Woodward Avenue and Aplicella Court (within

OLWD or RD-17 ROW, outside of paved areas), before terminating at the existing WWTP. A

proposed pump station at this terminus location with discharge limited to the permitted value of

18.6 mgd (approximately 28.8 cfs) will be necessary and is included in this alternative along with a

new outfall. Routing of the 42-inch RCP to a tie-in to the existing 18-inch and 20-inch storm drain

lines is not considered practical because of utility conflicts through the MHP area.

Probable Construction Costs

A summary of probable construction costs for the three drainage alternatives is presented in

Table 7.



TABLE 7



DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES


Item No. Description Unit Qty Unit

Cost ($)

Total

Cost ($)

Alternative 1

1.01 72-inch Storm Drain Manhole EA 24 5,700 137,000

1.02 42-inch Storm Drain, Open Cut LF 11,320 250 2,850,000

1.03 Connect to Existing 20-inch Storm Drain EA 1 5,000 5,000


1.05 Upgrade Existing Pump Station LS 1 500,000 500,000




Alternative 2



2.03 42-inch Storm Drain, Bore and Jack LF 100 800 80,000

2.04 Jacking Shaft EA 1 100,000 100,000

2.05 Inlet Structure into Lake EA 1 10,000 10,000


2.07 Upgrade Existing Pump Station LS 1 500,000 500,000




Alternative 3





3.05 Outfall Pump Station LS 1 750,000 750,000




8.2 Analysis of Alternatives

Drainage alternatives are discussed considering stormwater quality impacts and system

hydrology/hydraulics impacts.



Stormwater Quality

A discussion of stormwater quality including regulatory setting, local requirements, best

management practices (BMPs), likely water quality improvements from BMPs, and operation and

maintenance of BMPs is presented below.

1. Regulatory Setting

In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act (CWA)) was amended

to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharge

of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source. In 1987, the CWA was

amended to add section 402(p) which required that municipal, industrial, and construction

stormwater discharges be regulated under the NPDES permit program. In 1990, the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated rules that established the

Phase I NPDES program to regulate stormwater from medium and large Municipal

Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4s), which were defined as those serving populations of

100,000 or greater. In 1999, USEPA promulgated rules that established the Phase II

NPDES program to regulate stormwater from small MS4s.

2. Local Requirements

The County of San Joaquin (County) and the City are both classified as Phase II MS4

communities and as such are required to regulate stormwater and non-stormwater

discharges from their MS4 to waters of the United States. In 2015, The City and County

collaborated with four other local agencies (Lathrop, Lodi, Patterson, and Tracy) to develop

a Multi-Agency Post Construction Stormwater Standards Manual (Stormwater Standards

Manual) which provides guidance for planning, implementing, and maintaining effective

water quality control measures for new and redevelopment projects [18]. These post-

construction standards became effective on July 1, 2015, and apply to all new and/or

redevelopment projects that do not have a previously-approved vested tentative map. Per

the Stormwater Standards Manual, any new development project that creates and/or

replaces more than 5,000 sq ft of impervious area is considered a regulated project and is

required to provide treatment measures to address water quality and hydromodification

impacts. All regulated projects must submit a Project Stormwater Plan (PSP) to the

appropriate jurisdictional agency as part of its development review application to ensure

the proper measures are being incorporated for water quality protection prior to obtaining

any building or grading permits.

3. Summary of Best Management Practices

All three drainage alternatives will be required to implement BMPs within their planned

development areas. Alternative 2 is the most controversial alternative with regards to water

quality because this option would convey all stormwater drainage into the existing

Oakwood Lake. Based on feedback from a public presentation to the HOA, residents

within the existing Oakwood Shores development are concerned about further degradation

to the existing lakes, which have experienced algae blooms and fish kills within the past



year. Potential pollutants from a master planned residential development include: bacteria,

nutrients, pesticides, sediment, trash/debris, and oil/grease. All three drainage alternatives

will incorporate site design, source control, and treatment control measures to prevent

and/or treat potential pollutants of concern from the planned development areas. Specific

types of measures that have already been incorporated during the master planning of these

projects or that can be incorporated during the design phase of these developments are

discussed in further detail below.

a. Site Design Measures

Site planning measures have already been incorporated

into many of the planned development areas as the

majority of new development will be low-density

residential. The runoff coefficient for low-density

residential is 0.3 which means that only 30 percent of the

rainfall that is received will actually become runoff with

the balance infiltrating into the ground. The low-density

classification also reduces the amount of overall

impervious or hardscaped areas which reduces the

pollutants that will be conveyed downstream to the

proposed treatment facilities. Once these developments

move into more precise grading, additional site design

BMPs will be incorporated within the individual lots to additionally infiltrate and

reduce stormwater runoff by directing runoff to landscaped areas. Other site design

principles that may be included within the overall site layout include use of pervious

pavement within streets, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks, and/or trails to promote

infiltration and treatment. Vegetated swales may also be used to convey stormwater

runoff and offer filtration benefits in contrast to discharging directly into an

underground storm drain system. Vegetated swales would ultimately connect to large

water quality (bioretention) basins at each discharge point.

b. Source Control

Source control measures that are typical of residential development projects and that

can be included into the Zone 39 Master Plan developments during the design stage

are shown in Table 8.



TABLE 8

POTENTIAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS THAT COULD BE INCLUDED

IN MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENTS

Source Control BMP Description

Designing efficient

irrigation systems

Installation of rain-triggered shutoff device to prevent

irrigation when raining,

Installation of flow reducers/shutoff valves to control water

loss in the event of a broken sprinkler head or line

Installation of water sensors or programmable irrigation times

to avoid over-watering.

Use of drought tolerant planting to reduce overall water use

and pesticide and fertilizer use.

Storm drain stenciling Stencils or ID placards can be placed at all storm drain inlets

to discourage dumping and to identify that only stormwater

can be discharged into the storm drain system.

Roof runoff controls Directing roof runoff away from paved areas and into

landscaped areas to provide water quality benefits prior to

entering the storm drain system.

c. Treatment and Hydromodification Controls

Under the current Phase II MS4 permit requirements and the 2015 Stormwater

Standards Manual, all regulated projects are required to provide water quality

treatment of stormwater runoff on their sites. Within the Zone 39 area, there are

several master planned developments that will be required to comply with these new

regulations. Each development has incorporated a large bioretention basin at the

ultimate discharge point from the development. The bioretention basins have been

sized to accommodate the smaller, more frequent flows from the water quality storm

events and detain the larger storm events for flood control purposes. The bioretention

basins are referred to in this Study as “conjunctive-use basins” because of their multi-

use purposes for water quality and flood control. These basins will also be sized to

incorporate any necessary hydromodification controls which will help prevent erosion

downstream. Additionally, each bioretention basin will have a pre-treatment water

quality device (such as a hydrodynamic separator) located just upstream of the basin

which will screen, separate, and trap debris, sediment, and hydrocarbons prior to

entering the basin. These pre-treatment devices will minimize clogging in the basins

and allow for maximum water quality benefits. The bioretention basins will each

have an underdrain pipe that is located approximately 2-3 ft below the surface and

will be connected to the nearest storm drain or stormwater conveyance system



downstream. Examples A and B below show further details of the proposed

bioretention basins.

Example A - Bioretention Basin installed in Residential Area

Example B - Bioretention Facility Schematic [15]

4. Likely Water Quality Improvements from BMPs

By incorporating site design and source control BMPs into each development project,

pollutant levels will be reduced in any stormwater runoff that travels downstream into any

type of stormwater conveyance system. In addition, each planned development area will be

broken down into one or more drainage management areas which will have a carefully

designed water quality basin upstream of each discharge point from the development

property. Bioretention basins have been proven to be one of the most effective BMPs for

removing multiple pollutant sources. Bioretention basins typically have a high removal

efficiency for trash, metals, bacteria, oil/grease, organics, and sediment and a medium



removal efficiency for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Typical removal efficiencies

that can be expected from bioretention basins are shown in Table 9.

TABLE 9

BIORETENTION (ESTIMATED) POLLUTANT

REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES [19]

Pollutant Source Rating Removal Efficiency

Heavy metals (Copper,

Zinc, and Lead) High 93%-98%

Nitrates Medium 70%-80%

Total Suspended Solids High 90%

Oil/Grease 67%

Organics High 90%

Bacteria High 90%

Total Phosphorus Medium 70-83%

Total Nitrogen Medium 68-80%

5. Operations and Maintenance of BMPs

All proposed BMPs will be required to have an operations and maintenance (O&M)

program in place prior to being built. The O&M program is developed by the engineer

who is submitting the PSP to the City or County for review prior to obtaining permits. The

O&M program must contain detailed training information for those who will be responsible

for maintaining the BMPs and the owner/operator of the BMP will be required to provide

annual self-certification to the required agency that the BMP is being properly maintained.

The PSP also includes a Maintenance Access Agreement which is a legally-binding

contract requiring on-going O&M of all BMPs after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

In discussions with one of the developers for a master planned community, it is understood

that the cities do not want a HOA to be responsible for the long-term maintenance or large

BMP facilities. Therefore, many cities, including Manteca, have formed community

facility districts (CFDs) which will take over the long-term maintenance of such facilities.

Based on the planned implementation of site, source, and treatment control BMPs for each

planned development area, it is expected that the water quality from these developed areas

will not further degrade the existing water quality downstream of these sites, specifically

Alternative 2 which would discharge all stormwater runoff into Oakwood Lake.

In addition, it is also important to note that the existing land use for the majority of the

Zone 39 area is agricultural. The most common causes of water quality degradation from

agricultural activities are sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. The existing agricultural

lands do not currently have BMPs installed for treatment of runoff. Therefore, it is highly

likely that by developing these areas and installing BMPs, such as the bioretention basins at

downstream discharge points from the developed areas, will actually improve the overall

stormwater runoff quality from the entire Zone 39 area.



System Hydrology/Hydraulic Impacts

The software program XP-SWMM (2016) was used to quantify the hydrologic and hydraulic

impacts of the proposed drainage alternatives. The sections below provide discussion of

methodology, input parameters, and model simulation results.

1. Hydrologic Calculations and Results

Hydrologic calculations within the study area were performed for the 10-year/24-hour, 10-

year/48-hour, and 100-year/24-hour storm events. (See Appendix D which includes Figure

A-1 for the study area drainage basin delineation and a tabular summary of the associated

model input values.) The computational procedures within XP-SWMM which generate

flow values require various input parameters, but they can generally be grouped in terms of

tributary drainage area, rainfall, and infiltration. The proposed conjunctive use water

quality and flood control basins within the planned Zone 39 developments include pumps

which control flow rates; so, although the basins/pumps are often thought of as hydraulic

facilities, they have been included in the hydrologic discussion.

a. Tributary Drainage Area

The drainage area within Zone 39 in the study can be thought of in terms two divides:

(1) the proposed developable area and (2) the area which currently contributes flow to

Oakwood Lake.

The proposed developable area is approximately 930 acres and is generally bound on

the south by the Weston Ranch South Levee, on the east by the City boundary, on the

north by SR-120, and on the west by Oakwood Lake. Currently, a majority of this

area is agricultural with a low-density residential pocket on the north side of Bronzan

Road. Rainfall in this area does not enter Oakwood Lake and largely infiltrates or is

conveyed to local irrigation ditches for agricultural purposes.

Once developed, this agricultural area will be primarily comprised of residential and

commercial land use. Generally, residential neighborhoods are planned south of

Bronzan Road and commercial/business areas will be located between SR-120 and

Bronzan Road. Conjunctive use water quality and flood control basins within each

planned development are proposed to attenuate peak flow rates.

Oakwood Lake proper is divided into two water bodies, termed the north lake and

south lake, for the purposes of this Study. The north and south lakes are hydraulically

connected with a 36-inch RCP. Total area tributary to the north and south lakes is

approximately 153 acres and 203 acres, respectively. Of these areas, approximately

76 acres and 119 acres encompass the physical water area for the north and south

lakes, respectively. Although the area tributary to the lakes is not currently at

buildout, calculations have assumed this to be the case.



Hydrologic modeling within SWMM requires that drainage areas are conceptualized

as rectangular planes. Therefore, sub-areas for the aforementioned divides were

separately created for the residential and commercial areas. In the residential areas,

rectangular widths were calculated assuming flow path lengths from the back-of-lot

to street flow line were approximately 100 ft. In commercial areas, sheet flow lengths

and widths were site specific. For both residential and commercial areas, sheet flow

slopes were assumed to be 0.5 percent.

b. Rainfall

As previously mentioned, the 10-year/24-hour, 10-year/48-hour, and

100-year/24-hour storm events were analyzed. Rainfall totals are as follows:

10-year/24-hour: 2.17 inches



The distribution was generally symmetrical and center peaking (e.g., at approximately

12 hours for the 24-hour events) for all events. The rainfall totals and distribution

patterns from the 2013 SDMP [6] were used in these analyses.

c. Infiltration

Horton infiltration methodology was specified for this Study as it was used in the

2013 SDMP. The Horton approach calculates effective runoff using a decaying

exponential curve based on elapsed time. Important input values include the

maximum (f0) and saturated (f∞) infiltration rates and a decay coefficient (kd).

Infiltration rate is primarily a function of soil type (e.g., a sandy soil will infiltrate

rainfall faster than a clay soil). Based on review of Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) soil data, the study area is generally comprised of Type A (sandy)

and Type C (clay) soils south and north of Woodward Avenue, respectively. Using

this information, the values presented in Table 10 were chosen:

TABLE 10

HORTON PARAMETERS FOR INFILTRATION

Soil Type Land Use f0 (in/hr) f∞ (in/hr) Decay (hr-1)

A Rural/Ag.

0.94 0.75 4

C 0.38 0.30 4

A Urban

0.71 0.56 4

C 0.29 0.23 4

Saturated infiltration values for the rural/agricultural areas were selected by

evaluating American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Manual of Engineering

Practice, No. 28 recommended values [20]. Compared to other sources (e.g., Rawls,



1976), these values are low. However, given the parameter variability, it was decided

that using a conservative value would be most appropriate. Due to the large storm

events that were the subject of this study, maximum infiltration values were then set

to be close (25 percent) to the saturated values under the assumption of a high

antecedent moisture condition (and potentially high groundwater table).

To account for potential soil compaction in the developed (i.e., urban) areas,

maximum and saturated infiltration values calculated for the rural/agricultural areas

were reduced by 25 percent.

The decay rate was set to 4 hr-1 as this assumes the infiltration capacity will fall to

98 percent of its maximum value in the first hour, which is known to be a common

observation for ponded conditions [21]. This rate was maintained for all soil

conditions as a definitive relationship to soil type has not been established.

Impervious percentages, under a directly connected assumption, also influence

effective rainfall calculations and are included in the model. The following values

were assumed:

(1) Oakwood Lake proper: 100 percent

(2) Oakwood Lake development: 80 percent (from aerial imagery)

(3) Proposed Zone 39 residential development: 65 percent

(4) General Commercial: 90 percent

The transformation of rainfall to runoff was performed using the ‘Runoff’

methodology in SWMM, which was specified in the 2013 SDMP. This methodology

is akin to kinematic wave routing whereby conservation of mass and normal depth

assumptions are combined and solved spatially and temporally.

Table 11 summarizes the approximate inflow values to Oakwood Lake.

TABLE 11

OAKWOOD LAKE INFLOW SUMMARY

DURING SELECT STORM EVENTS

Location Storm Event Inflow Volume (ft3)

Oakwood Lake

(north and south)

10-year, 24-hour 2,398,000

10-year, 48-hour 3,099,000

100-year, 24-hour 3,495,000

d. Detention Basins

Conjunctive use water quality and flood control detention basins are anticipated to be

incorporated into the various proposed developments. Although design details are

unknown at this stage, planning level basin siting and associated areas were available.

Basic detention basin geometry was then established using calculated inflow volumes



with these basin areas. It should be noted that the modeled detention basins are

considered representative as they may incorporate more than one basin. For example,

the Oakwood Trails development may utilize two detention basins in reality, but for

modeling purposes, only one basin, which accounts for the area of both basins, was

included.

It has also been assumed that pumps will be required to empty these detention basins

within 96 hours. Typical operating depths for pumps were assumed and flow rates

adjusted to satisfy basin emptying criteria. Pumping rates were included in the model

which allow for complete drawdown of the basins for all storm events consistent with

this criterion.

Table 12 summarizes the approximate inflow and outflow values for each

representative detention basin:

TABLE 12

REPRESENTATIVE DETENTION BASIN RESULTS

FOR PROPOSED ZONE 39 DEVELOPMENTS

Detention Basin Storm Event Inflow Volume (ft3) Peak Outflow Rate (cfs)

Terra Ranch

10-year, 24-hour 384,000

2.9 10-year, 48-hour 495,000

100-year, 24-hour 565,000

Cerri Property

10-year, 24-hour 748,000

3.8 10-year, 48-hour 963,000

100-year, 24-hour 1,104,000

The Trails at Manteca

10-year, 24-hour 1,491,000

9.4 10-year, 48-hour 1,920,000

100-year, 24-hour 2,201,000

Oakwood Trails

10-year, 24-hour 1,699,000

9.4 10-year, 48-hour 2,193,000

100-year, 24-hour 2,576,000

Denali

10-year, 24-hour 455,000

2.9 10-year, 48-hour 581,000

100-year, 24-hour 677,000

2. Hydraulic Calculations and Results

Hydraulic calculations and results performed for the three proposed alternatives are

discussed below. XP-SWMM graphical storm drain profiles and results are included in

Appendix D.



a. Alternative 1

The proposed storm drain that runs westerly along Bronzan Road, passes behind the

northeastern recycled water storage pond, and terminates at a proposed pump station

near the existing Oakwood Lake emergency outfall was modeled using the following

assumptions:

(1) Size: 42-inch RCP

(2) Length: Approximately 11,320 ft

(3) Upstream invert: 11 ft (provides ~2.5 ft of cover)

(4) Downstream invert: 0.3 ft

(5) Slope: 0.1 percent

(6) Downstream boundary condition: Free outfall. The maximum flow rate in the

storm drain line at the downstream end is approximately 28.1 cfs. This is less

than the permitted rate of approximately 28.8 cfs; therefore, the free outfall

condition assumes a conservation of mass pumping condition which satisfies

the criterion.

Because the inflow rates to the storm drain line are controlled by pumps and are

generally consistent for all studied storm events, the hydraulic results are also

consistent. Maximum velocities range from approximately 2 feet per second (ft/sec)

in the upstream pipe section to 4 ft/sec in the downstream section. Although the

storm drain line is under pressure, hydraulic grade lines are below the ground surface.

b. Alternative 2

The proposed storm drain that runs westerly along Woodward Avenue and discharges

into Oakwood Lake (south lake) was modeled using the following assumptions:




(4) Downstream invert: ~5.6 ft (above 2010-2016 average lake level of 5.4 ft)

(5) Slope: 0.05 percent (Upstream) to 0.1 percent (Downstream)

(6) Downstream boundary condition: Varies with lake level (see below)

Similar to Alternative 1, because the inflow rates to the storm drain line are controlled

by pumps and are generally consistent for all studied storm events, the storm drain

hydraulic results are also consistent (although there is some minor variance due to

boundary condition differences). Maximum velocities range from approximately

1 ft/sec in the upstream pipe section to 3 ft/sec in the downstream section near the

Oakwood Lake outfall. Although the storm drain line is under pressure, hydraulic

grade lines are below the ground surface.

Water surface elevations in Oakwood Lake were calculated in the model for the

following conditions (see Table 13):



(1) Scenario 1: Only the Oakwood Lake subdivision and physical lake area are

contributing runoff volume to the water surface elevation increase. There is

no pumping assumed in this scenario; therefore, the lakes are modeled as

sumps.

(2) Scenario 2: The Oakwood Lake subdivision and the Zone 39 proposed

development are both contributing runoff volume to the lakes. Similar to the

first scenario, there is no pumping assumed.

(3) Scenario 3: In this scenario, a constant pumping rate of 28.8 cfs (permitted

amount) was assumed with inflow volumes from both the Oakwood Lake

subdivision and Zone 39 proposed development.

The starting water surface elevation set in the model for Oakwood Lake (both lakes)

was assumed to be the maximum WSEL of 11.8 ft for all storm events. This value

represents a conservative lake level that combines a 100-year storm event with

parameters from a representative wet period (defined from 10/1/96 through 9/30/98).

TABLE 13

MAXIMUM COMPUTED OAKWOOD LAKE WATER

SURFACE ELEVATIONS (FT) FROM VARIOUS DRAINAGE SCENARIOS

Storm Event

Scenario 1:

Oakwood Lakea

Subdivision

Scenario 2:

Oakwood Lake

Subdivision + Zone 39

Scenario 3: Oakwood

Lake Subdivision +

Zone 39 + Pumpingb

10-year, 24-hour 12.1 12.7 11.9

10-year, 48-hour 12.2 13.0 11.8

100-year, 24-hour 12.2 13.2 12.1 a The north and south lakes are hydraulically connected with a 36-inch RCP, therefore, lake levels

are not identical during the simulation, but differences are typically less than 0.1 ft. b Assumes a constant pumping rate of 28.8 cfs which starts at the first simulation time step.

Depending on the storm event and scenario, water level increases in the lake varied

from 0.1-1.4 ft. To maintain a maximum WSEL of 11.8 ft, some degree of pumping

will be required.

c. Alternative 3

The proposed storm drain that runs along Woodward Avenue and Aplicella Court and

terminates at a proposed pump station near the existing WWTP outfall was modeled

using the following assumptions:




(4) Downstream invert: ~ -0.4 ft

(5) Slope: 0.05 percent (Upstream) to 0.1 percent (Downstream)



(6) Downstream boundary condition: Free outfall (same assumptions from

Alternative 1).

For all storm events, peak velocities range from approximately 2 ft/sec in the

upstream pipe section to over 4 ft/sec in the downstream sections. The storm drain

flows under open channel conditions for its entire length. It should be noted that

there appears to be an opportunity to reduce the Woodward Avenue storm drain

section to a 36-inch RCP with the hydraulic grade line below the ground should it be

desired to further explore this alternative (Alternative 3).

8.3 Comparison of Alternatives

Each of the drainage alternatives was evaluated considering economic and non-economic factors

using an evaluation matrix and weighted ratings. These factors are summarized in Table 14.

TABLE 14

REGIONAL DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA/IMPORTANCE FACTOR

Evaluation Criteria Description Importance Factor

Construction cost Relative magnitude of capital investment 1.0


requirements

Relative magnitude of long-term recurring costs 0.5

Water quality impacts Potential for impacting lake water quality

negatively

1.0

Permitting complexity Relative number of permits, difficulty in obtaining

permits/approvals

0.7


safety

Relative level of traffic control required and

potential impacts to homeowner access/emergency

vehicles egress/ingress

0.7

In evaluating an alternative, a score of 1-5 was selected for each criterion. Low scores reflected an

inferior alternative while a score of 5 signified a superior strategy when considering a specific

evaluation criterion. As an example, for the criterion “Permitting complexity,” if the alternative

would trigger multiple permits from local, state, and federal resource agencies, the alternative

would be assigned a low score. In contrast, alternatives that require fewer and simpler permits

would receive a higher score. By then applying the importance factor to each criterion score, a

weighted score could be calculated and aggregated to identify a preferred alternative. This process

is summarized in Table 15. As shown in the referenced table, Alternative 3 has the highest score

in the evaluation.

As further consideration for Alternative 3, an additional scenario was executed, assuming drainage

from Zone 36 (100 cfs) would be combined with Zone 39 and conveyed to a new outfall pump

station. Under this scenario, the additional flow from Zone 36 would trigger the need for a 72-inch

storm drain. The probable construction costs for this option would be $8,689,000 as summarized

in Appendix E.



TABLE 15

EVALUATION MATRIX FOR REGIONAL DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES

Criteria Importance

Factor

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Comments

Value Weighted Value Weighted Value Weighted

Construction cost 1.0 3 3.0 5 5.0 1 1.0 Alternative 2 has the lowest capital

cost assuming the existing river

outfall does not require extensive

repairs/rehabilitation.


requirements

0.5 3 1.5 1 0.5 5 2.5 Monitoring/managing water quality

in the lake will require extensive

effort. Operation/maintenance of a

new outfall under Alternative 3

should be less than operation/

maintenance of the existing outfall

under Alternative 1.

Water quality impacts 1.0 3 3.0 1 1.0 5 5.0 Under Alternative 3, no stormwater

enters the lake, even peripherally.

Permitting complexity 0.7 2 1.4 1 0.7 3 2.1 Permitting complexity is greatest

for Alternative 2 because of

discharge to the lake. Alternative 1

permitting is complicated by

potential impacts to multiple

biological resources along the

pipeline route.


safety

0.7 3 2.1 3 2.1 5 3.5 Alternative 3 has minimal

construction within occupied areas

of subdivision footprint.

Totals 11.0 9.3 14.1



9.0 IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

Based on a comparison of economic and non-economic criteria, superior alternatives for

wastewater conveyance for OLWD to the City and Zone 39 regional drainage have been identified.

Implementation of alternatives require consideration of: 1) construction phasing; 2) institutional

arrangements; and 3) CEQA/permitting strategy. Each is discussed below.

9.1 Construction Phasing

Because of the overlap in construction footprint between the likely wastewater conveyance and

regional drainage alternatives, construction phasing will be required. Construction phasing should

incorporate the following constraints:

1. The wastewater conveyance alternative pipeline and pump station improvements should be

complete including initial testing before a complete cut-over from the existing WWTP.

During the commissioning period for the new conveyance system, maintenance of the

existing WWTP should continue with unit processes in “ready” mode in the event there are

problems during the system commissioning that warrant “reinstatement” of the WWTP for

a limited time period.

2. Modifications of existing pump stations and connections to existing manholes/pipelines

may require facilities to be removed from service for short time periods. To minimize the

duration of these interruptions to service, temporary bypass systems should be installed and

operated until work is complete and accepted by OLWD and the City.

3. Where drainage and wastewater pipelines are to be installed along a common alignment

(e.g., Woodward Avenue), construction should be scheduled simultaneously if possible to

minimize potential traffic control requirements and inconvenience to local residents.

4. If possible, siting of the proposed storm drain pump station within the existing WWTP

should avoid conflicts with facility operations and proposed wastewater conveyance system

improvements. If conflicts cannot be avoided, construction of the storm drain pump station

should follow completion of the wastewater conveyance system improvements and

decommissioning of the WWTP.

5. Any seasonal work restrictions associated with project permits should be strictly observed,

particularly work associated with a new storm drain outfall to the San Joaquin River.

9.2 Institutional Arrangements

The initial step in wastewater and drainage alternative implementation will be the development of

a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or similar type of agreement between OLWD and the

City outlining the basis for future wastewater service from the City and the use of OLWD property

for a regional stormwater outfall to the San Joaquin River. Elements of the MOU as they relate to

institutional arrangements would likely address the following:



1. Financial responsibilities for construction of wastewater and drainage improvements

including potential shared facilities (e.g., 18-inch gravity sewer downstream of the Trails at

Manteca Pump Station).

2. Acquisition of encroachment permits/easements within City, OLWD, and other agency

ROW.

3. Potential connection or capacity fees for wastewater service from the City to be paid by

homeowners in the OLWD.

4. Schedule for monthly billing charges for wastewater service from the City.

5. Assistance to be provided by OLWD in securing approvals for a stormwater outfall for use

by Zone 39 properties.

6. Maintenance responsibilities for shared facilities.

7. Agency responsibilities in securing permits.

8. Lead agency for CEQA compliance for each project.

9. Implementation schedules, triggers, and schedule milestones.

10. Conditions under which either the City or OLWD could begin project implementation

independently.

In parallel with development of the MOU, a financing plan for funding of regional drainage

improvements for Zone 39 should be explored. Connection fees for development in Zone 39

would likely serve as the primary source of construction funding. A methodology for allocating

costs as a function of development type is outlined in the 2013 SDMP. An example of cost

allocation based on the criteria in the 2013 SDMP is included as Appendix F.

9.3 CEQA and Permitting Strategy

This section provides an overview and evaluation of the potential environmental issues associated

with the superior stormwater and wastewater infrastructure projects and the various permitting

requirements. This section also discusses the various local, state, and federal agency approvals

needed and provides recommendations for environmental compliance and permitting strategies for

the likely alternatives.

The goal of this discussion is to provide OLWD and the City a general analysis of the

environmental issues and to identify key permits and approvals needed for project implementation.

This analysis is based in part on the environmental constraints analysis previously referenced (see

Appendix C) which focused primarily on documenting baseline biological and cultural resources

in the project area. Although the analysis describes various species of concern, the probable



alternatives in general have few environmental impacts on the landside as it involves placing

wastewater and drainage pipelines within existing ROW in the community.

However, for the drainage alternative, there are several agencies permits required linked to

discharge to the lower San Joaquin River and potential impacts associated with the new

stormwater outfall. These agency approvals and permits are described below.

Overview of Permitting

The superior projects involve Alternative 1 for wastewater conveyance (Woodward Avenue) and

Alternative 3 for stormwater drainage (Aplicella Way).

The Woodward Avenue conveyance alternatives would involve constructing a new pipeline in

Woodward Avenue to the existing OLWD WWTP near the San Joaquin River. Principal

environmental issues with this alternative are the short-term temporary traffic, dust, noise, and air

quality impacts to residents along the route, potential erosion and stormwater issues from trenching

during construction, and penetration of the flood control levee for the regional drainage alternative.

These potential issues can be mitigated with standard construction industry mitigation measures.

Penetration of the levee with a new stormwater outfall pipe will require consultation with RD-17 to

ensure the project design meets likely design and encroachment permit requirements previously

approved by RD-17 and the CVFPB. An example of an approved levee penetration/stormwater

outfall project is included in Appendix B [22].

Environmental Compliance and Regulatory Permitting

A discussion of specific permits for the probable alternatives is provided below

1. City of Manteca/San Joaquin County Public Works Encroachment Permit

Encroachment permits and approvals from the City and/or San Joaquin County Public

Works Department will be needed for the pipeline construction within Woodward Avenue.

2. City of Manteca/San Joaquin County AB 52 Tribal Consultation Requirements

CEQA now requires early coordination with Indian Tribes that have a geographic

affiliation within the City metropolitan region. There are 12 Indian Tribes that have known

geographic affiliation in the San Joaquin County region according to the Native American

Heritage Commission. The CEQA lead agency is only required to consult with those

Tribes that have formally expressed in writing an interest in consultation. Coordination

with local Tribes will be required to determine if there are tribal resources in the project

area. This process requires the lead agency to transmit a consultation request letter along

with a brief project description for a 30-day comment period to Tribes that have expressed

interest in the City projects. Environmental documents cannot be distributed to the public

for review before consultation has occurred and lead agencies cannot certify documents

until mitigation measures (if needed) have been formally agreed upon with the affected

Tribes. This relatively new tribal consultation process can be very time consuming



depending upon the number of Tribes expressing interest in the project and it is important

to note that each Tribe must be consulted with individually.

3. Reclamation District 17 Encroachment Permit

If a flood protection levee is within the jurisdiction of RD-17, penetration of the San

Joaquin River levee will require an encroachment permit from the RD-17. The

encroachment permit cannot be issued without approvals from state and federal resource

agencies.

4. City of Manteca/San Joaquin County Municipal Stormwater Permit

The temporary excavation and trenching for the new pipelines and earthwork required for

the new stormwater pump station will likely trigger the need for coverage under the City

municipal stormwater permit program. The City will need to follow Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan design guidelines and best management practices to ensure water quality in

Oakwood Lake and the lower San Joaquin River are not impacted by construction-related

stormwater discharges.

5. Regional Board – Water Act Sections 401 and 402

The preferred alternatives trigger several CWA regulatory permits for both wastewater and

stormwater discharges from the project.

6. Regional Board – Wastewater Discharge Permit

The City surface water discharge to the San Joaquin River is permitted under NPDES

Permit No. R5-2015-0026 issued by the Regional Board. NPDES permits are generally

issued for a five-year term and must be renewed every five years to include any new

effluent limitations and/or to ensure consistency with new statewide water quality

objectives and policies. As part of accepting wastewater from OLWD, the existing City

permit will likely need to be amended to document and include OLWD wastewater

volumes and quality. Increased volumes of treated discharge to the lower San Joaquin

River will need to be addressed in an environmental compliance document for the Regional

Board amendment. The City’s current NPDES permit expires in 2020. Coordination with

the Regional Board permit engineer is recommended to discuss their desired approach to

permitting for the wastewater conveyance alternative. For efficiency reasons, the Regional

Board would likely request this project be included in the next City NPDES permit renewal

cycle. Most NPDES permit holders begin developing permit renewal applications one year

before expiration to work through various compliance issues and new effluent limits in

their permit. In addition, the current permit for wastewater discharge held by OLWD will

need to be terminated and plans for restoration of the wastewater treatment area ponds and

other infrastructure will need to be developed.



7. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Water quality certification by the Regional Board is required whenever a Section 404

permit is issued by the USACE. The Regional Board must certify that the permitted action

by the USACE and applicant will protect the basin plan beneficial uses for waters within

their jurisdiction. The Regional Board will not issue a 401 certification until a certified

CEQA document and Notice of Completion from the applicant and approvals from the

other federal agencies has been received. Acquisition of this permit generally takes about

3-4 months and normally includes several terms and conditions to protect water quality.

8. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement

Construction and operation of the new stormwater outfall into the lower San Joaquin River

triggers a requirement for CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The CDFW

has jurisdiction within the 100-year floodplain of the San Joaquin River. The project is

within the jurisdiction of CDFW Region 2 located in Rancho Cordova. Streambed

alteration agreements can take 3-6 months to obtain depending on complexity of project

issues, CDFW staff workloads, and staffing levels.

9. US Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Wetlands and Waters of the US

Permit

The construction and operation of a new stormwater outfall to the San Joaquin River will

likely trigger the need for the City/OLWD to obtain a Section 404 permit from the

Sacramento District of the USACE. Construction of sheet piles, placement of the discharge

pipe, and riprap and other fill into the river triggers this permit. The issuance of the

404 permit requires compliance with other federal laws including the federal Endangered

Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 and CWA Section 401 Water

Quality Certification. The USACE issues Individual and Nationwide Permits for projects

depending on the activity and level of wetland and environmental impacts. The new outfall

into the San Joaquin River could potentially be permitted via the USACE Nationwide

Permit 7. Processing of CWA Section 404 nationwide permits can require from six to

twelve months, depending on the complexity of the project, level of project impacts to

wetlands and USACE staff workloads.

10. National Marine Fisheries Services Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation

Issuance of Section 404 permits requires compliance with the federal Endangered Species

Act (ESA). The NMFS is responsible for administering ESA regarding fish and aquatic

species covered under the ESA while the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

is responsible for ESA Section 7 approvals for terrestrial special status species. The lower

San Joaquin River provides habitat for several special-status species including Central

Valley Steelhead, Delta Smelt, Longfin smelt, Winter-run chinook salmon, and others.

Preparation of a biological assessment and Section 7 consultation will be required to ensure

impacts to these species are kept to acceptable levels with implementation of several

standard mitigation measures (construction timing, water quality controls, etc.).



11. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to

consider historical and cultural resources issues when issuing agency approvals. Although

the project area is already highly disturbed from urban developments and construction of

the existing roads, the construction of new pipelines, pump station, and other earthmoving

activities associated with the projects have the potential to unearth cultural resources.

Trenching, grading, and other earthmoving activities have the potential to expose artifacts.

The environmental constraints analysis prepared previously included a records search of

the California Historic Resources Information System on the Oakwood Lake project area

and ¼ mile radius buffer surrounding the project. Two historical resources were identified

within the development, but neither would pose a constraint to development.

Implementation of standard industry practice mitigation measures (e.g., stop work if

artifacts are found, contact County coroner if human remains are found) should be

sufficient for the project. The lead agency will need to prepare a NHPA Section 106

cultural resources inventory report for submittal to the State Historic Preservation Officer

for concurrence and approval. This work should be accomplished in parallel with the

CEQA AB 52 tribal consultation process.

12. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

The USFWS administers and enforces the ESA regarding terrestrial wildlife and plants.

There are several special-status species known to occur in this area; however, the likely

projects would not impact these species or their habitats. A brief biological assessment will

need to be prepared for review and comment and informal consultation with the USFWS

should be sufficient for their approval process.

Environmental Compliance Strategy and Recommendation

The likely alternatives, while having relatively minor environmental impacts because of location in

the built environment, have numerous agency permits and approvals required from local, state, and

federal agencies before construction can begin. Based on existing project information, the

environmental constraints analysis, and the potential drainage/wastewater plan being a

collaborative effort between the two agencies, the City/OLWD could consider preparing a joint

Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that would cover both aspects of the

“project” for each agency. The project description can be tailored to describe elements of the

project that are the responsibility of the City and elements that are the responsibility of OLWD.

The City would likely assume Lead Agency status under CEQA or both agencies could serve as

co-lead agencies for purposes of CEQA compliance. The “project” is needed to eliminate water

quality violations from the current OLWD WWTP operation and associated discharges and should

be considered a beneficial project to mitigate existing potential health impacts to local residents

and the environment. Impacts associated with the beneficial project are relatively minor and

standard industry practice measures should be sufficient to mitigate all environmental impacts.

Mitigation measures adopted for the project could be tied to each agency for implementation and

required mitigation monitoring for each agency.



As an alternative approach, because construction of the wastewater and drainage improvements are

not dependent on each other, if there is a desire to implement a specific project element in advance

of other project elements or a concern of overall delays due to permitting timelines for certain

improvements, then CEQA compliance could be pursued independently by the City and OLWD.

Prior to initiating CEQA-related activities, the institutional arrangements described earlier should

be further developed between the City and OLWD and the potential “linkage” or

“inter-dependence” between projects should be fully defined. If the MOU describes a specific

dependence of the projects on each other, then CEQA documentation for the combined project

would be appropriate.

For reference, environmental permitting for the combined project could require a year or more

depending on agency staff availability. The CWA Section 404 permit and associated federal

agencies approvals is the most problematic of the agency permits needed for the project outfall

structure. Given the current project configuration, it appears a Section 7 Nationwide Permit from

USACE Sacramento District is the best course of action because there are no federal jurisdictional

wetlands impacted by the projects. Early consultation with the USACE Sacramento District is

recommended to obtain their input and begin development of the Nationwide 7 permit application

on a parallel course with the CEQA documentation. Issuance of the USACE 404 permit requires

approvals from two other federal agencies and the Regional Board before construction in the river

can begin. A tentative schedule for project design and permitting is included as Figure 9.

ID Task Name Duration1 Prepare project description 2 wks

2 District/City review of project description 2 wks

3 Consultation with USACE 2 wks

4 Consultation with NMFS and USFWS 4 wks

5 Tribal consultation under AB 52 6 wks

6 Prepare NHPA Section 106 cultural resources inventory report 6 wks

7 SHPO review/approval of cultural resources inventory report 12 wks

8 Revise project description based on results of tribal consultation 2 wks

9 Publish Notice of Intent/solicit public feedback 6 wks

10 Pre-application meetings with RWQCB, CDFW, and San Joaquin County 2 wks

11 Prepare biological assessment 4 wks

12 Prepare permit application packages 4 wks

13 Resource agency processing of permit applications 26 wks

14 Prepare admin draft IS/MND 8 wks

15 District/City review of admin draft IS/MND 2 wks

16 Revise IS/MND 4 wks

17 Distribute IS/MND for public comment 6 wks

18 Prepare final IS/MND 2 wks

19 Public hearing on IS/MND certification 2 wks

20 Design topographic mapping 4 wks

21 Prepare preliminary design report/30 percent design documents 8 wks

22 Submit preliminary design documents for District/City review 1 wk

23 City/District review of preliminary design documents 4 wks

24 Prepare final design documents/90/100 percent submittals 24 wks

25 City/District approval of final design documents 6 wks

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 W31 W32 W33 W34 W35 W36 W37 W38 W39 W40 W41 W42 W43 W44 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W51 W52 W53 W54 W55 W56 W57 W58 W59 W60

Oakwood Lake Water District/City of Manteca Joint Drainage/Wastewater Feasibility Study Preliminary Design, CEQA, and Permitting Schedule

April 2018

\\dha-fs01\PRJ\18006 - OLWD-Manteca Joint DrainageWW Study - Oakwood Lake WD\Documents\201804a CEQA-Design-Permitting Prelim Sched.mpp

jhenricksen

Text Box

Figure 9



10.0 REFERENCES

[1] Technical Memorandum No. 1.0, Summary of Existing Conditions, Oakwood Lake Water

District – City of Manteca Joint Drainage/Wastewater Feasibility Study, prepared by NV5,

Inc., November 2017

[2] Technical Memorandum No. 2.0, Feasibility Study (50% Submittal), Oakwood Lake Water


Inc., December 2017

[3] Technical Memorandum No. 2.1, Feasibility Study (Draft Final Submittal), Oakwood

Lake Water District – City of Manteca Joint Drainage/Wastewater Feasibility Study,

prepared by NV5, Inc., March 2018

[4] Technical Memorandum No. 2.2, Feasibility Study (Pre-final), Oakwood Lake Water


Inc., and Drake Haglan & Associates, Inc., April 2018

[5] City of Manteca 2012 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, prepared by

NV5, January 2013

[6] Storm Drain Master Plan, prepared by City of Manteca Public Works Department, March

2013

[7] City of Manteca Standard Plans and Specifications, prepared by the City of Manteca

[8] Groundwater Study Summary Report, prepared by ENGEO, 15 March 2015

[9] Evaluation of Water Levels in Oakwood Lake, prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc., 8 November

2010

[10] Lake Emergency Pump Station Plans Subdivision Tract No. 3215, prepared by Associated

Engineering Group, 28 September 2005

[11] Manteca Sewer Force Main Connection Plans for Oakwood Shores, prepared by

Associated Engineering Group, 14 February 2013

[12] Oakwood Lake Unit No. 4 Plans, prepared by Associated Engineering, Inc., 2004

[13] Oakwood Lake Subdivision Offsite, prepared by Associated Engineering, Inc., April 2005

[14] Oakwood Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant, prepared by Bracewell Engineering, Inc.,

May 2006



[15] Order No. R5-2005-0153, NPDES No. CA0082783, Waste Discharge Requirements for

Oakwood Lake Water District and Beck Properties, Oakwood Lake Subdivision Mining

Reclamation Project, San Joaquin County, 21 October 2005

[16] Personal communication with Greg Showerman, Community Development Director, City

of Manteca, 3 October 2017

[17] Personal communication with Bert Michelczyk, District Engineer, Oakwood Lake Water

District, 15 November 2017

[18] Stormwater Standards Manual, prepared by Cities of Lathrop, Lodi, Patterson, Tracy, and

Manteca and San Joaquin County

[19] BMP New Development and Redevelopment Handbook, prepared by CASQA,

January 2003

[20] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Manual of Engineering Practice, No. 28.

[21] United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Storm Water Management

Model Reference Manual: Volume 1 – Hydrology (Revised), January 2016

[22] Information received from Christopher Neudeck, Reclamation District 17 District

Engineer, 9 February 2018

Appendix A

April 30, 2018, Zone 39 Stakeholders Meeting – List of Attendees



STAKEHOLDERS MEETING

April 30, 2018

Meeting Attendees

Name Firm/Agency Email

Bill Filios Manteca Development Group [email protected]

Anthony Barkett TR Land, LLC [email protected]

Ron Cheek RLC Associates [email protected]

Brian Jones NorthStar Engineering [email protected]

Demetri Filios Manteca Development Group [email protected]

Randy Saffold City of Manteca [email protected]

Ashley Feeney Trumark Homes [email protected]

Kevin Jorgensen City of Manteca [email protected]

Greg Showerman City of Manteca [email protected]

Koosun Kim City of Manteca [email protected]

Martin Harris Terra Land Group [email protected]

Dave Richard Drake Haglan & Associates [email protected]

Stephanie Douglass NV5 [email protected]

Jan Henricksen Drake Haglan & Associates [email protected]

Appendix B

Example of New Outfall Requirements

Appendix C

Constraints Analysis prepared by Environmental Planning Partners

Constraints Analysis Page 1 Planning Partners NV5 Oakwood Lakes Feasibility Study October 2017

Constraints Analysis

Oakwood Lakes – City of Manteca Joint Drainage / Wastewater Feasibility Study

Project Overview The Oakwood Lake Water District (OLWD) provides treated domestic water and wastewater treatment services for the Oakwood Shores subdivision and an adjacent mobile home park. OLWD has had difficulty in achieving the water quality targets contained in its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit governing the operations of its wastewater treatment facilities. The District has been working with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to find a solution to allow it to come back into compliance with its permit.

The City of Manteca is seeking a practical and affordable stormwater drainage solution for the lands included in Zone 39, located just east of Oakwood Shores.

The OLWD and the City of Manteca are now evaluating a joint project to resolve both issues. The proposed project would involve connecting the OLWD wastewater collection system to the City of Manteca wastewater treatment plant, and directing the Zone 39 stormwater runoff flows to a connection point at Oakwood Lake.

Site Visit During the site visit on October 3, 2017, we visited a number of locations within the Oakwood Shores subdivision. Following that visit, the Planning Partners team walked the proposed pipeline corridor along Bronzan Road, and drove along Woodward Way.

The site visit included the following stops:

• The boat ramp west of Bella Lago, just north of the subdivision clubhouse; • The shore of the northern Oakwood Lake, from Como Drive, just north of Castellina Way; • The boat ramp west of Como Drive, just south of Vernazza Court; • The wastewater pump station on Chiavari Way at Como Drive; • The unused emergency lake pump station at the northwest corner of the southern Oakwood

Lake, previously used to convey overflow from the lake into the San Joaquin River; • The outlet structures of the OLWD overflow pipe and the City of Manteca wastewater

treatment plant, located on the east bank of the San Joaquin River; • The OLWD Wastewater Treatment Plant on Aplicella Court; • The Bronzan Road corridor between Como Drive and McKinley Drive; and • The extension of the Bronzan corridor east between McKinley Drive and Atherton Drive at

the northwest corner of the existing Dutra Estates development.


Findings Findings from project review and results of the site visit are listed below. Figure 1, Constraints Map shows more generalized constraints; Figure 2 shows biologically sensitive areas as identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database records search.

Biological Resources

Biological constraints associated with the proposed project fall into the following four areas:

• Potential rare plant habitat – naturally vegetated areas that have the potential to support sensitive plant species and may require additional surveys.

• An area of high density small mammal burrows – areas where many small mammal burrows were observed and have the potential to support sensitive burrowing species such as western burrowing owl, California tiger salamander, and possibly San Joaquin kit fox (although SJKF are not likely due to lack of recent occurrences and site location north of currently recognized range).

• San Joaquin River Riparian / Wetland and Oakwood Lakes Riparian / Wetland Areas –. Although these two areas represent a similar habitat type, the regulatory jurisdiction over these areas may be different. These two riparian / wetland categories are therefore identified separately. The Biological Constraints Report to be prepared in Task 3 will provide additional detail on potential jurisdiction at each of these locations, and the processes for determining the extent of jurisdiction.

• Swainson’s hawk is a biological resource that is certain to add biological constraints to the project. This species is very prevalent in the area, and any project alignments falling within the study area will be subject to the same survey requirements and seasonal restrictions for construction.

Figure 2 is a CNDDB Special Status Species Occurrence Map that shows species occurring within two miles of the site (larger surrounding area); a summary of the mapping results follows. The summary includes some species that do not have known occurrences at the site, but are known to occur in the region, and potential habitat was observed on some portion of the site during the field visit. The biologically sensitive areas identified include the following:

• Swainson’s hawk. There are many known occurrences of Swainson’s hawk nests in the region. The project would be subject to seasonal constraints (work outside nesting season [March 1-Sept 15] or conduct pre-construction surveys for active nest is within 0.5-mile of site. If there is an active nest within 0.5-mile, apply 0.5-mile buffer and wait until young have fledged to begin any work within that buffer. In some cases, CDFW may allow work to proceed in the buffer with a nest monitor, depending on specific circumstances (nest proximity to disturbance area and intensity of disturbance).

• California tiger salamander (CTS). There is a known occurrence north of the northern alignment (aquatic breeding habitat at toe of slope on Highway 120 berm behind residential properties on Bronzan Road). CTS upland habitat requires the presence of small mammal burrows for refuge during summer months. The CTS dispersal distance is 1.2 miles from breeding habitat. The project would likely require Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation for any of the project alignments due to proximity to the occurrence (entire site is within 1.2 miles of occurrence). If no burrows are impacted, consultation would likely be


informal with Not Likely to Adversely Affect Determination. If burrows (particularly those on the northern alignment) are impacted by excavation, USFWS Formal Consultation with “take” coverage would be required, as well as an Incidental Take Permit from CDFW. Burrow impact would also require compensatory mitigation.

• Western burrowing owl (WBO). There are no known occurrences in immediate vicinity of project; however, many small mammal burrows were observed in several locations on the alignments. A Phase I Habitat Assessment would be required to determine if there are occurrences on site. Because potential habitat does occur on site, a Phase 2 burrow survey would likely be required to determine if WBO occupy the habitat. If WBO are determined to be present, variable buffers (50 – 500 meters) are applied depending on the type of habitat (non-nesting vs. nesting) and the type of disturbance activity. If burrows are impacted, a burrow exclusion plan would be required to exclude WBO from habitat before impact, CDFW coordination would be required, and possible compensatory mitigation may be required, depending on project specific circumstances.

• American Badger. There are no known occurrences in the area. However, burrows with possible historical badger activity were observed during constraints surveys. If an active badger den is observed during biological surveys (WBO surveys), consultation with CDFW is recommended for appropriate buffer, construction timing and/or burrow exclusion.

• Riparian woodrat / Riparian brush rabbit. There are known occurrences in the region, but riparian habitat observed on site is not likely suitable for these species. This would be included in an informal ESA consultation due to the proximity of known occurrences.

• San Joaquin Kit Fox. There are no recent occurrences in area. This would likely be included in an informal ESA Consultation due to suitability of burrow habitat on site. and site location within historic range of the species.

• Fish species. If the project will impact the San Joaquin River (modifications to existing outfall locations), consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and USFWS is required, and in-water work would be subject to an aquatic work window (work between Aug 1 – Oct 31).

• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. There are no known occurrences near the project site, and no elderberry shrubs were observed during surveys; however, surveys were not conducted during blooming season. Surveys would need to be done during blooming season to confirm that there is no habitat present. If blue elderberry shrubs are found, avoidance measures (20-foot buffer) would be required. If the shrubs require removal, compensatory mitigation would be required.

• Rare plants (including delta button celery and Wright’s trichocoronis as well as other species). Potential rare plant habitat occurs within riparian areas and along the northern alignment. Impacts to riparian or undisturbed upland habitat would likely require rare plant surveys as a measure resulting from the CEQA review for the project.

• Other species that may have CNDDB occurrences shown on the map near the site (e.g. western bumble bee) have no regulatory or CEQA protections, and therefore would not require additional biological constraints for the project.

The foregoing list is a comprehensive coverage of the species identified on the map, and is intended to answer “what if” questions. Whether or not these species are present in final alignment alternatives will be determined in a later task.


Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources – A Cultural Resources Report on the project area was prepared by a qualified archaeologist. A records search was conducted through the California Historic Resources Information Center on the Oakwood Lakes project area, and also for a ¼ mile radius buffer area surrounding the project area. Two historical resources were identified within the Oakwood Lake Development, but neither would pose a constraint to the proposed project. The first is the Brown Site, a large mound overlooking the San Joaquin River to the west. It is documented that the Brown Site was completely destroyed in July 1972, being used as fill for the construction of Interstate Highway 5. The second is the Walthall Slough Dry Land Levee, which has been found to be ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Places or the national register of Historic Places.

There are twelve recorded cultural resources within the ¼ mile radius of the proposed project area, including six historic buildings or structures, three historic archaeological resources, one historic isolate, and two prehistoric isolated finds. An unrecorded segment of the Western Pacific Railroad is also within this radius.

In summary, although no known cultural resources would be affected by potential project activities, the proposed project area is considered highly sensitive in reference to the possible discovery of subsurface archaeological and historical resources. Cultural resources remains may be found in virtually any location that may be subject to excavation or disturbance during project construction. Accordingly, it is recommended that monitoring by a qualified historical resources consultant be implemented during project excavation, installation of pipe, and trench backfill.

A Tribal Sacred Lands search request was filed with the Native American Heritage Commission. The search was completed, with negative results.

Other Environmental Topics

The following is an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project on the remaining CEQA topic areas.

Aesthetics – The proposed project could involve the placement of some infrastructure above ground. Depending on its placement within the Oakwood Shores community, it could impact residents in the single-family residences and the mobile home community.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources – There are no forestry resources within the study area. There are agricultural fields adjacent to the pipeline alignments along Bronzan Road, the continuation of the Bronzan corridor east of McKinley Avenue, and Woodward Avenue. However, if pipelines are installed within the right-of-way of these roads or in ruderal areas, no impacts on agricultural uses would occur.

Air Quality – The construction of the proposed project would result in some temporary emissions of criteria pollutants, but these could be mitigated by the adoption of standard construction Best Management Practices (BMP) required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The rehabilitated emergency pumping plant may include the installation of a diesel generator to allow the pumps during an electrical power outage, but this usage would be very infrequent and minor. The


establishment of a diesel generator would likely require a Permit to Operate from the Air District. Operation of the project would rely on electrical power, and would not generate any local emissions.

Geology and Soils – The project area is flat, and not subject to earth movement hazards. The project does not involve the construction of any habitable structures, so it would not increase hazards to people or structures in the area. Construction of the pipelines and other features in compliance with recommendations from a licensed geotechnical engineer would preclude impacts related to geology and soils.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Construction of the proposed project would result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The operation of the proposed project would also generate GHG emissions, based on the electricity used to pump fluids through the pipes.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials – The construction of the proposed project would involve the use of hazardous materials. By using standard BMPs, impacts related to use of hazardous materials would be minimal. The project site is not located near to any airports or airstrips, so no hazards related to these facilities would occur.

Hydrology and Water Quality – Implementation of the proposed project would change the hydrology of the Zone 39 area by rerouting stormwater flows to Oakwood Lake and/or the San Joaquin River. There would be a potential effect on both the hydrology and water quality of those water bodies. Similarly, the conveyance of wastewater to the City of Manteca WWTP would result in improved quality for the effluent water, compared to existing conditions. The routing of stormwater from Zone 39 to Oakwood Lake may require that an NPDES permit be obtained. The pumping of water from Oakwood Lake to the San Joaquin River would certainly require an NPDES permit. Changes to the San Joaquin River levee, such as expanding the capacity of the pipeline connected to the emergency lake pump station or the drilling of a new pipeline through the levee, would require a permit from the Central Valley Flood Board and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Land Use and Planning – The proposed project would not result in a direct effect on any land uses, though it would have an indirect, growth-inducing effect by the removal of an obstacle to additional development within Oakwood Shores and Zone 39.

Mineral Resources – The Oakwood Lake area has been designated by SMARA as MRZ-2. The proposed project would not result in any direct effects on mineral resources in the study area, as all lands are already zoned for urban development.

Noise – The construction of the proposed project would create temporary noise effects where pipeline installation would be adjacent to sensitive receptors such as residences. The number of sensitive receptors associated with each segment of alternative pipeline route is provided below.

• Bronzan Road – There are 14 residences along Bronzan Road between its western terminus and McKinley Avenue. They are situated between 50 and 100 feet from the centerline of the road.

• Rapallo Way – There are 14 residences along Rapallo Way between Calesetta Place and Como Drive. They are situated between 35 and 40 feet from the centerline of the road.

• Como Drive – There are 17 residences along Como Drive between Rapallo Way and Chiavari Way. They are situated approximately 50 feet from the centerline of the road.


• Chiavari Way – There are 48 residences along Chiavari Way between Como Drive and Riva Trigoso Drive. They are situated approximately 50 feet from the centerline of the road.

• Woodward Avenue – There are no residences along Woodward Avenue between S. McKinley Avenue and the southern Oakwood Lake. There are two homes on Woodward Way north of Aplicella Court that range between 90 and 120 feet from the centerline of Woodward Way.

• Aplicella Court – There are 49 residences along Aplicella Court between Woodward Avenue and the WWTP. The residences are situated between 40 and 50 feet from the centerline of the road.

• Mobile Home Park – There are 15 homes adjacent to the San Joaquin River levee that would be approximately 10 to 15 feet from the pipeline alignment.

Population and Housing - The proposed project would not have a direct effect on population or housing levels, though it would have an indirect, growth-inducing effect by removing an obstacle to additional development within Oakwood Shores and Zone 39.

Public Services - The proposed project would not have any direct effects on public services, though it could have an indirect, growth-inducing effect by removing an obstacle to additional development in the Oakwood Shores and Zone 39 developments.

Transportation and Traffic – The proposed project would have temporary effects on access to residents along roadways where pipelines would be installed within the roadway right-of-way. The number of residents affected for each roadway segment would be the same as those described in the Noise section, above. The length of disruption would vary based on the length of the roadway affected. Thus, disruptions would be longest for residents along Chiavari Way, Aplicella Court, and Bronzan Road.

Utilities and Service Systems - The proposed project is intended to improve the quality of OLWD wastewater treatment in the short term, and may increase the capacity of wastewater treatment for the area served by OLWD in the long term. Existing utilities may be encountered during construction. Standard construction notification, marking, and construction techniques would avoid this potential effect. The project would not change any aspects of other utilities or service systems.

!

!

XYXYXY

Big League Dreams Park

Bella Vista Park

Dutra Estates Park

120UP

AIRP

ORT

WOODWARD

CHIAVARI

COMO

MCKI

NLEY

ATHERTON

DANIELS

APLICELLA

120 ONRAMPBRONZAN

WILLIAMSON

120 OFFRAMP

TOPI

ARY

CASTELLINAMILANO

WILLOW

GIBRALTER

IMAGE

HEARTHHEAR

THSO

NG

LANGUMRAPALLO

LAKE

WETHERBEE

PORTIFINODONATELLO TOSCANO

TAPESTRY

CALESETTA

ANCESTRY

OAK

RIVA TRIGOSO

LEVANTO

PEACH

CACH

E

BALMY

BELL

A LAG

O

APPIAN

VERNAZZA

SAN MARCOCAPRI

ROCK

SPRI

NG

BASILICAE

ROSY

DAW

N

MARQUIS BLUE

LUPI

NE

MCKINLEY

120

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

0 4,0002,000Feet ±

Oakwood Lakes Feasibility Study Constraints Map

XY City WWTP OutfallXY OLWD Outfall! Potential Outfall Locations

Agricultural DitchProject Study AreaSurvey AreaOakwood Lakes Riparian / WetlandPotential rare Plant HabitatArea of High Density Small Mammal BurrowsExisting HousesRiparian / Wetland

Walthall Slough

______________________________________________________________________________________Oakwood Lakes Feasibility Constraints Map SOURCE: Padre Associates 2017; Planning Partners 2017. Figure 1

!

!XYXYXY

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

0 10.5Miles ±

Biological Constraint Areas

!

Project Study AreaTwo-mile radiusSensitive Biological Areas

Potential Outfall Locations

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Oakwood Lakes Feasibility Constraints Map SOURCE: Padre Associates 2017; Planning Partners 2017. Figure 2

Appendix D

Drainage Hydrologic and Hydraulic Calculations

N:\226117-0000207.00\Cadd\Exhibits\TM 2.2\A-1-PRHY.dwg JG 4/30/2018

1" = 500'

1,0005000

FIGURE A-1


JOINT DRAINAGE/WASTEWATER FEASIBILITYSTUDY

% Impervious Type A Soil (%) Type C Soil (%) C P (ft) A (ac) V (ac-ft) A (ac) D (ft)1

100 Terra Ranch 61.3 25431 0.50 65.0 100.0 0.0

101 Terra Ranch Business Park 13.1 1153 0.50 90.0 100.0 0.0

102 Cerri Property 154.3 64012 0.50 65.0 100.0 0.0 0.65 0.30 154.30 29.75 8.30 3.58

103 The Trails at Manteca 307.6 127610 0.50 65.0 100.0 0.0 0.65 0.30 307.60 59.32 14.68 4.04

200 Oakwood Trails 172.9 71729 0.50 65.0 0.0 100.0

201 Oakwood Landing 29.2 848 0.50 90.0 0.0 100.0

202 General Commercial West 23.6 894 0.50 90.0 0.0 100.0

203 General Commercial North 78.0 4530 0.50 90.0 100.0 0.0

300 Denali 72.0 29870 0.50 65.0 0.0 100.0

301 General Commercial East 13.2 1223 0.50 90.0 0.0 100.0

500 5.5 2102 0.50 80.0 0.0 100.0

501 45.4 18835 0.50 82.4 0.0 100.0

502 19.8 8214 0.50 80.0 0.0 100.0

503 6.7 2780 0.50 80.0 0.0 100.0

504 75.5 1879 0.01 100.0 0.0 100.0

600 7.1 2689 0.50 80.0 0.0 100.0

601 10.5 3977 0.50 80.0 0.0 100.0

602 7.0 2651 0.50 80.0 0.0 100.0

603 47.9 18144 0.50 80.0 0.0 100.0

604 11.9 2592 0.50 90.0 0.0 100.0

605 118.5 1863 0.01 100.0 0.0 100.0

Note: 1Depth values rounded up within the XP-SWMM model

Hydrologic Input Parameters

Oakwood Lake (North)

Oakwood Lake (South)

303.70 68.26 5.18

0.69 0.30 85.20 17.41 6.04 2.88

13.19

Detention Basin Inflow Volume Detention Basin Size

2.83

0.76 0.30

0.69 0.30 74.40 15.32 5.42

Drainage Area Description Area (ac) Width (ft) Slope (%)Soil/Cover

henric

Text Box

Alternative 1 Profile

henric

Text Box


henric

Text Box


Appendix E

Combined Drainage from Zone 36 and Zone 39

TABLE E-1



DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES – ALTERNATIVE 3

COMBINED ZONE 36 AND ZONE 39


Item No. Description Unit Qty Unit

Cost ($)

Total

Cost ($)





1.05 Outfall Pump Station LS 1 1,500,000 1,500,000


Construction Contingency 20% 1,450,000


Appendix F

Example of Cost Allocation of Drainage Improvements

EDU

Equivalent Total EDUs

Oakwood Trails

LDR 676 lots 1.00 676.0

GC 20.02 ac 15.00 300.3

BIP 11.59 ac 11.67 135.3

Subtotal Oakwood Trails 1,111.6

Trails of Manteca

LDR 1171 lots 1.00 1,171.0

MDR 300 lots 0.93 279.0

Subtotal Trails of Manteca 1,450.0

Cerri

LDR 656 lots 1.00 656.0

Subtotal Cerri 656.0

Denali

LDR 318 lots 1.00 318.0

GC 13 ac 15.00 195.0

Subtotal Denali 513.0

Total 3,730.6

Cost per EDU for Alternative 3

Estimated Construction Cost $4,509,000

Cost per EDU $1,209

No. Units

Development/

Land Use



Methodology for Allocating Costs of

Drainage Improvements in Zone 39

F-1

Attachment 2

Executed Oakwood Lake Water District-City of Manteca

Wastewater Services Agreement

Attachment 3

Executed Oakwood Shores Owner’s Association-City of Manteca

Easement Option Agreement

Attachment 4

City of Manteca Email Updates to Interested Parties

Update No. 1

October 31, 2018

Good Morning Everyone,

I wanted to summarize our efforts and update the next steps following the Joint Drainage

Wastewater Feasibility Study Final Report.

The Oakwood Lake Water District owns and manages certain property including the onsite

sewer treatment plant that processes the effluent from the Oakwood Shores residential

development. Over the course of time, the sewage treatment plant has proven inadequate to keep

up with the development. Moreover, as development continues to occur within the southwest

quadrant of the City of Manteca, there is no permanent solution in place to discharge storm

water. One potential solution is to discharge the storm water around Oakwood Lakes to the San

Joaquin River.

In discussions with the Oakwood Lake Water District, the District and City may be able to enter

into a relationship that is mutually beneficial to both entities. The District might be able to

discharge sewer effluent to the Wastewater Quality Control Facility for treatment and the City

may be able to discharge storm water through District property that provides access to the San

Joaquin River.

On September 17, 2017, the City Council approved a Cost Sharing Agreement with the

Oakwood Lake Water District and the City of Manteca for a joint Drainage / Wastewater

Feasibility Study. The joint Drainage / Wastewater Feasibility Study addresses the merits,

challenges, and costs associated with long-term solutions for storm drain and sewer discharges.

The Oakwood Lake Water District entered into a Professional Services Agreement for the

Feasibility Study with NV5 to perform the work. Later, this Agreement was transferred to Drake

Haglan and Associates as the Project Manager, Dave Richard, changed firms.

After several Technical Memorandums that have been reviewed and commented upon by both

the Oakwood Lake Water District and City Staff, the Final Report was completed.

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, following a brief PowerPoint presentation by Dave Richard, the

Manteca City Council received and filed the Report at its regular meeting. At the City Council

meeting, I pointed out that the Final Report is not a “design document” but is meant to be

utilized as a tool selecting the preferred routing for the future storm drain and sewer

infrastructure and highlighting some of the environmental challenges should the project move

forward.

As was pointed out to me, the Feasibility Study uses a residential storm drain runoff coefficient

of 0.65 for Zone 39 which is higher than the minimum coefficient of 0.30 required by the City’s

Storm Drain Master Plan. The higher coefficient was used when evaluating the three alternative

storm drain routes; so the considerations and conclusions contained in the report were evaluated

in a consistent manner. Having had the higher runoff coefficient pointed out, I apprised the City

Council that the infrastructure sizing would be reviewed, adjusted, and finalized during the

design and preparation of improvement plans.

On Monday, October 8, 2018, Bert Michalczyk, OLWD, Kevin Jorgensen, City Engineer, and I

met with Sandy Matthews from Larry Walker Associates. The purpose of the meeting was to

review the Feasibility Report with Sandy and utilize Sandy’s contacts to arrange a meeting with

the Regional Water Quality Control Board to discuss how best to assure the City a storm drain

outfall to the San Joaquin River if the City agrees to process the Oakwood Lakes sanitary sewer

effluent.

At the meeting with Larry Walker Associates, we also discussed the environmental challenges

that lie ahead for both the sewer and storm drain infrastructure. The environmental process for

the sewer is less complicated as it was considered in the City’s Wastewater Collection System

Master Plan. On the storm drain side, many agencies and permits will be required. Some of the

anticipated agency approvals and permits may include:

Reclamation District 17

Army Corps of Engineers

California Fish and Wildlife

Regional Water Quality Control Board

Clean Water Act 401 Permit

Clean Water Act 404 Permit

Streambed Alteration Permit 1600

As mentioned above, the first step in the process on the storm drain side will be to discuss the

prospective outfall with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sandy is attempting to set

this meeting for November 19 or 20, 2018.

I will provide an update after meeting with the Regional Board.

Update No. 2

November 28, 2018

Greetings Everyone,

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018, Kevin Jorgensen, City Engineer, Sandy Mathews (Larry

Walker Associates), Bert Michalczyk, OLWD District Engineer, and I met with Patrick Pulupa,

Executive Officer for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, to update

Patrick on the progress to reach a mutually beneficial agreement for a regional solution on

wastewater and stormwater drainage between the Oakwood Lake Water District (District) and

the City of Manteca (City).

A key aspect of this negotiation is the option for the City to route a new stormwater drainage

pipe through the Oakwood Shores subdivision and the installation of a new stormwater outfall,

via a pump station, to the San Joaquin River. The focus of the planned discussion was to identify

any potential regulatory hurdles to installing a new stormwater outfall and to obtain assurance

that the Central Valley Water Board would be able to approve the stormwater drainage solution.

Bert reviewed the background for the project stemming from the Time Schedule Order (TSO)

issued to the District and outlined the progress to meet the TSO milestones:

• Completion of a Joint Drainage/Wastewater Feasibility Study;

• Initiation of the design and the CEQA document for the wastewater connection; and

• Creation of an outline for a MOU with the City.

I reviewed the City’s interest in working out a solution for storm drainage to serve the southern

part of the City that would include an easement through the Oakwood Shores subdivision in

consideration for accepting wastewater from the District. A new storm drainage pipe is

economically beneficial to the City and avoids technical challenges of routing the water into the

South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s network, which flows into the French Camp Outlet Canal

and discharges into the French Camp Slough, significantly north of the City.

Kevin and I discussed the options for the drainage pipe identified in the Joint Drainage/

Wastewater Feasibility Study and reviewed the preferred option of routing the pipe along

Woodward Avenue, passing along the southern boundary of the Oakwood Shores subdivision,

and discharging to the San Joaquin River via a new pump station near the District’s wastewater

plant.

Sandy noted the new drainage pipe would require several regulatory approvals including a 404

Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, and 401 Water Quality Certification from the Central

Valley Water Board, and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CA Fish and Wildlife, as well as

approvals from Reclamation District 17.

The City is subject to the Phase II stormwater permit and has programs in place that protect

stormwater quality including post construction requirements for low impact development. The

construction of the pipe would likely exceed an acre of disturbance and would therefore

implement erosion and sediment control and stormwater management practices required by the

Construction Stormwater General Permit.

Patrick did not identify any additional approvals that might be needed. He noted that the Central

Valley Water Board is most concerned about water quality and this concern is focused on

eliminating the wastewater discharge to the river. Trading out a stormwater discharge for the

current wastewater discharge would be beneficial from water quality perspective.

Patrick noted that that the 401 Unit is efficient in processing the Water Quality Certification and

he does not foresee any delays. He thought the most significant questions during the regulatory

permitting process would be from CA Fish and Wildlife regarding water quality concerns for the

protection of aquatic life. He indicated that there would be challenges to permitting a new

outfall, but that he didn’t think any of the regulatory concerns would be insurmountable.

Reaching out CA Fish and Wildlife would be a good next step for the City.

Conceptually, Patrick thought the drainage proposal would meet with approval. He wants to

discuss the project and approach with Jim Marshall, Adam Laputz and Kari Holmes to identify

any technical or process concerns. Patrick will get back to the City and District by the end of this

week after following up with his team. Patrick also noted he would discuss the meeting and

approach with the Board Chair and Vice Chair, Karl Longley and Denise Kadura.

Bert and Greg asked if Patrick could send a letter providing the City assurance of the Central

Valley Water Board support for the drainage approach, so the MOU could move forward. Patrick

said that he could do this, and the Water Board has issued similar letters in the past, but it would

be a conceptual assurance with caveats regarding final design and permitting.

Please let me know if I can provide any additional information regarding the meeting at the

RWQCB.

Thank you,

Update No. 3

February 7, 2019

Greetings Everyone,

In my last email update, on Tuesday, November 20, 2018, I reported that Kevin Jorgensen, City

Engineer, Sandy Mathews (Larry Walker Associates), Bert Michalczyk, OLWD District

Engineer, and I met with Patrick Pulupa, Executive Officer for the Central Valley Regional

Water Quality Control Board.

A key aspect of the negotiation between the City and the Oakwood Lake Water District is the

option for the City to route a new stormwater drainage pipe through the Oakwood Shores

subdivision and the installation of a new stormwater outfall, via a pump station, to the San

Joaquin River.

Conceptually, Patrick thought the drainage proposal would meet with approval. He wanted to

discuss the project and approach with Jim Marshall, Adam Laputz, and Kari Holmes to identify

any technical or process concerns. Additionally, Patrick noted he would discuss the meeting and

approach with the Board Chair and Vice Chair, Karl Longley and Denise Kadura.

I received the encouraging letter (attached) from Patrick yesterday and am sending it along to

keep you up to date.

At the local level, Brad Wungluck, Chief Building Official, will be authoring a Request for

Proposal to retain the services of a civil engineering consultant to master plan the proposed storm

drain outfall and an environmental firm to prepare the environmental and permitting documents.

With regard to the sanitary sewer side of the equation, Bert Michalczyk and Mark Houghton,

Public Works Director, have been busy working on an agreement through which the City would

receive and process effluent from Oakwood Lakes. Bert submitted a Term Sheet in early January

for review and Mark was able to offer comments. Currently, Bert and Mark are working on a

draft agreement that will come before the Board and City Council for approval.

Bert and OLWD have always been very supportive and agreeable to providing access across

OLWD’s property to allow the storm drain outfall to reach the San Joaquin River. As part of the

agreement, to ensure the storm drain path to the San Joaquin River, I’ve suggested incorporating

a “condition concurrent” into the Agreement with the City – something along the following:

As a condition concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall record, or cause

to be recorded, the legal description and plat describing the storm water easement(s) across

property owned by the Oakwood Lake Water District, as shown in Exhibit X to this Agreement.

In the event that this Agreement is not executed, the duty to record the legal description and plat

describing the storm water easement(s) across property owned by the Oakwood Lake Water

District, or the duty to cause to be recorded, shall be excused.

That sums up the current progress to date; please let me know if I can provide any additional

information.

Thank you,

Update No. 4

April 5, 2019

Greetings Everyone,

Since my last update to the group (2/7/2019), Bert Michalczyk, District Engineer with the

Oakwood Lake Water District (OLWD), and the City have been making good progress on the

Wastewater Services Agreement. The Agreement provides for the City to treat and dispose of the

Oakwood Shores Development Sewer Effluent and the Oakwood Shores Owners Association

will provide an easement to allow a City storm drain line to the San Joaquin River. Bert has been

doing the lion’s share of work drafting the Agreement.

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, OLWD will be paying the following

fees/charges:

1. Public Facilities Implementation Plan Fee

2. Phase 3 Sewer Connection Charge

3. WQCF Phase 3 Completion Charge

4. Monthly Charge for Treatment & Disposal

Exhibit F to the Agreement is the Oakwood Shores Owners Association Easement Option

Agreement for Aplicella Court that provides a 10-year option for the City to exercise to secure

the storm drain easement to the River.

Additionally, Kevin Jorgensen, City Engineer, and I met with Dante Nomellini, Counsel for RD

17, Chris Neudeck, PE, and Brett Setness, PLS, with Kjeldsen Sinnock Neudeck to inquire about

getting an easement from RD 17 for the storm drain so not to have to construct through Aplicella

Court.

The meeting with RD 17 went very well and RD 17 did not foresee any insurmountable issues

with granting a storm drain easement on RD 17 property to the south of Aplicella Court. RD 17

is also willing to grant the City an easement for the storm drain lift station on Lot 1 (refer to the

attached .pdf) located just to the west of Woodward Avenue so the force main running through

the easement can be a much smaller pipe. Initially, the lift station was proposed to be located on

the existing OLWD treatment plant site adjacent the levee; however, by locating the lift station

further to the east, a force main, rather than a gravity pipe, can be used to transfer the stormwater

west through the easement.

Lastly, with regard to the Wastewater Services Agreement, to ensure a storm drain path to the

San Joaquin River, the Agreement contains a condition precedent such that the Agreement does

not become effective until the later of the following occurs:

1. The date first written above;

2. The effective date of the amended agreement between the District and Oakwood LT

Venture’s II; and

3. The earliest recordation date of the option easement with the Oakwood Shores Owners

Association or the easement with Reclamation District 17.

Community Development will be taking the Agreement to the City Council on Tuesday, April

16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. I would appreciate the Development

Community attending to speak in support of this important Agreement that will provide a

permanent storm drain solution for Zone 39 and potentially Zone 36.

On the Master Plan and permitting front, I can add the following update.

I spoke with the City’s Finance Department and there are resources in the PFIP Storm Drain

Fund to retain the services of a consultant team to engineer the storm drain line, lift station, and

perform the environmental work. Next step will be to go out with a Request for Proposals.

Also, Sandy Mathews with Larry Walker and Associates has reached out to the California

Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to arrange a pre-application meeting. Sandys has

provided dates to DFW between April 29 and May 21, 2019, to meet.

That’s the update for now; lots of moving pieces.

Please let me know if I can provide any additional information.

Thank you,

Update No. 5

May 1, 2019

Greetings Everyone,

This is Update #5 to provide a permanent storm drain solution for southwest Manteca,

Stormwater Zone 39, and potentially Zone 36.

Since I last corresponded on April 5, 2019, several significant steps have taken place:

1. On Tuesday, April 16, 2019, the Manteca City Council approved the OLWD/City

Wastewater Services Agreement; 5-0 unanimous vote. The Agreement contains a condition

precedent that prevents the contract from becoming effective until one of two easements are

granted to provide a stormwater path to a possible outfall along the San Joaquin River.

a. An easement provided by the Oakwood Lake Owner’s Association, or

b. An easement granted by RD 17 (in exchange for land currently owned by OLWD).

2. On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, the OLWD Board approved the Wastewater Services

Agreement 4-0 (one member was absent).

3. On Monday, April 29, 2019, Sandy Mathews (LWA), Kevin Jorgensen (City Engineer), Bert

Michalczyk (OLWD), and I met with Kyle Stoner, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist)

with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The purpose of the meeting was to continue

with due diligence in anticipation of submitting for permits to the various agencies.

Kyle was very encouraging helping us to understand the process with DFW; it does not appear to

be as daunting as rumored. The City can notify DFW concurrently with the CEQA Notification;

however, the 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement cannot be finalized until the CEQA

Document is final. Obtaining the 1602 Agreement is approximately a 90-day process provided a

complete application is submitted.

Kyle mentioned several items that will be of concern with the DFW review:

a. Turbidity

b. Sedimentation

c. Permanent Impacts

Kyle also cautioned to be aware that the mitigation measures during construction do not result in

impacts equal or greater than the impacts being mitigated.

Next up, Sandy is trying to arrange a meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers in regard to

submitting for the necessary 404 permit but so far, to no avail.

Next steps for the City will be to author a Request for Proposal for the storm drain master

alignment, the Environmental Document, and permitting services.

Attachment 5

Letter from Tera Land Group

(expressing storm drainage concerns)

T E R R A L A N D G R O U P , L L C ___________________________________

July 8, 2019

VIA EMAIL & HAND-DELIVERY

Manteca Planning Commission 1001 W. Center Street Manteca, CA 95337 ([email protected])

Re: July 9, 2019 Manteca Planning Commission (“MPC”) Meeting Agenda Item 6.1: Project: Yosemite Greens Subdivision - SDJ-18-107; and Item 6.2: General Plan Consistency Finding - 120 Legacy Street, Project No. CPR-19-94.

Dear Commission Members,

My name is Martin Harris and I am an authorized representative for Terra Land Group, LLC (“TLG”). Although this letter follows a similar format as compared to previous letters, this letter contains new information that TLG believes is important to consider. TLG believes there appears to be an unsustainable level of development growth and changes to land uses affecting the areas in and along the South Delta-Lower San Joaquin River Basin, which is a recognized floodplain. TLG believes that this growth may create and/or increase flood risks to the urban and rural residents, businesses, and property owners located in the areas to be affected. TLG is not necessarily opposed to this growth, provided however, that the urban and urbanizing areas already approved or to be considered for development growth must fully identify, allow for, and provide for timely mitigation measures. These measures should fully offset any and all upstream and downstream flood water, storm water, waste water, potable and agricultural/irrigation water delivery, back water, and other hydrology-related short-term as well as long-range impacts that may be created. TLG believes that this can only be accomplished by putting an end to the continuing delays and immediately performing a full and comprehensive environmental review in conjunction with an updated general plan and related environmental justice element that fully considers and mitigates for the growing storm water, waste water, potable water, irrigation water, transportation, and transit needs affecting the areas in and along the South Delta. This review should also consider any and all development-related flood and other hydrology-related impacts as affected by the federally-approved Lower San Joaquin River Flood Management Project (100-year level of protection) in association with California Senate Bill No. 5 (“SB5”) (200-year level of protection) requirements as well as any South San Joaquin Irrigation District (“SSJID”), Oakdale Irrigation District, or Tri-Dam Project sponsored Stanislaus River Basin Drainage (or associated Ripon/South Manteca Stanislaus River Right Bank Levee Breach Flood Fight Action) Plan to be considered. (See Enclosures 1-31)

___________________________________

5 1 5 1 E. A L M O N D W O O D D R I V E M A N T E C A, C A 95337

Pg. 1 of 17


Why is this important? In January 2018, the US Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) released the January 2018 San Joaquin River Basin Lower San Joaquin River, CA Final Integrated Interim Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (“LSJRFS”). On February 26, 2018, TLG responded to the LSJRFS with a letter detailing various public concerns relating to flooding. (See Enclosure 1) The LSJRFS offered significant details relating to various sources of flooding that may occur within a specific region identified in the hydraulic model utilized in the LSJRFS (“study area”) The LSJRFS further identifies the study area in the following ways: 1. Page ES-1 of the LSJRFS states: The study area also includes the distributary channels of

the San Joaquin River in the southernmost reaches of the Delta; Paradise Cut and Old River as far north as Tracy Boulevard, and Middle River as far north as Victoria Canal. 2. Page 3-31 of the LSJRFS states: Currently, the levee safety program has defined the levee system that incorporates RD 17 as bounded on the north by Walker Slough, west by the San Joaquin River and south by the Stanislaus River. This includes RD 17, RD 2096, RD 2094, RD 2075 and RD 2064. 3. Page 5-17 of the LSJRFS states: Stanislaus River to Paradise Cut. The confluence of the San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers defines the upstream extent of the hydraulic model used for this study. 4. Page ES-2 of the LSJRFS states: Analysis of the study area is challenged by the presence of three sources of flooding, the Delta Front, Calaveras River and San Joaquin River. This results in commingled floodplains for the North and Central Stockton areas. The distributary nature of the Delta also affects Delta water levels, because high flows from the Sacramento River may “fill” the Delta prior to a peak inflow on the San Joaquin River as occurred in 1997, raising water levels on the Delta front levees. 5. Page 5-27 of the LSJRFS states: 2.1.1 FLOODING Problem: There is a significant risk to public health, safety and property in the study area associated with flooding. The study area is located in the Central Valley of California which has very little topographic relief, resulting in potential flooding of areas far from water courses… With this in mind, it appears that the LSJRFS may not have fully considered the potential flood and drainage impacts associated with a Stanislaus River right bank levee breach affecting South Manteca areas located west of the City of Ripon. QUESTION: What backwater effects and changes to drainage patterns could a Stanislaus River right bank levee breach have on the urbanizing and non-urbanizing areas in and along the South Delta/Lower San Joaquin River Basin?

___________________________________


Pg. 2 of 17


QUESTION: What changes to grade and land elevations will be created as a result of continued south Manteca development growth and urban expansion? What drainage impacts may or have already been created? QUESTION: What potential for additional flood and other hydrology related impacts may be created to south Manteca rural residents, businesses, and property owners due to the south-westerly expansion of the Griffin Park development project into the rural areas of south Manteca? (See Enclosures 1-31) QUESTION: What drainage blockages and back-water effects may be created due to any proposed ACEforward (or other rail transit system) improvements anticipated to occur in and across the South Delta? (See Enclosures 1-31) QUESTION: Has any consideration been given to identify the mitigation measures necessary to offset any and all flood water and other drainage impacts that may be created? QUESTION: What protections will any mitigation measures included in the Tri-Dam Project-Stanislaus River Basin Drainage Plan have on reducing flood and other drainage impacts to any residents, businesses, and property owners located in the areas that may be affected? QUESTION: Are back-water and drainage concerns related to a Stanislaus River right bank levee breach the reason why the Austin Road residential housing and business park have not been able to move forward? In relation to the Austin Road development project and any current or future development in Ripon to the west of Highland and Mohler Roads, where will storm water and effluent waste water be drained to? QUESTION: Can the Stanislaus River handle any more storm water or waste water that may potentially be drained into the river channel? QUESTION: Will SSJID drainage facilities be utilized to allow the City of Ripon to drain storm water into the rural areas south of Manteca? If so, what drainage and other hydrology-related impacts may be created? QUESTION: Have any and all water supply and drainage effects related to the City of Tracy’s Integrated Water Resources Master Plan been properly considered and allowed for? QUESTION: Most important, what effect might this have on drainage flows through the areas impacted by any ACE rail system or Tri-Valley Regional Rail Authority proposed improvements or modifications to be considered? COMMENT: Over the past few years, a high volume of development projects have been approved with no apparent meaningful consideration for their individual contribution to total cumulative drainage impacts involved. TLG believes that these continued project approvals (and associated impacts) directly conflict with the goals and policies stated in the Manteca General Plan 2023 (enacted on October 6, 2003) and increase public risk due to recently-discovered San Joaquin River channel flow

___________________________________


Pg. 3 of 17


deficiencies and increased sedimentation affecting the areas in and along the South Delta. (See Enclosures 1, 14-17, 19, 22 & 27) QUESTION: Will the Paradise Cut Expansion project, in the form presented in the “Conceptual Design Technical Memo/Paradise Cut Expansion Project/April 9, 2019,” prove adequate in offsetting what appears to be very significant development-related flood water, storm water, and effluent wastewater drainage impacts affecting the urbanizing and non-urbanizing areas in and along the South Delta/Lower San Joaquin River Basin? QUESTION: Without a fully defined integrated flood management plan that fully considers and provides hydraulic flood modeling for the combined effects associated with the following projects, (as affected by certain City of Manteca 2023 General Plan goals and policies adopted on October 6, 2003) how can anyone fully understand and mitigate what appears to be the potential for very significant and quite possibly catastrophic drainage impacts involved?

Projects Involved: (i) Federally-approved (100 year) Lower San Joaquin River Flood Management Project, as related to supporting the implementation of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (“CVFPP”)(See 06/14/2019 CVFPP Workshop agenda items 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7);

(ii) RD 17 Phase III and other development-related SB5 200-year flood protection requirements;

(iii) Stanislaus River Basin drainage (or associated Ripon/South Manteca Stanislaus River Right Bank levee breach flood fight action) Plan and the associated South San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Plan; (iv) Any ACEforward (or other rail transit system) expansion and/or improvements anticipated to occur in any area(s) with the potential to affect drainage in and along the South Delta; (v) Various State of California water projects and regional flood management assistance programs currently being implemented and allowed to move forward; (vi) The City of Manteca’s currently unresolved storm water and regional waste water discharge and/or drainage projects; (vii) Highway 120 road expansion improvements from Hwy 99 to Hwy 205; (viii) Airport Way widening; (ix) River Islands (See 06/10/2019 Lathrop City Council meeting agenda items 4.14 & 4.15); (x) Various General Plan Update and related environmental justice element and land use change projects currently underway; (xi) Austin Road Business Park and/or residential housing project; (xii) Great Wolfe Resort project in Manteca; (xiii) Smith Canal Gate Project; (xiv) City of Manteca/RD17 dryland levee extension and/or expansion; (xv) Paradise Cut expansion; (xvi) Dredging the San Joaquin River to relieve channel flow constraints both upstream and downstream of the Vernalis monitoring station; (xvii) Project defined in the 05/02/19 San Joaquin County Planning Commission meeting staff report for agenda consent item 2 and 05/21/19 San Joaquin County Board

___________________________________


Pg. 4 of 17


of Supervisors (“SJCBOS”) meeting staff report for morning public hearing agenda item #1: Application Information Applicant: San Joaquin County File Number: PA-1900067 Location: Applicable Countywide Supervisorial District: ALL CEQA Determination: Notice of Exemption Staff: Jennifer Jolley Project Description This project is a Development Title Text Amendment application to revise the definition of “Structure” in Title 9, Division 1, Chapter 9-110, Section 9-110.4 as it is used in chapters 9-848 Flood Variance Procedures and 9-1605 Flood Hazards to conform to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain Management Regulations. (See Enclosure 6 as included in this letter) (xviii) Various local development projects to be considered by the Manteca Planning Commission on May 28, 2019;

Item 6.1 Center Point Item 6.2 General Plan Consistency Finding Item 6.3 Staybridge Suites Item 6.4 Valencia Place Apartments (Within Enclosure 11, see its own

Enclosure 9) may conflict with CEQA and City of Manteca General Plan 2023 goals and policies (adopted on October 6, 2003) due to recently discovered San Joaquin River Channel flow deficiencies and continuing sedimentation problems in and along the South Delta. (See Enclosures 1, 15, & 19) (xix) Exeter Property Group 233-acre Business/Industrial Park located west of Airport Way in Manteca (xx) City of Lathrop Integrated Water Resources Master Plan (See Enclosure 4) (xxi) Griffin Park (See Enclosures 10, 11 & 30 as included with this letter) (xxii) Other foreseeable projects in Manteca and Lathrop (See Enclosures 14 & 22) (xxiii) City of Ripon Integrated Water Resources Master Plan (xxiv) City of Tracy Integrated Water Resources Plan (xxv) San Joaquin County Emergency for the Metropolitan Airport’s Rehabilitation of the Terminal Electrical System (See 6/11/19 San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors meeting agenda: Consent-General Government Item #3) (xxvi) City of Lathrop Surface Water Discharge Project and Recycled Water Program Expansion (See 06/10/2019 Lathrop City Council meeting agenda items 4.9, 4.10, and 4.12) (xxvii) Manteca Unified School District Master Facility Plan (See 06/11/2019 MUSD meeting agenda item: Communications 1d. (xxviii) Byron Bethany Irrigation District-The Westside Irrigation District Sphere of Influence Update Consolidation Project (“BBID-TWSID”) and associated Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. (See Executive Officers Report for 06/13/2019 San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) meeting agenda item #4)

___________________________________


Pg. 5 of 17


QUESTION: What conditions of approval will be included in any BBID-TWSID service area consolidation or expansion to ensure that adequate facilities are provided for and put in place to mitigate any and all potential for increased impacts due to co-mingling and/or redirecting water delivery and drainage flows to, around, and through the reconfigured boundaries of the BBID-TWSID? QUESTION: Are any water conveyance or drainage changes involving water transfers from the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (“SSJID”) to BBID-TWSID currently being considered? QUESTION: Will any subsequent LAFCO Municipal Systems Review(s) and Sphere of Influence amendment involving the SSJID result in SSJID surface water being diverted to provide the potable water delivery volumes necessary to meet the needs of the growing Mountain House Development community by means of accessing and conveying water to and through the newly created BBID-TWSID? (See Executive Officer’s Report for 06/13/2019 LAFCo meeting agenda item 5). QUESTION: Wouldn’t it be in the public’s best interest to stop the delays and immediately perform a full and comprehensive environmental review to determine any and all water supply and drainage impacts of anyone that may be affected? Other projects that appear to be involved: (xxix) Various City of Manteca landscape and maintenance projects (and associated benefit assessment districts) as detailed in Manteca City Council 6/18/2019 meeting agenda item C.1 (19-290) (xxx) Proposed Bhandal Transportation Truck Parking and Commercial Site Plan Review No. SPR-17-58 as detailed in the 6/19/2019 Lathrop Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as included with agenda item 9.1.

COMMENT: Page 5-14 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Section 13.1, hydrology and water quality) included in the 6/19/2019 Lathrop Planning Commission meeting agenda item 9.1 Staff Report states:

13.0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

13-1: Any proposed improvements within the San Joaquin River floodway shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the Community Development Director as well as federal, state, and local permit agencies with jurisdiction, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Central Valley Flood Protection [Board], the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the California Department of Fish and Game.

QUESTION: Does this mean that any and all conditionally approved projects located in a floodway along the San Joaquin River shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director as well as federal, state, and local permit agencies with

___________________________________


Pg. 6 of 17


jurisdiction, including the US Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), Central Valley Flood Protection Board (“CVFPB”), and the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District? QUESTION: Will any and all currently considered and future Manteca, Lathrop, Tracy, and other San Joaquin County projects located in a floodway along the San Joaquin River also be required to obtain project approvals by the USACE, CVFPB as well as local permitting agencies? QUESTION: Without fully understanding the total potential for flood water, storm water, and waste water impacts involved, how can any reasonable South Delta flood protection and drainage plan be adequately sized or considered? Additional projects and other items that TLG believes need to be considered:

(xxxi) Forward Inc. Landfill Expansion Project as detailed in the June 20, 2019 San Joaquin County Planning Commission meeting agenda item #1 Staff Report and associated Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (pages 54 and 55) which states:

Potential Significant Impact G.5 (MMRP Item 54): The re-routing of the South Branch of South Little John’s Creek could result in flooding if the new alignment is not designed to accommodate peak flows. Finding: Based on the analysis in the FEIR and Final SEIR, this impact could be significant and the following mitigation measures proposed as part of the project as described in the Project Description and design study for the proposed creek realignment will mitigate this impact to less than significant:

● The channel must function as a natural corridor, require little or no maintenance once the vegetation is established, and should provide 100-year flood protection.

● The channel slope and depth will be appropriate to the 100-year flood protection. The channel slope and depth are based on the invert elevations of the existing channel at the start and end of the new channel. The slope between these two points along this alignment is designed for 0.00055 ft/ft. which translates into a ground surface profile along the alignment a channel depth between 10 and 12 feet.

● The appropriate responsible agencies must review and approve the updated April 2018 design for the relocation of the South Branch of South Little Johns Creek.

QUESTION: Will sufficient flood modeling and drainage analysis be performed to identify and mitigate flood water, storm water, and other potential Little Johns Creek relocation impacts affecting drainage both upstream and downstream of the San Joaquin County Metropolitan Airport and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District’s French Camp Outlet Canal?

___________________________________


Pg. 7 of 17


QUESTION: What effect will any local projects associated with the USACE Public Law PL-84-99 Rehabilitation Assistance Program have on changing and/or disrupting any and all recognized drainage patterns as historically accepted and currently anticipated to occur? (xxxii) Yosemite Greens Subdivision-SDJ-18-107 as detailed in Manteca Planning Commission 6/25/19 Meeting Agenda item 6.1. (xxxiii) 2019-2020 San Joaquin County and Special Districts Budget Hearings to be conducted by the SJCBOS on 6/25/2019 and 6/26/2019 with drainage issues being considered as part of agenda items 1.1a: Flood Channel Maintenance, and agenda item 5.2: Flood Control, Water Supply and Conservation, Lighting, and Maintenance Districts (xxxiv) Items to be considered by SJCOG in association with the SJCOG and SJCOG, Inc 6/27/2019 Board Meeting Agenda item 4M: Perrin Ranch Project, and item 5A: Kennedy Jacques Wing Levee Acquisition (xxxv) One or more potential water delivery and/or drainage projects associated with the Master Encroachment Agreement between the South San Joaquin Irrigation District and the City of Ripon, as considered as part of the May 14, 2019 SSJID meeting consent calendar agenda item D. (xxxvi) One or more potential water delivery and/or drainage projects associated with the Master Encroachment Agreement between SSJID and the City of Escalon as considered as part of the June 25, 2019 SSJID meeting consent calendar agenda item D. (xxxvii) Various items to be considered by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board on 6/28/2019; Items 5H and 10D: Memorandum of Understanding between the State of California and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for collaborating on integrated water resources management; Item 8A: San Joaquin River Restoration Program; Item 9B: Conversion of River State Measuring Stations’ Datum to NAVD88; and Item 10B: Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program. (xxxviii) Any and all phased projects associated with RD 17 Phase III levee flood protection improvements that are projected to occur. (See Enclosure 29) (xxxix) Any and all phased projects associated with SJAFCA levee and/or drainage flood protection improvements that are projected to occur. (See Enclosure 29) (xl) Any and all projects associated with the Final Municipal Services Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update for the City of Tracy as considered as part of the July 11, 2019 LAFCo meeting public hearing item #3 (LAFC 14-16). (xli) Kasson Road Resurfacing Project as considered as part of the July 9, 2019 SJCBOS meeting consent calendar agenda item #33.

___________________________________


Pg. 8 of 17


QUESTION: What short-term and/or long-range levee protection and other flood water elevation confusion may be created as a result of the conversion of the State of California River Measuring Station’s datum to NAVD88?

Local Goals and Policies which TLG believes must be considered as part of continued urban expansion in and along the South Delta: Manteca General Plan 2023 goals and policies to consider:

A. Major Drainage Goal #PF-9 (page 6-11); Maintain an adequate level of service in the City’s drainage system to accommodate runoff from existing and projected development and to prevent damage due to flooding. Policy #PF-I-13 (page 6-11); The City shall update the Storm Drainage Master Plan and Public Facilities Implementation Plan, regarding water supply and distribution, every five years. The update shall be reviewed annually for adequacy and consistency with the General Plan. Policy #PF-P-27 (page 6-11); The City shall require the dedication and improvement of drainage detention basins as a condition of development approval according to the standards of the Drainage Master Plan. The responsibility for the dedication and improvement of detention basins shall be based on the prorated share of storm water runoff resulting from each development.

B. Flood Safety

Policy #S-P-11 (page 7-5); Ensure that the impacts of potential flooding are adequately analyzed when considering areas for future urban expansion. Policy #S-I-8 (page 7-6); New development shall be required to maintain natural stream courses and adjacent habitat and combine flood control, recreation, water quality, and open space functions.

C. Water Conservation

Goal #RC-2 (page 8-2); Maximize the beneficial uses of water by recycling water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Policy #RC-P-2 (page 8-2); The City shall explore potential uses of treated wastewater when such opportunities become available. Policy #RC-P-3 (page 8-2); The City shall protect the quantity of Manteca’s groundwater. Policy #RC-P-4 (page 8-2); The City shall require water conservation in both City operations and private development to minimize the need for the development of new water sources. Policy #RC-I-3 (page 8-3); Require large commercial and industrial water users to submit a use and conservation plan as part of the project entitlement review and approval process, and develop a program to monitor compliance with and effectiveness of that plan.

___________________________________


Pg. 9 of 17


COMMENT: In October 2010, the California Department of Water Resources issued a guide in the form of “A Handbook for Local Communities for Implementing California Flood Legislation into Local Land Use Planning” (“Land Use Guide”). The Land Use Guide lists various Government Code and Water Code sections that any new development shall be subjected to: (i) Water Code section 8307 (ii) Government Code section 66474.5 (iii) Government Code section 65860.1 (iv) Water Code section 9602 In addition, Page 12 of the Land Use Guide indicates: “The intent is to improve local planning decisions within flood prone areas by facilitating coordination between land use and flood risk management agencies, ensuring local planning decisions are based on accurate and up to date flood management information, and supporting local decisions that are reflective of Statewide and regional flood management plans and objectives.” (See Enclosures 1-31) Page 36 of the Land Use Guide warns against cities (or counties) taking unreasonable risks associated with Government Code section 65302(g)(2)(B). Page 37 of the Land Use Guide also warns that identification of a flood hazard zone does not imply that areas outside the flood hazard zones or uses within flood hazard zones will be free from flooding or flood damage. Page 141 of the Land Use Guide defines State Assembly Bill 70, Water Code section 8307(a) as requiring: “A city or county may be required to contribute its fair and reasonable share of property damage caused by a flood to the extent that the city or county has increased the state’s exposure to liability for property damage by unreasonably approving new development in a previously undeveloped area that is protected by a state flood control project.” COMMENT: It appears that San Joaquin County currently recognizes a 100-year flood plain elevation of approximately 28’ for the area south of Manteca. QUESTION: What purported levee elevation changes or other modifications may have been previously performed affecting the RD17 (South Manteca) dryland levee in its present form or any future extensions, expansions, or other modifications to be considered? (Within Enclosure 7, see its own Enclosures 23 & 24) QUESTION: What potential for flood drainage and back-water effects may have been created? (See Enclosures 1-31) QUESTION: Will all RD 17 (South Manteca) dryland levee flood water drainage and back water effects be properly considered and mitigated? COMMENT: It appears that various authorities are involved in a number of San Joaquin County new roadway construction or road and rail transit improvement projects, which when considered with anticipated SB5-mandated design requirements, may result in increased road and/or rail

___________________________________


Pg. 10 of 17


transit grade and elevation levels to ensure that the roadways are elevated out of and above the flood plain. (Within Enclosure 7, see its own Enclosures 14 & 18-24) QUESTION: What effect could a local planning strategy to abandon and/or realign certain existing public roadway(s) have on disrupting previously-accepted boundary lines and claim of title as recognized by evidences of occupation in the form of irrigation and drainage infrastructure, power lines, and flood protections levees? (Within Enclosure 5, see its own Enclosures 18-20) QUESTION: What potential drainage and back-water effects may be created due to what appears to be local planning efforts to abandon and replace existing roadways and/or rail track systems with new roadway and rail construction that may find it necessary to require increased road and transit grade and elevation level changes in order to meet SB5 requirements? (See Enclosures 1-31) COMMENT: It appears that both the cities of Manteca and Lathrop plan on redirecting storm water drainage and/or effluent wastewater flows along and through the urbanizing and non-urbanizing areas in and along the South Delta-Lower San Joaquin River Basin. (Within Enclosure 7, see its own Enclosures 7-11 & 16)(Also See Enclosure 4 as included in this letter) In addition, no meaningful solution has been clearly presented to identify City of Manteca effluent waste water spray field discharge facilities to replace those to be abandoned due to the planned construction of the Great Wolfe Resort, Family Entertainment Zone, and Oakwood Landing/Cerri and Denali Development Projects. QUESTION: What potential drainage and back water effects may be created due to what appears to be local planning efforts to abandon and relocate existing City of Manteca storm water drainage and effluent waste water spray field discharge facilities into the areas affecting the South Delta? (See Enclosures 1-31) QUESTION: What effect will any proposed PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoff Policy have on any local flood fight or storm water/waste water drainage plan to be created? (See 6/18/2019 Manteca City Council meeting agenda item D.1) QUESTION: Is the City of Manteca (and other agencies involved) aware that TLG has been informed and believes that at the time of Hurricane Katrina, high water drainage flows in and along the Lower Mississippi River Basin (and associated New Orleans cross drainage channels) were prevented from conveying and discharging drainage water into Lake Pontchartrain due to a pump station failure to function as originally intended? QUESTION: What provisions will be considered at the time of a “PG&E Shut-off” to accommodate the alternative power source necessary to enable the safe and effective flood water, storm water, and waste water drainage flows into and along and through the South Delta-Lower San Joaquin River Basin?

___________________________________


Pg. 11 of 17


COMMENT: TLG believes that this is especially important when it is considered that page 5 of the March 26, 2019 Manteca Planning Commission (“MPC”) Staff Report states: “The City of Manteca has not approved, adopted, or funded any other projects that are reliant upon adoption of the General Plan Update or certification of the Program EIR.” QUESTION: Would previous approvals of the Great Wolfe Resort, Family Entertainment Zone, and the Oakwood Landing/Cerri and Denali Development Projects represent projects with potential impacts that would appear to be directly reliant upon the adoption of the General Plan Update and associated certification of the Program EIR? QUESTION: Will previous approvals of the Great Wolfe Resort, Family Entertainment Zone, and the Oakwood Landing/Cerri and Denali Development Projects affect steering the environmental review process by limiting the total options available to mitigate what appears to be very significant flood and other hydrology related impacts to the upstream and downstream areas that may be affected? (See Enclosures 1-31) QUESTION: What potential impacts may be created when comparing any current or future Tuolumne and Stanislaus River watershed management and/or drainage strategies with what appears to be very significant channel flow deficiencies and continuing sedimentation problems in and along the South Delta/Lower San Joaquin River Basin? Please consider these impacts in conjunction with the Manteca Planning Commission approval of the (i) Center Point Container Yard 2, SPC-17-38 and SPC-17-40; (ii) Staybridge Suites, Site Plan and Design Review SPC-18-126, Rezone REZ-19-29, and Planned Development PD-19-30; and (iii) Valencia Place Apartments, Site Plan and Design Review SPA-18-134 and Tentative Parcel Map SDN-19-09 (as included in the agenda for the MPC 5/28/2019 meeting). (See Enclosures 1-31) Page 142 of the Land Use Guide defines State Assembly Bill 70, Water Code Section 8307(C)(3) in terms of “unreasonably approving” to mean “approving a new development project without appropriately considering significant risks of flooding made known to the approving agency as of the time of approval and without taking reasonable and feasible action to mitigate the potential property damage to the new development resulting from a flood.” (See Enclosures 1-31) TLG believes that the various non-federal sponsors (in association with any and all other local, regional, and state agencies involved) should put an end to continuing delays and immediately perform a full and comprehensive environmental review that fully considers and mitigates for any and all of the flood water and other hydrology related concerns included in this letter. (See Enclosures 1-31) Further, TLG believes that the San Joaquin County (and other local community) general plan(s) have failed to meet the public safety and environmental impact disclosure and mitigation requirements as called for in California Senate Bill No. 1000 (“SB 1000”) (environmental justice) and CEQA. (See Enclosure 12 & 13) QUESTION: Has San Joaquin County, as well as the various other non-federal sponsors involved, acted in a good faith manner to fully identify and mitigate the potential for flood and other hydrology related impacts and health risks to the disadvantaged communities that may be affected? (See Enclosure 12 & 13)

___________________________________


Pg. 12 of 17


QUESTION: Has San Joaquin County, as well as the various other non-federal sponsors involved, fully and adequately met the SB 1000 requirement to integrate an environmental justice element along with other general plan elements into a general plan to reduce the unique or compounded health risks to any and all disadvantaged communities to be affected? (See Enclosure 12 & 13) QUESTION: Have any and all public meetings required by SB 1000 and CEQA been properly and fairly conducted? (See Enclosures 8-10, 12 & 13)

Most important, TLG believes that it is in the public’s best interest to perform a full and comprehensive environmental review in conjunction with an updated general plan and related environmental justice element before any more of the following items are approved, submitted for funding assistance, or allowed to move forward: projects, public improvements, bond sales, tentative and/or final maps, assessment districts, funding plans, land dedications, easements, exclusive negotiation agreements, legislative reports supporting further housing and other development and flood protection actions, operating and maintenance funding programs, strategic plans, encroachment agreements, land use changes, budget amendments, and/or any of the Capital Improvement Program Projects identified below in the enclosures attached. (See Enclosures 14 & 22) In closing, TLG believes that the City of Manteca General Plan 2023 appears to claim that:

“the French Camp Outlet Channel (and its tributary drains) is the limiting factor that sets the flow rates for drainage systems in the City of Manteca. Location of the discharge along the outlet conduits and channels is not a factor affecting hydraulic capacity requirements of the system. Therefore, regardless of position along the channel, each tributary subarea along the system is provided the same level of service.” (See page 6-10 City of Manteca General Plan 2023 attached as Enclosure 27)

In regards to this quote from the Manteca General Plan, TLG believes that due to SB5 200-year flood protection requirements, various flood drainage impacts and back-water effects may be created affecting the hydraulic capacity of the system. TLG also believes this may be particularly true for certain outfall locations that may be proposed in the non-urbanizing areas not currently protected by a 200 year flood protection levee. (See Enclosures 6, 7, 12 & 21) This is especially important when you consider that a recent February 20, 2017 South Manteca-San Joaquin River levee breach occurred at a time that the San Joaquin River channel was flowing at approximately 40,000 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) which is well below the design capacity of 66,080 cfs that the levees called for in the 2014 draft copy of the Lower San Joaquin and Delta South Regional Flood Management Plan. (See Enclosure 19) In addition, TLG believes that the flood model study area utilized in creating the “Conceptual Design Technical Memo/Paradise Cut Expansion Project/ April 9, 2019” may have been too limited in scope and may not have fully considered the potential for the study model area to be challenged by the presence of other sources of flooding as detailed earlier in this letter.

___________________________________


Pg. 13 of 17


With this in mind, TLG believes that the Paradise Cut Expansion Stage reductions called for between the Paradise Weir and the Airport Way (Vernalis Bridge) may not fully address what appears to be very significant flood water, storm water, and effluent waste water drainage and discharge impacts to be created from any and all changes in environmental conditions along the South Delta. (See Enclosures 1-31) (Also see page 9 of the “Conceptual Design Technical Memo/Paradise Cut Expansion Project/April 9, 2019) COMMENT: It appears that a funding mechanism has been put in place to allow Reclamation District 17 and other agencies to move forward with unidentified flood protection and drainage improvements affecting the rural areas South of Manteca. (See Enclosure 29) QUESTION: Isn’t it time that previously-promised public meetings are conducted? QUESTION: To fully consider any and all flood protection and drainage improvements and maintenance costs involved, shouldn’t a proper environmental impact review be performed prior to attempting to establish any budget or funding plan necessary to cover what appears to be very significant construction and maintenance costs involved? COMMENT: Page 2-7 of the August 2017 CVFPP Update states: “The Draft San Joaquin River BWFS evaluates potential systemwide multi-benefit improvements, including expansion of Paradise Cut; reservoir management strategies, including conjunctive use, increasing objective release, and operational changes (FI-O, and FC-O); and large-scale conveyance (Cross Valley Canal, conveyance to O’Neil Forebay). Because of the unique characteristics of the San Joaquin River Basin with lower peak flood flows than the Sacramento River Basin, the San Joaquin River BWFS also evaluated large-scale regional management actions such as levee improvements in Stockton, levee and hydraulic structure improvements around Firebaugh, and transitory storage at the Three Amigos and Dos Rios/Hidden Valley Ranch sites.” QUESTION: Isn’t it critical that any environmental impact analysis to be conducted must fully consider equitable alternatives to those detailed in the system-wide multi-benefit San Joaquin River Basin Wide Feasibility Study Improvements identified on page 2-7 of the August 2017 CVFPP Update? QUESTION: Most important, when considering all local area sedimentation and other drainage issues involved, is any flood water drainage protection plan even feasible that does not include and provide for equitable alternatives of similar scope as the large-scale bypass conveyance channel traveling east from the San Joaquin River to O’Neil Forebay? (See Enclosures 1-31) As a result, TLG urges authorities involved to stop the delays and recommend and support immediate environmental impact study and analysis to be conducted that fully identifies, evaluates, and mitigates any and all impacts to be expected. TLG also urges any and all local, regional, state, and federal agencies and decision-makers involved to carefully consider the potential impacts and drainage effects before approving or recommending any agenda item with the potential to affect drainage flows and associated flood protection design improvements and related drainage facility construction and maintenance

___________________________________


Pg. 14 of 17


funding for the areas in and along the South Delta-Lower San Joaquin River Basin. (See Enclosures 1-31 )

Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.

Respectfully,

Martin Harris for Terra Land Group, LLC.

MH/cm

Enclosures:

Enclosures with hyperlinks can be downloaded via Dropbox.

1. 02/26/2018 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency(https://www.dropbox.com/s/8scnhemfwexbkr9/2018-02-26_LTR_SJAFCA_LSJR%20EIR_PublicComm_wEncl.pdf?dl=0)

2. 03/05/2018 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin County Local Agency FormationCommission(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrxhht508075ro8/2018-03-05_LTR_LAFCo_AgIt3.pdf?dl=0

3. 03/04/2019 letter from TLG to the Manteca City Council(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8ldad6e6or9c6p/2019-03-04_LTR_MCC_AgItD3.pdf?dl=0)

4. 03/18/2019 letter from TLG to Lathrop Public Works(https://www.dropbox.com/s/musf61jmz7azjvy/2019-03-18_LTR_LPW_EIRWaterResPlan.pdf?dl=0)

5. 04/24/2019 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin Council of Governments(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qj20orveg4lb7q8/2019-04-24_LTR_SJCOG_AgIts4C4D.pdf?dl=0)

6. 04/29/2019 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin County Planning Commission(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnvqg7ksxny8e74/2019-04-29_LTR_SJCPC_AgIt2.pdf?dl=0

7. 05/13/2019 letter from TLG to the Manteca City Council and the Manteca PlanningCommission(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kzqfcxyxxgimm5p/2019-05-13_LTR_MPCMCC_AgItB.1.pdf?dl=0)

8. 05/14/2019 letter from Marian Rawlins to the Manteca City Council and the MantecaPlanning Commission

9. 05/15/2019 Manteca Bulletin news article “Harris: ‘I’ve been ignored for 3 years’”10. 04/09/2019 Manteca Planning Commission meeting transcript

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/yndk23wwg724ilp/2019-04-09%20MPC%20Meeting%20Transcript.pdf?dl=0)

___________________________________


Pg. 15 of 17

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8scnhemfwexbkr9/2018-02-26_LTR_SJAFCA_LSJR%20EIR_PublicComm_wEncl.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8scnhemfwexbkr9/2018-02-26_LTR_SJAFCA_LSJR%20EIR_PublicComm_wEncl.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrxhht508075ro8/2018-03-05_LTR_LAFCo_AgIt3.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrxhht508075ro8/2018-03-05_LTR_LAFCo_AgIt3.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8ldad6e6or9c6p/2019-03-04_LTR_MCC_AgItD3.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8ldad6e6or9c6p/2019-03-04_LTR_MCC_AgItD3.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/musf61jmz7azjvy/2019-03-18_LTR_LPW_EIRWaterResPlan.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/musf61jmz7azjvy/2019-03-18_LTR_LPW_EIRWaterResPlan.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qj20orveg4lb7q8/2019-04-24_LTR_SJCOG_AgIts4C4D.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qj20orveg4lb7q8/2019-04-24_LTR_SJCOG_AgIts4C4D.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnvqg7ksxny8e74/2019-04-29_LTR_SJCPC_AgIt2.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnvqg7ksxny8e74/2019-04-29_LTR_SJCPC_AgIt2.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kzqfcxyxxgimm5p/2019-05-13_LTR_MPCMCC_AgItB.1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kzqfcxyxxgimm5p/2019-05-13_LTR_MPCMCC_AgItB.1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yndk23wwg724ilp/2019-04-09%20MPC%20Meeting%20Transcript.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yndk23wwg724ilp/2019-04-09%20MPC%20Meeting%20Transcript.pdf?dl=0


11. 04/08/2019 letter from TLG to the Manteca Planning Commission (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qk7g2r5lxb7e5yo/2019-04-08_LTR_MPC_AgIt6.2.pdf?dl=0)

12. Audio/video recording for the 05/14/2019 Manteca City Council and Manteca Planning Commission Joint Meeting, Agenda Item B.1. Please visit this public website: (http://manteca-ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=534&meta_id=74328)

13. Legislative text of California Senate Bill No. 1000, chapter 587. Please visit this public website: (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1000)

14. Manteca City Council June 18, 2019 meeting agenda item E.2 (19-203): Link provides access to Attachment 1, City Progress Report (https://manteca-ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3986866&GUID=7BA568E1-56C2-4F87-91AF-B1495257CA6A)

15. 07/09/2018 letter from TLG to the Lathrop City Council (https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xy3puvtpc9fad7/2018-07-09_LTR_LCC_AgIts4.11_4.13_4.14.pdf?dl=0)

16. 06/17/2019 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin County Resource Conservation District and American Rivers (https://www.dropbox.com/s/q24qx0vu98nokdr/2019-06-17_LTR_AmRivers_ParadiseCut.pdf?dl=0)

17. 06/10/2019 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj03mzwpu3hb24g/2019-06-10_LTR_LAFCo_AgIts3-5.pdf?dl=0)

18. 03/26/2019 letter from TLG to the City of Manteca/City Hall (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kiq5wi588l5n7gk/2019-03-26_LTR_Manteca_Valencia.pdf?dl=0)

19. 04/20/2017 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7dy40jzlqeotw56/2017-04-20_LTR_SJCBS_Re04-25-17MtgPubComm_MHcm.pdf?dl=0)

20. 05/20/2019 letter #1 from TLG to the Manteca City Council and the Manteca Planning Commission (https://www.dropbox.com/s/53owz8azsxzq25m/2019-05-20_LTR_MCC_AgItD.2%2CE.1.pdf?dl=0)

21. 05/20/2019 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors (https://www.dropbox.com/s/3kp0rxtir4s1vth/2019-05-20_LTR_SJCBOS_AgIt1.pdf?dl=0)

22. 05/20/2019 letter from TLG to the Lathrop Planning Commission (https://www.dropbox.com/s/m8joc5kuyxq4q8v/2019-05-20_LTR_LPC_AgIt9.1.pdf?dl=0)

23. 05/28/2019 letter from TLG to the Manteca Planning Commission (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni6whzglrp4u8rm/2019-05-28_LTR_MPC_AgIt6.1etc.pdf?dl=0)

24. 05/13/2019 letter from TLG to the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9sihe2zt4flspr/2019-05-13_LTR_SSJID_AgItD.pdf?dl=0)

25. 05/22/2019 letter from TLG to the South San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Agency

___________________________________


Pg. 16 of 17

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qk7g2r5lxb7e5yo/2019-04-08_LTR_MPC_AgIt6.2.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qk7g2r5lxb7e5yo/2019-04-08_LTR_MPC_AgIt6.2.pdf?dl=0

http://manteca-ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=534&meta_id=74328

http://manteca-ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=534&meta_id=74328

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1000

https://manteca-ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3986866&GUID=7BA568E1-56C2-4F87-91AF-B1495257CA6A

https://manteca-ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3986866&GUID=7BA568E1-56C2-4F87-91AF-B1495257CA6A

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xy3puvtpc9fad7/2018-07-09_LTR_LCC_AgIts4.11_4.13_4.14.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xy3puvtpc9fad7/2018-07-09_LTR_LCC_AgIts4.11_4.13_4.14.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q24qx0vu98nokdr/2019-06-17_LTR_AmRivers_ParadiseCut.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q24qx0vu98nokdr/2019-06-17_LTR_AmRivers_ParadiseCut.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj03mzwpu3hb24g/2019-06-10_LTR_LAFCo_AgIts3-5.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj03mzwpu3hb24g/2019-06-10_LTR_LAFCo_AgIts3-5.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kiq5wi588l5n7gk/2019-03-26_LTR_Manteca_Valencia.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kiq5wi588l5n7gk/2019-03-26_LTR_Manteca_Valencia.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7dy40jzlqeotw56/2017-04-20_LTR_SJCBS_Re04-25-17MtgPubComm_MHcm.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7dy40jzlqeotw56/2017-04-20_LTR_SJCBS_Re04-25-17MtgPubComm_MHcm.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/53owz8azsxzq25m/2019-05-20_LTR_MCC_AgItD.2%2CE.1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/53owz8azsxzq25m/2019-05-20_LTR_MCC_AgItD.2%2CE.1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3kp0rxtir4s1vth/2019-05-20_LTR_SJCBOS_AgIt1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3kp0rxtir4s1vth/2019-05-20_LTR_SJCBOS_AgIt1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m8joc5kuyxq4q8v/2019-05-20_LTR_LPC_AgIt9.1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni6whzglrp4u8rm/2019-05-28_LTR_MPC_AgIt6.1etc.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni6whzglrp4u8rm/2019-05-28_LTR_MPC_AgIt6.1etc.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9sihe2zt4flspr/2019-05-13_LTR_SSJID_AgItD.pdf?dl=0


(https://www.dropbox.com/s/1t72evlwbvg6q92/2019-05-22_LTR_SSJGSA_AgIts5-7.pdf?dl=0)

26. 05/28/2019 letter from TLG to the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbjkkm9u6ii3mbr/2019-05-28_LTR_SSJID_AgIts2%268-9.pdf?dl=0)

27. Page 6-10 from the 2023 Manteca General Plan (as adopted on October 6, 2003) 28. 03/12/2019 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/z6y4747t50kt95f/2019-03-12_LTR_LAFCo_AgIt3.pdf?dl=0)

29. Ticor Title Company preliminary report order #0056500-005-SE9, as amended on April 17, 2019, for property (APN #226-060-11) located at 22777 Oleander Ave, Manteca. (Note: Area site map attached)

30. 06/03/2019 letter from TLG to the Manteca City Council (https://www.dropbox.com/s/krootovd38nc4y2/2019-06-03_LTR_MCC_AgItD.1.pdf?dl=0)

31. 06/05/2019 letter from TLG to the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (https://www.dropbox.com/s/9dtx0fvgtnibbpp/2019-06-05_LTR_SJRRC_AgIt4.pdf?dl=0)

cc:

South San Joaquin Irrigation District Board of Directors, ℅ Danielle Barney, Executive Secretary/Clerk of the Board Manteca City Council, ℅ Lisa Blackmon, City Clerk

___________________________________


Pg. 17 of 17

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1t72evlwbvg6q92/2019-05-22_LTR_SSJGSA_AgIts5-7.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1t72evlwbvg6q92/2019-05-22_LTR_SSJGSA_AgIts5-7.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbjkkm9u6ii3mbr/2019-05-28_LTR_SSJID_AgIts2%268-9.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbjkkm9u6ii3mbr/2019-05-28_LTR_SSJID_AgIts2%268-9.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/z6y4747t50kt95f/2019-03-12_LTR_LAFCo_AgIt3.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/z6y4747t50kt95f/2019-03-12_LTR_LAFCo_AgIt3.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/krootovd38nc4y2/2019-06-03_LTR_MCC_AgItD.1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/krootovd38nc4y2/2019-06-03_LTR_MCC_AgItD.1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9dtx0fvgtnibbpp/2019-06-05_LTR_SJRRC_AgIt4.pdf?dl=0

ENCLOSURE 8

https://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/local-news/harris-ive-been-ignored-for-3-years/

Harris: ‘I’ve been ignored for 3 years’

DENNIS WYATT

Manteca Bulletin

Updated: May 15, 2019, 1:14 a.m.

Marty Harris has a point.

And so does Bill Filios.

Harris’ involves what he sees as the folly of the city developing land uses for growth in southwest Manteca before making public what the plans are to protect the area against a 200-year flood as mandated by state law.

Filios’ zeroes in on public and even elected officials’ perception of commercial development in the Age of Internet shopping.

Both made their points at Tuesday’s joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting to discuss the preferred land use plan for the state mandated general plan update.

The question is whether anyone is listening.

Harris was the most strident.

“I’ve been ignored for three years,” said the rural South Manteca resident who has been pushing the city to reveal precise plans for 200-year flood protection. He routinely backs up his remarks with extensive letters to the council and planning commission.

His concern — and that of fellow neighbors and farmers — is born out of what 200-year flood protection will do to those south of the envisioned and more muscular cross levee that will be south of Woodward Avenue somewhere and run from the San Joaquin River to a point somewhere east of Union Road. Their argument, that holds water, is that they would be hit with higher flood water in a 200-year flood with the new levee in place.

He also argues the change for flooding in general is increasing due to more rooftops and paving taking place upstream and increasing the runoff. He noted the last levee breach south of Manteca on Feb. 20. 2017 that farmers quickly plugged was when the San Joaquin River was flowing at 40,000 cubic feet per second, well below the 66,000 cubic feet per second design capacity of the levees.

What does that have to do with land use? Plenty.

ENCLOSURE 9


https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A//www.mantecabulletin.com/news/local-news/harris-ive-been-ignored-for-3-years/

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https%3A//www.mantecabulletin.com/news/local-news/harris-ive-been-ignored-for-3-years/


Any land not within an area protected against a 200-year flood has to have development such as new homes, power lines and roadways elevated out of the flood zone.

While land zoning may avoid the 200-year flood area, it isn’t clear where the city will place the alignment of the Raymus Expressway as well as the actual levee. The roadway has to go north of the levee. The city has said as much.

Not knowing where either the roadway or levee will go exactly has been more than nerve-wracking for rural south Manteca residents who could see their lifestyle changed by having an expressway running behind — or in front — of their homes that they’ve lived in for decades shattering their lifestyles and dinging property values.

That said Harris and others are having a tough time with the city — from their perspective — essentially making them pay the price for more robust flood protection that will allow at least 3,000 more families to move into homes approved for southwest Manteca that essentially has made building the cross levee farther to the south an absolute necessity.

The area that is also encompassed in the 200-year flood plan within the city limits had no tract homes on it when flooding last occurred in 1997. The city since then has pushed the needed location for the cross levee farther south. The 1997 flood was considered a 100-year event. The 100-year moniker doesn’t reflect the frequency of such flood events as it does the odds for one of such intensity in any given year.

On Tuesday Harris also noted by not incorporating large greenbelt areas or open space in the land use and going primary for business parks, commercial and new neighborhoods dotted with parks and small storm basins, that the city will be increasing more storm runoff and increasing future flooding potential along the river.

Filios’ point was that the city’s continued push for larger commercial areas is a tough sell in today’s retail world.

He related how Amazon, Target and Walmart targeting online shopping has changed the brick and mortar retail world.

Filios has been working with several grocery chains in a bid to get them to locate in Union Crossing where the 130,000-square-foot Lifestyle Furniture showroom and warehouse is planned along the extension of Atherton Driven west of Union Road.

Supermarkets are no longer looking for 45,000 to 60,000 square feet but instead are reverting back to the 30,000-square-foot footprint they had for stores in the 1970s such as the SaveMart stores on Manteca on North Main Street and West Yosemite Avenue.

He noted the only retailers building large stores today are discounters.

Filios related how it was easy 20 years ago for him and his partners to secure stores for Spreckels Park that is anchored by Target and Food 4 Less along with Staples, TJ Max, Home



Depot and others. He noted it is almost impossible to replicate a Spreckels Park commercial area in today’s retail climate.

He called Manteca snaring 120,000-square-foot concerns such as Lifestyle Furniture “an abnormality.”

The council eventually pushed for even more commercial to be included in the land use map.

To contact Dennis Wyatt, email [email protected]


ENCLOSURE 27

ENCLOSURE 29

22777 Oleander Ave APN 226-060-11

Nile Ave

Attachment 6

Professional Services Agreement

1

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

This Agreement is made and entered into this ____ day of _____, 20___, by and between the

CITY OF MANTECA, a public body, corporate and politic ("City") and _____________, a

___________ corporation ("Consultant").

RECITALS

A. Consultant is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the

professional services required by this Agreement.

B. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification, and

knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions

specified herein.

C. City desires to retain Consultant to render the professional services set forth in

this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall perform the __________ services

described in the attached Attachment 1 that is incorporated by this reference, and pursuant to the

Proposal submitted by Consultant dated ______, and attached hereto as Attachment 2.

Consultant shall provide these services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in

Attachment 1, subject to the direction of the City through its staff that may be provided from

time to time. Performance of the ______ services is sometimes referred to herein as “the

Project.”

2. Work Through City Staff. Consultant shall perform its services pursuant to this

Agreement solely through City staff. No communications, information or documentations shall

be made directly to any applicant to the City without the prior written consent of the City. This

shall not apply to the sole request of information or clarification of information by Consultant

from the applicant. All requests shall be noted to City in an expeditious manner.

3. Time of Performance. Consultant’s services will commence upon execution of this

Agreement and shall be completed in accordance with the Schedule of Activities, attached hereto

as Attachment 3. All work shall be completed no later than _______________. Failure to

submit work products in accordance with the Schedule of Activities may result in the City

withholding progress payments. Repeated failure to complete work products in accordance with

the Schedule of Activities may result in a reduction of the total compensation provided for in

Section 4 herein.

4. Compensation. Without additional authorization from the City, compensation to be

paid to Consultant shall not exceed _______________DOLLARS ($______). Payment by City

under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any defects, even if those defects were

known to the City at the time of payment.

2

5. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City specifying

and describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include

a brief description of the services performed, the date the services were performed, the number

of hours expended and by whom, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. Full

payment of each task will only be made at such time as each task is completed.

City shall pay Consultant no later than 30 days after approval of the monthly invoice by City

staff. Payments may be delayed by City if Consultant fails to provide services in accordance

with the Schedule of Activities, unless the City has provided prior written consent to any delay in

the schedule.

6. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request

that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, the term "Extra Work" means any work

that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the

parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the time of execution of this

Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without the

City’s prior written authorization.

7. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the City immediately for

cause, or by either party without cause upon 15 days’ prior written notice of termination. Upon

termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the

effective date of termination upon submittal of an invoice for same.

8. Ownership of Documents; Confidentiality.

A. All plans, studies, documents, and other writings prepared by and for

Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors in the course of implementing this

Agreement, except working notes and internal documents, shall become the property of City

upon payment to Consultant for such work. City shall have the sole right to use such materials in

its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party. Consultant shall,

at Consultant's expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to

City upon written request by City. Consultant shall not be responsible for any unauthorized

modification or use of such information for other than its intended purpose.

B. All memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions,

computer program data, input record data, written information, and other documents and data,

either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this

Agreement, shall be held confidential by Consultant. These materials shall not, without the

City’s prior written consent, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance

of the services under this Agreement. Nor shall these materials be disclosed to any person or

entity not connected with the performance of services under this Agreement. Nothing furnished

to Consultant that is otherwise known to Consultant, or is generally known, or has become

known to the related profession shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City's

name or insignia, photographs relating to the Project for which Consultant's services are

rendered, or any publicity pertaining to the Consultant's services under this Agreement in any

magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production, or other similar medium

without the City’s prior written consent.

3

9. Consultant's Books and Records.

A. Consultant shall maintain all ledgers, books of account, invoices,

vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for

services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three

years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant

under this Agreement.

B. Consultant shall maintain all records that document performance under

this Agreement for a minimum period of three years, or for any longer period required by law,

from the date of termination or completion of this Agreement.

C. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this

Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit at any time during regular business

hours, upon written request by the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, or a designated

representative of any of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to City for

inspection at City Hall when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually

agreed upon, the records shall be available at Consultant's address specified in Section 16 of this

Agreement.

D. Where City has reason to believe that records or documents may be lost or

discarded due to the dissolution or termination of Consultant's business, City may, by written

request, require that custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and

documents be maintained in City Hall. Access to these records and documents shall be granted

to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant's representatives, or Consultant's successor-in-

interest.

10. Independent Contractor. In the performance of the work and services required by

this Agreement, Consultant shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent, or

employee of the City. Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement or other benefits that accrue

to City's employees, and Consultant expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights.

11. Interest of Consultant.

A. Consultant represents that neither it nor any employee has any investment

or interest in real property, and shall not acquire any such interest, direct or indirect, within the

area covered by this Agreement, or any other source of income, interest in real property, or

investment that would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant's

services hereunder. Consultant further represents that, in the performance of its duties

hereunder, no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement.

B. Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the

Political Reform Act because Consultant:

(1) will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to its

rendition of information, advice, recommendation, or counsel

independent of the control and direction of the City, or of any City

official, other than normal Agreement monitoring; and

4

(2) possesses no authority with respect to any City decision beyond the

rendition of information, advice, recommendation, or counsel.

(FPPC Reg. 18700(a)(2).)

12. Professional Ability of Consultant.

A. City is relying upon the professional training and ability of Consultant to

perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement.

Consultant shall therefore provide skilled professional and technical personnel to perform all

services under this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant shall be in accordance with

applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of

competent professionals in Consultant's field of expertise.

B. The primary provider of the services required by this Agreement shall be

______________. A list of other individuals assigned to the Project will be provided to City for

its review and approval, and these individuals shall not be replaced without the City’s prior

written consent.

13. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall use the customary standard of care in its

profession to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, codes, ordinances, and

regulations.

14. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses,

permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals that are legally required of Consultant to

practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its

sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any

licenses, permits, insurance, and approvals that are legally required of Consultant to practice its

profession.

15. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and

hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers, from and against

any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability, direct or indirect

(including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), arising out of Consultant’s

performance of this Agreement, or Consultant’s failure to comply with any of its obligations

contained in this Agreement; excluding, however, any claim arising out of the active negligence

or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers.

16. Insurance Requirements.

A. Job specific insurance requirements can be found on the attached Attachment

4. Other insurance provisions can be found below:

B. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance

policy shall be with insurers possessing an A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and shall be

endorsed with language substantially as follows:

(1) The City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees,

agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with

5

respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of

the Consultant, including materials, parts, or equipment furnished

in connection with such work.

(2) The policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects the

City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees,

agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the City,

including any self-insured retention the City may have, shall be

considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it.

(3) The insurance shall apply to each insured and additional insured as

though a separate policy had been written for each, except with

respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.

(4) The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the City, its

elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, and agents.

(5) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies

shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its elected and

appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers.

(6) The insurance provided by the policy shall not be suspended,

voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after

30 days written notice has been received by the City.

(7) The City will not accept any endorsements that were issued in

2004. Acceptable endorsement forms are CG 20 10 11 85 or both

CG 20 10 10 01 and CG 20 37 10 01.

C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured

retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the City's option, Consultant shall

demonstrate financial capability for payment of those deductibles or self-insured retentions.

D. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of

insurance with original endorsements as evidence of the required insurance coverage.

Certificates of insurance shall be filed with the City on or before commencement of performance

of this Agreement. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with the City at all

times during the term of this Agreement.

17. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing

and either served personally or sent prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice shall be addressed

to the other party at the address set forth below. Notice shall be deemed communicated within

48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

If to City: City of Manteca

1001 W. Center Street

Manteca, CA 95337

Attention: _______________

6

If to Consultant: ________________________

________________________

________________________

Attention: _______________

18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive

statement of Agreement between the City and Consultant. All prior written and oral

communications, including correspondence, drafts, memoranda, and representations, are

superseded in their entirety by this Agreement.

19. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document

executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

20. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial

inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience,

and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties, or obligations of the

Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express written consent of the

City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this

Agreement without the written authorization of the City. If City consents to such subcontract,

Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor.

Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and

subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of the City to pay any monies due to

any such subcontractor other than as may be required by law.

21. Waiver. Waiver of any breach or default under this Agreement shall not

constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach or default of the same or any other

provision under this Agreement.

22. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or

otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this

Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

23. Controlling Law; Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be

governed by the laws of the State of California, and any legal action relating to this Agreement

shall take place in the Superior Court, County of San Joaquin.

24. Litigation Expenses and Attorneys' Fees. If either party to this Agreement

commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing

party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including court costs, expert

witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorneys' fees.

25. Mediation. The parties agree to make a good faith attempt to resolve any disputes

arising out of this Agreement through mediation prior to commencing litigation. The parties

shall mutually agree upon the mediator and shall divide the costs of mediation equally. If the

parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, the dispute shall be submitted to

JAMS/ENDISPUTE ("JAMS") or its successor in interest. JAMS shall provide the parties with

the names of five qualified mediators. Each party shall have the option to strike two of the five

7

mediators selected by JAMS, and thereafter the mediator remaining shall hear the dispute. If the

dispute remains unresolved after mediation, either party may commence litigation.

26. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of

which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties

when at least one copy has been signed by both parties.

27. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant warrants that it has all requisite power

and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform this Agreement. Each

party warrants to the other that the signatories to this Agreement have the legal power, right, and

authority to enter into this Agreement and to bind each party.

28. Prohibited Interests.

A. Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any person, other

than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement.

Further, Consultant warrants that it has neither paid nor agreed to pay any person, other than a

bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage

fee, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this

Agreement. For any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this

Agreement without liability.

B. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer, or employee of City,

during the period of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement,

or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

29. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal

opportunity employer, and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or

applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry,

sex, or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to

initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff

or termination.

30. Precedence. In case of conflict between Consultant’s Proposal dated ____ and

this Agreement (which includes Attachment 1 and Attachment 3) this Agreement and its

attachments shall take precedence over Consultant’s proposal.

8

This Space Purposely Left Blank

9

TO EFFECTUATE THIS AGREEMENT, each of the parties has caused this Agreement

to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the date set forth in the introductory

paragraph on page 1 above.

CITY OF MANTECA: CONSULTANT:

_________________________________ ___________________________________

(Signature) (Type name of Consultant/form of organization)*

Benjamin J. Cantu, Mayor_________

ATTEST: By: ___________________________________

(Signature)

_________________________________

(Signature) ___________________________________

(Type name and title)

Lisa Blackmon, City Clerk

By: ___________________________________

(Signature)

COUNTERSIGNED: ___________________________________

(Type name and title)

_________________________________

(Signature)

Address: ____________________________

Jeri Tejeda, Finance Director

____________________________

Telephone: ____________________________

COUNTERSIGNED:

_________________________________

(Signature)

Jeri Tejeda, Interim Director of Risk Management

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________

(Signature)

John Brinton, City Attorney

10

ATTACHMENT 1


11

ATTACHMENT 2

CONSULTANT’S PROPOSAL

12

ATTACHMENT 3

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

Attachment 7

Insurance Requirements for Professional Services

05/14

EXHIBIT 1

Insurance Requirements for Professional Services

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

Consultants shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Minimum Limits of Insurance: Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Commercial General Liability

Commercial General Liability Insurance with $2,000,000 minimum limit per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this

project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Commercial General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement naming the following as insured on

2001 or earlier issued endorsement forms: “City of Manteca, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers”. Automobile Liability If the vehicles are brought onto city facilities, covering any auto, or of Contractor has no owned autos, hired, and non-owned autos, the Contractor shall maintain automobile liability with limits no less than:

Automobile Liability Insurance with $1,000,000 minimum limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

Automobile Liability Additional Insured Endorsement naming the following as additional insured: “City of Manteca, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers”. Worker’s Compensation As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriates to the Contractor’s profession, with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate Other Insurance Provisions: The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The City of Manteca, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insured’s as respect to: liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 if completed operations coverage is required.

2. For any claims related to this contract, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers, shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

05/14

3. The applicant’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.

4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City of Manteca.

Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the Entity before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City of Manteca reserves the right to require complete, certified copes of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. Notice of Cancellation Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the Entity. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Manteca Waiver of Subrogation Consultant hereby grants to The City of Manteca a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the Entity by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the Entity has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. Subcontractors Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that The City of Manteca is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. SPECIAL RISKS OR CIRCUMSTANCES The City of Manteca reserves the right to modify these requirements based on the nature of the risk, prior events, insurance coverage, or other special circumstances.

Attachment 8

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pre-Application Meeting Notes

City Participants: Greg Showerman, Kevin Jorgensen, Sandy Mathews

Agency Participants: Chandra Jenkins, Corps; Tom Faugnan, Corps; Tricia Cole, USFWS (on

phone); Kim Squire, Bay Delta Project (on phone)

The outfall will need a Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit. These

are coordinated permitting processes handled by the same application to the Corps.

The Corps will look at impacts to waters of the US, which in addition to the outfall itself,

may include road side ditches along Woodward or Aplicella.

o At this stage it is uncertain if the ditches would be considered waters of the US.

The outfall may qualify for a Nationwide Permit – NWP 7 “Outfall Structures...”

Qualifying for a nationwide permit can simplify the permitting process.

Approval from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board will be a major process.

o For the CVFPB to issue their permit, they will request a Section 408 approval

from the Corps.

The City does not need to submit a separate permit for the 408 approval.

o The Corps will coordinate internally on both the Section 404 and Section 408

approval processes.

As part of the Corps permitting process, the Corps will initiate consultations with:

o US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding threatened and endangered species (land);

o National Marine Fisheries Service regarding threatened and endangered species

(water, e.g., Delta Smelt and Salmonids);

o State Historic Preservation Office regarding cultural and historic artifacts and

properties; and

o Tribal authorities.

To support these consultations, the CEQA/NEPA documents will need to include, or be

prepared concurrently, a Cultural Resources Report, a biological evaluation (possibly a

biological assessment).

The consultations with the resource services take at minimum 135 days, but it is not

atypical for them to take a year.

Coordination with the Bay Delta Project is also handled by the Corps.

o It appears that the project location is within the Bay Delta.

Permit applications should be submitted at the same time and clearly indicate what other

applications have been submitted to facilitate inter- and intra-agency coordination.

Chandra Jenkins is the Senior Project Manager for projects in San Joaquin County.

o She is available for questions during the design and application process.

Chandra noted that the Lathrop outfall application is a good example of what needs to go

into the application and supporting materials.

o The agencies learned a lot during this process and expect the Manteca outfall will

not be as challenging based on the lessons learned from the Lathrop project.

o If we want to obtain the Lathrop applications from the Corps, we would need to

file a Freedom of Information Act request. It would be better to work directly

with Lathrop to get the materials.

Chandra said that the Corps has a list of consultants who do this type of work (design and

environmental) on their website, they are not recommended or vetted by the Corps, but it

might be a useful resource.

o Here is the link:

https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Contacts/Wetland-

Consultants/

https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Contacts/Wetland-Consultants/

https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Contacts/Wetland-Consultants/