CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR
AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
MEETINGAGENDA
August 21, 2025
5:30 PM
The Mission of the City of Coalinga is to provide for the preservation of the community character by delivering quality, responsive City services, in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and to develop, encourage, and promote a diversified economic base in order to ensure the future financial stability of the City for its citizens.
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a Meeting, on August 21, 2025 in the City Council Chambers located at 155 West Durian, Coalinga, CA. Persons with disabilities who may need assistance should contact the City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to this meeting at 935-1533 x113. Anyone interested in translation services should contact the City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at 935-1533 x113. The Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. and the agenda will be as follows:
1. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Changes to the Agenda
3. Council's Approval of Agenda
2. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS
1. Presentation of the City of Coalinga Water Supply Feasibility Study - Sevim Onsoy, GEI Consultants
2. City of Coalinga Natural Gas Update - Dan Bergmann, IGS
3. CITIZEN COMMENTS
This section of the agenda allows members of the public to address the City Council on any item within the jurisdiction of the Council. Members of the public, when recognized by the Mayor, should come forward to the lectern, identify themselves and use the microphone. Comments are normally limited to three (3) minutes. In accordance with State Open Meeting Laws, no action will be taken by the City Council this evening and all items will be referred to staff for follow up and a report.
Citizen Comments submitted in writing to the City Clerk by 5:00pm on the day of the City Council meeting shall be distributed to the City Council and included in the record, however they will not be read.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS (NONE)
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Information Only: Transient Occupancy Tax Quarter Ending March 31, 2025
2. Informational Only: Cannabis Related Revenue Quarter Ending March 31, 2025
3. Informational Only: Measure J Quarter Ending March 31, 2025
4. Information Only - Implementation of California Assembly Bill 413 – Daylighting Law
5. Authorize Manager to Execute Task Orders with the City Engineer for Right-of-Way (ROW) Engineering for Segment 6 of the Coalinga Multi-Trail System Funded by the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Grant Program
6. Authorize City Manager to Execute a Task Order with the City’s On-Call Right-of-Way (ROW) Consultant for ROW Services for the Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North Project Through the Active Transportation Program (ATP)
7. Authorize City Manager to Execute a Task Order with the City’s On-Call Right-of-Way (ROW) Consultant for ROW Services for the Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
8. Authorize City Manager to Execute a Task Order with the City’s On-Call Environmental Consultant for Environmental Services for the Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
9. Direction to Proceed with Rehabilitation and Accessibility Improvements for the Frame Park Gazebo in Partnership with Community Groups
6. ORDINANCE PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
1. Appeal Hearing – Administrative Citation #12804 – Alleged Possession and Use of Illegal Fireworks
Greg DuPuis, Fire Chief
2. Appeal Hearing – Administrative Citation #12805 – Alleged Possession and Use of Illegal Fireworks
Greg DuPuis, Fire Chief
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. City Manager's Announcements
2. Councilmembers' Announcements/Reports
3. Mayor's Announcements
8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
9. CLOSED SESSION
1. REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY: APN:
070-060-76 located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Chevron USA. UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
2. REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY: APN:
070-060-82T & 070-060-88T located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS:
City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Coalinga-Huron Park and Recreation District (CHRPD). UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
3. REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY: APN:
070-060-85 located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Granite Construction. UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
4. REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY: APN:
071-020-23S located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Lewis, et al. UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
5. REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY: APN:
071-020-58S located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: JRyKO Joint Venture. UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
6. REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY: APN:
071-164-02S located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Valdez.
UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
7. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS – Government Code 54957.6.
CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. EMPLOYEE (ORGANIZATION): Police Officers Association
10. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Closed Session: A "Closed" or "Executive" Session of the City Council, Successor Agency, or Public Finance Authority may be held as required for items as follows: personnel matters; labor negotiations; security matters; providing instructions to real property negotiators; legal counsel regarding pending litigation; and protection of records exempt from public disclosure.
Closed session will be held in the Administration Building at 155 W. Durian Avenue and any announcements or discussion will be held at the same location following Closed Session.
11. ADJOURNMENT
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Presentation of the City of Coalinga Water Supply Feasibility Study - Sevim Onsoy, GEI Consultants
Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Seam Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, Interim Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file the City of Coalinga Water Supply Feasibility Study, and provide direction as needed regarding advancement of recommended alternatives.
II. BACKGROUND:
In response to the City’s long-term water reliability challenges, GEI Consultants prepared a comprehensive Feasibility Study evaluating alternatives to supplement and stabilize Coalinga’s water supply. The City is currently 100% reliant on the Central Valley Project (CVP), making it especially vulnerable during drought and climate-driven supply shortages.
III. DISCUSSION:
The Study, funded by the California Department of Water Resources, identifies and evaluates seven viable water supply alternatives. Following an in-depth technical, financial, and regulatory analysis, the two topranked options are:
Alternative 1a: Local water banking/exchange agreement with Westlands Water District Alternative 1b: Local water banking/exchange agreement with Gladstone Land Both alternatives provide promising long-term opportunities to store water during wet years and recover it in dry years. These options are recommended for further due diligence and partnership development. The feasibility study outlines estimated timelines, potential funding sources, and implementation considerations for both alternatives.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not direct staff to proceed with the top alternatives to preserve and ensure water supply sustainability and provide alternative direction.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the action being taken tonight. Future water banking efforts may have financial impact but yet to be determined based on what course of action the City goes.
ATTACHMENTS:
F
ileNameDescription
Coalinga_Feasibility_Study_FINAL_May2025.pdfCoalingaFeasibilityStudy_FINAL_May2025
This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
Submied to:
California Department of Water Resources
South Central Region Office
691 N Laverne Ave., Ste. 104
Fresno, CA 93726
City of Coalinga
155 West Durian
Coalinga, CA 93210
Submied by:
GEI Consultants, Inc.
11010 White Rock Road, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
916.631.4500
May 2025
Project No. 2204930 Task Order 23-01
This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations vi
Executive Summary vii
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Study Area 1
1.2. Purpose of the Study 1
1.3. Plan Goal and Objec5ves 2
1.4. Project Team 4
1.5. Organiza5on of Alterna5ves Study 4
2. Background 5
2.1. Water Resources 5
2.1.1. Central Valley Project Contracted Water 5
2.1.1.1. Central Valley Project Alloca5ons 5
2.1.2. Groundwater 7
2.1.2.1. Pleasant Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan 10
2.1.3. Surface Water 11
2.1.3.1. Surface Water Treatment Plant 11
2.1.3.2. Sec5on 215 Water 11
2.1.3.3. Water Transfers 12
2.1.4. Recycled Water 12
2.1.5. Stormwater 13
2.2. Water Demands 15
2.2.1. Municipal and Industrial 15
2.2.1.1. Water Losses 16
2.2.2. Untreated Sales 18
2.3. Related Plans and Studies 19
2.3.1. City of Coalinga General Plan 19
2.3.2. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan 19
3. Plan Formulation 20
3.1. Challenges and Constraints 20
3.1.1. Rate of Growth 20
3.1.2. Water Supply Reliability and Drought Vulnerability 22
3.1.3. Aging Infrastructure 22
3.1.4. Climate Change 24
3.1.5. Finances 26
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. ii
3.1.6. Affordability 28
3.2. Opportuni5es 29
3.2.1. Available Water Supplies 29
3.2.2. Infrastructure Improvements 32
3.2.3. Groundwater Banking 32
3.2.4. Compliance with Urban Water Use Objec5ves 33
3.2.5. Water Loss Reduc5on and Improved Data Collec5on 35
4. Alternatives Identi&ication 36
4.1. Formula5on of Alterna5ves 36
4.1.1. Alterna5ve 1: Water Banking 37
4.1.1.1. Alterna5ve 1a: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Westlands Water District 39
4.1.1.2. Alterna5ve 1b: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Gladstone Land 43
4.1.1.3. Alterna5ve 1c: Semitropic Water Storage District 47
4.1.1.4. Alterna5ve 1d: Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District 48
4.1.1.5. Alterna5ve 1e: Willow Springs Water Bank 50
4.1.2. Alterna5ve 2: Development of Local Groundwater Pumping 52
4.1.3. Alterna5ve 3: Development of Recycled Water 53
4.1.4. Alterna5ve 4: Implementa5on of Water Conserva5on Measures 55
5. Evaluation and Comparison of Alternatives 58
5.1. Preliminary Screening 58
5.2. Alterna5ves Advancing to Detailed Evalua5on 58
5.3. Evalua5on Framework 59
5.3.1. Study Objec5ves 59
5.3.2. Evalua5on Criteria 59
5.3.3. Evalua5on Methodology 60
5.3.4. Technical Feasibility 60
5.3.4.1. Water Supply Reliability 60
5.3.4.2. Construc5on Requirements 61
5.3.5. Economic and Financial Feasibility 61
5.3.6. Regulatory Feasibility 61
5.3.7. Environmental Impacts 62
5.3.8. Opera5ons and Maintenance 63
5.3.9. Stakeholder and Public Acceptance 63
5.3.10. Implementa5on 64
5.3.10.1. Timeline 64
5.3.10.2. Partnership Feasibility 64
5.4. Alterna5ves Evalua5on 64
5.4.1. Technical Feasibility 65
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. iii
5.4.1.1. Water Supply Reliability 65
5.4.1.2. Construc5on Requirements 65
5.4.2. Economic and Financial Feasibility 66
5.4.3. Regulatory Feasibility 67
5.4.4. Environmental Impacts 68
5.4.5. Opera5ons and Maintenance 69
5.4.6. Stakeholder and Public Acceptance 70
5.4.7. Implementa5on 71
5.4.7.1. Timeline 72
5.4.7.2. Partnership Feasibility 72
5.5. Comparison of Alterna5ves 73
5.5.1. Evalua5on Criteria Weigh5ng 73
5.5.2. Alterna5ves Ranking 74
5.5.3. Summary of Findings 76
5.5.3.1. Top-Ranked Alterna5ves 76
5.5.3.2. Mid-Tier Alterna5ves 76
5.5.3.3. Lower-Ranked Alterna5ves 77
5.5.4. Conclusion 77
6. Recommended Alternative 78
6.1. Summary 78
6.2. Next Steps 79
6.2.1. Future Water Demand and Supply Assessment 79
6.2.1.1. Demand and Supply Framework 80
6.2.1.2. Projected Supply and Demand Outcomes 80
6.2.2. Next Steps for Planning and Implementa5on 82
6.2.3. Funding Opportuni5es 83
7. References 85
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. iv
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Unconstrainted CVP Deliveries in Recent Years 7 Table 2-2. Groundwater Quality Cons5tuents 8
Table 3-1. Projected Popula5on Growth - 2025 to 2040 20 Table 3-2. CVP M&I South of Delta Alloca5ons by Sacramento Valley Water Year Types for Historical Condi5ons and Future Projec5ons with Climate Change 25 Table 3-3. Average CVP Alloca5ons by Sacramento Valley Water Year Types for Historical Condi5ons and Future Projec5ons with Climate Change (1990 – 2021) 26 Table 3-4. City of Coalinga Meter Sizes as of November 2024 35 Table 3-5. City of Coalinga Smart Meters as of January 2025 35 Table 4-1. Alterna5ves and Op5ons 36
Table 4-2. Gladstone Land Proper5es 44
Table 5-1. Water Supply Reliability Alterna5ve Ranking 65 Table 5-2. Construc5on Requirements Alterna5ve Ranking 66 Table 5-3. Economic and Financial Feasibility Alterna5ve Ranking 67 Table 5-4. Regulatory Feasibility Alterna5ve Ranking 68 Table 5-5. Environmental Impacts Alterna5ve Ranking 69
Table 5-6. O&M Alterna5ve Ranking 70
Table 5-7. Stakeholder and Public Acceptance Alterna5ve Ranking 71 Table 5-8. Implementa5on Timeline Alterna5ve Ranking 72 Table 5-9. Partnership Feasibility Alterna5ve Ranking 73 Table 5-10. Evalua5on Criteria Weightage 74
Table 5-11. Evalua5on Matrix 75
Table 6-1. Summary of Future Projected Demand and Supply under Climate Change 82 Table 6-2. Poten5al Funding Opportuni5es 84
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. v
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Study Area and Vicinity 3
Figure 2-1. City of Coalinga Service Area 6
Figure 2-2. Water Level Eleva5ons in Pleasant Valley Subbasin 9 Figure 2-3. City of Coalinga Wastewater Treatment Plant 14 Figure 2-4. City of Coalinga Historical M&I Demands 15
Figure 2-5. Aggregated M&I Demand Between Water Year 2020/21 and 2023/24 17 Figure 2-6. Coalinga Unbilled Water 12-Month Rolling Average 17 Figure 2-7. Untreated Sales Volumes from Water Years 2013/14 to 2024/25 18 Figure 3-1. Projected Potable Water Demands, 2025 to 2040 21 Figure 3-2. Average Annual Projected Potable Demand by Water Sectors – 2025 to 2040 21 Figure 3-3. City of Coalinga Historical Water Enterprise Revenue and Expenditures 27 Figure 3-4. City of Coalinga Historical Capital Projects Revenue and Expenditures 28 Figure 3-5. Historical Central Valley Project Alloca5ons 30 Figure 3-6. Historical Water Supply Deficits WY2013-14 to WY2024-25 31 Figure 4-1. Banking Op5ons – Westlands, Semitropic, Rosedale, and Willow Springs 41 Figure 4-2 . Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement Op5on - Gladstone Land 46
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AF Acre-feet
AFY Acre-feet per year
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Coalinga
CVP Central Valley Project
CWC California Water Commission
DWR California Department of Water Resources
FY Fiscal year
gpcd Gallons per capita per day
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
MGD Million gallons per day
M&I Municipal and Industrial
NEPA Na5onal Environmental Policy Act
PHS Public Health and Safety
PID PaJerson Irriga5on District
PVGSA Pleasant Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency PVWCP Pleasant Valley Water Conveyance Partners
Rosedale Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District
SB Senate Bill
Semitropic Semitropic Water Storage District
Study City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
TDS total dissolved solids
USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclama5on
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWUO Urban Water Use Objec5ves
Westlands Westlands Water District
Willow Springs Willow Springs Water Bank
WTP Water treatment plant
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
WY Water year
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. vii
Executive Summary
The City of Coalinga (City), located in Pleasant Valley, Fresno County, California, serves as the sole water purveyor within its jurisdic5on, providing water and sewer services for residen5al, commercial, and industrial customers, including fire protec5on. The City relies en5rely on the Central Valley Project (CVP) for its municipal water supply, making it highly vulnerable to supply shortages, par5cularly during extended droughts and under future climate change scenarios.
In response to worsening drought condi5ons, the Coalinga City Council declared a Water Conserva5on Emergency on July 1, 2021. The crisis intensified in 2022 when the U.S. Bureau of Reclama5on (USBR) reduced the City’s alloca5on to 2,800 acre-feet (AF) for Public Health and Safety (PHS) needs, ensuring that the City would exhaust its water supply by the end of that year. Emergency support was provided through a $1.2 million grant from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) under the Urban Community Drought Relief Program for the acquisi5on of 600 AF of water from PaJerson Irriga5on District.
This Feasibility Study was conducted to iden5fy and evaluate long-term strategies that can enhance water supply reliability and mi5gate future shortages. The overarching goal of the Study is to iden5fy viable alterna5ves that provide both short- and long-term water sustainability for the City. Four guiding objec5ves were established to support this goal:
• Enhance water supply reliability
• Provide cost-effec5ve and safe water supplies
• Achieve stakeholder and public acceptance
• Implement strategies that comply with applicable regula5ons and permits Alternaves Development and Evaluaon
Following a comprehensive assessment of the City’s historical and current condi5ons (Chapters 2 and 3), eight alterna5ves were formulated (Chapter 4), including water banking, groundwater pumping, recycled water reuse, and water conserva5on. One alterna5ve—water conserva5on—was eliminated during preliminary screening, as the City already prac5ces conserva5on and complies with State regula5ons.
Seven alterna5ves were carried forward for detailed evalua5on:
1. Alternave 1a: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Westlands Water District
2. Alternave 1b: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Gladstone Land
3. Alternave 1c: Water Banking with Semitropic Water Storage District
4. Alternave 1d: Water Banking with Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District
5. Alternave 1e: Water Banking with Willow Springs Water Bank City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. viii
6. Alternave 2: Local Groundwater Pumping
7. Alternave 3: Recycled Water
Each alterna5ve was evaluated against nine criteria aligned with the Study’s objec5ves. These included technical feasibility, economic and financial viability, regulatory requirements, environmental impacts, opera5ons and maintenance needs, stakeholder acceptance, implementa5on 5meline, and partnership feasibility. Alterna5ves were ranked on a scale of 1 to 3 for each criterion, and weighted scores were applied to reflect the rela5ve importance of each criterion (Chapter 5).
Recommended Alternaves
Based on the evalua5on, Alternave 1a (Westlands) and Alternave 1b (Gladstone Land) received the highest overall scores. Both are local water banking/ exchange agreement op5ons that offer sustainable, long-term water supply solu5ons and greater drought resilience. Key dis5nc5ons include:
• Alternave 1a benefits from exis5ng infrastructure (Coalinga Canal), minimizing new construc5on needs but requiring more complex coordina5on due to Westlands’ Board structure. • Alternave 1b offers a more flexible and direct partnership opportunity with Gladstone Land, though it may require addi5onal infrastructure investment and water quality management.
Both alterna5ves are recommended for advancement through addi5onal technical, legal, and financial due diligence.
Implementaon Pathway and Funding Opportunies
Design, permiPng, environmental documenta5on, and construc5on for either alterna5ve is expected to take up to five years. To support implementa5on, the City should engage in further nego5a5ons to develop detailed partnership agreements and opera5onal frameworks, including water transfer terms, infrastructure needs, and groundwater monitoring protocols.
A strategic funding approach is essen5al to reduce financial impacts. Poten5al funding sources include:
• Proposion 4 (2024 Bond Act) – $386 million for groundwater sustainability and $610 million for safe drinking water
• Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGM) Grant Program – Supports Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) planning and implementa5on
• Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP) – Funds large-scale groundwater storage projects • Proposions 1 and 68 – Fund water infrastructure, storage, water quality, and climate resilience projects
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. ix
This Feasibility Study iden5fies local water banking/ exchange agreement with Westlands and Gladstone Land as the most promising and implementable alterna5ves for improving the City’s water supply reliability. These op5ons provide near-term opportuni5es to store surplus water and mi5gate future deficits during periods of reduced CVP alloca5ons. Advancing these alterna5ves will posi5on the City to respond proac5vely to increasing water demand, extended droughts, and climate variability—securing a resilient and sustainable water future for Coalinga.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 1
1. Introduction
1.1. Study Area
The City of Coalinga (Coalinga or City), located in Pleasant Valley, Fresno County, California, is a public agency responsible for providing water, sewer, and fire protec5on services to all residen5al, commercial, and industrial users. The City, which covers approximately 3,800 acres, is the sole water purveyor within its boundaries. Situated in the foothills of the coastal mountain range on the western side of California's Central Valley, Coalinga lies about 60 miles southwest of Fresno, 19 miles southwest of Huron, and 18 miles northwest of Avenal. It is posi5oned near the southwest boundary of Westlands Water District (Westlands), with Interstate 5 approximately 10 miles to the east, Monterey County to the west, and Kings County to the east. Figure 1-1 Figure 1-1 shows the City’s loca5on and service area boundaries.
1.2. Purpose of the Study
California has faced increasingly severe drought condi5ons over the past decade due to climate change, with 8 out of the last 10 years ranging from abnormally dry to excep5onal drought. The most recent drought from 2020 to 2022 saw over 40 percent of the state classified under excep5onal drought condi5ons in 2021. These prolonged drought condi5ons severely strained Coalinga's water supply. In response, on July 1, 2021, the Coalinga City Council declared a Water Conserva5on Emergency, implemen5ng strict conserva5on measures and new water restric5ons. These mandatory Stage 2 restric5ons set specific conserva5on targets for various customer classes:
• Single-Family Residen5al: Reduce water use by 30% from 2020 levels; drought charges apply for usage over 30,000 gallons/month.
• Mul5-Family Residen5al: Reduce water use by 25% from 2020 levels. • Commercial: Reduce water use by 20% from 2020 levels. • Non-Residen5al Landscape: Reduce water use by 30% from 2020 levels. • Industrial & Ins5tu5onal: Reduce water use by 20% from 2020 levels.
Drought Charges:
• Single-Family Residen5al: Drought charges apply for usage above 15,000 gallons/month, with a drought rate of $7.50 per 1,000 gallons.
• Other Customer Classes: Drought charges apply for exceeding conserva5on targets. • Excep5ons: Drought charges under $15 will be waived to reduce administra5ve costs.
By April 1, 2022, the USBR informed the City that the water usage must be reduced to Public Health and Safety (PHS) levels, alloca5ng just 2,800 acre-feet (AF) of water to the City – far below the City’s average usage of 4,000 AF over the previous decade. This shortage threatened to put Coalinga at the risk of running out of water by December 2022. To address this immediate water crisis, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) awarded $1.2 million through its Urban Community Drought City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 2
Relief program, enabling the City to purchase 600 AF of water for approximately $1.1 million from PaJerson Irriga5on District.
Although the 2020-2022 drought ended with the atmospheric rivers of late 2022 and early 2023, future droughts are expected to be more severe and frequent due to climate change. As Coalinga is en5rely dependent on imported water from the Central Valley Project (CVP), the City remains significantly vulnerable, highligh5ng the need for this Feasibility Study (Study) to evaluate long-term alterna5ves for improving water resiliency.
1.3. Plan Goal and Objectives
The primary goal of this Study is to formulate and evaluate alterna5ves that provide both short- and long-term water supply sustainability for the City of Coalinga. These alterna5ves and recommenda5ons are conceptual in nature and will serve as the founda5on for future decisions regarding sustainable water supply solu5ons. Given the City's reliance on imported water and its vulnerability to drought, this Study's recommenda5ons aim to improve water resilience while addressing current and future challenges.
The objec5ves of the Study are designed to address Coalinga’s water resource needs, based on the prevailing condi5ons and projected demands. These objec5ves will guide the formula5on and assessment of alterna5ves to ensure they meet the community's needs for sustainable water management.
The key objec5ves include:
• Enhance water supply reliability – Ensure the long-term reliability of Coalinga’s water supply by iden5fying reliable water sources which are adap5ve to climate change, fluctua5ng demand, and other external factors.
• Provide cost-effecve and safe water supplies – Water supplies must be both financially sustainable and safe for consump5on to maintain the short- and long-term sustainability of Coalinga’s water system.
• Achieve stakeholder acceptance – Gaining the support of stakeholders is crucial to ensure that any proposed water supply solu5ons are aligned with the interests and concerns of the community.
• Implement water supply reliability strategies compliant with regulaons and permits – Iden5fy reliable water supply solu5ons that are feasible to implement and compliant with regulatory and permiPng requirements.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 3
Figure 1-1. Study Area and Vicinity
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 4
1.4. Project Team
At the outset of the Study, a Project Team was formed to gather input from all stakeholders, ensuring a comprehensive and targeted approach during the Study’s development. The Study was developed through collabora5ve efforts with the Project Team, enabling it to effec5vely align with the needs of everyone involved. The primary members of the Project Team consist of:
• The City of Coalinga, serving as the recipient of the financial assistance from DWR. • DWR, responsible for the oversight of the Study and its associated efforts. • GEI Consultants, Inc., ac5ng as the consultant responsible for preparing the Study.
Other poten5al agencies iden5fied to par5cipate and provide support at key junctures include:
• USBR oversees the CVP and holds contracts with the City for its water supply. • Westlands, responsible for the delivery of non-potable, untreated water to Coalinga and a poten5al water banking partner.
• San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, responsible for the opera5on and maintenance of certain CVP facili5es such as the Delta-Mendota Canal. • Pleasant Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (PVGSA), who together with the City manages the underlying Pleasant Valley Groundwater Subbasin. • Gladstone Land, a poten5al local water banking partner.
1.5. Organization of Alternatives Study
This Study is organized into seven chapters:
• Execuve Summary provides a summary of the Study goals and objec5ves, alterna5ves formulated, and evalua5on criteria established.
• Chapter 1 – Introducon provides a descrip5on of the Study area, discusses the Study’s purpose, and outlines its goals and objec5ves.
• Chapter 2 – Background provides background informa5on regarding the City of Coalinga opera5ons.
• Chapter 3 – Plan Formulaon describes the problem iden5fied, along with exis5ng opportuni5es and constraints.
• Chapter 4 – Alternaves Idenficaon provides a brief descrip5on of the alterna5ves iden5fied based on the Study objec5ves.
• Chapter 5 – Evaluaon and Comparison of Alternaves presents the evalua5on criteria used to analyze and compare the alterna5ves, and the alterna5ves evalua5on using the established criteria.
• Chapter 6 – Recommended Alternave iden5fies the recommended alterna5ve(s) and describes next steps in terms of planning, implementa5on, and funding. • Chapter 7 – References lists reference documents that were used as part of the alterna5ves Study.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 5
2. Background
2.1. Water Resources
This sec5on provides a brief overview of the City’s water supply characteriza5on and describes the City’s major water supply source of CVP imported surface water.
2.1.1. Central Valley Project Contracted Water
The City of Coalinga imports its potable water supply through a federal CVP contract with the USBR. The ini5al 40-year contract, signed on October 28, 1968, authorized the annual delivery of up to 10,000 AF of CVP water. AUer its expira5on on December 31, 2008, the agreement was extended through a series of interim renewal contracts un5l January 22, 2021, when a new long-term contract (Contract No. 14-06- 200-4173A-IR1-P) was executed. This contract established new rates and reaffirmed the City’s en5tlement to pump up to 10,000 AF annually.
Raw water is conveyed from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta via either the Delta-Mendota Canal or the CVP California Aqueduct, to the O’Neil Forebay. From the O’Neil Forebay, water flows southward through the California Aqueduct to the Coalinga Canal’s intake point, approximately 15 miles northeast of the City, where Highway 145 crosses over the California Aqueduct (Figure 2-1). The Coalinga Canal, operated by Westlands, transports the water approximately 12 miles south to the City’s water treatment plant (WTP). A raw water pump sta5on then liUs the water from the Coalinga Canal to the WTP.
2.1.1.1. Central Valley Project Allocations
USBR’s water year (WY) extends from March 1 through the end of February. Each year, annual CVP water alloca5ons are established by USBR based on available reservoir storage, accumulated precipita5on, and snowpack condi5ons in the Sierra Nevada. Preliminary alloca5on es5mates are generally issued in February, with final alloca5ons determined shortly thereaUer as hydrologic condi5ons become clearer.
As a Municipal and Industrial (M&I) South-of-Delta contractor, the City’s CVP alloca5on during drought periods is calculated based on the average actual deliveries from the three most recent years in which 100 percent alloca5ons were issued (i.e., unconstrained years). This average forms the baseline against which reduc5ons are applied during years when less than 100 percent alloca5ons are declared. Prior to WY 2023/24, the most recent unconstrained years were 2011, 2017, and 2019, resul5ng in an average delivery of 7,680 AF (Table 2-1).
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 6
Figure 2-1. City of Coalinga Service Area
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 7
During drought periods, City’s CVP alloca5ons were significantly reduced. The lowest alloca5ons occurred in WY2016/17 and WY2022/23, with deliveries reduced to approximately 3,700 AF and 3,100 AF, respec5vely. Notably, WY2022/23 marked the first instance in the past decade when the City received a PHS alloca5on. PHS alloca5ons are determined by USBR based on essen5al water needs, calculated using an assumed per capita demand of 55 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), plus 70 percent of projected commercial, ins5tu5onal, and industrial demands, with an addi5onal 10 percent to account for system losses.
In WY 2023/24, USBR allocated 100 percent of the contracted CVP supply to South-of-Delta M&I contractors. Accordingly, the City’s delivery during this WY will replace the 2011/12 delivery in the calcula5on of the three-year unconstrained average. The City’s total delivery for WY 2023/24 was 9,995 AF; however, this includes 4,400 AF of water sold for agricultural use outside of the City’s Place of Use.
Excluding the water sold for agricultural use, the adjusted CVP delivery for the City is 5,595 AF.
Subs5tu5ng this value into the three-year average calcula5on is expected to slightly change the City’s baseline average, from 7,680 AF to 7,627 AF. This updated average will serve as the baseline for determining the City’s alloca5on during future years when less than 100 percent alloca5ons are made (Table 2-1). Currently, the City is in coordina5on with USBR regarding poten5al change to the future defini5on of the three-year unconstrained average calcula5on as the USBR stated agricultural sales by the City are not considered “beneficial use” and may not be accounted in the unrestricted water delivery to the City.
Table 2-1. Unconstrainted CVP Deliveries in Recent Years Unconstrained CVP Delivery Year Deliveries (AF)
2011/12 5,753
2017/18 7,455
2019/20 9,832
Three-Year Average 7,680
2017/18 7,455
2019/20 9,832
2023/24 5,595
Three-Year Average 7,627
2.1.2. Groundwater
Groundwater within the City of Coalinga’s planning area is not considered a viable source of potable water due to elevated concentra5ons of total dissolved solids (TDS), sodium, and sulfates. As documented in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), these poor water quality condi5ons occur at depths ranging from 500 to 1,500 feet (City of Coalinga, 2022). Consequently, the City does not u5lize groundwater to supplement its municipal water supply. Even for agricultural purposes, groundwater use is limited, as it is classified as only marginally acceptable due to its tendency to increase soil salinity, which further reduces agricultural produc5vity.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 8
The City overlies the Pleasant Valley Subbasin (see Figure 2-2), a medium-priority groundwater basin characterized by predominately marginal to brackish groundwater condi5ons, with TDS concentra5ons generally ranging from 1,500 to 3,000 mg/L (PVGSA, 2022). Key cons5tuents of concern for irriga5on use include sodium adsorp5on ra5o, bicarbonate, boron, and pH.
Historical data from the 1950s indicate elevated levels of TDS in the Pleasant Valley Subbasin. A subsequent study, conducted between 2004 and 2005 as part of a grant-funded research effort, involved the collec5on of water samples and confirmed these earlier findings. The study reported TDS concentra5ons ranging from 1,070 to 2,370 mg/L and boron concentra5ons between 0.4 and 3.2 mg/L (PVGSA, 2022). Chloride and sulfate levels also showed considerable variability. Notably high concentra5ons were observed near Jayne Avenue, part of which is located near Coalinga. Chloride concentra5ons ranged from 26 to 301 mg/L, while sulfate concentra5ons in well water varied from 251 to 1,910 mg/L, with the highest levels generally found in wells located in the western por5on of Pleasant Valley. A summary of these cons5tuents is presented in Table 2-2.
Addi5onally, single-event sampling of six domes5c wells in the rural residen5al community of Lost Hills, located approximately 12 miles southeast of Coalinga, was conducted at the 5me of well construc5on, between 1993 and 1999. Groundwater quality results from these wells indicated nitrate (as NO₃) concentra5ons ranging from 9 to 64 mg/L and sulfate concentra5ons ranging from 385 to 926 mg/L (PVGSA, 2022).
Although groundwater in the area may be suitable for irriga5on of crops such as pistachios that are the major crop grown in the Pleasant Valley Subbasin, the use of micro-irriga5on systems is limited, as clogging can occur when TDS exceeds 500 mg/L or bicarbonate levels exceed 120 mg/L.
Table 2-2. Groundwater Quality Constuents
Water Quality
Constuent
MCL (mg/L)
Secondary MCL (mg/L) Range (m/L)
Recommended Upper Limit
Total Dissolved Solids - 500 1,000 1,500 – 3,000
Chloride - 250 500 26 – 106
Sulfate - 250 500 251 – 1,910
Boron - - - 0.4 – 3.2
Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 10 - - 9 – 64
Notes: MCL= maximum contaminant level; SMCLs = secondary maximum contaminant levels; mg/L = milligrams per liter; µg/L= micrograms per liter
1. MCLs and SMCLs defined by the Basin Plan
2. Total dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate levels range from 2004 to 2005, while nitrate levels were reported from monitoring wells ranging from 1993 to 1999.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 9
Figure 2-2. Water Level Elevaons in Pleasant Valley Subbasin Source: Pleasant Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Revised July 3, 2024.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 10
Groundwater levels in the Pleasant Valley Subbasin have historically fluctuated and have shown a longterm decline due to sustained agricultural pumping. Based on historical records, significant groundwater pumping for irriga5on occurred in the Pleasant Valley Subbasin. Acres of crops irrigated were about 8,000 acres during 1937-1945 and reached the highest levels at about 29,000 acres during 1960-the mid1980s (PVGSA, 2022). During this historical period of increased farming, irriga5on pumping increased, ranging from 28,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) to 55,000 AFY (the maximum historical average). As a result of increased irriga5on pumping, groundwater levels have historically declined.
Between 2017 and 2021, the area between Los Gatos Creek and Jayne Avenue near Coalinga, as illustrated in Figure 2-2, experienced an average annual decline in water levels of approximately 11 feet.
South of Jayne Avenue, the decline was more pronounced, averaging around 17 feet per year during the same period. Groundwater overdraU within the subbasin has similarly varied over 5me, with reduced overdraU observed during wet years and increased overdraU during dry years with limited recharge.
Historical overdraU es5mates range from 0 to 29,000 AFY, with an average overdraU of approximately 20,000 AFY. Between 2017 and 2021, groundwater storage declined by an es5mated 130,000 AF, corresponding to an average annual loss of 30,000 AF (PVGSA, 2022).
The irrigated crop acreage as of 2020 was es5mated to be about 18,000 acres. Currently, groundwater pumping is measured through totalizing flowmeters installed in almost all of the irriga5on wells in the Pleasant Valley Subbasin. Based on the records available from flowmeters, the annual pumping for 2022 and 2023 ranged from about 32,000 AF to 36,000 AF.
2.1.2.1. Pleasant Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan The Pleasant Valley Subbasin is subject to the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), including pumping levels to maintain long-term sustainability of the subbasin.
The City of Coalinga is a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and has been collabora5ng with two other GSAs (Pleasant Valley GSA and County of Fresno GSA) in the development of the Pleasant Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in compliance with SGMA requirements. Although the GSP has not yet been formally adopted by the GSAs, a final revised Pleasant Valley Subbasin GSP was submiJed in July 2024 for DWR’s review and approval.
In the Pleasant Valley Subbasin, groundwater is primarily used for agricultural irriga5on, with irriga5on wells serving as the main source of water. Pistachio cul5va5on has expanded in the area due to the crop’s high tolerance for salinity, allowing it to survive using water with TDS levels up to 5,000 mg/L.
Addi5onally, there are a limited number of domes5c wells for non-potable uses, such as landscape irriga5on and toilets, but they are not intended for drinking water.
The Pleasant Valley Subbasin will be managed to the established sustainable management criteria (SMCs) under the GSP, including measurable objec5ves (MOs), minimum thresholds (MTs), and dedicated monitoring network for groundwater levels, water quality, and land subsidence. In the subbasin, seawater intrusion and interconnected surface water are not considered applicable, and subsidence is minimal to non-existent. The GSP dedicated monitoring network does not include representa5ve monitoring wells for groundwater levels and quality within the City of Coalinga.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 11
The Pleasant Valley Subbasin GSP es5mated a sustainable yield of 22,600 AFY for the subbasin, which defines the amount of groundwater pumping that can occur while maintaining groundwater at sustainable levels and avoiding undesirable results (PVGSA, 2022). It is the intent of the Pleasant Valley Subbasin GSP par5cipants to work collabora5vely to beJer understand the subbasin condi5ons and propose measures to reduce and eventually eliminate overdraU within the subbasin. The overdraU will be mi5gated using imported surface water and if needed ins5tute demand reduc5ons (crop fallowing, seasonal or permanent). According to the proposed GSP monitoring network, groundwater pumping would be reported monthly by well and total pumpage would be calculated for the GSA.
Undesirable results related to groundwater quality is defined as the degrada5on of groundwater quality such that pistachios can no longer grow. The MO and MT for water quality are set at 2,500 mg/L and 3,000 mg/L, respec5vely, to allow farmers to con5nue farming pistachios.
2.1.3. Surface Water
Due to the poor quality of local groundwater, the City of Coalinga relies exclusively on imported surface water supplied through the federal CVP, administered by the USBR.
2.1.3.1. Surface Water Treatment Plant
Surface water is conveyed to the City via the Coalinga Canal and treated at the City’s WTP, located approximately seven miles outside of the City limits. The WTP began opera5ons in April 1972, ini5ally designed with an average daily treatment capacity of 8 million gallons per day (MGD) and a maximum capacity of 12 MGD. In an5cipa5on of increased demand associated with the construc5on of Pleasant Valley State Prison, the facility was subsequently upgraded to accommodate an average daily flow of 12 MGD, although the plant’s maximum daily flow capacity was adjusted to 6 MGD as part of these modifica5ons.
The WTP employs conven5onal surface water treatment processes, including chemical pretreatment, floccula5on, sedimenta5on, filtra5on, and chlorine disinfec5on. Corrosion control is also integrated into the treatment process. A secondary chlorina5on step is used to maintain residual chlorine within the distribu5on system while limi5ng the forma5on of disinfec5on by-products. Treated water is conveyed from the WTP to the City’s distribu5on system through a 27-inch diameter transmission pipeline along Palmer Avenue.
2.1.3.2. Section 215 Water
Sec5on 215 of the USBR Reform Act of 1982 authorizes USBR to make surplus water available to CVP contractors through temporary water service contracts. Sec5on 215 water is only available when (1) the San Luis Reservoir—an integral off-stream storage facility of the State Water Project—is at full capacity, and (2) the Jones Pumping Plant has sufficient export capacity beyond South-of-Delta demands. These supplies are typically only available during wet years and are delivered to contractors under “Temporary Water Service Contract for Surplus Water” agreements.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 12
The availability of Sec5on 215 water varies annually based on hydrologic condi5ons, regulatory requirements, and CVP opera5onal constraints. Although Sec5on 215 water is not a reliable source during drought periods, it provides an important supplemental supply during wet years. Over the past decade, the City has secured 2,171 AF of Sec5on 215 water, including 177 AF in WY 2019/20 and 1,994 AF in WY 2023/24. Sec5on 215 water is typically offered at a reduced rate compared to standard CVP contract water, with rates established annually by USBR.
2.1.3.3. Water Transfers
To address periodic water supply shortages, the City of Coalinga has secured supplemental water through transfer agreements with other CVP contractors. These transfers not only provide cri5cal shortterm supplies to the City but also allow the selling agencies to beneficially manage surplus water and maintain their water rights during years when demands may be lower. In recent years, the City has executed the following key water transfer agreements:
• Westlands: In 2004, Mercy Springs Water District assigned 4,198 AF of its CVP water service contract en5tlement to Westlands. In WY 2023/24, Westlands transferred 2,000 AF of this CVP water to the City under a temporary transfer agreement. • City of Avenal: Located approximately 20 miles southeast of Coalinga, the City of Avenal holds a CVP contract for up to 3,500 AF annually. During WY 2021/22, Avenal transferred approximately 300 AF of its CVP alloca5on to Coalinga to alleviate water shortages. • Paerson Irrigaon District (PID): PID, situated near the City of PaJerson in Stanislaus County, holds a CVP water service contract for up to 22,500 AF annually and also possesses pre-1914 appropria5ve water rights to San Joaquin River surface water. In WY 2022/23, PID transferred 600 AF of water to Coalinga under a temporary transfer arrangement.
These water transfers have served as an important component of the City’s drought response strategy by providing 5mely supplemental supplies during cri5cal shortage periods.
2.1.4. Recycled Water
The City of Coalinga owns and operates a municipal wastewater collec5on system and a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located approximately one mile east of the City, at the confluence of Los Gatos Creek and Warthan Creek (Figure 2-3). The WWTP treats wastewater generated from residen5al, commercial, and industrial users within the City and has a permiJed treatment capacity of 1.34 MGD.
The treatment process consists of a primary clarifier, an aerobic sludge digester, sludge drying beds, and five treatment ponds. Two aerated lagoons, followed by three downstream stabiliza5on ponds, are employed to achieve significant removal of organic material and suspended solids.
In 2020, the WWTP processed approximately 315 million gallons (MG), or 967 AF, of wastewater on a calendar-year basis. The City currently does not recycle the effluent produced from its WWTP. However, poten5al upgrades to the sewer and WWTP systems, including the feasibility of implemen5ng recycled water use, have been evaluated and are discussed further in Sec5on 3.2.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 13
At present, the treated effluent meets undisinfected secondary standards and is suitable for irriga5on of non-food crops. The effluent is applied year-round to City-owned agricultural land leased to a private operator for the cul5va5on of crops such as coJon, alfalfa, and feed grains. Some por5on of the applied irriga5on water percolates below the crop root zone and contributes to the underlying groundwater system. However, given the poor quality of local groundwater and its unsuitability for potable use, this incidental recharge is not currently considered a strategy for offsePng the City’s potable water demands.
2.1.5. Stormwater
The City does not have any exis5ng facili5es to recover stormwater for beneficial use such as recharge, irriga5on, or reuse.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California May 2025 GEI Consultants, Inc. 14 Figure 2-3. City of Coalinga Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 15
2.2. Water Demands
2.2.1. Municipal and Industrial
M&I demands include water use by residen5al, commercial, ins5tu5onal, industrial, and landscape irriga5on sectors, as well as distribu5on system losses. Between water years 2013/14 and 2024/25, the City’s M&I demand averaged approximately 3,878 AF (Figure 2-4). Peak demand occurred in 2013 at just over 5,000 AF but subsequently declined due to conserva5on measures implemented during the 2012–2016 drought. These efforts reduced M&I demand to as low as 3,455 AF in 2015, represen5ng more than a 30 percent decrease compared to 2013 levels.
Figure 2-4. City of Coalinga Historical M&I Demands
Following the drought, M&I demands rebounded to approximately 4,100 AF during 2020 and 2021 but declined again in WY 2022/23 due to renewed drought condi5ons. In response to the 2022 drought and drought CVP alloca5on that dropped to 25% of the historical usage, the City implemented addi5onal conserva5on measures to reduce the demand. Demand paJerns have remained sensi5ve to clima5c variability and drought management ac5ons. The City has a history of promo5ng water conserva5on to adopt to ongoing water challenges due to drought and climate change impacts through various programs and ini5a5ves. These efforts are aligned with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board)’s objec5ves to reduce urban water use through the new "Making Conserva5on a California Way of Life" ini5a5ve. The State’s new statewide water conserva5on requirements are further explained in Sec5on 4 in the context of the alterna5ve’s formula5on. 3,878
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
M&I Demand (acre-feet)
M&I Demand Avg M&I Demand
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 16
M&I Water Use Sectors
The City’s service area includes the following M&I water use sectors:
• Single-Family Residenal: Individual residen5al units. • Mul-Family Residenal: Mul5ple dwelling units within individual buildings or complexes. • Commercial: Users providing goods or services, including retail businesses, offices, hotels, schools, hospitals, and laundries.
• Industrial: Primarily manufacturing, processing, or research and development facili5es (NAICS Code Sectors 31–33).
• Instuonal: En55es dedicated to public service, including educa5onal ins5tu5ons, government facili5es, prisons, and hospitals. Notably, Pleasant Valley State Prison and Coalinga State Hospital are significant ins5tu5onal users.
• Landscape Irrigaon: Dedicated irriga5on connec5ons for landscape areas associated with other land uses.
• Distribuon System Losses: Water losses from leaks, metering inaccuracies, or other unbilled losses within the City's potable water system.
The City began systema5cally aggrega5ng M&I demand by sector in 2020. Over the past four years, single-family residen5al, commercial and ins5tu5onal, and distribu5on system losses collec5vely accounted for about 82 percent of total M&I demand, averaging 36 percent, 29 percent, and 17 percent, respec5vely (Figure 2-5). The remaining 18 percent of demand was distributed among mul5-family residen5al (6%), industrial (6%), and landscape irriga5on (6%).
2.2.1.1. Water Losses
Water loss has been a persistent challenge for the City, averaging 18 percent of total potable demand over the past four years (Figure 2-5). The City tracks water losses monthly and calculates a rolling 12-month average of water losses by comparing treated water produc5on data with metered and billed water deliveries to customers.
Figure 2-6 shows the calculated rolling 12-month average of unbilled water rates between 2018 and 2024 ranging from 5 to 22 percent. The City tracks unbilled water monthly and reconciles differences between treated water produc5on as reported to Westlands and USBR and the volume that is measured at the City’s WTP and billed to customers. For example, in June 2024, Westlands measured 378 AF over 28 days (the volume the City was billed) while the WTP measured 429AF in a calendar month over 30 days. When the differences in the repor5ng cycle are reconciled, water losses in the month of June 2024 are approximately 24 AF, which is about 6 percent of the Westlands repor5ng, as opposed to the 20 percent rolling average.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 17
Figure 2-5. Aggregated M&I Demand Between Water Year 2020/21 and 2023/24 Figure 2-6. Coalinga Unbilled Water 12-Month Rolling Average 38%, 1,568 35%, 1,452 34%, 1,214 35%, 1,217
17%, 701 17%, 700
18%, 651 20%, 690
5%, 186 6%, 238
7%, 236 7%, 234
29%, 1210 31%, 1260
31%, 1094 24%, 839
9%, 364 5%, 213
5%, 176
4%, 155
2%, 90 6%, 243
5%, 181
10%, 353
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
WY2020/21 WY2021/22 WY2022/23 WY2023/24
M&I Demand (acre-feet)
Single-Family Losses Multi-Family Commercial & Institutional Industrial Landscape City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 18
The City will con5nue to track and report unbilled water closely on a monthly basis. Overall, contribu5ng factors for water losses include discrepancies between influent and effluent meters at the WTP, aging customer meters, and billing system inaccuracies. In October 2023, the City iden5fied and corrected a calcula5on error in the SCADA system, which contributed to water loss repor5ng anomalies. Post-adjustment data are an5cipated to improve accuracy in water loss tracking, but City’s unbilled water remains high since the SCADA adjustment.
To reduce system losses, the City secured grant funding from DWR to replace approximately 3,800 one-inch meters by 2026. In addi5on, the City has begun replacing larger meters using internal resources. These upgrades are expected to improve metering accuracy and reduce apparent losses. AUer the comple5on of the meter replacement (scheduled for 2025), water losses are an5cipated to return to normal levels of 5-10 percent, as experienced by water purveyors.
2.2.2. Untreated Sales
The City generates supplemental revenue by selling untreated CVP water when excess supplies are available. Over the past decade, the City has entered into water transfer agreements with Harris Feeding Company and Pleasant Valley Water Conveyance Partners (PVWCP), a group of local agricultural producers. These untreated water sales are currently included in the USBR calcula5ons for PHS deliveries.
Between water years 2013/14 and 2023/24, the City sold approximately 14,000 AF of untreated water, with roughly equal shares sold to Harris Feeding Company and PVWCP (Figure 2-7). Untreated sales have been highest during years of full CVP alloca5ons, notably 3,700 AF in WY 2017/18 and 5,900 AF in WY 2019/20, which together accounted for nearly 70 percent of total untreated sales during the period.
Figure 2-7. Untreated Sales Volumes from Water Years 2013/14 to 2024/25 210 548
1,248 1,494
5,210
6,588
12,473
13,902 13,902 13,902
16,133
19,449
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Cumulative Untreated Sales (acre-feet)
Untreated Sales (acre-feet)
Harris Feeding Company Pleasant Valley Water Conveyance Partners Cumulative Sales City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 19
2.3. Related Plans and Studies
2.3.1. City of Coalinga General Plan
In June 2009, the City adopted the 2025 General Plan, which outlines growth patterns, land uses, and population projections for both the City limits and its Sphere of Influence areas potentially subject to future annexation and development.
The General Plan incorporates recommendations from the 2002 Water System Master Plan, which identified limitations in the WTP’s capacity to meet anticipated growth. The plan recommended considering options such as developing groundwater wells near Derrick or Calaveras Reservoirs and blending groundwater with treated surface water. Alternatively, the plan suggested constructing a 4 MGD reverse osmosis facility, included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan for 2020.
The General Plan also established goals, policies, and implementation measures relevant to this Study, including:
• Implementaon Measure PFS8-1.5: Develop a program to an5cipate annual growth and project corresponding water supply needs to ensure long-term supply adequacy. • Implementaon Measure PFS8-2.2: Inves5gate the feasibility of developing a water bank to secure reliable water supplies during drought periods.
• Policy PFS8-3: Reduce per capita water consump5on from 271 gpcd to 200 gpcd by 2015.
2.3.2. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The City’s 2020 UWMP, adopted in March 2022, provides updated informa5on on water supply reliability, demand projec5ons, and drought response planning. The UWMP confirmed that, at the 5me of prepara5on, the City did not have plans to augment its water supply through recycled water, desalina5on, or treated brackish water, nor were there feasible potable water exchange opportuni5es with nearby agencies.
The UWMP noted that during periods of drought, the City may rely on dry-year water transfers, with the poten5al to secure up to 3,000 AF of water annually from other San Luis Unit customers. Such transfers would typically require the fallowing of agricultural lands to make water available for urban use.
While the UWMP concluded that no major supply augmenta5on projects were planned, the City remained commiJed to con5nuing water conserva5on efforts to improve long-term supply reliability.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 20
3. Plan Formulation
3.1. Challenges and Constraints
3.1.1. Rate of Growth
The City of Coalinga has experienced steady popula5on growth over the past several decades and is projected to con5nue growing, driven largely by regional demand for more affordable housing compared to neighboring urban centers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City's popula5on reached 17,590 in 2020, up from 13,380 in 2010, represen5ng an average annual growth rate of approximately 2.6 percent. The City’s total popula5on includes not only the urban residen5al popula5on but also the popula5ons of Pleasant Valley State Prison and Coalinga State Hospital, both of which are major ins5tu5ons located within the City's service area.
Assuming a con5nua5on of this 2.6 percent annual growth rate, the City's popula5on is projected to increase by more than 11,000 people by 2040, reaching an es5mated popula5on of 29,220 (Table 3-1). This growth projec5on is consistent with es5mates presented in the City’s 2020 UWMP and is expected to place increasing demands on the City’s water supply system.
Table 3-1. Projected Populaon Growth - 2025 to 2040
Populaon Served 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
17,590 19,970 22,671 25,738 29,220
Source: City of Coalinga 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Future water demand projec5ons developed in the 2020 UWMP reflect this an5cipated popula5on growth while also incorpora5ng reduc5ons in per capita demand due to conserva5on prac5ces. The City’s projected per capita demand of 208 gpcd accounts for conserva5on measures implemented during recent drought periods.
As shown in Figure 3-1, potable water demand is projected to increase from approximately 5,660 AF on average between 2025 and 2040, peaking at approximately 6,774 AF by 2040. This represents a 75 percent increase over the City’s historical average demand of approximately 3,878 AF over the past 12 years.
Over the 15-year planning horizon between 2025 and 2040, the cumula5ve demand is expected to total nearly 90,500 AF. Figure 3-2 presents the breakdown of the cumula5ve projected demand and annual average demand by water use sector, based on recent historical sectoral contribu5ons. The distribu5on of demand is assumed to remain similar to current trends, with single-family residen5al (36%), ins5tu5onal (25%), and distribu5on system losses (18%) collec5vely accoun5ng for the majority of future demands. The remaining sectors—mul5-family residen5al (6%), industrial (6%), commercial (5%), and landscape irriga5on (4%)—are expected to contribute to the balance of projected demand.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 21
Figure 3-1. Projected Potable Water Demands, 2025 to 2040 Figure 3-2. Average Annual Projected Potable Demand by Water Sectors – 2025 to 2040 4,629
5,255
5,970
6,774
3,878
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Demand (acre-feet)
Historical Demand Projected Demand Average Historical Demand 32,381 (Avg. 2024 AFY);
36%
5,103 (Avg. 319 AFY); 6%
4,537 (Avg. 284 AFY); 5%
5,712 (Avg. 357 AFY); 6%
22,806 (Avg. 1426 AFY);
25%
3,972 (Avg. 249 AFY); 4%
15,767 (Avg. 986 AFY);
18%
Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Institutional Landscape Losses City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 22
3.1.2. Water Supply Reliability and Drought Vulnerability The City’s sole reliance on imported surface water from the (CVP) presents a significant long-term challenge to water supply reliability. The City does not have access to locally available potable groundwater due to water quality limita5ons, nor does it currently operate recycled water or stormwater recovery systems. Consequently, the City is highly vulnerable to drought-induced supply reduc5ons and opera5onal constraints imposed by the USBR.
As discussed in Chapter 2, recent droughts have resulted in severe alloca5on cuts, including the 2021–2022 emergency, when alloca5ons were reduced to PHS levels, significantly below the City’s average demand. Without supplemental sources, water supply shortages during droughts will likely recur, especially as drought frequency and intensity are projected to worsen due to climate change.
3.1.3. Aging Infrastructure
While this Study is focused on iden5fying long-term water supply alterna5ves, improvements to the City’s wastewater and recycled water systems are an important parallel considera5on, par5cularly where they intersect with groundwater sustainability and the poten5al for future non-potable reuse.
The City of Coalinga is responsible for providing sewer services to approximately 3,687 customer connec5ons, comprising 3,369 residen5al and 318 non-residen5al users. The City’s sewer collec5on system includes approximately 42 miles of gravity pipelines, with diameters ranging from 6 to 24 inches.
As part of a recent system-wide evalua5on, the City conducted a comprehensive assessment of its sewer collec5on system and WWTP. The assessment iden5fied aging infrastructure and recommended improvements to address system deficiencies and support long-term service reliability. Notably, approximately 50 percent of the inspected sewer pipelines were found to require rehabilita5on or replacement due to structural deficiencies and aging materials.
The WWTP, which currently treats up to 1.34 MGD of municipal wastewater, was evaluated under three alterna5ve improvement scenarios. Each alterna5ve considered the level of treatment, effluent disposal method, and associated costs. The evalua5on concluded that Alternave II provides the most feasible and cost-effec5ve solu5on for mee5ng both current and future regulatory and opera5onal needs.
WWTP Improvement Alternaves:
• Alternave I – Exisng Treatment with Offsite Disposal via Agricultural Irrigaon (Non-Human Consumpon):
This alterna5ve would con5nue the current prac5ce of discharging undisinfected secondary-treated effluent to offsite agricultural land for irriga5on of non-food crops. While this op5on is the least costly, it does not support long-term groundwater protec5on or reuse opportuni5es.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 23
• Alternave II – Upgrade to Extended Aeraon with Biological Nutrient Removal and Onsite Disposal via Percolaon (Groundwater Recharge):
This preferred alterna5ve proposes an upgrade to the treatment process, incorpora5ng extended aera5on with biological nutrient removal. Effluent would be disposed onsite through five newly constructed percola5on ponds, totaling approximately 18.34 acres in surface area. The new process would produce undisinfected secondary effluent with nitrogen removal, allowing for incidental groundwater recharge and improved protec5on of the underlying aquifer. The exis5ng aerated lagoons and stabiliza5on ponds would be decommissioned to accommodate the new percola5on facili5es. The construc5on cost for Alterna5ve II is es5mated at approximately $15 million. • Alternave III – Upgrade to Terary Treatment with Offsite Reuse via Agricultural and Landscape Irrigaon (Human Consumpon Crops and Public Spaces):
This alterna5ve would treat effluent to disinfected ter5ary standards in compliance with Title 22, enabling its use for irriga5on of public parks, schools, and poten5ally food crops. Implementa5on would require installa5on of approximately 57,200 linear feet of new “purple pipe” distribu5on infrastructure.
Exis5ng irriga5on systems would also need to be disconnected from the potable water system and converted to use recycled water. While this approach would significantly reduce potable water use and expand reuse, the cost—es5mated at $39 million—was deemed prohibi5ve. Total landscape irriga5on demand is es5mated at 0.42 MGD, which limits the benefit rela5ve to the cost.
The total construc5on cost for the proposed project, which includes both sewer collec5on system rehabilita5on and implementa5on of Alternave II, is es5mated at approximately $29 million. The City intends to pursue funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program to support project implementa5on.
Although the selected alterna5ve does not directly expand the City’s potable water supply, the implementa5on of extended aera5on with nutrient removal will significantly improve the quality of effluent discharged for percola5on. This will provide incidental recharge to the local groundwater basin and help protect groundwater quality and beneficial uses in compliance with groundwater sustainability objec5ves. At present, the exis5ng WWTP discharge is not protec5ve of groundwater, underscoring the importance of the proposed improvements.
During the prepara5on of this Study, in early 2025, the City entered into an agreement with Gladstone Land to provide groundwater recharge credits in exchange for CVP water. The City has access to some groundwater recharge credit deriva5ve of treated effluent from the City’s WWTP. Under the agreement, Gladstone Land has agreed to transfer up to 500 AF of CVP water to the City. In return, the City will allocate groundwater recharge credits to Gladstone Land and provide to Gladstone Land the exclusive right to extract for irriga5on of calculated groundwater recharge. These credits will be transferred to Gladstone Land at a 2:1 ra5o, meaning the volume of water the City will transfer is equal to twice the volume of CVP water received. For exchange of groundwater recharge credits for CVP water delivered, the City will obtain exchange credit approval from the Pleasant Valley GSA. For extrac5on approval of the calculated groundwater recharge, Gladstone Land will be responsible for necessary filling with DWR, Pleasant Valley GSA, and any other necessary agency.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 24
3.1.4. Climate Change
Climate change introduces significant uncertainty into long-term water supply planning, par5cularly for communi5es like Coalinga that rely exclusively on imported surface water. Observed water supply shortages over the past decade are expected to become more frequent and severe due to climate-driven shiUs in hydrology and water availability. These impacts must be considered when evalua5ng future supply reliability and drought resilience.
To understand the poten5al impacts of climate change on imported water supplies, an evalua5on of future WY types between 2025 and 2040 was conducted. In California, the Sacramento Valley Water Supply Index and the San Joaquin Valley Water Supply Index are commonly used to classify water years based on forecasted runoff and the prior year’s classifica5on. These indices categorize years into five types: wet, above normal, below normal, dry, and cri5cally dry.
The CalSim water resource planning model—developed jointly by DWR and the USBR—was used to simulate changes to the Sacramento Valley Water Supply Index under both exis5ng and projected future climate condi5ons. Specifically, simula5ons were conducted using the 2043 median climate change scenario, which reflects an5cipated hydrologic changes due to warming temperatures, altered precipita5on paJerns, and reduced snowpack. It should be noted that the defini5on of a WY based on the Sacramento Valley Water Supply Index is different - the WY based on the Sacramento Valley Water Supply Index extends from October 1 through the end of September while the USBR’s WY extends from March 1 through the end of February.
Table 3-2 compares the historical CVP M&I alloca5ons against the projected CVP South of Delta M&I alloca5ons for the climate change condi5ons based on the CalSim3 simula5ons performed for the State Water Project Delivery Capability Report (DCR) 2023. The DCR projec5ons are based on 95 percent level of concern. This represents the most conserva5ve assump5ons for CVP alloca5ons and is considered appropriate for use in planning purposes. While the historic alloca5ons dropped to 25 percent during extreme droughts (e.g., water years 1991, 2015, and 2021), as stated in the 2023 DCR, CVP M&I alloca5ons based on the CalSim3 simula5ons are constrained between 50 – 100 percent because the condi5ons that would trigger 25 percent cutbacks are not represented in the DCR. As shown in Table 3-3, average CVP alloca5ons by WY types under the climate change condi5ons are slightly higher than those under the historical condi5ons for cri5cally dry, below normal and wet years. However, the long-term average CVP alloca5on is at 77 percent both under the historical condi5ons and future climate change projec5ons.
The es5mated CVP alloca5ons in Table 3-2 are applied in Sec5on 6 to es5mate the City’s M&I supply and assess the poten5al for the recommended alterna5ve(s) to address future an5cipated demand and deficits.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 25
Table 3-2. CVP M&I South of Delta Allocaons by Sacramento Valley Water Year Types for Historical Condions and Future Projecons with Climate Change
Year Sacramento Valley Water
Supply Index
Historical CVP
Allocaon (%)
2043 CVP M&I
Allocaon (%)1
1990 Cri5cally Dry 50 50
1991 Cri5cally Dry 25 50
1992 Cri5cally Dry 75 60
1993 Above Normal 75 100
1994 Cri5cally Dry 75 57
1995 Wet 100 100
1996 Wet 100 100
1997 Wet 90 100
1998 Wet 100 100
1999 Wet 95 100
2000 Above Normal 90 78
2001 Dry 77 50
2002 Dry 95 75
2003 Above Normal 100 79
2004 Below Normal 95 78
2005 Above Normal 100 98
2006 Wet 100 100
2007 Dry 75 75
2008 Cri5cally Dry 75 56
2009 Dry 60 55
2010 Below Normal 75 75
2011 Wet 100 100
2012 Below Normal 75 88
2013 Dry 70 75
2014 Cri5cally Dry 50 50
2015 Cri5cally Dry 25 50
2016 Below Normal 55 75
2017 Wet 100 100
2018 Below Normal 75 83
2019 Wet 100 100
2020 Dry 65 70
2021 Cri5cally Dry 25 50
Note:
1. CVP alloca5ons represent 95 percent risk level based on the DCR 2023.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 26
Table 3-3. Average CVP Allocaons by Sacramento Valley Water Year Types for Historical Condions and Future Projecons with Climate Change (1990 – 2021)
Classificaon # of Years
Historical CVP
Allocaon (%)
2043 CVP M&I
Allocaon (%)1
Cri5cally Dry 8 50 53
Dry 6 74 67
Below Normal 5 75 80
Above Normal 4 91 89
Wet 9 98 100
Note:
1. CVP alloca5ons represent 95 percent risk level based on the DCR 2023.
3.1.5. Finances
The City of Coalinga adopts an annual budget each fiscal year (FY), which runs from July 1 through June 30. The City's expenditure framework is organized into five primary fund groups, each suppor5ng specific opera5onal, capital, or service needs:
1. General Fund – Supports general administra5ve opera5ons and ongoing maintenance ac5vi5es across City departments.
2. Debt Service Fund – Covers repayment obliga5ons for bonds issued in 2018 and 2021, primarily for water and sewer infrastructure projects.
3. Water Enterprise Fund – Funds the opera5on and maintenance of u5lity services, including water, sewer, gas, and sanita5on. Each service is budgeted separately within this fund.
4. Special Revenue Grant Fund – Supports transporta5on-related projects, including bike trails, sidewalks, and park improvements, funded through grant revenues.
5. Capital Projects Fund – Finances long-term capital improvement projects, including infrastructure upgrades and facility improvements.
Water supply-related expenditures are primarily allocated through the Water Enterprise Fund, though capitalintensive water projects may also be funded through the Capital Projects Fund when applicable.
Historical revenue and expenditure trends for the Water Enterprise Fund and the Capital Projects Fund over the past ten to twelve FYs are illustrated in Figure 3-3. and Figure 3-4, respec5vely. Figure 3-4 also shows fund balances as of FY 2021.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 27
Water Enterprise Fund Performance
Between FY 2012 and FY 2023, expenditures from the Water Enterprise Fund exceeded revenues in four out of twelve years, with an average annual deficit of approximately $387,000 (Figure 3-3. ). By FY 2015, the cumula5ve deficit reached approximately $1.55 million. From FY 2016 onward, the fund began to show posi5ve variances, with FYs 2016–2023 all genera5ng surpluses. This led to a cumula5ve posi5ve variance (net revenue available for debt service) of $4.1 million by FY 2023. From the lowest cumula5ve variance in FY 2015 (–$1.55 million) to FY 2023 (+$4.1 million), the cumula5ve balance improved by approximately $5.65 million.
Capital Projects Fund Performance
The Capital Projects Fund experienced similar fiscal pressures. Between FY 2012 and FY 2021, fund expenditures exceeded revenues in seven out of ten years, with an average annual deficit of approximately $130,000 (Figure 3-4). Over this period, the fund balance declined by more than 85 percent, from $3.1 million in FY 2012 to just over $425,000 in FY 2021. As of June 30, 2023, the City’s unaudited financials es5mate the Capital Projects Fund balance to be essen5ally depleted, with an overrun of more than $3,700. As of April 30, 2025, the Project fund has a balance of $3,426,564 but will be expended on ongoing projects.
These historical financial trends underscore the importance of strategic capital planning and the need for external funding—such as grants or low-interest financing—for major infrastructure investments, including those related to water supply resilience and system upgrades.
Figure 3-3. City of Coalinga Historical Water Enterprise Revenue and Expenditures City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 28
Figure 3-4. City of Coalinga Historical Capital Projects Revenue and Expenditures
3.1.6. Affordability
Affordability is a key considera5on in the formula5on and implementa5on of water supply alterna5ves for the City of Coalinga, par5cularly given the City's socioeconomic characteris5cs and the financial capacity of its ratepayers. As a small, rural community in the Central Valley, Coalinga has a rela5vely modest customer base, which limits its ability to spread the costs of large capital projects across a broad popula5on. This challenge is compounded by the City’s exis5ng financial constraints, further discussed in Sec5on 4.1.2.
The City has historically maintained compe55ve water rates compared to other regional agencies. However, recurring deficits within the Water Enterprise Fund and the need for significant investments in water supply, distribu5on, and treatment infrastructure will likely necessitate future rate adjustments. The last rate study was completed in 2020, and a new study may be conducted within the next year. Planned projects—including meter replacements, WWTP upgrades, and poten5al water supply augmenta5on—represent substan5al capital commitments that will directly affect the affordability of water for customers.
Affordability concerns are par5cularly important given the community’s demographics. According to recent U.S.
Census data, Coalinga’s median household income is lower than the California average, and a significant por5on of the popula5on is considered low-income. For these households, increases in water rates may represent a substan5al financial burden. Furthermore, the City’s largest ins5tu5onal customers, such as Pleasant Valley State Prison and Coalinga State Hospital, account for a considerable share of total demand, and changes in water costs could have broader implica5ons for these cri5cal facili5es.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 29
In response, the City is ac5vely pursuing available state and federal funding opportuni5es, including grants, loans, and drought relief programs, to minimize the financial impact on its ratepayers. For example, recent grants secured from DWR have been used to offset costs associated with emergency water purchases and system improvements. Con5nued access to external funding sources will be vital to help the City balance the need for infrastructure investments with its commitment to maintaining affordable water services.
As future alterna5ves are evaluated in this Study, affordability will remain a cri5cal criterion, ensuring that recommended solu5ons are financially sustainable for both the City and its customers. The City will also con5nue to explore opportuni5es for cost-sharing, regional partnerships, and state or federal financial assistance to reduce reliance on rate increases alone.
3.2. Opportunities
3.2.1. Available Water Supplies
The City of Coalinga’s imported water supply, secured through its contract with the CVP, has historically exhibited substan5al variability due to hydrologic condi5ons and CVP alloca5on decisions. Between water years (WY) 2013/14 and 2023/24, the City's average CVP water supply was approximately 5,870 AF (Figure 3-5). This average was significantly influenced by three water years—2017/18, 2019/20, and 2023/24—when the City received its full contracted alloca5on of 10,000 AF.
Conversely, alloca5ons were significantly reduced during drought periods. The lowest alloca5ons occurred in WY2016/17 and WY2022/23, with deliveries reduced to approximately 3,700 AF and 3,100 AF, respec5vely.
Notably, WY2022/23 marked the first instance in the past decade when the City received a PHS alloca5on. PHS alloca5ons are determined by the USBR based on essen5al water needs, calculated using an assumed per capita demand of 55 gpcd, plus 70 percent of projected commercial, ins5tu5onal, and industrial demands, with an addi5onal 10 percent to account for system losses.
Historical Water Supply Deficits
The variability of CVP alloca5ons has resulted in periodic water supply deficits (Figure 3-6). These deficits were calculated by comparing the historical M&I demands (Figure 2-4) against the historical CVP alloca5ons received by the City (Figure 3-5). Deficits occurred during three of the past ten years:
• WY2013/14 – 449 AF deficit
• WY2021/22 – 277 AF deficit
• WY2022/23 – 475 AF deficit
Cumula5vely, these deficits total approximately 1,200 AF, averaging roughly 400 AF per year, or about 10 percent of the City’s average M&I demand over the past decade (3,925 AF).
These supply shor^alls would have been more severe without addi5onal water acquired through USBR’s discre5onary alloca5ons based on demonstrated need. Between WY2013/14 and WY2022/23, the City submiJed six such requests, resul5ng in the delivery of approximately 5,500 AF of supplemental water, equivalent to roughly 15 percent of the total M&I demand during this period. However, the City's ability to rely on discre5onary City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 30
alloca5ons from USBR in the future is uncertain due to changing hydrologic condi5ons, regulatory constraints, and compe5ng demands among CVP contractors.
Role of Water Transfers
To further address supply shor^alls, the City has historically relied on water transfers from other CVP contractors, as outlined in Sec5on 2.1.4. Most recently, deficits during WY2021/22 and WY2022/23 were mi5gated through transfers from the City of Avenal and PID. These transfers have played a cri5cal role in maintaining water supply reliability during periods of drought and alloca5on reduc5ons.
The con5nua5on and expansion of water transfer opportuni5es, along with other supply diversifica5on strategies, will be essen5al to addressing future supply shor^alls and enhancing the City's overall water supply resiliency.
Figure 3-5. Historical Central Valley Project Allocaons 842 2,671 311
200
340
1,157
987
4,561
4,100 4,300
3,895
10,000
5,156
10,000
5,657
3,829
3,077
10,000
6,898
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
USBR Supply (acre-feet)% Allocation from USBR
Initial Reclamation Allocation Additional Water Supplies from Reclamation Reclamation Allocation City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California May 2025 GEI Consultants, Inc. 31 Figure 3-6. Historical Water Supply Deficits WY2013-14 to WY2024-25 Notes:
1. WY 2023/24 untreated sales include the Kern-Tulare sale of 4,400 AF. 4,561
4,100
4,300
3,895
10,000
5,156
10,000
5,657
3,829
3,077
10,000
6,898
0 2,0004,0006,0008,000
10,00012,000
WY2013/14 WY2014/15 WY2015/16 WY2016/17 WY2017/18 WY2018/19 WY2019/20 WY2020/21 WY2021/22 WY2022/23 WY2023/24 WY2024/25 Demand (AF)
M&I Demand Untreated Sales City of Avenal Patterson Irrigation District Section 215 Reclamation Allocation Includes KernTulare Sale of 4,400 AF
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 32
3.2.2. Infrastructure Improvements
The City of Coalinga currently discharges treated effluent from its WWTP to adjacent City-owned lands, where it serves as a source of incidental groundwater recharge to the underlying PV Subbasin (refer to Section 3.3 for additional details). The City estimates that approximately 1 MGD, or about 1,100 AFY, of treated effluent infiltrates into the PV Subbasin through this process. While this incidental recharge provides a localized groundwater benefit, the existing WWTP is not equipped to produce tertiary-treated, Title 22-compliant recycled water for direct beneficial use.
As discussed in 3.1.3, upgrading the City's WWTP to produce tertiary-treated recycled water could present a future opportunity to diversify water supply and reduce potable water demand. Recent regulatory developments further support this potential, as the State Water Resources Control Board adopted uniform water recycling criteria for direct potable reuse (DPR) on December 19, 2023. However, the feasibility of upgrading the WWTP for recycled water production will depend on the associated capital costs, operational requirements, and the scale of potential non-potable reuse applications within the City.
An additional opportunity exists through the Pleasant Valley State Prison, a significant institutional customer served by the City. The prison owns and operates its own WWTP, which is capable of producing up to 0.63 MGD (approximately 700 AFY) of tertiary-treated, Title 22-compliant recycled water. Currently, the prison has an agreement with a private landowner to use this recycled water for agricultural irrigation. The terms and duration of this agreement are presently unclear, but the arrangement presents a potential opportunity for the City.
If available, the City could pursue an agreement with Pleasant Valley State Prison to acquire and utilize this tertiary-treated water for non-potable applications, such as landscape irrigation within the City. This approach may offer a more cost-effective alternative compared to upgrading the City’s WWTP, as it would primarily involve the construction of a dedicated recycled water conveyance system to deliver the recycled water to end users. Further evaluation would be required to assess system costs, operational logistics, and the extent to which this option could offset potable water demand and enhance water supply reliability.
3.2.3. Groundwater Banking
Groundwater banking, also referred to as aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), is a water management strategy that u5lizes available aquifer storage to store surplus surface water during wet years for later recovery during periods of drought or water shortage. Groundwater banking serves as a founda5onal element of conjunc5ve use programs and integrated water resources management.
There are generally two primary methods of groundwater banking:
• In-Lieu (Indirect) Recharge:
Surface water is delivered in place of groundwater pumping, allowing groundwater that would otherwise be extracted to remain in storage. This approach increases groundwater levels indirectly by reducing pumping demand during wet years.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 33
• Direct Recharge:
Surface water is introduced into a recharge basin or spreading facility and allowed to percolate directly into the aquifer. Alterna5vely, some programs u5lize direct injec5on, where water is physically injected into the aquifer through wells, as is common in many ASR systems (Washington Department of Water Resources, 2009).
Groundwater banking offers mul5ple benefits. The natural storage capacity of aquifers reduces the need for extensive surface reservoir infrastructure, resul5ng in lower capital investment compared to surface storage alterna5ves. Addi5onally, by maintaining or raising groundwater levels through recharge, banking opera5ons can reduce the risk of land subsidence, a common concern in groundwater-dependent basins.
Groundwater banking has been successfully implemented across California. The Kern Water Bank, located in Kern County, is one of the most prominent examples, encompassing approximately 30 square miles with a storage capacity of up to 1.5 million AF. The success of such projects highlights the poten5al for groundwater banking to enhance drought resilience, improve water supply reliability, and support regional groundwater sustainability goals.
For the City of Coalinga, groundwater banking may present an opportunity to capture and store surplus CVP surface water during wet years, which could then be recovered during droughts to supplement limited imported supplies. Future evalua5on will be needed to assess the feasibility of banking within the Pleasant Valley Subbasin or through partnerships with exis5ng groundwater banking programs.
3.2.4. Compliance with Urban Water Use Objectives
On July 3, 2024, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted the final regula5on associated with the "Making Conserva5on a California Way of Life" ini5a5ve, establishing new statewide water conserva5on requirements. The regula5on, which goes into effect on January 1, 2025, introduces Urban Water Use Objec5ves (UWUOs) for urban retail water suppliers. The regula5on was modified following a public review period that concluded on July 30, 2024. State enforcement will begin in 2027.
The regula5on requires urban retail water suppliers, including the City of Coalinga, to meet annual, customized water efficiency targets based on the unique characteris5cs of their service area. These objec5ves are not imposed on individual households or businesses but apply to the supplier's aggregate water use. Required reduc5ons may range from negligible to over 30 percent, depending on local condi5ons. The goal of this regula5on is to prepare communi5es for the effects of climate change, reduce reliance on emergency drought measures, and promote long-term sustainable water use.
While the regula5on provides flexibility for local implementa5on, it poses challenges for agencies like Coalinga, which have already achieved significant water use reduc5ons during past droughts but face increasing demand due to popula5on growth.
Regulatory Background
The rulemaking stems from California's legisla5ve mandates under Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606, adopted on August 18, 2023, which directed the State Water Board to establish performance standards and City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 34
efficiency measures for urban water use. The following milestones and requirements are key components of the regula5on:
• Indoor Residen5al Water Use Standards (SB 1157):
o 55 gpcd through December 31, 2024.
o 47 gpcd from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2029. o 42 gpcd beginning January 1, 2030.
• Water Loss Standard (Water Code §10608.34):
o The State Water Board adopted water loss standards in early 2023. o Suppliers must submit validated water loss audit reports annually. • UWUOs (Water Code §10609):
o Suppliers must establish, report, and assess annual UWUOs beginning January 1, 2024. o Suppliers must submit annual urban water use reports to the Department of Water Resources (DWR), including assessments of performance rela5ve to their UWUO, commercial, industrial, and ins5tu5onal water use performance measures, and progress toward mee5ng objec5ves. • UWMP Supplement:
o By January 1, 2024, suppliers were required to adopt and submit a supplement to the 2020 UWMP describing planned demand management measures to achieve UWUOs. • Water Shortage Assessment Reports:
o Suppliers must annually submit water shortage assessments star5ng June 1, 2022.
Implementaon Tools and Flexibility
The regula5on is designed to allow suppliers flexibility in achieving compliance by selec5ng locally appropriate solu5ons. Suppliers may employ a variety of demand management and conserva5on tools, such as:
• Leak detec5on and repair programs.
• Customer rebate programs for water-efficient appliances and fixtures. • Incen5ves to replace high-water-use landscaping with “climate-ready” or drought-tolerant landscaping. • Educa5on, public outreach, and customer engagement programs.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 35
• Water rate structure adjustments to encourage conserva5on.
For the City of Coalinga, compliance will require careful balancing of demand reduc5on strategies, affordability considera5ons, and future system growth. Con5nued conserva5on investments, system efficiency improvements, and community engagement will be essen5al to mee5ng the UWUO requirements while ensuring a sustainable and reliable water supply.
3.2.5. Water Loss Reduction and Improved Data Collection The City of Coalinga is ac5vely implemen5ng a comprehensive meter replacement program to address aging metering infrastructure and improve water system efficiency. On June 9, 2023, the City was awarded a $3 million grant from DWR to support the replacement of all single-family residen5al water meters by 2026. In parallel, the City has ini5ated the replacement of larger meters (greater than one inch in diameter) using internal resources, with all large meter replacements scheduled for comple5on by 2025.
The City's water system currently includes approximately 3,873 ac5ve meters of varying sizes, as summarized in Table 3-4 . This includes a mix of residen5al, commercial, and ins5tu5onal meters, with the majority being 1-inch meters serving single-family residences. The City is also in the process of replacing medium-sized meters, which are expected to be fully upgraded by 2025 (see Table 3-5).
Table 3-4. City of Coalinga Meter Sizes as of November 2024 Size (inches) Number of Meters
1 3,680
1 1/2 69
2 47
3 16
3/4 16
4 17
5/8 20
6 8
Total 3,873
Table 3-5. City of Coalinga Smart Meters as of January 2025 Size (inches) Number of Meters
1 679
1 1/2 15
2 14
3 3
3/4 1
4 1
Total 713
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 36
4. Alternatives Identification
Based on the challenges, opportuni5es, and constraints iden5fied in Chapter 3, four primary types of alterna5ves were formulated to address the City’s objec5ve of improving long-term water supply resiliency. These alterna5ves reflect a range of poten5al approaches, including development of new supplies, regional partnerships, improved use of exis5ng resources, and enhanced water management prac5ces. Each alterna5ve and its associated op5ons are summarized in this sec5on and will be further evaluated in Chapter 5.
4.1. Formulation of Alternatives
Water supply availability is inherently variable due to seasonal, annual, and climate-driven fluctua5ons. To address these challenges, the following four alterna5ves were iden5fied for detailed considera5on:
Table 4-1. Alternaves and Opons
Alternaves Opons Consideraons
Water Banking
Local Water Banking/
Exchange Agreement
• Develop a conceptual framework among the partners
• Identify sources of supply
• Develop details about physical groundwater
banking/recharge facilities
• Infrastructure and conveyance requirements
• Identify banking capacity, limits based on infiltration rates and conveyance capacities
• Regulatory compliance
• Leave-behind requirements
• Treatment requirements
• Monitoring requirements
• Long-term commitment
Semitropic Water
Storage District
• Develop regional banking partnerships
• Water losses
• Leave-behind requirements
• Capacity
• Extensive Monitoring
• Loca5on and 5ming concerns
• Cost effec5ve
Rosedale-Rio Bravo
Water Storage District
Willow Springs Water
Bank
Local Groundwater Pumping
• Local supply
• Water quality issues in the Pleasant Valley Subbasin
• Cost of treatment, new well(s), and monitoring
Recycled Water
• Local supply
• Cost of treatment and infrastructure
Water Conservation
• Maintenance, system improvement
• Supply by reducing losses; compliance with regulations City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 37
4.1.1. Alternative 1: Water Banking
Groundwater banking is a water management strategy that enables the storage of surplus surface water in an aquifer during wet years for later recovery during droughts or periods of limited CVP alloca5ons. This approach provides a means to mi5gate supply variability and strengthen long-term water supply reliability. Banking can occur locally, in collabora5on with nearby partners, or regionally through established banking programs. Several poten5al banking op5ons applicable to the City of Coalinga are iden5fied and discussed in subsequent sec5ons.
Key Elements of Groundwater Banking Programs
Groundwater banking programs typically consist of four fundamental components: (1) water delivery for recharge, (2) recharge infrastructure, (3) recovery capacity, and (4) water accoun5ng. To successfully implement a banking program, several cri5cal factors must be evaluated:
Regulatory Compliance
All groundwater banking ac5vi5es must comply with applicable state and local regula5ons, most notably the SGMA and the local GSP. Any banking program must be designed to support sustainable groundwater condi5ons and demonstrate that recovery opera5ons will not cause undesirable results, such as overdraU, land subsidence, or impacts to water quality.
Environmental and Third-Party Consideraons
Banking opera5ons can affect other groundwater users, surface water flows, and ecosystems. Programs must be designed to minimize adverse impacts to neighboring users and the environment. Recovery opera5ons, if not properly managed, can contribute to declining groundwater levels, interfere with other wells, or degrade water quality. Projects must establish protocols to ensure that the program is protec5ve of long-term basin health, consistent with GSP sustainability objec5ves, and equitable to all stakeholders.
Operaonal and Maintenance Costs
While groundwater banking typically requires lower capital investment than surface storage projects, it s5ll involves ongoing opera5onal and administra5ve costs. These include:
• Recharge facility opera5ons
• Groundwater monitoring
• Data management and water accoun5ng
• Regulatory repor5ng
• Long-term maintenance of recharge and recovery infrastructure A clear understanding of these recurring costs is essen5al for evalua5ng program feasibility.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 38
Water Losses
Not all water recharged into a groundwater basin is recoverable. Water losses may result from:
• Seepage to adjacent basins or deep aquifer layers
• Evapora5on (in the case of surface spreading)
• Plant uptake during recharge
• Reduced recoverability due to changes in groundwater flow paJern The magnitude of these losses varies depending on soil characteris5cs, groundwater gradients, and basin condi5ons. Use of modern hydrologic modeling and monitoring technologies can improve project design and minimize unrecoverable losses.
Leave-Behind Requirements
Most groundwater banking programs require par5cipants to leave a por5on of the recharged water in the aquifer to support sustainable groundwater levels. This “leave-behind” helps:
• Mi5gate the cumula5ve impacts of groundwater extrac5on • Support basin recovery during droughts
• Offset unquan5fied water losses
Leave-behind percentages vary depending on the banking partner and local hydrologic condi5ons, ranging from 10 to 50 percent in some programs.
Groundwater banking offers the City of Coalinga a flexible and adap5ve op5on to improve its drought resilience by securing a supplemental water source during cri5cal periods. However, successful implementa5on will require careful evalua5on of each program's opera5onal rules, costs, groundwater dynamics, and regulatory commitments. The following subsec5ons provide a detailed descrip5on of five specific groundwater banking alterna5ves iden5fied for the City’s considera5on.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 39
4.1.1.1. Alternative 1a: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Westlands Water District
Alterna5ve 1a consists of partnering with Westlands to develop a local banking/ exchange agreement arrangement, u5lizing exis5ng infrastructure within the Coalinga Canal system for both recharge and recovery opera5ons. This alterna5ve offers two poten5al approaches, depending on the details of the partnership agreement:
• Local banking
• Banking by exchange agreement
Given the water quality concerns in the Subbasin, returning the banked water to the Coalinga Canal may not be viable due to the poor quality of Pleasant Valley Subbasin water. To address this issue, the City could explore the op5on of a banking by exchange agreement with Westlands, as an alterna5ve to local water banking. In this op5on, the physical recovery of the banked water to the City would not be through wells in the Pleasant Valley Subbasin, but from other water supply (well water, banked water, or available surface water) could physically flow through the San Luis Canal and into the Coalinga Canal. If the banking by exchange agreement is reached between the City and Westlands, this would not require construc5on of a treatment plant, or addi5onal piping.
Under this alterna5ve, the City could bank surplus CVP water during wet years by:
1. Injec5ng water directly into the groundwater basin through Westlands-managed recharge facili5es.
2. Partnering with local landowners who can recharge water into the aquifer and return it to the City via the Coalinga Canal during 5mes of need.
3. Exchanging Westlands’ CVP en5tlement with the City to return the City’s banked water, when feasible, and Westlands pumping City’s banked water for local use.
This approach would create a geographically proximate banking arrangement, leveraging the exis5ng physical connec5on between Westlands and the City through the Coalinga Canal. This op5on offers the opportunity to directly connect to Westlands system and directly deliver the banked water to the City.
However, due to water quality concerns in the basin, the City may priori5ze a banking exchange agreement over local water banking, when feasible, to ensure that the quality of the returned water meets necessary standards.
It is important to note that the Coalinga Canal is available to all users and is not limited solely to Westlands.
Westlands Water District Overview
Westlands is located east of the City of Coalinga and is shown in Figure 4-1. The District is one of the largest agricultural water districts in the na5on, covering por5ons of Fresno and Kings coun5es. For over City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 40
50 years, Westlands has delivered CVP water to support agricultural produc5on and rural communi5es while advancing water conserva5on and environmental stewardship.
Key characteris5cs of the Westlands system include:
• Delivery of CVP water via the Delta-Mendota Canal, San Luis Reservoir, and ul5mately through the San Luis Canal and Coalinga Canal.
• Opera5on of over 1,100 miles of pipelines and more than 3,000 water meters. • Management of groundwater recharge programs for local water users.
Westlands serves as the City's conveyance provider for untreated CVP water through the Coalinga Canal, providing opera5onal familiarity and infrastructure compa5bility for poten5al banking opera5ons.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 41
Figure 4-1. Banking Opons – Westlands, Semitropic, Rosedale, and Willow Springs City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 42
Recent Recharge Operaons and Capacity
In WY2023/24, Westlands conducted extensive recharge efforts in response to favorable hydrologic condi5ons, successfully recharging approximately 380,000 AF of surface water, exceeding its recharge target of 275,000 AF. These recharge efforts included:
• Construc5on and opera5on of recharge basins.
• Use of ASR wells.
• Applica5on of Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge (Flood-MAR) techniques. • Sublateral recharge within the district’s exis5ng conveyance infrastructure.
These recent achievements demonstrate the District's technical capacity and opera5onal readiness to par5cipate in expanded banking efforts.
Grant Funding and Future Expansion
Westlands has also secured a $25 million federal grant to fund priority groundwater recharge and storage projects. This funding will further enhance the District’s capacity to support groundwater banking, including:
• Expansion of recharge infrastructure.
• Increased storage and recovery capabili5es.
• Improved monitoring and repor5ng systems.
The enhanced capacity may provide addi5onal flexibility for banking arrangements with the City, especially during periods of drought when family farms and disadvantaged communi5es rely heavily on reliable water supplies.
Suitability for the City
Alterna5ve 1a presents a viable local banking opportunity that benefits from:
• Proximity to the City’s exis5ng infrastructure.
• Westlands’ experience and capacity in groundwater recharge. • Availability of surplus capacity during wet years.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 43
• Poten5al for recovery via the Coalinga Canal that would convey the banked water to the City’s WTP. 1
This alterna5ve would leverage the Westlands’ exis5ng infrastructure and offer benefits of discharging banked water directly into the Coalinga Canal through a local farmer and deliver to the City’s WTP.
However, the feasibility of this alterna5ve will depend on the specific terms of a future agreement, including the recovery efficiency, leave-behind requirements, water accoun5ng, and opera5onal costs. In addi5on, mee5ng water quality requirements and compliance with USBR water quality standards aUer the recovery of the banked water are important considera5ons. Therefore, the City may also explore a banking by exchange agreement with Westlands.
The City will con5nue discussions with Westlands to further understand USBR water quality monitoring and repor5ng requirements of the banked water within Westlands. The alterna5ve aligns with regional groundwater management goals and could serve as a long-term solu5on to enhance Coalinga’s drought resilience.
4.1.1.2. Alternative 1b: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Gladstone Land Alterna5ve 1b, considers the development of a local banking/ exchange agreement arrangement in partnership with Gladstone Land and collabora5ng local farmers. Similar to Alterna5ve 1a, this approach offers two poten5al approaches depending on the details of the partnership agreement:
• Local banking
• Banking by exchange agreement
Under this alterna5ve, the City would bank surplus surface water on agricultural lands owned and operated by Gladstone Land, with the ability to recover the banked water during droughts or periods of CVP alloca5on shortages. Recovery could be facilitated by returning water directly to the City via the Coalinga Canal, which serves as a regional conveyance link between agricultural lands and the City’s water supply system.
However, similar to Alterna5ve 1a, water quality challenges in the Pleasant Valley Subbasin may make direct recovery through local pumping difficult. Poor groundwater quality, coupled with the high cost of treatment and low u5liza5on of the treatment plant, may limit the prac5cality of this approach.
Therefore, the City may pursue a banking by exchange agreement, which would not require construc5on of a treatment facility, or addi5onal piping.
Gladstone Land Overview
Gladstone Land is an agricultural real estate investment company with significant farmland holdings within the Coalinga area, as shown in Figure 4-2 . The company focuses on long-term investment and leasing of produc5ve farmland, primarily for permanent crops such as pistachios and almonds. Within 1 The Coalinga Canal remains accessible under all partnerships.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 44
the City’s vicinity, Gladstone Land owns approximately 6,740 gross acres across five separate proper5es (see Table 4-2). Gladstone Land’s agricultural proper5es are supported by mul5ple exis5ng irriga5on wells and private water conveyance systems, which could be adapted or expanded to facilitate banking and recovery opera5ons.
Table 4-2. Gladstone Land Properes
Property Locaon Gross
Acres
Planted
Acres
Crops Water Acquision
Date
Calaveras
Avenue
Coalinga, CA 453 435 Pistachios Three irriga5on wells 4/5/2016 Firestone
Avenue
Coalinga, CA 2,534 624 Pistachios,
Vegetables
Five irriga5on wells,
private water pipeline
9/3/2020
Phelps
Avenue
Coalinga, CA 850 645 Pistachios,
Almonds
Two irriga5on wells 7/17/2017
SuJer
Avenue
Coalinga, CA 2,103 1,951 Pistachios Ten irriga5on wells, private water pipeline
8/16/2019
West Lost
Hills Road
Coalinga, CA 801 757 Pistachios Four irriga5on wells,
private water pipeline
10/1/2020
Groundwater Banking Potenal
The partnership concept would rely on u5lizing Gladstone Land’s agricultural lands for:
• Recharge of surplus surface water into the underlying groundwater basin. • Storage of banked water during wet years.
• Recovery of banked water for use by the City during dry periods, likely facilitated through exis5ng infrastructure connec5ng to the Coalinga Canal.
Banked water could be delivered back to the City's supply system either directly through exis5ng conveyance facili5es or via exchanges with other regional partners.
Land Management Flexibility
Gladstone Land’s opera5ng model supports a variety of flexible land ownership and leasing structures that could complement the banking arrangement, including:
• Sale-Leaseback: Farmers can sell their land while con5nuing to operate under a long-term lease, allowing con5nuity of agricultural produc5on.
• Farmer Leasing: Farmers lease farmland directly without requiring ownership, providing opera5onal flexibility.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 45
• Cash Purchases: Gladstone Land may directly purchase addi5onal farmland, expanding available recharge areas if needed.
This flexibility may provide opportuni5es for the City to structure a tailored groundwater banking agreement that supports both water supply and local agricultural opera5ons.
Suitability for the City
Alterna5ve 1b offers several advantages:
• Proximity to the City's exis5ng infrastructure and service area. • Access to significant acreage for poten5al recharge.
• Established agricultural and water infrastructure on Gladstone Land proper5es. • Opportuni5es for collabora5ve partnerships with local growers.
Gladstone Land has infrastructure and capacity to bank surface water and has banked water in the Pleasant Valley Subbasin and Westlands. Based on ini5al conversa5on between the City and Gladstone Land, City’s exis5ng parcel located next the state prison can be explored as a poten5al groundwater recharge area as it is close by the Gladstone Land’s pipeline. Banked water could be returned to the City by two mechanisms: pumping back into the Coalinga Canal upstream of the City’s WTP and returning the banked water physically or as an exchange with Westlands.
The feasibility of this alterna5ve will depend on further assessment of recharge capacity, recovery mechanisms, landowner par5cipa5on, and the regulatory framework for groundwater banking within the Pleasant Valley Subbasin. Addi5onally, water quality condi5ons of the recovered banked water are among important considera5ons. Water quality monitoring of the recovered water would be necessary to ensure that quality does not exceed City’s requirements prior to the point of introduc5on to the City’s system. Water quality of water pumped back into the Coalinga Canal would need to be acceptable to pump back opera5ons and meet any poten5al water quality monitoring and repor5ng requirements by Westlands and USBR.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California May 2025 GEI Consultants, Inc. 46 Figure 4-2 . Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement Opon - Gladstone Land City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 47
4.1.1.3. Alternative 1c: Semitropic Water Storage District Alterna5ve 1c involves the City entering into a regional groundwater banking partnership with the Semitropic Water Storage District (Semitropic), located in Kern County, approximately 70 miles south of Coalinga (see Figure 4-1). Semitropic is one of California’s most established and well-recognized groundwater banking programs, with a proven history of suppor5ng long-term water supply sustainability.
Under this alterna5ve, the City would par5cipate in Semitropic’s banking program by contribu5ng surplus surface water during wet years. In exchange, the City would have the ability to recover its banked water through surface water exchanges during dry years when CVP alloca5ons are reduced.
Semitropic Water Storage District Overview
Semitropic has operated a conjunc5ve use and groundwater banking program since the early 1990s, suppor5ng both agricultural and urban water users. The district’s program allows agencies to store surface water in the groundwater basin during wet years and recover it during drought condi5ons via direct exchange to the California Aqueduct, which is hydraulically connected to the Coalinga Canal system.
Key characteris5cs of the Semitropic program include:
• Total Storage Capacity: Up to 1.65 million AF of surface water can be banked within the aquifer. • Recovery Capacity: The program can deliver up to 90,000 AF per year back to the California Aqueduct for recovery by par5cipa5ng agencies.
• Leave-Behind Requirement: A 10 percent leave-behind is applied to all banked water to maintain groundwater basin health and avoid adverse impacts.
Program Operaons
The Semitropic program operates under a banking and recovery framework:
• Banking Phase: During years of surplus surface water availability, par5cipants deliver water to Semitropic for recharge into the aquifer using recharge basins and dedicated facili5es. • Recovery Phase: During drought or low alloca5on years, banked water is recovered via exchange and delivered to the California Aqueduct where it is made available to downstream banking partner(s).
The banking and recovery arrangement is designed to be flexible, enabling par5cipants to store water for long periods and withdraw it as needed, provided there is sufficient capacity.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 48
Exisng Program Parcipants
Semitropic’s program is well-established, with mul5ple major water agencies as long-term banking partners:
• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (350,000 AF capacity) • Santa Clara Valley Water District (350,000 AF capacity) • Alameda County Water District (150,000 AF capacity)
• Zone 7 Water Agency (65,000 AF capacity)
These partnerships demonstrate the program’s proven ability to meet the reliability needs of both large urban and agricultural users.
Suitability for the City
Alterna5ve 1c offers Coalinga a regionally integrated op5on to increase water supply reliability through:
• Access to significant storage capacity in an established banking program. • Poten5al for recovery through exis5ng CVP and California Aqueduct infrastructure. • Par5cipa5on in a program with a track record of successful opera5ons and regulatory compliance.
• Poten5al for recovery of banked water through water transfers only.
Considera5ons for the City include the distance to Semitropic, addi5onal conveyance and exchange logis5cs, program par5cipa5on costs, and future availability of banking capacity. In the absence of a direct connec5on, Semitropic would return the City’s banked water by water transfers only and pump groundwater for local use. During periods of low water alloca5ons, water transfers are oUen limited and inadequate. Nonetheless, this alterna5ve provides a technically and ins5tu5onally feasible mechanism to improve Coalinga’s drought resilience.
4.1.1.4. Alternative 1d: Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Alterna5ve 1d involves the City partnering with the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District (Rosedale) to par5cipate in its regional groundwater banking program. Rosedale is located in Kern County, south of Coalinga, as shown in Figure 4-1, and has an established history of managing groundwater recharge and banking opera5ons to enhance local and regional water supply reliability.
Under this alterna5ve, the City would bank surplus surface water during wet years within Rosedale's groundwater banking program. In return, the City would receive access to stored water during drought City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 49
periods or years when CVP alloca5ons are reduced, typically through exchange deliveries via the California Aqueduct.
Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Overview
Founded in 1959, Rosedale's mission is to maintain and improve groundwater condi5ons within its district boundary. Over the years, it has expanded into a leading conjunc5ve use and groundwater banking agency, focusing on integrated surface water and groundwater management.
Rosedale's banking program primarily focuses on the direct recharge of surface water into the groundwater basin. The District does not directly deliver water to customers but instead manages recharge and extrac5on opera5ons to support par5cipants through groundwater recovery or surface water exchanges.
Rosedale has developed partnerships with many different state, federal, and local en55es including USBR and Fish and Wildlife Service to supply water to the Kern Na5onal Wildlife Refuge and secure CVP water.
Addi5onally, Rosedale has SWP water supply through the Kern County Water Agency and maintains partnerships with mul5ple federal Friant-Kern water agencies.
Key Program Features
• Groundwater Recharge Focus:
Rosedale’s program is centered on recharging surface water into the aquifer to replenish groundwater supplies for future use.
• Infrastructure:
The program u5lizes an extensive system of canals, wells, pipelines, and recharge ponds to carry out recharge and recovery opera5ons. These facili5es are designed to maximize the infiltra5on of surplus surface water into the groundwater basin during periods of high availability. • Leave-Behind Requirement:
The program enforces a rela5vely high 50 percent leave-behind requirement, meaning that for every unit of water banked, only 50 percent may be recovered. The remaining volume contributes to basin sustainability and supports regional groundwater objec5ves.
Suitability for the City
Rosedale offers a technically feasible groundwater banking op5on with the following characteris5cs:
• A long-standing and proven banking program focused on groundwater recharge. • Access to an established conveyance and recharge network. • Opportunity for Coalinga to par5cipate in a regional conjunc5ve use program. • Poten5al for recovery of banked water through water exchange only.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 50
Consistent with other regional banking op5ons, without a direct connec5on, Rosedale would return the City’s banked water by water transfers only. During periods of low water alloca5ons, water transfers are oUen limited and inadequate. In addi5on, the 50 percent leave-behind requirement represents a significant constraint, reducing the net volume of recoverable water rela5ve to other banking programs with lower leave-behind ra5os. Addi5onally, the City's par5cipa5on would require considera5on of conveyance logis5cs, opera5onal agreements, and program costs.
Despite these challenges, Alterna5ve 1d could serve as a viable drought-resilience strategy by providing access to stored water when needed, while contribu5ng to long-term basin sustainability.
4.1.1.5. Alternative 1e: Willow Springs Water Bank
Alterna5ve 1e considers the City entering into a groundwater banking partnership with the Willow Springs Water Bank (Willow Springs), located in Antelope Valley, southeast of Coalinga, as illustrated in Figure 4-1. Willow Springs is a developing groundwater banking facility intended to enhance regional water supply reliability by providing storage capacity for surplus surface water during wet years and facilita5ng recovery during dry periods through exchange mechanisms.
While Willow Springs is s5ll under development, it is recognized as a poten5al future banking op5on for the City and warrants further evalua5on as the project matures.
Willow Springs Water Bank Overview
The Willow Springs Water Bank Program (Program) is being developed as a large-scale conjunc5ve use program focused on op5mizing available groundwater storage for regional drought resilience. The Program will operate by accep5ng surplus water from par5cipa5ng agencies during wet years, storing it in the underlying aquifer system, and returning it via surface water exchange during drought condi5ons or periods of reduced CVP alloca5ons.
Willow Springs is currently developing a Feasibility Study, expected to be completed by 2027, in coordina5on with the California Water Commission (CWC). The CWC is administering the Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP), which will provide funding for the public benefits associated with the Program. The Program could be opera5onal by 2030, pending the approval of the public benefits by CWC.
Key Program Features
• Land Area: Approximately 1,838 acres of agricultural land have been designated for recharge and storage opera5ons.
• Storage Capacity: The program is designed to store up to 1 million AF of water within the aquifer.
• Recharge and Recovery Potenal: Willow Springs is expected to store up to 500,000 AF of water during wet years for future recovery by par5cipa5ng agencies during dry periods.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 51
• Governance and Partnerships: The project is being developed through a combina5on of public and private partnerships, including:
o Southern California Water Bank Authority: Governs the project and manages interagency coordina5on.
o Antelope Valley Water Storage, LLC: Responsible for the day-to-day opera5on and maintenance of the bank.
o DWR: Provides technical guidance, regulatory input, and coordinates with State Water Project (SWP) opera5ons.
o California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Ensures that project implementa5on protects environmental and ecosystem benefits.
o Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency: A regional water agency suppor5ng water supply and opera5onal ac5vi5es.
Consideraons and Status
While Willow Springs presents a promising opportunity for par5cipa5on in a large-scale banking program, the Program is s5ll in the development phase, and key details regarding recovery infrastructure, program opera5ons, par5cipa5on costs, and regulatory compliance have not yet been fully established. Addi5onally, this alterna5ve would require establishing a water banking partnership between a SWP contractor and a CVP contractor. As such, this alterna5ve is currently considered a poten5al future op5on rather than an immediately ac5onable strategy.
Suitability for the City
Alterna5ve 1e provides the City with a long-term groundwater banking opportunity that could be incorporated into its drought preparedness strategy, subject to the comple5on of project development and confirma5on of program feasibility. Par5cipa5on in Willow Springs would require future coordina5on to:
• Evaluate project compa5bility with City infrastructure; • Secure access to surplus water during wet years;
• Formalize par5cipa5on agreements once the program is fully opera5onal; and, • Agree on the mechanism for recovery of banked water through water exchanges only.
Similar to other regional banking op5ons, without a direct connec5on, Rosedale would return the City’s banked water by water transfers only. During periods of low water alloca5ons, water transfers are oUen City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 52
limited and inadequate. This alterna5ve is recommended for con5nued monitoring as the project progresses.
4.1.2. Alternative 2: Development of Local Groundwater Pumping Alterna5ve 2 considers the City of Coalinga developing a local groundwater pumping system as a supplemental water supply source. This alterna5ve would reduce reliance on imported CVP water by u5lizing groundwater from the Pleasant Valley Subbasin. However, due to known water quality challenges, significant treatment would be required before groundwater could be incorporated into the potable water system.
Exisng Groundwater Condions
As documented in Sec5on 2.1.2, the City's groundwater quality is generally poor, characterized by elevated concentra5ons of TDS, sodium, sulfate, and boron, typically found at depths ranging from 500 to 1,500 feet. Historical studies and the City's 2020 UWMP have indicated that these water quality condi5ons render untreated groundwater unsuitable for potable use. Addi5onally, groundwater levels have been declining due to ongoing regional groundwater overdraU, further complica5ng the viability of this alterna5ve without proper treatment and sustainable management.
Proposed System Components
Alterna5ve 2 would involve the following key components:
• New Groundwater Producon Wells: The City would need to site, drill, and equip one or more new wells capable of mee5ng supplemental demand. Site selec5on would require hydrogeologic analysis to op5mize yield while avoiding areas of the highest salinity. • Wellhead Treatment Facilies: Given the elevated concentra5ons of TDS, sodium, and sulfate, advanced treatment would be necessary to meet California Title 22 drinking water standards.
Treatment processes could include:
o Reverse Osmosis (RO)
o Ion Exchange
o Blending with higher quality water (e.g., CVP water)
o Post-treatment stabiliza5on to control corrosion and pH • Conveyance Infrastructure: Pipelines and appurtenances would be required to connect the new well(s) to the City’s exis5ng water treatment or distribu5on system. • Monitoring and Reporng: Groundwater extrac5on, treatment performance, and compliance with the Pleasant Valley Subbasin GSP would require ongoing monitoring and repor5ng.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 53
Consideraons
• Water Quality and Cost: The City would need to invest in both wellhead treatment infrastructure and ongoing opera5on and maintenance (O&M) to produce water of suitable quality. The treatment of brackish or marginal-quality groundwater can be energy-intensive and expensive.
• Groundwater Basin Condions: The Pleasant Valley Subbasin is subject to the requirements of the SGMA, as described in Sec5on 2.1.2, including compliance with groundwater levels, storage, and water quality constraints to maintain basin sustainability. • Supply Reliability: Although this alterna5ve provides a locally controlled source, its long-term yield could be limited by declining groundwater levels and water quality constraints.
Nonetheless, it may offer value as a drought con5ngency or emergency supply.
Suitability for the City
Alterna5ve 2 could provide a modest but valuable supplemental supply, par5cularly for blending with CVP water or for non-potable applica5ons if potable treatment proves cost-prohibi5ve. However, its feasibility is highly dependent on:
• Achieving an economically viable treatment solu5on.
• Ensuring SGMA compliance.
• Confirming sustainable pumping yields.
Further detailed hydrogeologic and cost-benefit analysis would be required before advancing this alterna5ve.
4.1.3. Alternative 3: Development of Recycled Water
Alterna5ve 3 explores the opportunity for the City of Coalinga to produce disinfected ter5ary-treated recycled water at its exis5ng WWTP, consistent with Title 22 requirements established by the California Department of Public Health. This alterna5ve would enable the City to convert wastewater into a locally controlled, non-potable supply for beneficial reuse, poten5ally offsePng potable water demand for landscape irriga5on or groundwater recharge.
Exisng Condions
As described in Sec5on 2.1.4, the City currently owns and operates a municipal wastewater collec5on and treatment system that serves approximately 3,700 connec5ons. The WWTP is located approximately one mile east of the City at the confluence of Los Gatos Creek and Warthan Creek. The facility has a rated treatment capacity of 1.34 MGD and currently produces undisinfected secondary effluent, which is used to irrigate non-food crops on adjacent City-owned land.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 54
While the exis5ng system provides incidental groundwater recharge benefits, the WWTP does not currently produce recycled water that meets the ter5ary treatment and disinfec5on standards required for broader reuse applica5ons.
Proposed Recycled Water Program
This alterna5ve proposes upgrades to the WWTP to enable produc5on of disinfected ter5ary effluent suitable for Title 22 reuse. Key elements include:
• WWTP Upgrades: Modifica5ons to the treatment process would be required, including filtra5on, chemical dosing, and UV or chlorine disinfec5on systems to achieve ter5ary treatment levels. • Recycled Water Distribuon System: Construc5on of a dedicated “purple pipe” distribu5on system would be necessary to convey recycled water from the WWTP to designated reuse sites.
Poten5al customers include:
o Public parks and green spaces
o School campuses
o Municipal facili5es
o Roadway medians and other landscape areas
• Customer Conversion and Cross-Connecon Control: Exis5ng irriga5on systems would need to be disconnected from the potable system and retrofiJed to connect to the new recycled water system. Backflow preven5on and cross-connec5on tes5ng would be required to ensure system integrity and regulatory compliance.
Regulatory Framework
This alterna5ve aligns with California’s long-term goal of “Making Conserva5on a California Way of Life”, and leverages the regulatory support provided through recent state ac5on. On December 19, 2023, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted uniform criteria for Direct Potable Reuse, signaling growing regulatory support for expanded recycled water applica5ons. While this alterna5ve focuses on non-potable reuse, the regulatory environment is favorable for investment in recycled water infrastructure.
Consideraons
• Capital Cost and Economic Viability: Preliminary engineering indicates that WWTP upgrades, distribu5on system construc5on, and customer retrofits would require significant capital investment. Based on prior evalua5ons, the construc5on of a ter5ary treatment system and purple pipe network was es5mated at approximately $39 million.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 55
• Offset Potenal: Landscape irriga5on demands in the City are es5mated at approximately 0.42 MGD, providing a feasible target for recycled water offset. Addi5onal volumes could be directed to recharge applica5ons or agricultural irriga5on, pending further evalua5on. • Grant Opportunies: The City may pursue funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) or Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) programs to support implementa5on.
Suitability for the City
Alterna5ve 3 offers a promising long-term opportunity to diversify the City of Coalinga’s water supply por^olio by producing a drought-resilient, local non-potable source. While the upfront capital costs are substan5al, this op5on provides strategic value in improving water supply reliability, suppor5ng groundwater sustainability, and enhancing the City’s compliance with statewide water conserva5on mandates.
The City may also explore phasing implementa5on or leveraging regional partnerships to reduce financial burdens and op5mize delivery infrastructure.
4.1.4. Alternative 4: Implementation of Water Conservation Measures Alterna5ve 4 evaluates the implementa5on of comprehensive water conserva5on strategies as a means of enhancing system efficiency, reducing demand, and improving overall water supply resilience.
Compared to infrastructure-intensive alterna5ves, conserva5on represents a cost-effec5ve approach that minimizes capital expenditures while suppor5ng long-term water reliability and regulatory compliance.
Rather than increasing supply, this alterna5ve seeks to manage demand more efficiently through reduc5ons in water losses, improved customer behavior, and adop5on of best management prac5ces.
Purpose and Benefits
Water conserva5on offers the following key benefits to the City:
• Capital Cost Avoidance: Reduces or delays the need for new water supply infrastructure, treatment systems, and storage facili5es.
• Operaonal Efficiency: Lowers energy, chemical, and labor costs associated with water treatment and distribu5on.
• Environmental Sustainability: Decreases the environmental footprint associated with water extrac5on and wastewater discharge.
• Regulatory Compliance: Supports the City's alignment with California's water use objec5ves (see Sec5on 4.2.4) and contributes to mee5ng statewide conserva5on mandates.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 56
Water conserva5on is dis5nct from water curtailment, which refers to mandatory usage reduc5ons during emergency condi5ons. Conserva5on focuses on permanent efficiency improvements, making it a reliable, long-term strategy.
Recommended Best Pracces
The following measures are recommended for water conserva5on, based on industry best prac5ces and guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protec5on Agency (USEPA, 2016) and the American Water Works Associa5on (AWWA):
• System-Wide Water Audits: The City currently conducts annual water audits using AWWA soUware to assess and quan5fy water losses across the distribu5on system. Con5nued use of these tools will inform targeted leakage control and metering improvements. • Leak Detecon and Control: Apparent and real losses represent a significant por5on of nonrevenue water. Targeted investment in leak detec5on, pipeline replacement, and pressure management can reduce system losses. As reported in Sec5on 2.2.1.1, system losses have averaged 17 percent in recent years.
• Metering and Meter Accuracy Improvements: Accurate metering is essen5al for tracking water consump5on and iden5fying inefficiencies. As outlined in Sec5on 3.2.5, the City is ac5vely replacing outdated meters and implemen5ng smart meter technology to improve accuracy and customer billing transparency.
• Conservaon-Oriented Rate Structures: Tiered or increasing block rate structures can provide financial incen5ves for efficient use, while ensuring revenue stability. Rate structures should be regularly reviewed to align with conserva5on goals and cost-of-service principles. • End-Use Efficiency Programs: Conduct sector-specific water use analysis to iden5fy high-demand customer segments and develop targeted programs. Poten5al approaches include:
o Residen5al fixture rebate programs
o Landscape conversion incen5ves (e.g., turf replacement with drought-tolerant plan5ng) o Ins5tu5onal retrofits for schools and public buildings o Commercial/industrial process water efficiency audits • Public Outreach and Educaon: Promote a water conserva5on ethic through community workshops, informa5onal campaigns, school programs, and digital outreach. • Formal Conservaon Plan: Prepare and adopt a Water Conserva5on and Efficiency Plan with measurable goals, implementa5on 5melines, and progress tracking. This plan should be City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 57
integrated into the City’s UWMP and aligned with new regula5ons under the “Making Conserva5on a California Way of Life” ini5a5ve.
Suitability for the City
Given current water loss levels and an5cipated growth in demand, Alterna5ve 4 presents a highly costeffec5ve strategy to extend exis5ng supplies. Conserva5on measures can:
• Free up supply for cri5cal needs during drought years, • Improve system performance, and
• Help the City meet evolving UWUOs set forth by the State.
Water conserva5on is also compa5ble with other alterna5ves—par5cularly groundwater banking and recycled water—by reducing baseline demand and op5mizing resource use across the City’s por^olio.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 58
5. Evaluation and Comparison of Alternatives
This chapter presents the evalua5on and comparison of the alterna5ves iden5fied in Chapter 4. The purpose of this evalua5on is to determine which alterna5ves best align with the Study’s objec5ves of enhancing both short- and long-term water supply sustainability for the City of Coalinga.
The alterna5ves are assessed based on their feasibility, poten5al benefits, alignment with the City’s exis5ng infrastructure, regulatory compliance, cost-effec5veness, and ability to support drought resilience.
5.1. Preliminary Screening
As part of the evalua5on process, a preliminary screening was conducted to eliminate alterna5ves that do not provide substan5al benefits beyond exis5ng efforts or that are not feasible given the City’s current opera5onal context.
Alternave Removed from Further Evaluaon:
Alternave 4 – Water Conservaon
While water conserva5on is a fundamental component of long-term water management, this alterna5ve does not introduce significantly new benefits beyond current prac5ces. The City has already integrated extensive conserva5on measures into its opera5ons, and compliance with California’s UWUOs under the “Making Conserva5on a California Way of Life” regula5on that is ongoing (see Sec5on 4.1.4).
As a result, the incremental benefit of addi5onal conserva5on efforts is limited, and Alterna5ve 4 is not carried forward for further detailed evalua5on.
5.2. Alternatives Advancing to Detailed Evaluation
The following alterna5ves demonstrated sufficient poten5al for contribu5ng to Coalinga’s long-term water resiliency goals and are retained for further evalua5on in subsequent sec5ons:
• Alterna5ve 1a: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Westlands Water District • Alterna5ve 1b: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Gladstone Land • Alterna5ve 1c: Water Banking with Semitropic Water Storage District • Alterna5ve 1d: Water Banking with Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District • Alterna5ve 1e: Water Banking with Willow Springs Water Bank • Alterna5ve 2: Development of Local Groundwater Pumping • Alterna5ve 3: Development of Recycled Water Supply
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 59
5.3. Evaluation Framework
The alterna5ves carried forward from the preliminary screening have been evaluated based on their alignment with the Study’s key objec5ves and their performance across mul5ple evalua5on criteria. This structured approach ensures that each alterna5ve is assessed in a consistent and transparent manner to support decision-making.
5.3.1. Study Objectives
The evalua5on is guided by the following primary objec5ves:
• Enhance water supply reliability
• Provide cost-effecve and safe water supplies
• Achieve stakeholder acceptance
• Implement water supply reliability strategies compliant with regulaons and permits
5.3.2. Evaluation Criteria
Each alterna5ve is evaluated using a set of seven core criteria, which reflect the Study’s objec5ves and the prac5cal considera5ons necessary to implement a reliable water supply project. The criteria are described below and expanded in Sec5ons 5.3.4 through 5.3.10.
1. Technical Feasibility
a. Reliability – Ability of the alterna5ve to provide a consistent, dependable supply during droughts and variable hydrology.
b. Construcon Feasibility – Considera5on of si5ng, engineering complexity, and constructability.
2. Economic and Financial Feasibility
Evalua5on of capital, opera5on, and maintenance costs, as well as funding poten5al and costeffec5veness over 5me.
3. Regulatory Feasibility
Consistency with applicable laws, permits, and regulatory frameworks, including SGMA, Title 22, and CVP contract requirements.
4. Environmental Impacts
Poten5al for adverse or beneficial environmental effects, including land use, habitat, groundwater condi5ons, and energy use.
5. Operaons and Maintenance (O&M)
Long-term operability of the alterna5ve, including staffing, energy, infrastructure reliability, and system complexity.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 60
6. Stakeholder and Public Acceptance
An5cipated community and partner support, including public percep5on, poli5cal feasibility, and local agency alignment.
7. Implementaon Feasibility
a. Timeline – Es5mated 5me to design, permit, and construct the alterna5ve. b. Partnership Feasibility – Poten5al for regional or interagency collabora5on.
5.3.3. Evaluation Methodology
Each alterna5ve was evaluated qualita5vely using a ranking scale based on performance rela5ve to each criterion:
• 3 – High Performance: Strong alignment with the evalua5on criterion and minimal challenges. • 2 – Moderate Performance: Par5al alignment with moderate constraints. • 1 – Low Performance: Limited alignment with the criterion or significant challenges to feasibility.
This scoring approach provides a clear and comparable basis for determining which alterna5ves best meet the City’s long-term water resiliency goals.
5.3.4. Technical Feasibility
Technical feasibility evaluates each alterna5ve’s capability to provide a reliable water supply and the complexity of construc5on required for implementa5on. This criterion is divided into two subcategories:
(1) water supply reliability and (2) construc5on requirements. Each subcategory was assessed qualita5vely based on currently available informa5on.
5.3.4.1. Water Supply Reliability
Water supply reliability refers to the alterna5ve’s ability to consistently meet demand, par5cularly during periods of reduced CVP alloca5ons or prolonged drought. This subcriterion considers the resilience of the alterna5ve under variable hydrologic and regulatory condi5ons.
Scoring Guidelines:
• 3 – High reliability: Consistently meets demand during drought and curtailment scenarios • 2 – Moderate reliability: Generally meets demand but with limita5ons under certain condi5ons • 1 – Low reliability: Limited ability to maintain supply under variable or constrained condi5ons City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 61
5.3.4.2. Construction Requirements
Construc5on requirements assess the scale and complexity of infrastructure development needed to implement each alterna5ve. This includes considera5ons such as permiPng, land acquisi5on, engineering difficulty, and integra5on with exis5ng systems.
Scoring Guidelines:
• 3 – Minimal or no new construc5on required
• 2 – Moderate construc5on required with average complexity • 1 – Extensive or complex construc5on required with above-average difficulty
5.3.5. Economic and Financial Feasibility
Economic and financial feasibility assesses the rela5ve cost-effec5veness of each alterna5ve, including both capital expenditures and long-term financial impacts. This evalua5on also considers the poten5al availability of external funding—such as grants or low-interest loans—which may help offset costs and improve affordability.
This Study does not quan5fy specific benefits or conduct a formal benefit-cost ra5o analysis. Instead, alterna5ves were evaluated qualita5vely based on an5cipated cost burdens and funding feasibility.
Scoring Guidelines:
• 3 – Low capital cost and financial impact: Readily affordable with minimal strain on local resources; strong poten5al for grant or loan support
• 2 – Moderate capital cost and financial impact: Affordable with moderate effort; may require blended funding sources
• 1 – High capital cost and financial impact: Significant financial burden; likely dependent on substan5al external funding or phased implementa5on
5.3.6. Regulatory Feasibility
Regulatory feasibility evaluates the complexity of permiPng, environmental review, and legal compliance associated with implemen5ng each alterna5ve. Projects involving groundwater recharge, water banking, recycled water produc5on, or inter-agency water transfers must navigate a range of regulatory requirements at the local, state, and federal levels.
Key regulatory considera5ons include:
• Environmental Compliance: Poten5al impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, and water quality are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, where federal involvement applies, the Na5onal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). • PermiPng and Interagency Coordinaon: Alterna5ves involving groundwater recharge or water transfers may require coordina5on with the SWRCB, USBR, and other relevant regulatory City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 62
en55es. Projects must also meet applicable requirements under Title 22 for recycled water and local GSPs under the SGMA.
• Consistency with Local Policies: Local ordinances, land use plans, and water management policies—par5cularly those governing the Pleasant Valley Subbasin—may influence feasibility.
Scoring Guidelines:
• 3 – Minimum regulatory requirements: Streamlined permiPng and strong alignment with applicable regula5ons
• 2 – Moderate regulatory requirements: Some permiPng and coordina5on required; manageable compliance pathway
• 1 – High regulatory requirements: Complex or uncertain permiPng processes; significant regulatory hurdles expected
5.3.7. Environmental Impacts
This criterion evaluates the poten5al environmental effects associated with the implementa5on of each alterna5ve. The assessment considers both adverse and beneficial impacts based on the level of infrastructure development, land disturbance, and poten5al changes to environmental resources.
The evalua5on draws from standard areas of impact typically analyzed under the CEQA and NEPA, including:
• Biological resources (e.g., sensi5ve habitats and species) • Water quality and hydrology
• Cultural and historical resources
• Air quality, noise, and transporta5on
• Land use compa5bility and recrea5onal impacts
Due to the conceptual nature of this Study, detailed project-specific environmental analyses were not available. As such, a qualita5ve approach was used to iden5fy poten5al impacts that could complicate or delay the environmental review and permiPng process.
In general, alterna5ves requiring extensive new infrastructure or land disturbance were assumed to have greater environmental impacts and were rated lower. Conversely, alterna5ves that rely on exis5ng facili5es or reduce environmental pressure may offer net environmental benefits.
Scoring Guidelines:
• 3 – Low or beneficial environmental impacts: Minimal disturbance or poten5al for environmental enhancement
• 2 – Moderate environmental impacts: Some disturbance likely, manageable through mi5ga5on • 1 – High environmental impacts: Significant poten5al for adverse effects requiring extensive review or mi5ga5on
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 63
5.3.8. Operations and Maintenance
This criterion evaluates the opera5onal complexity and long-term maintenance needs associated with each alterna5ve. Considera5ons include the degree of alignment with the City’s exis5ng Opera5ons and Maintenance (O&M) prac5ces, staffing requirements, system reliability, and the need for specialized equipment or new procedures.
Alterna5ves such as groundwater pumping and recycled water systems may introduce unfamiliar infrastructure, treatment processes, or monitoring protocols, poten5ally increasing opera5onal complexity. Conversely, alterna5ves that leverage exis5ng systems or require minimal modifica5on are expected to be easier to manage.
The assessment was qualita5ve and based on the es5mated level of effort, training, and system integra5on required to operate and maintain each alterna5ve effec5vely.
Scoring Guidelines:
• 3 – Low O&M effort: Minimal changes required; aligns well with current prac5ces • 2 – Moderate O&M effort: Some new systems or prac5ces required; manageable with exis5ng staff and resources
• 1 – High O&M effort: Significant changes or specialized exper5se required; poten5al strain on opera5ons
5.3.9. Stakeholder and Public Acceptance
This criterion assesses the an5cipated level of support from key stakeholders and the general public for each alterna5ve. The evalua5on was conducted qualita5vely, drawing on input from the City regarding community values, public sen5ment, and poli5cal feasibility.
Alterna5ves that align closely with local preferences, involve minimal disrup5on, or provide clear public benefits, are expected to receive stronger support. Conversely, alterna5ves that introduce unfamiliar infrastructure, perceived risks, or environmental concerns may encounter resistance.
Stakeholder acceptance is a cri5cal factor in successful project implementa5on, as it can influence funding, permiPng, and long-term sustainability.
Scoring Guidelines:
• 3 – High support: Strong alignment with community values; low perceived risk; likely to gain broad acceptance
• 2 – Moderate support: Mixed opinions or limited public familiarity; manageable concerns • 1 – Low support: Poten5al controversy or resistance due to cost, impact, or perceived uncertainty
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 64
5.3.10. Implementation
The feasibility of implemen5ng each alterna5ve was assessed based on two sub-criteria: the projected 5meline for implementa5on and the level of effort required to establish and manage necessary partnerships. These factors reflect both the prac5cal readiness of each alterna5ve and the coordina5on complexity associated with execu5on. The evalua5on was conducted qualita5vely using available data and professional judgment.
5.3.10.1. Timeline
This criterion considers the es5mated 5me required to fully implement each alterna5ve, including planning, design, permiPng, environmental documenta5on, construc5on, and commissioning.
Alterna5ves with shorter 5melines may offer more immediate benefits and are generally more adaptable to emerging needs or policy shiUs.
Scoring Guidelines:
• 3 – Short timeline: Implementa5on expected within 5 years • 2 – Moderate timeline: Implementa5on expected within 5–10 years • 1 – Long timeline: Implementa5on expected to exceed 10 years
5.3.10.2. Partnership Feasibility
This criterion evaluates the rela5ve difficulty of forming and maintaining partnerships required for successful implementa5on. Alterna5ves that involve coordina5on with external agencies, private landowners, or regional water en55es may face challenges in nego5a5on, governance, or communica5on.
Scoring Guidelines:
• 3 – Low difficulty: Exis5ng rela5onships or minimal external coordina5on required • 2 – Moderate difficulty: Some new partnerships or formal agreements needed • 1 – High difficulty: Complex, mul5-party coordina5on or uncertain partnership pathways
5.4. Alternatives Evaluation
This sec5on presents a compara5ve evalua5on of the alterna5ves carried forward from the preliminary screening, based on the evalua5on criteria introduced in Sec5on 5.3. Each alterna5ve was assessed rela5ve to others to iden5fy the most feasible and effec5ve long-term solu5ons for improving the City of Coalinga’s water supply reliability.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 65
5.4.1. Technical Feasibility
5.4.1.1. Water Supply Reliability
Water supply reliability was assessed based on each alterna5ve’s ability to deliver a consistent and dependable supply, par5cularly during cri5cal periods such as drought or curtailments. The results of the evalua5on are presented in Table 5-1.
• Alternaves 1a (Westlands), 1b (Gladstone Land) received the highest score of 3, reflec5ng relavely high reliability. These op5ons u5lize local sources and infrastructure, reducing exposure to regional conveyance or alloca5on variability and enabling direct delivery to the City. • Alternave 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping) was assigned a score of 2, indica5ng moderate reliability due to poor groundwater quality of the Subbasin that could poten5ally constrain water supply reliability.
• Alternaves 1c (Semitropic), 1e (Willow Springs), and 3 (Recycled Water) were also assigned a score of 2, indica5ng moderate reliability. While Semitropic and Willow Springs are established programs, their downstream loca5on and reliance on exchanges during dry years reduce their reliability. Similarly, while recycled water represents a local supply, produc5on may fluctuate based on seasonal demand and treatment system performance. • Alternave 1d (Rosedale) was rated lowest, with a score of 1, due to its 50 percent leave-behind requirement and loca5on downstream of Coalinga, both of which reduce its reliability during drought periods.
Table 5-1. Water Supply Reliability Alternave Ranking
Alternave Score
Alterna5ve 1a 3
Alterna5ve 1b 3
Alterna5ve 1c 2
Alterna5ve 1d 1
Alterna5ve 1e 2
Alterna5ve 2 2
Alterna5ve 3 2
5.4.1.2. Construction Requirements
Construc5on feasibility was evaluated based on the scale, complexity, and an5cipated difficulty of the new infrastructure required for each alterna5ve. Table 5-2 summarizes the results. • Alternaves 1a (Westlands), 1c (Semitropic), 1d (Rosedale), and 1e (Willow Springs) received a score of 3, indica5ng minimal construcon requirements. These alterna5ves benefit from City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 66
exis5ng infrastructure and established opera5onal programs, minimizing the need for new facili5es.
• Alternave 1b (Gladstone Land) received a score of 2, reflec5ng moderate construcon needs.
While local and poten5ally cost-effec5ve, addi5onal infrastructure such as pipelines or conveyance back to the City would likely be required to opera5onalize the program. • Alternaves 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping) and 3 (Recycled Water) were assigned a score of 1, indica5ng high construcon complexity. Both alterna5ves would require major capital investments in new facili5es — including well construc5on, wellhead treatment, or WWTP upgrades to meet Title 22 standards — making them the most infrastructure-intensive among all op5ons.
Table 5-2. Construcon Requirements Alternave Ranking
Alternave Score
Alterna5ve 1a 3
Alterna5ve 1b 2
Alterna5ve 1c 3
Alterna5ve 1d 3
Alterna5ve 1e 3
Alterna5ve 2 1
Alterna5ve 3 1
5.4.2. Economic and Financial Feasibility
As described in Sec5on 5.3.5, the economic and financial feasibility of each alterna5ve was evaluated through a qualita5ve comparison of capital costs, an5cipated financial impacts, and the poten5al availability of funding sources. The resul5ng scores are summarized in Table 5-3. • Alternaves 1a through 1e, which involve water banking, received the highest score of 3, reflec5ng relavely low capital costs and minimal financial burden compared to infrastructureintensive op5ons. o Alternave 1a (Westlands) is expected to involve no significant capital costs, assuming Westlands can deliver banked water through displacement via the San Luis Canal. o Alternave 1b (Gladstone Land) may require modest capital investment for pipelines and filtra5on, but these costs are considered lower than other op5ons, par5cularly if cost-sharing opportuni5es with Gladstone Land or Westlands are available. o Alternaves 1c (Semitropic), 1d (Rosedale), and 1e (Willow Springs) also require limited financial investment since they rely on exis5ng infrastructure and established banking programs.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 67
• Alternave 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping) received a score of 2, indica5ng moderate financial impacts. Costs associated with construc5ng well(s), installing wellhead treatment, and integra5ng new systems are higher than banking alterna5ves but lower than recycled water development.
• Alternave 3 (Recycled Water) was scored 1, reflec5ng relavely high capital costs and significant financial impacts. This op5on would require substan5al WWTP modifica5ons to produce disinfected ter5ary water that meets Title 22 standards. However, a more cost-effec5ve op5on may exist through a poten5al agreement with Pleasant Valley State Prison, which currently produces approximately 700 AFY of Title 22 ter5ary-treated recycled water. If used for non-potable applica5ons such as landscape irriga5on (es5mated at 180–250 AFY), this source could par5ally offset potable demand. S5ll, the recycled water is not suitable for potable use, limi5ng its overall financial benefit.
Table 5-3. Economic and Financial Feasibility Alternave Ranking Alternave Score
Alterna5ve 1a 3
Alterna5ve 1b 3
Alterna5ve 1c 3
Alterna5ve 1d 3
Alterna5ve 1e 3
Alterna5ve 2 2
Alterna5ve 3 1
5.4.3. Regulatory Feasibility
As described in Sec5on 5.3.6, the regulatory feasibility of each alterna5ve was evaluated based on the scope and complexity of regulatory requirements necessary for implementa5on. Key considera5ons included compliance with local GSPs, permiPng obliga5ons under the CEQA and NEPA, and adherence to applicable water quality, recycling, or water rights standards. Table 5-4 presents the results of this evalua5on.
• Alternaves 1c (Semitropic) and 1d (Rosedale) received the highest score of 3, reflec5ng minimal regulatory burden for the City. These regional groundwater banking programs are already well-established and operate under their respec5ve GSPs. The partner agencies would retain primary responsibility for regulatory compliance, allowing the City to par5cipate without incurring substan5al addi5onal regulatory obliga5ons.
• Alternaves 1a (Westlands), 1b (Gladstone Land), 1e (Willow Springs), and 3 (Recycled Water) were assigned a score of 2, indica5ng moderate regulatory requirements.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 68
o Alternave 1a, while leveraging Westlands’ infrastructure, would s5ll require compliance with USBR water quality standards and alignment with SGMA regula5ons for groundwater storage and recovery.
o Alternave 1b would require coordina5on with local farmers and compliance with GSP provisions, par5cularly for the recovery of banked water during drought periods. o Alternave 1e, though largely managed by the water bank authority, would s5ll require partnership agreements and interagency coordina5on that could introduce moderate regulatory complexity.
o Alternave 3 involves recycled water produc5on, which would be subject to Title 22 water reuse regula5ons, ongoing monitoring, and addi5onal permiPng. • Alternave 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping) received the lowest score of 1, indica5ng greater regulatory complexity. Although the City is part of the PVGSA, developing a new municipal well for potable supply would introduce new requirements for monitoring, repor5ng, and demonstra5ng consistency with the adopted GSP. This would represent a new regulatory process for the City and may require extensive coordina5on and approvals.
Table 5-4. Regulatory Feasibility Alternave Ranking
Alternave Score
Alterna5ve 1a 2
Alterna5ve 1b 2
Alterna5ve 1c 3
Alterna5ve 1d 3
Alterna5ve 1e 2
Alterna5ve 2 1
Alterna5ve 3 2
5.4.4. Environmental Impacts
As described in Sec5on 5.3.7, each alterna5ve was evaluated for its poten5al environmental impacts, including both adverse effects and environmental benefits. The evalua5on considered impacts on groundwater and surface water quality, habitat, land use, and compliance with CEQA and NEPA requirements. Due to limited site-specific design informa5on for many alterna5ves, a qualita5ve ranking was used based on the an5cipated scale and nature of environmental effects. Results are presented in Table 5-5.
• Alternaves 1c (Semitropic), 1d (Rosedale), 1e (Willow Springs), and 3 (Recycled Water) received the highest score of 3, indica5ng minimal or beneficial environmental impacts.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 69
o The regional groundwater banking alterna5ves (1c, 1d, and 1e) rely on exis5ng, established recharge and recovery infrastructure managed by partner agencies, minimizing new construc5on or localized impacts within the City. o Alternave 3, which involves producing ter5ary-treated recycled water, promotes water reuse and could offset potable water demand, delivering an environmental benefit through reduced pressure on imported supplies and overall conserva5on of regional resources.
• Alternaves 1a (Westlands), 1b (Gladstone Land), and 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping) received a score of 2, reflec5ng moderate environmental impacts. o Alternave 1a and 1b could require environmental permiPng and site evalua5ons for new recharge or recovery infrastructure, including the poten5al for localized impacts on groundwater levels and quality.
o Alternave 2 involves the construc5on of new well(s) and associated treatment infrastructure, which may require CEQA review and compliance with GSP provisions to avoid adverse impacts to groundwater sustainability and land subsidence.
None of the alterna5ves were determined to pose significant or unmi5gable environmental risks based on the available informa5on.
Table 5-5. Environmental Impacts Alternave Ranking
Alternave Score
Alterna5ve 1a 2
Alterna5ve 1b 2
Alterna5ve 1c 3
Alterna5ve 1d 3
Alterna5ve 1e 3
Alterna5ve 2 2
Alterna5ve 3 3
5.4.5. Operations and Maintenance
As described in Sec5on 5.3.8, each alterna5ve was qualita5vely evaluated based on its rela5ve O&M requirements, including the effort needed to manage infrastructure, coordinate with external en55es, and monitor system performance. The evalua5on focused on general O&M needs rather than direct opera5onal responsibili5es borne solely by the City. Results are presented in Table 5-6.
All seven alterna5ves received a score of 2, indica5ng a moderate level of O&M complexity. Key considera5ons for each group of alterna5ves are summarized below:
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 70
• Alternaves 1a (Westlands) and 1b (Gladstone Land) involve local water banking/ exchange agreements. While these alterna5ves could eventually be managed under familiar opera5ng condi5ons, they would s5ll require consistent monitoring, recharge and recovery scheduling, and coordina5on with partners, par5cularly if new infrastructure or conveyance systems are involved.
• Alternaves 1c (Semitropic), 1d (Rosedale), and 1e (Willow Springs) involve regional partnerships. These op5ons benefit from leveraging established external systems, which may reduce City-operated infrastructure but s5ll necessitate administra5ve oversight, agreement compliance, and coordinated exchanges or deliveries.
• Alternave 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping) would introduce new infrastructure—such as wells and wellhead treatment systems—that the City must maintain. While not overly complex, this infrastructure would require ongoing monitoring, energy consump5on, and treatment oversight to ensure compliance with water quality and sustainability standards. • Alternave 3 (Recycled Water) would similarly require upgraded infrastructure at the WWTP and added responsibili5es for maintaining the recycled water distribu5on system. Once opera5onal, these systems could be integrated into the City’s exis5ng O&M structure but would s5ll demand specialized oversight and regulatory compliance.
Table 5-6. O&M Alternave Ranking
Alternave Score
Alterna5ve 1a 2
Alterna5ve 1b 2
Alterna5ve 1c 2
Alterna5ve 1d 2
Alterna5ve 1e 2
Alterna5ve 2 2
Alterna5ve 3 2
5.4.6. Stakeholder and Public Acceptance
As described in Sec5on 5.3.9, stakeholder and public acceptance was qualita5vely evaluated based on how well each alterna5ve aligns with community values, public percep5on, and local priori5es. Rankings reflect an5cipated support based on familiarity, perceived benefits, and poten5al concerns. Results are shown in Table 5-7.
Alternaves 1a (Westlands), 1b (Gladstone Land), and 1c (Semitropic) received the highest score of 3, indica5ng relavely high stakeholder and public support:
• Alternave 1a and 1b, which focus on local water banking partnerships, are expected to garner strong support due to their emphasis on local water control, flexibility, and reduced reliance on City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 71
outside en55es. These alterna5ves are also consistent with regional planning objec5ves and drought resilience goals.
• Alternave 1c, although a regional banking op5on, also ranks high due to its established opera5ons and rela5vely low 10 percent leave-behind requirement, making it both efficient and publicly acceptable.
Alternaves 1d (Rosedale), 1e (Willow Springs), and 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping) received a score of 2, reflec5ng moderate stakeholder and public support:
• Alternave 1d may raise concerns due to its 50 percent leave-behind requirement, which significantly reduces the volume of recoverable water. This could prompt ques5ons about longterm value. • Alternave 1e is s5ll in early development, and while it has poten5al, a lack of opera5onal history and clear agreement structure may temper support in the near term. • Alternave 2, while offering a local source, may face skep5cism due to the an5cipated need for water quality treatment, increased costs, and poten5al conflicts with groundwater sustainability planning.
Alternave 3 (Recycled Water) received the lowest score of 1, indica5ng relavely low stakeholder and public acceptance. Despite advancements in treatment technology and regulatory oversight, recycled water projects oUen face public resistance due to concerns about health and safety, especially when repurposing treated effluent for reuse. Overcoming this percep5on challenge would require extensive public educa5on and engagement.
Table 5-7. Stakeholder and Public Acceptance Alternave Ranking Alternave Score
Alterna5ve 1a 3
Alterna5ve 1b 3
Alterna5ve 1c 3
Alterna5ve 1d 2
Alterna5ve 1e 2
Alterna5ve 2 2
Alterna5ve 3 1
5.4.7. Implementation
Implementa5on feasibility was assessed based on two primary factors: (1) the es5mated 5meline for implementa5on, and (2) the rela5ve difficulty of establishing and maintaining partnerships necessary to carry out each alterna5ve. These factors are presented below, with rankings summarized in Table 5-8 and Table 5-9.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 72
5.4.7.1. Timeline
As described in Section 5.3.10.1, each alternative was evaluated for the time required to complete planning, design, environmental documentation, permitting, and construction.
Alternatives 1a (Westlands) and 1b (Gladstone Land) received the highest score of 3, indicating an implementation timeline of less than 5 years. These alternatives are already under discussion with the City, and no major infrastructure or environmental hurdles are anticipated. If agreements are finalized promptly, implementation can proceed within a short timeframe.
Alternatives 1c (Semitropic), 1d (Rosedale), 1e (Willow Springs), and 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping) received a score of 2, reflecting an implementation timeline of 5 to 10 years. Alternatives 1c, 1d, and 1e would require interagency agreements, environmental permitting, and coordination with established regional partners. While Willow Springs is still in the early planning stage and key implementation details are not yet defined, it is anticipated to be operational within a 10- year timeline. Alternative 2 involves new well construction, environmental review, and treatment system design—all of which can extend the timeline.
Alternative 3 (Recycled Water) received the lowest score of 1, indicating an implementation timeline of more than 10 years, which involves WWTP upgrades to produce tertiary-treated water, will require extensive planning, design, and funding acquisition, extending its timeline beyond the 10-year mark.
Table 5-8. Implementaon Timeline Alternave Ranking
Alternave Score
Alterna5ve 1a 3
Alterna5ve 1b 3
Alterna5ve 1c 2
Alterna5ve 1d 2
Alterna5ve 1e 2
Alterna5ve 2 2
Alterna5ve 3 1
5.4.7.2. Partnership Feasibility
As described in Section 5.3.10.2, partnership feasibility was assessed based on the relative level of effort required to establish and maintain collaboration with external partners.
Alternatives 1b (Gladstone Land), 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping), and 3 (Recycled Water) received the highest score of 3, reflecting relatively low difficulty in partnership development. Gladstone Land has demonstrated a strong interest and is in close proximity to the City. Alternatives 2 and 3 are managed internally by the City, which limits the need for external coordination and accelerates decisionmaking.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 73
Alternatives 1a (Westlands) and 1d (Rosedale) received a score of 2, indicating moderate partnership difficulty. Although Westlands is a local and active partner, its independent governance structure may require additional layers of coordination. Rosedale is open to external collaboration, but formalizing a banking agreement would require significant communication and alignment of goals.
Alternatives 1c (Semitropic) and 1e (Willow Springs) received the lowest score of 1, reflecting relatively high difficulty in forming partnerships. Semitropic is currently not accepting new partners, and although that may change, it is a significant constraint in the near term. Willow Springs is still under development, with limited publicly available information to support immediate partnership formation.
Table 5-9. Partnership Feasibility Alternave Ranking
Alternave Score
Alterna5ve 1a 2
Alterna5ve 1b 3
Alterna5ve 1c 1
Alterna5ve 1d 2
Alterna5ve 1e 1
Alterna5ve 2 3
Alterna5ve 3 3
5.5. Comparison of Alternatives
The alterna5ves evaluated in this Study vary in their ability to meet the City's long-term water supply objec5ves. To ensure a consistent and transparent comparison, each alterna5ve was evaluated using a weighted scoring system based on the evalua5on criteria described in Sec5on 5.3. The weight assigned to each criterion reflects its rela5ve importance, as determined through consulta5on with the City and experience from similar projects.
5.5.1. Evaluation Criteria Weighting
Table 5-10 summarizes the weigh5ng assigned to each criterion. Technical feasibility (water supply reliability and construc5on requirements) and partnership feasibility were given the highest weights (15 percent each), reflec5ng the importance of reliable supply and prac5cal implementa5on. The total score for each alterna5ve was calculated by mul5plying the weight of each criterion by the assigned ranking (1–3) and summing the results.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 74
Table 5-10. Evaluaon Criteria Weightage
Evaluaon Criteria Weight
Technical Feasibility
Water Supply Reliability 15%
Construc5on Requirements 15%
Economic and Financial Feasibility 10%
Regulatory Feasibility 10%
Environmental Impacts 10%
O&M 5%
Stakeholder and Public Acceptance 10%
Implementa5on
Timeline 10%
Partnership Feasibility 15%
Total 100%
5.5.2. Alternatives Ranking
As summarized in Table 5-11, the total weighted scores for each alterna5ve were calculated based on performance across the evalua5on criteria described in Sec5on 5.3. The final rankings are as follows:
• Alterna5ve 1a: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Westlands Water District – 2.60 • Alterna5ve 1b: Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Gladstone Land – 2.60 • Alterna5ve 1c: Water Banking with Semitropic Water Storage District – 2.40 • Alterna5ve 1d: Water Banking with Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District – 2.30 • Alterna5ve 1e: Water Banking with Willow Springs Water Bank – 2.20 • Alterna5ve 2: Local Groundwater Pumping – 1.90
• Alterna5ve 3: Recycled Water – 1.80
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California May 2025 GEI Consultants, Inc. 75 Table 5-11. Evaluaon Matrix Evaluaon Criteria Weight
Alternave 1a
Water
Banking/
Exchange
Agreement
with
Westlands
Alternave 1b
Water
Banking/
Exchange
Agreement
with
Gladstone
Land
Alternave 1c
Water Banking
with
Semitropic
Alternave 1d
Water Banking
with Rosedale
Alternave 1e
Water Banking
with Willow
Springs
Alternave 2
Local
Groundwater
Pumping
Alternave 3
Recycled
Water
Technical Feasibility
Water Supply Reliability 15 3 3 2 1 2 2 2
Construcon Requirements 15 3 2 3 3 3 1 1
Economic and Financial Feasibility
10 3 3 3 3 3 2 1
Regulatory Feasibility 10 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 Environmental Impacts 10 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 O&M 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Stakeholder and Public Acceptance 10 3 3 3 2 2 2 1
Implementaon
Timeline 10 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
Partnership Feasibility 15 2 3 1 2 1 3 3
Total Score 2.60 2.60 2.40 2.30 2.20 1.90 1.80
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 76
5.5.3. Summary of Findings
5.5.3.1. Top-Ranked Alternatives
The highest-ranked alterna5ves, 1a (Westlands) and 1b (Gladstone Land), each received a total score of 2.60. While both are in early stages of development, these alterna5ves offer the greatest poten5al to provide a reliable, long-term water supply for the City. Each alterna5ve supports resilience to drought and climate change while leveraging local or nearby resources.
Although Alterna5ves 1a and 1b performed similarly across most criteria — including water supply reliability, cost-effec5veness, and stakeholder acceptance — they differ in two key areas:
• Construcon Requirements: Alterna5ve 1a benefits from exis5ng infrastructure, including delivery through the Coalinga Canal via Westlands, resul5ng in a minimal need for new construc5on (score of 3). In contrast, Alterna5ve 1b may require new conveyance and monitoring infrastructure to return banked water, resul5ng in greater construc5on complexity (score of 2).
• Partnership Feasibility: While Westlands already has an established rela5onship with the City, the partnership process is more complex due to Westlands’ board governance structure. In contrast, Gladstone Land offers more direct access to decision-makers, simplifying nego5a5ons and agreement execu5on. As such, Alterna5ve 1b received a higher score for partnership feasibility (score of 3).
These dis5nc5ons should be considered when advancing discussions and priori5zing implementa5on pathways.
5.5.3.2. Mid-Tier Alternatives
Alternave 1c (Semitropic), 1d (Rosedale), and 1e (Willow Springs) scored slightly lower (2.20–
2.40) due to increased implementa5on complexity. While each offers access to established water banking programs, they present higher barriers in terms of partnership feasibility and longer implementa5on 5melines. In par5cular:
• Alterna5ve 1c is currently unavailable due to Semitropic’s moratorium on new partners, though future changes may reopen this op5on.
• Alterna5ve 1d includes a 50 percent leave-behind requirement, reducing the volume of recoverable water.
• Alterna5ve 1e remains in early planning stages, with limited available informa5on to support a defini5ve feasibility assessment.
These alterna5ves remain viable but are considered less immediately implementable.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 77
5.5.3.3. Lower-Ranked Alternatives
Alternave 2 (Local Groundwater Pumping) and Alternave 3 (Recycled Water) received the lowest scores (1.80-1.90) due to higher capital investment needs, infrastructure requirements, and regulatory complexity.
• Alternave 2 would require the construc5on of new wells and wellhead treatment to address water quality concerns. Addi5onally, as a new extrac5on source, it would trigger expanded regulatory monitoring and repor5ng under the GSP. • Alternave 3 involves costly WWTP upgrades to produce Title 22-compliant recycled water.
Public acceptance challenges and a lengthy implementa5on 5meline further reduce its nearterm viability, despite the poten5al for long-term non-potable offsets.
5.5.4. Conclusion
The analysis iden5fies Alternaves 1a and 1b as the most viable near-term strategies to secure the City of Coalinga’s water supply. These alterna5ves combine technical feasibility with prac5cal implementa5on pathways and align with stakeholder priori5es. While other op5ons remain viable, they present more significant challenges in cost, permiPng, or coordina5on. Future planning efforts may consider phased implementa5on or hybrid approaches to leverage strengths across mul5ple alterna5ves.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 78
6. Recommended Alternative
This sec5on presents a summary of the Study findings and iden5fies the recommended alterna5ves for the City of Coalinga to consider for future planning, development, and implementa5on. The recommended alterna5ves were further evaluated in the context of projected supply-demand imbalances to determine their poten5al to address future water shortages, par5cularly during drought years with reduced CVP alloca5ons.
6.1. Summary
This Study was undertaken to address Coalinga’s increasing vulnerability to water shortages due to popula5on growth, climate change, and frequent, severe droughts. The primary goal of the Study was to iden5fy viable alterna5ves that enhance both short- and long-term water supply sustainability for the City.
To support this goal, the Study established the following four objec5ves:
• Enhance water supply reliability;
• Provide cost-effec5ve and safe water supplies;
• Achieve stakeholder and public acceptance; and,
• Implement water supply reliability strategies that comply with applicable regula5ons and permiPng requirements.
Based on the challenges and constraints iden5fied in Sec5on 3, eight alterna5ves were developed to meet these objec5ves. These alterna5ves represented a broad spectrum of supply strategies, including water banking, groundwater pumping, recycled water, and conserva5on.
Following an ini5al screening process, Alternave 4 – Implementaon of Water Conservaon Measures was eliminated from further evalua5on. The City already incorporates water conserva5on as a core part of its opera5ons, and compliance with the State Water Board’s UWUOs will con5nue to ensure ongoing conserva5on efforts. As such, the conserva5on alterna5ve did not offer addi5onal benefits aligned with the Study’s purpose.
The remaining seven alterna5ves were evaluated using nine evalua5on criteria, each directly linked to the Study’s objec5ves. Each criterion was assigned a rela5ve weight based on input from the City and experience with similar projects. Alterna5ves were then qualita5vely ranked from 1 to 3 for each criterion based on their performance. Final scores were determined using a weighted scoring methodology.
Based on this comprehensive evalua5on, the highest-scoring alterna5ves were:
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 79
• Alternave 1a – Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Westlands Water District • Alternave 1b – Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Gladstone Land These two alterna5ves demonstrate the greatest poten5al to provide the City with a sustainable, reliable water supply. Both scored well across mul5ple categories, including water supply reliability, cost-effec5veness, implementa5on feasibility, and stakeholder support.
While these alterna5ves remain in early stages of development, they each offer dis5nct advantages and present viable paths forward. However, further coordina5on and nego5a5on with Westlands and Gladstone Land will be necessary to address outstanding uncertain5es regarding infrastructure, opera5ons, and partnership structures. Given their comparable scoring and complementary strengths, both alterna5ves should be advanced for con5nued analysis and engagement.
The following sec5ons of this Study will explore the implementa5on considera5ons, next steps, and poten5al ac5ons the City may pursue to further evaluate and refine these recommended alterna5ves.
6.2. Next Steps
Following this Study, Alternave 1a (Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Westlands Water District) and Alternave 1b (Local Water Banking/ Exchange Agreement with Gladstone Land) are recommended as the most viable op5ons for the City of Coalinga. These alterna5ves received the highest evalua5on scores due to their strong performance across mul5ple criteria, including water supply reliability, economic feasibility, stakeholder support, and implementa5on 5melines. However, successful implementa5on will require careful considera5on of partnership coordina5on, infrastructure needs, and water quality compliance. • Alternave 1a offers the benefit of exis5ng conveyance infrastructure and an established rela5onship with Westlands, though regulatory complexity and partner governance may require addi5onal coordina5on.
• Alternave 1b provides a more direct path to partnership and flexible opera5ons with Gladstone Land but will require new conveyance and monitoring infrastructure and assurance of water quality for recharge and recovery.
To advance either or both alterna5ves, the City should ini5ate further planning and due diligence to determine the most implementable solu5on, secure partnership agreements, and iden5fy funding to reduce financial impacts.
6.2.1. Future Water Demand and Supply Assessment
To support implementa5on of the recommended water banking/ exchange agreement alterna5ves, the City evaluated future water demand and supply projec5ons under climate change to determine City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 80
the poten5al for surplus water that could be poten5ally banked and recovered during drought condi5ons. This assessment covered the 21-year planning period from 2025 through 2045 and was based on hydrologic condi5ons simulated in the CalSim 3 model, which reflects the 1990–2021 historical hydrology under projected climate change condi5ons (2043 horizon) as described in Sec5on 3.1.4.
6.2.1.1. Demand and Supply Framework
As noted in Sec5on 3.1.1 (Figure 3-1), the City’s municipal and industrial (M&I) water demand is projected to increase from approximately 3,801 AF in 2024 to 6,774 AF by 2040, per the City’s 2020 UWMP. CVP M&I alloca5on projec5ons were developed using CalSim 3 results for different hydrologic year types and reflect an5cipated impacts of climate change.
To evaluate supply and demand balances, projected CVP deliveries were compared to fixed demand assump5ons in four five-year planning windows. For each period, annual surpluses or deficits were es5mated by subtrac5ng projected alloca5ons from the fixed demand. This approach produced a range of poten5al outcomes, as summarized in Table 6-1, highligh5ng both water banking opportuni5es and future supply challenges.
6.2.1.2. Projected Supply and Demand Outcomes
2025–2030 Planning Period
• Average Annual Demand: 4,900 AF
• Average Surplus: 2,000 AF
• Maximum Deficit: 1,100 AF
• Years with Deficits: 10 of 32 years (31 percent)
• Average Annual Supply Beyond Demand: 1,800 AF
Summary: The City is projected to have reliable opportuni5es for surplus banking in this period, even in years with reduced alloca5ons.
2030–2035 Planning Period
• Average Annual Demand: 5,700 AF
• Average Surplus: 1,400 AF
• Maximum Deficit: 1,900 AF
• Years with Deficits: 11 of 32 years (34 percent)
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 81
• Average Annual Supply Beyond Demand: 1,000 AF
Summary: Surplus water is s5ll expected to be available for banking; however, the frequency and severity of deficits begin to increase.
2035–2040 Planning Period
• Average Annual Demand: 6,300 AF
• Average Surplus: 1,200 AF
• Maximum Deficit: 2,500 AF
• Years with Deficits: 19 of 32 years (59 percent)
• Average Annual Supply Beyond Demand: 400 AF
Summary: Banking remains viable in some years, but water management strategies beyond banking should be explored to meet growing deficits.
2040–2045 Planning Period
• Average Annual Demand: 6,800 AF
• Average Surplus: 1,000 AF
• Maximum Deficit: 3,000 AF
• Years with Deficits: 21 of 32 years (66 percent)
• Average Annual Supply Beyond Demand: -100 AF
Summary: This period presents the greatest risk of long-term water shortages. Addi5onal water management ac5ons will be required beyond banking to ensure reliability.
This high-level assessment illustrates that local water banking is a viable strategy to mi5gate nearand mid-term deficits. However, as demand increases and CVP alloca5ons fluctuate under climate change, the City will need to consider supplemental strategies to enhance long-term water supply resilience. These projec5ons should be refined as new data becomes available during future planning and project development phases.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 82
Table 6-1. Summary of Future Projected Demand and Supply under Climate Change Planning Period
2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2040 2040-2045
Annual Projected Demand (AF) 4,900 5,700 6,300 6,800
Average Annual Surplus (AF) 2,000 1,400 1,200 1,000
Number of Years with Surplus 22 (69%) 21 (66%) 13 (41%) 11 (34%) Annual Maximum Deficit (AF) 1,100 1,900 2,500 3,000
Number of Years with Deficit 10 (31%) 11 (34%) 19 (59%) 21 (66%) Average Annual Surplus beyond
Demand (AF) 1,800 1,000 400 -100
6.2.2. Next Steps for Planning and Implementation
To advance the implementation of the recommended local water banking alternatives, the City should undertake the following key actions to ensure strategic, regulatory, and financial readiness:
• Develop Partnership Agreements
Formalize agreements with banking partners by clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of each entity. This includes establishing protocols for scheduling water deliveries and recoveries, procedures for water accounting, and requirements for monitoring and reporting.
• Define Operational and Infrastructure Requirements
Identify infrastructure and operational needs, including the location and capacity of recharge and recovery sites, required conveyance systems, and any necessary treatment infrastructure to ensure compatibility with groundwater basin requirements. • Clarify Legal and Regulatory Requirements
Conduct a comprehensive review of applicable legal and regulatory obligations, including SGMA compliance, CEQA documentation, water rights, and inter-agency coordination. This step is critical to ensure project implementation aligns with local and state policies. • Identify Cost-Sharing Opportunities
Explore joint investment models with project partners and evaluate the potential for shared capital and operational costs. Consider revenue structures that could support long-term program sustainability.
• Apply Adaptive Management
Implement an adaptive management framework that includes periodic evaluation—at least every five years—to assess performance, identify challenges, and adjust operations as needed in response to evolving hydrologic, regulatory, or climate conditions.
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 83
• Pursue Funding Opportunities
Actively pursue external funding to reduce the financial burden on the City. Monitor private, state, and federal funding programs and prepare timely applications to support project planning, design, and implementation (see Section 6.2.3).
6.2.3. Funding Opportunities
A proac5ve and strategic funding approach will be essen5al to support the planning, design, and implementa5on of the recommended water banking alterna5ves. Mul5ple state and federal funding programs are available to assist with groundwater sustainability, infrastructure development, and long-term climate resilience. Table 6-2 summarizes key programs that the City should ac5vely monitor and pursue.
Key Funding Programs:
• Proposion 4 (2024 Bond Act)
Administered by the DWR and State Water Resources Control Board, Proposi5on 4 provides:
o $386 million for groundwater sustainability projects, including groundwater storage, banking infrastructure, and SGMA implementa5on.
o $610 million for clean, safe, and reliable drinking water projects, including PFAS remedia5on, groundwater contamina5on treatment, and system upgrades. • Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGM) Grant Program Supports the development and implementa5on of GSPs and projects aligned with SGMA.
The program offers funding for planning, infrastructure, monitoring, and basin coordina5on efforts.
• Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP)
Administered by the CWC, WSIP provides financial support for large-scale water storage projects that improve statewide water supply reliability, including groundwater banking and aquifer recharge projects.
• Proposions 1 and 68
These statewide bond ini5a5ves support a wide range of water-related priori5es. Eligible uses include:
o Groundwater storage and recharge projects
o Water infrastructure improvements
o Water quality enhancements
o Environmental restora5on and climate resilience ini5a5ves City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 84
Next Steps:
The City should monitor funding cycles for each of these programs, assess eligibility criteria, and prepare compe55ve applica5ons. Partnerships and mul5-benefit project components may enhance the City's ability to secure funds.
Table 6-2. Potenal Funding Opportunies
Program Name Organizaon Eligible Uses Source
Proposion 4
(2024 Bond Act)
DWR / State
Water
Resource
Control
Board
• Groundwater sustainability
(storage, banking, SGMA
implementa5on)
• Safe drinking water (PFAS
remedia5on, treat groundwater
contamina5on, system
consolida5on)
hJps://water.ca.gov/WorkWith-Us/Grants-And-Loans
hJps://water.ca.gov/WorkWith-Us/Grants-AndLoans/SustainableGroundwater Sustainable
Groundwater
Management
Program
(SGMP)
DWR
• Planning and implementa5on of
sustainable groundwater projects
hJps://water.ca.gov/WorkWith-Us/Grants-AndLoans/SustainableGroundwater Water Storage
Investment
Program (WSIP)
CWC
• Large-scale water and groundwater
storage projects to enhance supply
reliability
hJps://cwc.ca.gov/WaterStorage
Proposions 1
and 68
DWR /
Various
• Water infrastructure
• Groundwater storage
• Water quality
• Environmental protec5on
• Climate resilience
hJps://bondaccountability.r
esources.ca.gov/p1.aspx
hJps://water.ca.gov/workwith-us/grants-andloans/irwm-grantprograms/proposi5on-1 hJps://cwc.ca.gov/WaterStorage
hJps://www.waterboards.c
a.gov/water_issues/progra
ms/grants_loans/proposi5o
n1/
hJps://lao.ca.gov/BallotAna
lysis/Proposi5on?number=6
8&year=2018
City of Coalinga Feasibility Study
Fresno County, California
May 2025
GEI Consultants, Inc. 85
7. References
Associa5on of California Water Agencies. (2024, March). Westlands Water District awarded $25 million through a federal grant to fund drought preparedness projects. hJps://www.acwa.com/news/westlands-water-district-awarded-25-million-through-a- federal-grant-to-fund-drought-preparedness-projects/
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (2023). Westlands Water District Distribu5on District No. 2 Temporary Water Transfer to the City of Coalinga. hJps://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023040014
California State Water Resources Control Board. (n.d.). Making Conserva5on a California Way of Life Regula5on.
hJps://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conserva5on/regs/water_efficiency_legisla5on.html California Water Commission. (n.d.). Willow Springs Water Bank Conjunc5ve Use Project. hJps://cwc.ca.gov/Water-Storage/WSIP-Project-Review-Portal/All-Projects/Willow-Springs- Water-Bank-Conjunc5ve-Use-Project
City of Coalinga. (2009). Coalinga General Plan 2025.
hJps://www.coalinga.com/DocumentCenter/View/120/Coalinga-General-Plan-2025-PDF Black
City of Coalinga. (2022). City of Coalinga Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update. Prepared by Black Water Consul5ng Engineers, Inc., March, 2022.
Pleasant Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (PVGSA). (2022). Pleasant Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Revised July 2024.
Stanislaus County Clerk-Recorder. (2019). Proposed Nega5ve Declara5on. hJps://www.stancounty.com/clerkrecorder/pdf/ceqa/20190917-pnd.pdf U.S. Environmental Protec5on Agency (USEPA). (2016). Best Prac5ces to Consider When Evalua5ng Water Conserva5on and Efficiency as an Alterna5ve for Water Supply Expansion. hJps://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
12/documents/wc_best_prac5ces_to_avoid_supply_expansion_2016_508.pdfWestlands Water District. (2020). Mercy Springs Resolu5on No. 101-20-DD2. Retrieved from hJps://wwd.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Mercy-Springs-Resolu5on-No.-101-20- DD2-Contract-9d-CEQA-and-Execu5on.pdf
Westlands Water District. (2024, March). Westlands Water District exceeds annual groundwater recharge goal. hJps://wwd.ca.gov/wwd-media/press-release-3-14-2024/
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: City of Coalinga Natural Gas Update - Dan Bergmann, IGS Meeting Date:
From:
Prepared by:
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
NoAttachments Available
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Information Only: Transient Occupancy Tax Quarter Ending March 31, 2025 Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, Interim City Manager
Prepared by: Mai Vang, Financial Services Director
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
The unaudited FY 24/25 Transient Occupancy Tax revenue received at $35,893 which was 72% of the total expected revenue to be received this fiscal year.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Transient_Occupancy_Tax_Quarter_Ending_March_31_2025.pdf TOTRevenue Quater Ending March 2025 Comparison $-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
July - September October - December January-March
$14,982
$22,717
$18,221 $17,519
$10,240
$8,134
Transient Occupancy Tax FY23/24-24/25
Quarterly Comparison
FY23/24 FY24/25
Transient Occupancy Tax
Fiscal Year 2024-2025
Hotel/Motel Name Jul-Sep
2024-Q3
Oct-Dec
2024-Q4
Jan-Mar
2025-Q1
Apr-June
2025-Q2 Total
Best Western Plus 10,559.92 8,780.90
6,837.00 -
26,177.82
Cambridge Inn 740.06 315.60
686.10 -
1,741.76
Coalinga Motel - - - - -
Laura Lodge - - - - -
Royal Lodge 5,345.17 811.58
387.27 -
6,544.02
Travel Inn 874.20 331.80
223.41 -
1,429.41
Total 17,519.35 10,239.88 8,133.78
35,893.01
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Informational Only: Cannabis Related Revenue Quarter Ending March 31, 2025 Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, Interim City Manager
Prepared by: Mai Vang, Financial Services Director
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
The unaudited FY 24/25 total Cannabis related revenue received at quarter ending March 31, 2025, was $391,948 or 40% more than the expected budgeted revenue of $278,685.
The Cannabis Revenue Raising Fees & Regulatory Licensing Fees make up 99% or $388,706 of the total Cannabis revenue received.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Cannabis_Related_Rev_Quarter_End_March_31__2025.pdf Cannabis Related Revenue Quarter ending March 2025 Comparison Cannabis Related Revenue
Fiscal Year 2024-2025
GL Account GL Name Budget
Jul-Sep
2024
2024-Q3
Oct-Dec
2024
2024-Q4
Jan-Mar
2025
2025-Q1
Apr-Jun
2025
2025-Q2 Total
101-400-42170 Cannabis Application Fees
5,000.00
951.00 -
2,291.00 -
3,242.00
101-400-42180 Cannabis Regulatory Permit Renewal - - - - - 101-400-42190 Cannabis Revenue Raising Fee
219,919.00
79,352.35 151,826.00 75,928.00 -
307,106.35
101-400-42200 Cannabis Regulatory Licensing Fee
53,766.00
18,492.00 27,054.00 36,054.00 -
81,600.00
Total
278,685.00
98,795.35 178,880.00
114,273.00 -
391,948.35
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
July - September October - December January-March
$24,719
$175,342
61,419
$98,795
$178,880
114,273
Cannabis Related Revenue FY23/24-24/25 Quarterly
Comparison
FY23/24 FY24/25
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Informational Only: Measure J Quarter Ending March 31, 2025 Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, Interim City Manager
Prepared by: Mai Vang, Financial Services Director
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
The FY24-25 Measure J revenue received at $1,486,099 versus the $1,624,531 anticipated targeted quarterly revenue has a variance of -9%.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Measure_J_Rev._Quarter_Ending_March_2025..pdf Measure J Quarter Ending March 2025 Comparison Measure J
1% Transitions & Use Tax
Fiscal Year 2024-2025
Reporting Period Total
2024-Jul 167,759
2024-Aug 160,279
3rd Quarter True Up 183,108
2024-Oct 187,463
2024-Nov 171,712
4th Quarter True Up 144,849
2025-Jan 140,748
2025-Feb 135,296
1st Quarter True Up 194,885
2025-Apr
2025-May
2nd Quarter True Up
Total 1,486,099
Approved Revenue Budget 2,166,042
Anticipated Targeted Revenue 1,624,531
% of Revenue received over/(under) Targeted Revenue -9% Amount of Revenue received over/(under) Targeted Revenue
(138,433)
Jul - Sept
Q1
Oct - Dec
Q2
Jan - Mar
Q3
Apr - Jun
Q4
605,000 637,975
510,638
570,385
511,146 504,024 470,928
MEASURE J 1% TRANSITIONS & USE TAX
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
FY23/24
Actual
FY24/25
Actual
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Information Only - Implementation of California Assembly Bill 413 – Daylighting Law
Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Jose Garza, Chief of Police
I. RECOMMENDATION:
This item is presented for informational purposes only. No Councilaction is required at this time. This was a future agenda item requested by Councilman Horn.
II. BACKGROUND:
California Assembly Bill (AB) 413, also known as the “Daylighting” law, took effect on January 1, 2025.
The legislation prohibits stopping, standing, or parking within 20 feet of the vehicle-approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk. Where curb extensions (bulb-outs) are present, the restriction is reduced to 15 feet.
The intent of the law is to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety by increasing visibility at intersections, thereby reducing the risk of collisions. The restriction applies regardless of whether curb markings or signage are present.
III. DISCUSSION:
Staff has reviewed the provisions of AB 413 and identified that compliance with the new law may impact existing curbside parking, crosswalk approaches, and other infrastructure within the City.
To address these potential impacts, City staff will be working closely with the City Engineerto:
Identify locations where current parking or infrastructure does not meet the new requirements.
Develop a plan for necessary modifications, including red curb painting, signage installation, and potential removal of parking spaces where required.
Prioritize improvements in high-pedestrian areas such as schoolzones, downtown intersections, and areas with limited visibility.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Recognizing that this law is new to the public, the City will implement a phased approach to enforcement and education:
1. Warning Period – The Police Department will initially issue warnings rather than citations to inform drivers of the new requirements.
2. Press Releases & Outreach – The City will distribute press releases (draft attached), update the City’s website, and utilize social media platforms to educate the public on AB 413.
3. Coordination with Community Partners – Information will be shared with schools, business organizations, and community groups to maximize awareness.
This proactive approach is intended to give residents time to adjust to the new law while encouraging voluntary compliance before formalenforcement begins.
AB 413 introduces statewide parking restrictions at crosswalk approaches intended to improve public safety.
The City will work with the City Engineer to identify impacted locations, conduct public outreach, and issue warnings during an initialadjustment period. Council will be updated as the assessment and outreach efforts progress.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
At this stage, fiscal impacts are anticipated to be minimal, limited to staff time, curb painting, and public outreach materials. Any future infrastructure modification costs will be identified and presented to Council once site assessments are complete.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Press_release_AB_413.docx Press ReleaseAB413
City of Coalinga
Police Department
Jose Garza, Chief of Police 270 N. Sixth St.
Coalinga, CA 93210
Phone: (559) 935-1525
Fax: (559) 935-1756
E-Mail: [email protected]
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
Date: August 21, 2025
Prepared By/Contact Person: Jose Garza, Police Chief
Coalinga Police Department Advises Residents of New
California “Daylighting” Law
Coalinga, CA – The Coalinga Police Department is reminding residents and visitors that California Assembly Bill 413, also known as the “Daylighting” law, took effect on January 1, 2025. This new state law is designed to improve pedestrian safety by increasing visibility at crosswalks and intersections.
Under AB 413, it is now illegal to stop, stand, or park within 20 feet of the approach side of any crosswalk, whether it is marked or unmarked. For crosswalks with curb extensions (also called bulb-outs), the restriction is reduced to 15 feet. The law applies regardless of whether curbs are painted red or signage is posted.
What This Means for Drivers in Coalinga:
Do not park within 20 feet of a crosswalk on the approach side (the side a vehicle would drive up to before crossing).
At intersections with curb extensions, keep 15 feet clear. The restriction applies to all crosswalks, including those without painted lines.
Warning Period in Effect
The Coalinga Police Department understands this law is new and will be implementing an initial warning period before issuing citations. During this time, officers will focus on educating drivers through warnings, informational flyers, and community outreach.
Public Awareness Campaign
In addition to officer contact, the City of Coalinga will share information through press releases, social media, and the City’s website. Our goal is to ensure residents are aware of the changes and understand how they improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike.
For more information on AB 413 and to view a visual guide to the new parking restrictions, contact the Coalinga Police Department Records Department at (559) 935-1525 ext.161.
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Authorize Manager to Execute Task Orders with the City Engineer for Right-of- Way (ROW) Engineering for Segment 6 of the Coalinga Multi-Trail System Funded by the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Grant Program Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
CouncilAuthorization for the City Manager to execute Task Order for Right-of-Way (ROW) Engineering Services for the Coalinga Multi-Trail Segment 6 of the Multi-Trail System Funded by the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Grant Program.
II. BACKGROUND:
In November 2024 the City of Coalinga received a grant award notification through the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant program in the amount of $160,000.00 for the ROW Phase of Segment 6 of the Multi-Use Trail System. Segment 6 starts at E Polk St along Warthan Creek north to Trail Segment 3N, 1.3 miles multi-use, safety enhancements, amenities, solar lights, sidewalks & safety bollards.
III. DISCUSSION:
Attached is the work order for ROW Engineering from the City Engineer for the ROW support of Segment 6 of the Trail Plan. Once approved by the City Council, the City Engineer will begin immediately on the ROW process in order to proceed with this project expeditiously.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
None.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
The ROW task order is not to exceed $36,000. Allcosts associated with ROW Engineering is budgeted and paid from the proceeds of the CMAQ grant award.
There will be no impact to the General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
3067_Work_Order_ROW_Engineering_Multi_Trail_6.pdf Work Order ROW
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WORK ORDER
RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING
This agreement entered into the 21 day of August, 2025 between City of Coalinga (hereinafter called the Client) and the Consultant Tri City Engineering (hereinafter called Consultant) for services in connection with the following project: CMAQ Coalinga Multi-Trail Segment 6 (Polk to Trail 3N). The Client and Consultant's rights, duties, and obligations hereunder will be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Professional Services between Client and Consultant dated October 26, 2021 which is fully incorporated herein by reference.
I. Scope of Services. The Consultant's services will consist of the following:
• Right-of Way Certification Package: Consultant will work with the City's Assistant City Manager and Consulting Appraiser to coordinate the entire acquisition process which shall include coordinating with Caltrans “Right-of-Way” Division and acquiring Caltrans “Right-of-Way Certification. Providing assistance with "turn-key" appraisal, acquisition, title, escrow services, legal descriptions and plats necessary to acquire Multi-Trail easements and temporary construction easements.
II. Additional Services. Any services not specifically provided for under Section I above shall be Additional Services. Only if mutually agreed to in writing by client or consultant shall consultant perform such additional services.
III. Consultant's Compensation. In consideration for Consultant providing the services noted above, the Client agrees to compensate the Consultant as follows:
Right of Way Certification Package:
Engineer Support Services
$ 36,000.00
Retainer. The Client shall make an initial payment of -0- dollars ($0.00) (retainer) upon execution of this Agreement. This retainer shall be held by the Consultant and applied against final invoices.
Payment Due. Invoices shall be submitted by the Consultant monthly, are due upon presentation, and shall be considered past due if not paid within ten (10) calendar days of the due date.
Interest. If payment in full is not received by the Consultant within 30 calendar days of the due date, invoices shall bear interest at one-and-one-half (1.5) percent of the PAST DUE amount per month, which shall be calculated from the invoice due date. Payment thereafter shall first be applied to accrued interest and then to the unpaid principal.
Collection Costs. If the Client fails to make payments when due and the Consultant incurs any costs in order to collect overdue sums from the Client, the Client agrees that all such collection costs incurred shall immediately become due and payable to the Consultant. Collection costs shall include, without limitation, legal fees, and expenses, court costs, collection bonds and reasonable Consultant staff costs at standard billing rates for the Consultant’s time spent in efforts to collect.
This obligation of the Client to pay the Consultant’s collection costs shall survive the term of this agreement or any earlier termination by either party.
Set-offs, Back charges, Discounts. Payment of invoices shall not be subject to any discount or set-offs by the Client, unless agreed to in writing by the Consultant. Payment to the Consultant for services rendered and expenses incurred shall be due and payable regardless of any subsequent suspension or termination of this Agreement by either party.
In witness thereof, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this agreement upon the terms, conditions and provisions above stated, the day and year first above written.
Consultant: By Client: By
Signature Signature
Name: Daniel E. Jauregui Name: Sean Brewer
For: Tri City Engineering For: City of Coalinga
Title: President Title: City Manager
Address: 4630 W Jennifer Ave #101 Address: 155 W. Durian Ave Fresno, CA 93722 Coalinga, CA 93210
Reference: 3067ROW
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Authorize City Manager to Execute a Task Order with the City’s On-Call Right-of- Way (ROW) Consultant for ROW Services for the Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North Project Through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
CouncilAuthorization for the City Manager to Execute one (1) Task Order with the City’s On-Call Right-of- Way (ROW) Consultant, Bender Rosenthal, Inc. for ROW Services for the Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North Project.
II. BACKGROUND:
The City of Coalinga will be using California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program funding for the right-of-way (also referred as ROW or R/W) services of the Coalinga Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North of the Coalinga Multi-Use Trails Master Plan.
Active Transportation Program funding can include Federal, State, or both Federaland State funds. The Coalinga Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North is limited to State funds however; a right-of-way phase was granted for both the right-of-way consultant, Bender Rosenthal, Inc. (BRI) and city engineering consultant, Tri City Engineering (TCE) for reimbursement of services.
The totalamount awarded for the R/W Phase is $120,000.00.
III. DISCUSSION:
The City of Coalinga (City) is proposing the design, construction, and operation of one segment (Segment 3- North [3N]) of the City’s planned 8.8-mile perimeter trailand spur system identified in the City of Coalinga Trails Master Plan (Coalinga TMP) using California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program funding. The Coalinga Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North (project) would develop an approximately 1,917-foot-longpedestrian trailand associated improvements in the city of Coalinga, Fresno County, California. The proposed trail segment would include a 14-foot-wideshared-use bicycle and pedestrian trail. The proposed trail would consist of a 10-foot-wide paved asphalt concrete (AC) trail between 2 feet of unpaved shoulders on both sides. Other proposed trailcomponents would include a 24-foot-long sidewalk at the Gregory Way crosswalk; one prefabricated bike/pedestrian bridge over Los Gatos Creek with 42-inch-tall guardrails; two curb ramps; a roundabout with an island consisting of signage, shade trees, and a bench; and one solar light on the west side of the Gregory Way crosswalk. The proposed trail segment would connect existing and planned segments of the City’s perimeter trail network, including Segment 3 near Walnut Street, Segment 2 at the roundabout, and Segment 1E at Phelps Avenue.
The trail segment would be positioned away from the nearest roadways but with connectivity at key intersections to existing sidewalks and Class II and III bicycle routes on existing roads near the perimeter trail. The project would develop one segment of the City’s planned 8.8-mile perimeter trailand spur system to connect residents in Coalinga (and a disadvantaged census tract) to activity centers such as schools, parks, a college, shopping, neighborhoods, and jobs. The project would provide a safe option to enable increased bicycle/pedestrian transportation use. Increased active transportation would address health disparities in a community that faces higher than average California city rates of asthma, obesity, and heart disease.
Part of the project requires ROW services to acquire the right of way necessary for Project completion.
Right of way services include task management with city and city engineers, appraisaland review services, including title reports, right of way acquisition services, escrow coordination, Caltrans right of way certification, and realestate acquisition parcel information for permanent easements, impacting parcels near the proposed trail.
The City of Coalinga also released an RFQ for an On-Call Right of Way Consultant for services on various projects. Bender Rosenthal, Inc. won the award for $250,000.00 total services. This project and task order is their second project under those On-Call Services. The City also approved a task order for City Engineers (TCE) for services related to the ROW Phase for the amount of $36,000.00.
The Right of Way Consultant, Bender Rosenthal, has submitted a task order for right of way services and appraisalcoordination as part of the original On-Call Right of Way Services, dated October 3, 2024, in the amount of $14,792.94. This amount does not consider appraisals for the permanent easements. This second task order has been attached for the Council’s consideration.
R/W Awarded: $120,000.00
R/W On-Call Consultant Services: $14,792.94
R/W City Engineering Services: $36,000.00
Remaining amount towards contingency and appraisals: $69,207.06 The Council must consider and make the following findings:
Approval of City Manager to approve the second task order for BRI IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the one (1) task order submitted by the Right of Way Consultant.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
Totalauthorization request for this contract is $14,792.94. This project is funded by an Active Transportation Program (ATP).
There will be no fiscal impact to the General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Work_Order_-_ATP-6_Trail_3N_RW_Consultant.pdf Work Order ATP 6
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Coalinga's (City) Coalinga Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North - Active Transportation Program Cycle 6, Multi-Use Pavement Pedestrian/Bike Trail, Trail Segment 3, North (Project) one segment of the City’s planned 8.8-mile perimeter trail and spur system identified in the City of Coalinga Trails Master Plan. This Project will develop an approximately 1,917-foot-long pedestrian trail and associated improvements, including a 14-foot-wide shared-use bicycle and pedestrian trail. Other proposed trail components would include a 24-foot-long sidewalk at the Gregory Way crosswalk; one prefabricated bike/pedestrian bridge over Los Gatos Creek with 42-inch-tall guardrails; two curb ramps; a roundabout with an island consisting of signage, shade trees, and a bench; and one solar light on the west side of the Gregory Way crosswalk.
EXPECTED RESULTS
Consultant shall acquire the right of way necessary for Project completion. Right of way requirements will be permanent easements, impacting four (4) parcels, under one (1) unique ownership. Right of way will be acquired within ten (10) months of Notice to Proceed (NTP), with Project Certification thereafter. The City is currently obtaining a topographic map to refine the alignment and verify the easement areas.
The Scope of Work shall consist of the following tasks and deliverables.
TASK 1: TASK ORDER MANAGEMENT
Consultant shall provide task order management services. This work includes, but is not limited to, coordination with City staff, attending meetings (including teleconference calls), coordination with the City’s design consultant, and site visits as needed.
The Consultant will:
• Attend meetings or teleconference calls with City staff. • Document decisions made, action items and resolutions.
Deliverables:
• Invoices.
• Progress Reports.
• Meeting Notes.
TASK 2: RESTRICTED APPRAISAL AND APPRAISAL REVIEW SERVICES Consultant shall provide Preliminary Title Reports (PTRs) for each impacted property in order to determine current ownership. Consultant shall appraise the impacted parcels and provide external appraisal reviews for each restricted appraisal.
Deliverables:
• One (1) PTR.
• One (1) Restricted Appraisal.
• One (1) Appraisal Review.
TASK 3: RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SERVICES
The Consultant shall provide negotiation and acquisition services for each parcel identified below.
Right of way action includes communication with property owners as required to facilitate payment. If a settlement is not attainable, the Consultant shall inform the City.
The Consultant will:
• Establish and maintain a communication log with the property owner. • Coordinate with the City where an impasse is reached with the property owner.
Deliverables:
• Draft First Written Offer Package.
• Acquisition of permanent property rights from one (1) ownership. • Files on each negotiation, acquisition, and project settlement.
TASK 4: ESCROW COORDINATION
Consultant will deliver documents and checks to the escrow company and review all final title and escrow documents. Consultant will coordinate escrow closings and file all applicable forms and documents with the County Assessor’s office.
Deliverables:
• Facilitate Title and Escrow support for one (1) ownership.
TASK 5: CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION
Consultant to supply all required documentation for the draft and final Right of Way Certification Document 13-B at certification level 1 or 2.
Deliverables:
• One (1) draft Right of Way Certification Document.
• One (1) final Right of Way Certification Document.
REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION PARCEL INFORMATION
APN 071-020-16S: 6,166 SF required from the property
APN 071-020-23S: 16,908 SF required from the property
APN 071-020-39S; 14,190 SF required from the property
PERMANENT EASEMENT TOTAL: 37,264 SF
MATERIALS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY
• Appraisal Exhibits, Plats and Legals.
• Approved Just Compensation.
• Delegation of authority for administrative settlements.
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT SCHEDULE
TASK 1: TASK ORDER MANAGEMENT
NTP + Ten (10) Months
TASK 2: RESTRICTED APPRAISAL AND APPRAISAL REVIEW SERVICES NTP + Five (5) weeks for Restricted Appraisal + Two (2) weeks for review TASK 3: RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SERVICES
Approval to Acquire + sixty (60) days
TASK 4: ESCROW COORDINATION
Signed Contract + thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days, assuming no partial reconveyance and/or consent to easement
TASK 5: CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION
NTP + Ten (10) Months
* TASK 1 and TASK 4 may be extended. This will not impact Caltrans Right of Way Certification.
EXHIBIT C
FEE SCHEDULE
The fee for services is $14,792.94
Please see EXHIBIT D on the following page.
Note: Mark-Ups are Not Allowed
Consultant: BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC.
Project No. ATP CYCLE 6 - Trail 3N Contract No. TBD Date Project Name
DIRECT LABOR
Classification/Title Name Hours Actual Hr Rate Total
Project Manager Rebekah Green 8 $ 70.00 $ 560.00
Senior Administrative Support Staff - TBD 4 $ 40.00 $ 160.00 Administrative Support Staff - TBD 2 $ 25.00 $ 50.00
14 LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $ 770.00
b) Anticipated Salary Increases $23.10
c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] $ 793.10
INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 39.83% ) c) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] $ 315.89 f) Overhead (Rate: 28.46% ) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $ 225.72 h) General and Admin (Rate: 54.42% ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $ 431.61 j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e) + (g) + (i)] $ 973.21
FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c) + (j)] x fixed fee 10% ] $ 176.63 l) CONSULTANT’S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) – ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
Permanent/Temporary Acquisition 1 Each $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 Restricted Appraisal Reports 1 Report $ 3,800.00 $ 3,800.00 Preliminary Title Reports 1 Report $ 900.00 $ 900.00
Right of Way Certification 1 Package $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Mileage/Travel 400 Miles $ 0.70 $ 280.00
Shipping 2 Package $ 35.00 $ 70.00
i) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $ 11,050.00
m) SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) $ 1,800.00 m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS $ 1,800.00
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l) + (m)] $ 12,850.00 TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] $ 14,792.94
NOTES:
Independent Appraisal Reviews - 1 @ $1,800
Coalinga Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North
$20.00 - $40.00
$35.00 - $65.00
3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.
1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.
2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant’s annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.
Description of Item
EXHIBIT 10-H COST PROPOSAL
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM OR FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS (DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
May 28, 2025
Range
$62.00 - $75.00
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant
EXHIBIT D
Direct Labor Total Hours per Avg 5 Year
Subtotal per Cost Cost Proposal Hourly Contract
Proposal Rate Duration
= $55.00 Year 1 Avg
Hourly Rate
Avg Hourly Rate Proposed Escalation
Year 1 + 3.0% = $56.65 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 + 3.0% = $58.35 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 + 3.0% = $60.10 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 + 3.0% = $61.90 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate
Estimated % Completed Total Hours per Cost Total Hours per Each Year Proposal Year
Year 1 * 14 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 * 14 = 14 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 * 14 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 * 14 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 * 14 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Total = 14
Avg Hourly Rate Estimated hours
(Calculated above) (Calculated Above)
Year 1 * 0 = Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 * 14 = Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 * 0 = Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 * 0 = Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 * 0 = Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation =
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation =
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase = Transfer to Page 1 NOTES:
3. This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.
4. Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided. $60.10 $0.00
$61.90 $0.00
$793.10
$55.00 $0.00
$56.65 $793.10
$58.35 $0.00
$770.00
$23.10
1. This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.
2. An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 2% x 5 yrs = $25,000 is not an acceptable methodology)
0.0%
100.0%
4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Cost Per
Year
3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours)
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %) $55.00
$56.65
$58.35
$60.10
EXHIBIT 10-H COST PROPOSAL
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM OR FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS (CALCULATIONS FOR ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES)
1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) $770.00 14
1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
2. Terms and conditions of the contract
3. Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts
4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures
5. 6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable) Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:
Name**: Title**:
Signature: Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy):
Email**: Phone Number:
Address: 2825 Watt Ave. Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95821
List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:
5/28/2025
EXHIBIT 10-H COST PROPOSAL
Certification of Direct Costs:
**An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.
Right of Way Services
I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement. Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).
Renee Baur Chief Executive Officer
[email protected] (916) 978-4900
23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Authorize City Manager to Execute a Task Order with the City’s On-Call Right-of- Way (ROW) Consultant for ROW Services for the Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
CouncilAuthorization for the City Manager to Execute one (1) Task Order with the City’s On-Call Right-ofway (ROW) Consultant, Bender Rosenthal, Inc. for ROW Services for the Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 Project.
II. BACKGROUND:
In November 2024 the City of Coalinga received a grant award notification through the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant program for the right-of-way (also referred as ROW or R/W) services for the Coalinga Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 portion of the Coalinga Multi-Use Trails Master Plan.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Program funding can include Federal, State, or both Federaland State funds. The Coalinga Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North is limited to both Federaland State funds; a right-of-way phase was granted for both the right-of-way consultant, Bender Rosenthal, Inc. (BRI) and city engineering consultant, Tri City Engineering (TCE) for reimbursement of services.
The totalamount awarded for the R/W Phase is $160,000.00.
III. DISCUSSION:
The City of Coalinga (City) is proposing the design, construction, and operation of one segment (Segment 6) of the City’s planned 8.8-mile perimeter trailand spur system identified in the City of Coalinga Trails Master Plan (Coalinga TMP) using Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funding. The Coalinga Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 (project) would develop an approximately 1.3 mile-long pedestrian trailand associated improvements in the city of Coalinga, Fresno County, California. The proposed trail segment would include a 14-foot-wideshared-use bicycle and pedestrian trail. The proposed trail would consist of a 10-foot-wide paved asphalt concrete (AC) trail between 2 feet of unpaved shoulders on both sides. Other proposed trailcomponents would include one (1) trail, one (1) spur, one (1) rest area and sidewalk improvements. It willconnect the perimeter trail from E Polk St to trail segment 3N which is west of the pedestrian bridge that crosses over Los Gatos Creek and east of Acabedo Lane. The proposed trail segment would connect the perimeter trail from E Polk St to trail segment 3N which is west of the pedestrian bridge that crosses over Los Gatos Creek and east of Acabedo Lane.
The trail segment would be positioned away from the nearest roadways but with connectivity at key intersections to existing sidewalks and Class II and III bicycle routes on existing roads near the perimeter trail. The project would develop one segment of the City’s planned 8.8-mile perimeter trailand spur system to connect residents in Coalinga (and a disadvantaged census tract) to activity centers such as schools, parks, a college, shopping, neighborhoods, and jobs. The project would provide a safe option to enable increased bicycle/pedestrian transportation use. Increased active transportation would address health disparities in a community that faces higher than average California city rates of asthma, obesity, and heart disease.
Part of the project requires ROW services to acquire the right of way necessary for Project completion.
Right of way services include task management with city and city engineers, appraisaland review services, including title reports, right of way acquisition services, escrow coordination, Caltrans right of way certification, and realestate acquisition parcel information for permanent easements, impacting parcels near the proposed trail.
The City of Coalinga also released an RFQ for an On-Call Right of Way Consultant for services on various projects. Bender Rosenthal, Inc. won the award for $250,000.00 total services. This project and task order is their third project under those On-Call Services.
The Right of Way Consultant, Bender Rosenthal, has submitted a task order for right of way services and appraisalcoordination as part of the original On-Call Right of Way Services, dated October 3, 2024, in the amount of $49,898.15. This amount does not consider appraisals for the permanent easements. This third task order has been attached for the Council’s consideration.
R/W Awarded: $160,000.00
R/W On-Call Consultant Services: $49,898.15
R/W City Engineering Services (also on agenda to be approved): $36,000.00 Remaining amount towards contingency and appraisals: $74,101.85 The Council must consider and make the following findings:
Approval of City Manager to approve the third task order for BRI IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the one (1) task order submitted by the Right of Way Consultant.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
Totalauthorization request for this contract is $49,898.15. This project is funded by a Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant program.
There will be no fiscal impact to the General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Work_Order_-_CMAQ_Trail_6_RW_Consultant.pdf Work Order ATP 6 ROW Consultant
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Coalinga's (City) Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 (Project) is funded by the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program one segment of the City’s planned multi-use pedestrian/bike trails identified in the City of Coalinga Trails Master Plan. This Project will develop an existing soil trail from Polk St. and connect to the Trail 3N.
EXPECTED RESULTS
Consultant shall acquire the right of way necessary for Project completion. Right of way requirements will be permanent easements, impacting seven (7) parcels, under four (4) unique ownerships. Right of way will be acquired within ten (10) months of Notice to Proceed (NTP), with Project Certification thereafter. The City is currently obtaining a topographic map to refine the alignment and verify the easement areas.
The Scope of Work shall consist of the following tasks and deliverables.
TASK 1: TASK ORDER MANAGEMENT
Consultant shall provide task order management services. This work includes, but is not limited to, coordination with City staff, attending meetings (including teleconference calls), coordination with the City’s design consultant, and site visits as needed.
The Consultant will:
• Attend meetings or teleconference calls with City staff. • Document decisions made, action items and resolutions.
Deliverables:
• Invoices.
• Progress Reports.
• Meeting Notes.
TASK 2: RESTRICTED APPRAISAL AND APPRAISAL REVIEW SERVICES Consultant shall provide Preliminary Title Reports (PTRs) for each impacted property in order to determine current ownership. Consultant shall appraise the impacted parcels and provide external appraisal reviews for each restricted appraisal.
Deliverables:
• Four (4) PTRs.
• Four (4) Restricted Appraisals.
• Four (4) Appraisal Reviews.
TASK 3: RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SERVICES
The Consultant shall provide negotiation and acquisition services for each parcel identified below.
Right of way action includes communication with property owners as required to facilitate payment. If a settlement is not attainable, the Consultant shall inform the City.
The Consultant will:
• Establish and maintain a communication log with the property owners. • Coordinate with the City where an impasse is reached with the property owners.
Deliverables:
• Draft First Written Offer Package.
• Acquisition of permanent property rights from four (4) ownerships. • Files on each negotiation, acquisition, and project settlement.
TASK 4: ESCROW COORDINATION
Consultant will deliver documents and checks to the escrow company and review all final title and escrow documents. Consultant will coordinate escrow closings and file all applicable forms and documents with the County Assessor’s office.
Deliverables:
• Facilitate Title and Escrow support for four (4) ownerships.
TASK 5: CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION
Consultant to supply all required documentation for the draft and final Right of Way Certification Document 13-B at certification level 1 or 2.
Deliverables:
• One (1) draft Right of Way Certification Document.
• One (1) final Right of Way Certification Document.
REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION PARCEL INFORMATION
APN 071-020-70S: 893 SF required from the property
APN 071-262-09S/071-253-11S: 9,706 SF required from the properties APN 071-262-08S; 3,195 SF required from the property
APN 071-020-43S; 62,610 SF required from the property
APN 071-020-62S; 20,192 SF required from the property
APN 071-020-23S; 1,099 SF required from the property
PERMANENT EASEMENT TOTAL: 97,695 SF
MATERIALS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY
• Appraisal Exhibits, Plats and Legals.
• Approved Just Compensation.
• Delegation of authority for administrative settlements.
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT SCHEDULE
TASK 1: TASK ORDER MANAGEMENT
NTP + Ten (10) Months
TASK 2: RESTRICTED APPRAISAL AND APPRAISAL REVIEW SERVICES NTP + Five (5) weeks for Restricted Appraisals + Two (2) weeks for reviews TASK 3: RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SERVICES
Approval to Acquire + sixty (60) days
TASK 4: ESCROW COORDINATION
Signed Contract + thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days, assuming no partial reconveyance and/or consent to easement
TASK 5: CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION
NTP + Ten (10) Months
* TASK 1 and TASK 4 may be extended. This will not impact Caltrans Right of Way Certification.
EXHIBIT C
FEE SCHEDULE
The fee for services is $49,898.15.
Please see EXHIBIT D on the following page.
Note: Mark-Ups are Not Allowed
Consultant: BENDER ROSENTHAL, INC.
Project No. CMAQ Trail 6 Contract No. TBD Date
Project Name
DIRECT LABOR
Classification/Title Name Hours Actual Hr Rate Total
Project Manager Rebekah Green 32 $ 70.00 $ 2,240.00
Senior Administrative Support Staff - TBD 8 $ 40.00 $ 320.00 Administrative Support Staff - TBD 6 $ 25.00 $ 150.00
46 LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $ 2,710.00
b) Anticipated Salary Increases $81.30
c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] $ 2,791.30
INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 39.83% ) c) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] $ 1,111.77 f) Overhead (Rate: 28.46% ) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $ 794.40 h) General and Admin (Rate: 54.42% ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $ 1,519.03 j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e) + (g) + (i)] $ 3,425.20
FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c) + (j)] x fixed fee 10% ] $ 621.65 l) CONSULTANT’S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) – ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
Permanent/Temporary Acquisition 4 Each $ 3,500.00 $ 14,000.00 Restricted Appraisal Reports 4 Report $ 3,800.00 $ 15,200.00 Preliminary Title Reports 4 Report $ 900.00 $ 3,600.00
Right of Way Certification 1 Package $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Mileage/Travel 400 Miles $ 0.70 $ 280.00
Shipping 8 Package $ 35.00 $ 280.00
i) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $ 35,860.00
m) SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) $ 7,200.00 m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS $ 7,200.00
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l) + (m)] $ 43,060.00 TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] $ 49,898.15
NOTES:
Independent Appraisal Reviews - 4 @ $1,800
3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.
1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.
2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant’s annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.
Description of Item
EXHIBIT 10-H COST PROPOSAL
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM OR FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS (DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
May 28, 2025
Range
$62.00 - $75.00
$20.00 - $40.00
$35.00 - $65.00
Multi-Use Trail Segment 6
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant
EXHIBIT D
Direct Labor Total Hours per Avg 5 Year
Subtotal per Cost Cost Proposal Hourly Contract
Proposal Rate Duration
= $58.91 Year 1 Avg
Hourly Rate
Avg Hourly Rate Proposed Escalation
Year 1 + 3.0% = $60.68 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 + 3.0% = $62.50 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 + 3.0% = $64.38 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 + 3.0% = $66.31 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate
Estimated % Completed Total Hours per Cost Total Hours per Each Year Proposal Year
Year 1 * 46 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 * 46 = 46 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 * 46 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 * 46 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 * 46 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Total = 46
Avg Hourly Rate Estimated hours
(Calculated above) (Calculated Above)
Year 1 * 0 = Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 * 46 = Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 * 0 = Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 * 0 = Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 * 0 = Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation =
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation =
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase = Transfer to Page 1 NOTES:
3. This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.
4. Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.
EXHIBIT 10-H COST PROPOSAL
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM OR FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS (CALCULATIONS FOR ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES)
1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) $2,710.00 46
1. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %) $58.91
$60.68
$62.50
$64.38
3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours)
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Cost Per
Year
$2,710.00
$81.30
1. This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.
2. An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 2% x 5 yrs = $25,000 is not an acceptable methodology) $64.38 $0.00
$66.31 $0.00
$2,791.30
$58.91 $0.00
$60.68 $2,791.30
$62.50 $0.00
1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
2. Terms and conditions of the contract
3. Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts
4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures
5. 6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable) Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:
Name**: Title**:
Signature: Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy):
Email**: Phone Number:
Address: 2825 Watt Ave. Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95821
List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:
Right of Way Services
I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement. Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).
Renee Baur Chief Executive Officer
[email protected] (916) 978-4900
23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service
**An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract. 5/28/2025
EXHIBIT 10-H COST PROPOSAL
Certification of Direct Costs:
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Authorize City Manager to Execute a Task Order with the City’s On-Call Environmental Consultant for Environmental Services for the Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
CouncilAuthorization for the City Manager to Execute one (1) Task Order with the City’s On-Call Environmental Consultant, SWCA Environmental Consultants for Environmental Services for the Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 Project.
II. BACKGROUND:
In November 2024 the City of Coalinga received a grant award notification through the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant program for the environmental services for the Coalinga Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 portion of the Coalinga Multi-Use Trails Master Plan.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Program funding can include Federal, State, or both Federaland State funds. The Coalinga Perimeter Trail Interconnect Gregory North is limited to both Federaland State funds; an environmental phase was granted for both the environmentalconsultant, SWCA Environmental Consultant (SWCA) for reimbursement of services.
The totalamount awarded for the Environmental Phase is $85,000.00.
III. DISCUSSION:
The City of Coalinga (City) is proposing the design, construction, and operation of one segment (Segment 6) of the City’s planned 8.8-mile perimeter trailand spur system identified in the City of Coalinga Trails Master Plan (Coalinga TMP) using Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funding. The Coalinga Perimeter Multi-Use Trail Segment 6 (project) would develop an approximately 1.3-mile-long pedestrian trailand associated improvements in the city of Coalinga, Fresno County, California. The proposed trail segment would include a 14-foot-wideshared-use bicycle and pedestrian trail. The proposed trail would consist of a 10-foot-wide paved asphalt concrete (AC) trail between 2 feet of unpaved shoulders on both sides. Other proposed trailcomponents would include one (1) trail, one (1) spur, one (1) rest area and sidewalk improvements. It willconnect the perimeter trail from E Polk St to trail segment 3N which is west of the pedestrian bridge that crosses over Los Gatos Creek and east of Acabedo Lane.
The trail segment would be positioned away from the nearest roadways but with connectivity at key intersections to existing sidewalks and Class II and III bicycle routes on existing roads near the perimeter trail. The project would develop one segment of the City’s planned 8.8-mile perimeter trailand spur system to connect residents in Coalinga (and a disadvantaged census tract) to activity centers such as schools, parks, a college, shopping, neighborhoods, and jobs. The project would provide a safe option to enable increased bicycle/pedestrian transportation use. Increased active transportation would address health disparities in a community that faces higher than average California city rates of asthma, obesity, and heart disease.
Part of the project requires Environmental services to prepare and receive approval of an environmental reports to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act and Federal Preliminary Environmental Study and all federal requirements. Environmental services include task management with city and city engineers, environmentalcoordination, Caltrans environmentalcertification, research and reporting services, project description, preliminary environmental study form, preparation of anticipated technical studies, and preparation of an initial study and reports for areas near the proposed trail.
The City of Coalinga also released an RFQ for an On-Call Environmental Consultant for services on various projects. SWCA Environmental Consultants won the award for $150,000.00 total services. This project and task order is their second project under those On-Call Services.
The Environmental Consultant, SWCA, has submitted a task order for environmental services and appraisal coordination as part of the original On-Call Environmental Services, dated April 8, 2024, in the amount of $86,922.00. This second task order has been attached for the Council’s consideration.
EnvironmentalAwarded: $85,000.00
Environmental On-Call Consultant Services: $86,922.00
Estimated Over Budget: $1,922.00
The Council must consider and make the following findings:
Approval of City Manager to approve the second task order for SWCA IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the one (1) task order submitted by the Environmental Consultant.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
Totalauthorization request for this contract is $86,922.00. This project is funded by a Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant program for $85,000.00.
There will be a fiscal impact to the General Fund for the amount of $1,922.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Work_Order_-_CMAQ_Trail_6_Env_Consultant.pdf Work Order ATP 6 EnvConsultant June 06, 2025
Erika Lansburgh
Tri City Engineering, Inc.
City Engineers for City of Coalinga
City of Coalinga
155 West Durian Avenue
Coalinga, CA 93210
Submitted via email: [email protected]
Re: Proposal for the City of Coalinga Multi-Use Trail Project Segment 6 Environmental Services / SWCA Project No. P99141
Dear Erika Lansburgh;
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) appreciates the opportunity to provide the City of Coalinga (City) with our scope of work and cost estimate to provide environmental services for the City of Coalinga Trails Master Plan Segment 6 (project). With over 30 years of environmental review and documentation experience, including substantial recent experience on similar projects, we feel we are highly qualified to prepare the required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Our scope of work reflects familiarity with applicable City of Coalinga (City) plans and policies, including the Trails Master Plan; extensive experience conducting environmental review for similar projects; and a clear understanding of the project setting and key environmental and procedural issues likely to be associated with the project. In addition to our relevant experience preparing CEQA/NEPA documentation for projects for other jurisdictions, we believe our experience preparing CEQA/NEPA technical studies for the City's other recent Trails Master Plan segments make us uniquely qualified to perform the services required for this project. We know what the resources of concern are for the proposed trail segments, and we have a clear understanding of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) expectations.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to work with you. After receiving a signed contract, we will be able to start work immediately. Should you have any questions regarding our scope of work or cost estimate, please feel free to contact me at (916) 234-5522 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Markley, M.S., AICP
Project Manager / Principal Environmental Planner
Proposal for the City of Coalinga Multi-Use Trail Project Segment 6 Environmental Services
WORK PLAN
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) is pleased to submit our proposal to provide environmental services to the City of Coalinga (City), specifically to prepare California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) technical studies for the City of Coalinga Trails Master Plan Segment 6 (project).
The following scope of work provides a description of the CEQA services that SWCA will provide for the project and an estimated cost associated with the completion of these tasks. The scope is based on our understanding of the project, our experience with similar projects, preliminary investigation and research, and background information provided by the City.
SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SWCA project management will include general management of the SWCA team, coordination and correspondence with the City, management of the project scope and budget, and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC).
SWCA Project Manager / Principal Environmental Planner Jacqueline Markley will be the day-to-day contact and responsible for overseeing all aspects of the environmental analysis, communicating and coordinating with City staff, and ensuring adherence to the schedule and budget. This task also includes ongoing correspondence and periodic meetings with City staff to discuss the progress of the project and any items needing additional coordination.
TASK 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A comprehensive and stable project description, including the project purpose and objectives, is essential to successful completion of the environmental documentation process. SWCA will prepare a draft project description based on the project details provided by the City and existing documentation available for the site. SWCA will review all materials associated with the project and submit a data request (if needed) to the City where additional information or clarification may be needed to support the CEQA environmental determination. Upon receipt of requested project information, SWCA will prepare a preliminary project description for the City’s review and approval. Project design details in the project description will be supplemented with any information needed to facilitate the scoping and environmental review process. This task assumes one round of review of the project description by the City.
TASK 3. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FORM
SWCA will prepare a PES Form, using the most updated version available on the Caltrans SER, which is required for all Local Assistance projects. The content of the PES will be populated with information that would have been gathered during preparation of the TMP, and the PES will provide sufficient information to determine the environmental issues to be addressed and the evaluations and/or studies that must be undertaken for CEQA/NEPA environmental clearance. Sections A–G of the PES must be completed, and an early coordination meeting with the City and Caltrans District Local Assistant Engineer (DLAE) will be requested. Based on our recent experience, we anticipate this meeting may be virtual or may not be necessary, as determined by Caltrans staff. SWCA will utilize the PES prepared and approved by Caltrans for previous segments as an example and will take previous Caltrans feedback into consideration while preparing the PES for this project to avoid receiving redundant comments from Caltrans and hopefully facilitate a faster review process. SWCA staff will also be available to assist City staff with any follow-up coordination with Caltrans if questions about the PES arise.
TASK 4. PREPARATION OF ANTICIPATED TECHNICAL STUDIES
Based on our understanding of the project, project area, resources of concern, and experience preparing the PES and technical studies for previous segments, as well as our coordination with Caltrans staff during the preparation of those deliverables, we have identified the following technical studies we anticipate will be identified in the PES for this Proposal for the City of Coalinga Multi-Use Trail Project Segment 6 Environmental Services project. To the extent feasible, SWCA will utilize technical studies prepared for previous segments as templates for preparing the following technical studies to be as efficient as possible with our budget and schedule.
Task 4.1: Natural Environment Study – Minimal Impacts
SWCA understands biological resources, including wetlands and special-status species, were considered during preparation of the TMP and wetlands were found to be present in the vicinity of Segment 6. The following 22 specialstatus species are considered to have the potential to occur in the City of Coalinga:
• great Valley Mesquite Scrub
• pale-yellow layia (California Native Plant Society
[CNPS] Rank 1B.1)
• San Joaquin woollythreads (Federal Endangered)
• forked fiddleneck (CNPS Rank 4.2)
• California jewelflower (Federal Endangered,
State Endangered)
• Hoover’s eriastrum (CNPS Rank 4.2)
• recurved larkspur (CNPS Rank 1B.2)
• Northern California legless lizard (State Species of
Special Concern [SSC])
• California glossy snake (State SSC)
• San Joaquin coachwhip (State SSC)
• blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Federal Endangered,
State Endangered)
• Hopping’s blister beetle (CDFW Special Animal)
• Morrison’s blister beetle (CDFW Special Animal)
• tricolored blackbird (State Threatened)
• LeConte’s thrasher (State SSC)
• burrowing owl (State SSC)
• Swainson’s hawk (State Threatened)
• short-nosed kangaroo rat (State SSC)
• western mastiff bat (State SSC)
• American badger (State SSC)
• San Joaquin kit fox (Federal Endangered,
State Threatened)
• San Joaquin pocket mouse (State SSC)
SWCA will evaluate the presence/absence of sensitive botanical and wildlife resources and provide the findings in a Natural Environment Study – Minimal Impacts (NES-MI). The NES-MI will consist of an impact analysis of the sensitive biological resources with potential to occur within the project impact area. In preparation of this proposal, SWCA has reviewed the existing data and conducted an updated review of species that would need to be evaluated for this project. This list of species was acquired through a 5-mile radius search of the project impact area, through queries of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database and CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
In support of the NES-MI, SWCA would request an official species list from the USFWS, which lists all federal species that would need to be taken into consideration. SWCA will also reach out to the Caltrans District Biologist to request that Caltrans submit a request for a species list from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) as a matter of protocol, even though we do not anticipate any impacts to sensitive aquatic species. This is a recent required protocol of Caltrans and may be subject to change in the future by NOAA. Per Caltrans requirements, the official species lists must be acquired within 6 months of submitting the NES-MI for review.
Following the database search and literature review, SWCA will coordinate with our Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) subconsultant, Aardvark Biological Services LLC, to conduct a field survey for Segment 6 to collect the baseline information for vegetation communities, habitat types, and plant and wildlife species. Resources identified during field surveys will be mapped with Global Positioning System (GPS)/GIS and overlain on plans and/or aerials provided by the City.
In order to comply with agency guidelines for botanical resources, Aardvark staff will conduct up to two floristic botanical surveys in order to accommodate the range of blooming periods (i.e., the identification periods) for the Proposal for the City of Coalinga Multi-Use Trail Project Segment 6 Environmental Services special-status plant species with potential to occur within the study area. Botanical surveys will follow the applicable guidelines from the USFWS General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines and CDFW Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. Reconnaissance wildlife surveys will be conducted concurrently with the botanical surveys to add to the previous botanical and wildlife inventory.
The NES-MI will include a description of each project alternative currently under consideration; regulatory overview; study methods; documentation of existing conditions; special-status plant and animal species, sensitive habitats, and jurisdictional features (wetlands/other waters) with potential for occurrence; evaluation of permanent, temporary, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and recommended avoidance and minimization measures. The NES-MI will also adequately address invasive plant species as required by Executive Order 13112.
SWCA feels our team is particularly well qualified to prepare the NES-MI in the most efficient manner possible since our staff have already completed biological and botanical surveys for several previous segments. Our staff have prepared and are currently preparing several NES-MI documents for various local agency clients, and our biologists prepared NES-MIs directly for Caltrans under a 9-year staff augmentation contract with Caltrans District 5. SWCA has a very thorough understanding of the NES-MI template and requirements. To maintain a high level of efficiency, SWCA would use existing documents from the area to the extent feasible, which would be primarily used as reference to capture existing data on species occurrences in the region. SWCA will compile information from these individual studies and will use the most current Caltrans SER template available to prepare the Draft NES-MI for submittal to Caltrans.
Task 4.2 Biological Assessment
If, during preparation of the NES-MI, SWCA determines the project has the potential to result in adverse effects to a federally listed species or critical habitat that necessitate mitigation, preparation of a BA will be required. The BA shall be prepared to evaluate the potential impacts to species that are listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate species under the FESA. The BA shall be prepared in accordance with the legal requirement founds in Section 7(a)(2) of the FESA (16 United States Code [USC] 1536(c) and shall follow the latest template in the Caltrans SER.
Task 4.3: Cultural Resources Studies
Task 4.3.1: Archaeological Survey Report
Area of Potential Effects Mapping Assistance
SWCA will prepare an Area of Potential Effects (APE) map that includes a delineation of the area of direct impact and area of indirect effects. The map will depict the existing and proposed right-of-way, staging areas, and location of any cultural resources identified in the APE. The map will be created at a scale of 1”:200’ and printed on 11 × 17 sheets.
The APE map will be consistent with the guidance in the Caltrans SER and consistent with previous guidance received from Caltrans staff. The APE map will also include the appropriate signature blocks for Caltrans reviewers.
Records Search
SWCA will conduct a records search for the project area at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), located at California State University, Bakersfield. SWCA assumes that Caltrans will require a 1-mile search radius. SWCA further assumes that the records search will be completed at the SSJVIC for a maximum direct cost of $900.00 and will be conducted at standard rates.
If rush rates are required, then a Change Order may be necessary. We will also check to see how the records search results we received for previous segments can be used to avoid any unnecessary overlap with this records search to try to reduce costs.
Proposal for the City of Coalinga Multi-Use Trail Project Segment 6 Environmental Services Native American Coordination
Pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 800.4(a)(3), preparation of the ASR and HPSR will include coordination with up to 20 local Native American individuals and groups who may have knowledge of, or concerns about, Native American resources in the area. SWCA will initiate this task by contacting the NAHC to request a Sacred Lands File search and a list of Native American contacts. Upon receipt of the Sacred Lands File search, SWCA will prepare and mail letters to each of the NAHC-listed contacts, requesting information, in writing, concerning any Native American religious or cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Up to two telephone calls will be made to each of the Native American groups on the NAHC list to document good-faith efforts at follow-up. This consultation is for NHPA Section 106 purposes only. SWCA assumes that the City will conduct Native American consultation as required by AB 52.
Archaeological Survey Report
SWCA will conduct an intensive-level archaeological survey of the area of direct impacts. SWCA will survey the APE and prepare updates to the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Series forms for the portion of the site within the APE. No testing or excavation will be conducted, nor will any artifacts, samples, or specimens be collected during the survey.
Upon completion of the field survey, SWCA will prepare the ASR according to Caltrans’ current guidance as specified in the SER. The ASR will document the results of the records search, Native American scoping, and field survey. The report will include maps depicting the area surveyed for cultural resources. Locations of sensitive archaeological sites or Native American cultural resources may be depicted or described in the report and will be considered confidential; therefore, the report may not be distributed to the public. This report will be submitted to the City and Caltrans for review.
SWCA assumes that no archaeological resources will be encountered; any additional previously unrecorded or newly recorded archaeological resources identified during the records search or survey would require a change order for formal recordation. The survey area will be limited to the direct APE. SWCA assumes that preparation of the ASR will not require more than one revision based on comments from Caltrans or the City.
Task 4.3.2: Historic Resources Evaluation Report
SWCA understands that portions of the areas surrounding the APE were historically developed, and historical resources may be required to be evaluated as part of the cultural resources studies. SWCA understands that several prior studies (including those prepared for Segments 3, 4, and 9 and by Caltrans for work along State Route 99) have been conducted within and near the APE, which, upon receipt of the records search effort described under Task 4.3.1, will be reviewed for adequacy and applicability to the current project. The following is a basic summary of steps taken to complete the HRER.
Local Governments/Local Historic Group Coordination
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(a)(3), documentation will include coordination with up to five individuals and organizations who may have knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties in the area. Coordination will include inquiries to local governments and historic groups regarding their knowledge of historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the APE. Up to two telephone calls will be made to each of the groups to document “good-faith” efforts of follow-up.
Built Environment Survey, Archival Research, and California Department of Parks and Recreation Forms Our qualified architectural history team is highly familiar with the SER Volume 2, Cultural Resources: Exhibit 1.1, which outlines the 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as It Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (Caltrans PA). In addition to providing guidance for the assessment of effects to historic properties, the Caltrans PA provides evaluation exemptions for various types of properties within the APE, including those that visibly lack integrity.
Proposal for the City of Coalinga Multi-Use Trail Project Segment 6 Environmental Services Per Caltrans requirements, SWCA qualified architectural historians will direct an intensive-level survey of the entire APE to identify and document previously unrecorded historic properties that may be impacted by the proposed project. For the purposes of this proposal and cost estimate, SWCA assumes that the APE will include the direct project footprint and any adjacent buildings, structures, or objects. During the survey, architectural historians will record each property address within the APE using tablet computers prepopulated with relevant data about the project area and its setting to streamline and accelerate the field recordation process. Field documentation will also include digital photographs of each property to support field observations. Following the field survey, archival research will be conducted to ascertain the age, alterations, and significance of each architectural resource. The archival research will entail a review of historic documents, records, and photographs for information about each property and resources that may be contained therein. Properties that are found to be significantly altered and no longer contain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance will be exempted from further study, in accordance with the Caltrans PA. Details of these properties and the justification for their exemption will be presented to the Caltrans reviewer for concurrence.
Properties that do not qualify for exemption in accordance with the Caltrans PA will be formally recorded on individual DPR Series 523 forms and will be evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and for local listing. SWCA understands that the project area is highly urbanized with buildings older than 45 years of age, some of which have not been previously evaluated for historical significance. SWCA assumes that a maximum of four properties containing buildings of historic age, that cannot be exempted in accordance with the Caltrans PA, are located within the project area and would require recordation on DPR Series 523 forms. Should additional resources older than 45 years be identified within the project area, SWCA would request a change order to conduct the additional work.
Historical Resources Evaluation Report
Upon completion of the APE map, coordination with local historical groups, and the built environment survey and archival research, SWCA will prepare an HRER. The HRER will be prepared according to current guidance as specified in Caltrans SER Volume 2. SWCA assumes only one round of revisions to the HRER will be required.
Task 4.3.3: Historic Property Survey Report
Upon completion of the ASR (Task 4.3.1), SWCA will prepare a short-format Caltrans HPSR according to Caltrans’ current guidance, as specified in the SER. The HPSR is the overarching document that summarizes the results of the cultural resources investigation; it will include a project description; a description of the APE; details of coordination with Native American groups/individuals, local government, and historic groups; a summary of identification efforts; information regarding any properties identified within the APE; a list of attached documentation; and the findings of the study. SWCA assumes that only one revision to the HPSR will be required. If the project APE is found to contain historic properties, as described under NHPA Section 106, additional cultural studies would become necessary, SWCA has provided additional budget to include up to four additional resources.
Task 4.4: Phase I Initial Site Assessment
Haro Environmental, our DBE teaming partner, will prepare a Phase I ISA consistent with ASTM Standard E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments and Caltrans SER Environmental Guidance Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 10 Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Contamination, Initial Site Assessment. The purpose of the ISA is to evaluate the potential for soil or groundwater contamination from current or past use, storage, and/or handling of hazardous materials on or near the project area. To evaluate the potential for hazardous materials, Haro Environmental will research the past land use near the project area through aerial photographs, oil and gas well maps, interviews, and other records.
Haro Environmental will prepare a report summarizing the results of the ISA, which will present the findings regarding past land use on and around the project area, an opinion regarding the potential for soil or groundwater contamination potentially affecting the project area, the potential for lead-based paint and asbestos, and recommendations for Proposal for the City of Coalinga Multi-Use Trail Project Segment 6 Environmental Services additional assessment, if deemed necessary. The collection and analysis of any media (e.g., soil, groundwater) is not part of this scope. Based on the findings of the ISA, recommendations for additional assessment including a PSI will be provided, if warranted.
Task 4.5: Environmental Commitment Record
SWCA will prepare an Environmental Commitment Record (ECR) for the proposed project. The ECR will compile all relevant environmental information, making it easier to track progress and easier for project team members (e.g., Environmental Staff, Project Engineer, Project Manager, Resident Engineer) to identify actions they need to take.
SWCA will prepare the ECR once all other technical studies have been prepared and approved by Caltrans and will submit the ECR to the City for review and approval.
TASK 5. PREPARATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY
Based on preliminary information, we anticipate that an IS/ND or IS/MND will be the appropriate CEQA environmental determination for the proposed project, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15170. If at any time potentially significant, adverse, unavoidable impacts are identified, we will contact the City immediately.
Task 5.1. Administrative Draft Initial Study
SWCA will prepare an Administrative Draft IS Checklist for review by the City. Preparation of the IS Checklist will include an assessment of all resources as required by State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The IS will be prepared using the City’s preferred template. The IS will be written in language understandable to the public and decisionmakers and will utilize graphics and tables to clearly present information. It will be concise and focus on the most important issues identified through internal scoping. This task assumes one round of review by the City.
Task 5.2. Public Draft IS/MND and Noticing
Following receipt of comments from the City, SWCA will finalize the Draft IS/MND and prepare the document for public review and circulation. SWCA will prepare drafts of all required CEQA notices, including the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI), Summary Form for State Clearinghouse submittal, and Notice of Completion (NOC). SWCA will submit electronic copies of the Draft IS/MND, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), and notices and assumes the City will reproduce the project CEQA document and submit to all agencies and interested parties identified on a City-approved mailing list, including the State Clearinghouse for circulation.
SWCA assumes the City will be responsible for all public noticing, such as on-site posting, newspaper advertisement listing, and filing the NOI with the County of Fresno (County) Clerk. SWCA can also assist with the State Clearinghouse
Task 5.3. Response to Comments and Final IS/MND and MMRP After the close of the 30-day public comment period of the Draft IS/MND, SWCA will review all agency and public comments received by the City. Although not strictly required by CEQA for an IS/MND, if requested by the City, SWCA will prepare written responses to substantive comments received on the IS/ND or IS/MND for the administrative record and to inform decision-makers. SWCA assumes no more than 10 substantive comments will require responses. SWCA will incorporate any necessary clarifications and edits and prepare the Final IS/MND and MMRP (if applicable). SWCA will prepare a draft Notice of Determination (NOD) for the City’s review and assumes the City will file the NOD at the County Clerk’s office upon final project determination. This task does not include payment of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) CEQA Environmental Document Filing Fees or County Clerk processing fees.
Proposal for the City of Coalinga Multi-Use Trail Project Segment 6 Environmental Services
SCHEDULE
SWCA is prepared to initiate this scope of work immediately after receiving authorization to proceed. Table 1 sets out anticipated general timeframes for completion of the identified environmental services. Please note that these timeframes are estimates; we are willing to commit to the overall project schedule developed by the City and will provide environmental documentation within the timeframes necessary to maintain the overall project schedule to the extent feasible. Please also note that the schedule below does not include City review timeframes.
Table 1. Proposed Work Schedule
TASK ESTIMATED COMPLETION PERIOD1
Task 1. Project Management Throughout project duration
Task 2. Project Description 2 weeks following notice to proceed and receipt of requested information Task 3. Preliminary Environment Study (PES) 2–4 weeks following receipt of requested of CHRIS records search results Task 4.1. Natural Environment Study – Minimal Impacts (NES-MI) 4–6 weeks following finalization of Project Description Task 4.2. Biological Assessment (BA) 2-4 weeks following approval of NES-MI2 Task 4.3.1. Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) 8–12 weeks following finalization of Project Description 3 Task 4.3.2. Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) 8–12 weeks following finalization of Project Description 3 Task 4.3.3. Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) 8–12 weeks following finalization of Project Description3 Task 4.4. Phase I Initial Site Assessment (ISA) 4-6 weeks following approval of PES Task 4.5. Environmental Commitment Record (ECR) 1 week following approval of all technical studies Task 5.1. Administrative Draft Initial Study 30 days following completion of technical studies Task 5.2. Public Draft Initial Study and Noticing 2 weeks following receipt of comments on Admin IS/MND Task 5.3. Response to Comments, Final Initial Study, and MMRP 2 weeks following close of 30-day public review period TOTAL Approximately 5–6 months (including 30-day public circulation period) 1 This timeframe does not account for City or other agency review periods. 2 This schedule will commence once requested data is obtained. The timing of botanical surveys is seasonally restricted and must be completed during early summer, which will affect the overall project duration. 3 This schedule assumes no delays due to receipt of records search results or delays in response from the NAHC. For a project of this size, the typical response time from the SSJVIC and the NAHC is 2–3 weeks. In the event requests are received sooner than the typical 3-week timeframe, it is possible this study may be completed before the estimated 45 days.
Proposal for the City of Coalinga Multi-Use Trail Project Segment 6 Environmental Services
COST ESTIMATE AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on thoughtful consideration of the project requirements, and a thorough estimate of the attendant labor and direct costs, SWCA has developed the following project cost estimate (Table 2). SWCA will not proceed with any work in excess of the time-and-materials not-to-exceed budget without prior authorization to proceed.
Table 2. Time and Materials Not-to-Exceed Cost Estimate TASK LABOR $ EXPENSES $
T&M NTE
TOTAL $
Task 1. Project Management $6,050.64 -- $6,050.64
Task 2. Project Description $2,001.74 -- $2,001.74
Task 3. Preliminary Environment Study (PES) $3,788.56 -- $3,788.56 Task 4.1. Natural Environment Study – Minimal Impacts (NES-MI) $7,440.94 -- $7,440.94 Task 4.2. Biological Assessment (BA) $5,790.94 -- $5,790.94 Task 4.3.1. Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) $6,971.28 $1,054.00 $8,025.28 Task 4.3.2. Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) $20,079.96 -- $20,079.96 Task 4.3.3. Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) $5,189.64 -- $5,189.64 Task 4.4. Phase I Initial Site Assessment (ISA) $9,508.44 -- $9,508.44 Task 4.5. Environmental Commitment Record (ECR) $1,014.06 -- $1,014.06 Task 5.1. Administrative Draft Initial Study $10,927.84 -- $10,927.84 Task 5.2. Public Draft Initial Study and Noticing $3,552.02 -- $3,552.02 Task 5.3. Response to Comments, Final Initial Study, and MMRP $3,552.02 -- $3,552.02 PROJECT TOTAL $85,868.00 $1,054.00 $86,922.00*
** Project total includes 17% DBE allocation
Note: Rates are based on our current On-Call Environmental Services Contract with the City of Coalinga (effective October 3, 2024).
ASSUMPTIONS
• SWCA assumes all deliverables will be electronic and no in-person meetings will be required. • SWCA assumes the City will conduct necessary AB 52 coordination. • SWCA assumes the City will be responsible for all public noticing, such as on-site posting, newspaper advertisement listing, and filing the NOI with the County Clerk. • SWCA assumes no more than 10 substantive comments will require responses if an IS/ND or IS/MND is prepared and circulated for public review.
• To accommodate project changes and scheduling, it is assumed that SWCA will be able to use the overall project funding and will not be held to phase and task limits so long as the overall budget is not exceeded.
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Direction to Proceed with Rehabilitation and Accessibility Improvements for the Frame Park Gazebo in Partnership with Community Groups
Meeting Date: Thursday, February 1, 2024
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Sean Brewer, City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to the City Manager to work collaboratively with the Community Scholarship Alliance, the Lions Club, and other interested community members to advance the rehabilitation and modernization of the gazebo at Frame Park, incorporating ADA improvements as recommended by the City’s Building Inspector.
II. BACKGROUND:
The gazebo at Frame Park is a long-standing and well-loved community landmark, serving as a focal point for events, small performances, photography sessions, and community gatherings. Over time, the structure has deteriorated, and the City’s Building Inspector has identified severalADA-related accessibility improvements necessary to ensure compliance and usability for all residents.
In 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager to work with CSA and other community partners to undertake the rehabilitation of the gazebo. A copy of CSA's letter is attached which updates the council on their anticipated efforts.
III. DISCUSSION:
Recently, the Community Scholarship Alliance (CSA), along with community members Tito Balling, Tom Kulikov, and Mike Zwicky, has renewed its interest in leading the rehabilitation of the gazebo. The Lions Club has also agreed to participate, recognizing the project as an opportunity to restore a meaningful part of their history in Coalinga. This strong community commitment creates an ideal opportunity to move forward collaboratively, combining volunteer labor and donations with City resources to complete the project.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Do not authorize the City Manager to work with CSA (not recommended) V. FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY26 budget includes $10,000 identified as a one-time project allocation for modernization efforts at Frame Park. These funds may be applied toward the ADA improvements identified by the Building Inspector, such as accessible pathways, compliant entryways, and related modifications including design by the City Engineer.
Additional funding sources from the non-profit, donations, and volunteer support are anticipated to reduce City costs and allow for expanded enhancements such as repainting, structural repairs, and landscaping.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
CSA_Letter_to_City_Council_re_Gazebo.pdf CSA Letter to City Council - Gazebo August 13, 2025
Subject: Interest in Renovating the City Park Gazebo
Dear Council Members,
We are writing to express our renewed interest in coordinating the renovation of the gazebo in Frame Park. The gazebo is a well loved feature, but it needs repairs and updates to ensure it remains a safe, functional, and attractive gathering place in our community.
Recently this project has been discussed and a group of loyal community members, including Tito Balling, Tom Kulikov and Mike Zwicky are eager to help with the project. We have also approached the Lions Club who have agreed to join the revitalization efforts and are looking forward to restoring a special part of their history in Coalinga.
The gazebo serves as a focal point where our community hosts events, small performances, portrait sessions and more. We would like to enhance its appearance, extend its lifespan, and improve accessibility for all members of our community.
We would like to request that the City Council consider partnering with us by improving the accessibility to the gazebo for community members. We would be happy to discuss potential renovation plans and ways we can work together to make this project a reality. We believe that partnering with the Lions Club, community members and the City, would greatly benefit our city’s residents and help preserve the charm of Frame Park.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to the opportunity to speak with you further and collaborate on this community improvement.
Sincerely,
Community Scholarship Alliance Board
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Appeal Hearing – Administrative Citation #12804 – Alleged Possession and Use of Illegal Fireworks
Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Greg DuPuis, Fire Chief
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Councilconduct the appeal hearing in accordance with Coalinga Municipal Code Section 4-8.130 and applicable due process procedures, and render a decision to uphold, modify, or dismiss Administrative Citation #12804.
II. BACKGROUND:
On July 4, 2025, Administrative Citation #12804 was issued to Mr. Victor Bernal of 405 College Avenue, Coalinga, for the alleged possession and use of illegal fireworks in violation of Coalinga Municipal Code (CMC) Section 4-8.120.
On July 31, 2025, Mr. Bernal submitted a timely written appealcontesting the citation. In accordance with CMC Section 4-8.130, an appeal hearing before the City Council has been scheduled for Thursday, August 21, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Coalinga City Council Chambers.
III. DISCUSSION:
The hearing will be conducted in accordance with administrative due process requirements and will follow this order of proceedings:
1. Introduction by the CityAttorney – Overview of the appeals process.
2. City’s Presentation (5 minutes) – Staff will present evidence supporting issuance of the citation.
3. Appellant’s Presentation (5 minutes) – Mr. Bernal will present his response and any supporting evidence.
4. City’s Rebuttal (3 minutes) – Staff may respond to appellant’s presentation.
5. Appellant’s Closing Remarks (5 minutes) – Appellant may provide finalcomments.
6. City’s Closing Remarks (5 minutes) – Staff may provide finalcomments.
7. Council Deliberation and Decision – Council will deliberate and render a decision.
The City Council’s decision is finaland not subject to further administrative review.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
None at this time.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
The Citation is for $1,000.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
NoAttachments Available
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: Appeal Hearing – Administrative Citation #12805 – Alleged Possession and Use of Illegal Fireworks
Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Greg DuPuis, Fire Chief
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Councilconduct the appeal hearing in accordance with Coalinga Municipal Code Section 4-8.130 and applicable due process procedures, and make a determination to uphold, modify, or dismiss Administrative Citation #12805.
II. BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 2025, Administrative Citation #12805 was issued to Mr. Shawn Benson of 302 Dartmouth Avenue, Coalinga, for the alleged possession and use of illegal fireworks in violation of Coalinga Municipal Code (CMC) Section 4-8.120.
On July 23, 2025, Mr. Benson submitted a timely written appealcontesting the citation. In accordance with CMC Section 4-8.130, an appeal hearing before the City Council has been scheduled for Thursday, August 21, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Coalinga City Council Chambers.
III. DISCUSSION:
The hearing will be conducted in accordance with administrative due process requirements and will follow this order of proceedings:
1. Introduction by the CityAttorney – Overview of the appeals process.
2. City’s Presentation (5 minutes) – Staff will present the evidence supporting issuance of the citation.
3. Appellant’s Presentation (5 minutes) – Mr. Benson will present his response and any supporting evidence.
4. City’s Rebuttal (3 minutes) – Staff may respond to appellant’s presentation.
5. Appellant’s Closing Remarks (5 minutes) – Appellant may provide finalcomments.
6. City’s Closing Remarks (5 minutes) – Staff may provide finalcomments.
7. Council Deliberation and Decision – Council will deliberate and render a decision.
The City Council’s decision is finaland not subject to further administrative review.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
None.
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
The citation was issued for $1,000.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
NoAttachments Available
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY:
APN: 070-060-76 located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Chevron USA. UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
Meeting Date:
From:
Prepared by:
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY:
APN: 070-060-82T & 070-060-88T located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora.
NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Coalinga-Huron Park and Recreation District (CHRPD). UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
Meeting Date:
From:
Prepared by:
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY:
APN: 070-060-85 located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Granite Construction. UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
Meeting Date:
From:
Prepared by:
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY:
APN: 071-020-23S located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Lewis, et al. UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment Meeting Date:
From:
Prepared by:
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY:
APN: 071-020-58S located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: JRyKO Joint Venture. UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment
Meeting Date:
From:
Prepared by:
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE
AUTHORITY
Subject: REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS - Government Code Section 54956.8.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. PROPERTY:
APN: 071-164-02S located in the City of Coalinga. CITY NEGOTIATORS: City Manager, Sean Brewer; and City Attorney, Mario Zamora. NEGOTIATING PARTIES: Valdez. UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and Terms of Payment Meeting Date:
From:
Prepared by:
I. RECOMMENDATION:
II. BACKGROUND:
III. DISCUSSION:
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
V. FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description