Livingston City Council
December 17, 2024

240

Table 3-3: City of Livingston Supply vs. Demand
Source No. Capacity (gpm)
Well No. 8 1,500 Well No. 11 800
Well No. 12 1,200
Well No. 13 1,000 Well No. 151 900
Well No. 16 1,200
Well No. 17 2,000
Future Well #12 1,000
Future Well #22 1,000
Total Capacity 8,600
Firm Capacity (Well 17 offllne) 6,600
Max Day Demand 8,988
Total Capacity Surplus/Deficit (388)
Firm Capacity Surplus/Deficit (2328)
1 Well is subject to water quality issues such as Arsenic and manganese. 2 Excluded from total capacity amount due to the fact that they are not active water sources yet but have been included in the hydraulic model analysis.

3.2.4 City of Los Banos Water Supply vs. Demand Assessment The City of Los Banos (Los Banos) potable water distribution system consists of 13 active wells.

Preliminary analysis of the 2010 WMP determined the active wells for the City have a total capacity to supply 14,875 gpm when all their wells are active, and the firm capacity is 13,025 gpm when Well 13 is offline. According to the 2020 UWMP, the City's MOD is 12,884 gpm. The City's current supply from groundwater wells meets the City's MOD. However, the water system marginally meets demands when considering firm capacity.

Consistent with our supply vs. demand assessment, the City of Los Banos Public Works Department stated the City's current groundwater supply capacity will be adequate until 2024. The city plans to construct a new well and tank by 2024 to accommodate future growth.

Although Los Banos currently can meet their system demands hydraulically, the groundwater basin may not be able to support existing demands. Los Banos pumps approximately 7,900 AFY of water from the Delta-Mendota subbasin, which is almost three and a half times their sustainable yield of 2,300 AFY as noted in the 2019 San Joaquin River Exchange GSP. However, City Planning staff prepared a water balance that is summarized in a report called the 2022 Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The water balance showed the City meets sustainable yield criteria stated in the GSP. The WSA concluded that the GSP did not account for additional sources of groundwater recharge. The Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment Page I 3-4
241

WSA still recommends pumping restrictions be developed over the next few years to reduce reliance on groundwater supplies. Therefore, Los Banos should continue to pursue options that will reduce groundwater withdrawals unless the groundwater basin is replenished through recharge.

The summary of Los Banos' water supply capacity is provided in Table 3-4 below.

Table 3-4: City of Los Banos Supply vs. Demand
Source No. Capacity (apm)
Well No. 1 900 Well No. 2 850
Well No. 3 575
Well No. 5 1,400
Well No. 6 800
Well No. 7 1,400 Well No. 9 900
Well No. 10 1,500
Well No.11 900
Well No. 12 900
Well No. 13 1,850
Well No. 14 1,800 Well No. 15 1,100
Total Capacity 14,875
Firm Capacity (Well 13 offllne) 13,025
Max Day Demand 12,884
Total Capacity Surplus/Deficit 1,991
Firm Capacity Surplus/Deficit 141

3.2.5 City of Merced Water Supply vs. Demand Assessment The City of Merced's (Merced) potable water distribution system consists of 22 active wells.

Preliminary analysis of the 2014 WMP determined the active wells for the City have a total capacity to supply 59,100 gpm when all their wells are active, and the firm capacity is 55,100 gpm. According to the 2020 UWMP, Merced pumps 20,076 ac-ft/yr, which converts to 12,452 gpm. Using the city's demand multiplier of 1.9 the City's MOD is 23,659 gpm. The City's current supply from groundwater wells meets the City's maximum day demand and firm capacity demand with significant system surplus.

Although the City's system supply can currently accommodate additional demand, additional limiting factors potentially come from the Merced County Subbasin GSP, which defines a sustainable yield of 570,000 AFY to eight (8) entities. of which Merced is included. However, allocation to each of the eight entities has not been defined yet. Although there is currently no adjudicated sustainable yield for agencies within the Merced County Subbasin, the GSP states the subbasin is being overdrafted. Therefore, each groundwater withdrawer within the Basin will likely Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment
Page I 3-5
242

m~,
be required to reduce groundwater withdrawals unless the groundwater is replenished through recharge. The summary of Merced's water supply capacity is provided in Table 3-5 below.

Table 3-6: City of Merced Supply vs. Demand
Source No. Capacity (GPM)
Well No. 1A 2,200 Well No. 1B 2,200
Well No. 1C 2,200 Well No. 2A 2,200
Well No. 2B 2,200 Well No. 2C 2,500 Well No. 3C 3,000
Well No. 5B 3,000
Well No. 7A 2,500
Well No. 7B 2,500 Well No. 7C 2,800 Well No. 8 2,000
Well No. 9 1,800
Well No. 10R2 3,000
Well No. 11 3,000
Well No. 13 3,000
Well No. 14 4,000
Well No. 15 3,500
Well No. 16 3,500
Well No. 17 2,500 Well No. 18 3,000 Well No. 19 2,500
Total Capacity 69,100
Firm Capacity (Well 14 offllne) 66,100
Max Day Demand 23,669
Total Capacity Surplus/Deficit 35,441
Firm Capacity Surplus/Deficit 31,441
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

243

3.3 Water Distribution System Capacity

3.3.1 Analysis Methodology
The scope of this assessment was limited to relying on existing information previously developed in the City's adopted master plans. Since the available master plans are either outdated or do not present the information needed to determine the water distribution system's ability to serve additional demands, MKN performed a new "desktop" hydraulic analysis for the assessment.

MKN utilized information available from the master plans and system atlas mapping to develop "skeletonizedn hydraulic models of each City's "backbone" water distribution system. The backbone system was considered to be the water mains along the major corridors used to convey water from the water sources (wells) throughout the city. City planning documents were reviewed to determine existing pipe diameters, pipe material, and corresponding Hazen-Williams roughness coefficients to use for a city hydraulic model. The model also excluded neighborhood laterals, and pipes with diameters smaller than 8" unless a smaller pipe size contributed to the skeletonized backbone.

Groundwater wells were simulated in the model as constant supply sources delivering a flowrate equivalent to the capacities stated in Section 3.2 at a discharge pressure of 60 pounds per square inch (psi). 60 psi was used as the delivery pressure for all wells because most municipal wells are designed to be able to deliver at least 60 psi into the distribution system. Therefore, the desktop hydraulic analysis used this minimum design criteria standard to maintain conservatism in the analysis.

Utilizing each City's existing land use zoning maps, potable water demands throughout the City were estimated by multiplying the water demand factors from each City's respective relevant planning documents by the land use areas. The calculated demands were then applied to adjacent junction points throughout the hydraulic model to simulate City-wide existing demand conditions.

The City-wide demands were then globally adjusted to meet each City's MOD that were determined from the City's UWMP or other sources as described in Section 3.2.

To determine the amount of additional demand that can be supplied to the residential growth areas, MKN developed demand scenarios that tested the City's ability to supply additional water to the city-identified growth areas. The additional demands tested were incrementally increased until the City's water supply was completely utilized or until the system failed to meet minimum system pressure requirements of 40 psi at any part of the system under MOD conditions, whichever event occurred first. The demand scenarios either focused all additional supply to a single growth area or considered balanced growth where additional supply was applied uniformly throughout all growth areas.

The additional demand that can be supplied to growth areas was converted into additional housing units that can be supplied water from the system by calculating the approximate daily demand of a single housing unit. The daily demand of a single housing unit was determined using a city's per capita water demand which accounts for the average potable water use per individual (capita) based on existing demand conditions. This was adjusted to meet MOD by applying a city's demand multiplier for MOD conditions. Using the MOD per capita demand and the average occupancy per household specified in a city's respective planning document, the demand per housing unit was determined. The additional housing units that can be supplied water was then determined by dividing the additional demand a city's system could accommodate by the demand per housing unit.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment
Page J 3-7
244

m~,
The calculated additional housing units that can be supplied water from the system was then compared to the total RHNA units to determine whether the RHNA targets can be achieved.

3.3.2 City of Atwater Water Distribution System Capacity Analysis Atwater's water distribution system consists of 97 miles of pipe ranging from 4-inch to 14-inch in diameter. Based on the City's Urban UWMP, the city-wide MDD was 10,086 gpm. Compared to the City's water supply capacity of 12,206 gpm, the City currently has a capacity surplus of 2,120 gpm.

The 2, 120-gpm surplus was used to test the city's distribution system by applying this demand at the projected growth area locations throughout the water distribution system.

Based on review of the City's planning documents, and meetings with the City Public Works department, Atwater has projected growth in the north, south, and east directions. As such, the growth scenarios evaluated include:
• Northern Growth Scenario - 2,120 gpm water demand applied at Shaffer Road & Channel Avenue, Fruitland Avenue & Magnolia Street, and Winton Way & Fruitland Avenue. • Southern Growth Scenario - 2,120 gpm water demand applied at Bell Road & SP Avenue, Hull Road & Bell Drive, and Applegate Road & Bell Drive. • Eastern Growth Scenario - 2,120 gpm water demand applied at Buhach Road & W Street, and Buhach Road & Greensands Avenue.
• Balanced Growth Scenario- 707 gpm water demands applied at all growth areas evenly.

The City's per capita water demand is 254 gpcd based on the UWMP. Using the City's MDD multiplier of 1.90 from the WMP and an average occupancy per household of 3.0 based on the 2020 General Plan, the MDD per housing unit is 1,448 gpd. The analysis indicates that Atwater could maximize residential growth in the northern direction, resulting in approximately 1,301 additional housing units if growth occurred solely to the north. In the balanced growth scenario, Atwater can accommodate 696 additional housing units. This yields an additional housing deficit as the total additional housing units the Atwater system can accommodate is below the RHNA total housing units target of 3,017. A graphical summary of the hydraulic analysis results for each scenario are presented in Figures 3.1 - 3.4 below.

Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment Page j 3-8
245

...,,., __ ...,_
-- ---· luhadlM•WAw ,a
---·
,. .....,_ ... ltllM&S,AW
~tM60WIMI "" "" ... Fn.ithnd,he• UD -•s. Wl"'IIOil\--.,& "" ~

1. AlttlcNih che 9'Alm CM
aklltsonalhousfre,. the
MlltelfdSGl,ill.GSll'IQtlltftMtrliN
Gnkill'ldwlllt5uMMIAlslNilnt
l.MDOpllvNpercalta1111rUW"olM2
dart11w.d"-'l01'IW1411rM11fter,t_. -
: .... (',
i '·
Frulll•nd Aw & Magnolia St
Scenarto 1: 10G gpm
-·· 0 ·-·· Winton Way & Frulll•~ I Ave ! """'Scenario 1: 100 gpm j
1 ! ! w.11#13 0 Q :
-✓ i: ; 1r.._.:; .:; .,._ci,w>, ... ~ "' ... "."•· • •
j. i - .,
,- 4 ~
~ I ..,',
,.
~\ ..
<.
... ~ ! ~
\ . W.11#11
Shaffer Rd & Channel Ave
"" Scan rto 1: 1oa·jjpm"• J
• i
-~ ,,
Legend
l \Nell
• Demand Node
• Jundion Node
- 4•
~"9,,CIC:1 > i "ru t1•4Ar•; J •
I ~ l i
- a ~ v.a•i.-otaDf
~ ·
.,•c.-., .,, ,t;,t,
. :/
~:t..,,1 - B"
I Q ~o.S1._ C,f.:l1'(1111it
~
Q ~,
:•~m•••• ~ ,_<' - _.._. ><><-•<· ' " ... ~. •·, t ,, f ........ • ... ,~,, w.11#1, • ....... 'I. ~
.... - .. ··- ,,,.... ~ ..,~.. t ; .. .;:: ,....;,.t, : -v~.. --~• \ ;..,_,,,._ a .. "" ► . t:-• .,.... > I --~ • ••• ~··· · ~ 5 ~ ;; l ...... .. ... , ' - ;""',.. .. •··· ' f 'Mt~#17 ~ ••. ., i.. ) j ~ , ........... . ; f. \. - I ,., \ ~ -0, GIii-ft .. ~ ~ ••• ••• ,i ; ~ • - ( fl. • ~ <. W.U #19~.,..,~, a., ,_.•••" .,..., -.....- _ , ,i,• ~ O,.._ ~ .f ;" ♦ l-, ~ 'i,• ~••"\ f - 10·
- 12·
- 14•
L ".~ ---:.~
N t-k.-11j \. -J•\e"rp"..,•• "'l.,C" t.. , ~ ~•-• Di a. "! o i ,_.,_ A• \l L,..,_, ••• ';:(' ,._.._ ,, .. o, ; \ • : ,"'' • •• • _ ...., o ... o, 0 ~ • -. ,,. Buhac:h Rd & W Ave
s' ..._t cc, • ., o • f i ;; "'••,. • ., / Scenarto 1: SO 11pm ·-- ... ,; .. i f "'~. ...

I
,.,. ,:- t&..nc-, ip.$1..r~ .. \ ...., ( .l ! .,. .. ,. ~ , _,... r .. • ~ .. - ---41.lt t ; i ..,,.,,~ . ...,. l WM>l•C ; ~ • • ...... loo, :
"r'tt,.,. -<,.~ "" • .... A.-.. ~ !'IU"hflgli:M~Y/..11'/ • ,'
;;-
..

J
i
~
,i
....
~
~..t . ..... ~ i
.r ; w.11#11 i i (~: ... ~.~... ! ~ 1 : 1 ,11 ...... .... t C:1m1<1<14,,. fl
~-s,:, I
l
811• 1 Pt
ilt.)t.'l
~
~
\lll'm.,t M 'i:C w
W..p.
...... .... .:-, ...
, ...
-· , ..

Scenarto 1. ~~ndsAw
. ..... gpm
City 'If Atwalar • Well l'Ncluctlon per n
/
~ B~h~ch Rda. G'"
, . Scenato-aav Wide nt
Sourte# Scenario 1 Flow
Out(mml
Well13 1,535
Well14 l.134
WelllS 1,953
Well16 1,410
Well17 2.194
Well18 1,670
Well19 1,650
Total: ll,54& .. ,
l
i
!
1 .
/ .... , , .. u, ....
f ··~ •11#15
Applegate Rd & Ball Dr •·•• .
i( ..... <,
. r ~ Sc:en rto 1: 100 gpm • .,- ·-~
'-. •4
'·• ., ...... ,<lo o. ")
,lltA.llt' ' J,00,fr' ,II
,,.,.,. \ '• Ball Rd & SP A•
.... Sc:en•rto 1: 100 gpm
I c~ I ..,., " : ,, .. f .
0 lljlonSlrNIMIH and) conotbula,o, C~Y,S,,., Souiqs. Eori HERE, G, .... , USGS. llllermlp. lHCREMENT P. NRCan.~ n. METI. I Elrl China lH•"!I Kong). Esri Korn Esrl tn,oilond). ~ . (c) 0-8-•P contrtbllll>rs, ond the GI$ U... co~ ."""-S•••<i:,Ettt. } ' Mn., ~f Qeoo,aphka, and the OJS UH, Commul"ll.ty .._. • - ''-. -~ IVC'rGl= I
Mltced County-lion
otOowm-•
Merwcl CountyWallir
nll lanlt11y S.-r
..,,,..-capecny
,.__
~:S-1:Cltyot
- Supply C.1111bl11ty for City-Wide GnNiCh Sc:enarto
A
1 inch = 2,000 feet
m~, 246

NOde
Shaffer Rd &
Channel Ave
Fruitland Ave &
o~ _SJ_
Winton Way&
Fruitland A~_
Tatll:

Addltl~
HouslnsUnlll
Th.ctanle
scen-101 5cen-1oZ 5cen-1o3 5cen-1o4
Demand O.mand Demand Demand
lam) 1111"') {Ill"') 1111"'1
436 1.300
436 1.300
436 1.300
Y!!!.
1,301 1.2!13 1.Z!l3 1.Z!l3
7 .,
• '!',
, .......
.. . ;,,..I)'
tJ#r., ,
.... ,,.
f
~.,... .... , .. ), ..

Wlnto11 Way & Frvltlllnd A.;_
Scenario 1: 438 11pm
s~n•rto 4: 1,300 11pm
~
• ! .
! . ~
• Well!IJ13
,lt ,!
Fiultl8"d Aw a. Magnolia St
3 ~narto 1: 438 gpm' Shaffltr Rd a. Ch•nnel Aw
Sc:ellarto 3: 1,300 gpm Scenarto 1: 438 gpm • 0 .... ,._ Sc:enarto 2: 1,300 gpm ~ ,., ! ~h_ •• ' i
IJ■• ':.LMDr
~ .1-. i!:;
•- ·L-
-~ "pi •
W.IIIIJ19 • ' ; o; ..,• t ! t, ZI :.
.. "
' I ' , 'Pt~D,
\..,,...,.,~.g!),-j
:
i
v I • s - ; -- " ...... rf•-' · ·
- - J.cn,1.1;!1
'-
Legend
\Nell
• Demand Node
• Junction Node
- 4"
- a·
- 10·
- 12·
- 14•
J --· I ¥ 17 I !,OU ~I MP I J,Ol.7 (,.-- a.

W.IIIIJ14 ......... "\. I '·.: ...... . .:, .... - ; -~ i "..... ~~ ,.,. I .411,_ .. _.... :. 1 ~-- ' 1..,.....- , •"'•'" ;. Ct i Jc.,.,_.. .,,_,,11."
,..,; l'
(1,716) >Ur,11111/umG< (1,7241 (1.7UJ u.n4.I
!!mai l)
• •.., ,m• .,.,{ ~ :••• _...,..••• , tWell llJ1,7 '"'••~ \ ! J ~ ,. ...... .-• ' ,;,t ~ ~ ...... .. \ ~- t.., .,. , ,.,,. [. l"I .,.,.1: 1 •• W.11 #1• -::. e, .. •_..\~ ........ 1 rt Qe,►• ~ O., ~ 7
·- ~ rf4 ~ 'I~ ~ _.<t u.11 t'f,9.,-'l\(;1-' L Al thaugh the system can aaommodate addltlonail housln1, the ~ ...... Mora,d SGIW\ GSP states the Mora,d GraundwaterSubbasln is .:W.•111•A.• ·- be!n1 Ollerdrafted

2. MOO gallons per capita per day of 3"12dertved from 2014Water ~PJa.n.
~
. atycl-r•Wel-..,Soelwlo•-m
5cenalo1 Scenlflo Z 5ceftlrto3 5cenarlo3
-· -0ut R-0ut Rawaut Raw out
Imm\ Imm\ , ..... 1 , ..... , WeH13 1535 1535 1535 1535 IWell 14 1.748 L740 l.740 l.740
Wel115 US3 L953 L953 L953
W..1116 l 411l L4lD L4lD L4lD
Well17 z.:zm 2,:zm 2,:zm 2,:zm
Well la L61D L61D L670 L670
WelJ 19 1,688 L688 1.688 1.688
Tatll: 1U04 :12.195 12.:195 1Z.UI
"flll!,ft\4.l;II•
... ~ 11;-t
.... , : ;"·
i , .. ..;- .:.,.
"' ./
''i•.•~ ·, .,., :., :.c, .. ..,_" .. • *"~ •
i
~
~
. .
i
•
\. tl>'-\b""'• •".. • "'~• _u . ~- :,..,., o, ~ -:: '"'<>. 'J. L•"'• ••• """:w ; \ • ~ ..... • ,.1
.......
......
-- .-
.f
'61- ◄ ••
At•41.9,JO"hrilt
"'-ft Dr
th1r.110r
. ............ ::c,,u,,,c
.,
,,
l ta.~10,
':I ~ , o.1,0,,:>)"
.. ; -:: ._ ·~
! : ~ , .. ~ .. ?l • "' r ~u\ ~.::rw-! ! ! r
t ,; .: llflO-•OQd ~ 11
.J\,,o; .. ~ f:lillY'ol6UI ! SJ l2 ~°"'1't'n111.•Cc
.
. "<111 ◄.,,. ~ •~",. i -n.la.,"9-'lll•W1t
"◄... •·i---.. ·---... -----------1-
•
9 ~iro1,,.,, .
...,l
t"''
f •,. Well#J5
l .e~ -t-
.:: .,.,..,/ +. ~ . .. ,.J
....... .,_, ... ...,
C'11, -~ ....... :- i
ri w.11#11
i ! /c,:.~,1-... ! ii j: t,,, ... .,. ••
t c.:1111,;,,..-a..,... ~
,...1-,n('.r i
~
:SIIH
/ "'-.. · -:,; ~ ... (',
.
-~·'1
~
i
i
d
.t,."'-- 1 •,. _ - . .,<Iii -.r
C,
S~•tt.lo.).
w~,
~-. ~'-··
... ~ I .... ,•1-c. ~ ~ ' .v l • # ' t
•·- -,..,
~~••-,.u~,
e-h••PI
:v •- ~'-• r-;...,.,_, _
~GI.I (;I
Ct,r_..,,,l'd,J,..1 ■
...,;,r:,
I '~ • ! .,. ,. - ~ • . C OpenStrNIMap (ond) canlribumra, CC-IIY-&A, s..,,..., Eari, Hl:FIE. Garrrin, IJSGS. 1-p. INCREME"'1 P, NRCOn, Earl J°"""• Eari Clino (Hong Kong). earl Koii.1. Eari (Tlllillnd) NGCC,tc;) Open&lrMIMop <an1nbutDra, ond U1e GIS UHr Cofflffl<lnlly, Sou.,.: Eon, Maer1 Eal'lhltlr Oeog,.phlca._and u. om l!ier ~fifty ... ~ _ • -1 I ••l
IVC'rGIE
llo,ced Cot4nly Auoclltloll
0/fGo-•
llerced County Watar
and Sllnllary S.W.r
-Cepeclly
"--
FlglnW:Cllyot
A-• Supply C..pablllly for
N..-G-Sce,w,to
A
1 inch = 2,000 feet
mk~, 247

SC.-1 SC.nato Z SClonato 3 SClonato 4
- Demond a...- Demand Demand
!Pnl (Jpml !Pn) !Pnl '°"'·•
Bell Rd&SPAve I I I I I ,,, ...... 111) S2S
I> ~ HltlRd&l!ellOr 180 • 560 - • ;
! ~ ApplepteRd& 180 _ _ 5SO v •• ~ .........
~Or I
TOCII; 540 535 SID SSO .-.• .., .. ! - . .,. : ,
Moustnc Untb 537 l P.1h,u A.,
n..rc... 522 557 517 ! •.a::.111; :t
. .._., __
f
.
~,.,.-:.'
...
?
~
! ;), (""' ; ~ .. ~ ~ 3 • C:1111"11 .. ll.f4",
j
!
l,~ - ..... ~ ·- " A \ : 1 t···-0
•
~.
<,
. ;
: . ,. =
' , ~ • !.a
I
~ Well#13 • ., •• ,,...,
~ --~ 1l , ; t ; I ; v,, !; .._ .. ,.. j'j
I z...."•r..o,
~ : ! • ~
, _
,_, -·
•pJfll'('.
·~ -
~
W.11#18 ' . , I \.~ •z••tlO,,
J..¢l<.:! ~ Cl
~
.
i
G
•i ••·M•· <f I
...

Legend
i. WeU
• Demand Node
• Junction Node
- ·· - e·
- 10·
- 12·
- erv41'1'"•"' l!o fn , ,~• #14 • ··- . I i \I ... ~~•:._,.,.■ ~ .. CJolU ■ Vi"<,.li:
- 14•
-· _,J,l\_,g.,
o•~ ,;.

SU!pluo,/Doftdt [2,480) [2,495) !2.4601 (2,4701 : '"" 1~ , .. <1•,_~e :J-~ .- { ~ ..:.!~ • ~ c,/J,._"• "' ~o• "'"'~1' ·; :• .,.,"°°'"' .. •~ e ~Well ,!'1.7 "" • . £ i f Jc.-• ....-,.,_,,1ur \ -J, ..... c.,U\'11 \ ·~ ~ . .. P \ ! / ~ "a '1 ~ ... •J .J C.z•"' .,:ii• tlmiai 1. Al thou st, 11,o ,vstem ... ac:a,mmoclate additional housl"I, the Mtrcad SGMA GSP smes the Merced Graundwater Subbuln Is
bein1<Nerdrafted
ci i 11 ~;:: \ o:a,-'•" ! ~ .; s;, ~ , .. ,. ~ ..,~ ~ " Well #11 Hfi 81'"°~ 1 • k\■ ! t._,., 9; 111"'M) ... ,:,;..,. a ... '4,- ,,._ ~ ~ S : .. ~ . ,r; c;_ ... 1tn,1 .. ,""~ .,.. .• oi "" JUfll,ptfA• "............ . ....... ~ ~· . ........ o. l 't .. ~ .. ~ .... JM- - NffOt Q 1~ ~

2. MOO pllonis peirc:.i~t. perdayot 342 derived fram 2014Water Master Plan
• ",__, ... 1-.

I
N«')l>U<o
"', ~'i:.."' ..... JJJ : ,~~
/··t s,.

Hun Rd & Bell Dr c• , '
Scenario 3: HO gpm .~"-,._
, .. :. .. -:a~
Q,,"'• ◄ ... ' ..
•·
Scenario 1: 180 gpm ~ ,,~• ·•,, ,
.., __ ,.,.
('<lllllll"
~
£
City tJI - • w .. Pladucl!OII per SclHallo • Soutllam )'~ 6 , ,._,_M
Sanariol Sanarlo2 SanarioJ ScenarloJ
I ~-~~h ~ .i JrtiQJ, '
~ .! SoulllOI FlawOu! Fl-Out Fl-Out Fl-Out
(JPm) IJPml IIP"'I IJPml
Wellll l.535 l.535 l.535 l.535
Well14 1.134 l.122 1.147 1.140
WelllS l.953 l.953 l.953 l.953
Well16 l.410 l.410 l.410 l.410
Well17 2.189 2.186 2.195 2.192
Welll8 1.670 l.670 l.670 l.670
WeU19 l.545 l.545 l.546 l.546
Taul: ll_a& tl_4H tLUI ll.A.K
~
!
I
~-':! Cl,,'..;.....,
.;-
,I
,.,. ..... _
. .
~
l
~ ! O•~~ ~ o u,,,, • .....,_ ,,. Cll'IO, D ., .. ~:,-- ,a,~ 'J.« :,)•.«-"""'"• i
... """ ! t u "',. • ., "-• . _, • • ~ " .. . ,., .... • ..... < -..,,.c, I f .._.,_,. f ~ if ... , ,, ••• '• ,,.,._ 1 ; <. ~ ,,.-, ... L" '!r P~QP, ""ll•Cr ~- _, ,: 1Ca.$11C-11
i
~
··----
·
-
J
~
"
I H\lnfll"ff"• WJr
(''11\Hr.a. .. ,.:. ;
- . ~ ~- ~".§ w.11- ! ! ~ -r - • ~I
J ! f.11,.v~-·"""'""'~ ~
1\11 e Chntoo, A,.. ii
)Cl !
. :r "'""'~ ,
su,,.,,,.,-.ti,.:,,
.:;..,
..:r..:..~
AppMgate Rd & Bell oi'Nell #15
Scenario 1: 180 jpm••-, /
Scenario 4: 550 II~ ..., ,/
.. , .J1,,_.. , !'
Scenario 1: 180 gpm ••". _
Scenario 2: 125 gpm ·•
§
., ·~ ":-♦
...... ~"'!;
""'c, ,..• c.,, ,·
.
;
·-·-....
!..l?""l'Ml'IO,
l!'r"kll•- p;
l .;.orll•.6:>r
ll1J1 .JI=-
, .. ~ .. l>r
W,h91'1i,. :

Sc.i...C1
:: ..... 9 ........
"4.,~,
/ ..,_ J
0 OPonStti Map (Incl) oonblbutoro: C<:-aY~'.Sou,_, e.~: ><eRE. G1..:.n USGS. lntermap. INCREMENT P NRC.n. Eatt ■p1n, Elri Clina (Hong Kono). Ellri Korn. Eori (Thllllnd)_ NGCC. { cJ Open&-IMlp conb111"11>ro. ancl U,O GIS U..r COmrnunil)' Sowc.: Eori, -ar E■-G-r.phlm .. ancl 11w GIS Uler Cafflrnunliy ~ -
I ,>'i
....... a.~•mmcam •v••t'l-..J~•
..... ad County Auoc:latlon
o10o .........

MatcedCoul'ltyWand lanbry ._,
lnl'ralructllla
~
Cllpaclty
Figure W : City at ,._ Supply C.pab!lltyfor
Soulhlm Growth S-rlo
A
1 inch = 2,000 feet
mM,
248

City af Alwallr• bsllm Deftlop!Mnl
I Scienano l Scienariol Scenario 3
Node Demand Demand De"'-'d " "'"~ (gpm) 1gpm) IIP'"I
BuhachRd&W 200 3BS . u,ol'I ....

Buhach Rd & 450 J
Greensands Ave
200 . ~ 0
Total: 400 385 450 .. ;.c.111.••
~
Additional na A••'
ltousln1 Units ' ,:.
398 383 448 lhatCmle ........ ..... 11t,;,.. c 1
.. _ . ...,.
f
~
!
1 -,
t
. -
~
...--i,,or .
~
~ ' .
_,:; ' .... ", ::;.

I •
ah_ -· ,,; r.--..
\ ~ I ~•u •- ~
'\,
U••OM.Dr
~ ~ ~
• ; ~ i
I I • \,!; ...., __ r,
• W•ll#1S t
1f
I
\ ~ " ~ l
W.ll#1t
,..,,..;t.;=,ta DI':
"'""
A~•M • ...
"·
Legend
l 'Nell
• Demand Node
• Junction Node
- 4•
- a·
- 10·
- 12· ; ~ .,;:;....;. .,...,. c,
5d ,_ I' e ......... , ' •• ::::., . ' ;
C. ..... .. .. -A ..
- _ ...... .:. i ..,.(Yr" •1•
.... t b i !c" . ..-•-,. • I I • -- --~ ~•· ' ! ' . , .. _.., ··- • • -... . ' ~- .,. .. I _____ -. .. -I --- • ,.,,. •• • : '• .• ••l , • , ~---• .... .

I co 1 ' ; \ •, • •
'""'! .• , " ,,,-
' • ' .... ' ' , '. . . .. . .... , - •••• " ' , . . '• . . ' ,.- Housl ..

Surplus/Deficit IZ:.il9) (2,634) (2,569)
~
L Althou1h the system Ciln accommodate additional
housing, the Merced SG..V. GSP states the Merced
Groundwater Subbasln Is being overdrafted
\. 5,.,.c,nn.~ -j I
0 •
- 14•
:.....;
t,C.Ht•t
~ ·<,,

2. MOO gallons per CilPita per day of 342 derived from
:21114 Water Masjer Pla_n
.
z .. ,
City af Atwater- Well PnNIIICtion per SCenario • Eatem
Develomnant
Scenanol Sc:enartol Scenarto3
Soun:e# Flow Out Flow Out FlowOut
Imm) l,raml lmml
Well13 1,535 1,535 1,S3S
Well14 1,054 1,045 1,078
WelllS 1,953 1,953 1,953
Well16 1,410 1,410 1,410
Well17 2.200 2.135 2.160
WelllB 1,670 1,670 1.670
Well19 1,688 1,534 1,539
Total: 11,297 u.m 11.345
__...p«A
H•?flt~.&1•
..,- ... ·"4: •
I ~,,., ~=-... i l q,A• .( ~f
..
... , 1 t.._._.. l
i
;i
!
i
.
.
\ q L,._,_,• ·-··· •• • .,._ ·-·) ,. . > , '., • t ... I . '• ,. .. -,- •; ~ ~ .-,.... ~
~...-.. --... , ..
.,.. ...... ~
•""" --• .: o,1:u1 '11
, .,.
"ro.i,,.... .. _,,
' .,,. .. H h ~ ... -:.. ' ! : ',, r g, r " " - • OOOt.n j ~ ; . ..... ~, .. c, 1'
;_ Nt.oa.r,.Qd."IWJi '• --....,. ... . Bululch Rd & W Aw Scenario 1: zoo gpm
Sc•narto 2: SU gpm
>11 h ,
... ';
·"•,. .. ... .-k<,•tq,c, -,
l
,:
_ _ ,.._...,
/
• C ""l.;.tt\·A..,,..., ' ~ V 1.;
_; l W911 '! ._ -- ._.T 1 1 ii -tc.,.,_.,A,,&.~ -a,
A ,: t,,, ......
e C.1i,i....., A,.., vi
1\10,c;-, f
~
,/ ....... '"":- l .,,
"-•·~ -~
,.. s
i't
•:.> <l
"""•l¼."'c , ..... <•
'.lrl'IMll' ... D.:>.-
.:.. .. , .....
6't:~•-
J • C •
•
. t
-.. ......
$~00ritl,
n,-llna•P
- ~C•
, .........
''"
• -1i .. t'9J. M
,..,,,,,A.,• 1.!
Buhac:h Rd & GIMManda Ave
Scenario 1: 200 gpm -i
Scenario 3: 4IO 11pm l ' -"'" ,l
; ~...,_ l _/ t • 'K"~
0 OpenSIINIM■p (and) oonlrlbulD1 , Cc.3Y~. Sou,-. Es~. HERE. Gomm, USGS. lntmmap. INCREMENT P. NRC.n, Elf1 Jopon, "'E1 Esri Chin■ (Hong Kang), e.,t Ka- Earl (Tbailond), NGCC,(c) DpenS-IM■p canlrlbulD .. , and tllo GIS U..t ea ...... nily. So"""': &ti, -■ E-Geograpt,lca :ind tllo DIS l/0" eon-NII' j, ,

IVCIAGIE I
llon:ad County Auocl&-
of Go~nta
... ,_ County-
•nd Sanlla,y ..... r .,.__C.paclty
-
FlguN 3-4: City of
Ai-tar Supply C.1111llillty fvr
Eutam ~ s..n.1111
1 inch
~ = 2,000 feet
mM,
249

3.3.3 City of Gustine Water Distribution System Capacity Analysis The City of Gustine water distribution system consists of pipe ranging from 4-inch to 14-inch in diameter. Based on the City Engineer's calculations the city-wide maximum day demand was 1,471 gpm. Compared to the City's water supply capacity of 3,200 gpm, the City currently has a capacity surplus of 1,729 gpm. The 1,729 gpm surplus was used to test the city's distribution system by applying this demand at the projected growth area locations throughout the water distribution system.

Based on review of the City's planning documents, and meetings with the City Engineer and City Planning staff, Gustine has projected growth in the southeast direction, with approximately 180 acres designated for residential growth based on the 2018 Southeast Master Plan, with approximately 535 homes discussed in the document. Through conversations with Gustine City Planning staff, it was confirmed that the city has no other projected growth area considerations other then the southeast scenario. As such, the analysis of the City of Gustine's sewer collection system only considers the following growth scenario to the south:
• Southern Growth Scenario - 1,729 gpm water demand applied at near Sussex Dr & Sullivan Rd, Linden Ave & Sullivan Rd, West Ave & Sullivan Rd, and S Hunt Rd & Sullivan Rd The City's per capita water demand is 165 gpcd based on Livingston's UWMP. Using the City's MDD multiplier of 2.0 found in Gustine's 2002 WMP and an average occupancy per household of approximately 3.0 capita per household based on the 2022 Census, the MDD per housing unit is 990 gpd.

Analysis of the Southern growth scenario indicates that Gustine's water distribution system has the capacity to accommodate approximately 2,516 additional homes. The results of the analysis show that the distribution system can accommodate additional housing units that exceeds the RHNA total housing units target of 346. A graphical summary of the hydraulic analysis results for the southern scenario is presented in Figure 3.5 below.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment
Page I 3-13
250

ai,,,, ___ __
- -1 -z -J
-(lpml -(lpml 0.-[lllml
--ar•-1111 E 0 432.5
--&Wl'-1111 E E 432.5
.... -•w'-1111 0 0 432.5
S-llll&Wl-1111 0 E 432.5
Toal: U30 1730 1.190
--•uni..n.t
C...lo- :i.su :i.su :i.su
--•Unlll Ml J4I
- .. """"8/l)olldt l.1'0 '-110 UM - L -tllt-co•----tlltNo<Nm - ..

Conml-GSl'-lheGUS11 .. o-~beyondlho
-OOO~fn>ffllho_G_S..bolsln

2. MDOpllonsper-perclayol9'0dfflledl'roffl200ZW_Mamr_
\, ~ -it
~ ~ .... _,,/>.,.. ;'<j,.. '
QlyafGlll1lne•WellPnNludlonP1rS..,..•s.ulllafll .,...,__ Sou ScllnalD 1 Fl- .... ScllnarlDZFI- Scllnarla 3 FIDW! Legend
• Demand Nodes
Well
• Junction Nodes
- e-
- 11"
- 10"
- 12·
Outla,ml 0ut(oml Outla,ml
WellN 7IX) 700 711D ll
'a;' -t. w.11~- _,"° • f' \.,t" t ..... ~ .-rr""'~i--- "f;'I Mo ~~ ... 1 • ? -~ \ • r ,.., .... A,,
WelllS • .,. , .. ,.~. ,k • C " J •~.r , '· W.1#1 uoo uoo uoo W.11#7 "" , , 1 h~' f • ; ~- ~~ I ~~ .,,. \ J IIAM1~1- Wellllli 796 796 796 j s.. .. t."' .J-1'' " ... .L.'I! tt \ ' --- .JI~ .. M ... " j . ... .. L 1lir. • ie- .. • .. - .... iM- ,ii.I L,; -- _:. ' •• Well rt 600 600 600
Total: 3,19& 3,19& 3,195
----•."•=• t t=tt: ,_ --~ ~•- ~.r...J>~
N .. r Suuax Dr I, SuUlvlln Rdj
Scenario 1: HS gpm\
ScenerlD 3:,C32.II gpm_
S Hunt Rd lo S..Hlvln Rd
Scen rlo 3: _.U2.II gj,in
Unden Ave a SulUvan Rd
Scenario 1: ISO gpm
Scenario 2: 1111 gpm
Sc. rlo 3: au 11pm
w .. t Ave r. Sulllvan Rd
Scenario 2: HII gpm
Scenetlo 3: 432.5 gpm
0 OpwiStntelM p {and) conlribubn. CC-8Y-SA. SaurA. E,ri. Maxar, GeaE,-e. r'lhatac Ge0Qf9phica. CNES/Airtau:a DS, USOA. LJSGS.

MrOGRibl IGN. and the GIS UMr Comnunity, Sourcn: Esn. MERE, Gamin, USGS, lnWffllp. lNCRENIENTf', NRC n. esn Japan, Men. Chino (ljang Kong). Earl K .... , Esri (T1ailondJ, NGCC, (e) OpenStrNIM P --and 111■ GIS U.., Community ~ l=
Mel'CeCICDunty.ANacldon
otcao-nlhrwdC..UnlyWmr
~
and Sanllary S-r
C.,.Clty
"-ment
f'llun M: City of Oastl.,.

Supplr Capablltv
fDr Sa-... - Scenel1o
A
1 inch= 1,000 feet
mlt, 251

3.3.4 City of Livingston Water Distribution System Analysis The City of Livingston's water distribution system consists of 36 miles of pipe ranging from 4-inch to 16-inch in diameter. Gouveia Engineering has mentioned that Foster Farms accounts for approximately 70% of the cities water demand and with applying our methodology of using land use water factors based on acreage, we found Foster Farms to account for approximately 60% which compares similar. Based on the City's UWMP the city•wide MOD was 8,988 gpm. Compared to the City's water supply capacity of 8,600 gpm, the City currently has a capacity deficit of 388 gpm. However, to analyze the City's system under its future capability MKN included the two planned wells in the north with capacities of 1,000 gpm each. The purpose of including these two future wells was to conduct hydraulic analysis of the water system with multiple growth scenarios by adding the planned wells to the existing system since the City Engineer already acknowledged the need for an increased water supply to handle any growth. This results in a future capacity surplus of 1,612 gpm, which is the value used to test the city's distribution system.

Based on review of the City's planning documents, and meetings with the City Engineer, Livingston has projected growth in the south, east, and west directions. As such, the growth scenarios evaluated include:
• Southern Growth Scenario - 1,000 gpm water demand applied at Dwight Way & Peach Ave and Main St & Peach Ave
• Eastern Growth Scenario - 600 gpm water demand applied at Dwight Way & Peach Ave, Dwight & Autry Ln, and Dwight Way & Olive Ave
• Western Growth Scenario - 1,200 gpm water demand applied at North end of Del Rio Ave, Lilac Ln & Robin Ave, and B St & Winton Pkwy
• Balanced Growth Scenario - 125 gpm water demands applied at all growth areas evenly.

The City's per capita water demand is 165 gpcd based on Livingston's 2022 UWMP. Using the City's MOD multiplier of 1. 7 found in Livingston's 2007 WMP and an average occupancy per household of approximately 4.0 capita per house based on the projected occupancy per household in Livingston's 1999 General Plan, the MOD per housing unit is 1, 124 gpd.

The analysis indicates that Livingston could maximize residential growth in the western projected growth areas, resulting in approximately 1,537 additional housing units. In the balanced city-wide growth scenario, Livingston can also accommodate for 1, 121 additional housing units spread throughout each growth area. Therefore, the total additional housing units Livingston can accommodate exceeds the RHNA total housing units target 1,097. A graphical summary of the hydraulic analysis results for each scenario are presented in Figures 3.6 - 3.9 below.

Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

252

,C ,---,"-r, • • ·•~ ,,.~
Cllyf/llltllftlllllO•OIW--_.._.. atyotu111..-,i -wen
- -·-l'nldu&llanparS.nafo•Cl\y- ,__. Wld• Dewlopment u11c111•-.... U5 ·••W11111a11- us I Scenarlol ~~1rl -ao•••- 125 SoUl'CII fl .!!!.
125
,,. WeU#13 T 1.000
125 We'll#U l.200 Tolol; IIJS WeU#15
AIWftlenal ..._.,.un• Well#8
111MC.. .. 1,121 Well #ll
- We11#l6 IIIINA Houllna Unho 1.0!l7 We11#l7 1.463 I Well#11 ...... ,...,,.--,o.n ... II Future Well 1 1.000
Future Well #2 1.000
!lllllli Total: l. Althoulh Ch• system can ~w
lddltlonal hausint, tf'I• Mlirt11d $GMA G$P stltQ , ...... j- .;:
d'II Mltced Groundwa11r Subbasin Is btln1
a,verdr•ftd

2.MOOptlons pere1pit1perclay of Z81d1rlwd
.....
from Jm0 Urtlan Wlter Mlnapmcnt PIM
North of Del Rio Ave
·~ Scenario 1: 125 gpm ,. ,;",,._ - , ....

Lilac Ln & Robin Ave
Scenario 1: 1211 gpm
,. ..,,, .. .,.
u..,.. ,u "'" c ~IU..il.#l..: 1
1 t~
'j i w.11#11
..
~
'1•-Uc!lwWeD#12
Dwtght Wey & Olive Ave
Scenario 1: 1211 gpm
:.
- # ~
= ~ \· 0
N.-k:~,.01
Main St & Pead! Ave
Scen rto 1: 1211 gpm
0,-
•"m~litH.,~.:IJ'
~
!
1i
Q •
.::C<K¥'>•• ·I Legend
• Demand Nodes
• Junc:tion Nodes
, Well
- &·
- s-
- 10"
- 12"
- 1s·
.,
, . "
" j
..

OOpenS!nlo'-'•P (and) -111~ . J:.C~Y..$A, SoulQ: Eori ...... , 0eoe, •. Eort!loalr Geogr.pll,c:a, Ci,jES/AiiUW o~, USOA. IJSGS, ,._roGRID, IGN. and tho GIS IJHr Co""""nitJ, Sources: Eon, HERE, Ganrio, IJSGS, lo..,.,,_p, INCREMENT P. NRCan:eo,, Japon, METI. .., China (Hang tCang>, Earl t<CHN, E.n (Thllancfl, NGCC, (c) OpenStrwlM p aonbibut.o , and 11'1■ G IS U.r Commun.,_ a....,-.. A~ -i..n
1,r...,-4.-.;ai=:r
llerced County Auai:,atton
,_c;o_
.,.,... County wUld Sanllary S.-.
lnfrUIN:tln Capacity
--nt
Flgu,_ U; City ol
u..inoaton supply C.,,Ullltr for City,Wldo G,_ Scen,1110 A
1 inch = 1,750 feet
mil, 253

~ft1.ll~I e..,-.. c;::c--• ..... ,\
CttyofW..-•-~
Noclo 1 --=Do-
.!!!.
a
.!!!.
... IAddlllDMIIID<lsl,.Unla
TllatCanle ,.

RHNAHallll -· .. Unlll 1.097
Hauslna S..rpu,Jl>etldt j !Ulj
ChyafU.......,•- -.... - - r-...o. ........ ..

Sau ... ■
Well,U
Well#ll
;;ii'.is
W.111!8
Well111
We' l116
....!!!!!!!..
~,ewe11 1
~111urew,11 12
5alnarlo 1
000
l!lllm r --- roaT: 1. A1thou1h th• system can accommodate add~,:ionaJ housina. 'd'ltMercedSGM4GSPsmes
tl'lt Mt reed Gt0undwattrSul:lbasln i.s beln1
~rdraftitd

2.MDD p .lon1 peraplt1 per day of l:81 deriin-d
from 2020 Utban Wat•rMlnqement Pl.an
~.I.Iii
....
.,.,.~ ,.,,
~r.'°'.:i, A ~~
..t1!n~Avc·
.
>
..
,.,,;,a,
c5 :R.at~t,i:,,
~ ! s ··t: " • •· J
..
i
.f
W.P#11
-~
#
{
.,li,)"Gol-.,J.• 41
! w.111t11
l
~ .... '"~Dr
WaB#12
Dwight WIiy & Olivll Aft
Scenario 1: 200 gpm
;;;
i
,
~
Legend
• Demand Nodes
• Jw,c:tion Nodes
Well
!lltv~' Lft
ISfJ ,fl'
Dwight WIiy & Autry Ln
Sc:anarto 1: 200 gpm , -
~
- .-- - ~ ~,.M~ - ight WIiy & Peach Aft
Scenario 1: 200 gpm
OOpenSlnolMap(ond) -ilit..ilotl. CC-IIY-SA, so ..... Etri, _ _, GeoEyt E111h111r GoOfll'plloca, CNES/Aiitius DS. USDA, USGS, Aol<IGRIO, IGN. 1od lllo GIS iJii; Conolly, SolllOH: Elli t<ER£, G1,...n, USGS, lntonrllp, INCREMENT P. NRCan, Eari Japon, MEll, Cftin1 (Hoog Kong), Es~ KOIU, E .. (Tl,aillnd), NGCC, {e) 0-SlrooMop ........... _ ,,,_ G,S .,.., c.,.,,..,,11y IVCN3!5
Mlrcad .,_ Colmt)' Aaactdan
.....,.Countywanc1 Sulary Sa-,
-cap.city
--
FlguN 3-7: City DI L.Mngot,MI
S..pply C.pallillty for Eutam
--r1a
A
1 inch = 1, 750 feet
mil,
254

r.~.~
CttyofU......,.•W-OOW'-
.... I S..nario10......t
Cltyofu.t,,plOll•WeU -· w- .. •-· Dlwl...,.,..

Ulacln Alloll!n- «II) Sal!Wtol 8St&Wlnton- «II) sourca I Nort:11 DII lllo AVltRUI «II) Total: I.ZIii
Addhlanal _,.,.units
fhatC.,le i.m
- Well ltll
Well '1.2 I t: ~
~
11H111A.-naun111 l,097 W•ll lll
-1•1 Surpllll/Dofldl "'0 ~
FutureW
~
d I
t. Ailthou11'1 tl'I• system an iccammodat1 F~
TD!!!:,
~
l HdlttonalhouslnLCheMttmdSGMAGSP~s
lilllli ~ •.:-·• --
lllit Ml!Ud Gtvundwat~, S1.1bbn.ln ts IM'n1
awrdrafted 1

2.MOO pll0f'l5percaplta p1rrday0,281 derived I ,~m 2020 U!'Hn Wltltt Main.-m•nt Pl~n ....
0 ii
North Del Rio Awnue
Scenario 1: 400 11pm
-~~.;. ,i.-~- -- .,...,._ • .,.

LIiac Ln • Rabin Ave
Scenario 1 r olCIO gpm
~.~ /1..·t ■
R.:ar (I- ,1. ,.
t
W.11#11
'~
~I ilA'r4
; ! -. ~
·i113;t:'.Oi
Ait.0'2'i1mYu,
c,,
g
i
'•
~
:
i ··.------.--"1,~
... •
Legend
• Demand Nodes
• J•mc:tion NCldes
Well
,_6"
- 8"
- 10·
- 12"
0 OpenS-IM•P (""") c:onO\~. C.C,'Y-SA, So.,.. Eari. Mu•r. GooEye. El<lllsto< Googropl,il:a, CNES/j\irbua DS, USDA. USGS.

A.troGRID. IGN. and IN GIS UMr Comrnunrty. Souron: Esn. HERE, Gamin, uses. lfttannlp, INCREMENT P. NAct,t &n Japan, METI. ~ Chin• (Hong Kong). &ti KOtM, EWI (Tletlnd). HQCC. (C) OpenSb'NfJlap canb'ibutcn, and D'le CIS U.r Commun~ 1\/CfGIE
lllln:ecleo..ntyAMoc- ofGo....-
lllln:eclCounlyWlllldS...,ySlnl'nlatnlctun c.p,.clly
ANlllffllnl
Fig..,. 3-11: City of Uvtnpt,,n
SUpply C.pulDly for_,,,
G...-Scerw1o
A
1 inch = 1,750 feet
mM, 255

~ . , ,, Cllyof\MIIIIOII•--..........
,._ Scanarta 1 Oamand
(om)
-•Sl&hod,o- ... ·-·~""'- SOD
Tatal: 1.1111
Aocffll'c111"' HINlin&: Unlb
TIMnCanlO 1.m
RHNA -Hooll .. 1/rwts 1,097
_,,.,..rplu,/lloftdt llM
a,yo1u.i..-. w ..

IINdudlon persa... •
Soulhe111~nt
Souro•
_',lloll._nl_
wo1i1112
Well #1S
W~IIIII
Well#U
Well 1116
Well #17
FutureWell 1
Scenalol
t. Althoul,h the ~.,sum
llllllli ait1 t(:((lmmod~W I FutureWellll2 Total• I ~ 1. I addition.al housint, tht ~l'Qd $GMA. G$P Ji.tu • • thi Ml:rmd Groundwattl'Subbasln!Jibaln1
ovetdnfted

2.MOO ,~tons per caplt1 per dly of 2.11 dtrtwd
from 2020 Ur1,an Water Mal\lpment Pl-1t1
fa! i
v•w.sod-•"•
~,...,,. -I Legend
• Demand Nodes
• Jul'ldion Nodes
Well
i
A,.t;:CJ1,1l-W,1,
a.·,, - •-• .. tJlr.~Av, I .... •, ~-... ,• ·1 • .__..;, lJ .,_., ~ , - • -.::- ·• J ~ • • --:i~ l _ ~. a ap: _. .... L o .PtMl', il,f
~ :.:l~Aff ~
Q
. ..
;:
'.CWR'l.111!'"'-
b•d" .lac
~
~
"' A
~
i ' q
Dwight way .. PNch Ave
&:.nario 1: 500 gpm .,
• -1'-~1
. 1
:_=f~.:,:~:!i""::;lri~i;,=;,'°s.5=~~H~~o~t•u:~~~~-';'=e,;:~;,=~:.·~'::.~t~.- • , CNno (l'long l(o"lf). Eon K ..... e.,; (Tboillnd). NGCC. (C) O~-•P c,,nlri-. on! lho GIS U.. CDfflffllll'lil'j IVCtfGIE
Men:ecl CcMmly "-••latlon
DfGoMllcedeountyWaw
aMSallllatyS.-
.,___Capadly
-
Flguro :M: City of Uvlnpton
Supply c.p.1,1111y ,,,,_ --·
A
1 inch = 1. 750 feet
mil, 256

3.3.5 City of Los Banos Water Distribution System Analysis Los Banos' water distribution system consists of approximately 140 miles of pipeline ranging from 4- to 30-inch in diameter Based on the city's UWMP, the city-wide MDD was 12,884 gpm, which results in a capacity surplus of 1,991 gpm, of which was used to test the city's distribution system for the ability to take on additional demand. Based on a review of the City's planning documents, and meetings with the Los Banos Public Works Department, Los Banos has projected growth in the north, south, and west directions. As such, the growth scenarios evaluated include:
• Northern Growth Scenario - 1,991 gpm water demand applied at Cabernet Street & Vineyard Drive, and Mercey Springs Road & Vineyard Drive. • Southern Growth Scenario - 1,991 gpm water demand applied at Ortigallita Road & Sandra Street, Sandra Street & Fir Drive, Pioneer Road & Black Hills Avenue, and Pioneer Road & South 11Ch Street.
• Northwestern Growth Scenario - 1,991 gpm water demand applied at Overland Drive & Johnson Road, Overland Drive & 2nd Street, and Cabernet Street & Vineyard Drive. • Balanced Growth Scenario - 663 gpm water demands applied at all growth areas evenly.

The City's per capita water demand is 165 gpcd based on the City Public Works department. Using the City's MDD multiplier of 2.5 from the WMP and an average occupancy per household of 4.0 based on the 2015 California Census, the maximum day demand per housing unit is 1,650 gpd.

The analysis indicates, Los Banos could maximize residential growth in the northern and city-wide directions, resulting in approximately 1,165 additional housing units if growth occurred in those directions. This yields an additional housing deficit as the total additional housing units the Los Banos system can accommodate is less than the RHNA total housing units of 3, 132. A graphical summary of the hydraulic analysis results for each scenario are presented in Figures 3.10 - 3.13 below.

Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment Page I 3-20
257

~ ........ -.... - - lmnatDlDa.....a
Qnfplll'lllltd ._ ·-·
175 ........ SalldniStl11.-Dr 175
'10RNl'IW&llack "' ; HllltAVII
"°8NflW.I 175 Sovtflllthk
OWifWWIOrl _ .. 175
OmtaMDr&2NI 175 $t
caNmatSt& 175 VI "' ~s,,t,..1111 175 •vi---0r ,...,
Unllln.tCMII .....
--
- -l,lJrl - L t 1ot
~
LAl~-IYste'fflCM
addltloNI -lloullft& lM
~......,.GP,__stt'leCltrflllal
IMolllsW1nltatlift1Nyefldtht
t1~,z.---fthtw.sQ1!\llll•ylC,ld
LMDDplklM,.rca,1t1-,-ra,otm
cleflwNffllffl»JOWMe,~,U~
Cllofalla-- W .. -111.,
--ti..Wlda-ia-111
sou .... -1R-o.rt
{om)
w.nu 900
WelJl2 !ISO
Well U 575
Well•S uoo
Wol716 800
Well l7 J..400
MlePO 900
Well I ID J..SCD
Mlell Ill 900
Woll Ill 900
M/11111.J J..409
MleU14 1.800
MlollUS UllO
TDIII:
-
W.11#11
~.
- - ,
'r,~.o 11 ' ,..,,
~
~
r;:
ll
... .,,
~
"'
Cabernet St & Vlneysrd Dr
. Scenario 1: 175 gpm \
'~~rt:An---
! .II...~• ,1' Men::ey Sprtnga Rd & Vinyard Dr ""I _______ I ~ Scenar10·1: 175gpm Legend e Demand Nodes
Wea
o Owrtand Dr & 2nd St
' "r" - ~ -~·~,•f-,' i
a . l . . • Junction Nodes
·- 8" 1; S.:.narlo· 1: 175 gpm 'l ..; ,.. _ ,11'
~ Owrtand Dr & John90n Rd - ,r
S.:.n rlD 1:.1711 gpm
i - 1&·
"
~ ~ ~-=-- -
w.1I#15
~ ~ -
Welll12
\
Ortigalllta Rd & Sandra St
\ Scanarto 1: 175 gpm
"'·
J◄7'7: Sandra St & Fir Or
S.:.narlo 1: 171 gpm
u
..
ii.:

PlonHr Rd & South 11th St
Sc•narto 1: 171 gpm
·, _ - - ~ Plon9!r Rd & BIKk HltlaAw .,. Scenario 1: 171 gpm • r .J I
OOponS ... IMop (o);d) conlributol), CC-8Y-S~ Sou-: E(!!, HERE, Gormin, USGS. lolarmlp, INCREMENT P. NRCon, Elli J-•• MET!, E&ri Cl'llno (HO"tl I<~ . E&ri Kore·•• E&ri (Thallll"'). >IGCC, IJ Open61!811M1p conlltbutoro, ond tho GIS lJUr ~unity, Sourca: Eari, a.4••• rthdar Oeographlca. __. the GIS U..r Community f"· IVC'r.al= I
·~ad County Auoclallon ofOo-nla
llerced County w- and llanllaly S.W.r
--C&paclty
"--nwd
FlgUN:S-10:Cllyof
l.o9 BllnM Supply C.pulllt)' fDr City-Wide G-5eo.,.r1o
A
1 inch" 2,500 feet
mM,
258

~I t Cl1yol ... ----..m-.......

S..narto l S..narlo Z S..narto3
Nllde 011...- 0a..- 011...-
lnml 1.,,..,1 1 ..... 1
cabemetSt& 675 1.400 Vlnv..:!Dr
Mertey Springs 675 1,200 Rd & Vlnvanl Dr
Total: l.flll ,_..., l_]flll
Additlollal
Housllll Units 1,179 1,llZ 1,047 n..c..a.

Aa:omoclaeed
RHNA Housl111 J,UZ J,UZ J,UZ Unlll
s.....i-Jn.fldt IUS41 11,910) (2,08S)
!!m1i L Althou1h the system can aacmmodate additional
howin11, the Delta Mendota GSP states the City of Los
llanos Is o•erdrafttna beyond the allocated 2.300 acft/yr sustalnab~e yleld

2. MOD gallons per capita per day of 525 derived fnom
2010 Water-r Pia,,
;;_
n
--Ii:
.. "
"Cl "'
..
c;
l:n_
..
>
~
z
:::,
..J
x7; .- l i•
;~ -". ; ;\,..._~
W.11#15
Wall#11
e11yo1 ... - -w.u.........,,-sa.na1o NMlheffl nt
S..natol 5clnar1o2 5clnll1o3
Sou .... Fl-Out Fl-Out Fl-Out
,_1 ,_, . ...... , Well#l 900 900 900
Well#2 8SO 850 850
Well13 575 575 575
Wellt5 1.400 1.400 1,400
Well#& 800 800 BOO
Well#7 L400 L400 1,400
Well#9 900 900 900
WellllD L500 LSOO LSOO
Welltt11 808 au 744
WelltU 900 900 900
We[lt13 1,450 1,478 L365
Wellt14 L800 LBOO L800
WeJlt15 1.100 1.100 1.100
Total: ...__ 'ULt.U ltn.t ",
"~v
Cabamat St & Vlnayant Dr
Scanarto 1: e1s 11pm
Sc:enarto2:1,400gpn,
~ ,!>
lercay SpifnjiRd & Vinyard Dr .--------.
- .Scenario 1: '711 IIP"'
Scenarto 3: 1.2(10 11pm
.

W.11#10
ci:

Legend
• Demand Nodes
'Nell
• Junction Nodes
- 8"
- 10-
- 12"
- 1s·
= •c • ~
: ~ l ... .
.,, i
C Opo,,Sne1M1p (~ conl!lbu1x>~ . CC-8Y~ SooN:NI • , HERE, Gamm, I/SGS. lnlormop, INCREMEr.T P,_NRCan, El/I Japan. METI, E,ri Cl'ina (Hong K~ Eon Koroo. Eall CTh•I!~-NGCC. ~ OponS!rlolMap con1rtbu1x>ra. and u,o GIS U..r c:.e.mlhllnily, Source; Eari.

Max•, E1rtt.mr Geog~ phlc:a. ~~ me Ol6 IJMf' Communttyff ra~ IVC'rGl= I
MeRecl Co41nty "-latlon
afGo ....... ni.
1111....S Co41nty w- and Sallllmy-r ,,,,,._~ ~
Ag,.. 3-tt: Clly of
Los a.- Supply C.palllllty
for Nofthem Growl!! Scenatlo
1 inch
~ • 2,500 feet
mil,
259

1~1 t ca,ofLN..,_•-• ..... D1 IIU llt
-ol -z -OJ sc.-•
- .,. ...... - - .,._,,. «-I C-1 «-I c-, a..nondD<& 400 I.US Jollnson Rd Overland I><& olSII l.250 2nd St
C.bemetSt& 475 l.400 Vl__,,0< . r.,.., .__ LUS ._..., ,__ - ·-· Houo111CU"'1S Ll55 9IZ 1,091 l,2Z2 -Qlllt
A1:1r011 ..... d
--.. J,11:t J,Pi J,11:t J,11:t U11111
11,t7$1 IU50J 12,04, 1 ll ,lll>I
l!lzllli L Althouafl the ..,...m '"" -modote addltionol houslnc. Ille DelUl .... ndotaGSPst111t1llleCltyolLosBa,, .. lsOYerdroltint beyond the 1IIOQ11td 2.D! .,,_ft/yr sunainable yield

2. MDOpllons per capita perdayof 53Sdon•td from :zmowa1e, Master Plan
W•H#11
Cllyflfi.o-- w .. _,.. _ _ _
sc..-•
1 Smnarlo z
1 _, I SC.""'104
-• I Flowo.,c flow0oll flowOut FlowDvt
c-1 ., c-1 i-1
Ii:
·~ . ~ _ ~ C.ti.met St a Vln•yard Dr
c.;; ''. Sc.nar1o1:175gpm \ ti - - Scnar1o Z: 1,400 gpm f ... ~....,, . -'~ ·--·- ------ ~ ! --· ~ .....

Owr1and Dr& 2nd St e tl • HJ,' ,,., i -..
◄ S.:.narto 1: ,,so gpm
·: S.:.nar1o :S: 1,250 gpm ..
,; \ i
Owr1and Dr ,. .h>hrwon Rd
:,.
legend
e Demand Nodes
Well
e Junction Nodes
- 11'
- 1<1'
- ,zScanarlo 1: 400 gpm \
'-L Sc:anar1o 2: 1~125 gpm
.;:<,, ...
- 15•
,-
-;~ ... ~ -J . - --~ - .~,. t -, . ..: .. -- . -, . i ' I , ~ ., . WaJ1#15 ' .,.. \. "'I .,. •~-• I - d ·•"r • •• ,. • , ~ -~~
~
. ,~ • 1·&';
~ \ . 1:t
" a fr' - 0 OponSCreelMap (~ conllib<no'!', C~Y~ Sou,_: _ HERE, Gormin, USGS. lnl.,,.,.p, INCREMENT P,_,NRCon, Elllt Jopon, ME'Tl, .. Eo n Chi.no (Ho. ng Kci!!tl) e,n Korto, &n (Thoilol"I), NGCC, ftl OponSlholMap conlnbu1DIW, and tho GI$ U.., ce_mmullily, Source: Earl, M••- &tthctar O!OQJ!ohlcl-. and the GI& UNr Communl!wl'f ~~ a.~Ar.!!I! ...,...,. IY....,.-(-.:a =
--eount,Auoclaaa.. o10o .........

Mercacl County Wmr and Sanltaty ._,
lntnatruclurlC.pa,atty
,..__nt
Flgun ~12.: City of
Loa Banoo Supply C.pabllly
forN_G,_
s.:-rto
A
1 Inch " 2,500 feet
mil,
260

CIOi,ltlal----
-1 _,
- -'-I -'-I
--·
-C-1
°'1fplllta Rd & ...,_. s.nc1 .. St ""' $.andra St &. Ar '50.S ""' 0, Pliannrlld& 11S GI 11.t:HlllsAw
PICNINrM& 11S 4011 Soutt,wt,St
Toal: ... - ..... -Uolb - 1,0n .. 1,047 ,,,..CM ..
--- J,131 i.m i.m Uolb
(l.0401 IU MI ll,OISI
.11111111 L Ahhoup CM syRam can 1CtDmmocl1t11 tddltional housl ..... the Delta MendataGSPttamsth~Ctyof tD&
S.l"IOS IS ov. ... ~~"lbewftdN ll~d 1.JOO K>-
lt/Vf,_olbloylold

2. MOO pllDMperapttapsrday of Wdelfftdfrum
10UI water Master Plan
CltyolLN-·WeN........,..., __
--1 -i $oe-3
-· R-Out -Out Fl-Out
·-· ,_, ,_,
Welllt 900 900 900
Wet1•2 aso aso aso Walin 57S 515 57S
WelllS uoo 1.400 1.400
We11#6 800 800 800
Welll7 1400 1400 1400
Walll9 900 !IOD !IOD
WellllD 1.500 1.500 1.500
Well#ll 900 754 900
Well Ill 900 !IOD 900
Woll Ill 1.211) 1.109 1.21)9
Well I IA t.a:lll 1.&IS 1.800
WeUlS 1.100 1.100 1.100
Total: lA.215 ~ 142M
II:
·~
r.:
.. ..
~ ..
m
-1'
Legend
• Demand Nodes
"'- ·•'C3Dzt'Av-~ 1 -- __ •• " I ~- ,., '· I wen
N I
r~....._ • '""--.:::~-
w.11#15
,\
l
..
-;:;
_ ::,
..,
2 'C
" .,.,
Ortlgallltl Rd & Sandra St
Scenario 1: 450.1 ·gpm \
Scenario 3: IOO gpm
~O!
~~ "'
i
e
}
.. ~· "'· !'I
' Sand,. St & Flrl;Dr
"'Scenario 1: 450.5 gpm
SceMrlD 3: 800 gpm"d I I /i or
" " PlonNr Rd & South 11th St
Scenario 1: 175 gpm
Scenario 2: COO gpm
' ~ - PlonHr~ &BlackHlllaAve
Sc.narlo 1: 175 gpm i Scen ario 2: coo gpm
• Junction Nodes
- 10"
- 12"
- 18"
.,i
I a J o 0!)9nStrM1M•P (,1,d) oontnbuto~. cCwav~l saurcea: . HERE, Gamin. usas. tntermap, INCREMENT .P~RC•n. Esd pa , METI.

Esri Chino (!tong K"!'JI) ri Ko, ... ri {Thoilo~. NGCC, (~ OponSn11M1p --... and U.. 01S l Cll!'"""Nly, SO<lrce: &rl, M••-~0.00!9P"llct,. ~tneGISU..r COtr'IMl.l""-''tf ri ~u! . .,_1 - .

IVC'AGl5
... ,_. County Aaoclatlon
ofGow-nta
--CollntyWltllr
and Sanll ty Sewer
lnl'fanuclurl Capacity
"'--nt
Flgun $-13: City of
Lo. - Supply eai,.blllty fol' Southem Growdl Sce111llo
A
1 inch• 2,500 feet
mM, 261

3.3.6 City of Merced Water Distribution System Analysis Merced's water distribution system consists of approximately 140 miles of pipeline ranging from 4- to 18-inches in diameter. The City's MOD was 23,659 gpm, which results in a capacity surplus of 35,441 gpm. The 35,441 gpm surplus was used to test the city's distribution system by applying this demand at the projected growth area locations throughout the water distribution system.

Based on a review of the City's planning documents Merced has projected growth in the north, east, and west directions. As such, the growth scenarios evaluated include:
• Northern Growth Scenario - 35,441 gpm water demand applied at Bellevue Road & G Street.
• Eastern Growth Scenario - 35,441 gpm water demand applied at Cardella Road & G Street, Yosemite Avenue & G Street, Yosemite Avenue & McKee Road, and Foothill Drive & G Street.
• Western Growth Scenario- 35,441 gpm water demand applied at Cardella Road & M Street, Pacific Drive & Rodondo Drive, Avignon Drive & Redondo Drive, Avignon Drive & Horizon Avenue, and Arrowwood Drive & M Street.
• Balanced Growth Scenario - 11,813 gpm water demands applied at all growth areas evenly.

The City's per capita water demand is 248 gpcd based on the UWMP. Using the City's MOD multiplier of 1.9 from the WMP and an average occupancy per household of 3.0 based on the 2030 General Plan, the maximum day demand per housing unit is 1,414 gpd.

The analysis indicates Merced could maximize residential growth when expanding to the eastern growth areas, resulting in approximately 13,035 additional housing units that can be accommodated if growth occurred solely to the east. In the balanced city-wide growth scenario, Merced can accommodate 12,832 additional housing units spread throughout each growth area. Therefore, the total additional housing units Merced can accommodate exceeds the RHNA total housing units target of 10,517. A graphical summary of the hydraulic analysis results for each scenario are presented in Figures 3.14 - 3.17 below.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

262

~
- _,
a.a.vu.-.it.GSt --... c:..ll llil&GSl ,....
.,......._._GS. ,....
__.. __ .... ., ,....
,....,
_,...._..lleMl,....,.,CM
MllaSGMltlS'~N,__
1,~u.,.,..,.,..._._
-..........,.,....,. .....
-
I
Cllw--••otl-.... ---•·· -- -· -1-
0ul[pn)
w...11•tA._ t.1.1C
iu.r.1I1u._1&.2C ·-,..,. D -IIIJ ll t.sn 1 -11,s 2.5'11 1 Wo1117A.7B.l'C U10 11&1.aJIII 1 lllll
-1119 ... tll &OIU '* w..111u
-1,u ·-1.912
lllli 909
-11,is '-!IOO
-11,a, 1.!IOO
-11111 2.!IOO
-11111 1.000
-1111t um T- -
J ...... ~.
;.

1. I
Am,w Wood Dr & M St ,
Scenario .1: 1,400 gpm • •
·:.
-"'+--·.. \ -r,•
h~ "· ,~11#17
.._ a ~ . Cardella Rd & M St \ ;, .1.
~
Avignon Dr lo Rodondo Dr ""-._ Well #18 --..__ FoothlU Dr & G St Scenario 1: 1,400 gpm \ ~ ~ Scenario 1: 1,400 gpm
Avignon Dr & Horizon Aw Scenario 1: 1,400 gpm
'
Scenario 1:,1,400 gpm
, _,,,,; .. I ~
~-~ YDNmlteAwt.GSt
,
-r Legend
• Demand Nodes
WeD
• JlalCllon Nodes
- &Inch
- 81ndl
- 101ncn
- 121ncn
- 1s1ncn ,.,.-. ~ ., • CardeltaRd , GSt
l ("":_· . • t~~ • /• · - - Scenaria) :i,400gpm -:· ' YanmltaAw&McKHRd i - -· J. ~ i , :~P .• Scenario 1, 1,coo 11pm l I _, ,, P11elflc Dr t. Rodondo gr t • .irt--• • , Jfrf,.t .<-, - ,. _ ., ----- Scenario 1: 1,400 gpm " .•- ~ ,.17 .----- ___,_
a--.,-Ut n
Well#11 ..
~·
...,, '
W•ll#14°
..
,. • • ~- .... .., ~ . I · ~ #o W.llt10R2 ...... • • ~
0 OpenSONIM•P (Ind) (!Onlril..rolo, CC-3Y-6A. So••--~~G1rmn. USGS, 11'1111~, INCREMENT P. NllCan_ Elii Jopon, Mell Elri Chino (Hong Kong) ellt Koreo, Ell1 (Tluli~od). NGCC C<l O - •P c:on1rilNltoro, ond lllo GIS Ulor Co""""olly· Source; Elli, "'""°'· Eannstar GeogrophQ, Ind 1M OIS U..rCOmmJnlly ,, , _, IVOftG --.,_,..
-
Men:ed Collnty ~!don
afGowmmenb
-CounlyWMCISanlluy..._
lnfl'ulructln Cap,oclty
-
Flgun, J.14: City af
Morcecl Supply Capablllly
l'ar City.wide Orvwlll Scenartoe
A
1 Inch = 4,200 feet
mil, 263

Cltyc,f Min.ti• NIN1lllm
DlwloPINflt
Node
Bellevue Rd & G St
Total:

Addltlonal Houslna I
Unlts'lllatcan 1e
Accomoclated
RHNA Housin& I Units
!WP!!'~
Scanalo1
Demalld(IPm)
5,875
5,913
10,517
£~™l ~
L Although the system ,;.in
accommodate additional hous1n1, thel
Merced SGMA GSP states the Merced
Groundwater Subbasln is beln1
overdrafted

2. MOD pitons per capita per day of
524 derived from 2014 Water Master
Soun:e#
I OlltiR!
UA, 18,lC S,099
~
..fil...
1,513
II # 7A. 711, 7C 3,632
8 1.452
11#9 1.366
II #1.0R2 2.227
l.000
I

1.902
11 1114 1.600
!!.!!1!
!l2
!!.!!.!L
~11 #18 000
11 #19 500
Total: n.m
.,,
J
!.
• ~--~------------..,w.11i11
Bellevue Rd & G St
Scenarto 1: 5,115 gpm
o OpenstrMtMap (and) coJg~.:,CC.SY-SA, Sour~;, Eari Ct,;oo (Hong Kong), &ri Koroa. &ri (Thailand), NGCC.,t~ Maar:. Eatthaw Oeogtaphlca, and lti• GIS U..t C~hlly _.:s. l
---. --:-... ~ ...... ..l.

Legend
• Demand Nodes
w.a
e JulCtlanNOCIH
- &inch
- a1nc11
- 101nc11
- 121nc11
- 1a1nc11
4 Well#1DIU I
,. . ...,,. IENT P. IIRC••· Eari J111••· MET!. I
U.Or CommunitY, Sou~: ea.ii.

IVC'lGIE.'iP
llilln;ed County Auoclatlon
af(Jo--
-.iCountywmr
and Sanitary S-r
lllfraatructunC.paclt),
-
Flgurw ~11: City ol
- Supply C.palllllty for
Notlllem Growlh S-rlo
A
1 inch = 4,ooo feet
mM,
264

~
i
~
Olrof----,_
Catdella -Rd I, G i.:im l,950 s,
Yosemite Aw • t:im S.SGO GSt
ru .. .a.-& 3,lal 5,SGO
3,950
, .. ==-
'lhltC:.,k 1 IJ,DJS I UIS 11,Z111
-
~= .. 1 I0,517 I I0,517 I 10,517
"~ ~ P,..tU ioU
llllai 1. Althouch tM syst&m can acmmmodate ad di ti anal hoosl"I, tho Mt,-! SGMA GSP states IN Mo""d
ounctw.te, S1.1bbaln Ls: bell
MIDN per capita per d,v of
'Namr~I..e1~
~ .

Smnarta 1 I Smnarlo 2
Flow 0ut F1-0ut
;_
.,
E •
can:tella Rd & G St
Sc•n•rlo 1: :s,200 gpm
Scenarto 2: :S,1110 gpm
v-mn. Ave & G St i
1 w1111_#11 Legend
• Demand Nodes
Well
• J....:tlon Nodes
·- Slncll
- s1nc11
- 101nct1
- 121nch
- 1s1nc11
" . i - -- f YOAmllll Ave & Mcl<N Rd V- i , ~- ~ ' · Scenarto 1: 3,200 gpm =~::!: !;!: ::::
, ... • _, .~ .,_ / Scenarto :S: 5,SOO gpm
: ; - - I
~ C ' 'i' - I ' ,~ n,- - ,-- ,..T~ >e 1 I ·--"" .,. J ... - .. ...i
, .....

W.11 #131 "
•· ., ,.... ~ I • ,. II Well #10R2 .... ,~
0 OpooSlnlolMap (and) oontrtbcrton. cc.aY-&A, Soorcu. EM.A!ll!RE, Garmin, USGS, lrflmta~ INCREMENT P, NRCan. Ean Japan, MET!, Earl China (Hong Kq), Eari Koru, &rt (Thailand), NGCC,) c)"oi't,~IMap oonll1bollD~ nd tho OIS U..r eo,n..,My, Soon:a. Elli, Ma• rllWllrO•oa'-Phic:s, andhOISU.r~lly ~~
• .,.. ... r.!!1-_,,1 .,,...,., ... :::::r
Merced County Auocllllon
ofGovammora
Merced County w- and Sanllll,y S-r
lnl'rulnlctln ~ capacity
FlguN :S-11: Clly of
-.. SUpply C.palllllly for
e..... IJ,-th S-rloe
A
1 inch = 4,200 feet
m~, 265

Cllrol---~
Sao..tol Sclftlllo2 Sao..toJ
- ... - ...- ...- '-1 ~ 1.-1
I c.atd•ttt Rd & M Z.175 . J,,CO s,
,.,m,0r& Z.175 USO RodandoDr
'ti .lvlp,on Or&
ftodondo Cir 1.175 1.350
.lvlp,onOr& 1.175 2.350 MorltonAVI
- Ori 2.175 MSI
Totol, ··- u
";.:':':_"' - I 1.l,1175 I 7,1111 I ,,,..
-, l4S17 I ;~ I20,.$17
~
---~·: I A 1u: :!!
IHllli 1. A•ttiaush tN: ~man aca;immod.ate addltl~
housl"I, tlle Me,..d SGMA GSP -• tho Merced
Gffilndwater Subbasin is bein1 OYOrdmtlld

2. MOD pitons per capita per day of 52• derived from 2014 J!!;
-l Arrow Wood Or• M St
" L , - ,Scenarlo1:Z,115gpm _ -
Scenario 3: 3,900 gpm \ • ~ ~ - '
Cardella Rd & M St ·' ,-J
Scenario_ 1: Z,17S 9pm ~ • "
,. ,,. Scenario 3: s,900 9pm ~ '" '\c_
Avignon Dr I, Rodondo Dr ~ Wall #11
Scenario 1: 2,175 gpm .
scenar10'2: uso 11pm
r
Pacific Dr• Rodondo Dr
Avignon Or & Horizon Aw!
Scenario 1: Z, 175 9pm I I Scenario Z: Z,350 gpm i
.
1 .,Scenarlo 1: 2,171 gpm • •
Scenario z: Z,350 gpm ~
f ~ I ............. H ··- " • ~ ·- ' I - - - . - . ' t.:,:
• -~~•· .. I - I --- -. i ·,
. , t .:t.. I
'.
o OpenS!rMIMap (and) ~ ;~'i:; ce-av-SA. Sourcea,
·w.11#17
I ;f_""!,-..!_--_ ',
Legend
• Demand Nodes
'IYII
• J'-"Ction Nodes
- e1nc11
- a1nc11
- 101nc11
-121nc:1t
- 1e1nc:1t
-l.

W.11#10R2 I , ~
.. E&ri Chino (Hong Kq), Elri Korea. E&ri (Thoillnd), NGCC:':1_ . Mu at. l'lhstar Qeogl'llphica, and thti GIS U..r Community'·. ;,~ MENTP N Con, Eo~Jop1n,METI,
1n6treo1M1p <!"Iii-rs, and~ GI& IJlef CorMIUni!y, Source: Esri IVC'rGIE I
... _ County Auoolallon
of Govun-nla
MefCled County W&ttr
alld Saftlla,y s.w.r
lnfrulructln Capaclly
--nt
""" .. ~17: City of ... reed Supply Capablllly for
W-m Growell SceMrlM
A
1 inch = 4,000 feet
mM,
266

4.0 SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY

ASSESSMENT

4.1 Summary
The sanitary sewer infrastructure capacity assessment focused on each City's wastewater treatment capacity and sanitary sewer collection system capability. Since all Cities within Merced County have dedicated wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF), the sanitary sewer capacity assessment compared each City's total treatment capacity with the City's sewer flows on a peak daily demand basis. The sanitary sewer collection system capability assessment consisted of a hydraulic analysis of the collection system that examined the amount of additional flows the system can handle from the projected growth areas while maintaining flows that did not cause any gravity pipelines to operate under surcharge conditions or exceed pipe capacities.

4.2 Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis
For each city, MKN identified the treatment capacity of each City's WWTF. Each city's peak daily flow was then determined through a review of existing sewer master plans, sewer system management plans, waste discharge requirements, or discussions with Public Works or Engineering staff. The peak daily flow represents a city's maximum daily flow during a 24-hour period. The peak daily flows are expressed as a multiplier of a city's average daily load and is discussed in each city's respective assessment. Some of the cities planning documents stated peak flows represent a "peak wet weather" flow condition, but this assessment will only consider the highest peak flow stated by each city's planning document and not distinguish between dry or wet weather flows. The system was then assessed to determine excess capacity through a ''worstcase" scenario condition, by comparing the existing total capacity of a WWTF to the peak daily loading conditions.

4.2.1 City of Atwater Treatment Capacity vs. Sewer Loading Assessment The City of Atwater's (Atwater) existing sanitary sewer system consists of a WWTF located in the southwest portion of the city with a rated capacity to operate at an average flow (AF) of 6 MG D and peak flow (PF) of 9.3 based on discussion with the City Public Works department. Based on the 2018 SMP and discussions with the City Public Works department, Atwater's average daily load is

3.6 MGD. Atwater's peak daily load was then determined using the city's peak flow equation stated in the SMP: 0 ,,..a: = (Oavv}°-9 * 1.9. This yielded a peak daily load of 6 MGD. The City's current capacity of their WWTF meets the City's average daily flows, as well as peak flows. The summary of Atwater's sanitary sewer supply capacity vs. sewer loading is provided in Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1: Wastewater Treatment Capacity - Atwater
WWTF WWTF Average
Average Peak Dally
Capacity Capacity Load
(MGDl (MGD} (MGD
6 9.3 3.6
Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment Peak Average Dally Surplus/
Load Deficit
MGD (MGD}
6 2.4
Peak
Surplus/
Deficit
(MGD

3.3

267

4.2.2 City of Gustine Treatment Capacity vs. Sewer Loading Assessment The City of Gustine's {Gustine) existing sanitary sewer collection system consists of a WVVTF located in the east portion of the city with a rated capacity to operate at an AF of 1.4 MGD and a PF of 3.0 MGD based on discussion with the City Engineer (Gouveia Engineering). Based on the 2022 wastewater inflow and discussions with the City's Engineers, Gustine's average daily load is

0.75 MGD, with a peak daily load of 1.38 MGD. The City's current capacity of their WWTF meets the City's average and peak daily flows. The summary of Gustine's sanitary sewer supply capacity vs. demand is provided in Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-2: Wastewater Treatment Capacity - Gustine
WWTF WWTF Average Peak Average Peak
Average Peak Dally Dally Surplus/ Surplus/
Capacity Capacity Load Load Deficit Deficit
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD MGD (MGD) (MGD

1.4 3 .75 1.38 .68 1.6

4.2.3 City of Livingston Treatment Capacity vs. Sewer Loading Assessment The City of Livingston's (Livingston) existing sanitary sewer collection system consists of a WVVTF located in the northwest portion of the city with a rated capacity to operate at an AF flow 2 MGD and a peak flow of 3.68 MGD based on discussion with the City Engineer {Gouveia Engineering).

Based on the discussions with the City Engineer, Livingston's average daily load is 1.7 MGD, with a peak daily load of 3.27 MGD. The City's current capacity of their WWTF meets the City's average and peak daily flows. The summary of Livingston's sanitary sewer supply capacity vs. demand is provided in Table 4-3 below.

Table 4-3: Wastewater Treatment Capacity - Livingston
WWTF WWTF Average Peak Average Peak
Average Peak Dally Dally Surplus/ Surplus/
Capacity Capacity Load Load Deficit Deficit
(MGD) (MGDl fMGD MGD {MGD) (MGD
2 3.68 1.7 3.27 .3 .41

4.2.4 City of Los Banos Treatment Capacity vs. Sewer Loading Assessment The City of Los Banos' (Los Banos) existing sanitary sewer collection system consists of a WVVTF located in the southwest portion of the city with a rated capacity to operate at an AF of 4.9 MGD and a PF of 12 MGD based on review of the City's adopted Waste Discharge Requirement {WDR) order (Order R5-2021-0026). Based on the 2010 SMP and discussions with the City Public Works department, Los Banos average daily load is 3.55 MGD. Using the Los Banos sewer peaking factor of 1. 7, the City's peak daily load is 6.035 MGD. The City's current capacity of their WWTF meets the City's average and peak daily flows. The summary of Los Banos' sanitary sewer supply capacity vs. demand is provided in Table 4-4 below.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

268

Table 4-4: Wastewater Treatment Capacity - Los Banos
WWTF WWTF Average Peak Average Peak
Average Peak Dally Dally Surplus/ Surplus/
Capacity Capacity Load Load Deficit Deficit
(MGD) (MGD) fMGD MGD (MGD) (MGD

4.9 12 3.6 6.0 1.3 6

4.2.5 City of Merced Treatment Capacity vs. Sewer Loading Assessment The City of Merced's (Merced) sanitary sewer collection system consists of a W/1/rF with a rated capacity to operate at 12 MGD. The VVWTF is located at the southern section of the city. The 2023 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (WCSMP) stated that Merced's average daily load is

7.0 MGD and peak daily load is 19.5 MGD. The City's current capacity of their W/1/rF meets the City's average daily flows but is in a deficit when considering peak flows. Based on the 2023 WCSMP, Merced considered improvements to the existing \/WI/TF to accommodate flows for a full general plan build out or constructing a new WNTF in north Merced. Ultimately, Merced determined that construction of a new facility was not feasible and that improvements to their existing facility would be the preferred alternative, upgrading the system to accommodate up to 35 MGD for future buildouts. The summary of Merced's sanitary sewer supply capacity vs. demand is provided in Table 4-5 below.

Table 4-5: Wastewater Treatment Capacity - Merced
WWTF WWTF Average Peak Average
Average Peak Dally Dally Surplus/
Capacity Capacity Load Load Deficit
tMGD) (MGO) (MGD MGD (MGD)
12 -- 7 19.5 5
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment
Peak
Surplus/
Deficit
(MGD
-

269

4.3 Sanitary Sewer Collection System Capacity Analysis

4.3.1 Analysis Methodology
The scope of this assessment was limited to relying on existing information previously developed in the City's adopted master plans. Since many of the available master plans are either outdated or do not present the information needed to determine the sewer collection system's ability to serve additional loadings, MKN performed a new "desktop" hydraulic analysis for the assessment.

MKN utilized information available from the master plans and system atlas mapping to develop hydraulic models of each City's "backbonen sanitary sewer collection system. The backbone system was considered to be the sewer mains along the major corridors used to convey sewer loadings from the system to each City's respective WNTF. City planning documents and discussions with the Public Works and/or City Engineering staff of each city were used to determine existing pipe diameters, pipe material, corresponding roughness coefficients, minimum pipe slopes, and depthto-diameter (d/D) ratios to use for a city hydraulic model. The model also excluded neighborhood laterals, and limited manholes to major junction points in the system.

Utilizing each City's existing land use zoning maps, sewer loading throughout the city was estimated by multiplying the loading factors from each City's respective relevant planning documents by the land use areas. The calculated loads were then applied to adjacent manholes throughout the hydraulic model to simulate City-wide existing loading conditions. The City-wide loads were then globally adjusted to meet each City's peak daily loading that were determined from the City's SMP or other sources as described in Section 3.2.

In order to determine the amount of additional loading that can be received from the residential growth areas, MKN developed loading scenarios that tested the City's ability to supply additional loading to the city-identified growth areas. The additional loads tested were incrementally increased until the City's sewer collection system exceeded d/D ratios, or if gravity pipes within the system began operating under pressure, whichever event occurred first. The loading scenarios either focused all additional loads at a single growth area or considered balanced growth where additional loading was applied uniformly throughout all growth areas.

The additional loading that can be supplied to growth areas was converted into additional housing units by calculating the approximate daily sewer load of a single housing unit. The daily loads of a single housing unit was determined using a city's per capita sewer demand which accounts for the average use per individual (capita) based on existing load conditions. This was adjusted to meet peak flow by applying a city's sewer peaking factor to the per capita sewer load. Using the peak flow per capita load and the average occupancy per household specified in a city's respective planning document, the sewer load per housing unit was determined. The additional housing units that the existing sewer system can accommodate was then determined by dividing the additional capacity of a city's existing sewer system by the sewer load per housing unit. The calculated additional housing units that a city's existing sewer system can accommodate was then compared to the total RHNA units to determine whether the RHNA targets can be achieved.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment
Page I 4-4
270

mk~,

4.3.2 City of Atwater Sanitary Sewer Collection System Capacity Analysis Atwater's sanitary sewer collection system consists of sewer pipeline ranging from 6- to 36-inch in diameter. Based on the City's SMP and discussions with the Public Works Department, the citywide peak daily loading was 6 MGD. Compared to the City's vwrrF peak operational capacity of

9.3 MGD, the City currently has a treatment capacity surplus of 3.3 MGD. However, after loading the sanitary sewer collection system under peak daily load conditions, Atwater's sanitary sewer collection system had additional capacity to accommodate more loading through observation of d/O ratios in the growth areas of the system. For each growth area, the system was then loaded incrementally in the direction of growth beyond the peak daily load condition until sewer pipes within the growth area met the d/D ratio specified for each pipe diameter. For Atwater, a maximum d/D of

0.90 was used for all diameters under existing peak flow conditions.

Based on review of the City's planning documents, and meetings with the City Public Works department, Atwater has projected growth in the north, south, and east directions. As such, the growth scenarios evaluated include:
• Northern Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied at Gertrude Avenue and Leah Court, Camellia Drive and Winton Way, Channel Avenue & Shaffer Road, and Bellevue Road and Crest Avenue.
• Southern Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied at Truckee Drive and Novato Court, Applegate Road and Bell Drive, Southern Pacific Avenue and Commerce Avenue, Southern Pacific Avenue and Herrod Road, and Southern Pacific Avenue and Belmira Road. • Eastern Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied at Piro Drive and Buhach Road, Avenue One, and Greensands Avenue and Buhach Road.
• Balanced Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied uniformly at all growth areas.

The City's per capita sewer load is 135 gpcd based on the average daily load of 4 MGD divided by the 2020 US Census population of 29,559. Using the City's peaking factor equation stated in section

3.2.1, the sewer load was scaled up to 157 gpcd. With the peak flow per capita loading and an average occupancy per household of 3.0 based on the 2000 General Plan, the peak flow per housing unit is 471 gpd.

The analysis indicates that Atwater's sewer collection system could maximize residential growth in the balanced growth scenario, resulting in approximately 8,812 additional housing units if growth occurred uniformly at all projected growth areas. The results of the analysis show that the collection system can accommodate additional housing units that exceeds the RHNA total housing units target of 3,017. A graphical summary of the hydraulic analysis results for each scenario are presented in Figures 4.1 - 4.4 below.

Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

271

atwfl-•Clly-
-~-1t,.,.
c..m.UaOr&Wlnt.on a.oao
"Ch,f!f'el A'II &Sharfer 493.000 Rd
.'t, I Bellewe Rd &.CtastRd
PlroDr&luhachlld
a,;Q,lDl
WA.venue
Gteensands Ave &
-
-Rd
Or &N°"""' C,, -
315,000
Applopla Rd & loll Dr 315,000
SOuthem Padflc Av. • JIII0.000 Cofflme,ce Ave
~ -.::.:: ..... • 1 IIS,000
Southern Pacific&
- · ,017 -.. ,~
lltyfl-·T•--,...1 ·---
9,300,000
~-
·~
Truck• Dr a Novato Ct
Scenario 1: 3lltli,OO,!l-!'~•~ :..t ~ .,
0:
~
5 Applegata Rd & a.a Dr
Scenario t: ~.ooo 11~. dlD:f;'° !lite-~■ .a··~· ~
~
Camellla Di a Winton W.y : I00,000 gpd, dlO: 0.7<$
,,. ~
~,,.
• ·~""-s. .,, ~
Channel Ave & Shaff9r Rd <>~
Scenario 1: 483,000 gpd, dlO: 0.90 \. "~ "·
6 Legend
Sewer Load MH
Treatment Plant
Manhole
~ .•
. I
•
---- 8"
~11..,•~d Bel.._ Rd & c,..t Rd • Scenario 1: 211G,0OO gpd, d/D: 0.17 e:: '-7 - 12·
! ·~
l
'.:C
~ ".cl, ''I(
- 14•
15"
..t,.

Piro Or a Buhach Rd
Scenario 1: 330,-0 gpd, d/0: 0.90 - 1a·
........
;/: Avenue One
Scenario 1: 304,000 gpd, dlO: 0.21
,'3 - -
:,r
!.GINns■ nda Ave & Buhach Rd
Scenario 1: 304,000 gpd, d/0: 0.30
t j
!=
.......... .,.,,.O,!~
Southam Pacific Ave & Commerce Aw,
Scenario 1: 300,000 gpd, dlO: 0.15
~
' 15 n ~,
·i
I
Southem Paclllc Ave & Harrod Rd
Scenario 1: 211,000 gpd, d/D: 0.77 • .,.,,,..:i,,-r..-
Southam Pacltlt A~ Belmlni Rd
Scenario 1: 3°",000 gpcl,,d/D: D.51
0 OpenS-op (ond) conllillo_, c=Y-&\, ~;..,_, Eari, HEAE, G,.,,,.n, U$0S, lnoonno_p, INCFIEMENTP, NFICon. e,,,1 Jo~ . , , Elrl Chlna,(!:1"'111 /I0l'Q), Elli KotM, Eon (Tbolll"<!), NGCC, (<) OIJO!l~."JI comrt-. ond tho GIS UHr Community, Souree. Elli.

Ear1hstar ~,apliea~ lnd~S Us r ~ommur,!!t
IVC'rG =-·•11 - ,
Man:ed County Auoclallon .,, __
111.-County Wnor Ind Sanitary 8-t
·-cap.ctly
-mini
Flgww 4-1 : City fll A_,
Collectlon Syoltm Capablllty
for c~ Oniwlh Scenario
A
1 inch = 3,000 feet
m~,
272

ti
Qlfal-·-_.._.
cam.Ila -Dr & Winton
01annal Aw -a Shat'f.r
11d
llellewe Rd. Crest ltd
Toal:
--UMtlholcan .. .. ---....... ........ ...,,""'"""""
I s..n.to 1 i Scllnalo l I ~ J
l,~IIDD l,11S,OD0
481.CIOO I 4lll,IID0 4111,IIDD I
4,019 1.217
1,011 1,017
I um I ljlO I

9.]00,IIDD I 9,300.<X)0
,. ... _966 I 2.116.966
- 1 1..-
r.1.DII
-
4111,IIDD

1.196
J.ot7
~
J
i
~
U.2-'
R&_•A,,
..;
I! "' i
?
~
_ Cam.Uia Dr& Winton Way r ,. :,. ,
Scenario 1: 1,000,000 gpd, d/0: 0.13 ... -:.

Sceni~2: 1,115,000 gpd, ell_!.): 0.90 ~
.... Channel Ave & Shaffllr Rd ~
,narlo 1: 493,000 gpd, d/0: 0.10
,narlo 3: 493,f!OO gpd, d/D: 0.10\0
~.

Bal.._ Rd & CNal Rd
Scenario 1: 400,000 gpcl, d/D: 0.90
Scenario 2: 400,000 gpd, d/D: 0.90
'ac.iiarlo 3: 400,000 gpcl, d/D: 0.90 °' ., ! 'J!.
·i. ...

Legend
• Sewer Load MH
~ Treatment Plant
• Manhole
- 8"
15"
- 21"
- 24"
- 27"
.r
Cl OponSlrNIMop (Ind) conlrtbu-. Cc.8V-SA. S,imCN: &it, I-IERE. G1rmin. llSGS. lnlormop. lNCR,EMENT P. NRC,n, Eon J•iiin' Eori Cllln,,,~•!!11 Ko!)Q), Eori IIOIN, eon (Tl,al~. IIIGCC, (CJ 0!>0!'~'!1/!:'., conll1butots, Ind 1M GIS U..r c..,..,.,,,;,y, Soun:a: Elli, Earth&tar 0.00,.6)ic:a, arMl_.l!h• GIS UHr ConwT'IU,:,_!ty IVC'rGl=FI
Morad County Auoclallon
cl o ..... rnmanta
-d C4unly w ... , andSanN,uya.-,
-..c:..,..11y "--Ill
FlguN 4-2: City of A-••
CGll9c:tlon Syalam (:apalllllly
fllrNorthMn 0-SceA
1 inch = 3,000 feet
mM,
273

~
'}:;_;fr-~\~''.~~·~: ,,.:,· s1·.:;, --~- t· .- . ! ', \,-.:: I ""'J' \_ ~ \I ~ ...,., ____ ; .-~ T-1 il •1,: · • _,. -, ' '·-~ ,(,.. - ~,~ ., 1\, Legend -· -· -· .: ;-'!'-.-."':. ,_-,:;,;- 'f ~ ... )i .. J . .. ) ' • • • - ., ..... ~Et,~~i:._ .... , ;._..-,,-,11'"-.) la'I ~ I~- ~ 7 ~1. ,. • \ .i , ~- , .• ~- •
r-..0.-0 ..... 0 ~ '1 • 'J - ~~ ::, . ~-•, ~ •. • Sewer Load MH - ClS.COI ·~ • .,.i: ·-~ :;, ---·i- 4-:._ ~I, r ',;: \ ~ ~ .., '·. ; ~ -, \ ::..~ ... J,,,,-~ ,-. • ' .. ..,.._. ..... Or - •JS.COi
~ > . .:-;~ r / ~l r·- -~ •• ·-;r ~·~\.,. -"·"' ·-c;., '· ••• _"'. ·: :_•_:~ •i6. Treatment Plant SoutMfflhdlkAw• . ......, ,,.,,. r ,.-, .. ! . . I->
; I' ;,,. ...:""~ ,· : .,..,.... ...... ~J~ t1·1 i-;- - ------~ ~~- '~ .. . _ I ~ • .._\ ., l • Manhole t"S. ... ,f':."f.oi 11.v- .,. • Southem ,ar:tflc -.V. & ......., ...... . !fitl"todRd \ • -~- ' •-~/i/; 1'1r."' ~µ ,L.- ~ .. ~ ""1~-LJ,.Lh..,. ... •;'-c., i -- V
Sou1hem '9dffcAft& ...... I -[~ J ...... , O,S.OOD < /, - ·• '!__'.'""' -~ --~r--~r.-;..n ... _. ~- I,, --- • .,. Nlml,.ltd T ... :
11 ~ L ~~ • ~ -l t,~ J ~ ' ..... ~~., t i " • I :,1 ~ ~. · -- ~(l •· UllftffllllC.. i l ~ itl.~fu• •• ,\ -•~ .,_,; - 'i"-•,J.. .. ,..,. ~ ... ~ ... i • '1 r ~- . ..~. . - i • ♦ , _ -...; •:-,:;; •~, • ~ :;,._ , I \ t f '{ r . 1011 ~, :-- ~ ~ .: J .,. ~~.r .. ~ ... ·:..:. ..... ~I i- • ~- f l.017 1011 I ., - I - I LWI L,._ li,.111.&S
........ .., ............ ._ _, 1-,l-• 1 ' l' .I. ....... I a I I ~ ~-- ) · 0 <',t~M ~-- ~ ~ --, \ -!, of' t, ', ' r":. ,1; ·. ~-::,:, ~ .-.fi. w' ~~ "· r· .._...,;; I,," - ' .. . ~ •• , ' .. : . :.: i ~ tJ ~ ..... "":- -~ - ......... 9,)00.00D l.l'6.966 ·l&.3l'J6ti
-- TNckHDr&NowitoCt / / -· I• ,: i Scenario 1: 400,000 gpcl, d/D: 0.14 Scenario 2: ,111,000 gpcl, d/D: 0.14 ~.-.ePC'.. ..
_ Applegate Rd & Ball Dr '' j ; Sc»narto 1: 400,DOO gpcl, d/D: O.IO fl. . ; Sc»narto 2: 415,DOO gpcl, d/D: O.IO
,,
A.~1..,...JQi,..JM,Rd
South•m Pacific Ava & Comm•rca Ava
Sc»narto 1: 915,000 gpcl, d/D: 0.77
Scenario 3:]50,000 gpcl, d/D: 0.80
i
J:)
:r ' ~
Southam Paclflc Ava & Henod Rd
Scen•rlo 1: 111,000 gpcl, d/D: 0.71
Sc:an~rlo 3: Hl,Hll,000 gpd, d/D: 0.75
r,• !- C\_Y~ -1~•
~: _.-. l, ' ,-~, -1>"' r-T"L,.J._..,
'I , - c*'-" • ~ •~"', ' f f • I. ")',)."s;,:l-1, , ~ '/ ¢:· "','!' ,. ... ' .....: ._,. ~ ..... ~ : • r._ ... _.,._f'- J..l ..f-_. i...' .....
•, ; ::..; C ' 'k...!..i... • ...._ ,., '
'"~J ~-)~- _.1/" .·\· ~ 't .............. '""". X
Rj : s•••
~ - Scana-no 1: 111,000 apc1, d/D: o.a
- 14•
15"
- 1s·
· - 77"
I ... ---,r
i South•m Pactllc Ava & Balmlra Rd
Scanarlo 3: Hl,1115,000 gpcl, d/D: 0.49
!!- 0 Opens~--IP C•ndl conlrlbutcrl. CC-BY-SA. s_ourcN: Eari. t<ERE. Garmin, USGS. lnllfTNlp. INCREMENT P. NRCon. Eori JI~ . if Eari Chln•jt,1~1)11 ~g), EIII KorH, Eari (Thaila<lc!)_. NGCC, (c) 0pan1)1rNl!!'!IP conlrlbulofo, and tho GIS UHr Community, Source: Eari, >: Ear11ntar Goagi.61ica, and<ll• GIS U.or Commun!TY .
~ l= I
U Mllrcecl County Auocl&tlon flfG..--
~ MorceclCountyW-
• ..., .. _ry -· lnfra-...Cap11clly
-nt
II
~
"'9ln 44: City of-'--·
Spllm Capablllly
rot Sou!Mm ~ S-rto
'I
A
1 inch = 3,000 feet
mM,
274

°""' _ ___
- -· -· -· -· Pl-.:1 Dr•luttac:alltd - 1,25(1000
WAvtnut
I CfteflllftdS _ .. Avt •
T-
.... IDJ
~- ·-- ·-- --
Ulllltftll:CMII 1!111 i.GI ..... <1.421
-
--- iou J.Ot1 J.Cl.1 J.Ot1
- .. ..... ~m -- l,.011>
°""',__, . .,......., .......... _
-· -· -· -· -- -- -- -- - 1- 1- 1~-~ 1 uoo.ooo ,._ ,._ 9,]0lllDJ

2.Al76,966 t.&Sl.966 t'86.91i6 I ueo.966 I
- .._ -
,;·"'ilo,,.·Joi~1~~,d
.. "' .
~
~
i
~
~9A""
[ . c:- .. _r-!;' -: LI ~ > ,", +-\a_', ('j ;.· . ~"- • • , ?'· 1;.· ~ Legend ,, ~~, •', •• \L,_ .. __,)' ...:- I .. ~ •:---~. f' \ .,-.;:~ ..... ~ .. .:J~ I I' ·, ·\· r:-- .-"',, ... ~· • ' ' \_ .I =· L • -~-i >,. • - · .. 11 _, ~ •
• Sewer Load MH l "'·l.,_~"''- "i..._ j
~• .._ 1 · )-- I, ·" ·r- -:,,;-- -. • \;"""., , ,i "'-
~ Treatment Plant
,,_ f ,J t ·, ( \ ~ t < ~ ~ \ ..
... ~~ .. ~ -- • .... "V, Ai."JIM • L :fl •~ ... ~ ,. r ... -., ci,, i I. . . 1 l J :.i 1~ ~ • ~ l
---;.,.. "' 1!.'l"4A•• , '(" t- ~ ~. ·, - ·r·~-·l - . · . · \" • Manhole '1.....i;-~-1 • - I • • { ••V l I - ,, ', l .. ~ - ,,:.. ._ •. - a· ' (:'t (._ ~ ~ • • • t• \.: ' '\ L' ~.. .!.. 't' L-L "-·' . • '2.-. ~O.~ --"· ~ J - ~"1~,111~ ",. '\ ' - 12" - ~ -9,., f,'T [•.if".",-, • ~ t 11f.ff½i-~, . : ~ • :- , •; LI f \ ; ,.
. r -J• ; i.!:V~ _ "t~ - 14" i 'I ~ -~-"
15"
I L 'P. ~ • 1 r• S,~" ". ,,_ •• \, ,- , , Piro Dr. Bullacll Rd • ~ l" .. f - 18" .- 1 .. - l -!'- 'o- 'I I \;. 1.:. - ~ ......... ~ .. --. •, '!,. - Scanarto 1: 121,400 iPll, d/D: 0.90 ,,."if ~ ~ l • ,,. -
. · 1 .._-f c
.
•• -. ~.rti . f I' ulil'1M"A t/.fl. i .. : .... - ,~. i "' •. Scenario 2: 1,290,000 r,pd: ~: O.IHI \ •C 4 ~ "'_,,, .. , .. -~ ,. ---~ - · '-.:_ -.".· t..'" ,· ... _,;
- 21"
?' ~t .,----.,-- --· · --~.
"[', A ~,_r ~-~-,..-~ • ~ """. ~. .,, 1= :~: I ~ / L. • );, ;s JI, "'l, - • ._ ■ ~ • ~ • I ' i:.,·.;i.. - i --..-.;____., - -""6~~ . - .;...~ ·--=- ·F~ - ~ ~ I L ~-- &;·Jfl.a... ,:. ~ • '!I~ '" .r-,I .~ • .I - , i-'-i'-/ .... , i,· ~ '' :, \: _.,,,,. ~ I 1 - 36~ .. -- • • • "!' "!'.
........... ;: Awnue One
-........... Scenario 1: 1215,000 r,pd, dlD: o.u
Scena-rto 3: 2,015,000 gpd, dlD: 0.IO -r
.GrNnunda Aw & Buhar:h Rd
Scenario 1: 121,000 gpd, dlD: 0.31
Scenario 4: 2.015,000 gpd, dlD: 0.43 'i:
,..

C, Opo,,StrNCMop (•nd) COhll'ibu..,_, CC-8V-&A, S~un:n. ri, HERE, G""'""· USGS. lhlO,_p, INCREMENT P. NRCon. Eori J~-· Eori Ci1111a_(l;t_ Ko~g), Eon Ko!N, Esri (Tlullmngi. NGCC, (C) OPt:nS~.•.P contnbuta!s, and lllo GIS UHr Communily. Sourc,, EOII.

Ear1hllllr ~iliir:a. and pi. GIS UHr Convnui!IY
III IVCtnGl=F1
HI Mlln:ed County Aaaoclallotl
o10 ...............

Ill
..... deountyandS&nlluyhMr
...,.._,.c:.,-cll)'
-
II ~
~-City of A-tar
s~ eapa111111y
fw e-m Orowlh Scenario
A
1 inch = 3,000 feet
mil, 27S

mk~,

4.3.3 City of Gustine Sanitary Sewer Collection System Capacity Analysis Gustine's sanitary sewer collection system consists of sewer pipeline ranging from 6- to 24-inch in diameter. Based on sewer flow data provided by the City Engineer, the city-wide peak daily loading was 1.38 MGD. Compared to the City's WWTF peak flow operational capacity of 3.0 MGD, the City currently has a treatment capacity surplus of 1.62 MGD. However, after loading the sanitary sewer collection system under peak daily load conditions, Gustine's sanitary sewer collection system had additional capacity to accommodate more loading through observation of d/D ratios in the growth areas of the system. For each growth area, the system was then loaded incrementally in the direction of growth beyond the peak daily load condition until sewer pipes within the growth area met the d/O ratio specified for each pipe diameter. For Gustine, a maximum d/0 of 0.92 was used for all diameters under existing peak flow conditions as specified by the City Engineer.

Based on review of the City's planning documents, and meetings with the City Engineer and City Planning staff, Gustine has projected growth in the southeast direction, with approximately 180 acres designated for residential growth based on the 2018 Southeast Master Plan, with approximately 535 homes discussed in the document. Through conversations with Gustine City Planning staff, it was confirmed that the city has no other projected growth area considerations other then the southeast scenario. As such, the analysis of the City of Gustine's sewer collection system only considers the following growth scenario to the south:
• Southern Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied at Sullivan Road and South Mills Road, Meredith Avenue and Grove Avenue, and Railroad Avenue and Meredith Avenue.

The City's per capita sewer load is 123 gpcd based on the average daily flows of 0.75 MGD divided by the 2020 US Census population of 6,091. Using a peaking factor equation of Opeak = (Oave)-0· 1° *

1.9, a conservative peaking factor of 1.95 was used to scale the sewer load up to 240 gpcd. With the peak flow per capita loading and an average occupancy per household of 3.0 based on the 2020 General Plan, the peak flow per housing unit is 720 gpd.

Analysis of the Southeast growth scenario aligns closely with the Southeast Master Plan, resulting in 583 additional homes that can be accommodated. The results of the analysis show that the collection system can accommodate additional housing units that exceeds the RHNA total housing units target of 346. A graphical summary of the hydraulic analysis results for the southern scenario is presented in Figure 4.5 below.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

276

CltyolG ....... •SoudielltDawic.-nt
Node
s_umvan Rd &S. Mills Rd
Railroad Ave & Meredith
Ave
-~l'!!Jllth Ave & Grove Ave]
Toal:

Addltlonal Hous1111 Units
lhattanle~
5ce111rto1
LoacH1
2S0,000
85,000
&5,000
a,,ooo
S83
~
m
CllyofGulllM • TCICill S.-Flowper
Saut11a111Gl'IMIII sea,..,..

Soural
!Total Sewer flow
I
WWTF.Average Day
tapacl•
IWWTF Peak 0~ tapadtv
I
WWTF Aven,p Day
Clpadty Sur,,1111/(Deflc:ttl
IWWTF Peak Day (apadty
Scenario 1 Flow
Out
_1,_1,

1.400,000
3,000,000
344,3~2

USS,SOIII
'""'-·
<!" •• ~~~-..J \ .. ,
I
=--•'" • -::>-
~ ' t-1-- -----=- -- ;-,;~ ·
. --... •-·"'·- ... :.,. . -·
-.. , - ----...
-
i
f
._.,
....... ~
f\• •
~ ' \ ll. ?'\
(
!
I
-
t;_"{[_Jf..:;·~-:6.-=:c•..:.-,..-.... •
Legend
6, Treatment Plant
• Sewer Load MH
• Manhole
- 8"
- 10"
- 1-r
15"
- 1a·
- 24•
~ ~ __ ..:: *T I c -x - · - - ~~~ ~ -tCSFi?_t;:"
I I -i. ,.,...- *j~. .
""
r-,:--_ ~r:.. i
t: -- i t I.,_,_ l "' t 5 - .. . , • p &Iii • . ~'! . ' , ~ !'...w•1--
p
•
~
\ ......... ~Uroad Ave I, Mer9dlth Aw
\
'-, Scenario 1: 8&,DD0 gpd, d/D: 0.12
' f
[
\ M•r9dllh A,,. & Gn,ve Ave
Scenario 1: 15,000 gpd, d/D: 0.10
\
\
\
\
I 0 O-S~NIM■p (and> canlribumr■ , Cc.BV-'lA. so.._. E•ri. 1-fllFIE. Garmin. USGS. lntonNp. INCREMENT P. NRC•n. Eari Japan. METl Earl hin■ (Hong Kong). Ellri Kor■-. Eari (Thailand). NGCC, t<l 0 - S-op conutbulorl, Md tho GIS U..r Cornm&1...,, Sourc&· Ellri, Mant, Earthltat.Geogra~hlc:. ■ndth•GISUNICamnu,~ _ .... -, '-'LM- .._.,_A~,--1 I Y ...,., ._. ::=r
MIReclCounty~ao,,
flt GoVWIIIINClta
lletwdCountyW-
•ncl Sallllary s-.,
~C.paclly ~
Flgun -W: Clly of ou.tlne
CalKtlonS~C.pullly
ror Soulllem GrOOMII Sc.nano
A
1 inch = 2,000 feet
mil,
2n

mk~,

4.3.4 City of Livingston Sanitary Sewer Collection System Capacity Analysis Livingston's sanitary sewer system consists of sewer pipeline ranging from 8- to 27-inch in diameter.

Based on the discussions with the City Engineer, the city-wide peak daily loading was 3.27 MGD.

Compared to the City's WWTF peak hour operational capacity of 3.68 MGD, the City currently has a treatment capacity surplus of 0.41 MGD. However, after loading the sanitary sewer collection system under peak daily load conditions, Livingston's sanitary sewer collection system had additional capacity to accommodate more loading through observation of d/D ratios in the growth areas of the system. For each growth area, the system was then loaded incrementally in the direction of growth beyond the peak daily load condition until sewer pipes within the growth area met the d/D ratio specified for each pipe diameter. For Livingston, a maximum d/D of 0.92 was used for all diameters under existing peak flow conditions as specified by the City Engineer.

Based on review of the City's planning documents, and meetings with the City Engineer, Livingston has projected growth in the south, east, and west directions. As such, the growth scenarios evaluated include:
• Southern Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied at Peach Avenue and Arcadia Drive, Peach Avenue and Emerald Drive, Peach Avenue and Hammatt Avenue, and Peach Avenue and Dwight Way.
• Eastern Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied at Peach Avenue and Dwight Way, Burgundy Drive and Pinot Drive, and F street and Hammatt Avenue. • Western Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied at B Street and Robin Avenue, and Brianwood Drive and Vine Cliff Way.
• Balanced Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied uniformly at all growth areas.

The City's per capita sewer demand is 117 gpcd based on average daily flows of 1. 7 MGD divided by the 2020 US Census population of 14,528. Using the City's peaking factor multiplier of 2.26 found by dividing the peak daily load by the average daily load, and an average occupancy per household of approximately 3.0 capita per house based on the projected occupancy per household in Livingston's 1999 General Plan, the peak flow per housing unit is 793 gpd.

The analysis indicates that Livingston's sewer collection system could maximize residential growth in the western growth area, resulting in approximately 2,708 additional housing units. The results of the analysis show that the collection system can accommodate additional housing units that exceeds the RHNA total housing units target of 1,097. A graphical summary of the hydraulic analysis results for each scenario are presented in Figures 4.6 - 4.9 below.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

278

~
Peach Ave &Arcodl• 0,
Manwood Dr• Vine Olff
Sol-1-
0ut
l.000,tl00
3,680,tl00
L)"'-c,;J
~)1
B St & Robin Aw
Scenario 1: 500,000 gpd, d/0: O.A
....... ,,.....,...

Brlanwood Dr& Vina CUffWay
Scenario 1: 203,200 gpd, d/0: 0.12
Peach~Aw & Arcadia Dr
Scenario 1: 214,000 gpd, cl/0: 0.62
I
1 P•ch Aw I, Emar ld Dr ..ii
Scanarlo 1: 214,000 gpd, dltl: OM
1 "-J
( ~
~
·-.1-. l I ,._ i t i. ! i \ \ ,. ~
-- )
) -I , I
l
j
...... ,
Legend 1.
6_ Trealment Plant
e Sewer Load MH
• Manhole
-+- 6" Force Main
-'4- 10• Force Main
- e-
- 10·
- 1-r
- 1S"
- 2r
n r,~L.... .
1, dlD: __, 0.ft __ ""- u11911ndy Dr & Plnot Dr
o 1: 14&,ooo gpd, d/0: o.ao • .:......._"'lie:"" __ '-. •f- ,,
: __ __ t ~ l 1 r-....._~ -..._ ~ -
~-sdt(,ol I - --·-··.i!!~I ,~ -~---- II
~-- I! K~\". ... - 1.J,;i.~...:.- ~ 1 I ..; _ __,.__ --~. -~"'- -_ . "'"""'~- . t,jii/i)f ~ rlo 1 = 111.!>,9,,o ti~.:C!J°-t u2 r·
iach- Aw &HammaltAw • -- ; -- • --
• ~ PNch Aw&Dwlght Way _
. j Scenario 1: 150,000 gpd, cl/0: 0.14
. I, ""'e'O;le,;S~HIM~ ~and) conrrl-. CC-SY-SA, s..,,-: Et,i, HERE, Gamin. USGS lolatmap, INCREMENT P RC , n Japan, METI, I ri Chino (Hong i\o,ig), &ri Koro■ .es~ (ll, il nd), NGCC, (cl OIIOnStrNIMoconrrlbutolo, and th■ GIS LJ er Communtty, ur ■ E&ri, Mu , Eo-r Gooa'1iP;NOl and 111\ GIS \liar Community
&.,..Ar!! 1 •..,,_,,I .,,...,..( .... :=::

Mln:ad County ANoclatlon
t/118---
_County_,
and S--ry S-r
·-Capaclly
__ ...

Agin 4-4: Cit)' of 1.1¥1np1on
Colec11on Symm Capability
fof Clly-Wlde GNIWIII 5-larlo
A
1 inch = 1,500 feet
m~,
279

~
Oty,lllilllllplM---.......
....
- SlD !i08 911
S!.i.. ,1!17
S7'
,J.lt •
-1 -1
-- -Out
J.llUD
l.OOQ.C00 -l.OOQ.C00
~ -l.OOQ.010
:U~C00 :1.610,CQO J,&10.CCO
113,lol -<20,163 -423,363

1.5'6,637 1.259,137 l.2S6.637
-~
-- •
_,lc/lool
✓• J ,
__ / "' ~-- /!
-~ "i ,r .. -1
! i i \ a
l ' -°""' !
- J
...... ,6
•
•
Legend
Treatment Plant
Sewer Load Ml-I
Manhole
-+- 6" Force Main
-+ 10• Force Main - a- - 10· - 12"
1s·
- 2r
•.· '"" j r, ;, ~
J
J
. •r•~
·:r··· 6
.... 1 . ,
j I
I
! ____ _;_i
....:; j i .I v . - ~ ' -'~ .. ,::!,~ ...... r,.,..-u.r-. ~ FSt&HammattAw ,.,_.._ ~ n•rlo 2: 3M,000 gpd, d/D: 0.92 .Scenario 3: 310,000 gpd, d/D: 0.92
"~ ~ ..... . Burgundy Dr & Plnot Dr
Scen•rto 1: 111,000 gpd, d/0: 0.9l
~~n_iit0:,2;_:SI0,000 gpd, d/0: 0.71
:S:.11l5,0!!I 91!_'1, d/D: G.92
:f; .... ~ _ !!:..:!:;U!iF . ·...a .;..-""--~, ;_·, . II ~ 7jiiliijii ........... - •• ·•-··•·-·•·--- lii . Siiia!);" .... 11 • Di:.r7 :\L.Jl; J' PNchAw&DwlghtWay
/ i - •&PL--- · Scenario 1: 247,IIOO gpd, d/D: 0.70 f
1 7 • Scenario
2: 247,500 gpd, d/D: 0.10
• I I ~"O-~f,rreelt.1a'p nd) con1rtbutor., cc.eY~, Sourcea. E.ari. HERE, Gannin. USGS; tnblnrap, INCREMENT P .. NR n .. & ri Japan .. METI,
Eart China (Hong Kllng). esn Ko~: E!rt {Thllll!ICI). NGCC, (C) Opon61rNtMap conlrlbulo.-. and ... GIS User Communl!y. Sou_, Esd Maxtr .

Earthatar Geogn1p~c:a:- and 1hit GIS User Camtnunlty
IVC'rG.i=•
Mlrced County Auoclatlon cl (JO!tjM'IQMltta
-d County Waw
and Sanllaly S-,
1nrraatruct1ncaa-c1ty
~
FlguN 4-7: City of L.implDII
Coladlon s~ Capa11111ty
fllr e-m ~ SA
1 inch = 1,500 feet
mil,
280

,;_
_ ,
"
1 Cllrfll ........... ....,,, __ fllll-flaw
sa-1
J,680,DOD
~--.:s
1£1,.l&l
BSt&RoblnAw
Sc.narlo 1: 1,500,DGO gpd, d/D: 0,SI
Brlanwood Or & Vin• Cliff Way
Scanarto 1: 1147,:SOO gpd, cl/0: 0.82
--
j
l
' ' '
''fl
~ -- Legend
~ Treatment Plant
• S.-LoadMH
--;r-.... -
1 ~ . ! t \ \ " \ I }
~
. 1 lttr)trt:Nlf)' -. ·'"- -
-. -t:-'--- 2 IL- ,,,,. ...,. l
"<..._ R
} I .! i
" ~ .a. W -t -~ ~ ' ,"Ir~ I .
• Manhole
-+- s• Force Main
-4- 10" Force Main
- a-
- 10-
- 1-r
1s·
- 27"
_{"' ['
! • .• j_i
~·
i-.. ..... l ~
. '-'
! J :......~ .. ,~~.t~,, fna9""U....
--..... ...... __,_ ....
-1--,-·· ,r ----
1'9~ Sn.lM11J and) con!nbu-, c=v-SA. Soon:oo. cori, HERE, G11,.,,.n. USGS 1,,-rmap. INCREMENT P, NRCon, E.on Jopon. METI, j Esri Chi,- (Hong ~•ngl, E"'1. Ka_(""/ l;s~ (11,•land), NGCC !Cl OponS-IM11p cantribuhn, 11nd tt.. GIS U..r ea.....,,;,y, SQ4J.,._ E&11, Mo"°'•I Earth&tar Geogniip_hla, •nd 1h• GIS User Communttv 1
I\ICfG,::1
,.,..... County Aaaoclatlon
o110--n111
Mon:.dCounty-•
•ncl S.nlla,y s-,
lrtn_,. C.paclty
"- nt
f'laur■ 4-1 • City of LIYlnpton Colllctlon Syatam C.pablDly rorw -- ~ Scenario
A
1 inch = 1,500 feet
m~,
281

;,..
_:i
Cllwfll""""""" •-~
Peldl Aw -I. Arcadia
,P•_.:IIA'!!A~rald
Pnd,Ave &llammattl
Peacu .. •0w11;111
w,
Unlls That CM lo
-~ --..
1116
._ti}(!_
,.ID
_,..
l,331,"37
Peach Ave & Arcadia Dr
Scenarto·1: 323,S50 gpd, d/0: O.tz
Scenario 3: 319,000 gpd, dlO: O.IO
521 l.325
,[I£ ,097
.,,. m
, .......

1.566,137
........ ....;.

1. 11 i
,
:i J ~ n
~ --
.. ~ _- --"" --
_/J,~ :-1 ii-"' .. I . ......... ._, ". i ,._ Jj It~ • I ! \ '/..;..__l ,'._I 1
! t 1 r, I 7 - j i _..
-- ~
',,..,,,.-)
., J
-- . . t
.I } I - j
J
J
l{~i-
,~ ~ ..,i; f
.~
f
I ~"""'
~ •1
Legend

6. Treatment Plant
• Sewer Load MH
• Manhole
.... 6" Force Main
...... 10• Force Main
- s-
- 10·
- 1Z'
15"
- 2r
_,,...,,.., ! _
_.,, .... --
..... •.i.. ._.cJ :;; u ,,.r, _ .•....... k' _ 1 L ~~£.. _ :...!. ... . _ _ .. ~ _ ~ti--.lPeachAw&HammattAve z · .. - ; · ··-···1 1 Scenario 2: 208,500 jjji;t,'"dlD]:D.92
PHCh Aw & Emerald Dr -, _ £' Scenario 3: 208,50! IIFM!/ dlD: 0.92 Peach Aw & Dw19ht WrJ t Scanarlo 1: 323,850 gpd, d/D: .... -~I - J f I Scenario 2: 208,100 gpd, d/D: 0.71 Scenario 3: 319,000 gpd, d/D: 0.17 l J I Scenario 3: 208,100 gpd, d/0: 0. 71 , , I ~'Oi>e1~1rffiMlpS,and) oonlrtbu-. CC-8Y-&A, S°"'°"' Etri. ~ERE. Gllffllio, USGS. lole.,,.p, INCREMENT P. NRCan. Esri Japan, METI. Eori China (Hong ~ong). Eari}<O!M, Eori (Thailand). NGCC. (c) 0-SlrHIMap oootrilMltora, ond !ho GIS u.., Comrnunlly, s .. ,,,., Etd Moxor,I Ear1tiatar Geograplica -,e1 1'111 GIS 'Uier CatNN.lnlty IVCN31=rl
Merced County Aaoclallon
OffMerced Counly w- nd -,Y S-r
lrll'n lnldul9C.paclly
~nt
Figura oM: Cltyofl.Mnpton
Collectlon Sywt m CapebGlty
lvr~m~S1 inch
~ = 1,500 feet
mtt,
282

mk'a1

4.3.5 City of Los Banos Sanitary Sewer Collection System Capacity Analysis Los Banos' sanitary sewer collection system consists of sewer pipeline ranging from 4- to 30-inch in diameter. Based on the city's Public Works department, the city-wide peak daily load was 6.035 MGD. Compared to the City's WWTF peak operational capacity of 12 MGD, the City currently has a treatment capacity surplus of approximately 6 MGD. After loading the sanitary sewer collection system under peak daily load conditions, Los Banos' sanitary sewer collection system had additional capacity to accommodate more loading through observation of d/D ratios in the growth areas of the system. For each growth area, the system was then loaded incrementally in the direction of growth beyond the peak daily load condition until sewer pipes within the growth area met the d/D ratio specified for each pipe diameter. For Los Banos, a maximum d/D of 0.92 was used for all diameters under existing peak flow conditions.

Based on a review of the City's planning documents, and meetings with the Los Banos Public Works Department, Los Banos has projected growth in the north, south, and west directions. As such, the growth scenarios evaluated include:
• Northern Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied at Mercey Springs Road, and Nantes Avenue and Vineyard Drive.
• Southern Growth Scenario-Sewer loading applied at Cardoza Road and Badger Flat Road, Cardoza Road and Ortagalita Road, Cardoza Road and Center Avenue, Bluff Drive and Rainier Drive, South 11th Street and Page Avenue, Place Road and Pioneer Road. • Northwestern Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied at Badger Flat Road and Ramos Road, Nantes Avenue and Overland Rad, Nantes Avenue and Vineyard Drive. • Balanced Growth Scenario - Sewer loading applied uniformly at all growth areas.

The City's per capita sewer demand is 111 gpcd based on the WNMP. Using the City's peaking factor of 1.7, the sewer demand was scaled up to 189 gpcd. With the peak flow per capita demand and an average occupancy per household of 4.0 based on the 2020 US Census, the peak flow per housing unit is 755 gpd.

The analysis indicates that Los Banos' sewer collection system could maximize residential growth in the balanced growth scenario, resulting in approximately 5,252 additional housing units if growth occurred uniformly at all projected growth areas. The results of the analysis show that the collection system can accommodate additional housing units that exceeds the RHNA total housing units target of 3,132. A graphical summary of the hydraulic analysis results for each scenario are presented in Figures 4.10 - 4.13 below.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

283

Cltyof ... --CII¥-
,..,
Nal\tesAvea.

VI. Dt
lodpr Flot Ro•
.. mos Ro
Nante-sAve&
Overi.,.dRo
Cordou Rd a lladpt
Fl., Rd
c..rdoloftd,.
·'"
715.000
400,000
400,000
«Jlli,000
405,000
Badger Flat Rd & Ramos Rd
Scenario 1: 400,000 gpd, d/D: 0.92
J 150.000 .•
I I"- ' A.. ;p\0!11 , , I l lllul!Dtll~•~-~ - - ~ • ·,
···~·-· f J '
,. ! ...... ,
,._,
--U•lttTlllt01nlo .. s.m
-~-"
-..
1 :

C11yof City,---... - -,----
2,0!0
1 ~
•
NenllN A ... & O...rtand Dr
Scenario 1: 400,000 gpd, d/D: 07
~.
'\~
r
~ ,-·- N·~~~:a:vi1'!Yllrd .D~ '
Scenario 1: 715,000 gpd, d/D: 0.11
. ,. .-~ ~ - ,--~l
-i?
~ .:.1
Legend
~ Treatment Plant
• Sewer Load MH
• Manhole
- ,o·
- ·12"
15"
- 1e·
- 21•
- 24•
'T,._ ..... ' •·- .

Cardoza Rd & Badger Flat Rd
Scenario 1: 406,000 gpd, d/D: 0.92
....... -- -
~
C.nloza Rd & Ortagalltll Rd
Scenario 1: 405,000 gpd, d/D: 0.92
'\,
]
t
_lo,lj I, •«MC~-
CardOza Rd & Centllr A,..

Scenario 1: U0,000 gpd, d/D: 0.11
l
~ , SluffDr&RalnlerDr / i'l-~i \ • S11~_St&PageA... ~ PlaceRd&PlonNrRd Scenario 1: 225,000 gpcl, d/D: 0.H , i-,\ Scenario 1: _300,~_o gpd, d/D: 0.11 '-....., Scenario 1: 11,000 gpd, d/D: a.TT ...
t I
0 OponShe4Map (and) contrtoot!r., CC.SY-&\, Sourt:N: Eari. HERE, Golmin. USGS. lnlarmop. INCREMENT P, NRCoo, Eari Japan. METI.

Eall China (Hang Kong). E&II Ko"'•· Eari (Thailand). NGCC. {C) OponStrNIMap coolribulors, and IN GIS IJMr CGITffllnity, Source: Elli, Mtlllf; ea,,.,..., Gac,grapliOJ. and 111i·Gi~ UMrC<HM\Unlly
.. .,..,..~ I ....... 1
IY...,.-(ll.iiil =:'d'
MIIQCI County Aaoctallon
o1G........-
-.:.clCOWl!yWand Sanllaiy ,_,
lnflulnldlml capacity
-'--
FlguN4-10: Cltyafl.DaBanoa
Caloc:tlan Systam capability l'ar City-Wida G,_ $canarto A
1 inch= 3,500 feet
mil,
284

lllr., ... ___ _
- 1-11-,1-,
---~ ... I - 1 ~COD
N::.;; .. :1?$,COD II ,........,
~
==- - I ,.... I ,.... II ,..,..
---1 ~ t ~ ~:- - - - CllrfA ... _ ------1"'-- -· I =;;j:.-:: I= ', ., ... 1 m • .,_ 4,!IUD,000 4,!IUD,000
1l,.DDD,lllJ ~COD U.COO.COD

2.686,l7l l,,616,271 2,686,271

4.413.129 4.413.129 4,413.129
~ ~---
J
t
~-- f'•
·--~-
,, ___ r,.· ~ -
Nllntu Ave & Vineyard Dr
Scanarto 1: 175,000gpd, d/0: 0.75
Scenario 3: 1,5S0,9_0G_gpd, d/D: 0.92
Men:eySpi1~9!,~ __
Scenario 1: 775,000 all;!!,#,'>: .!!•!2
Scanarto 2: 1,550,114!1!, gpd, ~: _O.92
Legend
D Treatment Plant
• s-rLoadMH
• Manhole
- 10·
- 1-r
15"
- 1a·
- 21·
- 24•
--v-
- 30•
O OponStr-op (Ind) "'""'bu~_:_. ~Y..;.t., so,,.,,.., W. t<ERE. Gormin. USGS. lnlormep. INCREMENT P. NRCan. Ean Japan, METI, I Earl China (l<ong l(ong). Esn Ko ..... Ean (Thooland). NGCC. (c) Os>o,,S1rHIM p conlrib<Jtora, and lho GIS u.a, Co.,,,,.,.;ty, Sou1ca. Eon, Mua,. &rtMtllr G-otaphlc:.. n6 ttl ■ GIS U..r Community

IVC'AGIE I
MwceclCounty-tlon
<JIGO...mrMnla
-d CounlyWalllr
and SU,lta,y s-,
lllframudu19 Cllpaclly
-nt
Floure 4-11: c11y or us aa- eollktlon S,-,, Cllpablllly rw No-m G,_ Scen,rto
A
1 inch = 3,500 feet
mM, 285

Cllr-' .... - ·--
- I -• I -• I .......,.-
lldltrFlltMA I m.os I _.., ,. ... ~
O\ofttandlW I 750.0CD I I 141),000
~-
atf-'"'" _ ____ .., __ _
I -•
~1 1 ...... J , ,___J
-OU, -OU, -OU,
lkdger Fl•t Rd & ~ Rd
Scen•rlo 1: 121,175 gpd, d/D: 0.92
Scenario 2: 121,150 gpd, d/D: 0.92
!
t
i'
•Nantn Ave & Oveltand Dr
Scearlo 1: 750,000 gpd, d/D: OM
·, Scffarlo 2: M0,000 gpd, d/D: 0.41 \
""'-...Scen•rto 3: 1,485,000 gpd, d/D: OM •
,,...,t
""- 1 •
t
' ,,., ... , 'I 1 1~· : "~ .... ~ .,w.m~- · -
.... • ~ - ), ~
~
!
.. :,- r....1 1
I~
l J
7 ·"•r •• --_-'kr--· - -·-
. ~ I }
,. " • ! I
I ·nr ~
. ·- -~-.,. NaintM Ave & Vlneyanl Dr Saln rio 1: 1,531,ooo;gpd, d/D: 0.12 Scenario 3: 1,'111,!!!l_l!_llpd, d/D: D.12
x~1
.~
,._;:

Legend
~ Treatment Plant
• Sewer Load MH
• Manhole
15•
-· f . . 00.,.,.SONIMap (•rd) CDnllibulonl, Cc.eY.&A. Sou,-: Ean, HERE. Germn, USG$. lntormap, INCl!EMENTP. NRC10. Earl Japan, METI.

Elri Chino (Hong Kono). E11t Kor~, Eon (Tllliland), NOCC, (c) OponSlrN!Mop CDntnbul .... •nd !ho GIS LINr ConvnuM'/, Source: elli, - •••• e._, Ooagropllico, 1nd lhe GIil Uaar Comm•_!!~ IVC'rG[
•m-.. ,_.,..
·-
Merced County AMoclltlon
otG..,,.nunanlll
~d County Wlt■r
andSanlluyS-
--C paclly
-
Flgin 4-fl: City ot I.AMI a.,-
CDIK!lon Syslam pabllty
for Wuwm Grvwlll S..n rlo
A
1 inch ,. 3,500 feet
mll1
286

01¥<1 .... -•-...._...
..... -1 ~2 .ii.::-· Clrdou Rd & Badpr MDDO 430,000 A11M ClrdOUI Ad I; 350.000
d&t"
1tltaltd
... .-..
uo.cm -
37',0CD
0,,<1----•-,.,_.,...,_..
-· 5offlaio i1
-Sao-2 I Sao .....

Flow 0ut JIGWCM: Row 0ut
___J£_ - • ~;
7 Cardoza Rd & Badger Flat Rd
SceMrto 1: 395,000 gpcl, cl/D: OAS _____.

Scenario Z: 430,000 gpcl, cl/D: 0.41 ----
- " Canloza Rd & Ortagallta Rd scen ario 1: 350,000 gpcl, cl/D: 0.11 ........_ \a _ Scenario 2: 311,000 gpcl, cl/D: 0.92
., ""'·~ -- 5-
y..,..,. r .
•· '!Cardoza Rd & C.ntarAve
Scenario .1: 350,000 gpcl, ilio: 0.79
Scenario 2: 375,000 gpcl, cl/D: 0.75
,_.

Legend
6, Treatment Plant
• Sewer Load MH
• Manhole
- 10·
- 12"
15"
- 1a·
- 21·
- 24•
- V"
- 30"
.-... -~--
I"" J
.i
i BluffDr&RAllnl•rDr / r,., ~- S11thSt&Pe11•A1111
Sc.riarto 3: 175,000 gpcl, cl/D: 0.11 ' ., Scen•rto 3: 171,000 gpcl, cl/D: 0.92

7.__.......-- I~ -
').
' "II r:

Place Rd & PlonNr Rd
Scen•rlo 1: 2IO,OO0 gpcl, cl/D: 0,92
Sc.narlo 3: 2IO,OO0 gpcl, cl/D: 0,12
~ Scenario 1: 200,000 gpcl, cl/D: 0.90 J 1,.- , Scen•rlo 1: 4&1,000 gpcl, cl/D: 0, i -, I' 0 o_s_.,. (end) conlrtbu1Dro. CC-BY-$A, SoolON: Eao. HERE. Garmin. USGS. '" '"'""P- "'CFIEMENT P. NFICan. Eari Japan. METI. ,, Eon Chino (l-fo,,g Kong), Eoo Koroo. Eon CTh•lond), NGCC. (Cl O-S1rNlldap conlrtbul.,., ond 1ho GIS l/Mr Community, Source: E>ri. Maur. e.1111 ... , ~ph101. and ltlo'GiS l/Mr Community a Ill"' A~• amml .,,...,..( .... ==::
-CountyAuoclallon
afO-
-d Counly-r
and Sanitary Slllhutructute C.pacit,
-nt
Flgul9 4-13: City of Los Bann
Colllctlon Sptam COpablllty
rorS-mO-S..narlo
A
1 inch = 3,500 feet
mM, 287

mk~,

4.3.6 City of Merced Sanitary Sewer Collection System Capacity Analysis For Merced, a desktop hydraulic analysis of the existing sanitary sewer collection system was not completed because the City recently completed a comprehensive update to their wastewater collection system master plan document, which was completed by Stantec on February 9, 2023 (2023 WCSMP).

Since this is a completed master plan, the hydraulic analysis of the existing sewer collection system that was performed by Stantec was more detailed than the desktop approach used for the other cities. A review of this planning document was deemed sufficient in evaluating Merced's capability to accommodate additional housing due to the recency of the document. The 2023 WCSMP modeled Merced's sanitary sewer collection system consisting of approximately 400 miles of gravity pipeline ranging from 6- to 48-inch in diameter. The City's peak loading used in the analysis was 19.5 MGD for the existing system conditions.

Based on a review of the City's planning documents, Merced has projected growth in the north, east, and west directions. The 2023 WCSMP evaluated the sewer collection system with the peak daily load and determined the existing system can convey the peak load and meet level of service (LOS) guidelines with no surcharging. The level of service guidelines used in the analysis are:

1. Surcharging Criteria: A manhole is considered surcharged if the HGL exceeds the exit pipe's crown elevation.

2. Velocity: Velocities within the collection system are within a 2-7 fps range.

3. Pipe Capacity: Flows within the collection system will adhere to a maximum d/O of 0. 7 for diameters up to 24 inches, and a maximum d/O of 1.0 for pipes greater than 24 inches.

With the existing sanitary sewer collection system modeled and observed to be adequate to meet existing peak sewer loadings, the WCSMP then modeled the collection system under "interim" system conditions, which considered the existing sewer collection system with no improvements under a peak daily load of

31.6 MGD based on the city's additional planned service areas. The interim system model results showed LOS failures and capacity deficiencies in the existing sewer system infrastructure. Although the WCSMP did not model the existing system with additional loading to detail the additional capacity the system could accommodate, recommended interim Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) were provided that gave the city the capacity to accommodate 34,628 additional housing units, which shows an additional housing units surplus as the Merced RHNA housing target is 10,517 housing units. The recommended CIP's will be discussed in section 5 of this report.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

288

4.4 Independent Districts
The infrastructure capacity assessment also included a literature review of smaller independent districts that provide water and/or sanitary sewer services within Merced County. The independent districts had water and sanitary sewer assessments completed in their respective Draft Environmental Impact Reports (DEIR), as well as prepared Community Plans, and this assessment is based solely on information obtained from infrastructure analyses prepared for planning documents. Based on the MSR, there are a total of fourteen (14) independent districts providing water and/or sewer to communities. In discussion with the Merced County LAFCo and Merced County Community and Economic Development Department, four (4) districts were identified as capable of potentially accommodating additional housing with infrastructure improvements considered. The four independent districts include:
• Delhi County Water District
• Hilmar County Water District
• Planada Community Services District
• Winton Water and Sanitary District
The following sections summarize the identified districts existing potable water and sanitary sewer infrastructure capacity and demands. Based on comments provided by Merced County LAFCo and Community and Economic Development Department, some districts have policies that keep a percentage _ of their capacities reserved as a conservative approach. As such, it is important to note that the literature review only considers the infrastructure and hydraulic surplus and does not account for policy.

4.4.1 Delhi County Water District
Delhi is an unincorporated community located along Highway 99, north of the Merced River and south of the Stanislaus-Merced County Line and is the largest unincorporated community in Merced County.

Based on the MSR, Delhi currently serves both water and sanitary sewer to approximately 8,000 users through 2,476 connections. Merced LAFCo recently processed two annexations of two neighborhoods, adding approximately 76 new connections. It is important to note that these 76 new connections are for potable water services only. However, since these areas are now annexed into the Delhi County Water District's boundary, sanitary sewer services can be considered in the future. Delhi's current potable water capacity is around 3,993 gpm, with a community wide peak demand of 2,889 gpm. This results in a potable water surplus of 1,104 gpm.

Additionally, Delhi utilizes a gravity sewer collection system to convey approximately 0.67 mgd of wastewater flow to the community's wastewater treatment facility rated to operate at a capacity of 0.80 mgd, resulting in a sanitary sewer system that can accommodate approximately 0.13 mgd if maximizing the wastewater treatment facilities capacity. Although there is an identified surplus observed from the literature review for both water and sanitary sewer, upgrades and expansion to the existing infrastructure may be required for the buildout of the Community Plan area and additional residential beyond the buildout of the adopted Community Plan. Additional limiting factors potentially come from the Turlock Subbasin GSP, which defines a sustainable yield of 310,700 AFY to ten (10) entities, of which Delhi is included. However, allocation to each of the ten entities have not been defined yet. Although there is currently no adjudicated sustainable yield for agencies within the Turlock Subbasin, the GSP states the subbasin is being over drafted. Therefore, each groundwater withdrawer within the Basin will likely be required to reduce groundwater withdrawals unless the groundwater is replenished through recharge.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

289

mk~,

4.4.2 Hilmar County Water District
Hilmar is an unincorporated community located in northern Merced County, west of Delhi with Highway 165 bisecting the community planning area. Based on the MSR, Hilmar currently serves both water and sanitary sewer to approximately 5,500 users through 1,576 potable water connections and 1,558 sanitary sewer connections. Planada's current potable water capacity is around 1,597 gpm, with a community wide peak demand of 1,319 gpm. This results in a potable water surplus of 278 gpm. Additionally, Hilmar utilizes a gravity sewer collection system to convey approximately 0.40 mgd of wastewater flow to the community's wastewater treatment facility rated to operate at a capacity of 0.55 mgd, resulting in a sanitary sewer system that can accommodate 0.15 mgd. Although there is an identified surplus observed from the literature review for both water and sanitary sewer, upgrades and expansion to the existing infrastructure may be required for the buildout of the Community Plan area and additional residential beyond the buildout of the adopted Community Plan.

Additional limiting factors potentially come from the Turlock Subbasin GSP, which defines a sustainable yield of 310,700 AFY to ten (10) entities, of which Hilmar is included. However, allocation to each of the ten entities have not been defined yet. Although there is currently no adjudicated sustainable yield for agencies within the Turlock Subbasin, the GSP states the subbasin is being over drafted. Therefore, each groundwater withdrawer within the Basin will likely be required to reduce groundwater withdrawals unless the groundwater is replenished through recharge.

4.4.3 Planada Community Services District
Planada is an unincorporated community located in eastern Merced County, along Highway 140, four miles east of the City of Merced. Based on the MSR, Planada currently serves both water and sanitary sewer to approximately 5,500 users through 1,300 potable water connections and 1,181 sanitary sewer connections. Planada's current potable water capacity is approximately 3,000 gpm, with a community wide average demand of 674 gpm. This results in a potable water surplus of 2,326 gpm. Additionally, Planada utilizes a gravity sewer collection system to convey approximately 0.50 mgd of wastewater flow to the community's wastewater treatment facility rated to operate at a capacity of 0.75 mgd due to upgrades to the facility in 2016 as stated by the DEIR, resulting in a sanitary sewer system that can accommodate 0.25 mgd. Although there is an identified surplus for water and a marginal surplus for sanitary sewer observed from the literature review, upgrades and expansion to the existing infrastructure would be required for the buildout of the Community Plan area and additional residential beyond the buildout of the adopted Community Plan.

Additional limiting factors potentially come from the Merced County Subbasin GSP, which defines a sustainable yield of 570,000 AFY to eight (8) entities, of which Planada is included. However, allocation to each of the eight entities have not been defined yet. Although there is currently no adjudicated sustainable yield for agencies within the Merced County Subbasin, the GSP states the subbasin is being over drafted. Therefore, each groundwater withdrawer within the Basin will likely be required to reduce groundwater withdrawals unless the groundwater is replenished through recharge.

4.4.4 Winton Water and Sanitary District
Winton is an unincorporated community located in eastern Merced County, two miles east of Highway 99 and just northeast of the City of Atwater. Based on the MSR and 2021 Community Plan, Winton currently serves both water and sanitary sewer to approximately 8,900 users through 2,900 connections. Winton's current potable water system consists of four groundwater wells (3 active, 1 standby) with a capacity of Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment
Page I 4-24
290

approximately 4,200 gpm, and a community wide average demand of 1,083 gpm. This results in a potable water surplus of 3,117 gpm. However, two of the three active wells exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 1,2,3 trichloropropane (TCP) allowed for California drinking water standards. Additionally, Winton utilizes a gravity sewer collection system to convey approximately 0.66 mgd of wastewater flow to the Atwater wastewater treatment facility with a reserved operational capacity 1.0 mgd, resulting in a sanitary sewer system that can accommodate 0.34 mgd. Although there is an identified surplus for water and sanitary sewer observed from the literature review, upgrades and expansion to the existing infrastructure would be required for the buildout of the Community Plan area and additional residential beyond the buildout of the adopted Community Plan.

Additional limiting factors potentially come from the Merced County Subbasin GSP, which defines a sustainable yield of 570,000 AFY to eight (8) entities, of which Winton is included. However, allocation to each of the eight entities have not been defined yet. Although there is currently no adjudicated sustainable yield for agencies within the Merced County Subbasin, the GSP states the subbasin is being over drafted.

Therefore, each groundwater withdrawer within the Basin will likely be required to reduce groundwater withdrawals unless the groundwater is replenished through recharge.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

291

5.0 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS

5.1 Summary
Upon completion of the analysis of each potable water and sanitary sewer treatment supply/capacity and demand, the desktop hydraulic analysis for each city's water distribution system and sanitary sewer collection system, and a literature review of the independent districts existing capacities, MKN has determined recommended projects or next steps for each respective city/independent district. These recommendations will consider the need for updating any outdated planning documents, investigations into existing system infrastructure, as well as infrastructure capacity improvements such as the construction of additional wells or pipeline replacements. Any recommendations for upsizing of a City/Agency WWTF is based on the RWQCB standard for future improvement planning of a facility when flows meet or exceed 80% of a WWTF operational capacity. It is important to note that the desktop hydraulic analysis for each city is considered a conservative assessment, and updates to all master planning documents includes completing a calibrated hydraulic model. All costs developed for each recommended project are based on recent costs from similar projects.

5.2 City of Atwater Recommendations
Atwater's current water supply can meet the City's MDD when all existing wells are online, but it does not meet the MOD when considering firm capacity. Atwater's Public Works and Community Development Departments also indicated their General Plan needs to be updated and the master plan needs to be revised to reflect the updated General Plan. Additionally, Atwater's current sewer system treatment capacity can meet the City's average and peak daily loading conditions. Therefore, the following projects are recommended for the City of Atwater:
• Update the 2000 General Plan to accurately reflect their projected development areas. Project Cost = $300,000.
• Update the 2019 Water Master Plan as it references the outdated General Plan and was never circulated. Perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's water distribution system to address known bottlenecks in the existing infrastructure and to determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional water supply. Project cost = $100,000.
• Equip Well 20 and bring it online to increase the water supply. Project Cost= $2.5M • Update the 2019 Sewer Master Plan as it references the outdated General Plan and was never circulated. Perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's sanitary sewer collection system to address deficient pipelines in the existing infrastructure and to determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional sewer loading. Project cost = $100,000.
• Upgrades to the existing WWTF to increase its operational capacity to a minimum of 8 MGD based on minor improvements stated by the City Public Works team, or the planned buildout capacity of 12 MGD. Project cost = $30M.

5.3 City of Dos Palos Recommendations
• Update the WMP to reflect the existing water system and demand conditions, perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's water distribution system to address known aging Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment Page I 5-1
292

m~,
infrastructure, and determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional water supply. Project cost= $150,000.
• Update the SMP to reflect the existing sewer collection system and loading conditions, perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's sanitary sewer collection system to address known aging infrastructure, and determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional sewer loading. Project cost= $150,000.

5.4 City of Gustine Recommendations
Gustine's current water supply marginally meets the MOD when considering firm capacity and is not sufficient to supply future development. The City's water master plan also has not been updated since 2002. The city is also pumping 1,400 AF of groundwater per year, which is greater than the sustainable yield of 400 AF per year defined in the Delta-Mendota subbasin. Gustine's current sewer system treatment capacity meets average and peak daily flows. The City's sanitary sewer master plan also has not been updated since 2003. Therefore, the following projects are recommended for the City of Gustine:
• Update the 2002 WMP to reflect the existing water system and demand conditions, perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's water distribution system to address known aging infrastructure, and determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional water supply. Project cost= $150,000.
• Construct the new Well No. 8 to increase water supply. Project Cost= $3M. • Evaluate alternative water supply or demand reduction measures and groundwater replenishment opportunities to bring the city in compliance with the groundwater pumping goals stated in the GSP. Project Cost= $100,000 (The scope of this project is undefined, and the $100,000 project cost is an allowance to support the project.) • Update the 2002 SMP to reflect the existing sanitary sewer collection system and loading conditions, perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's sanitary sewer collection system to address known aging infrastructure1 and determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional sewer loading. Project cost= $150,000. • Update the 1999 General Plan to accurately reflect their projected development areas.

Project Cost = $300,000

5.5 City of Livingston Recommendations
Livingston's current water supply does not meet the City's MOD when all existing wells are online, nor does it meet the MOD when considering firm capacity, relying on the 1 MGD storage tank for meeting demands. The City's water master plan also has not been updated since 2007. Livingston's current sewer system treatment capacity marginally meets the City's average and peak daily loading. The Regional Board requires planning for WWTF expansion when a facility reaches 80% of operational capacity. Based on Livingston's sewer flow data, Livingston is currently at 85% operational capacity when considering average flow and 88% when considering peak flow. The City's sewer master plan also has not been updated since 2007 and was never circulated. Additionally, Livingston's General Plan has not been updated since 1999. Therefore, the following projects are recommended for the City of Livingston:
• Update the 1999 General Plan to accurately reflect their projected development areas. Project Cost = $300,000
Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

293

5.6 m~,
• Update the 2007 WMP to reflect the existing water system and demand conditions, perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's water distribution system to address known aging infrastructure, and determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional water supply. Project cost= $150,000.
• Construct the two new proposed wells in Northern Livingston to increase water supply.

Project Cost = $SM
• Update the 2007 WWCSMP to reflect the existing sanitary sewer collection system and loading conditions, perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's sanitary sewer collection system to address known aging infrastructure, and determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional water supply. Project cost = $150,000.
• Upgrades to the existing WWTF to increase its operational capacity to 3 MGD. Project Cost= $10.5M
City of Los Banos Recommendations
Los Banos' current water supply marginally meets the MDD when considering firm capacity and is not sufficient to supply future development. The City's water master plan also has not been updated since 2010. The city is also pumping 7,900 AF of groundwater per year, which is greater than the sustainable yield of 2,300 AF per year defined in the Delta-Mendota subbasin GSP. Additionally, Los Banos' current sanitary sewer treatment capacity meets the average and peak daily flows. The City's wastewater master plan has not been updated since 2010. Therefore, the following projects are recommended for the City of Los Banos:
• Update the 2010 WMP to reflect the existing water system and demand conditions, perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's water distribution system to address known aging infrastructure, and to determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional water supply more accurately. Project cost= $200,000. • Construct the new proposed well and storage tank to increase water supply.

Project Cost = $9.2M.
• Evaluate alternative water supply or demand reduction measures and groundwater replenishment opportunities to bring the city in compliance with the groundwater pumping goals stated in the GSP. Project Cost = $100,000 (The scope of this project is undefined, and the $100,000 project cost is an allowance to support the project.) • Update the 2010 WWMP to reflect the existing sewer collection system and loading conditions, perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's sewer collection system to address known aging infrastructure, and to determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional sewer loading more accurately. Project cost= $200,000.

5.7 City of Merced Recommendations
The City currently has sufficient water supply to accommodate existing and future development to meet their RHNA target housing number. However, water distribution or adding new supplies at different locations may be necessary in order to deliver the water to future housing areas. Merced currently has sufficient operational capacity of its WWTF and sewer collection system to accommodate existing system conditions. However, improvements to the existing facilities will be necessary based on the interim modeling results of the WCSMP to accommodate future development to meet their RHNA target housing number Therefore, the following projects are recommended for the City of Merced:

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment
Page I 5-3
294

5,8
mk~,
• Update the 2014 WMP to reflect the existing water system and demand conditions, perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of the city's water distribution system to address known aging infrastructure, and determine appropriate pipeline upsizing to accommodate additional water supply. Project cost= $200,000.
• Operational modifications to a force main discharge location at Bellevue Ranch Pump Station (CIP 1 ). Project Cost = $0, Stantec suggests changing operations of the pump station to discharge through the larger force main that already exists at the pump station. • Install new 36-inch parallel sewer and creek crossing to expand the capacity of existing system to convey flow from north Merced (CIP 2). Project Cost= $4.6M • Replacing the 48-inch interceptor and West Avenue sewers to increase capacity and improve poor physical condition of existing collection system, upsizing the 42-inch North Merced West Avenue trunk to facilitate the conjunction of the new Bear Creek Crossing parallel sewer and existing North Merced West Avenue trunk (CIP 3&4).

Project Cost= $12M
• Install a new 27-inch extension of the Yosemite Avenue sewer from G street to R Street and further extending to El Redondo Drive connecting to the Highway 59 pump station sewer shed to provide additional capacity to serve the City's sewer service commitments and pre-annexation areas interim areas (CIP 5). Project Cost= 1.8M • Install a new parallel 27-inch sewer in G street from Bellevue Road to Community College drive to provide additional capacity for North Merced under full build-out conditions (CIP 6). Project Cost ... $2M
Independent Districts Recommendations
The literature review of each respective independent district determined that there was surplus capacity for potable water and sewer for each of the four districts included in the assessment. However, discussions with LAFCo and the Merced County Community and Economic Development Department did indicate that these districts would require further infrastructure improvements to accommodate additional residential development beyond what was anticipated in the Community Plans of the respective unincorporated communities. As such, it is recommended that the county and independent districts pursue the following recommendations:

Merced County Projects:
• Update Delhi Community Plan to provide greater detail of existing system facilities, supplies, and demands to determine necessary infrastructure upgrades for accommodating future housing growth. Project cost = $100,000. • Develop infrastructure master plans for each independent district to address water and sanitary sewer service improvements. Project cost = $100,000 per district Independent District Projects:
• Hilmar to construct two proposed new groundwater wells at the northern section of the proposed planning area. Project cost = $4M
• Hilmar to construct proposed one MG storage tank at northeast section of proposed planning area. Project cost .. $3.5M
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

295

• Hilmar to upsize sections of existing pipe within the current water district boundary to 1 on12". Project cost= $1M • P1anada to construct three wells rated at 500 gpm each, with 5,000-gatlon hydropneumatic tanks at each well site. Project cost = $6M
• Planada to upsize the existing 4n water line on Cody Avenue between Stanford and Haskell to an. Project cost= $650,000.
• Winton to construct two proposed new groundwater wells at the northern section of the proposed planning area. Project cost = $4M
• Winton to construct a replacement well and wellhead treatment equipment to mitigate the MCL exceedances of TCP at two of their existing wells. Project cost = $3M. • Winton to expand the Atwater wastewater treatment plant or construct a separate wastewater treatment facility. Project cost= $SM - 35M assuming a 2MGD V\/WTF size. • Delhi to upgrade Lift station 1 pump to 2,900 gpm and construct a new force main connecting this lift station to the wastewater treatment plant. Project Cost= $2.15M • Delhi to upgrade Lift Station 4 from 180 gpm to 350 gpm. Project Cost= $300,000 • Delhi to upgrade Lift Station 5 to 500 gpm. Project Cost= $300,000 • Delhi to construct lift station east of Flower Street, north of Letteau Avenue. Project Cost = $1M
• Delhi to construct lift station near August Road and Corner Street. Project Cost= $1M • Delhi to construct a new V\/WTF to upgrade treatment capacity to 2MGD. Project Cost = $35M
• Hilmar to construct lift station near Echo Street and Camden Drive. Project Cost= $1M • Hilmar to construct lift station south of Geer Avenue and TIO Lateral 7. Project Cost= $1 M • Hilmar to upgrade 'WNTF from 0.46 MGD to 1.4 MGD. Project Cost= $1 OM Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Infrastructure Capacity Assessment

296

CITY OF LIVINGSTON
Water System Capacity Assessment Update
December 17, 2024
1

Notable Updates
• January 16, 2024, urgency ordinance request
(moratorium).
• April 2, 2024, water system update.
• November 2023 Technical Memorandum (TM).
• Approved projects that were part of the TM.
• Future supply conditions.
• TCP progress
• NewWells

Notable Updates
• September 31 2024, council approved formation of the
Ad-Hoc Committee to evaluate over the counter
building permit applications subject to the City of
Livingston's current water supply conditions.
• September 3, 2024, as part of the Ad-Hoc Committee
item it was shared that Public Works staff provided
updated capacities from some of the City wells based
on current production records due to seasonal
adjustments or equipment wear.
3

Technical Analysis
• The Water Capacity Assessment Study is intended for
planning purposes and is based on theoretical water
supply and system demand per California Water Code
regulations
• The theoretical water supply (firm source capacity) is based on the City's total well production minus the water production from the largest well
• The theoretical system demand (water consumption) is
based on the highest annual consumption from the last 10 years
• Results from the Water Capacity Assessment are not
absolute but are relative to the water consumption from year to year
• The current 2023 Water Capacity Assessment is based on the system demand (MDD) from year 2014 (highest in the
last 10 years)
4

Technical Analysis
• The next Water Capacity Assessment will most likely be based on the system demand (MDD) from year 2015 and
can be completed in early 2025
• The 2023 Water Capacity Assessment yielded a spare
water capacity of o (-22) gallons per minute under 2014 MDD
• A 2025 Water Capacity Assessment would yield a spare
water capacity of 555 gallons per minute under 2015 MDD • Using the firm source capacity, the City's spare water capacity under 2024 MDD would be similar to 2023 if the consumption trend is maintained. This information may
also be used for planning purposes.
5

Operational Analysis
• April 2024 Water/Wastewater Equipment Analysis Report • As part of the report, it was identified by operational staff that the operations team has struggled to maintain
system water pressure above 45 psi during periods of
peak hour demand in Summer months.
• These pressure challenges have occurred while all city wells are in operation.
• Water operational staff have experienced issues with
water system equipment failures in the past. When these failures take place in Summer during peak hour demand it further decreases system reliability to maintain system pressure.
6

Operational Analysis
• In September 2024, staff secured the services of Power Hydrodynamics Inc. to perform well efficiency testing and to provide a thorough inspection of the operating
condition of City Wells.
• Each Well was flow tested to confirm maximum
production, that production data was used to update the available water capacity that was provided in the
Technical Memorandum that was completed by the
Engineering department.
• After updating the available water capacity using the most current numbers from the efficiency testing the
available water capacity places the water system further in the negative for planning purposes.
7

Water System Capacity Table
Water System Capacity
Finn Source Capacity (gpm) MOO Available
Capacity Largest Producing Well Offline Cgpm) (gpml
~/Netty 7.2001,~on
.A4se55menr l'l"om 2014 7,222 0 (·22)
No-...mb« 2013 Consumo!ion
Using 20:22
Consu,nplion 5,507 1.715
Using 2023 5 .il::?O 1.311 Consumption
~54<: on 20 t o· 6 6'37 555 Consumption
u.;,,g w•r..r 6,6501>-on
production 2Cl 14 ; .222 0 l-572 1
pro"od«l by Public Consumo!ion
Worl<a on A..30-2024 Us,ng 202:1
Consumplion 5.507 1,:4 3
using 2023
Consumplion 5 820 ~30
B.tM<Jon:?0I~· ~ aa, 0 l·H J Consump!IOn
Uslngwalll!f" 5.992 based on production rrom 2014 7.222 0 ,., 230t pump .mc;.ncy Consumpl)()n 11esdn9 on 9--18-
2024 I.king 202.2
Consumption 5507 4S5
US.ng 2023 5.820 172 Consumption
Basea on 20,e· e.ae7 0 (-67f l c .... ...,..,plion
• tu 1he •ncl of 2024 C3ienaar year. !he h ·gh-consumption "" the previous 10 vears will be 2015 8

Water Consumpt ion Table
Total l la:dmum Da~· ».mand
!\Ill Annaal Anna:•Daih· lfasMoath MDD Peak Bour
Y.ar l\foatb Production ».maad, ADD ».mand, !\L\ID DftDaad, (MG) (lpd) (Jal) Date (MG) (gpm) PBD(om)
2022 Jun~ 2.049 5.613.686 212.753.367 Sq,r. 7 7 93 5.507 8.260 2021 May 2.175 5.957.836 257 .227.667 Jan. 21 8.58 5.958 S.938 2020 July 2.779 7.615.057 289.093.016 July 16 9.30 6.458 9.687 2019 July 2.395 6,561.627 256.02-090 Jun~ 12 7.99 5549 8,323 2018 July 1.214 6,093.102 267.1S0.750 Aug 14 9 45 6.563 9.844 2017 August .:? ,037 5.582.170 215,61 7.627 Sepr. 1 7 -B 5.160 7.740 2016 July 2.191 6,003.535 235.6S9.000 Aug. 13 9.44 6.556 9.833 2015 July 2.190 5.99S.647 235.036.000 Aug. 8 9.60 6.661 10.000 2014 Augusr 2.386 6.537.378 2:54.049.000 Aug. 22 10.40 7,222 10.833 2013 Augusr 2.481 6.796.932 255.253.000 Jun~ 13 10.16 7.056 10.583 9

Conclusion
• All three reports from the Technical Memorandum of
November 2023, the Field Analysis Report of April
2024, and the Well Efficiency Testing Report completed
in September 2024 show that there is o spare water
capacity available for planning purposes.
• The November 2023 theoretical available water
capacity depicts a -22-gpm finding, the Field Analysis
Report shows an available water capacity of -572-gpm
while compared to the most recent field assessment
that shows that there is a -1,230-gpm available water
capacity for planning purposes.
• The next Water Capacity Assessment will most likely be based on the system demand (MDD) from year 2015
and can be completed in early 2025
10

AGENDA ITEM:

MEETING DATE:

PREPARED BY:

REVIEWED BY:

STAFF REPORT
Authorization to enter into set up and administration Agreements with the Department of Fee and Tax Administration (CDTFA) and to Examine Sales and Use Tax Records from the CDTFA to Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates and Authorized City Staff
December 17, 2024
Christopher Lopez, Interim City Manager
Happy Bains, Acting Finance Director
Roy Santos, City Attorney

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council adopt:
(1) Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston authorizing the Interim City Manager California
or Finance Director/Assistance City Manager, Acting Finance Director to Execute Agreements with the Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the implementation of a local transactions and use tax."
(2) Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Authorizing Examination of Sales or Transactions and Use Tax Records"

BACKGROUND
The City Ordinance 657 was approved at the November 5th election as Measure L with a 2/3 vote.

Therefore, the City will start to levy a 1 % sales tax in the City of Livingston for police and fire services, commencing April 1, 2025. The Department of Tax and Fee Administration administers the transaction and use tax for the City of Livingston.

DISCUSSION
The City is entering into two Agreements related to administration of the sales tax with the California Department of Fee and Tax Administration (CDFTA). The first is the Agreement for Preparation to administer and Operate the Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance. This allows the State to prepare the set up for administering the ordinance. The costs of this will not exceed $175,000.

The Second Agreement relates to the administration of the sales tax by the CDFTA and is called the Agreement for State Administration of City Transaction and Use Taxes.

The Second resolution authorizes certain city staff and the City's sales tax consultant, HDL Coren and Cone to examine the information from the CDFTA which may be confidential.

The State of California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7056 authorizes the examination of confidential sales and use tax data to officers or employees of local jurisdictions who are designated by resolution of the legislative body of the jurisdiction. The review of confidential information is governed by

STAFF REPORT
State Law and sets certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of sales and use tax records.

State Law also establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of sales and use tax information.

This adopting resolution further formalizes the City Manager (including interim CM) and Finance Director's (including acting Finance Director) ability to work with the CDTFA. The resolution also authorizes the City Manager or Finance Director to designate in writing to the State Board any other officer or employee of the City that may need to examine sales and use tax records.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that City Council adopt Resolutions.

FISCAL IMPACT
The initial contract with the State to not exceed $175,000. Authorize the Finance Department for a supplemental appropriation and authorization to make any necessary budget adjustments.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolutions.

2. Preparatory Agreement.

3. Administration Agreement.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER OR THE FINANCE DIRECTOR/ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION

FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A LOCAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2024. the City Council approved Ordinance No. 657 amending the City Municipal Code and providing for a local transactions and use tax; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) administers and collects the transactions and use taxes for all applicable jurisdictions within the state; and WHEREAS, the Department will be responsible for administering and collect the transactions and use tax for the City; and
WHEREAS, the Department requires that the City enter into a "Preparatory Agreement" and an "Administrative Agreement" prior to implementation of said taxes, and WHEREAS, the Department requires that the City Council authorize the agreements; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livingston, California, that the "Preparatory Agreement" attached as Exhibit A and the "Administrative Agreement" attached as Exhibit B are hereby approved and the City Manager or Finance Director/Assistant City Manager is hereby authorized to execute each agreement. Authorize the Finance Department to make a supplemental appropriation not to exceed $175,000 and authorization to make necessary budget adjustments.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livingston, California that this Resolution will become effective immediately.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024- __ is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Livingston at a regular meeting thereof duly held on the 17th day of December, by the vote recorded as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

By:------------
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
Page I of 4

CITY OF LIVINGSTON
Jose A. Moran, Mayor
of City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

By:,,----------------
Roy C. Santos, City Attorney

EXHIBIT A - PREPARTORY AGREEMENT

AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION TO ADMINISTER AND OPERATE

CITY'S TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX ORDINANCE
In order to prepare to administer a transactions and use tax ordinance adopted in accordance with the provision of Part 1.6 ( commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the City of LIVINGSTON, hereinafter called City, and the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION, hereinafter called Department, do agree as follows:

1. The Department agrees to enter into work to prepare to administer and operate a transactions and use tax in conformity with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code which has been approved by a majority of the elect.ors of the City and whose ordinance has been adopted by the City.

2. City agrees to pay to the Department at the times and in the amounts hereinafter specified all of the Department's costs for preparatory work necessary to administer the City's transactions and use tax ordinance. The Department's costs for preparatory work include costs of developing procedures, programming for data processing, developing and adopting appropriate regulations, designing and printing forms, developing instructions for the Department's staff and for taxpayers, and other appropriate and necessary preparatory costs to administer a transactions and use tax ordinance.

These costs shall include both direct and indirect costs as specified in Section 11256 of the Government Code.

3. Preparatmy costs may be accounted for in a manner which conforms to the internal accounting and personnel records currently maintained by the Department. The billings for costs may be presented in summary form. Detailed records of preparatory costs will be retained for audit and verification by the City.

4. Any dispute as to the amount of preparatory costs incurred by the Department shall be referred to the State Director of Finance for resolution, and the Director's decision shall be final.

5. Preparatory costs incurred by the Department shall be billed by the Department periodically, with the final billing within a reasonable time after the operative date of the ordinance.

City shall pay to the Department the amount of such costs on or before the last day of the next succeeding month following the month when the billing is received. (Rev. 07/24)

6. The amount to be paid by City for the Department's preparatory costs shall not exceed one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7272.)

7. Communications and notices may be sent by first class United States mail or through email at [email protected]. If and when communications and notices may include confidential information, communications and notices must be sent through encrypted email at [email protected] or by mail. Communications and notices to be sent to the Department shall be addressed to:

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration
P.O. Box 942879 MIC: 27
Sacramento, California 94279-0027
Attention: Administrator
Local Revenue Branch
Communications and notices to be sent to City shall be addressed to:

City Manager
City of Livingston
1416 C Street
Livingston, CA 95334

8. The date of this agreement is the date on which it is approved by the Department of General Services. This agreement shall continue in effect until the preparatory work necessary to administer City's transactions and use tax ordinance has been completed and the Department has received all payments due from City under the terms of this agreement.

CITY OF LIVINGSTON
By ____________ _
(Signature)
Christopher Lopez
Interim City Manager
Date: --------------
(Rev. 07 /24) 2

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX

AND FEE ADMINISTRATION
By _____________ _
Administrator
Local Revenue Branch
Date: --------------

EXHIBIT B - ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT

AGREEMENT FOR ST ATE ADMINISTRATION

OF CITY TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES
The City Council of the City of Livingston has adopted, and the voters of the City of Livingston (hereafter called "City" or "District") have approved by the required majority vote, the City of Livingston Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance (hereafter called "Ordinance"), a copy of which is attached hereto. To carry out the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and the Ordinance, the California State Department of Tax and Fee Administration, (hereinafter called the "Department") and the City do agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

DEFINITIONS
Unless the context requires otherwise, wherever the following terms appear in the Agreement, they shall be interpreted to mean the following:

I. "District taxes" shall mean the transactions and use taxes, penalties, and interest imposed under an ordinance specifically authorized by Revenue and Taxation code Section 7285.9, and in compliance with Part 1.6, Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

2. "City Ordinance" shall mean the City's Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance referred to above and attached hereto, Ordinance No. 657, as amended from time to time, or as deemed to be amended from time to time pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7262.2.

ARTICLE II

ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION

OF CITY TAXES
A. Administration. The Department and City agree that the Department shall perform exclusively all functions incident to the administration and operation of the City Ordinance.

B. Other Applicable Laws. City agrees that all provisions of law applicable to the administration and operation of the Department Sales and Use Tax Law which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall be applicable to the administration and operation of the City Ordinance. City agrees that money collected pursuant to the City Ordinance may be deposited into the State Treasury to the credit of the Retail Sales Tax Fund and may be drawn from that Fund for any authorized purpose, including making refunds, compensating and reimbursing the Department pursuant to Article IV of this Agreement, and transmitting to City the amount to which City is entitled.

C. Transmittal of money.

I. For the period during which the tax is in effect, and except as otherwise provided herein, all district taxes collected under the provisions of the City Ordinance shall be transmitted to City periodically as promptly as feasible, but not less often than twice in each calendar quarter.

2. For periods subsequent to the expiration date of the tax whether by City's self-imposed limits or by final judgment of any court of the State of California holding that City's ordinance is invalid or void, all district taxes collected under the provisions of the City Ordinance shall be transmitted to City not less than once in each calendar quarter.

3. Transmittals may be made by mail or electronic funds transfer to an account of the City designated and authorized by the City. A statement shall be furnished at least quarterly indicating the amounts withheld pursuant to Article IV of this Agreement.

D. Rules. The Department shall prescribe and adopt such rules and regulations as 111 its judgment are necessary or desirable for the administration and operation of the City Ordinance and the distribution of the district taxes collected thereunder.

E. Preference. Unless the payor instructs otherwise, and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Department shall give no preference in applying money received for state sales and use taxes, state-administered local sales and use taxes, and district transactions and use taxes owed by a taxpayer, but shall apply moneys collected to the satisfaction of the claims of the State, cities, counties, cities and counties, redevelopment agencies, other districts, and City as their interests appear. (Rev. 7/24) 2

F. Security. The Department agrees that any security which it hereafter requires to be furnished by taxpayers under the State Sales and Use Tax Law will be upon such terms that it also will be available for the payment of the claims of City for district taxes owing to it as its interest appears.

The Department shall not be required to change the terms of any security now held by it, and City shall not participate in any security now held by the Department.

G. Records of the Department.

When requested by resolution of the legislative body of the City under section 7056 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the Department agrees to permit authorized personnel of the City to examine the records of the Department, including the name, address, and account number of each seller holding a seller's permit with a registered business location in the City, pertaining to the ascertainment of transactions and use taxes collected for the City. Information obtained by the City from examination of the Department's records shall be used by the City only for purposes related to the collection of transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to this Agreement.

H. Annexation. City agrees that the Department shall not be required to give effect to an annexation, for the purpose of collecting, allocating, and distributing District transactions and use taxes, earlier than the first day of the calendar quarter which commences not less than two months after notice to the Department. The notice shall include the name of the county or counties annexed to the extended City boundary. In the event the City shall annex an area, the boundaries of which are not coterminous with a county or counties, the notice shall include a description of the area annexed and two maps of the City showing the area annexed and the location address of the property nearest to the extended City boundary on each side of every street or road crossing the boundary.

ARTICLE III

ALLOCATION OF TAX
A. Allocation. In the administration of the Department's contracts with all districts that impose transactions and use taxes imposed under ordinances, which comply with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:

I. Any payment not identified as being in payment of liability owing to a designated district or districts may be apportioned among the districts as their interest appear, or, in the discretion (Rev. 7/24) 3

of the Department, to all districts with which the Department has contracted using ratios reflected by the distribution of district taxes collected from all taxpayers.

2. All district taxes collected as a result of determinations or billings made by the Department, and all amounts refunded or credited may be distributed or charged to the respective districts in the same ratio as the taxpayer's self-declared district taxes for the period for which the determination, billing, refund or credit applies.

B. Vehicles, Vessels, and Aircraft. For the purpose of allocating use tax with respect to vehicles, vessels, or aircraft, the address of the registered owner appearing on the application for registration or on the certificate of ownership may be used by the Department in determining the place of use.

ARTICLE IV

COMPENSATION
The City agrees to pay to the Department as the State's cost of administering the City Ordinance such amount as is provided for by law. Such amounts shall be deducted from the taxes collected by the Department for the City.

ARTICLE V

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Communications. Communications and notices may be sent by first class United States mail to the addresses listed below, or to such other addresses as the parties may from time to time designate or through email at [email protected]. If and when communications and notices may include confidential information, communications and notices must be sent through encrypted email at [email protected] or by mail.
(Rev. 7/24) 4

Communications and notices to be sent to the Department shall be addressed to:

California State Department of Tax and Fee Administration P.O. Box 942879
Sacramento, California 94279-0027
Attention: Administrator
Local Revenue Branch
Communications and notices to be sent to the City shall be addressed to:

City Manager
City of Livingston
1416 C Street
Livingston, CA 95334
Unless otherwise directed, transmittals of payment of District transactions and use taxes will be sent to the address above.

B. Term. The date of this Agreement is the date on which it is approved by the Department of General Services. The Agreement shall take effect on _______ . This Agreement shall continue until December 31 next following the expiration date of the City Ordinance and shall thereafter be renewed automatically from year to year until the Department completes all work necessary to the administration of the City Ordinance and has received and disbursed all payments due under that Ordinance.

C. Notice of Repeal of Ordinance. City shall give the Department written notice of the repeal of the City Ordinance not less than 110 days prior to the operative date of the repeal. (Rev. 7/24) 5

ARTICLE VI

ADMINISTRATION OF TAXES IF THE

ORDINANCE IS CHALLENGED AS BEING INVALID
A. Impoundment of funds.

1. When a legal action is begun challenging the validity of the imposition of the tax, the City shall deposit in an interest-bearing escrow account, any proceeds transmitted to it under Article II. C., until a court of competent jurisdiction renders a final and non-appealable judgment that the tax is valid.

2. If the tax is determined to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the City shall transmit to the Department the moneys retained in escrow, including any accumulated interest, within ten days of the judgment of the trial court in the litigation awarding costs and fees becoming final and non-appealable.

B. Costs of administration. Should a final judgment be entered in any court of the State of California, holding that City's Ordinance is invalid or void, and requiring a rebate or refund to taxpayers of any taxes collected under the terms of this Agreement, the parties mutually agree that:

1. Department may retain all payments made by City to Department to prepare to administer the City Ordinance.

2. City will pay to Department and allow Department to retain Department's cost of administering the City Ordinance in the amounts set forth in Article IV of this Agreement.

3. City will pay to Department or to the State of California the amount of any taxes plus interest and penalties, if any, that Department or the State of California may be required to rebate or refund to taxpayers.

4. City will pay to Department its costs for rebating or refunding such taxes, interest, or penalties. Department's costs shall include its additional cost for developing procedures for processing (Rev. 7/24) 6

the rebates or refunds, its costs of actually making these refunds, designing and printing forms, and developing instructions for Department's staff for use in making these rebates or refunds and any other costs incurred by Department which are reasonably appropriate or necessary to make those rebates or refunds. These costs shall include Department's direct and indirect costs as specified by Section 11256 of the Government Code.

5. Costs may be accounted for in a manner, which conforms to the internal accounting, and personnel records currently maintained by the Department. The billings for such costs may be presented in summary form. Detailed records will be retained for audit and verification by City.

6. Any dispute as to the amount of costs incurred by Department in refunding taxes shall be referred to the State Director of Finance for resolution and the Director's decision shall be final.

7. Costs incurred by Department in connection with such refunds shall be billed by Department on or before the 25th day of the second month following the month in which the judgment of a court of the State of California holding City's Ordinance invalid or void becomes final. Thereafter Department shall bill City on or before the 25th of each month for all costs incurred by Department for. the preceding calendar month. City shall pay to Department the amount of such costs on or before the last day of the succeeding month and shall pay to Department the total amount of taxes, interest, and penalties refunded or paid to taxpayers, together with Department costs incurred in making those refunds.

CITY OF LIVINGSTON
By ____________ _
(Signature)
Christopher Lopez
Interim City Manager
(Date)
(Rev. 7/24) 7

CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF

TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION
By _____________ _
Administrator
Local Revenue Branch
Date: _____________ _

RESOLUTION NO.2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON AUTHORIZING

EXAMINATION OF SALES OR TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX RECORDS WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance Number 657, the City of Livingston, (City) entered into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of sales and use taxes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance Number 657, Revenue and Taxation Code section 7270, the City entered into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of transactions and use taxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Livingston deems it desirable and necessary for authorized officers, employees and representatives of the City to examine confidential sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected by the Department for the City pursuant to that contract; and
WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Department records, and Section 7056.5 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information contained in, or derived from, the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the City Manager, Finance Director, Interim City Manager, Acting Finance Director, or other officer or employee of the City designated in writing by the City Manager, Finance Director, Interim City Manager, Acting Finance Directorto the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration is hereby appointed to represent the City with authority to examine sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining sales or transactions and use taxes collected for the City by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department.

Section 2.

The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales or transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to that contract, and for purposes related to the following governmental functions of the City:
(a) Budgeting
(b) Economic Development
(c) Transportation Planning
( d) Public Safety Planning
The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for those governmental functions of the City listed above.

Page I of3

Section 3. That HDL Coren & Cone is hereby designated to examine the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected for the City by the Department. The person or entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions, which are also included in the contract between the City and the HDL Coren & Cone. a) has an existing contract with the City to examine those sales or transactions and use tax records; b) is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales or transactions and use tax records only to the officer or employee authorized under Section 1 of this resolution to examine the information.
c) is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer during the term of that contract;
d) is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or derived from those sales or transactions and use tax records, after that contract has expired.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales or transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department and for those purposes relating to the governmental functions of the City listed in section 2 of this resolution.

Section 4. That Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates is hereby designated to examine the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to any petition or appeal for the reallocation/redistribtuion of sales or transactions and use taxes that was filed by Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates on behalf of the City pursuant to the contract between the Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates and City. The person or entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions, which are also included in the contract between the City and the Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates:
a) has an existing contract with the City to examine those sales or transactions and use tax records; b) is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales or transactions and use tax records only to the officer or employee authorized under Section 1 of this resolution to examine the information.
c) is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer during the term of that contract;
d) is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or derived from those sales or transactions and use tax records, after that contract has expired.

Section 5. That this resolution supercedes all prior resolutions of the City Council of the City of Livingston adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Revenue and Taxation Code section 7056.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024- _ is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Livingston at a regular meeting thereof duly held on the 17th day of December, by the vote recorded as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

By:------------
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

By:--------------
Roy C. Santos, City Attorney

CITY OF LIVINGSTON
Jose A. Moran, Mayor
of City of Livingston

STAFF REPORT e
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Direction Regarding the Amount of Food Trucks Allowed in the City.

MEETING DATE: October 151 2024
PREPARED BY: Christopher Lopez.1 Interim City Manager
DISCUSSION:

Discussion and Direction regarding the amount of food trucks allowed in the city.

AGENDA ITEM:

MEETING DATE:

PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:

STAFF REPORT
Discussion and Consideration of Appointment of City Treasurer December 17, 2024 Roy Santos, City Attorney
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
Christopher Lopez, Interim City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Motion to appoint a City Treasurer
BACKGROUND:

The City Treasurer is an elected office in the City of Livingston. No person ran for election for Treasurer in the November 5, 2004 election. Therefore, there is a vacancy in the office of the Treasurer.

DISCUSSION:

California Government Code Section 36512 describes the actions to be taken in connection with a vacancy in an office. It states that if a vacancy occurs in an elective office the council shall, within 60 days from the commencement of the vacancy, either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election to fill the vacancy. If the council fills the vacancy by appointment, and the vacancy occurs within the first half of the term and at least 130 days prior to the next general election, the person shall hold office until the next general election, where the position will be up for election again and filled for the remainder of the term. Therefore, the person appointed as Treasurer will hold the office until the election in November 2026. In 2026, the person elected to fill the vacancy shall hold office for the unexpired balance of the term of office.

AGENDA ITEM:

MEETING DATE:

PREPARED BY:

APPROVED By:

STAFF REPORT
Consideration of a Resolution Approving an Administrative Fee for processing Itinerant Vendor Applications within the City of Livingston
December17,2024 Martha Abeloe, Sr. Administrative Analyst-CD Christopher Lopez, Interim City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution Establishing an Administrative Fee for processing Itinerant Vendor Applications.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

On December 5, 2023, the Mayor and City Council directed the City Attorney to update and revise the Municipal Code related to Restaurant on Wheels.

On August 6, 2024, the City Council approved to waive the first reading of the ordinance by title only and approve ordinance of the City Council of the City of Livingston repealing and replacing Chapter 2-4, of Title 3 of the Livingston Municipal Code pertaining to itinerant vendor, City Council motioned and approved the motion by a vote of 4-0-1.

On August 20, 2024, there was a discussion and direction on itinerant vendor application and permit fee. The City Council approved by a vote of 4-1-0, the City Council directed City Staff to charge for an application fee and permit fee in one single charge.

Based on the City Council direction staff is bringing forth to the City Council to adopt a proposed fee to be reviewed by the City Attorney to ensure compliance with all applicable laws. Staff did a review of the staff's estimated time to review and process and all fees are reasonably proportioned to the cost of services being provided and include administrative review and cost for processing and enforcing the ordinance. Staff identified the following costs.

Cost for processing an Itinerant Application is as follows:

Service Cost
Account Clerk $ 33
Police Office Assistant $ 37
Code Enforcement Officer $ 39
Total Staff Time (1 hr. each) $ 110
$ 32
Back round Check $ 17
$ 49
Business License (1 year) $ 100
Total Cost for Itinerant Pennit $ 259
~: If the applicant provides verification of fingerprinting from the California Dept. of Justice LiveScan system, the fingerprinting charge of $32 will not be applied, resulting in a total cost of $227.

FISCAL IMPACT:

We are estimating six (6) Itinerant Vendor Applications for the remaining FY 24/25. Staff recommends the City Council to authorize the Finance Department for a supplemental appropriation to allow and to make the necessary adjustments to the revenue account (1120- 000-3210).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2024-_

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE

FEE FOR PROCESSING ITINERANT VENDOR APPLICATIONS WITHIN

THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON
WHEREAS, On December 5, 2023, the Mayor and City Council directed the City Attorney to update and revise the Municipal Code related to Restaurant on Wheels; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024, the City Council waived the first reading of the ordinance by title only and approved an ordinance of the City of Livingston repealing and replacing Chapter 2-4, of Title 3 of the Livingston Municipal Code pertaining to Itinerant Vendors, by a vote of 4-0-1; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, the City Council discussed and directed that an application fee and permit fee for Itinerant Vendors be charged as a single fee, by a vote of 4-1-0; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed City Staff to establish an administrative fee for processing Itinerant Vendor Applications, based on the staff's estimated time to review, process and enforce the ordinance, ensuring all fees are reasonably proportioned to the cost of services being provided; and
WHEREAS, the total cost for processing an Itinerant Vendor Application has been identified as follows:

Service Cost
Account Clerk $ 33
Police Office Assistant $ 37
Code Enforcement Officer $ 39
Total Staff Time (1 hr. each) $ 110
Finaerorintina $ 32
Backaround Check $ 17
Total Backaround & Finaerarintina $ 49
Business License f 1 vear\ $ 100
Total Cost for Itinerant Permit $ 259
Note: If the applicant provides verification of fingerprinting from the California Dept of Justice LiveScan system, the
fingerprinting charge of $32 will not be applied, resulting in a total cost of $227.

Pagel of 2

WHEREAS, an estimated six (6) Itinerant Vendor Applications submittals are expected for the remainder of FY 24/25, the projected revenue from the administrative fee and business license permit fee is to cover the City's staff processing application time; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livingston as follows, that an administrative fee for processing the Itinerant Vendor Application is hereby established as detailed above; and adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston authorizing the Finance Department to make the necessary budget adjustments and budget appropriations to account 1120-000-3210.

I hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution No. 2024-XX is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the city of Livingston at a regular meeting thereof duly held on the 17th day of December 2024, by the vote recorded as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

ATTEST
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
Of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
Roy C. Santos, City Attorney

By:--------- Jose A. Moran
Mayor of City of Livingston